Guns in the USA (and the world?): Now Printable!

[Galactus]

It is a meaningful distinction. It shows the American commitment to Freedom. While I despise the Westboro Baptist Church, Neo-Nazis and the Nation of Islam, I would never advocate restricting their speech. That is the difference between our cultures.

It's not a false claim at all, as this Wall of Text demonstrates. I didn't say all unpopular speech is banned, just speech that is "too unpopular". You surely see the difference between the two statements.

The UK isn't the only European country. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Poland, and Luxembourg all prosecute people for Holocaust denial. Other European states don't explicitly outlaw denial but often prosecute offenders on other statutes, like inciting racial hatred.

It is illegal to wear the burqa in public in France. There is a 150 euros fine for women wearing it.

http://en.wikipedia....dress_in_Europe

Despite laws against masks in many US states, Islamic dress is protected under the First Amendment.

Flag desecration is another example. It is protected speech in America. This isn't the case in many European States. In Croatia it is illegal to "desecrate or to treat any flag in a disrespecting manner." Offenders are punished with up to 3 years of imprisonment. In Finland it is illegal to "desecrate the flag, treat it in disrespecting manner or remove it from a public place without permission." According to French law, "outraging the French national anthem or the French flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities" is liable for a fine of 7,500 euros (and six months' imprisonment if performed in a gathering). In Germany it is illegal to "revile or damage the German federal flag as well as any flags of its states in public." Offenders can be fined or sentenced for a maximum of three years in prison.

http://www.nytimes.c...rojan.html?_r=0

The reason is quite simple: A lot of the examples wouldn't fall under "speech". Setting things on fire isn't speech, even wearing clothes isn't speech. Freedoim of speech and of the press guarantees precisely that: Speaking and printing materials. (and even then, not neccessarily, threats are illegal in then US as well, for instance, as is other forms of speech, like eg. copyright infringement)

[The Marquis de Leech]

It is a meaningful distinction. It shows the American commitment to Freedom. While I despise the Westboro Baptist Church, Neo-Nazis and the Nation of Islam, I would never advocate restricting their speech. That is the difference between our cultures.

I'm talking about issues of defamation, not about hate speech and political opinions.

For what it's worth, I have similar sentiments in relation to political speech (my country doesn't outlaw the far-right or religious nutters, even though Parliament could do so without any complaint from the courts). On the other hand, I've never lived in a country that had to suffer through a genocidal regime (that used liberal democratic attributes like freedom of speech in order to gain power), so I can fully understand why modern Germany does what it does.

It's not a false claim at all, as this Wall of Text demonstrates. I didn't say all unpopular speech is banned, just speech that is "too unpopular". You surely see the difference between the two statements.

What speech is banned in the UK that isn't in the US (other than the various archaic blasphemy provisions?).

The UK isn't the only European country. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Poland, and Luxembourg all prosecute people for Holocaust denial. Other European states don't explicitly outlaw denial but often prosecute offenders on other statutes, like inciting racial hatred.

And I've just described above why those countries do what they do. It's called being scarred by history: when you've had democratic institutions hijacked by extremists, you want to be careful it doesn't happen again. But I'm using the UK as an example, simply to rebut your 'America is a special snowflake' argument that seems to think the US values freedom so much more than anyone else.

It is illegal to wear the burqa in public in France. There is a 150 euros fine for women wearing it.

Not a freedom of speech issue, IMHO. Certainly a human right issue, but not speech as such.

Flag desecration is another example. It is protected speech in America. This isn't the case in many European States. In Croatia it is illegal to "desecrate or to treat any flag in a disrespecting manner." Offenders are punished with up to 3 years of imprisonment. In Finland it is illegal to "desecrate the flag, treat it in disrespecting manner or remove it from a public place without permission." According to French law, "outraging the French national anthem or the French flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities" is liable for a fine of 7,500 euros (and six months' imprisonment if performed in a gathering). In Germany it is illegal to "revile or damage the German federal flag as well as any flags of its states in public." Offenders can be fined or sentenced for a maximum of three years in prison.

