The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Joey D]

Here in America it's protected by the First Amendment, kind of sad really.

 

[Denur]

Here in America it's protected by the First Amendment, kind of sad really.

Sad indeed considering that that same Amendment does not protect you when say something critical about e.g. God and someone interprets it as blasphemous.

Blasphemy is a common-law offense and also an offense by statute in certain jurisdictions. It must be uttered in the presence of another person or persons or published in order to be an offense.

 

[Sureboss]

Here in America it's protected by the First Amendment, kind of sad really.

Unless you're a muslim extremist. They aren't allowed to prophesise their extreme views. Isn't Abu Hamza set to be deported to America?

 

[Submerged]

I think it is a matter of being afraid of the unknown. I can imagine that for a non-gay it is almost impossible to comprehend how a man can love/be attacted to another man (or woman to a woman). The other way round it is the same issue for gays, for them (for me to a certain extend, because I'm not 100% gay) it is hard to imagine how a man can be attracted to a woman (or woman to a man).

This comment made me think back to my statement that I made to a housemate of mine last year which kinda lead to a heated discussion. I used to argue that everyone was always able to love (in a platonic way) the same sex people in order to create a relationship into a friend/mate/buddy which could almost be termed as homosexuality in a platonic sense. He, on the other hand wasn't quite seeing what I was meaning at that point in time.

The reason why he didn't seem to see what I was referring to (apart from me using slightly weird context) was that he was thinking relationships meant a sexual relationship, not a platonic relationship that everyone has with their friends and families. I mean, when we think of friends and families who are same-sex, it usually either has the love/hate thing going. Or the like/dislike thing. Which in my view seemed to allow us to be slightly homosexual in order to create relationship that has meaning for the other person of the same-sex.

I mean, if everyone was totally straight, this could (in a twisted way) lead to a situation that there would be rampant homophobia, guys would only ever have friends that are all females and vica versa and there would be pure hate everywhere for members of the same sex as themselves and friends of the same sex could be the thing of the past.

It often annoys me when people discount my theory (even when I attempt to present it better than I had just did) out of hand largely because they did not take the time to understand the point and also due to their subconscious attitude toward homosexuality being negative and they percieve me as "challenging" their views on the world that should not be at all challenged and baited (actually got told that once!) even when I'm just presenting an alternative point.

So, what do you think of it? Good or a load of codswhollop?

 

[Denur]

@Submerged

I like your theory, you’ve clearly given it a lot of thought.

Let me start by listing a few relationship types I came up with: Indifference, care for, love and inlove. “Indifference” is your relation with a total stranger or maybe even some vague acquaintance, you couldn’t care less if something bad happened to such a relationship (person dies). “Care for” is when you’re dealing with e.g. a colleague, a mate from school, your neighbor etc. When something bad happens to such a person, you will be shocked and maybe even shed a tear. The “love” relationship is with friends (real friends) and family, when something bad happens to them you will be so grievestricken that it hurts, big time. The “inlove” relationship is with your mate, when something awful happens to that person, you might be in bad shape for years.
These relationships you can have with any person, male or female, old or young, bad, good or ugly.

These four relationship types might (or not) give you some form of sexual attraction (one night stand, sexual arousement, even incestuous and in case of a “inlove” relationship you’d better feel a sexual attraction otherwise the relationship will not last), but these are always directed by your sexual orientation (hetero, homo, bi). However, when e.g. you see a picture of a total stranger who died and you feel sexually attracted to that person (just by seeing that pretty face), you might still be hurt. What I’m trying to say is, that when you feel sexually attracted to a person, the relationship with this person moves up the scale (from “Indiffence” to “care for” to “love”, but probably not to “inlove”- I don’t believe in love at first sight, it requires some interaction first).

In contrast to you’re theory, I don’t believe that it is nescessary to be somewhat gay to have a “care for” or “love” relationship with a same-sex person (when you are not gay). It more of how much do you feel a person is part of your ‘pack’ (using an animal relation term here). And that feeling is largely determinded by the kind of relationship you have with that person. If you feel that a person is part of your pack (or even nation, race etc.) you will be more willing to defend that person. The kind of relationship determines how far you will go with that defending, how much risk you’re willing to take. For example, a mother will run into a burning house to save her baby from the flames. The mother / child relationship is actually stronger than the “inlove” relationship, but that is another story.

