RSS Feeds
 |
|
|||||||||||||
News » Breaking News
Article rated a 1.7
by 3
users |
Wartburg quarterback Nick Yordi listens to a question from Prosecutor Jill Dashner during his misdemeanor trial on disorderly conduct charges Thursday.
ROLAND FERRIE / Wartburg College
ROLAND FERRIE / Wartburg College
~ADVERTISING~
UPDATE WITH PICTURE: Wartburg quarterback, victim testify in slur case
By KAREN HEINSELMAN, Courier Staff Writer
WAVERLY --- The Wartburg College quarterback accused of uttering an anti-gay slur and the classmate who was the target of the remark testified Thursday in Bremer County Court.
Nicholas Yordi, a 19-year-old college sophomore from Solon, claimed he was simply being a "dumb college kid" when he shouted a derogatory name out of his dormroom window at a passerby on Oct. 8 or 9.
Yordi, who said he sometimes yells at passerbys for amusement, also said he didn't immediately recognize the passerby, Wartburg junior Joe Apel of East Dubuque, Ill. Apel identifies himself as an openly gay man.
"Didn't mean anything by it," Yordi said. "Never have. Just getting a good laugh out of it."
Prosecutor Jill Dashner, the Bremer County assistant attorney, argued that Yordi intentionally targeted Apel and used a whole stream of obviously offensive and vulgar words.
"This is the type of thing that causes people great stress and anger and could actually cause a violent reaction," Dashner said.
She also questioned Yordi's assertions that he was unaware of Apel's sexual orientation.
Yordi is charged with disorderly conduct, a simple misdemeanor. The charge alleges the defendant uttered abusive epithets that were likely to provoke a violent reaction from the victim.
Defense attorney Ryan Rasmussen entered a not guilty plea on behalf of his client on Oct. 15.
"Nick said something he shouldn't have," Rasmussen argued on Thursday. "It was stupid. It was insensitive. It was inappropriate, and he would be the first to tell you that, but it was not criminal."
Rasmussen argued that the state's case fails meet the conditions of disorderly conduct and asked Magistrate Ronald Pepples to acquit his client mid-trial.
Pepples denied the motion and testimony continued.
On Thursday, Apel told the court that he had nightmares because of Yordi's words.
"I felt completely anguished, like I had just been punched in the face," Apel said. " ... And I still feel very anguished today."
Dashner asked the court to see the bigger picture. She argued that the circumstances and events leading up to the incident created a serious situation.
" ... Joe Apel was walking alone on campus," Dashner said. "It was dark out."
Dashner also drew attention to the fact that the incident happened at time when campus activities were devoted to drawing attention to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. She also noted that Apel, who at the time was in a diversity class with Yordi, had mentioned his sexual orientation in an online posting, part of a class assignment.
Yordi says he never read the online entry.
Pepples said he had 30 days to make a ruling and that an answer would likely come much sooner.
The disorderly conduct charge carries a penalty of up to 30 days in jail, a $625 fine or both.
Contact Karen Heinselman at (319) 291-1581 or karen.heinselman@wcfcourier.com.
Nicholas Yordi, a 19-year-old college sophomore from Solon, claimed he was simply being a "dumb college kid" when he shouted a derogatory name out of his dormroom window at a passerby on Oct. 8 or 9.
Yordi, who said he sometimes yells at passerbys for amusement, also said he didn't immediately recognize the passerby, Wartburg junior Joe Apel of East Dubuque, Ill. Apel identifies himself as an openly gay man.
"Didn't mean anything by it," Yordi said. "Never have. Just getting a good laugh out of it."
Prosecutor Jill Dashner, the Bremer County assistant attorney, argued that Yordi intentionally targeted Apel and used a whole stream of obviously offensive and vulgar words.
"This is the type of thing that causes people great stress and anger and could actually cause a violent reaction," Dashner said.
She also questioned Yordi's assertions that he was unaware of Apel's sexual orientation.
Yordi is charged with disorderly conduct, a simple misdemeanor. The charge alleges the defendant uttered abusive epithets that were likely to provoke a violent reaction from the victim.
Defense attorney Ryan Rasmussen entered a not guilty plea on behalf of his client on Oct. 15.
"Nick said something he shouldn't have," Rasmussen argued on Thursday. "It was stupid. It was insensitive. It was inappropriate, and he would be the first to tell you that, but it was not criminal."
Rasmussen argued that the state's case fails meet the conditions of disorderly conduct and asked Magistrate Ronald Pepples to acquit his client mid-trial.
Pepples denied the motion and testimony continued.
On Thursday, Apel told the court that he had nightmares because of Yordi's words.
"I felt completely anguished, like I had just been punched in the face," Apel said. " ... And I still feel very anguished today."
Dashner asked the court to see the bigger picture. She argued that the circumstances and events leading up to the incident created a serious situation.
" ... Joe Apel was walking alone on campus," Dashner said. "It was dark out."
Dashner also drew attention to the fact that the incident happened at time when campus activities were devoted to drawing attention to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. She also noted that Apel, who at the time was in a diversity class with Yordi, had mentioned his sexual orientation in an online posting, part of a class assignment.
Yordi says he never read the online entry.
Pepples said he had 30 days to make a ruling and that an answer would likely come much sooner.
The disorderly conduct charge carries a penalty of up to 30 days in jail, a $625 fine or both.
Contact Karen Heinselman at (319) 291-1581 or karen.heinselman@wcfcourier.com.
 |
 |
More Stories from News » Breaking News
Waverly-Shell Rock storms out of the blocks in 3A wrestlingFormer student opens fire in lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, kills 5 and himselfMan sentenced for threatening judgesState pleased by drop in Iowa deer populationIA. Supreme Court upholds custody of children by tribal courtMan convicted in alley robberyLogan student expelled for assaultState investigates ethanol spill near Iowa FallsCarbon monoxide at ADM plant in Illinois blamed for Parkersburg native's deathMan arrested for assault, robbery of womanUPDATE WITH PICTURE: Wartburg quarterback, victim testify in slur caseFormer Waterloo doctor 'critical' after ski accidentDons all but sew up team title, eye historyClass 3A wrestling team scores
barbie200455 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:03 PM:
" This is worth taking up time in the court system? As much as I dislike the idea of someone calling another person names, they still have the right to free speech in this country. It's a juvenile thing to do and I think the guy who did it should be taking some diversity classes, but to drag it through a trial seems a waste of the court's time. If he hadn't been a member of the football team, would it still have been as newsworthy? I doubt it. "
rooster wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:17 PM:
" I think they should rename Waverly to Berkley. I think Jill Dashner should be charged with disorderly conduct for wasting the taxpayers money. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 15, 2008 1:21 AM:
" It's only going to get worse in this country. In this case, the only thing they can charge him with is disorderly conduct (which I think is stretching it for merely calling someone a name). Before long, it will be considered a "hate crime" and "hate speech" to call someone in one of the "protected classes" (those deemed worthy of protection by liberal politicians) a name.