How often are those provisions actually used? New Zealand has a law punishing disrespect to the flag. The only time the issue went to court (a guy who burnt a flag at an ANZAC Day ceremony), the court decided that burning the flag wasn't disrespecting it, and that there needed to be a higher standard of vilification.

(New Zealand also still has blasphemy laws on the books. The only prosecution, in the 1920s, resulted in an acquittal. Just because these laws exist don't mean that prosecutions are brought, or that the courts will actually sentence people on that basis).

[Prosesskrift]

After all, the US too holds a number of archaic and rather absurd laws still. The question is whether these remnants are still in use or just kept around as relics.

[thecryptile]

The reason is quite simple: A lot of the examples wouldn't fall under "speech". Setting things on fire isn't speech, even wearing clothes isn't speech.

In the US, Islamic dress and Flag Desecration are protected forms of speech, when you fail to recognize that, you are only proving my point! Europeans don't value individual freedoms to the same extent that Americans do. It's true. If you don't like it, try and get a Swedish Bill of Rights modeled on the American version. Don't try to obfuscate the issue with disingenuous legal distinctions that don't apply under US law.

I'm talking about issues of defamation, not about hate speech and political opinions.

English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in US courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws.[5]

http://en.wikipedia...._defamation_law

UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. Even Britons like Hereward believe that English libel laws need to be reworked. They are unduly restrictive.

What speech is banned in the UK that isn't in the US (other than the various archaic blasphemy provisions?).

Ummm, let's see: "advocating overthrow of the monarchy", "glorifying terrorism", "incitement to religious hatred", "compassing or imagining the death of the monarch", and "scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges" just to name a few.

And I've just described above why those countries do what they do. It's called being scarred by history: when you've had democratic institutions hijacked by extremists, you want to be careful it doesn't happen again.

We aren't afraid to let extremists voice their opinions, we trust in the competition of ideas. We allow Islamists to operate Insight magazine, in the face of terror attacks. America's commitment to Freedom is greater than Europe's.

But I'm using the UK as an example, simply to rebut your 'America is a special snowflake' argument that seems to think the US values freedom so much more than anyone else.

We do value Freedom more than you, and not just because we are willing to tolerate wildly unpopular speech. Your inability to see that speech restrictions make a society less free shows the difference between our cultures.

Not a freedom of speech issue, IMHO. Certainly a human right issue, but not speech as such.

SCOTUS has ruled that actions and dress can constitute Speech. The difference between the American concept of Liberty and the European concept is night and day.

(New Zealand also still has blasphemy laws on the books. The only prosecution, in the 1920s, resulted in an acquittal. Just because these laws exist don't mean that prosecutions are brought, or that the courts will actually sentence people on that basis).

The US doesn't have blasphemy laws on the books. America is a "special snowflake". Your continued arguments favoring speech restrictions and European arguments favoring restrictions on the Right to Bear Arms only prove it. Don't forget the Second Amendment, which to my knowledge has no counterpart elsewhere in the world. Americans are a Freedom loving people. Other nations choose to give up their freedoms. If that makes you unhappy, you should work to increase your own freedoms in your own country instead of denigrating American values.

After all, the US too holds a number of archaic and rather absurd laws still. The question is whether these remnants are still in use or just kept around as relics.

Any law that infringes on Constitutionally protected rights is unenforceable in the US. Laws against hate speech and Islamic dress in Europe are modern developments, and they are in use today.

[Galactus]

UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. Even Britons like Hereward believe that English libel laws need to be reworked. They are unduly restrictive.

IIRC the reason is that british libel laws are civil infractions, not criminal offences.

Any law that infringes on Constitutionally protected rights is unenforceable in the US.

The same is largely true in europe, these kinds of laws would (if actually challenged) usually run up against either the european courts, various other treaties, or the national constitutions.