I hope this makes any sense.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here in America it's protected by the First Amendment, kind of sad really.

Actually, it is not sad, because limiting free speech is akin to limiting free thought. You cannot make personal thoughts and feelings illegal, nor should your ability to voice those thoughts be limited. There is no freedom against being offended. If there was atheists who make comments about stupid Christians would have been wiped out decades ago and science would not have moved far in this country.

If you want everyone you agree with to say what you think they should be allowed to say then you have to also allow those you disagree with, no matter how hateful or stupid, to say what they want to say.

Sad indeed considering that that same Amendment does not protect you when say something critical about e.g. God and someone interprets it as blasphemous.

Perhaps you should look at the number of Atheists on this Website alone and ask them if they have been limited by American laws. I don't believe you quite understand how freedom of speech works in America. It basically allows you to speak your mind. I will give you an example of how this works that might hit more home with you. At a time when people were trying to outlaw homosexuality, decades ago, there were gay rights marches and protests. If not for the 1st Amendment those people would have been thrown in jail just for saying it, not to mention being able to peacefully gather. The same goes for every single civil rights movement in this country. If not for the 1st amendment Martin Luther King could have been arrested for things like treason and put to death.

Now, when someone who is close-minded and does not agree with Civil Rights of any kind begins to exercise their 1st amendment right those who have benefited from it complain. Do what I do: IGNORE THEM. When you comment on them, get angry, or offended, or even respond to them you give them the power they are seeking. You are doing what they want. When you ignore them you allow them their rights while at the same time you take away their power of hate.

Sure some people use their 1st amendment rights to express hateful ideals, but who are we to tell them that they cannot as long as their actions do not limit your rights? Actions are limited, but words are not. I fail to see the problem or why it is sad.

What is sad is that they actually think that way. Perhaps instead of creating a hateful rhetoric in response to them (in other words acting like them) you should find some way to make them realize that they are wrong. It is about changing hearts and minds, not making people afraid to admit what is in their hearts and minds.

 

[Sniffs]

okay. I went from page 18 to the end, from my first post WAY back there to the last.

the rolling argument between nd 4 holden speed and everybody else got very tiring VERY quickly. leave that person alone.
1.people will believe what they want to believe, no matter what others try to influence them to do
2. the rules in the Bible were written for a civilization that was trying to keep it's butt out of the fire, and build up enough population to stay viable
3. Jews, your old enough to know better than to pick any sort of fight; Christianity got caught with it's pants down, literally, so they can't talk much; Islam is a youngster, they're bound to be a bit bratty, yet.
4. America is a state of Protective barriers, and was founded by religious expatriates, forcefully siezed persons, room hungry peoples, and contains an angry native population who were considered dumb as bricks. America is a testament to the medieval holy wars, where everybody else thought they were better than every one else.
it took a major butt-kicking on all sides for Europe to learn a lesson, starvation and a nuclear accident for communisim to start dying off. it will take another major whupping for america to learn IT'S lesson to put up and SHUT up.

nutshell: wanna survive as a culture/people/etc?
dont rock the boat!

the gay question is like the Abortion question, the Israel/Palestine question, the environmental question and the Oil question. they're all no win scenarios. you can't do either without ticking someone off. and the sooner people start realizing this, the sooner we can deal with priorities, like cleaning up after ourselves.

 

[Danoff]

nutshell: wanna survive as a culture/people/etc?
dont rock the boat!

the gay question is like the Abortion question, the Israel/Palestine question, the environmental question and the Oil question. they're all no win scenarios. you can't do either without ticking someone off. and the sooner people start realizing this, the sooner we can deal with priorities, like cleaning up after ourselves.

Pandering to one group or another is not the function of law.

 

[Denur]

Sad indeed considering that that same Amendment does not protect you when say something critical about e.g. God and someone interprets it as blasphemous.

Perhaps you should look at the number of Atheists on this Website alone and ask them if they have been limited by American laws. I don't believe you quite understand how freedom of speech works in America. It basically allows you to speak your mind. I will give you an example of how this works that might hit more home with you. At a time when people were trying to outlaw homosexuality, decades ago, there were gay rights marches and protests. If not for the 1st Amendment those people would have been thrown in jail just for saying it, not to mention being able to peacefully gather. The same goes for every single civil rights movement in this country. If not for the 1st amendment Martin Luther King could have been arrested for things like treason and put to death.