I don't agree with name calling, but this is the type of reaction you can expect (just as they claimed Yordi's comment could cause a "violent reaction"), when you push the homosexual lifestyle by having "Gayla Week", "Coming Out Week", drag shows, frequent pro-homosexual speakers, etc., on campus. "
I don't agree with name calling, but this is the type of reaction you can expect (just as they claimed Yordi's comment could cause a "violent reaction"), when you push the homosexual lifestyle by having "Gayla Week", "Coming Out Week", drag shows, frequent pro-homosexual speakers, etc., on campus. "
leopard_colony wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:16 AM:
" I shutter at the prosecution saying "abusive epithets that were likely to provoke a violent reaction". She is justifying violence in response to racist words. Does that mean I can beat up the next person that calls me "gringo"? "
superxmop wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:07 AM:
" Didn't Apel admit to being gay? So if he is referred to as being gay by another, isn't that free speech? As for the derogatory names, you can hear them every day on TV. Yep, big, big waste of the courts time, unless the prosecutor is gay too. "
x127s73 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:13 AM:
" Tell that to Matthew Shepherd's family. Maybe if someone stopped the verbal assault, then the wouldn't have been left for dead hung to a fence. I think history proves that gay people must fear the worst by what starts as just hate talk. "
dm1270 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:39 AM:
" You have got to be kidding!!! Jill Dashner, and Ron Pepples is exactly whats wrong with this country. Special interest groups run amuck. Advancing their personnal agenda at tax payers expense. What a waste of time!!! "
rusty boy wrote on Feb 15, 2008 8:52 AM:
" What ever happened to sticks and stones break my bones but names will never hurt me. This is a total waste of taxpayer money and all involved need to toughen up a little and let things like this bounce off. Gay or not gay, all people have been called a name in their lifetime and did not end up in court. If Apel claims to be openly gay, then what is the problem here. Apel is just looking for his 15 minutes of fame and he got it and now move on buddy. I cannot believe the county attorney has let this come this far. What a joke...... "
Newswatcher wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:19 AM:
" These were WORDS, not PUNCHES! Be careful about turning WORDS into a crime. x127x73, you cannot possibly convince me that you have NEVER uttered a derogatory word at any person ever.
If Yordi would have punched him or even chased him, that's different. We are being stripped of our right to free speech. This is an outrage!
Apel had "nightmares" because of this? He's got a long sleepless life ahead of him. Or, he'll make a lot of $ off of cases like this.
Best wishes to you both, Yordi and Apel. Just remember this didn't have to go to court to waste taxpayers money to try to keep people from speaking their mind. Nightmares, yeah right. I have nightmares about stupid people in stupid lawsuits! "
If Yordi would have punched him or even chased him, that's different. We are being stripped of our right to free speech. This is an outrage!
Apel had "nightmares" because of this? He's got a long sleepless life ahead of him. Or, he'll make a lot of $ off of cases like this.
Best wishes to you both, Yordi and Apel. Just remember this didn't have to go to court to waste taxpayers money to try to keep people from speaking their mind. Nightmares, yeah right. I have nightmares about stupid people in stupid lawsuits! "
a6g wrote on Feb 15, 2008 10:48 AM:
" This is BS, and everyone should be appalled! The kid that shouted might not be a great guy, but this surely was not worthy of him losing his starting role on the football team AND wasted time in the legal system. I call shenanigans on the prosecutor AND victim... "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 15, 2008 10:50 AM:
" x127s73:
Check the facts. Matthew Shapherd was NOT targeted because he was gay. Don't buy into, and spread, the lie that it was a "gay hate crime". "
Check the facts. Matthew Shapherd was NOT targeted because he was gay. Don't buy into, and spread, the lie that it was a "gay hate crime". "
Think wrote on Feb 15, 2008 11:59 AM:
" What's next? Hate look. Yeah man "The look". Get over it. I'm sick of these people shoving their life in my face just like second hand smoke. Keep it in your own home, don't blow it in my face. "
gkb32 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 1:27 PM:
" The guy is a bully. I'm glad he got in trouble for this. It will make him think twice the next time he tries to intimidate someone with name calling. Fine him. No jail. He deserves the embarrassment and stigma this has produced. "
andy1 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 1:53 PM:
" I don't think you can compare this to the Shepherd case. Allthough I disagree with prosecuting for calling someone a name I fully agree with prosecuting someone for murder. One is a crime and the other isn't! Based on your logic there are many people who post on this site who should be in jail for hate speech against President Bush. It's not and shouldn't be a crime to tell someone you don't like them or somethig they do. "
Jules wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:12 PM:
" Maybe if the college had taken it seriously to begin with, they wouldn't have had to involve the court system. "
MnOx wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:52 PM:
" Good call, Jules. Considering the school has allowed its atheletes to run amok for years, it is not surprizing that they might have difficulty adjusting to any sort of diversity being acknowledged on campus. (The thought of Waverly being compared to Berkeley is downright ludicrous.)
"
"
Anrev12 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 4:29 PM:
" Everyone that says "We're being stripped of our free speech" is downright ridiculous. You may have the right to free speech, but that does NOT mean that you can insult another person just because you feel like it. First think about the causes of the case that brought it to court. The college just didn't want to do anything, so Apel brought it to court. Why didn't Nick Yordi simply apologize? What he says it's true: he IS a dumb college kid. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 15, 2008 5:02 PM:
" Anrev12, there is no right in this country to not be offended. Otherwise, where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide which speech is offensive and which is not? You can bet there wouldn't be a trial if someone had called a Christian a derogatory name.
gkb32, how is shouting a name out of a dorm window "intimidating". And, oddly enough, even though Apel is portrayed as the victim, they repeatedly say the comment was likely to evoke a violent response. So maybe Apel wasn't intimidated and isn't such a victim after all, if there was a good chance he would respond violently.
andy, you are right. If certain people had their way, a lot of the comments on here would be illegal. But it wouldn't be comments against Bush, conservatives, and Christians that would be outlawed, but comments against homosexuality.
