Nick Prout:

I hope everyone's candidate got elected.

Not a chance, dang, it.  But I knew that going in!

Nick Prout:

 Sharron/Teresa,f

I will volunteer to drive the bus. It will be an easy ride, all downhill, and we will get excellent fuel mileage.

Nick

Aahh, it will be a nice ride then...........   :)

Nick Prout:

Sharron Smith:

Teresa Johnson:

I'm going straight to hell!  Too bad for me, I guess.  Teresa   -sorry, we are off topic, aren't we?

 

No Teresa, I do not think so.  If you are correct, save me a seat next to yours!  Sharron Smith 

 

 Sharron/Teresa,

I will volunteer to drive the bus. It will be an easy ride, all downhill, and we will get excellent fuel mileage.

Nick

Count me in too - I'll bring the wine & chocolate chip cookies!   And yep, Teresa, I was just kidding......but my candidates really did lose :[

Sharron Smith:

For example, if Clonnie's lovely wife grabbed a bat and killed the cat in the throes of great sorrow and outrage over the death of her dove -- temporary insanity might qualify.  If on the other hand, she acquires a deep rooted hatred of cats -- expresses that hatred often (Look at that cat --somebody ought to kill that varmint, Clonnie.  See if you can get him with the front wheels of the car!  The only good cat is a flat cat!)  If then, when she walked into my home, saw my four cats, grabbed a poker from the fire place and began flattening them -- I think we would have a  hate crime!  She may still have been angry about her dove, but her hatred was directed at all cats.  Her violent act occurred not because of any act or gesture from my cats -- it occurred simply because they were a cat.  While we might question her sanity, she was not insane temporarily, and she was not mentally incompetent.  (But . .  she has put up with Clonnie all these years . . .  so o o o o o . . .  maybe a few cards short of a full deck?)  

(Dear Mrs. C,  please excuse the license I have taken with the anecdote your husband offered about your affinity for birds.  An affinity I share and one that restricts my cats to the indoors and our elevated porch where they can watch but not touch.)

If the panel could pause with me for a moment and be perfectly honest, I'm sure you all would agree with me that the "man half" of our species generally harbors a deep-seated and unnatural hatred for cats.  This hatred is out of all proportion to any actions that cats have taken against men, and is often tied to some action such as a cat taking an innocent nap on the man's car hood -- or some other such inconsequential incident.  Many men deveklop (or perhaps "develop") an irrational loathing and hatred of cats, and it often becomes a rite of passage for entrance into the "man" fraternity: 

Mans Fraternity Lodge Master:  "Okay Joe, we're about ready to accept you.  You passed the burping test and failed the sensitivity test, but before we make you a full member, we have one final question for you:  How do you feel about cats?"

Joe: "Well, I...."

Lodge master:  "Okay, that frosts it!  Leave this sacred assembly post haste, Joe, and don't ever come back!

So given that so many men and dogs (is that redundant?) hate cats and rarely pass up an opportunity to persecute and abuse them, shouldn't there be a hate-crime law to protect cats? 

PS. Use of the name, "Joe," above was simply artistic license and was not meant to refer to any human or animal, living or dead.

From: Mr. B. Cool Kat 

People, unless one has actually walked in cat paws, please do not act like you understand us. We have zero thumbs for Pete's sake. I would like to see you humans communicate with a one word vocabulary...meow! Furthermore, if you knew what those pesky birds were saying when they cuss chirp at us, you would take them down too. "Kitty ain't got no meow," "Nice bell tinker," and "Hey cat, you're stupid," are just a few of the things we have to listen to constantly. I implore you to get a clue, and quit acting like you are the only living thing on OUR planet. Sincerely, B.C. Kat

Dave Hanson:

Clonnie Yearout:

People and politicians will use such a law... as a club to pound those who had no connection to the original crime.

Saying that opponents of hate crime legislation are pounded with a club seems a tad ironic and insensitive when we consider the case of Mr. Byrd.  Three Good Old Boys down in Texas beat him, stripped him naked, chained him by the ankles to the back of a truck, and dragged him for miles,  He died after his right arm and head were severed when the body got caught in a sewage drain.  The killers dumped his mutilated remains in the town's black cemetery and went to a barbecue.  The suspects were well-known white supremacists and local law enforcement officials called the FBI.  All three assailants were convicted.  One was given life in prison and two were given the death penalty.  If ever there was a hate crime, this was one, although I imagine the killers found it amusing and weren't angry with Mr. Byrd.