Now, when someone who is close-minded and does not agree with Civil Rights of any kind begins to exercise their 1st amendment right those who have benefited from it complain. Do what I do: IGNORE THEM. When you comment on them, get angry, or offended, or even respond to them you give them the power they are seeking. You are doing what they want. When you ignore them you allow them their rights while at the same time you take away their power of hate.

Sure some people use their 1st amendment rights to express hateful ideals, but who are we to tell them that they cannot as long as their actions do not limit your rights? Actions are limited, but words are not. I fail to see the problem or why it is sad.

What is sad is that they actually think that way. Perhaps instead of creating a hateful rhetoric in response to them (in other words acting like them) you should find some way to make them realize that they are wrong. It is about changing hearts and minds, not making people afraid to admit what is in their hearts and minds.

Good reply and very informative, but there is not much relation with what you quoted from me. The point I was trying to make is that although there is that 1st Amandment to the Constitution about freedom of speech, there are also still laws that make it illegal to speek blasphomy. But I don't know whether those laws have been enforced in recent years. Those blasphemy laws are in conflict with the 1st Amandment and should be ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. A law against purposely insulting (slander) should suffice.

I also believe very strongly in freedom of speech, with a few exceptions though: Insulting someone with the sole purpose to insult (sometimes someone can feel insulted by what you say, but you did not mean to insult). This is a matter of ethics. Also, I don't approve of racist remarks nor speading hatred. These should be seen as unlawfull.

But these can be borderline. There is some guy who did scientific research in order to determine whether or not there are differences between races in the level of average intelligence. He concluded and reported that blacks are less intelligent than whites. And in the name of science he is allowed to say so and should not be considered a racist. Or should he be? Why did he start this kind of research in the first place? And how good was his research? Was he only seeing what he wanted to see? Etc.

edit> typo

 

[FoolKiller]

Good reply and very informative, but there is not much relation with what you quoted from me. The point I was trying to make is that although there is that 1st Amandment to the Constitution about freedom of speech, there are also still laws that make it illegal to speek blasphomy. But I don't know whether those laws have been enforced in recent years. Those blasphemy laws are in conflict with the 1st Amandment and should be ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. A law against purposely insulting (slander) should suffice.

Blasphemy laws were only used by individual states upon their founding and have not been enforced since 1868 when the Bill of Rights was incorporated to apply to all states. Since then all blasphemy laws, while still on the books, no longer apply because of the 1st Amendment rights granted in the Bill of Rights. Because of this they have not been enforced and thus have not been challenged to be removed. Most legal experts will tell you that if they were they would be found unconstitutional.

When old laws are left on the books but are no longer enforced because they no longer apply it is a matter of saving time and money. No individual wants to spend money on a lawyer to challenge the law and no legislature wants to spend time and money trying to amend them. It would be a waste.

I also believe very strongly in freedom of speech, with a few exceptions though: Insulting someone with the sole purpose to insult (sometimes someone can feel insulted by what you say, but you did not mean to insult). This is a matter of ethics. Also, I don't approve of racist remarks nor speading hatred. These should be seen as unlawfull.

Why, because they are insulting? Under what system should not being insulted be a given right? People can't be allowed to speak their minds? Besides, if you outlaw purposeful insults you would have nearly every comedian and teenager breaking the law.

My wife's grandmother had Alzheimer's and she said quite a few offensive things near the end. She used names for all kind of different races and made comments that offended me, even though I didn't belong to those groups. I blamed it on the Alzheimer's but my wife later pointed out to me that while the Alzheimer's was responsible for her lack of social skills it did not cause her to have racist thoughts. She actually thought that way, but normally had the social awareness to not speak her mind. Did she violate the laws that you think should be in effect? How do I know for sure it was the Alzheimer's speaking and not her taking advantage of her condition to say what she had been thinking for years, knowing that we would just ignore it as an Alzheimer's moment? I cannot honestly tell you that she wasn't lucid because she was taking part in our conversations just fine up to then.

Where do you draw the line? Someone insults the president or the political party in charge and suddenly they are found guilty. Aggressively arguing politics would come under scrutiny and suddenly the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment is lost.