Think, there is more truth in what you say than you realize. In some school districts--including here in Iowa--"mean looks" are prohibited under their "anti-bullying" policies.
"
gkb32, how is shouting a name out of a dorm window "intimidating". And, oddly enough, even though Apel is portrayed as the victim, they repeatedly say the comment was likely to evoke a violent response. So maybe Apel wasn't intimidated and isn't such a victim after all, if there was a good chance he would respond violently.
andy, you are right. If certain people had their way, a lot of the comments on here would be illegal. But it wouldn't be comments against Bush, conservatives, and Christians that would be outlawed, but comments against homosexuality.
Think, there is more truth in what you say than you realize. In some school districts--including here in Iowa--"mean looks" are prohibited under their "anti-bullying" policies.
"
x127s73 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 5:33 PM:
" No, I think you need to get your facts straight Newswatcher. The Matthew Shephard case was just that - a gay hate crime. The boys' defense was that they felt they were being hit on and "snapped" because he was gay. The reason Im comparing it to the Shephard case is that hate crimes do happen to gay people and they have a fear associated when people make ignorant hateful remarks to them. Just like blacks or japanese or jewish people in the past. Who knew for them which remark would turn into something much more. And Think - why don't you do that: open your mind and think. How you can compare someone's personality and sexual orientation to smoking is beyond me. Gay people have just as much right to walk outside as you do. "
Newswatcher wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:41 PM:
" No, x127s73, you need to get YOUR facts straight. Apel was walking outside, Yordi was in a building. This was not a crime. Period. You ... with your "your words kept me from sleeping and I can't enjoy my life because I'm afraid of you making fun of me..." It's just ludicrous! Keep this out of the courts, it's a total waste of time, money and brain cells. If Yordi had punched him, FINE! He yelled from inside a building! Huge difference! I am losing respect for all of you who think Apel is the victim here, I am thinking that Yordi is the victim and should counter-sue Apel. "
msnhawk wrote on Feb 15, 2008 8:56 PM:
" Being gay is not a choice. Being a Christian, a conservative, or supporting Bush is a conscious choice you have made.
And how exactly is having a gay pride week pushing anything on you? The only people I see pushing their agenda are "Christians" (and how many of them can call themselves that without laughing, I have no idea). As always, the only thing I see most people like TruthSeeker and Newswatcher posting is intolerance...not exactly Christ-like. "
And how exactly is having a gay pride week pushing anything on you? The only people I see pushing their agenda are "Christians" (and how many of them can call themselves that without laughing, I have no idea). As always, the only thing I see most people like TruthSeeker and Newswatcher posting is intolerance...not exactly Christ-like. "
gmaro wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:21 PM:
" Whatever happened to the golden rule- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. College stupidity or not a little humanity never hurt anyone. "
x127s73 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 10:00 PM:
" I guess my comment was toward Truth seeker - the one who said Matthew Shephard had nothing to do with gay hate crime. Sorry for the mixup. I think that people need to be held accountable for their actions. Comments like these spark fear in people. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has a legitimate reason to fear his life could be at risk. "
rooster wrote on Feb 15, 2008 10:51 PM:
" Be careful msnhawk - you're getting close to hate speech and we all know where that can lead - You'll be answering questions from Jill Dashner. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 15, 2008 11:21 PM:
" x127s73: Either you haven't done your research (and don't want to, because you don't want to know the truth), or you are out and out lying about the Matthew Shepard case. It would not surprise me if it was the latter, as in the strategy book for advancing the gay agenda--"After the Ball"--the authors encourage gays and their allies to lie to advance their cause.
Here's the link to the ABC 20/20 story that exposed the lie that has been propagated by gay activists that the Matthew Shepard murder was a gay hate crime:
http://tinyurl.com/36ny7j "
Here's the link to the ABC 20/20 story that exposed the lie that has been propagated by gay activists that the Matthew Shepard murder was a gay hate crime:
http://tinyurl.com/36ny7j "
pagpride wrote on Feb 16, 2008 12:54 AM:
" As a straight, white, married, employed, law abiding male will I get the same rights and protections? Next time I get called square, the gloves are coming off. I am acting violently so maybe I can sue while I am at it. It was a very stupid idea to yell remarks out of the dorm window, but I did it. I never called anyone gay but I would yell. What a crock. I am claiming this day as white straight men's suffrage day. We deserve the same protections. On with the straight pride parades and white entertainment television. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 16, 2008 7:35 AM:
" msnhawk,, nail hit,, I wish the christian,conservative, Bush supporter community would just look at the massive amount of studies that have proven that homosexuality is without a doubt a genetic disposition,, not like blonde hair or blue eyes or black skin,,,homosexuality should truthfully be declared its own new genetic gender.
Therefore we could provide the homosexual gender,,, who we agree is different genetically from the hetero species, with protection under already existing laws that protect other genders and not have to create any new ones.
I recently had my children genetically tested to see if they were the homosexual species or not, so that I would know if I could have someone arrested for making rude or obnoxious comments to them. Unfortunately, the test came back negative or positive,,, depends on how you look at things.
News and truthseeker,, I hope you guys don't get upset at the mean, antagonistic things Msn said about christians,,, I am sure they were not meant to upset or intimidate you or provoke violence in you
"
Therefore we could provide the homosexual gender,,, who we agree is different genetically from the hetero species, with protection under already existing laws that protect other genders and not have to create any new ones.
I recently had my children genetically tested to see if they were the homosexual species or not, so that I would know if I could have someone arrested for making rude or obnoxious comments to them. Unfortunately, the test came back negative or positive,,, depends on how you look at things.
News and truthseeker,, I hope you guys don't get upset at the mean, antagonistic things Msn said about christians,,, I am sure they were not meant to upset or intimidate you or provoke violence in you
"
msnhawk wrote on Feb 16, 2008 9:04 AM:
" You're so right, hilaryc. Why don't you enlighten us all about the day that you decided to become a heterosexual. How you weighed your options and then decided for that particular route, while others decided to become deviants and pursue a homosexual lifestyle.
