Cross Burning - archaic practice that should be abolished

[Fandango 1,439]

a different time and place you were born sister lisa..it makes sense if you saw it first hand...enuff said

Bro Dean somehow I get the impression you infer I am supporting a cross being burnt on someone's lawn, which is sooo not the case.

[almaty 19]

sister lisa, so far from the truth..i do not believe it..i think things have changed since i was young and civil rights were just starting and no one ever heard of martin luther king....just a difference in time and space..and definitely not a shot at you..i always respect your viewpoint and opinion as it is done with thought and respect..dean

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, because I did not read all messages in this thread.

The burning cross was and is an important religous symbol for many Christian sects. It was used at ceremonies for many many years before it was placed near the homes of black people in the south.

So I am unclear why the problems with the law.

Burning a cross on your own property for religous purposes = your own damn business and by no means degrading to Christian tradition.

Doing it on someone else's property to or to instigate violence = bad and against the law. As it has been for ... I dunno, at least 200 years? Not sure where that property law came in.

Freedom of speech really only applies so long as it doesn't promote hatred and persecution based on that hatred.

You burn a cross in your front yard it sends a very clear, recognisable and unwelcome message to African Americans. For that reason alone it should be outlawed and does not form a part of reasonable free speech.

For the same reason in Germany, you will be arrested if you display Nazi insignia in public or recite nazi slogans.

Yeah then why are the KKK allowed to have rallies?

Because our society tolerates the right of a bunch of uneducated racist fucks to act like uneducated racist fucks.

Yet at the same time, we are totally intolerant of islamic fundamentalists who preach support for Al Qaeda, for instance.

In the end its much the same, both groups are equally offensive and distasteful. Why tolerate one and not the other?

2 different things.

It is illegal to conspire to murder US citizens under US law. People in the KKK, Nazi party, Al Qaeda, and other 'hateful' groups have been brought up on charges of conspiricy to murder.

You can peacefully assemble and talk about whatever you want, including if you think you are superior to someone. Anything beyond that, angainst the law and the law is blind to who that party is.

I worked at a company once where some of the employees refused to talk to me because I was not a muslim. It was their right. Strange? Angainst most american traditions? Yes. Illegal, no.

That's my point - your right for freedom of speech is not absolute, and ends when your pursuit of that expression breaks the law, or threatens the rights of others to live peacefully and according to our laws.

As for cross burning - the swastika was a peaceful symbol for thousands of years until it became synonymous with nazi germany and the holocaust. The perversion of that symbol, as with cross burning has become so proflific that it will be forever associated with race hate and intolerance. For that reason alone, noone would reasonably choose to display a swastika or burn a cross out of respect for the fact that the majority interpretation of that symbol is ultimately negative.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Fishdude

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This might sound like semantics - but its a fair comment that 'usage changes meaning'. Especially when the usage of a particular symbol becomes synonymous with an ideology or a 'less than salubrious' period of history.

[Fandango 1,439]

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, because I did not read all messages in this thread.

The burning cross was and is an important religous symbol for many Christian sects. It was used at ceremonies for many many years before it was placed near the homes of black people in the south.

So I am unclear why the problems with the law.

Burning a cross on your own property for religous purposes = your own damn business and by no means degrading to Christian tradition.

Doing it on someone else's property to or to instigate violence = bad and against the law. As it has been for ... I dunno, at least 200 years? Not sure where that property law came in.

Freedom of speech really only applies so long as it doesn't promote hatred and persecution based on that hatred.

You burn a cross in your front yard it sends a very clear, recognisable and unwelcome message to African Americans. For that reason alone it should be outlawed and does not form a part of reasonable free speech.

For the same reason in Germany, you will be arrested if you display Nazi insignia in public or recite nazi slogans.

Yeah then why are the KKK allowed to have rallies?

Because our society tolerates the right of a bunch of uneducated racist fucks to act like uneducated racist fucks.

Yet at the same time, we are totally intolerant of islamic fundamentalists who preach support for Al Qaeda, for instance.

In the end its much the same, both groups are equally offensive and distasteful. Why tolerate one and not the other?

2 different things.

It is illegal to conspire to murder US citizens under US law. People in the KKK, Nazi party, Al Qaeda, and other 'hateful' groups have been brought up on charges of conspiricy to murder.

You can peacefully assemble and talk about whatever you want, including if you think you are superior to someone. Anything beyond that, angainst the law and the law is blind to who that party is.

I worked at a company once where some of the employees refused to talk to me because I was not a muslim. It was their right. Strange? Angainst most american traditions? Yes. Illegal, no.

That's my point - your right for freedom of speech is not absolute, and ends when your pursuit of that expression breaks the law, or threatens the rights of others to live peacefully and according to our laws.

As for cross burning - the swastika was a peaceful symbol for thousands of years until it became synonymous with nazi germany and the holocaust. The perversion of that symbol, as with cross burning has become so proflific that it will be forever associated with race hate and intolerance. For that reason alone, noone would reasonably choose to display a swastika or burn a cross out of respect for the fact that the majority interpretation of that symbol is ultimately negative.

But this is my point, and we're just hashing thee same thing six ways from sunday. But what I highlighted is this: people can refrain out of respect, but not because it's illegal.

You originally said

Freedom of speech really only applies so long as it doesn't promote hatred and persecution based on that hatred.

And that's not true...freedom of speech applies to hatred promotion and persecution as well. Like it or lump it, it does. This has been my point this whole thread. You could go to an anti-illegal rally & just read some of the beauts there. Go to a NeoNazi or KKK rally...THEY HAVE POLICE PROTECTION. *gross* They're certainly not singin 'let's all get along' yet it's protected speech. I made this point before and you just glossed over it completely. A gov't should not govern morality. Free speech comes with good and bad which are intertwined & cannot be separated. I don't want my gov't being all 'now now that tone is a little harsh so that's illegal'

I think it's a given that free speech does not support things advocating crimes or inciting violence. And I believe I already said this as well. Arson and peaceful demonstration are two different things, and I don't think that anyone here is confusing the two. If someone burns a cross on private land (barring zoning issues) that should be his right. If you burn down your neighbor's house because he is a different nationality that you hate, that's an entirely different matter.

Dean, thank you for your explanation. I am glad I was confused there!

Anyways, I'm just saying exactly what I was sayin 10 posts ago, so it's time for me to go! In short:

I do not support cross burning as means of intimidation. I do not support law breaking behavior. I do not support hate, but within the confines of the law anyone has the right to speak his/her mind. And sometimes the message may not be nice, but I support the right that allows him to say it.

Furthermore, anyone can go to a tattoo parlor and get a big assed swastika on his/her body & walk down the street proudly displaying it. That is his/her right. Just like it is my right to call him/her a racist chopfcuk,

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And that's not true...freedom of speech applies to hatred promotion and persecution as well. Like it or lump it, it does. This has been my point this whole thread. You could go to an anti-illegal rally & just read some of the beauts there. Go to a NeoNazi or KKK rally...THEY HAVE POLICE PROTECTION. *gross* They're certainly not singin 'let's all get along' yet it's protected speech. I made this point before and you just glossed over it completely. A gov't should not govern morality. Free speech comes with good and bad which are intertwined & cannot be separated. I don't want my gov't being all 'now now that tone is a little harsh so that's illegal'

But governments, to varing degrees do legislate on precisely this issue. Perhaps they shouldn't but they do.

Why do you think the Met initially closed down the Finsbury Park Mosque? - Someone didn't like Abu Hamza's brand of religious sermon, the local council withdrew the right of his group to use the building, based entirely on reports of what was going on there.

I do not support cross burning as means of intimidation. I do not support law breaking behavior. I do not support hate, but within the confines of the law anyone has the right to speak his/her mind. And sometimes the message may not be nice, but I support the right that allows him to say it.

I'll agree with that. But along with the individual's to express their opinion, there should (and is) a wider social (and moral) expectation that certain things are so far from the mainstream of public thought that they shouldn't be said in public. But yes - you have the right, as you say. That is (more or less) absolute.

Furthermore, anyone can go to a tattoo parlor and get a big assed swastika on his/her body & walk down the street proudly displaying it. That is his/her right.

Sure - but they can expect to be charged with a crime in certain parts of Europe, for instance, and displaying something like that in public would almost certainly get you fired from any job you might have and disqualify you from any interview you choose to go for. Perhaps that isn't fair...

Edited May 30, 2006 by Fishdude

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Edited to add:

Society automatically punishes and marginalises deviants who don't conform to accepted norms of behaviour, conduct and thought.

Its no coincidence that the sort of person say, who would display the aforementioned swastika tattoo would be more likely to be stopped by police, less likely to keep or maintain a job or relationship while displaying the tattoo, more likely to be searched at airports etc.

None of this infringes the right of the individual to express themselves - only that there are social penalties for people who refuse to conform to something approaching social norms.

Its common sense really - life is harder and there are more barriers to succeeding in it if you are an overt racist , a nazi or religious extremist. That is part of the reason why a lot of the people who hold those sorts of extremist views are often undereducated or from poor or abusive homes.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fandango 1,439]

Fishdude, get off that tanget & get on issue again ...I wasn't broaching societal reaction to racists or how it is in Europe, or any other issue...I was merely discussing legality of free speech and how it applies to people in America. Sorry I didn't make that clear!

It's hard enuff to not stay in here debating this til the cows come home...but D's coming in less than 72 hours and I suppose I should get off my butt & get ready

Have a good one guys!

Edited May 30, 2006 by LisaD

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fishdude, get off that tanget & get on issue again ...I wasn't broaching societal reaction to racists or how it is in Europe, or any other issue...I was merely discussing legality of free speech and how it applies to people in America. Sorry I didn't make that clear!

Well as 'free speech' is a fundamental value in every country in the western world I don't think you can make such a distinction. The reality is some speech is 'free-er than others'. What might be legal in America is illegal in parts of Europe and vice-versa. There are laws that hold people to account for what they say quite apart from whether or not it amounts to a crime.

As I said before - we have libel and defamation laws. A European newspaper can be sued (in Europe) for reprinting a story in the US paper that (over here) is regarded as fair comment. Tom Cruise has done this... as have a number of celebrities.

Ultimately - social reaction determines what is acceptable and society punishes deviants for non-conformance. I don't see that as tangential at all. Its exactly the point - free speech does not come without responsibility. Society pressues individuals not to be racists, and those who are face considerably more barriers to their succcess than those who aren't.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Fishdude

[Reba 2]

it would seem that cross burning is still a somewhat common pastime here in North Carolina. Last year in the Durham area, 4 were burned. 3 on one evening in May, and one in December.

according to one article:

In North Carolina, burning a cross without permission is a misdemeanor, but a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed for cross burning when there is no intention to intimidate.

According to Wikipedia interpretation of that Supreme Court ruling, burning a cross at a private KKK (or other) rally is legal, however, if a cross is burned with the soul intent to itimidate someone or some group, then it is not protected by the First Amendment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it would seem that cross burning is still a somewhat common pastime here in North Carolina. Last year in the Durham area, 4 were burned. 3 on one evening in May, and one in December.

according to one article:

In North Carolina, burning a cross without permission is a misdemeanor, but a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed for cross burning when there is no intention to intimidate.

According to Wikipedia interpretation of that Supreme Court ruling, burning a cross at a private KKK (or other) rally is legal, however, if a cross is burned with the soul intent to itimidate someone or some group, then it is not protected by the First Amendment.

Exactly.