We do value Freedom more than you, and not just because we are willing to tolerate wildly unpopular speech. Your inability to see that speech restrictions make a society less free shows the difference between our cultures.

SCOTUS has ruled that actions and dress can constitute Speech. The difference between the American concept of Liberty and the European concept is night and day.

And we should care about SCOTUS for what reason?

The US doesn't have blasphemy laws on the books.

Actually you do, they're just not enforced (or enforcable)

merica is a "special snowflake".

No it's not.

Your continued arguments favoring speech restrictions and European arguments favoring restrictions on the Right to Bear Arms only prove it. Don't forget the Second Amendment, which to my knowledge has no counterpart elsewhere in the world. Americans are a Freedom loving people. Other nations choose to give up their freedoms. If that makes you unhappy, you should work to increase your own freedoms in your own country instead of denigrating American values.

The 2nd. amendment has no real counterpart, agreed.

[thecryptile]

IIRC the reason is that british libel laws are civil infractions, not criminal offences.

Civil or criminal, the laws restrict Freedom of Speech. They punish people for voicing their beliefs. That is a restriction of the Freedom of Speech. Libel was a criminal offense in Britain until quite recently, criminal libel laws weren't removed from the books until the 21st century.

For all the flaws in English libel law, we should be grateful for small mercies. At least now we've moved further to ensuring libel is no longer a criminal offence in this country. The House of Lords has voted on a government amendment to the coroners and justice bill to repeal the laws of criminal libel, seditious libel and obscene libel. With last year's repeal of blasphemous libel, this completes the removal of the four ancient offences that blighted our record on free speech.

http://www.guardian....bel-free-speech

The same is largely true in europe, these kinds of laws would (if actually challenged) usually run up against either the european courts, various other treaties, or the national constitutions.

Good. Although people have been jailed for denying the Holocaust, which couldn't happen in the US. Fines for Islamic dress are a similar case. These laws punish individuals for expressing their beliefs. Again, that restricts an individuals right to Freedom of Expression.

And we should care about SCOTUS for what reason?

You said that actions such as wearing distinctive religious clothing and burning flags in protest aren't speech. Maybe actions aren't speech in Sweden, but they are in the US, as confirmed by SCOTUS decisions- and not just speech, but protected speech. Can you see the difference between the two systems? Europe values the collective over the individual.

Actually you do, they're just not enforced (or enforcable)

In the United States, a law against blasphemy, or a prosecution on that ground, would violate the Constitution. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." There are no federal laws which forbid "religious vilification" or "religious insult" or "hate speech". State laws to the contrary are trumped by the Constitution.

SCOTUS in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."

The 2nd. amendment has no real counterpart, agreed.

That's a God-given Right that is only recognized in America. We are a "special snowflake" with more individual Freedom than any other nation. You choose to surrender your Freedom, so you don't have it. Don't pretend you do have the same level of individual Freedom when all available evidence contradicts this assertion.

[Galactus]

Civil or criminal, the laws restrict Freedom of Speech. They punish people for voicing their beliefs. That is a restriction of the Freedom of Speech. Libel was a criminal offense in Britain until quite recently, criminal libel laws weren't removed from the books until the 21st century.

Again, the US also has libel an slander laws. There is a minor difference in application, both both basically agree on the point. (certain types of statements are not protected speech) what is at stake is the level of proof requied, not a difference in the actual criminal statements.

ou said that actions such as wearing distinctive religious clothing and burning flags in protest aren't speech. Maybe actions aren't speech in Sweden, but they are in the US because of SCOTUS decisions- and not just speech, but protected speech. Can you see the difference between the two systems? Europe values the collective over the individual.