And, now, cue the comment from those saying "being gay isn't a sin but acting on it is..." For those people, I just want to confirm that the only times you engage in sexual intercourse with your "significant other" is when you are conceiving a child. Any other times would mean you are having sex for reasons other than procreation....same thing as homosexuality.
And, as far as my "hate speech" towards the so called Christians on here...again, they made the CHOICE to twist the bible into a tool to support their biggoted views. "
And, now, cue the comment from those saying "being gay isn't a sin but acting on it is..." For those people, I just want to confirm that the only times you engage in sexual intercourse with your "significant other" is when you are conceiving a child. Any other times would mean you are having sex for reasons other than procreation....same thing as homosexuality.
And, as far as my "hate speech" towards the so called Christians on here...again, they made the CHOICE to twist the bible into a tool to support their biggoted views. "
Newswatcher wrote on Feb 16, 2008 10:04 AM:
" hillaryc, oh, I don't get upset at the mean antagonistic comments from people like Msn about Christians. I don't claim to be what our society claims is "Christian" anymore. I do think it's a shame that Christians and white straight males are constantly attacked by people such as Msn and x127. You can believe enything you want as long as it's what THEY believe. Especially the lame Bush support comment above. I mean, where in the blankity-blank did THAT come from? My faith has more to do with what Jesus really DID do, not what the megarich megajudge megachurches preach today. If anyone is gay, I really do NOT care, but this case being in court is an absolute INSANE waste of time and resources. This Yordi kid is young, yelled something and the Apel kid is claiming CRIME? PULLEEEZZZ! Get REAL! "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 16, 2008 10:52 AM:
" What about insulting a person's mother? That's likely to evoke a violent response. Would a person be tried in a court of law for that?
If we are going to start arresting people because something they say could evoke a violent response in someone else, there will be whole lot of people it jail! Either that, or we will become a nation of people who are afraid of saying anything that might upset anyone. Of course, you will only have to worry if you say something that upsets a member of a protected class like homosexuality. It won't matter if the rest of us get upset about something. If you're not a member of a protected class, you're fair game. Oh, wait–we’ve already gotten to that point, haven’t we?
I'm trying to figure out when we got to the point that behavior is defined as illegal because of how someone might respond to it. Isn't the law supposed to be objective, and prohibit certain behaviors because they are considered wrong, rather than because someone might not like it? And, when did we go from punishing behavior that can physically harm someone, to punishing speech because it might hurt someone’s feelings? Basically, the State is trying to punish Yordi for “hate speech”. But since we don’t have “hate speech” laws in Iowa (yet), they are punishing him with the misapplication of the “disorderly conduct” law.
Which brings up another question: Why does a simple misdemeanor, disorderly conduct case merit front-page, top-of-the-fold coverage? "
If we are going to start arresting people because something they say could evoke a violent response in someone else, there will be whole lot of people it jail! Either that, or we will become a nation of people who are afraid of saying anything that might upset anyone. Of course, you will only have to worry if you say something that upsets a member of a protected class like homosexuality. It won't matter if the rest of us get upset about something. If you're not a member of a protected class, you're fair game. Oh, wait–we’ve already gotten to that point, haven’t we?
I'm trying to figure out when we got to the point that behavior is defined as illegal because of how someone might respond to it. Isn't the law supposed to be objective, and prohibit certain behaviors because they are considered wrong, rather than because someone might not like it? And, when did we go from punishing behavior that can physically harm someone, to punishing speech because it might hurt someone’s feelings? Basically, the State is trying to punish Yordi for “hate speech”. But since we don’t have “hate speech” laws in Iowa (yet), they are punishing him with the misapplication of the “disorderly conduct” law.
Which brings up another question: Why does a simple misdemeanor, disorderly conduct case merit front-page, top-of-the-fold coverage? "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 16, 2008 10:59 AM:
" Here's something else to think about. We don't really have freedom of speech if we don't have the freedom to say something that might offend others. If the framers of the 1st Amendment thought objectionable speech should be prohibited, they wouldn't have felt the need to protect speech with a constitutional amendment. "
msnhawk wrote on Feb 16, 2008 11:28 AM:
" In my opinion, what this case boils down to is the following...and I will be the first to admit that this is a very slipppery slope and has a lot of potential consequences:
I think it's fair to say that it is not acceptable to sling racial slurs in this day and age. Sexual orientation is the exact same situation as it's not a choice that people are making...same with ethnicity, gender, physical disabilities, etc.
The bigger problem is that you cannot tell a person is gay by looking at them...regardless of how many Jerry Springer episodes one might have watched. And, of course, terms such as gay, pansy, sissy, etc have gained a foothold in our culture as terms to insult others.
Times change, and society needs to "unlearn" certain wrongs. I think it's also fair to say that most people will now agree that giving women & blacks the same rights as white men was a good step forward...and hopefully with time people's minds will be opened to the same thing when it comes to homosexuals. "
I think it's fair to say that it is not acceptable to sling racial slurs in this day and age. Sexual orientation is the exact same situation as it's not a choice that people are making...same with ethnicity, gender, physical disabilities, etc.
The bigger problem is that you cannot tell a person is gay by looking at them...regardless of how many Jerry Springer episodes one might have watched. And, of course, terms such as gay, pansy, sissy, etc have gained a foothold in our culture as terms to insult others.
Times change, and society needs to "unlearn" certain wrongs. I think it's also fair to say that most people will now agree that giving women & blacks the same rights as white men was a good step forward...and hopefully with time people's minds will be opened to the same thing when it comes to homosexuals. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 16, 2008 12:36 PM:
" msn: I wish you would stop comparing homosexuality to being black, being female, etc. It is NOT the same. "Sexual orientation" is a self-described trait that the person can claim for themselves with no way of anyone else knowing whether or not the person actually does have same-sex attraction. Being black or female is something that you can tell by looking at a person. You have no way of knowing for sure whether or not someone has same-sex attractions. Even if they tell you they do, you do not know for sure. That is what makes it different from immutable, observable characteristics such as race and gender.
