Blasphemy - still illegal in the US! [Archive]

Huntster

25th January 2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:
http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
Hmm....

Example:

A recent military combat veteran, after his discharge from the Marines, decided to go to college. One of his classes was in Political Science. The day he showed up and sat down in class, the professor got up and declared he was an atheist...he then shouted: "God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

He then proceeded to denying, cursing, and contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, final judging of the world, cursing and contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, cursing and contumeliously reproaching and exposing to contempt and ridicule the holy word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures for 14 minutes. At this time, the Marine got up, walked up to the professor, and cold-cocked him, knocking him out and lying flat on the floor. After a minute or two, the professor woke up, got up , and ask the Marine what in the world he thought he was doing. The Marine calmly stated, "God was busy, so He sent me."

Now I suppose you'd demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine?

IllegalArgument

25th January 2007, 05:11 PM

Example:
Now I suppose you'd demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine?

I wouldn't demand it, but the professor is well within his right to press assault charges.

The story smells like a urban legend.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Example:
Now I suppose you'd demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine?
I wouldn't demand it, but the professor is well within his right to press assault charges.

And probably would, too, even though he was clearly asking to get knocked off the podium.

The story smells like a urban legend.

It's a joke.

Ducky

25th January 2007, 05:29 PM

Example:

Now I suppose you'd demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine?

Urban legends (http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp) do not an argument make.

An atheist professor was teaching a college class and he told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God.

He said, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"

Ten minutes went by.

The professor kept taunting God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."

He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just released from active duty, and newly registered in the class, walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from his platform.

The professor struggled up, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The Marine replied, "God was busy, so He sent me."

Honestly Huntster, argument by mass forwarded email is a crap argument.

If a marine punched a college professor simply for what he said in class, it is assult and yes he is subject to prosecution then.

Achán hiNidráne

25th January 2007, 05:31 PM

The story smells like a urban legend.

That's because it is: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp (http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp)

Ducky

25th January 2007, 05:31 PM

That's because it is: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp (http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp)

Beat ya to it. ;)

Achán hiNidráne

25th January 2007, 05:36 PM

It's a joke.

Don't wait for the laugh.

Ducky

25th January 2007, 05:37 PM

And probably would, too, even though he was clearly asking to get knocked off the podium.

So you'd condone violence against those who don't believe what you do?

Beerina

25th January 2007, 05:53 PM

Hmm....

contumeliously: adj insolently abusive and humiliating

Whoever

Me!

wilfully

Oh hell yeah!

blasphemes

God can go f*** him, er, Himself.

the holy name of God

You mean the anal retentve asshat named Yahweh, a murderous, vile thug who should die like a pig in his own Hell?

by denying

He, er, it, that thing, does not exist.

cursing

F*** you, Yahweh.

or contumeliously reproaching God

Adolph Hitler, no lie, was far nicer to Jews than you are to the vast majority of humanity, you lousy piece of baby raping ****.*

* The good lord Yahweh knows, since he knows everything, the joy of ejaculating inside a baby as it dies.

his creation

Although it might be in the nature of an infinite and good being to create lesser beings, it does not follow that one places them in a universe where they can harm and torture and kill each other, you turd-chugging goatf***er.

, government or final judging of the world

Yeah, I can't wait for You to take over and resurrect everybody, giving them indestructible bodies, then heaving them into lava where they will exist in excruciating, neverending agony, praise be Thy Holy and Good Name.

, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ

Like father, like son.

or the Holy Ghost

Like father, like jackass.

, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures

Go send some bears to kill 42 kids for making fun of a dude's bald head, you cloaca-chewing pony f***er.

shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Oh how sweet it is!

Achán hiNidráne

25th January 2007, 05:59 PM

Oh how sweet it is!

Beerina, I'm not sure if you're male of female, but either way, I LOVE YOU!:D

Beerina

25th January 2007, 06:00 PM

I wouldn't demand it, but the professor is well within his right to press assault charges.

I don't know, does "them's fightin' words" still exist as a valid defense? Can you say some things so unbelivably outrageous that you get the coldcocking you were asking for?

fuelair

25th January 2007, 06:09 PM

Example:

Now I suppose you'd demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine?
I would support it, yes. The Marine should have been taught (and assuming this really occurred was) that his duty is -among other things - to defend the Constitution of the United States. Freedom of speech is a part of that Constitution (Amendment 1) as is freedom of religion. The Marine would be choosing his religion over his duty to his country. Not a good Marine.

Now, had the professor insulted the Corps.................

By the by, if I had a professor like that I would consider him a rectum head and likely transfer classes and warn others about his stupidity (never blatantly offend if there is no reason is my rule). The fact that I agree with the atheism part does not excuse his reported behavior. But his behavior does not merit physical assault.

slingblade

25th January 2007, 06:23 PM

I don't know, does "them's fightin' words" still exist as a valid defense? Can you say some things so unbelivably outrageous that you get the coldcocking you were asking for?

I......think so. I remember a "fighting words" um, "thing" being talked about in one of my classes.

Edit, just a quick Google, and don't know the source:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

Huntster

25th January 2007, 06:40 PM

Urban legends do not an argument make.

"Urban legends"?

"Argument"?

Huh?

It was sent to me as a joke, not a true event (although I wish it were true, and I was there to enjoy it).

It wasn't an "argument". Read my post, fool (whoops.........I mean foul.......whoops.........I mean................oh, whatever.................gee, is that an "argument"?)

I wrote "example", then posed a question.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's a joke.
Don't wait for the laugh.

Didn't have to. We've been laughing about that one for a while. And I certainly don't expect one from the likes of you.

Any time, or over any humor (which you probably wouldn't understand, anyway.......................obviously............ ..........).

Huntster

25th January 2007, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
And probably would, too, even though he was clearly asking to get knocked off the podium.
So you'd condone violence against those who don't believe what you do?

Of course not.

But I'd laugh like hell if someone who begged to get his ass knocked off his high horse recieved his silly request.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Example:

Now I suppose you'd demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine?
I would support it, yes. The Marine should have been taught (and assuming this really occurred was) that his duty is -among other things - to defend the Constitution of the United States. Freedom of speech is a part of that Constitution (Amendment 1) as is freedom of religion. The Marine would be choosing his religion over his duty to his country. Not a good Marine.

In the example, the Marine's religious persuasion and beliefs weren't outlined. And the Marine didn't punish the professor for exercising his right to free speech, he was just doing what the professor asked for in lieu of God.

Now, had the professor insulted the Corps.................

Yup.

Thems would be fighting words, for sure.........

The legalities would come later.

Foster Zygote

25th January 2007, 07:18 PM

It's a joke.

It's a bad joke. Don't Marines take an oath to defend the Constitution? If you change the professor to a civil rights Freedom Rider and the Marine to a Klansman and alter the subject of the dispute a bit it still plays out pretty much the same.

Edit: Doh! Fuelair beat me to the first point.

Foster Zygote

25th January 2007, 07:25 PM

In the example, the Marine's religious persuasion and beliefs weren't outlined. And the Marine didn't punish the professor for exercising his right to free speech, he was just doing what the professor asked for in lieu of God.

Ah! Now this is all perfectly clear to me. Thanks.

JamesDillon

25th January 2007, 07:45 PM

To return to the point of the original post, which drkitten already addressed, a judicial opinion (or the evolution of a constitutional doctrine) recognizing a statute as unconstitutional does not have the effect of removing that statute from the books, it simply renders it unenforceable. Sometimes Congress or the state legislature will repeal the statute, but sometimes not. A legislature may choose to leave an unconstitutional statute on the books so that, if the court decision holding it unconstitutional is ever reversed, the legislature doesn't have to pass the statute again-- it can just go back to enforcing it. Sometimes, as is quite likely the case here, the legislature simply has better things to do with its time than clearing the statute books of old laws that the state has no intention of trying to enforce.

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 08:19 PM

Hmm....
Dear Ignoramus:

The Commonwealth of Massachusettes is not "The US." In America, laws on the books (repealed or not) vary from state to state. Laws applicable to the US are statutes of the US code at the federal level. You cite a Massachusettes law and claim it is a law in The US, which is an entire country.

This thread's title is evidence of your stupidity. Head out, sport.

DR

Ducky

25th January 2007, 08:22 PM

Of course not.

But I'd laugh like hell if someone who begged to get his ass knocked off his high horse recieved his silly request.

So you do then at least tacitly support the marine assaulting someone simply for what they say or believe.

Foster Zygote

25th January 2007, 08:23 PM

Dear Ignoramus:

The Commonwealth of Massachusettes is not "The US." In America, laws on the books (repealed or not) vary from state to state. Laws applicable to the US are statutes of the US code at the federal level.

This thread's is evidence of your stupidity. Head out, sport.

DR

Last I heard, Massachusettes was "in the US" as the title of the thread says.

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 08:24 PM

So you do then at least tacitly support the marine assaulting someone simply for what they say or believe.
Do you tacitly support professors behaving like complete jackasses in the execution of their professional duties?

DR

Ducky

25th January 2007, 08:30 PM

Do you tacitly support professors behaving like complete jackasses in the execution of their professional duties?

DR

If they're tenured there's not a whole lot to do about it, however tyhe professor didn't break any laws there pal.

ETA:

I also don't see anything in this urban legend that shows the professor was doing anything but ranting in class. That's not against the law, and if his rants are against policy, then it is very simple to make a complaint to the university president.

69dodge

25th January 2007, 08:33 PM

And probably would, too, even though he was clearly asking to get knocked off the podium.He wasn't asking to get knocked off the podium by anyone who wanted to knock him off the podium. He took it for granted that everyone hearing him would realize that he didn't want to get knocked off the podium, and therefore his asking to get knocked off the podium specifically by God would clearly demonstrate his disbelief that there exists any God to knock him off the podium.

Surely this is obvious?

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 08:35 PM

If they're tenured there's not a whole lot to do about it,
Good point.

DR

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 08:36 PM

He wasn't asking to get knocked off the podium by anyone who wanted to knock him off the podium. He took it for granted that everyone hearing him would realize that he didn't want to get knocked off the podium, and therefore his asking to get knocked off the podium specifically by God would clearly demonstrate his disbelief that there exists any God to knock him off the podium.

Surely this is obvious?
Just to play along

Can you prove that this hypothetical Marine was lying if he tells you God told him to comply with the professor's wishes?

DR

joobz

25th January 2007, 08:40 PM

If they're tenured there's not a whole lot to do about it, however tyhe professor didn't break any laws there pal.

ETA:

I also don't see anything in this urban legend that shows the professor was doing anything but ranting in class. That's not against the law, and if his rants are against policy, then it is very simple to make a complaint to the university president.
it depends if it was a state university or not. and what the class is. In a class on religion, it'd be on par. If it was a course on metallurgy, well he'd be a bit out of line. Not worth suspension, but still. there are situations where abuse of authority is of concern.

The inherent message of the story is what I take the strongest offense to. Professors are morally currupt eggheads who don't deserve respect and wish to oppress the god fearing public.

There seem to be more instances of fundementalist religious teaching encrouching on students to the point of exclusion and ridicule(see story on teacher forcing muslim girl out of class for not being christian) that makes me find these types of stereotypical stories a little annoying.

joobz

25th January 2007, 08:41 PM

Just to play along

Can you prove that this hypothetical Marine was lying if he tells you God told him to comply with the professor's wishes?

DR
Yes, God told me he never talked to that guy. Said he's kind of a dipstick.:)

Ducky

25th January 2007, 08:45 PM

it depends if it was a state university or not. and what the class is. In a class on religion, it'd be on par. If it was a course on metallurgy, well he'd be a bit out of line. Not worth suspension, but still. there are situations where abuse of authority is of concern.

The inherent message of the story is what I take the strongest offense to. Professors are morally currupt eggheads who don't deserve respect and wish to oppress the god fearing public.

There seem to be more instances of fundementalist religious teaching encrouching on students to the point of exclusion and ridicule(see story on teacher forcing muslim girl out of class for not being christian) that makes me find these types of stereotypical stories a little annoying.

Agreed.

Dustin Kesselberg

25th January 2007, 09:01 PM

I wouldn't demand it, but the professor is well within his right to press assault charges.

The story smells like a urban legend.

If it happened, the Marine would of been arrested on assault charges regardless of if the processor 'pressed charges'. The prosecutor would of pressed the charges. In things like assault, Even if the person who is assaulted does not want to 'press charges' the prosecutor can still press them on behalf of the state.

Think murder charges. If someone is killed they obviously can't press charges. Or another example is domestic violence where the wife refuses to 'press charges' the state will.

wollery

25th January 2007, 09:12 PM

Or another example is domestic violence where the wife refuses to 'press charges' the state will.Since building a case would pretty much require the wife to give evidence against her husband it pretty much always requires the wife to press charges. The state will rarely waste it's money charging someone with a crime that the victim and (usually) only witness of won't testify to on the stand.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's a joke.
It's a bad joke.

Not in my opinion. Tomorrow, I'll ask a couple of Marines what they think of it. My bet is that they'll laugh their asses off.

Don't Marines take an oath to defend the Constitution?

Yup.

What does that have to do with knocking the hell out of somebody who asks for it?

If you change the professor to a civil rights Freedom Rider and the Marine to a Klansman and alter the subject of the dispute a bit it still plays out pretty much the same.

Yup.

The professor asked to get his ass knocked off the podium, then it happened.

Hey; God works in strange and wondrous ways.............

Huntster

25th January 2007, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
In the example, the Marine's religious persuasion and beliefs weren't outlined. And the Marine didn't punish the professor for exercising his right to free speech, he was just doing what the professor asked for in lieu of God.

Ah! Now this is all perfectly clear to me. Thanks.

Is it?

Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?

Explain your clarity, please..............

Dustin Kesselberg

25th January 2007, 09:21 PM

Since building a case would pretty much require the wife to give evidence against her husband it pretty much always requires the wife to press charges. The state will rarely waste it's money charging someone with a crime that the victim and (usually) only witness of won't testify to on the stand.

Well in the cases where there is evidence from possibly someone else like a relative, neighbor or social worker.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Of course not.

But I'd laugh like hell if someone who begged to get his ass knocked off his high horse recieved his silly request.
So you do then at least tacitly support the marine assaulting someone simply for what they say or believe.

1) I loved the joke
2) I think it's even funnnier that fools like you think it's an "urban legend" (hahahahahahahahaha!)
3) I think you're playing games, and you're lousy at it

Huntster

25th January 2007, 09:25 PM

Last I heard, Massachusettes was "in the US" as the title of the thread says.

I've heard that Massachusetts along with California were more in outer space than the US.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
Do you tacitly support professors behaving like complete jackasses in the execution of their professional duties?

If they're tenured there's not a whole lot to do about it....

Ah, but if they're tenured and they ask for a whuppin, you can give them one.......

....however tyhe professor didn't break any laws there pal.

Nope.

He asked for a physical whuppin, and he got one.

I also don't see anything in this urban legend that shows the professor was doing anything but ranting in class.

And I see nothing in this joke that shows the Marine giving the professor exactly what he asked for.

That's not against the law

In the example, the Marine probably did break the law.

And I'd love to be on that jury...............

....and if his rants are against policy, then it is very simple to make a complaint to the university president.

Lousy joke.

And the university president would probably approve the professor's message.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
And probably would, too, even though he was clearly asking to get knocked off the podium.
He wasn't asking to get knocked off the podium by anyone who wanted to knock him off the podium. He took it for granted that everyone hearing him would realize that he didn't want to get knocked off the podium, and therefore his asking to get knocked off the podium specifically by God would clearly demonstrate his disbelief that there exists any God to knock him off the podium.

Surely this is obvious?

Yup.

And did you catch the "obviousness" that the Marine illustrated?

TsarBomba

25th January 2007, 09:41 PM

Questioninggeller

25th January 2007, 09:58 PM

It's still illegal in the UK as well.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Of course not.

But I'd laugh like hell if someone who begged to get his ass knocked off his high horse recieved his silly request.
So you do then at least tacitly support the marine assaulting someone simply for what they say or believe.

People who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards.

Ducky

25th January 2007, 10:11 PM

Ah, but if they're tenured and they ask for a whuppin, you can give them one.......

No, that's still assault.

Nope.

He asked for a physical whuppin, and he got one.

he didn't "ask" for anything in that story of yours.

And I see nothing in this joke that shows the Marine giving the professor exactly what he asked for.

Really? You seemed rather amused at the thought of assaulting a college prof over what he says in class.

In the example, the Marine probably did break the law.

And I'd love to be on that jury...............

I'm sure the marine would like it to. doesn't change the fact he physically assaulted a college professor for talking in class.

Lousy joke.

And the university president would probably approve the professor's message.

I doubt it. I know several university presidents. Depending on the class topic being out of line and downright insulting is a matter for disciplinary action. But your response seems to insinuate you think university presidents are atheists. Do you have evidence of that?

Ducky

25th January 2007, 10:14 PM

People who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards.

I see nowhere in your story where the professor asked for protection from anything. Then again, unlike you, I don't think physical retaliation for a college professor's views is acceptable.

ETA:

In fact, those that feel they need to resort to physical violence when they can't use language to counter someone's views are dumb and violent.

Rasmus

25th January 2007, 10:22 PM

A man here in Germany is facing trouble (I am not sure what precise nature this trouble is, but it seems the police is investigating against him) because he didn't eat the consecrated wafer he was given at a catholic mass but pocketed it instead. Not being a catholic, he took part in the mass out of curiosity. He later claimed he didn't like the taste of it and decided to see what exactly he had been given later.

His behaviour caught the attraction of two parishers (is 'parishers' a word? For 'members of a parish', even?) who then cornered and assaulted him on his way out demanding he return the wafer.

It is not clear what the investigation is supposedly about - it might be either for disturbing religious worship or slander of religious denomination (i.e. whatever belief a person identifies with), religious communities or 'world view group'.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Ah, but if they're tenured and they ask for a whuppin, you can give them one.......

No, that's still assault.

You don't get it, do you?

You can give it to him, and a jury around here would gladly exonerate you.

Think not?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope.

He asked for a physical whuppin, and he got one.

he didn't "ask" for anything in that story of yours.

What was this?:

"God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

You seemed rather amused at the thought of assaulting a college prof over what he says in class.

Amused? I found it absolutely hilarious.

Originally Posted by Huntster
In the example, the Marine probably did break the law.

And I'd love to be on that jury...............

I'm sure the marine would like it to. doesn't change the fact he physically assaulted a college professor for talking in class.

And that doesn't change the possibility that if such a thing truly happened, a jury might not convict the Marine.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Lousy joke.

And the university president would probably approve the professor's message.

I doubt it. I know several university presidents.

I've known a few, too. One would have liked such an exhibition.

But your response seems to insinuate you think university presidents are atheists. Do you have evidence of that?

Nope.

Do you have evidence that "university presidents" are religious?

Or are you just trying to prolong the game?

Ducky

25th January 2007, 10:28 PM

You don't get it, do you?

You can give it to him, and a jury around here would gladly exonerate you.

Think not?

conviction is irrelevant. it was wrong of him to do.

What was this?:

I don't see that as anything addressed to the marine at all.

Amused? I found it absolutely hilarious.

I bet you do.

And that doesn't change the possibility that if such a thing truly happened, a jury might not convict the Marine.

That doesn't make it right for the marine to have done in the first place.

I've known a few, too. One would have liked such an exhibition.

One out of a few? doesn't sound like a majority there.

Nope.

Do you have evidence that "university presidents" are religious?

Or are you just trying to prolong the game?

There is no "game" to anyone but you, tough guy.

As for evidence university presidents on a whole are religious? I make no such claim. I never would. Your words lumped all university presidents in one group.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
People who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards.

I see nowhere in your story where the professor asked for protection from anything.

I didn't write that professors who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards. I wrote:

People who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards.

Then again, unlike you, I don't think physical retaliation for a college professor's views is acceptable.

Oh, fowl. How utterly predictable.

How long will you drag this forward with word games?

I asked a simple question regarding this widely emailed joke, and in you fly with your bullspit. Next I suppose you'll accuse me of mass murdering "college professors".

What an idiot. No wonder you've chosen the moniker of "fowlsound". You have the brain of a bird.

Ducky

25th January 2007, 10:36 PM

I didn't write that professors who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards. I wrote:

Oh, fowl. How utterly predictable.

How long will you drag this forward with word games?

I asked a simple question regarding this widely emailed joke, and in you fly with your bullspit. Next I suppose you'll accuse me of mass murdering "college professors".

What an idiot. No wonder you've chosen the moniker of "fowlsound". You have the brain of a bird.

Ok, insulting rhetoric aside, your story is someone whysically assaulting someone for what they said. That's the simple fact of it. That you find it funny is a bit telling, and frankly, juvenile. That you would vote to aquit a clear case of assault on a jury shows you have no respect for other people with different views. Your insults simply support that premise.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
You don't get it, do you?

You can give it to him, and a jury around here would gladly exonerate you.

Think not?

conviction is irrelevant. it was wrong of him to do.

Just like it was wrong and stupid for the professor to do what he did. And just like it's stupid for you to get worked up over a joke that I happen to find funny.

Urban legend..............That's a joke too, right?

Or are you really that stupid to have to check snopes or something to figure out if that was real or not?

Originally Posted by Huntster
What was this?:

I don't see that as anything addressed to the marine at all.

Then who was the professor talking to?

God?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Amused? I found it absolutely hilarious.

I bet you do.

That would be a good bet.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And that doesn't change the possibility that if such a thing truly happened, a jury might not convict the Marine.

That doesn't make it right for the marine to have done in the first place.

The "first place" was the professor "professing". The second place was the Marine granting the professor's wish.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I've known a few, too. One would have liked such an exhibition.

One out of a few? doesn't sound like a majority there.

The other two I knew weren't religious, but were very respectful. I attended the funeral of a well known psychology professor who was very religious, and a couple of university professors were there.

But one (of course, from the "big" university) is more political and ideological than athiest or religious. He'll be whatever he has to be to "move up."

"Today", he's an atheist university president. "Yesterday" he was a military general. "Tomorrow"? Who knows?

Who cares?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope.

Do you have evidence that "university presidents" are religious?

Or are you just trying to prolong the game?

There is no "game" to anyone but you, tough guy.

Oh, the "tough guy" thing again?

Okay, wuss.

Is that part of the game?

As for evidence university presidents on a whole are religious? I make no such claim.

Nor did I claim that university presidents on a whole are atheists. So why do we need evidence of what neither of us stated?

