Of course THEY get to make such chocies, and if those ethics fall outside that judgment of theirs, anything goes in their defeat, right?

We all make such choices every day. The basis of their decisions is rational argument others base their decisions on religion. In my view rational argument is superior to religion in forming ethical standards. You apparently disagree.

I'm simply holding those who support such to their own standards

Your stock defense against the pointing out of your own inconsistent standards.

As Michael correctly pointed out no one has been accused of hate crimes for flushing or otherwise damaging a legally obtained Koran. It is probably an improper interrogation technique, but not a hate crime.

Your responses demonstrates clearly it is the left who cannot withstand it's own illogic turned against it.

How so?

So, flushing a Koran isn't a crime, let alone a hate crime? Better tell the soldiers who were so charged.

I must have missed something, we have a soldier charged in the USA with a crime, for flushing a Koran?

NO. They (PZ, Dawkins, et al) believe that religion is a destructive force in society and would like to see all religions go the way of Odin or Zeus worship. They do not believe themselves above the law or rationally derived ethics.

Of course THEY get to make such chocies, and if those ethics fall outside that judgment of theirs, anything goes in their defeat, right?

As I said.

A crime must be committed in order for there to be a hate crime.

So, flushing a Koran isn't a crime, let alone a hate crime? Better tell the soldiers who were so charged. I'm sure you'll be able to get them exonerated quickly since you understand the topic so very well.

It is done daily. The Danish Muhammed cartoon is one of the most visible examples. If I recall you were in full throated support of that attempt to cause an angry response by Muslims.

What you fail to understand is that I put no stock in hate crimes legislation. I'm simply holding those who support such to their own standards, even to the point of using the leftist arguments against western religions. Your responses demonstrates clearly it is the left who cannot withstand it's own illogic turned against it.

If he believes that the destruction of all religion is a moral imperative, then by his lights that moral imperative that leaves him of the responsibility inherent in a society.

NO. They (PZ, Dawkins, et al) believe that religion is a destructive force in society and would like to see all religions go the way of Odin or Zeus worship. They do not believe themselves above the law or rationally derived ethics.

I see very little difference between him acting on his independent morality and the 9/11 hijackers operating on theirs.

That is the most astoundingly stupid comparison I think I have ever seen.

A crime must be committed in order for there to be a hate crime. There was no crime and there was no damage to real property.

What would be said about such public intent to cause an angry response, against any other religion?

It is done daily. The Danish Muhammed cartoon is one of the most visible examples. If I recall you were in full throated support of that attempt to cause an angry response by Muslims. Now that Christianity is on the receiving end your tune has changed. Why is that?

Both acts were in poor taste, but are not and should not be illegal.

I see very little difference between him acting on his independent morality and the 9/11 hijackers operating on theirs.

Myers' yet-to-be-performed action will (presumably) lead to the destruction of half-cent waffer--surrendered by its original owner--that was going to be destroyed in any case, the actions of the 9/11 hijackers directly lead to the death of thousands that would have otherwise lived. Try again.

No, I don't follow. He seems to follow the first part (morality not based on accuracy of a belief), without following the second part (morality based on the existance of a belief).

If he believes that the destruction of all religion is a moral imperative, then by his lights that moral imperative that leaves him of the responsibility inherent in a society. An extreme example would be the 9/11 terrorists. by your lights and mine and what they did was an immoral act. then he on the other hand, consider themselves above all that, since they see themselves as fighting against what they see as a larger immorality.

and yes, I'm quite aware of the comparison that I'm laying out here; let me lay this out more plainly. I see very little difference between him acting on his independent morality and the 9/11 hijackers operating on theirs.

I think the "hate crime" line is much fuzzier than the line I was drawing. However I don't see there being a "crime" committed here, at least not in the legal sense, so I wouldn't classify this as a hate crime. Hateful? Maybe, but not criminal

Then, I think you underestimate the depths of how problematic hate crime laws are. I would suggest to you that it's possible indeed likely that his actions were driven by hatred. At the very least his actions could be considered socially unacceptable, at the least a disturbing the peace charge. Could that be extended into a hate crime? I daresay it could... and likely would were some other religion outside the Judeo-Christian mainstream been involved.