Further, while a person may not choose to have same-sex attractions, there is absolutely NO evidence it is genetic. If it were, the trait would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool since, as a rule, homosexuals don't reproduce. In addition, there are a lot of behaviors that people say they don't choose and can't help, but we don't protect those behaviors under the law. "
Further, while a person may not choose to have same-sex attractions, there is absolutely NO evidence it is genetic. If it were, the trait would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool since, as a rule, homosexuals don't reproduce. In addition, there are a lot of behaviors that people say they don't choose and can't help, but we don't protect those behaviors under the law. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 16, 2008 12:42 PM:
" msn:
Being black is not wrong, and it never was.
Being female is not wrong, and it never was.
Feeling same-sex attractions many not be wrong, but homosexual acts have always been wrong and always will be. Society's attitude may change, but that does not mean homosexual behavior is no longer wrong. When we determine for ourselves right and wrong, rather than believing it is determined by something outside of ourselves, someone greater and higher than ourselves--God--the definition of right and wrong will always be fluid and will always depend on who currently has the most political power.
Is that really how you want right and wrong determined? "
Being black is not wrong, and it never was.
Being female is not wrong, and it never was.
Feeling same-sex attractions many not be wrong, but homosexual acts have always been wrong and always will be. Society's attitude may change, but that does not mean homosexual behavior is no longer wrong. When we determine for ourselves right and wrong, rather than believing it is determined by something outside of ourselves, someone greater and higher than ourselves--God--the definition of right and wrong will always be fluid and will always depend on who currently has the most political power.
Is that really how you want right and wrong determined? "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 16, 2008 3:28 PM:
" msn,,,just for your info,, I am gay,,, I just choose to live in a heterosexual relationship so that I can have a normal life free from the ridicule and hand holding that people like you think you need to do for my lifestyle choice.
I long for the day when a gay person doesn't have to rely on bigotted people like you to throw your hate filled tirades at the christian people who are there for me irregardless of whether they agree with my lifestyle or not. "
I long for the day when a gay person doesn't have to rely on bigotted people like you to throw your hate filled tirades at the christian people who are there for me irregardless of whether they agree with my lifestyle or not. "
msnhawk wrote on Feb 16, 2008 5:10 PM:
" You are absolutely right that sexual orientation is different from race & gender. However, that should not imply that it is something that a person has control over. In my experience, sexuality covers an entire spectrum from gay to straight and everything in the middle.
Being black and/or female WAS looked down upon once upon a time. Also, there are passages in the bible that can be used to back up both stances and were used to do just that. Homosexual acts are found throughout the natural world and are just that...natural.
The bible is meant for interpretation. If you want to take it literally, then it must be OK to sleep with your sisters (Cain and Abel)...as well as stone people and lock women away when they are menstrual. All of the above don't quite hold sway these days, do they?
Hillaryc, as usual, I have no idea what your point is. If you're gay and living a hetero lie, than I'm sorry you feel you must do that. But, it might explain why you are so angry at the world. As for my hate filled tirade, I'd sure like to know what that was. And, I'm very glad you learned love thy neighbor from your christian support network... "
Being black and/or female WAS looked down upon once upon a time. Also, there are passages in the bible that can be used to back up both stances and were used to do just that. Homosexual acts are found throughout the natural world and are just that...natural.
The bible is meant for interpretation. If you want to take it literally, then it must be OK to sleep with your sisters (Cain and Abel)...as well as stone people and lock women away when they are menstrual. All of the above don't quite hold sway these days, do they?
Hillaryc, as usual, I have no idea what your point is. If you're gay and living a hetero lie, than I'm sorry you feel you must do that. But, it might explain why you are so angry at the world. As for my hate filled tirade, I'd sure like to know what that was. And, I'm very glad you learned love thy neighbor from your christian support network... "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 16, 2008 6:32 PM:
" msn,,I am certain you can't understand what I am saying but how judgemental(are you a christian) of you to tell me I am living a lie. I would think someone as pure and open minded as you would never judge the way someone choose to live their life. hate filled and now hypocritical,,,,, "
msnhawk wrote on Feb 16, 2008 7:03 PM:
" hillary, you just make no sense. You say your "lifestyle choice" was to be gay, yet you say you are in a hetero relationship. Why not just "choose" to be straight and be done with it? Obviously it is because it's not a choice. The only hypocrite here is you, and pointing out flaws in your reasoning (and the reasoning of many on the extreme right) is not being hateful. "
scoot wrote on Feb 16, 2008 11:41 PM:
" Yeah, people say stupid things but it looks like this was hardly just a slip of the tongue. It looks like this kid got really nasty and to an intense degree. However, I do think Yordi has been humiliated enough and they should drop it. But I do resent the fact that so many of you seem to actually be upset that someone is getting in trouble for calling someone else all those nasty words. Imagine yourself in a world where you are not like everyone else, such as a white person in a black neighborhood or vice versa. Now imagine yourself being shouted at from an apartment building, very nasty and threatening things. This poor kid probably thought someone was going to run downstairs and beat the crap out of him for being gay. Now, is that a comfortable feeling? "
scoot wrote on Feb 16, 2008 11:48 PM:
" And of course being gay isn't a choice. Who would choose to live a lifestyle that opens someone up to these bigots who post on here. I get the feeling that many of your posting on here are undereducated so maybe you should get used to the fact that you may have to call Mr. Apel "boss". Maybe Mr. Apel was insulted because he's far more intelligent and slinging anti-gay slurs is easier because it requires less brain power. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 17, 2008 1:21 AM:
" msn:
I will try to respond point by point to your last post to me.
Your comment that "sexuality covers an entire spectrum from gay to straight and everything in the middle" illustrates one of the problems. In your mind, people should be able to define themselves as whatever they want--rather than being defined as what they actually are, either male or female--and the rest of us have to accept that and legitimize their confusion by writing it into the law. One of the most troubling aspects of this is where men claim they are really women, and they demand to use the women's restroom. This IS already happening in this country where gender confusion has been encouraged by law.
Please give me the Bible references you were referring to that say blacks and women were to be looked down upon. If you really understood the Bible and history, you would know that Jesus and Christianity actually elevated the status of women. You would also know that God created one race of man, and that He considers all men (and women) equal.
You say homosexual acts are found throughout the “natural” world. What do you mean the “natural” world? Is there also an “unnatural” world? Yes, homosexuality, like other sinful behavior, is found throughout the world, and throughout history. However, any society that has embraced homosexuality as normal and natural has not survived. The Roman Empire is one example. The biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by God, is another.
