-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/evangelical-christians-fear-losing.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Besides that, how is anyone going to be able to demonstrate (prove connection beyond a reasonable doubt) Speech A "caused" Action B in a court of law?
I've done this several times, and it is those faux Christians who are the haters. Now they are trying to portray themselves as victims of persecution. What a crock!
When will being right, or just, or fair, or correct ever win your case with these people? It didn't work against Prop 8, and it won't work against this. You have to say that this bill prevents children from being molested by religious leaders. And it cures hemorrhoids in overweight people who eat in the drive-thru's at McDonald's. And George Washington was for it. Or that guy on the dollar.
Or, you could say it will clean up Chinatown, in Honolulu.
.
just like in domestic assault cases there is a stiffer penalty for the criminal than in simple assault cases. in domestic assault, the entire family is victimized. in fact, the entire community is victimized because kids grow up in this environment and are damaged by it and desensitized to it and learn this kind of behavior and cause more of it society at large.
so, for the reason that some crimes have more victims than just the person who was physically injured, some crimes have stiffer penalties
what hate crime laws do is to give the government the opportunity to make arbitrary decissions when it comes to punishment, on top of the penalty that's already perscribed.
So, if someone shouts anti-religious speech while they beat the crap out of you, it's a hate crime. The same is true if they should out anti-white bigotry while they beat the crap out of you.
And, if they were to ADD sexual orientation to the existing legislation it would protect STRAIGHT people if they were beat up by a band of gay militants for being straight.
So, it's no extra proptection for gays. It is protection for both gays and straights.
But, I guess what you might be saying is that the current hate crimes laws should be repealed so that there aren't extra protections for race, religion and gender, right?
But, please, just let me explain my rationale for thinking so called "Hate Crime" laws provide a benefit to society as a whole and see if you can agree that, while you may not favor such legislation, there is a valid rationale for it to exist.
Let's assume that in a particular state, over a period of 6 months, 9 white women are shot while leaving various movie theatres in various cities in that state.
The first 5 women were shot by their husbands, who were heard to shout after the shooting, "That'll teach you to cheat on me!"
The last 4 women were shot by a person who, after shooting the women, screamed, "Death to all white women!" and ran away.
Chances are, in a big state, people in one part of the state may never even hear that such a crime occured in another part of the state simply because the state is so large that domestic violence is just not statewide news.
Maybe the co-incidence of 5 husbands shooting their wives as they were leaving a theatre would become news but probably only because of the unusual circumstances.
Now consider the impact of the random shootings by the by the person who claimed to want all white women dead. This would be very much and quickly in the news. In addition, consider the effect this second group of shootings would have on the community of white women. They would be in fear of being shot simply because of their status as white women.
It's not too likely that, in the first instance, the community of white women would be put in fear in the first scenario because, if the shooters were killing on their spouses who they believed cheated on them, no women except the spouses of the shooters would have reason to fear.
Everyone would have reason for outrage and concern, but hardly any valid reason for outright fear of their own safety when going to the theatre.
But consider the impact on the targeted community in the second instance. All white women would become afraid to go to the theatre because they might be next.
In a very real sense, it would be like declaring "war" on the community of white women because the whole community is under fear of attack, regardless of whether they ever cheated on their spouse or not.
In addition, consider the bigger impact. What about women who are not white? Should they, too, be afraid to go to the theatre because they may be mistaken for a white woman? Maybe they have lighter skin, maybe it's cold and they'd be wearing a coat that makes their skin less visible, or maybe a thousand other reasons, but the entire community of white women, and maybe the entire community of all women, would have reason to fear going to the theatre.
Then consider their partners or spouses. They may not be able to go to the theatre and enjoy a new movie because their partner was afraid to go with them. Do they both not go to the theatre, or even leave the house?
Then consider the impact on the theatre owners and the movie industry. The number of tickets sold would go down, the concession sales would go down, etc. etc,, until, possibly, entire populations and businesses not even originally targeted are suffering. In other words, as I said above, in a real sense, an act of war has been declared that starts to impact everyone.
This is not to discount your argument that all assaults, shootings, murders or crimes should be treated the same but I'd ask you to consider whether they are, in fact, the same. Is the fact that the spouses in the first instance were cheating a mitigating factor that should be considered when determining punishment that should be given to those shooters? What if the shooters contracted a life threatening STD as a result of the spouse having cheated? Should that shooter be treated the same as the random shooter who was just attacking unknown white women?
