Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

traegeryyc t1_j5mvjwn wrote

Reply to comment by Vitriholic in Judge revokes bond for woman accused of desecrating Houston synagogue Congregation Emanu El by zsreport

First sentence

>Ezra Law, 33, is accused of criminal mischief in a place of worship

29

Different-Music4367 t1_j5ngd48 wrote

In a roundabout way, special provisions on damage to places of worship is a way of ensuring equal religious protection under the 1st amendment.

Hard to argue otherwise in this case considering it's a synagogue.

7

Vitriholic t1_j5mww1y wrote

For real, religious institutions get special laws protecting them?

Of course they do.

−30

[deleted] t1_j5nglsh wrote

[deleted]

25

Vitriholic t1_j5nsij5 wrote

Our vandalism and hate crime laws ought to be sufficient.

−14

Greggers42 t1_j5o48x1 wrote

Ok ok ok, slow down friend, you’re missing the forest for the trees. As someone who disagrees with organized religion and a lot of exceptions they get, I do agree with protection of religious freedoms. See, some people in this great country of ours would like to impose their religion on all of us and our religious freedom to not be religious (or whatever we want to be really) would be protected by the same rights you’re scoffing at. This isn’t a special law for religious organizations, it’s constitutional protections provided to help shape laws in the US such as hate crime laws. One could argue that without those protections, hate crime and vandalism laws could apply to anti <insert controlling governmental religion> speech, protest, etc etc. You’re not making a point here and people are downvoting you because you’re answer is wrong, not for any other reason.

9

Vitriholic t1_j5ozt2k wrote

Why exactly is a special law needed? I still don’t understand.

0

Greggers42 t1_j5pvkju wrote

The special laws are the Hate crime laws and the Vandalism laws. It’s a chicken and an egg situation that sometimes is hard to understand about the American legal system. The Constitutional Rights came first and the laws came second. The stipulations to Hate crime laws are shaped generationally by what is defined as “Hate” at that time. It’s not because of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion that they will be held or tried, it’s because of the federal and local laws and statues that are established by elected officials in all levels of the Government that have defined a Hate Crime based on the constitutional guidelines. The Federal laws can also be contrary to local laws or more strict than local laws on the matter, which can result in laws that “fill the gaps” between federal laws and local needs. This is a rabbit hole of how complex a legal system can be and saying that the law has been made for churches that is separate from individual citizens, isn’t really correct here. The building, it’s contents, and the event is, by definition, religious and the act here can be defined as a hate crime for that reason. I guess the contrary would be sitting on your couch on a Sunday watching TV in atheist bliss only to have someone come into your home and start screaming at you and not leaving, threatening you and potentially causing you harm based on your beliefs and your rights to exercise them. You can say, “let trespassing laws handle it.” But in reality, the motivation and subsequent actions can lead to additional charges that prevent this person from getting just a fine for their actions.

2

Vitriholic t1_j5q26fk wrote

I think I’ll just have to be content with not understanding our legal system.

4