Think on that for a moment; What would western governments, including the US to say about the destruction of religious artifacts involving any other religion? What would be said about such public intent to cause an angry response, against any other religion? I think we both know they'd have the hate crime laws out before the echo died. Particularly where Islam is involved just now. Didn't we have a soldier up on charges for flushing a Koran? Think Flushing a bible would draw anything louder than a mild reprimand and a few mild guffaws?

Ask Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn about how western governments treat such actions against non-western religions.

the line you draw here seems abit fuzzy.

Let me try to clarify it then. I base my morality on what I believe is factual. That someone believes in the Eucharist is factual. The accuracy of that belief is not factual. Therefore my morality is based on the existance of the belief, not on the accuracy of the belief.

And by those lights, then, you've justified his action, since he views the destruction of all religion a moral impartive. Follow?

No, I don't follow. He seems to follow the first part (morality not based on accuracy of a belief), without following the second part (morality based on the existance of a belief).

But that still leaves us with the question of what he did being or not being a hate crime. What say you?

I think the "hate crime" line is much fuzzier than the line I was drawing. However I don't see there being a "crime" committed here, at least not in the legal sense, so I wouldn't classify this as a hate crime. Hateful? Maybe, but not criminal.

Go crack a dictionary, and yo'll find that supertition and religion are two different things.

superstition
1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
religion
(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Arguably there is considerable overlap. Certainly religions are chock full of superstitions. The tortured logic of completely imperceptible underlying substance as opposed to perceptible accidents that is used to explain transubstantiation while the cracker remains to all human and mechanical perception a cracker certainly fits.

I won't argue that. I have a problem with superstition, not religion. As I noted, a person's religion is a factor in whether I view an action is right or wrong, but not their superstition. Misusing a communion cracker is morally wrong, to me, because of the religion of Catholics, not because of the superstition.

the line you draw here seems abit fuzzy.

There's a difference between respecting someone's belief, and sharing someone's belief. Again going back to the cracker, I don't believe it was the body of Christ, so I don't feel it was morally wrong because of that. On the other hand, I respect the beliefs of those who do think it was the body of Christ, and I feel it was morally wrong because of that.

And by those lights, then, you've justified his action, since he views the destruction of all religion a moral impartive. Follow?

What you need to understand is that since morality invariably relates to how we interact with each other, there is no such animal as individual morality. It's a group effort, a group definition. Where the individual gets into that act is when they decide to be or not to be a part of one group or another.

But that still leaves us with the question of what he did being or not being a hate crime. What say you?

Go crack a dictionary, and yo'll find that supertition and religion are two different things.

I won't argue that. I have a problem with superstition, not religion. As I noted, a person's religion is a factor in whether I view an action is right or wrong, but not their superstition. Misusing a communion cracker is morally wrong, to me, because of the religion of Catholics, not because of the superstition.

So, then we're not to repect the beliefs of others, after all?

There's a difference between respecting someone's belief, and sharing someone's belief. Again going back to the cracker, I don't believe it was the body of Christ, so I don't feel it was morally wrong because of that. On the other hand, I respect the beliefs of those who do think it was the body of Christ, and I feel it was morally wrong because of that.

Yeah, I have a hard time factoring superstition into my moral code.

Go crack a dictionary, and yo'll find that supertition and religion are two different things.

If I don't believe it's the body of Christ, then my ethics will not be based on it.

So, then we're not to repect the beliefs of others, after all?

http://www.wbr.com/paulsimon/lyrics/poem_underground_wall.html

Flag burning.

I feel the same way about flag burning too. Now I feel I should clarify, all of these actions should be legal and protected by the first amendment, while at the same time I feel that they shouldn't be done.

But it does get a little deeper than that, here. I will suggest you google the word "Transubstantiation".

Yeah, I have a hard time factoring superstition into my moral code. If I don't believe it's the body of Christ, then my ethics will not be based on it. To me, the only thing real here is how Catholics feel about the Eucharist, not the Eucharist itself, and so that is all I can base my choices on.

They're not just "things",

Flag burning.

Your point about represntations is quite correct,Michael. But it does get a little deeper than that, here. I will suggest you google the word "Transubstantiation".