A Couple of Issues

First issue:

Some school officials are being sued because they prayed in the presence of students in Florida. This is just plain wrong, on many levels. Next thing you know, you’ll get arrested for praying in the waiting room at the airport. What is America coming to when you can’t even pray without worrying about getting sued?

So I’ve got an idea. Those of us who pray, let us do so every chance we get – but do it silently. So we can be praying and those who hate us for doing so won’t know for sure if we are or not. Just a silent prayer every once in a while, with your eyes closed.

That’ll piss them off. They can’t sue you for closing your eyes for a few seconds.

Second issue:

Maxine Waters, Democratic congresswoman (and nut case, IMHO) from California, wants demonstrators and opponents of ObamaCare to be probed for racism. I wonder what happened to freedom of speech? It is not illegal to be racist – it’s just illegal to act on it (as it should be).

I would like to point out something very fundamental at this point.

There is no law in the U.S. that governs how you are allowed to think.

What matters is what you DO. You can go to jail for what you DO. So far, at least, you cannot go to jail for what you THINK. This is a really big deal, and we need to pay close attention to anyone in the government that starts wanting to censor how we think.

The advent of different penalties for ‘hate crimes’ is a step in the direction of mind control. A crime is a crime whether you do it for fun or because you hate someone, and the penalties should not be different. If the standard penalty is not enough to deter criminals from committing a crime, they need to raise the penalty. Why the crime was committed should not be a factor in assessing the penalty.

Hate crime legislation puts a jury in the position of determining what a person was thinking when they committed a crime. This is absurd on the face of it, and certainly will assess unjust penalties.

The mind is the last bastion of freedom. Let’s keep it free.


This entry was posted in Law, Philosophy, Rant. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A Couple of Issues

  1. “There is no law in the U.S. that governs how you are allowed to think.”

    – not yet.

    This just shows that the libtards are working on it.


  2. Ali says:

    Apologies, Popgun, but there’s a point here that I fundamentally disagree with you on, and felt like it was important to mention it.

    Why the crime was committed should not be a factor in assessing the penalty.

    While I appreciate that you are speaking within the context of “witch-hunt” style punishment of unpopular thought here, I believe that you label the issue too broadly when you say putting the jury in the position of assessing a defendent’s mental state during the commission of the crime is absurd and could lead to unjust penalties. It is my firm belief that just the opposite is true–to do so is fundamentally essential to *prevent* the gross misconduct of justice in society.

    Both our legal traditions from English Common Law and the greater moral burden that we carry as a country under God acknowledge and have historically affirmed the tremendous importance of intent and mitigating circumstances when assessing criminal behavior. Without intent, manslaughter, self-defense, and reckless endangerment ALL become wholesale murder, crimes of passion become leveled with pre-meditated assination, and, conversely, actions motivated purely by the desire to cause mayhem, chaos, and maximum harm become judged by the property or physical damage that is manifested.

    If we lose the indicator of “intent”, we leave ourselves dangerously exposed, particularly in a world where the capacity to sow pain and devastation purely because of hatred is a constant and ever-present concern. I don’t think we could question that there was more than strictly punishable “deeds” in play at Oklahoma City, Columbine, and, well, pretty much anywhere Eric Rudolph decided to set up camp. (as a Georgian, I am keenly aware of the repurcussions of Mr. Rudolph’s strength of opinion)

    I realize that I’ve gone to the gravest crimes in my examples, but to step away from the most extreme circumstances to those that are perhaps more inisidious and direct–without the manifest malice of intent as a requisite, unqualified strong speech becomes libel. I blog, as do you, and I stand by my opinions without fear of being legally responsible for hurt feelings specifically because my intent is never to defame.

    (I must mention, because it is rarely seen in cyberspace–particularly the politically active areas of it–that you are meticulous in noting statements of fact as opposed to opinion–you make no pretense that Maxine Waters is clinically a “nut case” above, for instance, but how easy could it be for a careless blogger to be persecuted for defamation without the bastion of intent? A truly terrifying thought.)

    Again, apologies for leaving such a lengthy comment for what is essentially an incidental aside to your main point, but to me it is critical that overly strong statements not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater–“intent”ionally or not. 🙂

  3. Ali says:


    “Persecuted” should have been “prosecuted” in the next-to-last paragraph above. . . although, come to think of it, both words could easily apply.

    Even so, I fear my editing skills are not what they should be.

Comments are closed.