PDA

View Full Version : Cross Burning


ZBomber
01-26-2003, 12:45 AM
What are your views on Cross Burning?

I believe it is not right. i think You should not do anything to someone elses religion that is very disrespectful.
Do you think it should be Legal?

El Sitherino
01-26-2003, 12:55 AM
i find it confusing that the kkk is burning crosses yet claim to be christians, seems kinda sacreligious.

Darth Groovy
01-26-2003, 12:57 AM
Well, freedom of speech enables them to do this within the realm of the law. However freedom of speech also allows me to stand there and call of them a bunch of friggin morons.

ZBomber
01-26-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
i find it confusing that the kkk is burning crosses yet claim to be christians, seems kinda sacreligious.

Yup. Thats makes sence.
"We love you jesus. Now we are going to burn a symbol of you" :rolleyes:

El Sitherino
01-26-2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Darth Groovy
Well, freedom of speech enables them to do this within the realm of the law. However freedom of speech also allows me to stand there and call of them a bunch of friggin morons. lol. yup wonder if law allows me to piss on their sheets? i think ill look that up. if not i could go up there and put the fire out. wait isnt the cross burning a safety hazard and like against fire safety regulations.

Taos
01-26-2003, 01:08 AM
I think that it is quite disrespectful to do that......


Originally posted by Darth Groovy
Well, freedom of speech enables them to do this within the realm of the law. However freedom of speech also allows me to stand there and call of them a bunch of friggin morons.

I agree with grooves. :)

-s/<itzo-
01-26-2003, 01:50 AM
It should be prohibited and illegal. With what a burning cross implies, the only statement of expression I can see it expressing is one of hatred and the desire to intimidate. I see no reason to constitutionally protect the rights of expression for a symbol of hatred.

I feel that too many people call for their "constitutional rights" to get away with doing anything they want whenever they want.

If KKK members are so proud of their white heritage, why don't they drop the hoods and show their faces.

To me it just seem so hypocritical.

ET Warrior
01-26-2003, 02:16 AM
I dont think it's cool for them to do it....but they do have the right to..If they aren't hurting anybody then they can. "My right to swing my fist ends right were the other man's nose begins" Which means basically we have the rights to flex our freedoms of speech and expression and assembly so long as nobody is getting hurt by it.

Now if they strapped people to them and set them on fire.....THAT's another story.....

Luc Solar
01-26-2003, 03:28 AM
I do not think it should be illegal.
I think law's are not meant to govern things like this.

F.ex. in Thailand you can not rip a bill (money) or show any kind of disrespect for the royal family or they'll throw you in jail for life (slight exaggeration). That's a good example of going overboard with regulating.

People should be allowed to be jerks without The Law intervening. Otherwise there is no factual freedom.

If we want freedom, we must also tolerate the jerks who abuse it. I don't see a way around this.

BCanr2d2
01-26-2003, 03:40 AM
Since when is a cross implied to be religious.....

Remember what Jesus was meant to be left to die on? A cross, before this time, and for a long time after, they were implements of killing, not of religion.

So, if people are burning a cross, then do not imply that they are being sacreligious. It is inevitable that people will get upset when organisations take up symbols that are simple shapes, or of impliments that others have a different interpretation of..

C'jais
01-26-2003, 06:21 AM
BCan has a very good point.

Forbidding cross burning is probably stepping on the satanist's toes since the cross is also holy to them.

Whether it promotes hatred is fundamentally irrelevant. Everything provokes and instills hatred in the wrong people.

It's a piece of wood. Burning. Its symbolic meaning only has any relevance to Christians. In my religion, burning cornfields is offensive to me, since corn is the symbol of my faith.

That it's illegal only shows the government is catering to the biggest religion's needs. That the "In God we trust" was inserted into the pledge of allegiance only shows there is no equality and religious rights in America. Buddhists and atheists are pissed that they have to acknowledge a god to be deemed worthy Americans. Talk about indoctrination.

griff38
01-26-2003, 09:29 AM
I think it should be legal, but not on someone elses property.


The reason the KKK burned crosses was to instill terror on a people only asking to be treated equally. If some people get together in the middle of the woods and burn a cross it's no big deal. If they burn one for other people to see they are commiting an act of terror.

Tyrion
01-26-2003, 10:18 AM
I'm pretty sure that's against the law.

Or else I could torch all of your lawns.:D

ShadowTemplar
01-29-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Darth Groovy
Well, freedom of speech enables them to do this within the realm of the law. However freedom of speech also allows me to stand there and call of them a bunch of friggin morons.

False: Freedom of speech allows you to call it a moronic act. Big differance: If you call someone a moron you attack his person, which is illegal (at least in Denmark), assuming that you cannot back it with proof. If, on the other hand, you call someone's actions moronic you flak the action, not the person, which fits within the realm of the law.