A good example of this would be the current presidential election. Someone makes a comment about Obama having some popularity just because he is black and it immediately creates an uproar. Should those people be thrown in jail or is it not a valid point? The same for people saying Hillary Clinton has some support for just being a woman. Both points are valid because it is true to some degree. I know people who openly admit to voting for one or the other just for those reasons. It is a valid point, but all it takes is someone finding a way to make a point that it was racially motivated to bring them under legal scrutiny.

Limiting free speech in any way is violating the rights of the people, and when you violate one right you might as well violate them all.

Free speech is just that, free speech. Any limit and it is suddenly not free speech, but limited speech.

But these can be borderline. There is some guy who did scientific research in order to determine whether or not there are differences between races in the level of average intelligence. He concluded and reported that blacks are less intelligent than whites. And in the name of science he is allowed to say so and should not be considered a racist. Or should he be? Why did he start this kind of research in the first place? And how good was his research? Was he only seeing what he wanted to see? Etc.

I can think of a clearly valid reason for this type of research. There is obviously some form of genetic differences between races. Black people have a higher risk of heart disease and other things, white people have higher risk for some disease. So, when there are known difference on one angle why not see if there are others to help understand cultural barrier in society and find ways to overcome them?

Not having seen the study I can't say how valid his research was, whether he looked at ability to learn or just currently held knowledge. If it is just based on what they do know that can be attributed to socio-economical differences and makes a point that the system is broken (which it is). If it is based on the ability to learn then it is a sign to black people that they truly do have to work to overcome racial differences that have nothing to do with racism. Even if his motivations were based in racism if his research is valid and has passed peer review then he still makes a positive point, if inadvertently.

 

[Sureboss]

It is limited all over the world. True Freedom of Speech doesn't exist.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is limited all over the world. True Freedom of Speech doesn't exist.

Well, aside from death threats it is not legally limited in the US.

 

[Danoff]

It is limited all over the world. True Freedom of Speech doesn't exist.

The problem is an overlap, or at least a perceived overlap of free speech with other basic human rights. When/if the two come in conflict, one right has to trump the other.

 

[Denur]

The problem is an overlap, or at least a perceived overlap of free speech with other basic human rights. When/if the two come in conflict, one right has to trump the other.

This sums it up very well. 👍

 

[Sureboss]

Well, aside from death threats it is not legally limited in the US.

So in America, I could walk around say Philadelphia shouting on a loudspeaker "Blacks cause AIDs" and I wouldn't be arrested? (Ignoring me being killed).

Just in case, I will say this is just an example, I wouldn't actually do that.

 

[Joey D]

So in America, I could walk around say Philadelphia shouting on a loudspeaker "Blacks cause AIDs" and I wouldn't be arrested? (Ignoring me being killed).

Just in case, I will say this is just an example, I wouldn't actually do that.

Yes, we have people that say, in public, that homosexuals cause the deaths of soldiers. In the south there are people who still advocate that the US be split back into the Union and Confederacy and that slavery should be legal again. Free speech allows this, as long as you don't break the law while doing so.

 

[Loon]

They can still come up with charges if they(the cops) want to get rid of you, such as disturbing the peace and other petty violations like that.

 

[FoolKiller]

So in America, I could walk around say Philadelphia shouting on a loudspeaker "Blacks cause AIDs" and I wouldn't be arrested? (Ignoring me being killed).

Just in case, I will say this is just an example, I wouldn't actually do that.

Using the loudspeaker may get you cited for noise violations unless you get a permit ahead of time to hold a demonstration.

As an example, the KKK still holds marches and rallies in the US.

 

[Sage]

Well, aside from death threats it is not legally limited in the US.

FCC.

 

[Sureboss]

Well I'd have to say that I think it's wrong that people can do that. Views on the peadophile political party in the Netherlands would be interesting.

 

[Famine]

Well I'd have to say that I think it's wrong that people can do that.

I personally wouldn't be bothered by someone saying they wanted to break the law (so long as they didn't use GTPlanet to discuss how to do it), whatever the law happens to be.

There's quite a difference between that and actually doing it.

 

[FoolKiller]

FCC.

I'll give you that one, but I think people make too much of a stink about the FCC.