Again, US criminalizes intimidation (for instance, burning a cross in front of a black neighbour's house is criminal, even if you're not doing it on their property)

It's not a matter of individual vs. collective (that is a stupid simplification) there are difference between swedish and american law. (as between swedish and british, or swedish and frenh law) but these have nothing to do with any kind of generic ideology, but with the specific legal foundations and precedents. (Swedish free speech jurisprudence is based on the Law of Freedom of the Press (the oldest version of which is actually older than the US one, and is one of the first attempts to codify free speech into law) further reinforced by the Law on Freedom of Expression (which covers non-print materials

If there is adifference it is in the structure of the law, US laws tends to be shorter and more dependant on case law than swedish dito. And there are certainly differences in judgements. (what exactly constitutes intimidation, fraud, breach of copyright, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or other unprotected speech

(in some ways, like in the constitutionall protected anonymity of sources, swedish law is significantly stronger than US law)

That's a God-given Right

Feel free to quote verse and chapter :P God certainly hasn't told me about it. .

You choose to surrender your Freedom, so you don't have it. Don't pretend you do have the same level of individual Freedom when all available evidence contradicts this assertion.

Funny, Freedom House disagrees.

that is only recognized in America. We are a "special snowflake" with more individual Freedom than any other nation

[Seli]

...

That's a God-given Right that is only recognized in America. We are a "special snowflake" with more individual Freedom than any other nation. You choose to surrender your Freedom, so you don't have it. Don't pretend you do have the same level of individual Freedom when all available evidence contradicts this assertion.

:stunned:... :dunno:... You might want to take a deep breath, and relax. While SCOTUS does ignore the historical origin of the 2nd amendment (as they should) they won't agree that god is involved in any way or form.

And it might really help if you'd actually try and understand the varied nations you now condemn, because the US way to promote individual freedom is clearly not the only path. And many people seem to argue (and organize their nations in a way because they think) it is not even the best.

[thecryptile]

While SCOTUS does ignore the historical origin of the 2nd amendment (as they should) they won't agree that god is involved in any way or form.

SCOTUS didn't "ignore" the historical origin of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is a result of the Machiavellian Moment. Machiavelli and the Founders advocated replacement of professional standing armies with citizen's militias.

Every citizen is a soldier and every soldier a citizen. Every citizen has an individual right to keep and bear arms. Keep means own, and bear means carry. The Second Amendment states that I, as an individual, have a right to own and carry weapons to defend myself and my community.

According to the Declaration of Independence, all rights stem from the Creator. God gives you freedom of speech, not some law or code. God gave you a mind and a mouth.

And it might really help if you'd actually try and understand the varied nations you now condemn, because the US way to promote individual freedom is clearly not the only path. And many people seem to argue (and organize their nations in a way because they think) it is not even the best.

I'm not "condemning" Europeans, I'm just stating the simple fact that Americans have more individual freedoms. You don't want the same protections for speech and self defense, so you don't have them. There is no reason to pretend that you still have the same liberties and rights as an American.

Nations are unique, I acknowledge that. Americans are unique in our many Liberties.

If someone breaks into my home, I can use deadly force to repel them, and the courts wouldn't penalize me for it. Can you say the same?

If I want to buy a copy of The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf, there is no legal restriction. This isn't the case in many European countries.

I can "scandalize the court by criticising or murmuring judges"(as long as I'm not actually in court, of course). That's prohibited by British Law.

You yourself talk about Europeans giving up their rights.

We trust our governments, our society, our individuals, to maximize freedom in safety for all involved, with the mechanisms in place to interfere when that goes wrong. And that includes giving up things as well as taking responsibility.

By your own admission, your society places more limits on individual freedom than mine.

As to people advocating for other forms of government, many people organize their governments in ways restrictive of individual freedoms. Middle Eastern theocracies and Communist Asian states both believe that Europe goes too far in allowing individual freedoms. Should the Danes jail the Muhammad cartoonist because Muslims disagree with Danish concepts of Liberty? Should Norway strip Liu Xiaobo of his Nobel Prize?

Some nations value freedom and individual rights more than others. Western European nations value individual freedoms, just not as much as the US.