As far as Cain and Abel sleeping with their sisters: In the early generations of man, there would not have been the potential for genetic deformities to occur in offspring, as is now the case when close relatives marry. As time passed, that potential increased, and God then forbade close relatives from marrying.
As far as stoning people for various sins, that didn't even "hold sway" in New Testament times, let alone today. The Old Testament laws to which you are referring were applicable only to the nation of Israel, which was a theocracy directly established by God. "
I will try to respond point by point to your last post to me.
Your comment that "sexuality covers an entire spectrum from gay to straight and everything in the middle" illustrates one of the problems. In your mind, people should be able to define themselves as whatever they want--rather than being defined as what they actually are, either male or female--and the rest of us have to accept that and legitimize their confusion by writing it into the law. One of the most troubling aspects of this is where men claim they are really women, and they demand to use the women's restroom. This IS already happening in this country where gender confusion has been encouraged by law.
Please give me the Bible references you were referring to that say blacks and women were to be looked down upon. If you really understood the Bible and history, you would know that Jesus and Christianity actually elevated the status of women. You would also know that God created one race of man, and that He considers all men (and women) equal.
You say homosexual acts are found throughout the “natural” world. What do you mean the “natural” world? Is there also an “unnatural” world? Yes, homosexuality, like other sinful behavior, is found throughout the world, and throughout history. However, any society that has embraced homosexuality as normal and natural has not survived. The Roman Empire is one example. The biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by God, is another.
As far as Cain and Abel sleeping with their sisters: In the early generations of man, there would not have been the potential for genetic deformities to occur in offspring, as is now the case when close relatives marry. As time passed, that potential increased, and God then forbade close relatives from marrying.
As far as stoning people for various sins, that didn't even "hold sway" in New Testament times, let alone today. The Old Testament laws to which you are referring were applicable only to the nation of Israel, which was a theocracy directly established by God. "
x127s73 wrote on Feb 17, 2008 7:33 AM:
" Newswatcher - You twist things into your own little world all the time. Because I think that this kid shouldn't get away with being ignorant and hateful and instilling fear in a fellow human being, you say I attack christians and white people??? I am a christian - born again. Therefore, I don't feel that in the name of free speech and religion saying homosexuality is wrong that anyone has the entitlement to treat others with intimidation or fear. Im pretty sure there isn't a church (at least a christian church) out there that teaches that because homosexuality is wrong we can treat fellow human beings in a hateful manner. I would say the same thing if a group of white men were being harrassed. But consider yourself lucky you have never had to fear for anything base only on being a white man. "
x127s73 wrote on Feb 17, 2008 7:40 AM:
" Truthseeker - if it makes you feel better to think that Matthew Shephard wasn't beaten because of his sexual orientation - go ahead and think that. Two men went into a gay bar to find this boy to kill?? Considering a crime associated with hate has more severe consequences, no wonder they changed their tune real quickly. The fact of the matter is Matthew was targetet and beaten times before for his sexuality, just like many other gay people. I would tend to be scared of something much more happening when people started shouting hate at me. I tell you what - I bet this kid never shouts hateful words to anyone again - what is wrong with that outcome? "
msnhawk wrote on Feb 17, 2008 8:52 AM:
" First, in regards to women:
1 Corintians is a good start. "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man...", "for the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man". 1 Timothy, "let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority of man....Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression". There's a start for you on the subservient role of women in the bible...
All "empires" rise and fall, and I hardly think that homosexuality is the reason for that...despite how hard some on the far right might try and convince otherwise. Name one empire that has always been in existence for me.
I'm sorry, TruthSeeker, you can't have it both ways...choosing some passages that were meant to be followed for eternity and others which were obviously meant to be phased out over time...or only applied to certain situations (nations). Also, please tell me where God decided that sleeping with a sibbling wasn't a good idea any longer.
Also, my main question remains. Why use the bible as a tool to back up comments that put others down? Christ (and thus Christians) would never act in that manner. Yes, I am a Christian, but I also deeply believe in the separation of church and state. It saddens me to see faith being so twisted and warped those on the far right, and that's why there is the backlash from those (including me) who are scared of how far some will go to push their beliefs on others...and just how much hatred is being waged in the name of religion. "
1 Corintians is a good start. "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man...", "for the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man". 1 Timothy, "let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority of man....Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression". There's a start for you on the subservient role of women in the bible...
All "empires" rise and fall, and I hardly think that homosexuality is the reason for that...despite how hard some on the far right might try and convince otherwise. Name one empire that has always been in existence for me.
I'm sorry, TruthSeeker, you can't have it both ways...choosing some passages that were meant to be followed for eternity and others which were obviously meant to be phased out over time...or only applied to certain situations (nations). Also, please tell me where God decided that sleeping with a sibbling wasn't a good idea any longer.
Also, my main question remains. Why use the bible as a tool to back up comments that put others down? Christ (and thus Christians) would never act in that manner. Yes, I am a Christian, but I also deeply believe in the separation of church and state. It saddens me to see faith being so twisted and warped those on the far right, and that's why there is the backlash from those (including me) who are scared of how far some will go to push their beliefs on others...and just how much hatred is being waged in the name of religion. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 17, 2008 9:44 AM:
" scoot:
No one on here has defended Yordi's actions, just saying that they don't rise to the level of prosecution by the State.
You have tried to make the case that this is justified because Apel could have felt threatened. But let's look at it from a different perspective. Do we really want to have a society where speech is no longer protected? As I said in an earlier post, if we don't have the freedom to say something offensive, then we don't have freedom of speech. Comments like Yordi’s should be infrequent because they are unacceptable to society, not because they are punishable under the law. Using the power of the State to curtail speech will only lead to greater resentment of people in the “protected class”.
And it is not just Yordi's type of speech that is being punished. In many schools today, you cannot even say homosexuality is wrong, because of "anti-bullying" and "anti-harassment" policies. Just disagreeing with homosexuality can cause distress to another person and make them feel "threatened" (so they say), so that cannot be allowed!
"And of course being gay isn't a choice. Who would choose to live a lifestyle that opens someone up to these bigots who post on here."
You are putting two different things in one category. The first is "being gay", by which I assume you mean a person feeling an attraction toward the same sex. I agree that is not chosen. But then you change it to "lifestyle", which is different than feelings. People DO choose to live the homosexual lifestyle. There are many people who have same-sex attractions, but do not act upon them. Then, there are others who CHOOSE to live a homosexual lifestyle. That IS a choice that no one is forced into. That might be a difficult concept to understand, even for someone of your high level of intelligence, but try to wrap your brain around it. :-) "
No one on here has defended Yordi's actions, just saying that they don't rise to the level of prosecution by the State.