After all that, many will not want to impose the death penalty, even for the most heinous crimes, so what good is a hate crime law in that instance, if it only adds another prison sentence to a prisoner who can't possibly live long enough to serve them all.  I suppose it might make us feel better about ourselves for supporting it, but what is its practical value?  Is it going to eradicate hate?  Is it even going to give pause to the kind of individual that would commit such horrible crimes?  "Let's see, I'd like to do something mean and horrible to that person, but I'd better not because he's protected by a hate-crime law."  I would venture to say that the kind of low-lifes who commit these crimes wouldn't even be aware of the existence of a hate-crime law.

Nick Prout:

I am mia in Myrtle Beach eating too much and enjoying life. Reality will return too soon. I hope everyone's candidate got elected.

We would all like to be there with you...enjoy Mrytle Beach as much as I enjoyed Edisto Island last week.

And yes, about the election...I have this strange feeling that I have seldom experienced before of having voted for almost a complete winning ticket yesterday...except for one very close local election.  Usually my votes are all on the losing side!

Leesa McGregor:

Liniel Gregory:

The Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is yet another example of a government with too much time on its hands and too little attention paid to more pressing matters such as the economy, wars, social security, health, etc. that affects all of us no matter what our "sexual" or "religious" orientation is.  The existing law already considers the perceived nationality, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, ideology and beliefs of all of us and it is simply an absurd argument that there should be a broadening of any threat to religious expression, or, for that matter, expression of any kind by virture of adding sexual orientation to the "hate crime law". Hate is hate. . . .

 

Well said, Linnie!

 Thanks Leesa.  I appreciate you and your posts which are straight up, on target and logicial. Keep 'em coming.

Sharron Smith:

Marvin Foster:

Liniel Gregory:

I don't like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Al Gore, the Dallas Cowboys,

 

 Liniel,  I'm with you..used to like the Cowboys, but Roger Staubach retired and they fired Tom Landry.

 

 Gentlemen, 

I always feel better when we panelists agree.  Like you, I do not care for the Dallas Cowboys.

Sharron

 And we panelists "guys" are always happy when Miss Sharron agrees with us no matter what the subject.  We she does not agree with us we begin to worry about that dreadful frying pan.  Whew !  Thanks Miss Sharron and welcome back, hope things are smoothing out for you.

Liniel Gregory:

The Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is yet another example of a government with too much time on its hands and too little attention paid to more pressing matters such as the economy, wars, social security, health, etc. that affects all of us no matter what our "sexual" or "religious" orientation is.  The existing law already considers the perceived nationality, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, ideology and beliefs of all of us and it is simply an absurd argument that there should be a broadening of any threat to religious expression, or, for that matter, expression of any kind by virture of adding sexual orientation to the "hate crime law". Hate is hate

Yes Linnie, well spoken.

You and Sharron are tied for the quote of the week!!!!

Sharron Smith:

Dave Hanson:

you sure feel persecuted and victimized a lot.  I think you need a hug. 

 

Gosh Mr. Dave, this is a little "touchy/feely", but I will go along. 

ALL RIGHT EVERYONE!  ON THE COUNT OF THREE, WE ARE GOING TO SHOUT OUT A    R  E  A  L  L Y   BIG HUG FOR CLONNIE! 

READY?  ONE!         TWO!           THREE!       HUG!

(I really hope this makes Clonnie feel better!)

Sharron

Sharron,

You must be more careful. Dave specifically prescribed a (i.e., one) hug for Clonnie--IMHO, a perfect dosage for his ailment.  I was shocked (shocked, I say!) to see that you increased the dosage to a group hug.  It is well known that over-application of SAMH¹ therapy to the hug-deprived often produces negative side-effects, including giggles, warm-fuzzy-feelings toward mankind, and (gasp!) a giddy felicity. These are not behaviors that we've come to know and love in Clonnie, and that, if persistent, could dilute his value to this forum.  I can only hope that if he was thus affected, he makes a speedy recovery.

BTW, Clonnie, in an attempt to counteract the overwhelming effects of the SAMH, I issued an UGH! instead.  I hope it helped.

 ..

