Am I being racist?

[Zakk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm

This kind of crap has me riled probably as much as the American gun troubles rile you guys.  I've studied Islam a bit at University, and a lot of it centered on the prophet mohammed.  Let's just say that if you don't know about mohammed, you should google him some time, and then see if you would want to follow a religion based upon his 'rather unique view of the world'.

I'd like to hear some other opinions on this, but I can't see why we need to add ANYTHING muslim or Islam to our laws and/or Constitution.  I feel we've got everything covered pretty well, and none of our kids are convinced that they'll get 12 virgins if they blow themselves up.  Am I way off? 

I think this whole post would be considered blasphemy in Islam (mohammed's teachings don't hold up very well to any kind of scrutiny, so it's a sin punishable by death to even question them).   

[ChadTower]

With the sense of entitlement people have here in the US, they expect thingsfrom the gov't far less likely than 12 virgins.

[Dartful Dodger]

Without even reading your post.

Yes.

[ChadTower]

I also feel that babystabbers are bad.  F them.

I'll bring the whole thing full circle right now:

They're just like the Nazis.

[Stingray]

I'm a firm believer in the separation of church & state so I'm not sure I even understand the rationale behind allowing religious groups to have their own justice systems. There should be one justice system that applies to the entire nation IMO. This is the first I've heard about this particular aspect of Canadian law, so I very well may be missing something.

-S

[ChadTower]

If I commit a crime with a harsh penalty in one religion, can I then convert to another religion that carries a lesser penalty?

Religion is manufactured, you cannot base law on it.

[Grasshopper]

You're criticising aspects of a religion rather than a race. So no you're not being racist. Unfortunately race relations organisations often fail to make this distinction.

I'm astonished to hear that in Canada Jews can settle their civil disputes in a religious court. Is that true? And if so how does it work? For example can a Jew sue a non-Jew and insist the trial takes place in a religious court?

[ChadTower]

Unfortunately race relations organisations often fail to make this distinction.

They don't fail, they purposely ignore it.  It is in the organization's best interests for there to be a racial issue, so they make sure that there is one.  Racial discimination cries by organizations are often no more than bully tactics to get something from whoever is being decried.

[shmokes]

Included in the people being bullied by those playing the race card here are all the christian, atheist, bhudist, jewish, agnostic, mormon, hindu and jedi asians and middle easterners.  It ain't a race issue.

[patrickl]

Actually in the Netherlands they are finally cracking down on a extremist christian political party. Women cannot become a full member in this party. They are considered lesser beings. So it's not just muslim parties. Finally they justice department has decided that they are discriminating so they won't get state funding anymore.

Pim Fortuyn (our killed would be prime minister) called the muslim religion (or culture) "backward" because in some areas it resembles the christian culture of 50 years ago (ie women oppression). He got a lot of heat for that from the left wing politicians (actually he used a word that could also be interpreted as "retarded"). Unfortunately he's now dead (killed by an animal rights freak).

[ChadTower]

For sure... any organization that would exclude hot chicks should be banned.

[Crazy Cooter]

Yes.  Very much so.

You guys should have put up a stink against having religious courts, now the floodgates are open.

btw, your college professor is a moron.  Muhammad deserves no more criticism than Jesus.  In fact (ironically), while christianity rejects Muhammad, Islam does not reject Jesus... and if your teacher said anything about Muhammad wanting kids to strap bombs to themselves, then they shouldn't be teaching.  Muhammad actually turned people away from the belief in many gods to the belief in one.  He also unified the area politically, socially, and economically.  He also insisted on "civilized" warfare and would not have endorsed sucide bombers anymore than Jesus would have.

[NoOne=NBA=]

It's not racist at all to support that EVERYONE be held to the same, generally agreed-upon laws.
That is how a TRULY colorblind society should function.

That's why I was against the "Penalties for shooting lawyers should be worse than shooting the average citizen" law they tried (or may have successfully) passed in California, in the wake of a law office shooting.

I am against the "drug-free" zones we have up here in the Northwest, where it's worse for drug dealers to sell within "x" feet of a school, or public park.
The guy either WAS, or was NOT selling drugs--sentence him accordingly.