Is that part of the game, fool?..............Whoops..............fowl?

Your words lumped all university presidents in one group.

University presidents are one group; university presidents.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I didn't write that professors who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards. I wrote:

Oh, fowl. How utterly predictable.

How long will you drag this forward with word games?

I asked a simple question regarding this widely emailed joke, and in you fly with your bullspit. Next I suppose you'll accuse me of mass murdering "college professors".

What an idiot. No wonder you've chosen the moniker of "fowlsound". You have the brain of a bird.

Ok, insulting rhetoric aside, your story is someone whysically assaulting someone for what they said. That's the simple fact of it. That you find it funny is a bit telling, and frankly, juvenile. That you would vote to aquit a clear case of assault on a jury shows you have no respect for other people with different views. Your insults simply support that premise.

Hey, birdbrain, if I type slowly, can you get over your infatuation with me and figure it out?

Why do you think I mentioned the joke and asked the question I asked (do you remember that question? Do birds have memories?)

Recall the law cited in the opening post:

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Now, you obviously find the Marine guilty of crimes against humanity.

But I suppose you would find prosecuting the professor "untenable"?

(Oh, just for the hell of it, notice I changed the wording in the joke to the same wording in the above cited law; "cursing or contumeliously reproaching").

Okay, chickenman. Does the professor get prosecuted for "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God? Or is it just that "tough guy" Marine who has to see the jury?

Can you keep on track here, or will the games continue?

Ducky

25th January 2007, 10:55 PM

Just like it was wrong and stupid for the professor to do what he did. And just like it's stupid for you to get worked up over a joke that I happen to find funny.

Urban legend..............That's a joke too, right?

Or are you really that stupid to have to check snopes or something to figure out if that was real or not?

I didn't have to check anything. I remembered reading it on snopes and linked it to show how ridiculous it is.

Then who was the professor talking to?

God?

"God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

It would appear he was.

The "first place" was the professor "professing". The second place was the Marine granting the professor's wish.

The marine was assaulting a professor in a class. It's that simple.

The other two I knew weren't religious, but were very respectful. I attended the funeral of a well known psychology professor who was very religious, and a couple of university professors were there.

But one (of course, from the "big" university) is more political and ideological than athiest or religious. He'll be whatever he has to be to "move up."

"Today", he's an atheist university president. "Yesterday" he was a military general. "Tomorrow"? Who knows?

Who cares?

I see no relevance to your sharing this, but thanks.

Oh, the "tough guy" thing again?

Okay, wuss.

Is that part of the game?

It appears you don't know the difference between a ribbing joke and downright insulting.

Nor did I claim that university presidents on a whole are atheists. So why do we need evidence of what neither of us stated?

And the university president would probably approve the professor's message.

Sure looks like you were overgeneralizing to me.

Is that part of the game, fool?..............Whoops..............fowl?

It appears you have no recourse but to insults. I'd take that as a sign of poor communication skills.

University presidents are one group; university presidents.

But their religiouos beliefs are not one group.

Ducky

25th January 2007, 10:57 PM

Hey, birdbrain, if I type slowly, can you get over your infatuation with me and figure it out?

Why do you think I mentioned the joke and asked the question I asked (do you remember that question? Do birds have memories?)

Recall the law cited in the opening post:

Now, you obviously find the Marine guilty of crimes against humanity.

But I suppose you would find prosecuting the professor "untenable"?

(Oh, just for the hell of it, notice I changed the wording in the joke to the same wording in the above cited law; "cursing or contumeliously reproaching").

Okay, chickenman. Does the professor get prosecuted for "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God? Or is it just that "tough guy" Marine who has to see the jury?

Can you keep on track here, or will the games continue?

I find the marine guilty of assaulting a professor, not crimes against humanity.

The rest of your post is insulting and a strawman. When you calm down, let me know I'd be happy to continue the conversation.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Just like it was wrong and stupid for the professor to do what he did. And just like it's stupid for you to get worked up over a joke that I happen to find funny.

Urban legend..............That's a joke too, right?

Or are you really that stupid to have to check snopes or something to figure out if that was real or not?

I didn't have to check anything. I remembered reading it on snopes and linked it to show how ridiculous it is.

"Reading it on snopes"? You "read" snopes like a book? Page to page?

Do you have so much trouble discerning reality that snopes has to do it for you?

Is that, like, religious?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Then who was the professor talking to?

God?

Quote:
"God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

It would appear he was.

Then it would appear that if the professor was talking to God, then he believed God existed, and he should have expected a whuppin, cause "thems were fightin' words."

Originally Posted by Huntster
The "first place" was the professor "professing". The second place was the Marine granting the professor's wish.

The marine was assaulting a professor in a class. It's that simple.

After the professor openly demanded that God had 15 minutes to knock him from the podium, and after 14 minutes of "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God.

Yes. It is simple, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, the "tough guy" thing again?

Okay, wuss.

Is that part of the game?

It appears you don't know the difference between a ribbing joke and downright insulting.

Oh, the "tough guy" thing was a "ribbing joke"?

That's why I asked.

Do you have an answer, or does the game continue?

Ducky

25th January 2007, 11:06 PM

"Reading it on snopes"? You "read" snopes like a book? Page to page?

Do you have so much trouble discerning reality that snopes has to do it for you?

Is that, like, religious?

Interesting well poisoning. No, I happen to find many of snopes' articles amusing, and are part of the RSS feed to send me updates.

Then it would appear that if the professor was talking to God, then he believed God existed, and he should have expected a whuppin, cause "thems were fightin' words."

After the professor openly demanded that God had 15 minutes to knock him from the podium, and after 14 minutes of "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God.

Yes. It is simple, isn't it?

Unless you can show me where the Marine was God, then your point is moot.

Oh, the "tough guy" thing was a "ribbing joke"?

That's why I asked.

Do you have an answer, or does the game continue?

This is only a game to you.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 11:07 PM

Okay, chickenman. Does the professor get prosecuted for "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God? Or is it just that "tough guy" Marine who has to see the jury?

The rest of your post is insulting and a strawman. When you calm down, let me know I'd be happy to continue the conversation.

I'm quite calm, except for the guffaws and laughter.

Got caught, birdman? Lost track?

Can you keep on track here, or will the games continue?

Game's over. Answer the question:

Does the professor get prosecuted for "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God? Or is it just that "tough guy" Marine who has to see the jury?

Display your superior moral position for all to see.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 11:10 PM

....This is only a game to you.

Game's over.

Answer the question, please:

Does the professor get prosecuted for "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God? Or is it just that "tough guy" Marine who has to see the jury?

Ducky

25th January 2007, 11:11 PM

I'm quite calm, except for the guffaws and laughter.

Got caught, birdman? Lost track?

Game's over. Answer the question:

Display your superior moral position for all to see.

The professor, as previously pointed out, has various things to answer for. I am not condoning the fictitional actions attributed to him. However if he is tenured, there's not much recourse. So what? Physically assaulting someone for what they say is far different than simply saying it.

Still on with the insults? You really should find a better way to express yourself.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 11:19 PM

The professor, as previously pointed out, has various things to answer for.

"Various things to answer for."

Like the Marine?

In other words, you really like laws prohibiting assault (even if the person assaulted literally demands it), but the Massachusetts law prohibiting blasphemy must be simply "answered to", even by a tenured professor?

Why do I have difficulty understanding your position here?

Can you "find a better way to express yourself"?

I am not condoning the fictitional actions attributed to him. However if he is tenured, there's not much recourse.

Tenured professors are exempt from the law?

Why are Marines subject to the law?

So what? Physically assaulting someone for what they say is far different than simply saying it.

Yes. Physical attacks; bad.

Verbal attacks; good (except when it's the Huntster doing the "attacking". Then; bad).

Still on with the insults? You really should find a better way to express yourself.

Are they "insults" or "ribbing"?

Ducky

25th January 2007, 11:21 PM

"Various things to answer for."

Like the Marine?

In other words, you really like laws prohibiting assault (even if the person assaulted literally demands it), but the Massachusetts law prohibiting blasphemy must be simply "answered to", even by a tenured professor?

Why do I have difficulty understanding your position here?

Can you "find a better way to express yourself"?

Tenured professors are exempt from the law?

Why are Marines subject to the law?

Yes. Physical attacks; bad.

Verbal attacks; good (except when it's the Huntster doing the "attacking". Then; bad).

Are they "insults" or "ribbing"?

Ah more sophistry.

Are professors exempt from the law? Nice strawman, but I didn't claim that.

The rest is pretty much the same.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 11:24 PM

Ah more sophistry.

And more BS from you. What else should I expect?

Are professors exempt from the law? Nice strawman, but I didn't claim that.

That's why it was in question form. Again. And again.

Please try to answer the question.

The rest is pretty much the same.

As are your responses.

Ducky

25th January 2007, 11:29 PM

And more BS from you. What else should I expect?

That's why it was in question form. Again. And again.

Please try to answer the question.

As are your responses.

Do you have anything of substance to add?

Quinn

25th January 2007, 11:50 PM

I don't know, does "them's fightin' words" still exist as a valid defense? Can you say some things so unbelivably outrageous that you get the coldcocking you were asking for?

Yes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo)

wollery

26th January 2007, 12:13 AM

Personally I think that the professor should get up and thank the marine for demonstrating quite beautifully that actions attributed to god are usually the actions of humans claiming to represent god.

Ducky

26th January 2007, 12:16 AM

Dustin Kesselberg

26th January 2007, 01:12 AM

Yes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo)

Nicely done Buzz!

brodski

26th January 2007, 01:36 AM

Didn't have to. We've been laughing about that one for a while. And I certainly don't expect one from the likes of you.

Any time, or over any humor (which you probably wouldn't understand, anyway.......................obviously............ ..........).

You can't see the problem with the marine acting on a request that was made to another entity?
I sure hope that there is a gay Marine around the next time you ask your wife for sexual favours, because, given your logic in supporting the "moral" of the "joke", you would have no problem with the marine filling in for your wife.

fuelair

26th January 2007, 05:09 AM

(Not perfect quote - but story from WWII almost certainly apocryphal:)

A German sub has been sunk by a British destroyer and the survivors rescued and aboard same. The Captain has reminded his men that they are to treat the prisoners with respect and must not belittle or assault them. Everything seems to be going well until the Captain steps off the bridge a couple of days after the sinking and sees a creman punching the sub Captain on the nose. The Captain of the destroyer runs up and (containing his rage carefully) asks what happened.
The crew man responds " Well sir, I was going about my business when this officer sneers at me and says "Your king is a sissy-boy!" I was angry that he had such cheek, but I remembered what you said and did nothing. Then he looked down his nose and said "Your ship stinks worse than a cesspool!" I was really angry then, but I remembered what you said and held off. But then,sir, he turned to the rail and he spat into OUR ocean................."

billydkid

26th January 2007, 05:43 AM

I'm sure it's one of those obscure laws that the government doesn't bother with enforcing... that is, until election time when some politician or prosecutor wants to look "moral" for the mob.

Or until you get exactly the wrong person elected to office.

Foster Zygote

26th January 2007, 06:36 AM

Not in my opinion. Tomorrow, I'll ask a couple of Marines what they think of it. My bet is that they'll laugh their asses off.

Yup.

What does that have to do with knocking the hell out of somebody who asks for it?

Yup.

The professor asked to get his ass knocked off the podium, then it happened.

Hey; God works in strange and wondrous ways.............

My wife's grandfather was a U.S. Marine. He was very highly regarded in his local VFW not only because he'd fought on Iwo Jima where most of his unit was wiped out and spent over a year in the hospital after that with two shattered legs, but also because he was a fair, level headed and very nice guy. After he died one of his vet friends told us a story about a night at the VFW hall. One of the younger members was spouting off about some group he disagreed with and suggested that if he encountered one of these people he'd beat his ass. My wife's grandfather told him that that would make him little different from the fascists that his fellow Americans had fought in the war.

Foster Zygote

26th January 2007, 06:43 AM

Is it?

Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?

Explain your clarity, please..............

Your hypothetical Marine heard God's voice in his head and punished the infidel. The terrorists of Sept. 11 heard God's voice in their heads and punished the infidels.

Foster Zygote

26th January 2007, 06:45 AM

Yup.

The professor asked to get his ass knocked off the podium, then it happened.

Hey; God works in strange and wondrous ways.............

Are you saying that Klan abuse of civil rights advocates was justified?

drkitten

26th January 2007, 06:50 AM

If they're tenured there's not a whole lot to do about it,

About professional misconduct rising to the level of incompetence?

I wish I knew where you had tenure, where "incompetence" was not grounds for removal....

drkitten

26th January 2007, 06:52 AM

Or until you get exactly the wrong person elected to office.

Actually, it's one of those laws that you want around for those cases.

It's so obviously unconstitutional that you can probably get the person removed from office for abuse of process and malicious prosecution if he tries using it. Think of it like a bright shiny button labelled "If you press this, you will lose your job."

ponderingturtle

26th January 2007, 07:02 AM

Do you tacitly support professors behaving like complete jackasses in the execution of their professional duties?

DR

Well as it was a political course it might well have been justifiable in the realm of his course. If it was a science course he should be disiplined for not actualy teaching material about the subject.

ponderingturtle

26th January 2007, 07:05 AM

Hey; God works in strange and wondrous ways.............

Yep, mostly through the acts of violent men.

ponderingturtle

26th January 2007, 07:06 AM

Is it?

Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?

Explain your clarity, please..............

God told them to do it, who are you to question his ineffable wisdom? Just like he told bush to invade Iraq.

TheAntiLuddite

26th January 2007, 07:22 AM

Is it?

Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?

Explain your clarity, please..............

No, they were flown into the buildings by people who believed (or at least said they believed) God wanted them to commit a violent act, as did the Marine in the story.

Beerina

26th January 2007, 08:34 AM

Ducky

26th January 2007, 09:05 AM

About professional misconduct rising to the level of incompetence?

I wish I knew where you had tenure, where "incompetence" was not grounds for removal....

without knowing more about the class and the subject "professional misconduct" isn't a viable logical leap to make given this story. but within the context of the story, I don't know if it is professional misconduct at all and neither do you. is it rude? yea. Is it misconduct? depends on more context we are not given.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:05 AM

Do you have anything of substance to add?

Yup. The questions:

Originally Posted by saizai
Quote:
Quote:
http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Hmm....

Example:

A recent military combat veteran, after his discharge from the Marines, decided to go to college. One of his classes was in Political Science. The day he showed up and sat down in class, the professor got up and declared he was an atheist...he then shouted: "God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

He then proceeded to denying, cursing, and contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, final judging of the world, cursing and contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, cursing and contumeliously reproaching and exposing to contempt and ridicule the holy word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures for 14 minutes. At this time, the Marine got up, walked up to the professor, and cold-cocked him, knocking him out and lying flat on the floor. After a minute or two, the professor woke up, got up , and ask the Marine what in the world he thought he was doing. The Marine calmly stated, "God was busy, so He sent me."

Now I suppose you'd demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine?

Tenured professors are exempt from the law?

Why are Marines subject to the law?

Ducky

26th January 2007, 10:08 AM

Yup. The questions:

1) The professor is not exempt from anything, however is not the aggressor in your "joke." Without more context of the class topic or anything else about the professor or the school, there is no way of judging context.

2) Marines are subject to the same laws as anyone else, and punching a professor in class for what the professor said is still assault.

But I have answered those questions already, ace.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Didn't have to. We've been laughing about that one for a while. And I certainly don't expect one from the likes of you.

Any time, or over any humor (which you probably wouldn't understand, anyway.......................obviously............ ..........).

You can't see the problem with the marine acting on a request that was made to another entity?

Sure I do.

You can't see the problem with the professor acting so regarding an ideology that was important to the Marine?

You, too have a problem with the Massachusetts law?

I sure hope that there is a gay Marine around the next time you ask your wife for sexual favours, because, given your logic in supporting the "moral" of the "joke", you would have no problem with the marine filling in for your wife.

Got a gay Marine?

Think he'd have enough of "the right stuff" to pull it off?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:26 AM

....A German sub has been sunk by a British destroyer and the survivors rescued and aboard same. The Captain has reminded his men that they are to treat the prisoners with respect and must not belittle or assault them. Everything seems to be going well until the Captain steps off the bridge a couple of days after the sinking and sees a creman punching the sub Captain on the nose. The Captain of the destroyer runs up and (containing his rage carefully) asks what happened.
The crew man responds " Well sir, I was going about my business when this officer sneers at me and says "Your king is a sissy-boy!" I was angry that he had such cheek, but I remembered what you said and did nothing. Then he looked down his nose and said "Your ship stinks worse than a cesspool!" I was really angry then, but I remembered what you said and held off. But then,sir, he turned to the rail and he spat into OUR ocean................."

I like it.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:29 AM

....One of the younger members was spouting off about some group he disagreed with and suggested that if he encountered one of these people he'd beat his ass. My wife's grandfather told him that that would make him little different from the fascists that his fellow Americans had fought in the war.

I wonder what your wife's grandfather would have said if the younger VFW member told a story about someone who insulted him before he whupped his ass?

I wonder if your wife's grandfather would have found the professor/Marine joke amusing?

Too bad you can't ask him. He sounds like he was a wise, experienced man.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Is it?

Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?

Explain your clarity, please..............

Your hypothetical Marine heard God's voice in his head and punished the infidel.

No he didn't.

He heard God tell him to give the professor what he demanded. There was no "punishment" involved, nor was "infidelity" involved.

The terrorists of Sept. 11 heard God's voice in their heads and punished the infidels.

Got some evidence of that?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup.

The professor asked to get his ass knocked off the podium, then it happened.

Hey; God works in strange and wondrous ways.............

Are you saying that Klan abuse of civil rights advocates was justified?

Did civil rights advocates ask to be abused?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by fowlsound
If they're tenured there's not a whole lot to do about it
About professional misconduct rising to the level of incompetence?

I wish I knew where you had tenure, where "incompetence" was not grounds for removal....

Either in his own mind or in a very special environment where he enjoys "protections."

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
Do you tacitly support professors behaving like complete jackasses in the execution of their professional duties?

Well as it was a political course it might well have been justifiable in the realm of his course. If it was a science course he should be disiplined for not actualy teaching material about the subject.

The existence of God and whether or not God knocks idiots off of poduims is a political issue?

I suppose you'd like to blame Christians for politicizing religion?

It's the religious meddling in politics that resulted in that Massachusetts law?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Hey; God works in strange and wondrous ways.............
Yep, mostly through the acts of violent men.

He also works through the acts of saints as well as folks who are a bit of both.

But you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Is it?

Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?

Explain your clarity, please..............

God told them to do it.....

Got some evidence of that?

.....who are you to question his ineffable wisdom?

I am in no position to question God's wisdom. Nor did I.

I asked a question of Foster Zygote, not God.

You've chosen to try to answer it.

Would you like to try again?

Just like he told bush to invade Iraq.

God told President Bush to invade Iraq?

Got evidence of that?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Is it?

Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?

Explain your clarity, please..............

No, they were flown into the buildings by people who believed (or at least said they believed) God wanted them to commit a violent act, as did the Marine in the story.

Do you have reading problems?

Again:

....Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?...

Professor Jawbone clearly asked to be knocked from the podium.

Again:

....Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?....

More, did anyone in the World Trade Center or Pentagon even "...wilfully blaspheme the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or curse or contumeliously reproach Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or curse or contumeliously reproach or expose to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures..."?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. The questions:
1) The professor is not exempt from anything, however is not the aggressor in your "joke." Without more context of the class topic or anything else about the professor or the school, there is no way of judging context.

2) Marines are subject to the same laws as anyone else, and punching a professor in class for what the professor said is still assault.

But I have answered those questions already, ace.

So the professor should be held accountable for violations of the blasphemy law, and the Marine should be held responsible for assault, right?

baron

26th January 2007, 10:58 AM

If a professor of mine wasted 15 minutes of my time acting like a retarded child instead of educating me I'd knock him out myself.

Ducky

26th January 2007, 11:06 AM

So the professor should be held accountable for violations of the blasphemy law, and the Marine should be held responsible for assault, right?

I don't see how the blasphemy law could be enforceable in any meaningful way given the ambiguity of the story. Is it a state or private university? What was the topic of class? What is the context that is left out?

The marine's actions, however, are clearly assault.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:10 AM

If a professor of mine wasted 15 minutes of my time acting like a retarded child instead of educating me I'd knock him out myself.

I only withdrew from one university course in my life; anthropology. It was complete BS, and when I questioned claims, there were students in the class that must be on this forum right now. It was actually more sucking up to the very ideological professor.

No need to punch her out. She was respectful and trying to be a good educator. She was just issuing ideological propaganda.

I took three weeks of it, then withdrew in order to salvage some tuition money.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
So the professor should be held accountable for violations of the blasphemy law, and the Marine should be held responsible for assault, right?
I don't see how the blasphemy law could be enforceable in any meaningful way given the ambiguity of the story. Is it a state or private university? What was the topic of class? What is the context that is left out?

The marine's actions, however, are clearly assault.

So, back to my original question (remarkable you and I are able to possibly do this, fowl):...........

Example:

A recent military combat veteran, after his discharge from the Marines, decided to go to college. One of his classes was in Political Science. The day he showed up and sat down in class, the professor got up and declared he was an atheist...he then shouted: "God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

He then proceeded to denying, cursing, and contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, final judging of the world, cursing and contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, cursing and contumeliously reproaching and exposing to contempt and ridicule the holy word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures for 14 minutes. At this time, the Marine got up, walked up to the professor, and cold-cocked him, knocking him out and lying flat on the floor. After a minute or two, the professor woke up, got up , and ask the Marine what in the world he thought he was doing. The Marine calmly stated, "God was busy, so He sent me."

Now I suppose you'd demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine?

......you "demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine", and the professor?...............................

I don't see how the blasphemy law could be enforceable in any meaningful way given the ambiguity of the story."....

"Ambiguous": (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguous)

adjective
1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
2. Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous.
3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.
4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.

"Ambiguous"?:

....the professor got up and declared he was an atheist...he then shouted: "God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

He then proceeded to denying, cursing, and contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, final judging of the world, cursing and contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, cursing and contumeliously reproaching and exposing to contempt and ridicule the holy word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures for 14 minutes.....

drkitten

26th January 2007, 11:43 AM

So the professor should be held accountable for violations of the blasphemy law, and the Marine should be held responsible for assault, right?

No, and yes. The blasphemy law is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, while laws against assault are constitutional and enforceable.

drkitten

26th January 2007, 11:44 AM

It's the religious meddling in politics that resulted in that Massachusetts law?

Erm, yes? Are you familiar with the history of Massachusetts? "Religion meddling in politics" is about the best description I can come up with for the first 150 years of MA history....

drkitten

26th January 2007, 11:47 AM

without knowing more about the class and the subject "professional misconduct" isn't a viable logical leap to make given this story. but within the context of the story, I don't know if it is professional misconduct at all and neither do you. is it rude? yea. Is it misconduct? depends on more context we are not given.

Let me put it to you this way.

I cannot imagine a set of circumstances outside of a scripted theatrical performance where such behavior would not constitute "professional misconduct." Even if the professor was carrying out a psychological experiment, it would constitute experimentation on subjects without their informed consent (since obviously the Marine didn't now what was going on), and therefore misconduct.

I have no problem making that particular logical leap.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
So the professor should be held accountable for violations of the blasphemy law, and the Marine should be held responsible for assault, right?
No, and yes. The blasphemy law is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable......

Says who?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's the religious meddling in politics that resulted in that Massachusetts law?
Erm, yes?

Yes with a question mark?

I asked first.

Are you familiar with the history of Massachusetts?

Not nearly as familiar as with the history of California or Alaska.

"Religion meddling in politics" is about the best description I can come up with for the first 150 years of MA history....

Was it the "reliegion meddling in politics", or was it vice versa?

Perhaps "a Marine" long ago punched out a foolish "professor" which prompted lawmakers to pass laws which were an attempt to protect a bunch of fools on both sides from each other?

After all, the title of the law is:

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Ducky

26th January 2007, 01:00 PM

So, back to my original question (remarkable you and I are able to possibly do this, fowl):...........

......you "demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of the Marine", and the professor?...............................

"Ambiguous": (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguous)

"Ambiguous"?:

Huntster I have clearly stated my position and fail to see where your going back to your original question is relevant.

As for ambiguous, yes lacking clear details is ambiguous in the context of your little story.

Ducky

26th January 2007, 01:01 PM

Let me put it to you this way.

I cannot imagine a set of circumstances outside of a scripted theatrical performance where such behavior would not constitute "professional misconduct." Even if the professor was carrying out a psychological experiment, it would constitute experimentation on subjects without their informed consent (since obviously the Marine didn't now what was going on), and therefore misconduct.

I have no problem making that particular logical leap.

Given that the entire thing is folklore, fair enough. however nothing the professor has done is illegal, bad actions or not, in that story. Also given lack of details there is no telling what the professor would answer for to the university.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 01:11 PM

......As for ambiguous, yes lacking clear details is ambiguous in the context of your little story.

The cited law: (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2286343&postcount=1)

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

My example: (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2286441&postcount=6)

A recent military combat veteran, after his discharge from the Marines, decided to go to college. One of his classes was in Political Science. The day he showed up and sat down in class, the professor got up and declared he was an atheist...he then shouted: "God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

He then proceeded to denying, cursing, and contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, final judging of the world, cursing and contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, cursing and contumeliously reproaching and exposing to contempt and ridicule the holy word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures for 14 minutes. At this time, the Marine got up, walked up to the professor, and cold-cocked him, knocking him out and lying flat on the floor. After a minute or two, the professor woke up, got up , and ask the Marine what in the world he thought he was doing. The Marine calmly stated, "God was busy, so He sent me."

(Key words emboldened for the reading impaired)

Still "ambiguous"?

drkitten

26th January 2007, 01:13 PM

Says who?

The Constitution. In sufficient clarity that a countersuit for "malicious prosecution," "abuse of office," "malfeasance in office," "false arrest," and "harassment" would probably stand.

Ducky

26th January 2007, 01:16 PM

The cited law: (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2286343&postcount=1)

My example: (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2286441&postcount=6)

(Key words emboldened for the reading impaired)

Still "ambiguous"?

Yet I have clearly stated which points were left out in your story. Are you just going to repost your same comments over and over with added insults, or do you have anything new to add?

drkitten

26th January 2007, 01:17 PM

however nothing the professor has done is illegal, bad actions or not, in that story.

.... which is why the grounds for rescintion of tenure would be "incompetance," and not "incompentance and moral turpitude." I'm not sure where you got the idea that only illegal actions can be grounds for removal of a professor from a tenured position, but that's far from the truth. As a simple example, failure to maintain professional accreditation/licensure through continuing education can be "incompetence" and grounds for removal of tenure. It's not illegal for a professor to stop reading the journals, but it can cost her her job.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Says who?
The Constitution......

Got a reference?

drkitten

26th January 2007, 01:19 PM

Was it the "reliegion meddling in politics", or was it vice versa?

No, it was religion meddling in politics.

Perhaps "a Marine" long ago punched out a foolish "professor" which prompted lawmakers to pass laws which were an attempt to protect a bunch of fools on both sides from each other?

No, that didn't happen.

At least, not in "real life" or anything close to it. What color is the sky in your world?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 01:21 PM

....Still "ambiguous"?
Yet I have clearly stated which points were left out in your story. Are you just going to repost your same comments over and over with added insults, or do you have anything new to add?

The professors words and acts were worded with the exact same words used to describe the violations made illegal under the Massachussets law, which is the subject of this thread.

Still ambiguous?

Ducky

26th January 2007, 01:22 PM

.... which is why the grounds for rescintion of tenure would be "incompetance," and not "incompentance and moral turpitude." I'm not sure where you got the idea that only illegal actions can be grounds for removal of a professor from a tenured position, but that's far from the truth. As a simple example, failure to maintain professional accreditation/licensure through continuing education can be "incompetence" and grounds for removal of tenure. It's not illegal for a professor to stop reading the journals, but it can cost her her job.

Hey strawman, I didn't say doing something illegal was the only grounds for rescintion of tenure. I was discussing the legality as is pounded at by huntster. I also repeatedly have said there aren't enough details in that story to detrmine what, if any, action would be taken by the university.

Ducky

26th January 2007, 01:24 PM

The professors words and acts were worded with the exact same words used to describe the violations made illegal under the Massachussets law, which is the subject of this thread.

Still ambiguous?

Yes. I don't see where the university is in massechusetts, I don't see the relevance, if any, to the topic of the class that day, and I have repeatedly been clear with you about my position, yet you have repeatedly asked the same question.

Your story is still a moot argument. The only thing prosecutable is the marine's assault. Why this is so has been clearly explained to you in this thread.

drkitten

26th January 2007, 01:25 PM

Got a reference?

Yeah. Amendment 1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." By singling out "God, " "Jesus Christ," and "the Holy Ghost" for special protection, the law establishes Christianity in violation of the First Amendment. From the relevant case law, "the test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion."

Since it's a state law, this wouldn't have actually been a constitutional violation (and therefore unenforceable) until the Fourteenth amendment made the Federal Bill of Right applicable to the States : "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

drkitten

26th January 2007, 01:26 PM

I also repeatedly have said there aren't enough details in that story to detrmine what, if any, action would be taken by the university.

Yes. And I'm saying You're WRONG. There is no possible set of details that could be added to that story to make it other than professional misconduct.

If you disagree and can think of such a set, please enlighten me.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Was it the "reliegion meddling in politics", or was it vice versa?

No, it was religion meddling in politics.

Got some evidence of that claim?

Perhaps "a Marine" long ago punched out a foolish "professor" which prompted lawmakers to pass laws which were an attempt to protect a bunch of fools on both sides from each other?

No, that didn't happen.

Got some evidence of that?

At least, not in "real life" or anything close to it.

Was it the chicken or the egg that came first?

What color is the sky in your world?

It varies. Today it's rather greyish.

drkitten

26th January 2007, 01:30 PM

Got some evidence of that claim?
Yes.

Got some evidence of that?

Yes, I've got evidence of that, too.

But at this point I've ceased providing it to you, since you're not responding rationally to the evidence that has already been presented.

Have fun playing in your imaginary world with your imaginary friends and imaginary rules of law.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
The professors words and acts were worded with the exact same words used to describe the violations made illegal under the Massachussets law, which is the subject of this thread.

Still ambiguous?

Yes. I don't see where the university is in massechusetts, I don't see the relevance, if any, to the topic of the class that day, and I have repeatedly been clear with you about my position, yet you have repeatedly asked the same question.

Thanks. I think you've established the answer I sought, and I suspect others should be able to see the game and result.

Your story is still a moot argument. The only thing prosecutable is the marine's assault. Why this is so has been clearly explained to you in this thread.

I think that clarification helps solidify your position.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Got a reference?
Yeah. Amendment 1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

No religion has been "established", and Congress has had nothing to do with that law.

By singling out "God, " "Jesus Christ," and "the Holy Ghost" for special protection, the law establishes Christianity in violation of the First Amendment.

Maybe that's because the problems were stemming between Christians and non-christians at the time?

Maybe we'll soon be seeing ]similar laws regarding Islam? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000944.php) (I wonder if Mrs. Huntster can wear her Catholic veil for her next driver's license photo?)

From the relevant case law, "the test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment?

Did you note the title of the Massachusetts law?:

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Do Marines pounding irreverent professors constitute "good order"?

If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution.

Does a ban on "crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order" advance or inhibit religion?

That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion."

How about "good order"? Keep the zealots on both sides in check?

Since it's a state law, this wouldn't have actually been a constitutional violation (and therefore unenforceable) until the Fourteenth amendment made the Federal Bill of Right applicable to the States : "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

And what keeps the Supreme Court from doing so?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Got some evidence of that claim?

Yes.

Quote:
Got some evidence of that?

Yes, I've got evidence of that, too.

But at this point I've ceased providing it to you, since you're not responding rationally to the evidence that has already been presented.

What is "irrational" regarding my responses to your posts?

Have fun playing in your imaginary world with your imaginary friends and imaginary rules of law.

Regardless where I find myself, I try to have fun.

Now I'm in a cyber world. I suppose you can call it "imaginary". It certainly is.................interesting.

Now, do you have some evidence we can discuss?

drkitten

26th January 2007, 02:06 PM

What is "irrational" regarding my responses to your posts?

The words, mostly. The spelling and font choice is acceptable.

Now, do you have some evidence we can discuss?

Yes. You can start by "discussing" the evidence I've already presented, that the law as written is out-of-the-box unenforceable, to the point that any attempt to enforce it would leave the local attorney open to charges himself.

Actually, don't bother. I'm heading out of town for a few days and you'll probably have been slapped around by others by the time I get back.

drkitten

26th January 2007, 02:14 PM

Maybe that's because the problems were stemming between Christians and non-christians at the time?

Doesn't matter. if the law were evenly written -- e.g., covered both blasphemy against Christians and non-Christians, it might have passed constitutional muster. Byt that's not what we're dealing with. As written, this is a non-starter. Only the Christian religion is protected, hence it's an "establishment."

Maybe we'll soon be seeing ]similar laws regarding Islam? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000944.php) (I wonder if Mrs. Huntster can wear her Catholic veil for her next driver's license photo?)

No, we won't.

Did you note the title of the Massachusetts law?:

Doesn't matter. The controlling analysis is of the effect, not of the wording of the title.

Does a ban on "crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order" advance or inhibit religion?

That's not what this ordinance bans. A more narrowly crafted law that only addressed "crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order" might pass constitutional muster, but that's not what we're dealing with here

How about "good order"? Keep the zealots on both sides in check?

Nope. There's no "both sides" in the law, and that's a major reason why it's unconstitutional.

A more broadly crafted law that outlawed blasphemy against all religious figures might pass constitutional muster (although "freedom of speech" would come into play, too) -- but, again, that's not what we're dealing with.

Basically, your analysis has no basis in the actual law under discussion. There are lots of laws that could be written, would be constitutional, and could be enforced, but this one isn't one of them.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe that's because the problems were stemming between Christians and non-christians at the time?

Doesn't matter. if the law were evenly written -- e.g., covered both blasphemy against Christians and non-Christians, it might have passed constitutional muster.

Would it?

Would it "pass muster" with you?

Would the atheists on this forum see it as a law establishing "chastity, morality, decency, and good order" instead of an "establishment of any religion"?

Maybe we'll soon be seeing ]similar laws regarding Islam? (I wonder if Mrs. Huntster can wear her Catholic veil for her next driver's license photo?)

No, we won't.

Did you follow the link?

Can Mrs. Huntster cover her Christian face with a veil during her driver's license photo taking?

Can I cover my face?

Islamic women can................

Did you note the title of the Massachusetts law?:

Doesn't matter. The controlling analysis is of the effect, not of the wording of the title.

And the effect would be that "the professor" is violating "good order" laws inciting "the Marine" to violate assault laws.

Equity. "Decency". "Good order."

Does a ban on "crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order" advance or inhibit religion?

That's not what this ordinance bans.

The law bans crimes committed by people like the professor, which lead to further crimes committed by those offended.

How about "good order"? Keep the zealots on both sides in check?

Nope. There's no "both sides" in the law, and that's a major reason why it's unconstitutional.

The other side of the law is obviously (like my example showed) assault laws.

A more broadly crafted law that outlawed blasphemy against all religious figures might pass constitutional muster (although "freedom of speech" would come into play, too) -- but, again, that's not what we're dealing with.

That's exactly what I'm trying to deal with here.

The anti-religious crowd likes it all their way. They want to talk squat, be absolutely free of responsibility and consequence for their poison, and want their nose protected by the authorities to boot.

Does that promote "good order"?

Basically, your analysis has no basis in the actual law under discussion. There are lots of laws that could be written, would be constitutional, and could be enforced, but this one isn't one of them.

Would you try to write an example of such a law?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
What is "irrational" regarding my responses to your posts?

The words, mostly. The spelling and font choice is acceptable.

Hmmmmm. No "potty mouth". No accusations. Just reasonable questions.

How sensitive..................

Now, do you have some evidence we can discuss?

Yes. You can start by "discussing" the evidence I've already presented, that the law as written is out-of-the-box unenforceable, to the point that any attempt to enforce it would leave the local attorney open to charges himself.

Well, I'd agree that the law might not last long as written simply because Judeo/Christianity appears to be the only religion covered.

So I'd love to see it re-written to cover all religions and ideologies.

You?

Actually, don't bother. I'm heading out of town for a few days and you'll probably have been slapped around by others by the time I get back.

Oh, no doubt about that.

But this will be here nonetheless for your possible consideration.

ceo_esq

26th January 2007, 02:50 PM

Yeah. Amendment 1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." By singling out "God, " "Jesus Christ," and "the Holy Ghost" for special protection, the law establishes Christianity in violation of the First Amendment. From the relevant case law, "the test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion."

Since it's a state law, this wouldn't have actually been a constitutional violation (and therefore unenforceable) until the Fourteenth amendment made the Federal Bill of Right applicable to the States : "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

I daresay prosecuting under that statute would also be a violation of the Free Speech Clause, not just the Establishment Clause. Interestingly, so far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled a blasphemy law unconstitutional, but there are some more or less closely related cases that make it pretty clear (if it wasn't clear enough already) that such laws are effectively null in the United States.

Although the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, it wasn't until 1925 that the Supreme Court determined that the First Amendment applied to the states, so right up through the first quarter of the 20th century there was no (federal) reason to doubt the enforceability of state blasphemy laws. Indeed, I'm aware of a 1921 decision in a Maine case - where the blasphemy statute was almost identical to that of Massachusetts - in which a blasphemy conviction was upheld on appeal. That's pretty late!

Silly Green Monkey

26th January 2007, 03:49 PM

What a wonderful example of why I don't read Huntster's posts.

69dodge

26th January 2007, 03:50 PM

The anti-religious crowd likes it all their way. They want to talk squat, be absolutely free of responsibility and consequence for their poison, and want their nose protected by the authorities to boot."all their way"? Everyone should be allowed to say whatever he wants to.

What "consequences" do you have in mind? Getting beaten up by someone who disagrees with their position? That's not a necessary consequence. We can outlaw beating people up. I prefer that to outlawing the holding and stating of disagreeable positions.

Basically, freedom of speech is good, and freedom to beat people up isn't.

Well, I'd agree that the law might not last long as written simply because Judeo/Christianity appears to be the only religion covered.

So I'd love to see it re-written to cover all religions and ideologies.

You?No, I don't see how that could work.

I can imagine a fanatical theist and a fanatical atheist who would each be terribly offended merely by hearing the other blandly state his position on the existence of God. So no one can say anything any more?

It's good to be polite, but I don't think it's a good idea to make impoliteness illegal.

69dodge

26th January 2007, 04:09 PM

And did you catch the "obviousness" that the Marine illustrated?I didn't.

As far as I could tell, the point of the story is just "ha, an atheist got what he deserved". And the story's intended audience is people who think he deserved it because they believe in God. If there isn't really any God, then the professor wasn't committing any sort of transgression against Him; he was just being impolite to religious members of his class. It's harder to claim he deserved a beating for that, I'd think.

Myriad

26th January 2007, 04:38 PM

Ah, I think I get the joke. The Marine is another one of those blasphemous men who assert, despite numerous Scriptural assertions to the contrary, that God is so powerless to act in the world that He requires assistance from time to time from the always-ready fist of the self-righteous man. The implications of that belief, expressed through violent action, are far more damaging to Christian ideas than anything the Professor could have said with mere words in fourteen minutes.

So, the Marine beating up the professor for blasphemy is kind of like a wife-beater beating up another man for insulting his wife. I guess that's why the story is funny (except it's not really, because wife beaters and other immoral violent people often do behave that way; nothing makes them angrier than someone doing something that they do in a far worse way themselves).

Fortunately God is also forgiving, so He will forgive the Marine for taking His name in vain (it doesn't just mean swearing; it also applies to assuming His authority for one's own immoral actions) and violating Jesus's commandment to love thy neighbor, if the Marine repents.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Clu

26th January 2007, 06:15 PM

JamesDillon

26th January 2007, 06:40 PM

May all the blasphemers blaspheme 'til the end of days:dewink:...
I thought that your nation was founded on the concept of free speech? And with that freedom comes peoples right to say (almost) anything they want even the uncomfortable (plz correct me where I might be wrong)....

The concept of what constitutes "free speech" has evolved quite a bit since the eighteenth century. Also, as ceo_esq notes above, the First Amendment, by its terms, applies only to Congress, and did not apply to state statutes such as Massachusetts's anti-blasphemy law until it was made applicable to them via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment-- and that application is itself based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that, though widely accepted these days, is not exactly obvious from the text.

69dodge

26th January 2007, 07:11 PM

Also, as ceo_esq notes above, the First Amendment, by its terms, applies only to Congress, and did not apply to state statutes such as Massachusetts's anti-blasphemy law until it was made applicable to them via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment-- and that application is itself based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that, though widely accepted these days, is not exactly obvious from the text.What was the original intent of that part of the Fourteenth Amendment? It was passed around the end of the Civil War. So, something to do with treating former slaves as full citizens, I guess?

Ducky

26th January 2007, 07:16 PM

Thanks. I think you've established the answer I sought, and I suspect others should be able to see the game and result.

I think that clarification helps solidify your position.

I solidified my position with my first post. You asked the same question several times and my answer did not change.

Out of curiosity what answer were you seeking? Something tells me it is a strawman version of what I actually said.

Myriad

26th January 2007, 07:21 PM

The concept of what constitutes "free speech" has evolved quite a bit since the eighteenth century. Also, as ceo_esq notes above, the First Amendment, by its terms, applies only to Congress, and did not apply to state statutes such as Massachusetts's anti-blasphemy law until it was made applicable to them via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment-- and that application is itself based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that, though widely accepted these days, is not exactly obvious from the text.

I might also point out that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has its own state Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights (which, unlike in the U.S. Constitution, actually comes at the beginning of the document rather than tacked on at the end). The blasphemy law has been unconstitutional with respect to the state constitution since at least the mid 20th century (when freedom of speech was strengthened by amendment LXXVII) and probably since 1917 (when freedom of religion was strengthened by amendment XLVI).

Of course, Massachusetts has also had universities and strongly opinionated professors for a very long time too, so it's conceivable that the Marine in the story had just recently seen action by the shores of Tripoli on a square-rigged wooden ship, and the blasphemy law was fully in effect. In which case, charges against the professor might be possible. That might have mitigated any assault charges against the Marine. But such charges are also unlikely to have been prosecuted. For some reason, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials) Massachusetts courts have been rather reluctant to punish people for offenses involving invisible beings, since about, oh, 1693 or so.

Respectfully,
Myriad

JamesDillon

26th January 2007, 08:09 PM

What was the original intent of that part of the Fourteenth Amendment? It was passed around the end of the Civil War. So, something to do with treating former slaves as full citizens, I guess?

That's the standard interpretation, yes. The Fourteenth Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This could quite reasonably be read as concerned with eliminating institutional discrimination against African Americans, and I believe that's generally what it's been taken to have intended (though, as with most fields, you can probably find some scholar arguing that the conventional understanding is all wrong).

The Due Process Clause (the bit about not depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law) was interpreted though a line of cases in the early twentieth century to incorporate many (maybe all) of the substantive provisions of the Bill of Rights, which previously applied only to the federal government, against the states. But then, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court gave up on the piecemeal incorporation approach and basically held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, which includes all of the substantive provisions, and then some. The scope of the Due Process Clause has been steadily widening ever since.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:07 PM

What a wonderful example of why I don't read Huntster's posts.

If you don't read my posts, how would you know of any "examples" of why?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
The anti-religious crowd likes it all their way. They want to talk squat, be absolutely free of responsibility and consequence for their poison, and want their nose protected by the authorities to boot.

"all their way"? Everyone should be allowed to say whatever he wants to.

Even if you're "allowed" to dictate your existence, that doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.

What "consequences" do you have in mind?

I'm not the "guy" who dictates that.

But there are consequences to all actions (and even inactions).

Getting beaten up by someone who disagrees with their position? That's not a necessary consequence. We can outlaw beating people up. I prefer that to outlawing the holding and stating of disagreeable positions.

Basically, freedom of speech is good, and freedom to beat people up isn't.

Basically.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Well, I'd agree that the law might not last long as written simply because Judeo/Christianity appears to be the only religion covered.

So I'd love to see it re-written to cover all religions and ideologies.

You?

No, I don't see how that could work.

You don't have much vision.

I can imagine a fanatical theist and a fanatical atheist who would each be terribly offended merely by hearing the other blandly state his position on the existence of God. So no one can say anything any more?

You can "imagine" it?

I've lived it.

It's good to be polite, but I don't think it's a good idea to make impoliteness illegal.

Me, neither.

Look around. I'm considered the most "impolite" person on this board.

So?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
And did you catch the "obviousness" that the Marine illustrated?

I didn't.

Sorry.

As far as I could tell, the point of the story is just "ha, an atheist got what he deserved".

That's the joke.

And the story's intended audience is people who think he deserved it because they believe in God.

Maybe that's why I knew it was a joke and fool thought it was an urban legend to look up.

If there isn't really any God, then the professor wasn't committing any sort of transgression against Him; he was just being impolite to religious members of his class.

And the Marine was somewhat impolite.

He waited the appropriate time. He allowed the professor to "profess" for 14 minutes.

It's harder to claim he deserved a beating for that, I'd think.

Beating?

It was one good blow.

Knocked the professor from his podium (which is exactly what he called for).

An easy task.

Problem?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:28 PM

Ah, I think I get the joke. The Marine is another one of those blasphemous men who assert, despite numerous Scriptural assertions to the contrary, that God is so powerless to act in the world that He requires assistance from time to time from the always-ready fist of the self-righteous man.

I don't think you got the joke.

The implications of that belief, expressed through violent action, are far more damaging to Christian ideas than anything the Professor could have said with mere words in fourteen minutes.

That's your opinion.

So, the Marine beating up the professor for blasphemy is kind of like a wife-beater beating up another man for insulting his wife.

Huh?

I guess that's why the story is funny (except it's not really, because wife beaters and other immoral violent people often do behave that way; nothing makes them angrier than someone doing something that they do in a far worse way themselves).

Really?

Says who?

Fortunately God is also forgiving, so He will forgive the Marine for taking His name in vain (it doesn't just mean swearing; it also applies to assuming His authority for one's own immoral actions) and violating Jesus's commandment to love thy neighbor, if the Marine repents.

Yup.

(The Marine took the Lord's Name in vain?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Respectfully,

The Huntster

Huntster

26th January 2007, 11:32 PM

.....Out of curiosity what answer were you seeking?

Yours.

Something tells me it is a strawman version of what I actually said.

Better investigate "something".

And you damned sure better figure out that "strawman" thing. It's terrible being afraid of scarecrows.

Huntster

27th January 2007, 01:13 AM

.....I also repeatedly have said there aren't enough details in that story to detrmine what, if any, action would be taken by the university.

To Hell with the "university".

Individuals are responsible for their individual actions, right?

Ducky

27th January 2007, 05:03 AM

Yours.

Better investigate "something".

And you damned sure better figure out that "strawman" thing. It's terrible being afraid of scarecrows.

Non-answer. Care to actually answer the question?

Ducky

27th January 2007, 05:06 AM

To Hell with the "university".

Individuals are responsible for their individual actions, right?

This non-sequitur has little to do with you harping about an anti-blasphemy law that is unenforceable, or the ramifacations of the professor's actions that you'd like to see him punished for. As a matter of practicality there is not enough information to determine what the professor's actions would garner in terms of response form the university.

Huntster

27th January 2007, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yours....

Non-answer. Care to actually answer the question?

I wasn't seeking any "predetermined" answer. I wanted exactly what I stated:

your answer.

It was exactly what I expected.

Thank you.

Huntster

27th January 2007, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
To Hell with the "university".

Individuals are responsible for their individual actions, right?

This non-sequitur has little to do with you harping about an anti-blasphemy law that is unenforceable, or the ramifacations of the professor's actions that you'd like to see him punished for.

Bullspit.

The "professor" professed himself into a swollen jaw. He did exactly (word for word) what the Massachusetts law prohibits.

The result in the joke is that he got his ass whupped, and even though it's just a joke, you simply can't stand it.

You want it all. Even our jokes.

As a matter of practicality there is not enough information to determine what the professor's actions would garner in terms of response form the university.
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Ducky

27th January 2007, 05:58 AM

Bullspit.

The "professor" professed himself into a swollen jaw. He did exactly (word for word) what the Massachusetts law prohibits.

The result in the joke is that he got his ass whupped, and even though it's just a joke, you simply can't stand it.

You want it all. Even our jokes.

And repeatedly it has been shown how the Massechusetts law is unenforceable. However your feeling that someone should be physically assaulted for what they say is telling.

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Your maturity is impressive.

Moving on:

I wasn't seeking any "predetermined" answer. I wanted exactly what I stated:

your answer.

It was exactly what I expected.

Thank you.

You again didn't answer the question. What answer did you expect, ace?

Myriad

27th January 2007, 07:45 AM

I don't think you got the joke.

Perhpas not in the way you intended it. But it is funny, in a sad sort of way. An obnoxious atheist meets a bad Christian. The atheist makes a fool of himself (how many true faithful Christians have you ever seen led away from their faith by the rantings of an obnoxious atheist?) but the Christian makes a mockery of Christianity.

If Jesus had been present in the lecture hall, do you think He would have waited fourteen minutes and then beaten the professor up? Or would He perhaps have spoken up sooner, speaking with the voice of love and wisdom to change the Professor's mind, or at least convince the audience that the professor was wrong?

The Marine had no wise words to offer. For that, he would have had to open himself up to the Holy Spirit and let Christ speak through him, as so many Christians have done to such great effect through the ages. But the only spirit that filled our Marine was a spirit of wrath and violence. His only testimony was his fist. Shame on him.

This sin -- wrath, compounded with the additional sin of misrepresenting an act of wrath as doing God's will and thus taking the Lord's name in vain, was unfortunate, but understandable. Many give in to temptation when provoked. Anyone in the audience -- that is, the audience of people to whom the joke is being told -- should be able to understand why the Marine (though undoubtedly brave and strong in other ways, as most Marines are) was weak in his faith and acted on his weakness at that moment. What's harder to understand and reconcile with professed New Testament Christian ideals is why the other Christians hearing the tale -- especially the person telling the joke, or any Christians in the audience who laugh at the professor's comeuppance while overlooking the Marine's mockery of Christ's teaching -- seem to approve of the Marine's act.

And that, my brother, is how atheists are made. Not by the obnoxious atheist professors of the world, but by the far more numerous bad examples like the supposedly Christian Marine and by the hypocrisy, the denial of Christ's teaching, of the joke-teller. They see Christians professing to believe something and then behaving as though they don't believe it at all. Christians who claim to follow Christ's teachings concerning helping the needy, but vote for candidates who promise to stick it to illegal immigrant sweatshop workers and welfare "deadbeats" and minimum-wage employees. Christians who claim to follow Christ's teachings concerning loving your fellow man, turning the other cheek, and not casting the first stone, but who confidently predict that those they dislike are bound for eternal torment. Christians who (unlike you, Huntster) claim to take every word of the Bible literally, yet are infinitely more zealous about applying what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah (homosexuality invokes God's wrath) than, for instance, the lesson of the Tower of Babel (building tall buildings invokes God's wrath). Christians who seek to promote their faith through oppression, censorship, force, and violence instead of teaching. Christians who testify with their fists. And the much greater number of Christians who, while not doing any of these things themselves, approve of others who do.

In the end, the joke I get is that the joke is you, Huntster. The joke is that one such as you does more harm to Christianity, does more to make atheism look like the better path to a society of peace, wisdom, and freedom, than all the ranting atheist professors in all the universities in the world.

I leave it up to you to decide whether the joke is funny.

And I ask you to look carefully and see if you can find repentance in your heart.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ZirconBlue

27th January 2007, 07:58 AM

Maybe that's why I knew it was a joke and fool thought it was an urban legend to look up.

It may have started out as a joke, but it has become an urban legend, in that it is now repeatedly passed around as a true story (it happened to a friend of a friend!). If you put half the time in rational discussion that you currently devote to juvinile insults, you might actually make a compelling argument once in awhile.

Ryokan

27th January 2007, 09:52 AM

Did someone here in the United States ask God to fly a couple of hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center?

There's a pretty big world outside the USA.

http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/world.htm

BillyJoe

27th January 2007, 02:23 PM

Are Huntster and Myriad both Christians?

Huntster: The Christian who sees unbelievers as an abstraction so that he can crush them without conscience.
Myriad: The Christian who sees unbelievers as individuals who need to be gently persuaded.
Sorry if my quick read produced a mischaracterisation.

I'm an unbeliever and I think the joke is funny.

The atheist professor is so completely sure that God does not exist that he fully expects to remain standing at the podium at the end of 15 minutes of blasphemy. Lo and behold he is unexpectedly knocked off the podium (not by God, of course, but by a believer).

That's funny.

Of course, like most jokes, you can analyse it so that the humour disappears. Also, if the person telling the joke is trying to make a point with it, it is funny mostly only to like-minded fellow travellers. In this case it is legitimate to analyse it (as Myriad has done). I would actually still find it funny but at a deeper level. It's a funny caricature of a belligerent atheist and a funny caricature of a belligerent believer. And, of course, it's still funny on the surface.

It's only not funny if you are too serious about your atheism or your religion.

Having said all that, I don't think it is anywhere near one of the best jokes I've ever heard.
I'm unlikely to pass it on for example.

Tricky

27th January 2007, 05:01 PM

If you don't read my posts, how would you know of any "examples" of why?
The same way you know that Kurious Kathy deserves your support even though you don't read her posts.

BillyJoe

27th January 2007, 06:35 PM

Huntster has been suspended for challenging quyak to a fist fight because they have a difference of opinion about abortion.

saizai

27th January 2007, 07:58 PM

Wow, I go away for a couple days and this explodes. Figures

1. Beerina - are you a resident of, or currently in, Massachusetts? If not, then your blasphemy has been in vain. If yes, then please go turn yourself in to the nearest jail and insist that you be prosecuted for your crimes. ;)

Make sure to do it again in front of three police witnesses of course. I'm sure you can pull this off within a minute or so. Make sure you do not violate any other laws in the process though.

If they REFUSE to prosecute you, then it brings up an interesting question of standing (probably settled, but I don't know the answer): if you violate a law, and therefore are subject to arrest for that violation but have not been otherwise harmed (i.e. a Damacles' Sword sort of 'harm'), do you have standing to challenge the law?

2. Fighting words are not considered well-protected speech (per 1st amendment), but are also NOT a justification or absolution for assault.

3. States may not pass laws that violate the federal constitution. They ALSO may not pass laws that violate their own constitution.

4. The titles of laws are completely irrelevant to their legal validity or invalidity and have no legal power whatsoever, formally. They are only for reference.

5. Not with the personal attacks and irrelevancies plskthxbye!

JamesDillon

27th January 2007, 09:41 PM

If they REFUSE to prosecute you, then it brings up an interesting question of standing (probably settled, but I don't know the answer): if you violate a law, and therefore are subject to arrest for that violation but have not been otherwise harmed (i.e. a Damacles' Sword sort of 'harm'), do you have standing to challenge the law?
Didn't this come up in Bowers v. Hardwick? I may be misremembering, but I think the plaintiff in that case had never actually been prosecuted under Georgia's anti-sodomy law; he merely alleged that, as a practicing homosexual, he feared that he would be, and he was found to have standing to challenge the statute. I don't recall if the standing issue was raised in that case or not, but since the Supreme Court proceeded to the merits of the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim, it at least implicitly found that he had standing to challenge the law.