Saudi Arabian and Chinese laws against Christian religious literature are similar to European restrictions on unpopular "hate speech" texts.

In the US, we don't ban literature, no matter how offensive. Even odious and disgusting literature such as fictional written pornographic stories featuring children are protected speech, as SCOTUS held in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition(2002).

Again, the US also has libel an slander laws. There is a minor difference in application, both both basically agree on the point. (certain types of statements are not protected speech) what is at stake is the level of proof requied, not a difference in the actual criminal statements.

It's a major difference. Britons, like the author of the Guardian article I linked to, acknowledge this. Why are you, a Swede, defending Britain's terrible libel laws? Your own laws are closer to ours than theirs in this matter.

Again, US criminalizes intimidation (for instance, burning a cross in front of a black neighbour's house is criminal, even if you're not doing it on their property)

SCOTUS ruled in Virginia v. Black, (2003) that cross burning can only be illegal if it is an attempt at intimidation. Cross burning is protected political speech if it's not intimidation. The Court struck down the provision in Virginia's statute which stated "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons," holding that the provision was facially unconstitutional because of its "indiscriminate coverage." The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.

I notice that you aren't saying any thing about European hate speech and anti-Islamic laws.

It's not a matter of individual vs. collective (that is a stupid simplification) there are difference between swedish and american law.

Alright, so it's a stupid simplification. I was paraphrasing one of Seli's ideas anyway.

European (ignoring all local variation) and US notions of liberty are quite similar, but with a slightly different focus and corresponding issues. While the US system is more focussed on the individual to do anything they want regardless of society, the general system in European nations is more focussed to allow any individual to do as much as possible in society.

To me, this statement is saying that the needs of society outweigh the rights of the individual in Europe. I'm sure Seli will clarify this statement for me.

Feel free to quote verse and chapter :P God certainly hasn't told me about it. .

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

According to Jesus, if you don't have a weapon, you should sell the shirt off of your back and use the money from the sale to buy one. A sword is a military weapon. The modern day equivalent of a sword would be a fully automatic assault rifle with 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

From the Declaration of Independence: "(...) that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (...)".

All of the Constitutionally protected rights are pre-existing and do not come from our governments.

Europeans have the same natural rights, but for some reason they chose to surrender them.

According to Freedom House, both Sweden and the US have a free press. According to your earlier posts, Swedes don't have Second Amendment rights. So the US has a free press and Second Amendment rights, Sweden just has a free press. Therefore, America is more free than Sweden. It's just basic math. Math is the same the world over. Two is always greater than one.

[TrueMetis]

Insanely awesome, maybe.

This is the point:

You say that like it's a good thing, shit like that is why it's your country that the centre of Creationism and Climate Change denial. Unfettered freedom of speech has lead to the asinine belief that everyone's speech is actually worth something. It pisses me off to no end that the US is so god damn set on keeping the original meaning for the second amendment but has forgotten the true meaning behind the first.

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

"My rights come from the word of a guy who probably didn't exist in anything close to the form he was described as in a fairy tale written by a bunch of primitives who where ignorant of the most basic concepts."

Your using the fucking bible as your source of rights, there isn't a more anti-rights book in existence, This is a book that condones murder, slavery and rape. What the fuck is wrong with you?

And I'm sure the primarily deist US founder were talking about the god of the christian bible when they said creator. Hence why they went out of their way to keep religion out of the government.

[TheRaggedWildling]

Aaaaaannnnnddddd there goes the thread....

[thecryptile]

You say that like it's a good thing, shit like that is why it's your country that the centre of Creationism and Climate Change denial. Unfettered freedom of speech has lead to the asinine belief that everyone's speech is actually worth something. It pisses me off to no end that the US is so god damn set on keeping the original meaning for the second amendment but has forgotten the true meaning behind the first.