I am against ALL of the "hate crime" laws.
Killing is killing is killing.
It either WAS justified, or it was NOT justified.
If it was NOT justified, then it should be dealt with the exact same degree--regardless of WHO got killed, or WHY they got killed.
If it was an accident, it's manslaughter.
If it was intentional, it's murder....PERIOD.

Getting back to the topic at hand, my thought is that, if you like the law elsewhere so much, you have two choices:
1) Lobby to change the law for EVERYONE where you are currently living.
2) GO BACK THERE!!!!!!
Changing the law for "some" people is assinine.

Following that logic, how long will it be before it's OK for "aryan" whites to kill "non-whites" because it's "part of their religion", and they have to be tried in "aryan" courts?
Bet that would send shivers down the spine of the people supporting Sharia law, Jewish law, and African law up there.
I bet there's a few "displaced" Klansmen from New Orleans that would LOVE to move up there, if you passed that law.

Trying my best to NOT sound like Forrest Gump here, my Mom taught me that there are two kinds of people in the world.
There are people that ARE Manually Censored, and people that are NOT Manually Censored.
The color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their education, their occupation, etc... are all non-factors.
It is their ACTIONS that tell the story of who they are.

[CheffoJeffo]

The article in question is misleading and out of date.

The attempted introduction of Sharia was an end-run around an Ontario arbitration law (14 years old) that allowed binding decisions to be made based on religious law in the matters of family  (e.g. divorce and custody) if both parties agreed. Any decisions were subject to the charter of rights and freedoms and the greater legal system.

All debates, discussion and arguments aside, the Ontario govenment has already announced that it will "prevent the use of religious law to settle divorce and custody disputes in a binding fashion."

Cheers.

EDIT for typo and clarification -- I was against the law when it passed and am glad to see it being struck down.

[Zakk]

Yes.

[Crazy Cooter]

No apology needed, I'm not Muslim.

You can't expect non-biased information in the page you linked to.  It's title is: "Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part I".  It's like quoting Aleister Crowley on the importance of monogomy.

btw, Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet.  Same with Muhammad (Whom they believe was the last "true prophet" sent by god to clarify what the others had not).  PHD or not, the guy left out some pretty important information that can be found in any encyclopedia.  I'd check to see what online university he got his degree from.

[Zakk]

True true, it was just the first page that came up that kind of demonstrated what I was talking about (well, to the extreme). 

I just wonder how forgiving they would be if things were reversed.  Say I wanted to go to Pakistan and start a yearly halloween dance in public schools (since they have had all references to Halloween banned in our schools), and ban the Islamic prayers (since I don't want my kids exposed to it, for example).  How would that go over?

I guess it comes down to: I don't think the religion in the middle east is working well for them, and I don't want that, and the resulting conflicts, to come here.  I don't mind the people at all, even though I like the 'westernized' second generations much better (like girls/women who don't have to wear jawa outfits).  That's why I don't think it's really a matter of race for me.  It's not appearance or color of skin, it's the culure shock that does me in.  Now if you'll excuse me I have to go play Xbox with my neighbor mohammed mohammed mohammed smith.

[Crazy Cooter]

That religion works just as well as Judism in Israel.  They have their suicide bombers too.  It's not the people or the religions that are scary, it's all these nuts running around.  We've got them, they've got them, everyone has them.

[shmokes]

I am against ALL of the "hate crime" laws.
Killing is killing is killing.
It either WAS justified, or it was NOT justified.
If it was NOT justified, then it should be dealt with the exact same degree--regardless of WHO got killed, or WHY they got killed.
If it was an accident, it's manslaughter.
If it was intentional, it's murder....PERIOD.

I disagree.  If criminal law were concerned with the actual victim, instead of viewing the crime as it victimizes society as a whole, maybe.  All things being equal one victim's life should be worth roughly the same as another's.  But hate crimes are more than that. 

