imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Heartless_Conservative wrote:
I propose an explanation as to why rape is considered so much more horrible than even homocide, as the only difference between rape and a "regular" assault is the sexual aspect. If a parent neglects or physically abuses their child/ren, is that person put into a registry? No, even though what they do damages children just as much as sexual abuse. If a person assaults someone else because he wants to assert his dominance over the other person for whatever reason, is there a registry for that? No, even though that person commits that assault for the same reason a typical "rapist" commits his crime, and a person with that predilection toward violence is just as much of a danger to society as a "rapist". The only difference is society's response to the acts, not the intents of the acts or the danger of the attacker. Given that our society is based on Judeo-Christian ideals, I propose that perhaps the country's Judeo-Christian foundation is responsible for our belief that sexual assaults are so much more horrible than other violent assaults, and why we attach so severe of a stigma to the acts.
Do I hate Christianity in its own regard? Of course not. Do I hate when Christianity is used as the basis for the creation of laws as it has been for the past several centuries? Yes. Am I outraged when people refuse to look past Christianity in examining the truth of a situation? Yes. Am I outraged when atheists refuse to look past their atheism in examining the truth of a situation? Yes! Freedom should not be contingent upon either the acceptance of a religion nor the rejection of religion. What I see in this thread is an undue influence of religion on the freedom (or degree of freedom) of a particular group of people. Unfortunately, the great divide in gun owners, as evident on this board, is between those who believe that God gives us our right to defend ourselves and that God gives us our freedom, and those of us who believe that the right to self-defense and all other freedoms are inherent in nature. I fall into the second category, which unfortunately clashes with the first on issues where freedom is contingent upon following a certain set of beliefs.
Heartless_Conservative wrote:
Once again... I do not feel "rape" should be a separate crime at all. If the "rape" involved an element of torture, physical or psychological, then take that into consideration while sentencing. If a guy drugged a woman in order to rape her, then consider that in sentencing. If a person is proven to be such a danger to society, then by all means remove him from society. I'm suggesting that we not classify a select few crimes as special from their non-sexual equivalents.You forgot teh joos...curse them and their beady little eyes...So far, public emotion seems to support the "death penalty" for: terrorists, "suspected" terrorists, child molesters, rapists, drug dealers, atheists, gays... am I missing anyone?
Anyways, Ifind it ironic that while the people you're disagreeing with brought up the issue that rape is a far more invasive and personal crime than most other forms of assault (and btw you're the only one who made any mention about torture, which I think most people would agree is in a different catagory) you dismiss them entirely with "you're just saying that cause you're a dirty Christian theocracyphile who's obsessed with sex." (which is especially ironicconsidering that you're the only one giving much thought to the sexual aspect of it).Every time you bring up your rabid anti-Christian bigotry you seriously undermine the credibility of your points, even the ones that are otherwise excellent in their own regard.
I propose an explanation as to why rape is considered so much more horrible than even homocide, as the only difference between rape and a "regular" assault is the sexual aspect. If a parent neglects or physically abuses their child/ren, is that person put into a registry? No, even though what they do damages children just as much as sexual abuse. If a person assaults someone else because he wants to assert his dominance over the other person for whatever reason, is there a registry for that? No, even though that person commits that assault for the same reason a typical "rapist" commits his crime, and a person with that predilection toward violence is just as much of a danger to society as a "rapist". The only difference is society's response to the acts, not the intents of the acts or the danger of the attacker. Given that our society is based on Judeo-Christian ideals, I propose that perhaps the country's Judeo-Christian foundation is responsible for our belief that sexual assaults are so much more horrible than other violent assaults, and why we attach so severe of a stigma to the acts.
Do I hate Christianity in its own regard? Of course not. Do I hate when Christianity is used as the basis for the creation of laws as it has been for the past several centuries? Yes. Am I outraged when people refuse to look past Christianity in examining the truth of a situation? Yes. Am I outraged when atheists refuse to look past their atheism in examining the truth of a situation? Yes! Freedom should not be contingent upon either the acceptance of a religion nor the rejection of religion. What I see in this thread is an undue influence of religion on the freedom (or degree of freedom) of a particular group of people. Unfortunately, the great divide in gun owners, as evident on this board, is between those who believe that God gives us our right to defend ourselves and that God gives us our freedom, and those of us who believe that the right to self-defense and all other freedoms are inherent in nature. I fall into the second category, which unfortunately clashes with the first on issues where freedom is contingent upon following a certain set of beliefs.