It limits offensive content on over-the-air broadcasts only. They have no more limitations than self-regulated basic cable stations have. You can deliver whatever message you want, just be careful of the language you use.
Considering where television and radio are going I believe that the power of the FCC is slowly being eroded by technology and the free market.


All that said, I want it understood that I think the FCC is pointless and its usefulness was done after it organized radio frequency usage. But even that and everything they do now could easily be handled by an independent industry organization, much like every other technology industry uses.

Anyone who thinks the FCC is necessary needs to look at basic cable channels like Comedy Central, CNN, MTV, etc. They monitor themselves (along with the influence of sponsors) and rarely ever have programming more offensive than broadcast during daytime and primetime viewing.

 

[Sureboss]

I personally wouldn't be bothered by someone saying they wanted to break the law (so long as they didn't use GTPlanet to discuss how to do it), whatever the law happens to be.

There's quite a difference between that and actually doing it.

I know there is a huge difference between doing something and talking about doing something. But I just don't like the idea that people can say whatever they want without consequence.

 

[Famine]

I know there is a huge difference between doing something and talking about doing something. But I just don't like the idea that people can say whatever they want without consequence.

I'm afraid there's no middle ground here. As soon as you give way to the idea that what you say can be deemed offensive to someone else and that this shouldn't be allowed, you open the floodgates - anything you say can then be deemed offensive to someone else and banned.

There's either freedom of speech or there isn't. And if speech is to be free then it all must be free.

 

[Zrow]

But I just don't like the idea that people can say whatever they want without consequence.

I'm really surprised anyone could say this.

 

[Denur]

Blasphemy laws were only used by individual states upon their founding and have not been enforced since 1868 when the Bill of Rights was incorporated to apply to all states. Since then all blasphemy laws, while still on the books, no longer apply because of the 1st Amendment rights granted in the Bill of Rights. Because of this they have not been enforced and thus have not been challenged to be removed. Most legal experts will tell you that if they were they would be found unconstitutional.

When old laws are left on the books but are no longer enforced because they no longer apply it is a matter of saving time and money. No individual wants to spend money on a lawyer to challenge the law and no legislature wants to spend time and money trying to amend them. It would be a waste.

Sorry for the late reply.
Great to hear this, it is quite similar to our Dutch situation. Currently there is a discussion going on to remove blasphomy from our constitution as it is already covert by an anti-insult article in that same constitution.

Why, because they are insulting? Under what system should not being insulted be a given right? People can't be allowed to speak their minds? .

Under a system that I would applaud. Here we have a fundamental difference in opinion, a different inbread point of view, so further discussion is senseless I guess.

Besides, if you outlaw purposeful insults you would have nearly every comedian and teenager breaking the law.

It is the intented goal that counts. Sometimes a comedian steps over a line, but most of the time his/her “victom” should grow a thicker skin. Usually the jokes are about common stereotypes (like blacks are lazy, Poles are stupid etc). It makes a difference if the comedian fervently concurs with the stereotype. And kids, kids are just kids.

My wife's grandmother had Alzheimer's and she said quite a few offensive things near the end. She used names for all kind of different races and made comments that offended me, even though I didn't belong to those groups. I blamed it on the Alzheimer's but my wife later pointed out to me that while the Alzheimer's was responsible for her lack of social skills it did not cause her to have racist thoughts. She actually thought that way, but normally had the social awareness to not speak her mind. Did she violate the laws that you think should be in effect? How do I know for sure it was the Alzheimer's speaking and not her taking advantage of her condition to say what she had been thinking for years, knowing that we would just ignore it as an Alzheimer's moment? I cannot honestly tell you that she wasn't lucid because she was taking part in our conversations just fine up to then.

Maybe she still has the social awareness, but doesn’t care anymore and for the first time in her life dares to speak her mind. Maybe she is even glad to able sometimes to speak her mind (knowing herself that she has developing Alzheimer). It is still too bad that she is saying those things, but I think no one will take those remarks too seriously anymore. Let her be.

Where do you draw the line? Someone insults the president or the political party in charge and suddenly they are found guilty. Aggressively arguing politics would come under scrutiny and suddenly the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment is lost.