You have tried to make the case that this is justified because Apel could have felt threatened. But let's look at it from a different perspective. Do we really want to have a society where speech is no longer protected? As I said in an earlier post, if we don't have the freedom to say something offensive, then we don't have freedom of speech. Comments like Yordi’s should be infrequent because they are unacceptable to society, not because they are punishable under the law. Using the power of the State to curtail speech will only lead to greater resentment of people in the “protected class”.
And it is not just Yordi's type of speech that is being punished. In many schools today, you cannot even say homosexuality is wrong, because of "anti-bullying" and "anti-harassment" policies. Just disagreeing with homosexuality can cause distress to another person and make them feel "threatened" (so they say), so that cannot be allowed!
"And of course being gay isn't a choice. Who would choose to live a lifestyle that opens someone up to these bigots who post on here."
You are putting two different things in one category. The first is "being gay", by which I assume you mean a person feeling an attraction toward the same sex. I agree that is not chosen. But then you change it to "lifestyle", which is different than feelings. People DO choose to live the homosexual lifestyle. There are many people who have same-sex attractions, but do not act upon them. Then, there are others who CHOOSE to live a homosexual lifestyle. That IS a choice that no one is forced into. That might be a difficult concept to understand, even for someone of your high level of intelligence, but try to wrap your brain around it. :-) "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 17, 2008 10:15 AM:
" msn:
God gave men and women different roles--equal, but different. Part of the reason for the high divorce rate, as well as many other ills in our society, is because men have abdicated their role as head of the household, and many women have tried to take the role away from them. Yes, that notion sounds archaic in the feminist world we live in today, but up until about 40 years ago, that was accepted in this country, and has been accepted by almost every society in the world. I won't disagree that some men–especially in some societies--have used their position to mistreat women, but that does not mean the God-ordained order of things is wrong. Like everything else, what is intended for good can be twisted by sinful man.
Not only that, but I said that Jesus and Christianity elevated the role of women. If you look at how they were treated prior to that, you will see what I mean.
Read Proverbs 31 if you think the Bible is saying women should be doormats.
I'm not choosing some passages and ignoring others. All Scripture is given for our edification. It is not that difficult to read the Bible and know what laws God intended only for Old Testament Israel and which ones are intended for New Testament believers.
I don't believe I was using the Bible as a tool to defend Yordi's comments. I just said that God--not us--determines what is right and what is wrong. Yordi's comments were wrong, and homosexual acts are wrong.
You are right that some are trying to push their beliefs on others. The homosexual activists are trying to force the rest of us to accept their lifestyle as normal. The hate is not coming from the Christians, but from your side of the argument. Like many homosexuals and their allies, you call anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality "hateful".
Actually, if you would read the Bible, you will see that Christ DID put people down; He put people in their place who needed it. I would say calling people "a brood of vipers" is a bit of a put down, wouldn't you? In any case, Christ never overlooked sin, and the Bible is clear that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. So YOU can't have it both ways--you either have to accept the Bible or reject it; you can't say you accept the Bible, but then say that something isn't sinful that the Bible clearly says IS sinful.
How does the "separation of Church and State" enters into this discussion??
In answer to your question about sleeping with close relatives, read Leviticus 18-20. "
God gave men and women different roles--equal, but different. Part of the reason for the high divorce rate, as well as many other ills in our society, is because men have abdicated their role as head of the household, and many women have tried to take the role away from them. Yes, that notion sounds archaic in the feminist world we live in today, but up until about 40 years ago, that was accepted in this country, and has been accepted by almost every society in the world. I won't disagree that some men–especially in some societies--have used their position to mistreat women, but that does not mean the God-ordained order of things is wrong. Like everything else, what is intended for good can be twisted by sinful man.
Not only that, but I said that Jesus and Christianity elevated the role of women. If you look at how they were treated prior to that, you will see what I mean.
Read Proverbs 31 if you think the Bible is saying women should be doormats.
I'm not choosing some passages and ignoring others. All Scripture is given for our edification. It is not that difficult to read the Bible and know what laws God intended only for Old Testament Israel and which ones are intended for New Testament believers.
I don't believe I was using the Bible as a tool to defend Yordi's comments. I just said that God--not us--determines what is right and what is wrong. Yordi's comments were wrong, and homosexual acts are wrong.
You are right that some are trying to push their beliefs on others. The homosexual activists are trying to force the rest of us to accept their lifestyle as normal. The hate is not coming from the Christians, but from your side of the argument. Like many homosexuals and their allies, you call anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality "hateful".
Actually, if you would read the Bible, you will see that Christ DID put people down; He put people in their place who needed it. I would say calling people "a brood of vipers" is a bit of a put down, wouldn't you? In any case, Christ never overlooked sin, and the Bible is clear that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. So YOU can't have it both ways--you either have to accept the Bible or reject it; you can't say you accept the Bible, but then say that something isn't sinful that the Bible clearly says IS sinful.
How does the "separation of Church and State" enters into this discussion??
In answer to your question about sleeping with close relatives, read Leviticus 18-20. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 17, 2008 10:29 AM:
" x127s73:
What would make me feel better is if I knew you were actually interested in the truth, rather than just furthering your agenda. But, like almost everyone on your side of this issue, you will ignore what doesn't support your campaign of hate against anyone who disagrees with you.
This story was reported by ABC--hardly a shill for right-wing conservative Christians. I purposely choose that source, because I know people like you always discount a story if it doesn't come from what you consider an objective source. So, here I provided you with an objective source, and you still reject it. Why? Because you are not interested in the truth, but only furthering an agenda. I wonder if you even read the story at the link I provided?
It’s just like the people who tried to claim the Jason Gage murder was a “gay hate crime”. Kind of hard to make that case, since the murderer was a friend of his, but that didn’t stop them from trying. Anytime something happens to a homosexual, they try to say it was because he was gay. The homosexual activists have gotten a lot of mileage out of exploiting Matthew Shepard to advance their agenda.