If I loan you my rare sword in Everquest and you turn around and sell it on Ebay for $700, I might come over and stab you to death.  It was a crime of passion.  There was a "reasonable" motive, aside from, "you are alive, and the only way to fix that is by making you dead."  Hate crimes also lend themselves to mob mentality, and stimulates oppression in general on huge portions of society.  When a person gets killed for being a cashier in the wrong place or for performing an abortion, or in a random act of violence, or in a family dispute, or because some crazy lady thinks that god told her to drown her five kids, you hear about it, you think, "jesus, that's horrible," and you go on with your life.  When a gay high school kid gets tied to a fense and beat to death with the butt end of a pistol, merely for existing, it plants fear into thousands of people.  He was killed WITH MOTIVE but, unlike most murders, that motive did not disappear with his death.  It applies to every other person like him who also are guilty of the crime of existence.  It's a death threat to millions of people.  When a cross is burned on someone's lawn or a brick is tossed through their window that says "nig.ger" it isn't a simple act of vandalism.  It contains an implicit threat, and contributes to hatred that oppresses millions of people, as well as the national economy.

If hate crimes are a bigger drain on society than their non-hate counterparts, they should be treated as such, just like grand theft is treated more severely than petty theft.  It's not lust a matter of stealing is stealing is stealing, chop off the hand.

[paigeoliver]

All crimes are hate crimes.

When the clerk at the gas station is shot during the robbery, is that not a crime of existance? Was the clerk not shot simply because they existed?

Motive should be absolutely irrelavent.

And how does one determine if a crime is a hate crime?

I might go off killing Korean people because I hate them. Or I could go off killing Korean people because I love Korean people and want to make myself a Korean person suit.

I personally think both motives are terrible, actually the second one might even be worse.

What if I love gay people, but tie some gay high schooler to a post and beat him to death because I don't like HIM.

What if I try to drive my black neighbor out of the neighborhood, not because he is black, but because he has a barking dog that never shuts up?

I'm sorry, I just can't see how the motive effects how terrible the crime is.

And truthfully, how many VIOLENT crimes TRULY have hatred of a race or culture as their primary motivation? Very few.

[ChadTower]

Actually, he was a PHD, and hardly a moron.

[Stingray]

Actually, he was a PHD, and hardly a moron.

I know several people with Doctorate degrees.  They are some of the dumbest people I know.  They have no concept of what it takes to work, produce, and survive in real society because they have spent their entire lives in the artificial reality of a University.  No common sense whatsoever.

Very intelligent, hard working, dumb people.

I agree. There are several PHDs where I work. They're just scatterbrained dingalings who happened to have the financial backing to stay in school for a ridiculous amount of time. I wouldn't trust any of them enough to take my dog for a walk.

-S

[RayB]

Actually, he was a PHD, and hardly a moron.

[Zakk]

Hey, I didn't hire the guy 

I also didn't ask him to change my alternator.  The whole class was theory, so by definition he should have been fine to teach it.  It was some kind of history class, and what it attempted to do was take 'god' out of religion and look at the historical 'facts' behind religious beliefs/myths.  It was pretty interesting really, I think it went into things like people who thought they had found eden or noah's ark, etc etc.  Of course, it was more than 10 years ago, and I don't even know what mark I got in it.

I also don't know why I'm defending PHD's    However, I disagree with Chads (inevitable) black and white view on it.  I will agree that some of them are 'booksmart idiots', but there are some of them who are very intelligent, in theory and application.  I might as well say "I know a Chad, and all chads are close minded, negative windbags". 

Doctors do the same thing you know, stay in school for rediculous amounts of time, and many of them are 'booksmart'.  Who would you trust to remove that tumour in your brain, your street-savvy mechanic, or maybe the guy you buy your weed from...he's a man of the world.

[ChadTower]

I might as well say "I know a Chad, and all chads are close minded, negative windbags".

[TheVengeance]

I might as well say "I know a Chad, and all chads are close minded, negative windbags".

[ChadTower]

That joke sucked when it was new.

[TheVengeance]

That joke sucked when it was new.

ahhh!

I almost forgot to mention that most, or pehaps only ONE is just a drunken f

[ChadTower]

Dude, are you on ritalin? 

[TheVengeance]

Dude, are you on ritalin?

