imported post
Heartless_Conservative wrote:
Then again, we gotta remember to respect our American Right to Christianity... :uhoh:
Seriously, what is your problem? Were you kicked around by a nun when you were little or are you just another one of those hypocritical bigots? I really do think that alot of what you say is pretty spot on, but statements like that greatly strain your credibility because it shows either a degree of bigotry, or an extreme ignorance of both current (such as the last 30-40 years) events, as well as basic facts of American history.
Anyways, more on topic; I agree totally that ideally, someone who is not ready to be a full member of society (such as voting and owning whatever kind of kind they want) shouldn't be out of prison. Unfortunately, its easier to change laws than minds and hearts, so until we reverse this 'progressive' wave thats swept over the nation (didn't you hear, punishing criminals is soooooo 1950's), mandating stricter punishment is probably the only option we have.
In an attempt to not digress too much, I'll summarize. I've seen and participated in both sides of religiousity, being a good Catholic and Republican for the first 15-16 years of my life, but then later finding myself the target of a large amount of scrutiny for my religious views (or lack thereof) in an increasingly religious nation. I'm not one of the militant atheists who believe in freedom
from religion, but I object to how much Judeo-Christian religion shapes our country's policy. While I agree with you, I think, that many sectors of American
society have become much more secular and perhaps even anti-religious since the 1960s, since the 1980s and especially since 2000 the government (primarily Federal) has been pushing an agenda to promote Judeo-Christian ideals (which definately include some freedoms) instead of true freedom and liberty.
I would start a new thread topic altogether about the relationship between religion and freedoms, but I'm convinced a hot-button topic like that would get shut down for being "off-topic", much like the one about how far the Second Amendment goes...
Returning back to the topic at hand... it seems that before answering how to respond to rape cases, first we must look at the question of how "serious" rape should be considered. Surely, rape is emotionally scarring, but then again so is getting beaten to within an inch of one's life. There is also a misconception that rape is about sex, when more often than not it is about anger and power. Rape is also dehumanizing, but so is being the victim of other violent crimes. I feel that there is a cycle being perpetuated, where women (as men are largely ignored as rape victims) are socialized to believe that rape forces them to become a different person and define themselves as rape victims for the rest of their lives. The rest of society who
isn't raped sees how seriously these womens' lives are affected, and then reaffirm the idea that rape destroys a person's life beyond repair. Once again, I'm not denying that it is a very traumatizing experience, but it's not something that, as many argue, is worse than murder. I think of it in a similar vein to so-called "hate crime" legislation... murder is murder whether the killer does it for racist reasons or not; he still decides to take another life unjustly. Similarly, a violent assault is a violent assault, regardless of why a person is assaulted. Yet, it is our culture that puts a special priority on sex, as our Judeo-Christian national background teaches that sex is wrong, with the child-bearing-while-married exception. This is then, perhaps, exploited by prosecutors who need to use the shock word/concept "sex" to elicit a more favorable jury opinion.