Allowing free people to freely express their ideas is a good thing. Bad ideas will be weeded out by competition in a Free Market. Suppressing unpopular ideas might be suppressing the truth, or a part of the truth.

Censorship and repression aren't good things. I don't know why you think they are. We haven't forgotten true meaning behind the First Amendment. It is to protect Freedom of Expression, all Expression. Not just the Freedom of Peer Reviewed Scientific Expression, or Popular Expression. The First Amendment doesn't advocate censorship or the suppression of religion. You seem to think it does.

"My rights come from the word of a guy who probably didn't exist in anything close to the form he was described as in a fairy tale written by a bunch of primitives who where ignorant of the most basic concepts."

According to the Declaration of Independence, I was endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, the same as you.

Your using the fucking bible as your source of rights, there isn't a more anti-rights book in existence, This is a book that condones murder, slavery and rape. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Galactus wanted a Bible quote, chapter and verse. He probably thought I didn't have one.

The Bible does not condone murder, in fact the Sixth Commandment forbids it.(Somebody could use a trip to Sunday School, lol)

The Bible is far ahead of its time in regards to slavery. Slaves are exhorted to obey their masters, true; but masters are told to treat slaves well. Compare this to Roman law from the same period.

Man stealing or kidnapping to obtain slaves (as happened with the African slave trade), is explicitly condemned: "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16. Timothy 1:10 also explicitly condemns slavers as immoral.

Don't forget that Abolitionists found inspiration in the Bible. They were primarily motivated by religious sentiment.

And I'm sure the primarily deist US founder were talking about the god of the christian bible when they said creator. Hence why they went out of their way to keep religion out of the government.

I never said that the Founders were thinking of the exact Christian concept of God. They were influenced by religious ideas, though. Look at the so-called "Jefferson Bible", and Washington added "So Help Me God" to the Presidential Oath of Office, which has always been sworn with one hand on a Bible.

By advocating censorship, the suppression of religion, and limitations on self defense-- you are only proving my point. America is the freest country in the world, with the fewest restrictions on individual liberties.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I only have one reaction: How many rulers / heads of states do you believe are alien lizard people?

[thecryptile]

Only Justin Beiber.

ETA:In all seriousness, though- there is nothing insane about advocating Freedom of Speech and self defense. Advocating censorship, repression, and tyranny-- that's what's really crazy.

[TrueMetis]

Allowing free people to freely express their ideas is a good thing. Bad ideas will be weeded out by competition in a Free Market. Suppressing unpopular ideas might be suppressing the truth, or a part of the truth.

It's weeded out creationism so well. The free market when it comes to ideas doesn't weed out bad ideas, it weeds out what people don't like regardless of it's validity.

Censorship and repression aren't good things. I don't know why you think they are. We haven't forgotten true meaning behind the First Amendment. It is to protect Freedom of Expression, all Expression. Not just the Freedom of Peer Reviewed Scientific Expression, or Popular Expression. The First Amendment doesn't advocate censorship or the suppression of religion. You seem to think it does.

According to the Declaration of Independence, I was endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, the same as you.

First off I'm Canadian. (Unfortunately out charter of rights and freedom does say god and I'd love to see that gotten rid off) Second the first amendment does advocate the separation of church and state, hence any reading of the constitution that includes religion is wrong full stop. Third there are plenty of time when censorship isn't always a bad thing but that's not even what I'm advocating just not acting like everyone's opinion is equally valid and deserving of consideration.

Galactus wanted a Bible quote, chapter and verse. He probably thought I didn't have one.

The Bible does not condone murder, in fact the Sixth Commandment forbids it.(Somebody could use a trip to Sunday School, lol)

You wanna play bible quotes? Let's play.

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Who needs a trip to Sunday school? So what you argument going to be? This is OT so it doesn't count? Or execution isn't murder?

The Bible is far ahead of its time in regards to slavery. Slaves are exhorted to obey their masters, true; but masters are told to treat slaves well. Compare this to Roman law from the same period.