PS: The reason that I'm kinda touchy about this is that it nearly got my arse wiped from these forums once...

yup wonder if law allows me to piss on their sheets?

I'm pretty sure that they could nail you for indecent exposure or something...

It should be prohibited and illegal. With what a burning cross implies, the only statement of expression I can see it expressing is one of hatred and the desire to intimidate.

I could see in it a wish to distance oneself from one of the most genocidal and oppressive regimes imaginable: Christianity.

I see no reason to constitutionally protect the rights of expression for a symbol of hatred.

Then you must also ban the cross itself. There are few symbols as blood-seeped as that (save perhaps the symbols of the other two factions of Judaism (Islam and Judaism), and the Rune of Khorne (Blood for the Blood God)).

I feel that too many people call for their "constitutional rights" to get away with doing anything they want whenever they want.

The Civil Duties (there is no such thing as "rights": Every time you instate a right, you basically impose a duty or restriction, I have found that this veiw makes more sense: You can demand you "rights" all you like, but that doesn't help if everyone shrinks their duties towards you) is one of the most important aspects of an enlightened society. Abuse of these duties is therefore one of the worst things that you can do, IMO. But, ultimately, the burden of proof is on the guy who says that something is an abuse of the Civil Duties.

If KKK members are so proud of their white heritage, why don't they drop the hoods and show their faces.

To me it just seem so hypocritical.

LOL. Right. But then again, KKK members, as a rule, don't seem to be the sharpest knives of the drawer.

"It sounds like a Klan rally, it looks like a Klan rally, and it smells like a Klan rally. With or without the carnival custumes." - Missisipi Burning

F.ex. in Thailand you can not rip a bill (money)

Actually that's also illegal in Denmark: The money is the property of the state. You only own its value, like with most software: You have the right to use it, but you don't own it.

But I don't think that it's being enforced (neither the part about the money or the part about the software).

People should be allowed to be jerks without The Law intervening. Otherwise there is no factual freedom.

If we want freedom, we must also tolerate the jerks who abuse it. I don't see a way around this.

Yes... and no: As long as they do not harm or insult other people (though there is no reason for forbidding people to insult other people's beliefs/opinions, and this is usually not done either).

Also notice that there is a subtle difference between insulting and being insulted.

So, if people are burning a cross, then do not imply that they are being sacreligious. It is inevitable that people will get upset when organisations take up symbols that are simple shapes, or of impliments that others have a different interpretation of..

I think that you are missing a point here: It is commonly acknowledged that the cross is the symbol of Christianity, like the Hook Cross (or whatever it's called -It's called a Swastika -C'jais - Aaarg, den meresproglige slår til igen - ShadowTemplar) is the symbol of Nazism. So burning a cross is, it is commonly accepted, an offence to Christianity, whereas burning a calendre (remember that each day has a name of religious importance) is not an act of blasphemy, because it is not commonly accepted that the days of the week have religious significance.

Whether it is justifyable that genocidal organisations (or, for that matter, any organisations) monopolize the use of some symbols, though, is another question. Personally I find it despicable that I cannot wear a silver cross as a piece of jewelry without being mistaken for a Christian, or that a woman can not wear a towel on her head without being mistaken for a Muslim.

In my religion, burning cornfields is offensive to me, since corn is the symbol of my faith.

And it's bad for the environment, or so I've heard.

I'm pretty sure that's against the law.

Or else I could torch all of your lawns.

No. That would be vandalism, which is illegal.

I think it should be legal, but not on someone elses property.

I'm pretty sure that if you do it one someone's turf, then he can tell you to beat it, with the law at his back. And I'm pretty sure that you can do it on your own turf, and nobody can come after you for it. I think that this is about doing it in public areas.

The reason the KKK burned crosses was to instill terror on a people only asking to be treated equally. If some people get together in the middle of the woods and burn a cross it's no big deal. If they burn one for other people to see they are commiting an act of terror.

Since the burning cross has been monopolized by the KKK, yes. See above.

On the other hand, defacing a crucifix or some other object of faith can't, and shouldn't, possibly be outlawed: Just like it shouldn't be outlawed to burn a flag.

Gee, looks like I've done a Redwing. Sovvy.

Pnut_Man
01-29-2003, 09:48 PM
From what I've learned and believe, a major message of Christianity is to love and respect your nieghbor as you love and respect yourself. Burning a symbol of Christianity would mean to burn the fundamental laws of love.

C'jais
01-30-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
From what I've learned and believe, a major message of Christianity is to love and respect your nieghbor as you love and respect yourself. Burning a symbol of Christianity would mean to burn the fundamental laws of love.

It is an enourmous mistake to assume the "fundamental laws of love" originated with Christianity.

Religions before Christianity practiced it.