Joe

¹SAMH: Simultaneously Applied Multiple Hug

Sharron Smith:

Deb Landgraf:

"A civil ruler dabbling in religion is as reprehensible as a clergyman dabbling in politics. Both render themselves odious as well as ridiculous."

 

I need a bumper sticker . . . .No, no, I need a poster . . . . .No, no, I need a huge banner ---- pulled by an airplane (like they do at the beach)  --- flying over Washington, D. C. (inside the beltway) ---- with this quote enblazoned on it.  

Sharron,

For some reason, I am not as happy as I was at election time last year:( That makes me think that I don't have a market for bumper stickers and posters for the above quote that we both like so much. Maybe, just maybe--we can get Joe C. to fly over the Roanoke area and beyond with this banner attached to the plane. Now that would put a smile on our faces!!

Sharron Smith:

... I suspect many denounce the hate crimes law as a threat to religious freedom because of its basic premise.  It is difficult to deem individuals unworthy when our laws recognize their equal standing and offer protection from violent acts of hate.  Intolerance and bigotry are not rendered legitimate because they are expressed as religious beliefs.  Faith provides no immunity from intolerance, and discrimination can thrive even in a house of worship.  The threat to religious freedom does not come from a law that defines hate crimes – it comes from within a congregation when it fails to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every other citizen.  All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . . . even those among us who are sinners. 

 

Joe C. might think I am throwing fat on the fire and it is entirely possible! This morning as I drank tea and read an article in The Catholic Virginian, I put some of what I was reading in the context of our topic. I hope you don't mind me "sharing!" Father John Dietzen said in the article "Judging and Condemning Others" that "some people have just enough faith to believe in a God who judges us, but not enough to believe in a God who loves us. So they believe their surest way of pleasing God is to judge others as well." Father Dietzen also said that "we have a direct and serious command of our Lord not to judge another." I see this as closely tied to our topic since so many presume to judge others and explain it through religious beliefs. I think your statement Sharron nails this point: Intolerance and bigotry are not rendered legitimate because they are expressed as religious beliefs.

This is the crux of the problem in my opinion. 

Sister Deb 

Nick Prout:

I am not ignoring your questions and plan to address them in time, but I am mia in Myrtle Beach eating too much and enjoying life. Reality will return too soon. I hope everyone's candidate got elected.

Hi Nick,

I hope you are having a great time in Myrtle Beach. Luanne will be giving us a new question before long, so don't be concerned that you have VoV things to catch up on! No one can give us homework--not even Luanne!!!

My candidates didn't have happy election outcomes last night:( But I am sure you could have figured that out without me saying anything!

Deb

Dave Hanson:

In Colonial Massachusetts the majority of good Christians supported a law that made it a capital crime to be a Quaker.  There weren't many Quakers in Puritan Massachusetts.  Defiant ones were banished or hanged.

Massachusetts was the most intollerant (when it came to religion) of all the colonies.  I find that so ironic, given that one of America's founding principles was religious freedom.  Massachusetts (particularly Boston) is still intollerant today, according to some of friends who happen to be black.

Clonnie Yearout:

I will agree with you, Dave -- that the crime was especially atrocious -- and I will also agree with you that it needed special punishment over and above that which the law might proscribe for a normal, every-day, run-of-the-mill murder.  I'll agree to the need for a hate-crime law -- if you'll agree that our entire system of justice is in need of overhaul.  Murderers such as those that tortured and horribly killed Mr Byrd should be dispatched within a week of their apprehension in cases where the evidence is undeniable and overwhelming.  But that's not what happens.  Even in a state like Texas (which isn't known for being soft on criminals) justice is agonizingly slow, and obviously guilty criminals lounge around while the ACLU wrings its hands and their lawyers look for some possible loophole sufficient to free the perpetrator.  After all that, many will not want to impose the death penalty, even for the most heinous crimes, so what good is a hate crime law in that instance, if it only adds another prison sentence to a prisoner who can't possibly live long enough to serve them all.  I suppose it might make us feel better about ourselves for supporting it, but what is its practical value?  Is it going to eradicate hate?  Is it even going to give pause to the kind of individual that would commit such horrible crimes?

Clonnie Yearout:

I'm sure you all would agree with me that the "man half" of our species generally harbors a deep-seated and unnatural hatred for cats.