Far ahead of it's time, except for all the societies that didn't have slaves. Oh but they beat the Roman's, because we all know the Romans were the epitome in all things.

Man stealing or kidnapping to obtain slaves (as happened with the African slave trade), is explicitly condemned: "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16. Timothy 1:10 also explicitly condemns slavers as immoral.

Because forcing someone into slavery to cover a debt isn't anything like kidnapping. You do realize that in a round about way you are defending slavery right?

Don't forget that Abolitionists found inspiration in the Bible. They were primarily motivated by religious sentiment.

And many pro slavers use the bible to, that's the thing about the bible is so filled with contradictions you can use it to support pretty much any point. And it's not like there weren't secular abolitionists.

I never said that the Founders were thinking of the exact Christian concept of God. They were influenced by religious ideas, though. Look at the so-called "Jefferson Bible", and Washington added "So Help Me God" to the Presidential Oath of Office, which has always been sworn with one hand on a Bible.

Then why do you keep bringing him up? And of course they were influenced by religious ideas, I'm an atheist and I've been influenced by religious ideas. Some of the worst people in the world were influenced by religious ideas, don't act like that's a good thing.

Also no contemporary source has Washington saying "So help me god."

By advocating censorship, the suppression of religion, and limitations on self defense-- you are only proving my point. America is the freest country in the world, with the fewest restrictions on individual liberties.

I don't care, cause I don't actually think that's a good thing. Though I don't actually think that's freedom, since you say free speech, I see fox news; you say religious freedom, I see creationism, increased rates of teen pregnancy and abortion, and more jail time; you say self defence, I see people getting killed over stupid shit and in easily avoided accidents. I'm not even for banning most guns really, I'm just tired of people acting like more guns actually makes people safer overall.

Only Justin Beiber.

ETA:In all seriousness, though- there is nothing insane about advocating Freedom of Speech and self defense. Advocating censorship, repression, and tyranny-- that's what's really crazy.

And unsurprisingly any talk about not going to the crazy extremes the US goes to is " Advocating censorship, repression, and tyranny". Sure why not, it couldn't be that we've looked and seen where it's taking the US and don't want to end up the same.

[Seli]

...

I'm not "condemning" Europeans, I'm just stating the simple fact that Americans have more individual freedoms. You don't want the same protections for speech and self defense, so you don't have them. There is no reason to pretend that you still have the same liberties and rights as an American.

...

You yourself talk about Europeans giving up their rights.

...

By your own admission, your society places more limits on individual freedom than mine.

...

To me, this statement is saying that the needs of society outweigh the rights of the individual in Europe. I'm sure Seli will clarify this statement for me.

...

The issue seems to be that you (and you are not alone in this) are using a limited view of freedom which means you miss the larger picture, at least from my perspective.

Let's go back to the simple example of being allowed to swing a fist as long as you don't hit a nose. The simple interpretation means that any inhibition of that swinging is an indication of less freedom.

In my eyes a better model is people walking around, doing things, all the while swinging their arms. While the swinging is freedom, the moving around also is freedom. And the more people swing their arms (at high enough population densities) the more difficult it is to move around and the less free people are in that respect. In this interpretation inhibition of swinging arms, by improving the possibility to walk around, actually increases freedom.

INS: And while it is possible to claim that if you do not want to move around the freedom to swing your fists around is paramount, I argue one should not ignore the way that behaviour limits the freedom of other people that do need to move around. /INS

Basically regulating some things you see as defining liberty does not necessarily decrease freedom, but actually can increase it. But is does mean that you always have to be vigilant, because there is the risk of limits that do decrease freedom. And in our histories there are many examples of things going wrong.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM,

Let's get away from the Bible as justification for anything. That's going to be a horrible argument with the Bible advocate using circular logic as justification. The 1st amendment does require the US, and now State Governments, to take a neutral posture towards religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof

Neutrality is not an antagonisic position. It means government doesn't talk about religious faith. It means religion out of State... and (importantly) State out of religion.