Without religion it would still be there. It's only logical that our society can only hold itself together if people have this built-in mechanism of not killing others (because it'd lead to social stigma) and to treat others well (the same).

To think that Christianity should take the credit for this "invention" is utterly horrid and false.

Katarn07
01-30-2003, 04:19 PM
I am against it, but it can't be illegalized...

There is alot of religous remarks and stuff to other religions, that the majority of the people's religion can't be protected by laws....

Freedom of Speech and Religion.

Luke Skywalker
01-30-2003, 08:41 PM
It should be allowed and thats why it is. The cross only has symbolic value to those that apply value to it. In reality it is simply two pieces of wood nailed or glued together. Now if you burn that cross who the hell cares? Wow they burned a cross. Darn. If you are religious then you KNOW that the cross they burned was not "holy" at all. It was never identified or used like that so therefore logically they should be allowed to waste their time setting things on fire. The only person that should have a problem with it is the person that is doing it. And about that being Hate Speech. Ok lets assume you have that view. In this case my arguement would be banning crosses altogether because if I was jewish I could take the cross very offensively and treat it as insensitivity and hatred towards my beliefs. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it should be illegal :rolleyes:

FunClown
01-31-2003, 09:02 AM
If you guys don't like the KKK I suggest not eating KFC, you know which group Colonel Sanders belonged to?

I don't like the KKK and I'm white. Actually the KKK is probably one of the few groups that would attract a lynch mob in my country.

ShadowTemplar
01-31-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
From what I've learned and believe, a major message of Christianity is to love and respect your nieghbor as you love and respect yourself. Burning a symbol of Christianity would mean to burn the fundamental laws of love.

Will someone tell this one what the Inquisition is (notice the present tense)?

Freedom of Speech and Religion.

These two are mutually exclusive: Fundamentalists often see statements of fact as attacks on their faith (see the Creation thread).

In this case my arguement would be banning crosses altogether because if I was jewish I could take the cross very offensively and treat it as insensitivity and hatred towards my beliefs.

Yes! Someone whom I can agree with. Let pop the champaigne. Only the cross does not only signify hatefulness towards Jews, but also towards Muslims and other heathens/heretics.

Luke Skywalker
01-31-2003, 07:05 PM
Yes! Someone whom I can agree with. Let pop the champaigne. Only the cross does not only signify hatefulness towards Jews, but also towards Muslims and other heathens/heretics.

Exactlly. You can't just go out and say that something is wrong and claim you have your "god" on your side. I could go out shouting in the streets and say God is Dead! and you shouldn't be able to damn thing about it if you want catholic schools and (in america) have everyone pledge alligance to a god.... the only thing that could happen would me getting charged with distrubing the pace but thats aside from my point. You cannot claim hate speech against any religious act and if you do then I should be able to say that Christianity is hate towards myself and countless others. Want to burn a cross? Go right ahead as long as you are doing it on your time and property then I don't give a damn and neither should anyone else.

Pnut_Man
01-31-2003, 08:29 PM
About my previous post above: I did not mean to say that Christianity was the start of the "fundamentals of love". I simply wanted to say that Christianity symbolizes peace + love; destroying symbols of peace + love aren't that great..

vegietto
02-01-2003, 12:43 AM
master i think cross burning is very evil if they love god then why do they do it but like u said groovy they have freedom of speech so theyu can get away with it but like u said i can call them a bunch of frickin idiots

__CKY__
02-02-2003, 03:24 PM
I Agree with all of you. But Rebels on the other hand...

ShadowTemplar
02-04-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
Christianity symbolizes peace + love; destroying symbols of peace + love aren't that great..

Tell that to the citizens of Jerusalem... And the victims of the Inquisition... And Copernicus Oh, and while we're at it:

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men." Matt 5:13

"Our Father who art in heaven, [...] Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, [...] on earth." Matt 6:9&10

"Beware of false prophets, [...] By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [...] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." Matt 7:15-17 & Matt 7:19

From The American Standard Bible (you have to standardize it? Now what does that say about its credibility?)

So. When someone has lost his faith then he should be "cast out and trodden under foot of men." Very loving.

And there should be an earthly empire to "Our Father who art in heaven"? And Its will must be done on earth. Sounds very tolerant. [/stinging sarcasm]

And those "that bringeth not forth good fruit" should be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." So compassionate...

they have freedom of speech so theyu can get away with it but like u said i can call them a bunch of frickin idiots

No, but you can say that their actions or beliefs are idiotic. There is a difference.

Psydan
02-04-2003, 10:11 PM
Did you know that the word "Love" or a variation of it is mentioned 442 times in the Bible? Peace or a variation of it is mentioned 423 times. The Bible says:
(Matthew 5:44-45)
"44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
(Matthew 19:19)
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
(Romans 12:18)
"18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
I don't see how you can say that Christianity isn't loving or peaceful.