Not quite. Someone could argue that G.W. Bush is a brainless nitwit, who is only interested in keeping his sponsors happy. But that is his observation. It can be insulting to Bush and those who like him, but it is still an honest observation that he should be able to speak out. And a thicker skin comes with a political job. It would be a different thing if someone states that Bush sexually abuses children because, well that is what he expects of the guy. Such an insult is a no go by by book.

Free speech is just that, free speech. Any limit and it is suddenly not free speech, but limited speech.

Now you’re talking semantics. I hope the above makes a bit clear that I’m not in favour of 100% free speech. Most of it is already covert by the cultural skills you mentioned, but there are times that the goverenment needs to step in. My opinion again and not open for debate. (darn, I do hate slamming a door closed though )

I can think of a clearly valid reason for this type of research. There is obviously some form of genetic differences between races. Black people have a higher risk of heart disease and other things, white people have higher risk for some disease. So, when there are known difference on one angle why not see if there are others to help understand cultural barrier in society and find ways to overcome them?

Not having seen the study I can't say how valid his research was, whether he looked at ability to learn or just currently held knowledge. If it is just based on what they do know that can be attributed to socio-economical differences and makes a point that the system is broken (which it is). If it is based on the ability to learn then it is a sign to black people that they truly do have to work to overcome racial differences that have nothing to do with racism. Even if his motivations were based in racism if his research is valid and has passed peer review then he still makes a positive point, if inadvertently.

No argument here, but it was just meant as an example, not a discussion topic. This one alone could use its own discussion thread, as can this whole discussion about free speech.

 

[FoolKiller]

Let her be.

She seemed to be resting peacefully when we stopped by the cemetary on Sunday.

She fortunately, for her, passed last May.

Now you’re talking semantics. I hope the above makes a bit clear that I’m not in favour of 100% free speech. Most of it is already covert by the cultural skills you mentioned, but there are times that the goverenment needs to step in. My opinion again and not open for debate. (darn, I do hate slamming a door closed though )

This is our biggest difference. I think government should do as little stepping in as possible, especially when the founders of said government laid out specifically when they are allowed to step in, and this was one issue where they felt the need to specifically say they should not step in.

 

[Denur]

She seemed to be resting peacefully when we stopped by the cemetary on Sunday.

She fortunately, for her, passed last May.


This is our biggest difference. I think government should do as little stepping in as possible, especially when the founders of said government laid out specifically when they are allowed to step in, and this was one issue where they felt the need to specifically say they should not step in.

Sorry to hear that she passed away.

I agree that the goverment's role should be kept to a minimum and concern itself only with defense, social security, transportation and a few more things, things that do require a central body when the needs of the helpless and nation as a whole need to be guaranteed. I also believe very very stongly in the separation of state and church (as is stated in our constitution, but we do have christian party's in parlement, which have been democratially chosen, riddle me that!). Could you tell me, who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, with its reference to the God (One nation, under God....)?

 

[FoolKiller]

Sorry to hear that she passed away.

It was best for her at that point.

Could you tell me, who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, with its reference to the God (One nation, under God....)?

Francis Bellamy wrote the original pledge in the 1800's, but it did not include "Under God" or "of the United States of America." "of the United States of America" was added so that immigrants would "not get confused" about which flag.

In the 1950's "under God" was added as a reference to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

And as we are on free speech, a 2006 court case ruled a 1942 Florida State law requiring students in school to recite the pledge to be in violation of the first and 14th amendments.

 

[Denur]

It was best for her at that point.


Francis Bellamy wrote the original pledge in the 1800's, but it did not include "Under God" or "of the United States of America." "of the United States of America" was added so that immigrants would "not get confused" about which flag.

In the 1950's "under God" was added as a reference to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

And as we are on free speech, a 2006 court case ruled a 1942 Florida State law requiring students in school to recite the pledge to be in violation of the first and 14th amendments.

I hope that "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." should be read as "God willing", otherwise the sentence holds a limit of feedom all by itself. I don't know what a 2006 court case is, but I do remember that in the '90s (?) there was this Mormon highschool student who refused to pledge to the flag (because of his religion) and his case went to court. If I remember correctly he was acquited and his freedom was recognized.

Just a side note (we're going more and more off topic): when I went to highschool in the USA as a foreign exchange student, there was another Dutch girl in our school who everyday in homeroom joined in pledging to the american flag. She had no idea what she was doing I guess, and she wasn't even blond! (that's meant as a joke)