What is wrong with the outcome? What is wrong is how we get to the outcome. The ends do not justify the means. We can't even come to agreement in this country on what interrogation techniques are acceptable to prevent American lives from being lost, but we are supposed to accept it is OK to haul a college kid into court because he made an offensive comment? Give me a break! "
What would make me feel better is if I knew you were actually interested in the truth, rather than just furthering your agenda. But, like almost everyone on your side of this issue, you will ignore what doesn't support your campaign of hate against anyone who disagrees with you.
This story was reported by ABC--hardly a shill for right-wing conservative Christians. I purposely choose that source, because I know people like you always discount a story if it doesn't come from what you consider an objective source. So, here I provided you with an objective source, and you still reject it. Why? Because you are not interested in the truth, but only furthering an agenda. I wonder if you even read the story at the link I provided?
It’s just like the people who tried to claim the Jason Gage murder was a “gay hate crime”. Kind of hard to make that case, since the murderer was a friend of his, but that didn’t stop them from trying. Anytime something happens to a homosexual, they try to say it was because he was gay. The homosexual activists have gotten a lot of mileage out of exploiting Matthew Shepard to advance their agenda.
What is wrong with the outcome? What is wrong is how we get to the outcome. The ends do not justify the means. We can't even come to agreement in this country on what interrogation techniques are acceptable to prevent American lives from being lost, but we are supposed to accept it is OK to haul a college kid into court because he made an offensive comment? Give me a break! "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 17, 2008 10:34 AM:
" msn:
Widespread acceptance of homosexuality is not the only cause of societies crumbling, but it is the one facing our society today. And it isn't even just homosexuality, but sexual perversion in general. Whenever a society gives itself over to widespread depravity and an "anything goes" mentality, it won't be long before it implodes. "
Widespread acceptance of homosexuality is not the only cause of societies crumbling, but it is the one facing our society today. And it isn't even just homosexuality, but sexual perversion in general. Whenever a society gives itself over to widespread depravity and an "anything goes" mentality, it won't be long before it implodes. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 17, 2008 11:30 AM:
" msn,, my lifestyle choice is to live in a healthy hetero relationship and for your info I have decided not to be gay today. Tomorrow I may be again but in no way shape or form will anyone, ever be able to JUDGE what or who I am by my sexual preferences. It is your need to pigeonhole gay people by their sexual practices that truthfully keeps them in the closet. I have accepted gay people for what they are,,,flawed human beings just like me, who have been given grace from God by the death and life of Christ. Now I would never expect another Christian to applaud and approve of the sin in my life, I would pray they would have the wisdom and love for me to judge what I have done and help free me from the bondage sin keeps on those who practice it as a lifestyle.
"
"
msnhawk wrote on Feb 17, 2008 11:46 AM:
" So, apparently, Leviticus 18-20 confirms the process of evolution? It's now dangerous for people to procreate with their siblings/parents where it once wasn't? There is no possible way that a gene pool of one (Adam) could have ever been viable...please.
As I've asked before, if sex for reasons other than procreation is something you have issue with, then why just take on homosexual behavior? I'm assuming you would agree that it is a larger problem with heterosexuals? "
As I've asked before, if sex for reasons other than procreation is something you have issue with, then why just take on homosexual behavior? I'm assuming you would agree that it is a larger problem with heterosexuals? "
msnhawk wrote on Feb 17, 2008 12:32 PM:
" Real mature, hillary, but then again that's the norm in your postings. Mock others, spew ignorance and intolerance, and then hide behind the bible by calling yourself a Christian whenever someone calls you out or defends themself. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 17, 2008 3:23 PM:
" msn:
Your response to Hillary is so like your type. You claim to be for equal treatment of women, gays, blacks etc., except when they don't agree with your ideology. Then you seem to feel it is acceptable to call them names. So you are hypocritical and not really concerned about equal treatment after all. You only defend those who back your position. Everyone else is fair game.
Oh, and, yeah, believing everything in the universe just magically came into existence out of nothing, and that we evolved from single-cell organisms (despite the fact that there are no transitional fossils) is realistic?! Please! That takes more faith than believing we were created by God.
You say you are a Christian, but you don't seem to hold many Christian beliefs. The only one I have seen you claim is loving others, but even that you have not displayed on here. I don’t think you are really interested in showing love toward others. People like you use Jesus to try to shame those of us into silence with whom you disagree, but Jesus did not hesitate to point out things that are wrong. "
Your response to Hillary is so like your type. You claim to be for equal treatment of women, gays, blacks etc., except when they don't agree with your ideology. Then you seem to feel it is acceptable to call them names. So you are hypocritical and not really concerned about equal treatment after all. You only defend those who back your position. Everyone else is fair game.
Oh, and, yeah, believing everything in the universe just magically came into existence out of nothing, and that we evolved from single-cell organisms (despite the fact that there are no transitional fossils) is realistic?! Please! That takes more faith than believing we were created by God.
You say you are a Christian, but you don't seem to hold many Christian beliefs. The only one I have seen you claim is loving others, but even that you have not displayed on here. I don’t think you are really interested in showing love toward others. People like you use Jesus to try to shame those of us into silence with whom you disagree, but Jesus did not hesitate to point out things that are wrong. "
Steady wrote on Feb 18, 2008 7:51 AM:
" Just reading the posts here give a pretty good reason why this case may have been brought forward. "
TruthSeeker wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:32 AM:
" Steady: Would you care to share what that reason is? I think I can speak for everyone here when I say we are not mind readers. "
Steady wrote on Feb 22, 2008 2:02 PM:
" The idea that all words carry the same weight is a bit juvenile in thought. You see it in the posts above. There are countless laws that define a crime only with words. The important thing is the context, the delivery and intent.
Is it free speech to yell fire? Can I stand in a movie theatre and freely yell fire? The reason you can't is because what would a reasonable person do when they heard those words?
People can discuss this case all they want or argue about right or wrong/choice or not - what this case will boil down to is what a jury decides what a reasonable person would do in that situation. A word was said to cause a reaction, let the jury decide what a reasonable persons reaction would have been. "
Is it free speech to yell fire? Can I stand in a movie theatre and freely yell fire? The reason you can't is because what would a reasonable person do when they heard those words?
People can discuss this case all they want or argue about right or wrong/choice or not - what this case will boil down to is what a jury decides what a reasonable person would do in that situation. A word was said to cause a reaction, let the jury decide what a reasonable persons reaction would have been. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
andy1 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:21 PM: