Blasphemy - still illegal in the US!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Since building a case would pretty much require the wife to give evidence against her husband it pretty much always requires the wife to press charges. The state will rarely waste it's money charging someone with a crime that the victim and (usually) only witness of won't testify to on the stand.

Well in the cases where there is evidence from possibly someone else like a relative, neighbor or social worker.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Of course not.

But I'd laugh like hell if someone who begged to get his ass knocked off his high horse recieved his silly request.

So you do then at least tacitly support the marine assaulting someone simply for what they say or believe.

1) I loved the joke
2) I think it's even funnnier that fools like you think it's an "urban legend" (hahahahahahahahaha!)
3) I think you're playing games, and you're lousy at it

 

[Huntster]

Last I heard, Massachusettes was "in the US" as the title of the thread says.

I've heard that Massachusetts along with California were more in outer space than the US.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
Do you tacitly support professors behaving like complete jackasses in the execution of their professional duties?

If they're tenured there's not a whole lot to do about it....

Ah, but if they're tenured and they ask for a whuppin, you can give them one.......

....however tyhe professor didn't break any laws there pal.

Nope.

He asked for a physical whuppin, and he got one.

I also don't see anything in this urban legend that shows the professor was doing anything but ranting in class.

And I see nothing in this joke that shows the Marine giving the professor exactly what he asked for.

That's not against the law

In the example, the Marine probably did break the law.

And I'd love to be on that jury...............

....and if his rants are against policy, then it is very simple to make a complaint to the university president.

Lousy joke.

And the university president would probably approve the professor's message.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And probably would, too, even though he was clearly asking to get knocked off the podium.

He wasn't asking to get knocked off the podium by anyone who wanted to knock him off the podium. He took it for granted that everyone hearing him would realize that he didn't want to get knocked off the podium, and therefore his asking to get knocked off the podium specifically by God would clearly demonstrate his disbelief that there exists any God to knock him off the podium.

Surely this is obvious?

Yup.

And did you catch the "obviousness" that the Marine illustrated?

 

[TsarBomba]

To return to the point of the original post, which drkitten already addressed, a judicial opinion (or the evolution of a constitutional doctrine) recognizing a statute as unconstitutional does not have the effect of removing that statute from the books, it simply renders it unenforceable. Sometimes Congress or the state legislature will repeal the statute, but sometimes not. A legislature may choose to leave an unconstitutional statute on the books so that, if the court decision holding it unconstitutional is ever reversed, the legislature doesn't have to pass the statute again-- it can just go back to enforcing it. Sometimes, as is quite likely the case here, the legislature simply has better things to do with its time than clearing the statute books of old laws that the state has no intention of trying to enforce.

Also, no one wants to introduce a bill to legalize blasphemy. It looks bad to a large segment of the electorate. This is why some states still have laws on the books against adultery.

 

[Questioninggeller]

It's still illegal in the UK as well.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Of course not.

But I'd laugh like hell if someone who begged to get his ass knocked off his high horse recieved his silly request.

So you do then at least tacitly support the marine assaulting someone simply for what they say or believe.

People who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards.

 

[Ducky]

Ah, but if they're tenured and they ask for a whuppin, you can give them one.......

No, that's still assault.

Nope.

He asked for a physical whuppin, and he got one.

he didn't "ask" for anything in that story of yours.

And I see nothing in this joke that shows the Marine giving the professor exactly what he asked for.

Really? You seemed rather amused at the thought of assaulting a college prof over what he says in class.

In the example, the Marine probably did break the law.

And I'd love to be on that jury...............

I'm sure the marine would like it to. doesn't change the fact he physically assaulted a college professor for talking in class.

Lousy joke.

And the university president would probably approve the professor's message.

I doubt it. I know several university presidents. Depending on the class topic being out of line and downright insulting is a matter for disciplinary action. But your response seems to insinuate you think university presidents are atheists. Do you have evidence of that?

 

[Ducky]

People who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards.

I see nowhere in your story where the professor asked for protection from anything. Then again, unlike you, I don't think physical retaliation for a college professor's views is acceptable.

ETA:

In fact, those that feel they need to resort to physical violence when they can't use language to counter someone's views are dumb and violent.

 

[Rasmus]

A man here in Germany is facing trouble (I am not sure what precise nature this trouble is, but it seems the police is investigating against him) because he didn't eat the consecrated wafer he was given at a catholic mass but pocketed it instead. Not being a catholic, he took part in the mass out of curiosity. He later claimed he didn't like the taste of it and decided to see what exactly he had been given later.

His behaviour caught the attraction of two parishers (is 'parishers' a word? For 'members of a parish', even?) who then cornered and assaulted him on his way out demanding he return the wafer.

It is not clear what the investigation is supposedly about - it might be either for disturbing religious worship or slander of religious denomination (i.e. whatever belief a person identifies with), religious communities or 'world view group'.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Ah, but if they're tenured and they ask for a whuppin, you can give them one.......

No, that's still assault.

You don't get it, do you?

You can give it to him, and a jury around here would gladly exonerate you.

Think not?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope.

He asked for a physical whuppin, and he got one.

he didn't "ask" for anything in that story of yours.

What was this?:

"God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

You seemed rather amused at the thought of assaulting a college prof over what he says in class.

Amused? I found it absolutely hilarious.

Originally Posted by Huntster
In the example, the Marine probably did break the law.

And I'd love to be on that jury...............

I'm sure the marine would like it to. doesn't change the fact he physically assaulted a college professor for talking in class.

And that doesn't change the possibility that if such a thing truly happened, a jury might not convict the Marine.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Lousy joke.

And the university president would probably approve the professor's message.

I doubt it. I know several university presidents.

I've known a few, too. One would have liked such an exhibition.

But your response seems to insinuate you think university presidents are atheists. Do you have evidence of that?

Nope.

Do you have evidence that "university presidents" are religious?

Or are you just trying to prolong the game?

 

[Ducky]

You don't get it, do you?

You can give it to him, and a jury around here would gladly exonerate you.

Think not?

conviction is irrelevant. it was wrong of him to do.

What was this?:

I don't see that as anything addressed to the marine at all.

Amused? I found it absolutely hilarious.

I bet you do.

And that doesn't change the possibility that if such a thing truly happened, a jury might not convict the Marine.

That doesn't make it right for the marine to have done in the first place.

I've known a few, too. One would have liked such an exhibition.

One out of a few? doesn't sound like a majority there.

Nope.

Do you have evidence that "university presidents" are religious?

Or are you just trying to prolong the game?

There is no "game" to anyone but you, tough guy.

As for evidence university presidents on a whole are religious? I make no such claim. I never would. Your words lumped all university presidents in one group.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
People who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards.

I see nowhere in your story where the professor asked for protection from anything.

I didn't write that professors who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards. I wrote:

People who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards.

Then again, unlike you, I don't think physical retaliation for a college professor's views is acceptable.

Oh, fowl. How utterly predictable.

How long will you drag this forward with word games?

I asked a simple question regarding this widely emailed joke, and in you fly with your bullspit. Next I suppose you'll accuse me of mass murdering "college professors".

What an idiot. No wonder you've chosen the moniker of "fowlsound". You have the brain of a bird.

 

[Ducky]

I didn't write that professors who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards. I wrote:





Oh, fowl. How utterly predictable.

How long will you drag this forward with word games?

I asked a simple question regarding this widely emailed joke, and in you fly with your bullspit. Next I suppose you'll accuse me of mass murdering "college professors".

What an idiot. No wonder you've chosen the moniker of "fowlsound". You have the brain of a bird.

Ok, insulting rhetoric aside, your story is someone whysically assaulting someone for what they said. That's the simple fact of it. That you find it funny is a bit telling, and frankly, juvenile. That you would vote to aquit a clear case of assault on a jury shows you have no respect for other people with different views. Your insults simply support that premise.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You don't get it, do you?

You can give it to him, and a jury around here would gladly exonerate you.

Think not?

conviction is irrelevant. it was wrong of him to do.

Just like it was wrong and stupid for the professor to do what he did. And just like it's stupid for you to get worked up over a joke that I happen to find funny.

Urban legend..............That's a joke too, right?

Or are you really that stupid to have to check snopes or something to figure out if that was real or not?

Originally Posted by Huntster
What was this?:

I don't see that as anything addressed to the marine at all.

Then who was the professor talking to?

God?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Amused? I found it absolutely hilarious.

I bet you do.

That would be a good bet.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And that doesn't change the possibility that if such a thing truly happened, a jury might not convict the Marine.

That doesn't make it right for the marine to have done in the first place.

The "first place" was the professor "professing". The second place was the Marine granting the professor's wish.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I've known a few, too. One would have liked such an exhibition.

One out of a few? doesn't sound like a majority there.

The other two I knew weren't religious, but were very respectful. I attended the funeral of a well known psychology professor who was very religious, and a couple of university professors were there.

But one (of course, from the "big" university) is more political and ideological than athiest or religious. He'll be whatever he has to be to "move up."

"Today", he's an atheist university president. "Yesterday" he was a military general. "Tomorrow"? Who knows?

Who cares?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope.

Do you have evidence that "university presidents" are religious?

Or are you just trying to prolong the game?

There is no "game" to anyone but you, tough guy.

Oh, the "tough guy" thing again?

Okay, wuss.

Is that part of the game?

As for evidence university presidents on a whole are religious? I make no such claim.

Nor did I claim that university presidents on a whole are atheists. So why do we need evidence of what neither of us stated?

Is that part of the game, fool?..............Whoops..............fowl?

Your words lumped all university presidents in one group.

University presidents are one group; university presidents.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I didn't write that professors who like to talk squat and demand protection from the consequences are all talk and cowards. I wrote:

Oh, fowl. How utterly predictable.

How long will you drag this forward with word games?

I asked a simple question regarding this widely emailed joke, and in you fly with your bullspit. Next I suppose you'll accuse me of mass murdering "college professors".

What an idiot. No wonder you've chosen the moniker of "fowlsound". You have the brain of a bird.

Ok, insulting rhetoric aside, your story is someone whysically assaulting someone for what they said. That's the simple fact of it. That you find it funny is a bit telling, and frankly, juvenile. That you would vote to aquit a clear case of assault on a jury shows you have no respect for other people with different views. Your insults simply support that premise.

Hey, birdbrain, if I type slowly, can you get over your infatuation with me and figure it out?

Why do you think I mentioned the joke and asked the question I asked (do you remember that question? Do birds have memories?)

Recall the law cited in the opening post:

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Now, you obviously find the Marine guilty of crimes against humanity.

But I suppose you would find prosecuting the professor "untenable"?

(Oh, just for the hell of it, notice I changed the wording in the joke to the same wording in the above cited law; "cursing or contumeliously reproaching").

Okay, chickenman. Does the professor get prosecuted for "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God? Or is it just that "tough guy" Marine who has to see the jury?

Can you keep on track here, or will the games continue?

 

[Ducky]

Just like it was wrong and stupid for the professor to do what he did. And just like it's stupid for you to get worked up over a joke that I happen to find funny.

Urban legend..............That's a joke too, right?

Or are you really that stupid to have to check snopes or something to figure out if that was real or not?

I didn't have to check anything. I remembered reading it on snopes and linked it to show how ridiculous it is.

Then who was the professor talking to?

God?

"God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

It would appear he was.

The "first place" was the professor "professing". The second place was the Marine granting the professor's wish.

The marine was assaulting a professor in a class. It's that simple.

The other two I knew weren't religious, but were very respectful. I attended the funeral of a well known psychology professor who was very religious, and a couple of university professors were there.

But one (of course, from the "big" university) is more political and ideological than athiest or religious. He'll be whatever he has to be to "move up."

"Today", he's an atheist university president. "Yesterday" he was a military general. "Tomorrow"? Who knows?

Who cares?

I see no relevance to your sharing this, but thanks.

Oh, the "tough guy" thing again?

Okay, wuss.

Is that part of the game?

It appears you don't know the difference between a ribbing joke and downright insulting.

Nor did I claim that university presidents on a whole are atheists. So why do we need evidence of what neither of us stated?

And the university president would probably approve the professor's message.

Sure looks like you were overgeneralizing to me.

Is that part of the game, fool?..............Whoops..............fowl?

It appears you have no recourse but to insults. I'd take that as a sign of poor communication skills.

University presidents are one group; university presidents.

But their religiouos beliefs are not one group.

 

[Ducky]

Hey, birdbrain, if I type slowly, can you get over your infatuation with me and figure it out?

Why do you think I mentioned the joke and asked the question I asked (do you remember that question? Do birds have memories?)

Recall the law cited in the opening post:



Now, you obviously find the Marine guilty of crimes against humanity.

But I suppose you would find prosecuting the professor "untenable"?

(Oh, just for the hell of it, notice I changed the wording in the joke to the same wording in the above cited law; "cursing or contumeliously reproaching").

Okay, chickenman. Does the professor get prosecuted for "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God? Or is it just that "tough guy" Marine who has to see the jury?

Can you keep on track here, or will the games continue?

I find the marine guilty of assaulting a professor, not crimes against humanity.

The rest of your post is insulting and a strawman. When you calm down, let me know I'd be happy to continue the conversation.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Just like it was wrong and stupid for the professor to do what he did. And just like it's stupid for you to get worked up over a joke that I happen to find funny.

Urban legend..............That's a joke too, right?

Or are you really that stupid to have to check snopes or something to figure out if that was real or not?

I didn't have to check anything. I remembered reading it on snopes and linked it to show how ridiculous it is.

"Reading it on snopes"? You "read" snopes like a book? Page to page?

Do you have so much trouble discerning reality that snopes has to do it for you?

Is that, like, religious?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Then who was the professor talking to?

God?

Quote:
"God if you are real, then you have 15 minutes to knock me off this podium."

It would appear he was.

Then it would appear that if the professor was talking to God, then he believed God existed, and he should have expected a whuppin, cause "thems were fightin' words."

Originally Posted by Huntster
The "first place" was the professor "professing". The second place was the Marine granting the professor's wish.

The marine was assaulting a professor in a class. It's that simple.

After the professor openly demanded that God had 15 minutes to knock him from the podium, and after 14 minutes of "cursing or contumeliously reproaching" God.

Yes. It is simple, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, the "tough guy" thing again?

Okay, wuss.

Is that part of the game?

It appears you don't know the difference between a ribbing joke and downright insulting.

Oh, the "tough guy" thing was a "ribbing joke"?

That's why I asked.

Do you have an answer, or does the game continue?