Edit: On further reflection, the following distinction might make a difference to the standing analysis: did the state decline to prosecute you in one instance, but asserts its authority to enforce the law as to other violations, or did it declare that it has no intention of ever enforcing the law again? It seems to me that it would be easier to establish standing in the former case, but an argument could be made as to the latter as well, since, so long as the statute in question remains on the books and is presumed to be valid, a future administration could always change the non-enforcement policy, and the fact that the law was not being enforced at the time an offense took place would not be a defense to a subsequent conviction. (E.g., imagine that a state has an anti-sodomy statute with a limitations period of 6 years, but the current administration has stated on the record that it has no intention of enforcing the law, though the law remains on the books. If Bob violates the statute, and two years later, a new Attorney General is elected who decides to enforce the law, the new AG could presumably prosecute Bob for his prior offense, and the fact that the previous administration had declined to enforce the statute would not provide a defense against conviction. So it seems as though, even when the state has affirmatively disclaimed intent to enforce a statute, but does not repeal it for whatever reason, a plaintiff might still have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute even though there appears to be no immediate threat that he will ever face prosecution for its violation).

saizai

28th January 2007, 03:52 AM

Myriad

28th January 2007, 06:05 AM

Huntster has been suspended for challenging quyak to a fist fight because they have a difference of opinion about abortion.

Bad timing then. Looks like I've wasted a good sermon, unless Huntster is unusually diligent about looking up old posts after a hiatus. :cry1

Huntster: The Christian who sees unbelievers as an abstraction so that he can crush them without conscience.
Myriad: The Christian who sees unbelievers as individuals who need to be gently persuaded.
Sorry if my quick read produced a mischaracterisation.

Apology not required as far as I'm concerned. For a quick summary, 95% accurate is pretty good, and I'm willing to own your characterization of me relative to your characterization of Huntster.

But to fill in the other 5%, I think unbelievers can sometimes be persuaded but I question the need to do so in a great many cases; I think belief is overrated relative to actions (a believing bigot is more in need of teaching than a humanistically moral nonbeliever); and I think too many Christians have forgotten that disciples are supposed to learn as well as teach.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ZirconBlue

28th January 2007, 09:18 AM

Bad timing then. Looks like I've wasted a good sermon, unless Huntster is unusually diligent about looking up old posts after a hiatus. :cry1

Hey, you got a Language Award nomination (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2291285#post2291285) (times 2, actually) out of it!

Polaris

28th January 2007, 09:21 AM

So you do then at least tacitly support the marine assaulting someone simply for what they say or believe.

Schadenfreude is what boots on the ground Christianity does best. Anybody who believes it's about peace and love needs to read emails like the one Huntster posted, or hear a Christian gleefully talk about what will happen to those left behind in the Rapture.

Polaris

28th January 2007, 09:34 AM

After the professor openly demanded that God had 15 minutes to knock him from the podium, and after 14 minutes of "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God.

As has been pointed out, the law that was the OT is unconstitutional and has not been taken off the books for various reasons - all the same, one cannot be prosecuted for it.

Then it would appear that if the professor was talking to God, then he believed God existed, and he should have expected a whuppin, cause "thems were fightin' words."

So if the professor had said "If God exists, may He strike me dead" you'd fall out of your chair laughing if the Marine had pulled out an M-9 and shot him to death?

JamesDillon

28th January 2007, 10:20 AM

A state's statement of intent not to prosecute, IMHO, is utterly irrelevant and without any merit. Even aside from the fact that people and policies change (as you point out)... people also lie. Or prosecute when it is politically expedient.
I agree. No estoppel against the government, and all that. So I would say that a plaintiff would generally have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute under which he might be prosecuted, even if no charges have yet been filed, and even if the state has declared an intent not to enforce the law in question.

saizai

28th January 2007, 02:37 PM

Actually, here's an idea: file a civil tort against the state, for causing emotional distress.

You're an atheist residing in Massachusetts, and you regularly blaspheme. You also happen to be a very nervous person, and you are constantly worrying about whether someone will arrest and imprison / fine you.

Or, you're an atheist and, as part of doing business, regularly blaspheme. Therefore this law is illegally impeding on your right to go about your business.

So you sue both for damages and for judicial repeal.

ceo_esq

28th January 2007, 03:41 PM

I agree. No estoppel against the government, and all that. So I would say that a plaintiff would generally have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute under which he might be prosecuted, even if no charges have yet been filed, and even if the state has declared an intent not to enforce the law in question.

A few years ago, the Ninth Circuit dealt with a case (Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000)) in which some landlords had challenged state and municipal housing laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights to free exercise and free speech. There hadn't been any enforcement action against the plaintiffs, but they sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court found that the claims were justiciable (and also found for the plaintiffs on the free exercise claim). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated on the grounds that the dispute was not ripe for review. (The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari.) From the en banc appellate opinion:

Whether the question is viewed as one of standing or ripeness, the Constitution mandates that prior to our exercise of jurisdiction there exist a constitutional "case or controversy," that the issues presented are "definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract." Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 93, 89 L. Ed. 2072, 65 S. Ct. 1483 (1945). In assuring that this jurisdictional prerequisite is satisfied, we consider whether the plaintiffs face "a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute's operation or enforcement," Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 60 L. Ed. 2d 895, 99 S. Ct. 2301 (1979), or whether the alleged injury is too "imaginary" or "speculative" to support jurisdiction. Id. We need not delve into the nuances of the distinction between the injury in fact prong of standing and the constitutional component of ripeness: in this case, the analysis is the same.

We have held that neither the mere existence of a proscriptive statute nor a generalized threat of prosecution satisfies the "case or controversy" requirement. See, e.g., San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 1996). In a somewhat circular argument, the landlords contend that they are presently injured because they must violate the housing laws to remain true to their religious beliefs, even though their beliefs counsel against violating secular law. This argument is essentially another way of saying that the mere existence of a statute can create a constitutionally sufficient direct injury, a position that we have rejected before and decline to adopt now. See id. ("'the mere existence of a statute . . . is not sufficient to create a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III.'" (quoting Stoianoff v. Montana, 695 F.2d 1214, 1223 (9th Cir. 1983))). Rather, there must be a "genuine threat of imminent prosecution." 98 F.3d at 1126.

In evaluating the genuineness of a claimed threat of prosecution, we look to whether the plaintiffs have articulated a "concrete plan" to violate the law in question, whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, and the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute. Id. at 1126-27. Applying these three factors here, we conclude that the landlords' claimed injury - their fear of enforcement or prosecution - fails the constitutional component of the ripeness inquiry.

Now, the analysis may differ somewhat in other circuits. Yet I have to imagine that decades and decades of complete non-enforcement of a statute would weigh heavily with any court in evaluating whether there a justiciable controversy existed.

Foster Zygote

28th January 2007, 07:18 PM

Wow, I leave town for the weekend and Huntster gets himself suspended again. He's right about one thing: My wife's grandfather was a great guy with the wisdom to recognize an ignorant bully when he saw one. He knew what the values he was fighting for, that his friends died for, were really all about. He knew that in our society people have the right to think freely and to believe things that other people think are wrong and not be persecuted for it. Huntster, on the other hand, thinks it's a hoot to imagine one of the guardians of that freedom using violence to silence someone who's ideas he doesn't like.

My whole time on this forum I have never seen fit to place anyone on ignore. But I'm dusting it off now so I can place Hunster on my ignore list.

JamesDillon

28th January 2007, 07:58 PM

Now, the analysis may differ somewhat in other circuits. Yet I have to imagine that decades and decades of complete non-enforcement of a statute would weigh heavily with any court in evaluating whether there a justiciable controversy existed.

That certainly sounds reasonable, but am I wrong in remembering that the plaintiff in Bowers v. Hardwick had not been prosecuted under Georgia's anti-sodomy law, but only alleged that, as a practicing homosexual, he feared he would be prosecuted? As I read the quote from the 9th Circuit case you cite, it appears that, unlike Bowers, the plaintiffs were actually complying with the law (i.e., were not discriminating on the basis of marital status), so their argument that they might be subject to prosecution was somewhat more speculative. To return to the Massachusetts example, if, say, a local atheist who routinely makes "blasphemous" statements in public, in clear violation of the statute, were to bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the anti-blasphemy law, wouldn't the fact that he has already taken actions which constitute a violation of that law render his claim concrete enough to establish standing?

BillyJoe

29th January 2007, 12:33 AM

Bad timing then. Looks like I've wasted a good sermon, unless Huntster is unusually diligent about looking up old posts after a hiatus.My understanding is that he can still read anything posted here, but he can't post any replies.

...I think unbelievers can sometimes be persuaded but I question the need to do so in a great many cases; I think belief is overrated relative to actions (a believing bigot is more in need of teaching than a humanistically moral nonbeliever); and I think too many Christians have forgotten that disciples are supposed to learn as well as teach.Sounds good, Myriad. But does this mean that you don't think unbelievers are automatically confined to hell in the afterlife (lots of assumptions here, I know)

ceo_esq

29th January 2007, 12:54 AM

That certainly sounds reasonable, but am I wrong in remembering that the plaintiff in Bowers v. Hardwick had not been prosecuted under Georgia's anti-sodomy law, but only alleged that, as a practicing homosexual, he feared he would be prosecuted? As I read the quote from the 9th Circuit case you cite, it appears that, unlike Bowers, the plaintiffs were actually complying with the law (i.e., were not discriminating on the basis of marital status), so their argument that they might be subject to prosecution was somewhat more speculative. To return to the Massachusetts example, if, say, a local atheist who routinely makes "blasphemous" statements in public, in clear violation of the statute, were to bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the anti-blasphemy law, wouldn't the fact that he has already taken actions which constitute a violation of that law render his claim concrete enough to establish standing?

I thought Hardwick had actually been arrested (but never tried) on a sodomy charge.

I don't think, under the Ninth Circuit standard, that being in present violation of the statute is enough to confer standing or that being in present compliance with the statute is enough to remove standing. Actual (or imminent) violation is only one part of the analysis. Practically speaking, what makes prosecution of your hypothetical atheist under a blasphemy statute not genuinely imminent, it seems to me, is really the third factor: "the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute."

I recall that at the trial and circuit level, Hardwick was joined by two other plaintiffs - a straight couple. The district court and the court of appeals both found that their claim was not justiciable, and they didn't join in the Supreme Court proceeding. Though I'm not sure, I suspect that part of what killed their standing argument was a history of non-enforcement against heterosexuals which made the threat of prosecution of the straight couple seem remote.

Foster Zygote

29th January 2007, 06:10 AM

I've changed my mind. After a night of sleep (I read the posts that got on my nerves following a six hour drive) and some sound advice I've decided not to use my ignore list after all. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not that I think I'll end up like T'ai Chi with, seemingly, more people on ignore than not, but his own abuse of the feature illustrates why I don't like it. Even ideas that offend me add to my understanding, if not the ideas themselves, then the insight into the minds of those who hold them is surely informative.

BillyJoe

29th January 2007, 12:41 PM

Good for you. :)

CFLarsen

29th January 2007, 01:15 PM

I've changed my mind. After a night of sleep (I read the posts that got on my nerves following a six hour drive) and some sound advice I've decided not to use my ignore list after all. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not that I think I'll end up like T'ai Chi with, seemingly, more people on ignore than not,

T'ai Chi does not have one single poster on ignore. There's absolutely no chance he would want to miss out on just one comment about him.

but his own abuse of the feature illustrates why I don't like it. Even ideas that offend me add to my understanding, if not the ideas themselves, then the insight into the minds of those who hold them is surely informative.

Absolutely. We should get rid of the ignore function altogether.