[ChadTower]

Creepy.

[shmokes]

All crimes are hate crimes.

When the clerk at the gas station is shot during the robbery, is that not a crime of existance? Was the clerk not shot simply because they existed?

   No, he was shot because he was standing between the robber and the money.  He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The killer might become best friends with the cashier if they'd met under different circumstances.

And how does one determine if a crime is a hate crime?

This ain't rocket science.  Look it up in the damned dictionary.  It's not like a hate crime is some kind of bizarre, abstract concept.

Hate Crime:  A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group

I might go off killing Korean people because I hate them. Or I could go off killing Korean people because I love Korean people and want to make myself a Korean person suit.

Paige, you're equivocating on two distinct meanings of love/hate.  It may simply be from inexperience with rhetoric and/or formal logic, but if you actually understand what you're doing cut it out.  I love Indian cuisine.  I love my wife.  That doesn't mean that I would like to eat my wife.  Words have multiple meanings.  You don't get to just pick and choose the meaning your going to go with in any given context.  Let me give you an example that might make what I'm saying more clear:

If thomas gives Marie a ring, then Thomas and Marie will be engaged.  Thomas did give Marie a ring.  In fact, he phoned her just the other night.  Therefore, Thomas and Marie are engaged.

You can't just switch between word meanings in the middle of your argument.

What if I love gay people, but tie some gay high schooler to a post and beat him to death because I don't like HIM.

What if I try to drive my black neighbor out of the neighborhood, not because he is black, but because he has a barking dog that never shuts up?

   Then it's not a hate crime, is it?  Please refer to the definition of a hate crime.  Nobody is saying that given identical circumstances a white person killing a black person deserves a harsher punishment than a white person killing a white person. 

I'm sorry, I just can't see how the motive effects how terrible the crime is.

American law has always considered a person's state of mind in determining the severity of a crime.  If a wife walks in on her husband and his mistress, and in a fit of rage grabs a knife sitting on the bedside table and stabs them to death she gets second degree murder.  If, on the other hand, a wife knows that her husband will be with his mistress, so plants the knife on the bedside table earlier in the day and goes in and performs exactly the same murders in exactly the same way, it's first degree murder.  It's called malice aforethought.  The act of murder was identical in both cases, but the punishment is worse for one because of the killer's state of mind while doing the killing.

This doesn't just apply to murder.  If I get caught with a half ounce of weed I'm going to be charged with posession.  If I get caught with a half pound of weed I'm going to be charged with posession with intent to sell.  The latter carries a much more severe penalty, even though I haven't actually sold any weed yet.

And truthfully, how many VIOLENT crimes TRULY have hatred of a race or culture as their primary motivation? Very few.

   So?  How often is genocide attempted?  Should we just let genocide go because it's rare?

edit:  had to fix some quote tags.

[shmokes]

Drew, I owe you an apology for my last post.   

[ChadTower]

[shmokes]

Agreed.  I replace my example with bank robbery.

edit:  Re-reading your post I get the impression that you might have misunderstood my reference to genocide.  I was giving it as an example of a crime that doesn't happen very often, not as an example of a hate crime.  Still, bank robbery works.

[ChadTower]

I didn't misunderstand it.  I used it as a chance to mock you.

You have been mocked.

Mocky, mocky.

[shmokes]

My bad.

[NoOne=NBA=]

Why is it worse to kill a particular member of society because of their skin color, than it is to kill the SAME person during a robbery?

The penalty should be the same--regardless of WHY you killed them.

[Dartful Dodger]

Why is it worse to kill a particular member of society because of their skin color, than it is to kill the SAME person during a robbery?

The penalty should be the same--regardless of WHY you killed them.

You're driving down the street and a black pedestrian walks out in front of your car, you try to stop, but you hit him, he dies.

You're driving down the street and a black pedestrian walks out in front of your car, you stop pull over, tie him to the back of your car and drag him a couple of miles, he dies.

If you don't understand why the second one is worse, I won't be able to explain it to you.

[ChadTower]

That is a foolish example.

One is an accident.

One is a malicious and brutal murder.