As to advocating more government regulation of speech. Why would that be a good thing?

[Galactus]

SCOTUS didn't "ignore" the historical origin of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is a result of the Machiavellian Moment. Machiavelli and the Founders advocated replacement of professional standing armies with citizen's militias.

Every citizen is a soldier and every soldier a citizen. Every citizen has an individual right to keep and bear arms. Keep means own, and bear means carry. The Second Amendment states that I, as an individual, have a right to own and carry weapons to defend myself and my community.

That' actually debatabe. And you could easily argue that the same concept of he citizens-soldier is working through universal conscription.

According to the Declaration of Independence, all rights stem from the Creator. God gives you freedom of speech, not some law or code. God gave you a mind and a mouth.

God does not exist People do. "All public power emanates from the people."

I'm not "condemning" Europeans, I'm just stating the simple fact that Americans have more individual freedoms. You don't want the same protections for speech and self defense, so you don't have them. There is no reason to pretend that you still have the same liberties and rights as an American.

Your argument is simplistic and stupid: I might just as well argue that americans are less free because gays cannot marry in the entire US. Americans enjoy some specific freedoms I do not, I enjoy some specific freedoms americans do not.

Fuck, the US government still has the death penalty. How can you claim to be free when the governent can actually legally *kill* you?

If someone breaks into my home, I can use deadly force to repel them, and the courts wouldn't penalize me for it. Can you say the same?

That's a *reduction* of freedom. Murder is the ultimate end of freedom. By killing someone you nullify all of their freedom: Even that of thought. So allowing someone to murder intruders is a signifcant limit to freedom.

If I want to buy a copy of The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf, there is no legal restriction. This isn't the case in many European countries.

Actually, there's no legal restrictions on either of those two things.

By your own admission, your society places more limits on individual freedom than mine.

No, I am arguing that our societies place different restrictions on different things. And that there is no simplistic answer along the lines of "The US is more free than Sweden" (or vice-versa)

I notice that you aren't saying any thing about European hate speech and anti-Islamic laws. Alright, so it's a stupid simplification. I was paraphrasing one of Seli's ideas anyway.

To me, this statement is saying that the needs of society outweigh the rights of the individual in Europe. I'm sure Seli will clarify this statement for me.

In this case it's more a matter of protecting certain individuals over others.

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

According to Jesus, if you don't have a weapon, you should sell the shirt off of your back and use the money from the sale to buy one. A sword is a military weapon. The modern day equivalent of a sword would be a fully automatic assault rifle with 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

He's saying this in a particular context. There is no provision whatsover for this being a universal appeal. (He also argues against self-defence of course, "Do not repay evil with evil but repay evil with good."

From the Declaration of Independence: "(...) that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (...)".

All of the Constitutionally protected rights are pre-existing and do not come from our governments.

No, they aren't. They come from your governments. From Jefferson and Madison and the rest of the Founders, from laws and courts and (ultimately) from the people. There is no creator, so how can he endow any rights?

People create rights for their own purposes. They do not exist in nature. Show me an atom of freedom of speech, a particle of religious freedom.

According to Freedom House, both Sweden and the US have a free press. According to your earlier posts, Swedes don't have Second Amendment rights. So the US has a free press and Second Amendment rights, Sweden just has a free press. Therefore, America is more free than Sweden. It's just basic math. Math is the same the world over. Two is always greater than one.

Except that americans have state-sanctioned murders among other things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

Up until the 1920's many materialists argued atoms didn't exist because they not be perceived and derided "atomists" as metaphysicians at best and cultists at worst for advocating the existsnce of something that could not be proven.

Just FYI.

[Galactus]

Galactus,

Up until the 1920's many materialists argued atoms didn't exist because they not be perceived and derided "atomists" as metaphysicians at best and cultists at worst for advocating the existsnce of something that could not be proven.

Just FYI.

And they were right to do so.