Should fundamentalists be legally responsible

[RYoung]

My topic is a rather lengthy one and may get people a little riled up. But here goes.

We are all familiar with the widespread prejudice facing RPG gamers everywhere, that RPG's of any kind promote suicide, drug-use etc.
Now I have been reading quite a bit about this recently (particularily regardingan upcoming episode of the NAVY CIS show) anyways...

My question is how responsible can we make book-burning hate-mongering speakers responsible for the hate.crime or extra cost to taxpayers over the issues thay bring up or preach about in their particular communities.

My example comes for the following article entitled the "satan scare"
http://www.roleplaygames.about.com/cs/controversy/index.htm
now the question I pose is I assume that these people are immune to the law because of their plead of "freedom of religion". Does anyone see a way around this problem or does it seem like anyone who wraps themselves in the bible or in a flag is impervious to anything....

Rachel

 

[Malohaut]

Just wanted to add my 2 cents while I tried to understand the exact issue you are questioning. So if my reply is not an answer you're looking for, I do apologize.

People have the freedom to speak and share whatever they feel is important. People also have the freedom to follow whatever 'religion' they desire. This is a God given freedom as He does not force people to follow Him. As for the influences these speakers have, that depends on the education and intelligence of the listener.

As for responsibility, I think it first starts at home. Parents should be made responsible for their children and the type of material that is exposed to them, or to at least guide their children and help them to learn how to handle such exposures.

If an upbringing is well educated, and a child is taught how to make choices based on morale and truth, then that child will become someone who will be less influenced and better able to make his own decisions. Once he has grown up and moved out on his own, then the responsibility is his to make decisions based on what he knows to be true and not true.

Did I miss the mark, or is that close to what you are asking?

 

[Kidan]

I as well am having a hard time following exactly what you are asking.


but if I understand correctly, you are asking, "Should we hold fundamental Christians fiscally responsible for the anger others feel for their beliefs"


Now, as you said, these Christians are protected by their frist amendment rights (speech) and in truth, they are not really doing anything overtly wrong.  Any book-burning that has occured was done on personal property.  IF i decide tomorrow that I want to burn every game manual I own, does my actions have an effect where others have to pay more taxes or even would my actions cause ME to have to pay more taxes?

Yet as well, look at the other side of the coin.  When people decry, mock and insult fundamental Christians for their obstinance, closed-mindedness (which is ultimately them holding fast to their beliefs) they are told that's just how it is.

 

[stormy]

eh. reverse discrimination. let em hang us.

 

[Guest]

IF a man would that i believe he is christian then i would have to see his ability to suffer the offenses of many, for THE LORD JESUS has said to His own to be as wise as the serpent and as gentle as the dove while at the same time turning the other cheek and NOT opposing evil.
So if i see men doing evil unto men i may pray for them, i may answer to the government of men concerning those things i did see and i may request those evil men be seperated from the sheep.
i do not burn books, i do not judge those men who are insane casting dispersions AS A METHOD OF VENGENCE.
i can see they do no harm to any other person, and even themselves while they are insane.
Now then if you have a specific complaint you would like to have examined, then i will willingly do so for you according to Holy Scripture.
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN

 

[Kidan]

funny thing about doves, they're a very violent species, quite willing to kill members of it's own  species very quickly



but they're yummy!

 

[Guest]

So you would be going out as a man instead quite willing to kill his own specie as well?
Gentle as a dove is much better than gentle as a man, for men are not so gentle. amen
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN

 

[Big J]

Quote[/b] (RYoung @ Nov. 18 2003,2:41)]My question is how responsible can we make book-burning hate-mongering speakers responsible for the hate.crime or extra cost to taxpayers over the issues thay bring up or preach about in their particular communities.

Don't know if this is what you're looking for...but...

Basically, they are not responsible for "offending" people as long as they don't break any laws. In other words, as long as they get the necessary fire permits, they can burn their own property (but if you take my copy of the PHB...not legal because it is my property).

Now, if it ends up burning out of control, then, yes, they are responsible, just as someone burning other things would be responsible.

On speech, (we'll use Fred Phelps of www.godhatesfags as an example) It is perfectly legal to stand outside a funeral and hold signs saying that Matt Shepard is burning in Hell. Tasteless, yes. Illegal, no.

On the other hand, if a preacher advocated violence toward someone, and then the person was killed, that would be a case where the preacher should be held responsible.

(and this is coming from one of the resident atheists. )