I'm not able to answer that question for you. I can see a certain amount of validity to the argument that all perpertrators of acts of violece should be treated the same. At the same time, if we are to have justice tempered by mercy, I believe other circumstances must sometimes be considered.
My question to you is: whether or not you agree with enhanced penalties for hate crimes, can you at least agree that there is a valid, logical reason for some people to want to see this enhanced punishment?
but in that hypothetical situation, they throw the book at the shooter. from the murders all the way down to expired tags, he's going to get every measure of the law available. just like the two people responsible for matthew shepard's murder- even without hate crime laws, the system worked and justice was served. and in the case of james byrd, i don't think justice was better served because blacks are protected under existing hate crime laws.
and while i can agree that the effect that such crimes has on the society as a whole can't be underestimated, the state simply isn't quallified to judge that, especially when it comes to "hate". i honestly can't think of any violent crime that isn't somehow rooted in "hate". so, the best you can hope for is a standard, perscribed punishment for those convicted of a crime, that's based on their actions.
Take, for example, three different drivers who hit and kill pedestrians crossing an intersection.
Driver number number 1 was speeding 5 miles over the speed limit while going thru a green light and the pedestrian was jaywalking. Still, even though the pedestrian was jaywalking, the driver was breaking the law by speeding.
Driver number 2 had just robbed a bank and was making his getaway. Driver number 2 was driving under the speed limit so as not to attract the attention of the police, was going thru a green light and hit a pedestrian who was jaywalking.
Driver number 3 was drunk, not speeding and hit a pedestrian who was jaywalking.
Do you think that, since the pedestrian is dead in each instance and the result, therefore, is the same, that all three drivers should receive the same punishment? Or even any punishment, since the pedestrian was jaywalking?
i would guess that all three drivers could be facing manslaughter charges...
driver #1 would have the best chance to be released. he was driving too fast, but that wasn't the primary cause of the accident.
driver #2 is facing the most time, because he was involved in an accidential death while commiting another crime... bank robbery, which is a felony, i think.
driver #3 was drunk, which means he could have hit the pedestrian even if he was in the crosswalk. driver #3 could be facing a greater charge than manslaughter, because his actions contributed to the accident.
the jaywalker is dead, and it would have been a ticket, even if he wasn't killed in the accident. i think they let that one slide.
but either which way you look at it, the possible minority status of the jaywalker, or the negative feelings any of the drivers have about said minority, don't have any bearing on the the crime(s) commited.
and just to be clear, i'm not saying one crime is euqal to another crime simply because the crimes are similar. there are always extenuating circumstances to consider. but again, the trial system is built to accommodate that.
here is the problem, at least for me, in a nutshell~
hate crime laws create two leagal systems, one where you are punished less, and one where you are punished more.
which one you end up on is based on whether you were motivated by "hate", which can be argued is a precursor to any violent crime... so it's to a great deal arbitrary.
laws don't deter crime, they just punish the culprit afer the fact. so the arguement that hate crime laws offer minorities an extra level of protection rings hollow.
the laws on the books are already adequate to cover most anything that comes down the pike, and, for the most part, the police, da's and courts do a good job of enforcing the law fairly.
and at the end of the day, what you end up with is a lot more minor crimes becoming felonies, a lot of people facing an extended stay in prison, which just leads to more crime in the long run.
well, i hate to answer a question with a question, but....
you are already protected from those crimes by the law. and yet, you're still concerned that they could happen (i'm assuming this. correct me if i'm wrong). so if the first law isn't enough to comfort your fears, why do you think more laws will keep you safer?
I already answered your question before it was even asked, and I notice you STILL haven't answered mine.
that's the question right? i used the word "protection" origionally, but what i reall meant was "extra punishment".
ok. let's pretend that i'm at a bar, being my usual charming self. out of nowhere, some one comes up and knocks me out. cops come, the guy gets charged, i'm guessing.. what? a fine and couple weeks in the local jail? maybe not the most statifying thing for me, but that's what the law calls for (hypothetically) and it's fairly reasonable.
but let's say he calls me a name then punches me out. now that's a felony. that's "extra punishment" in my mind.
Situations like you describe wouldn't even get much attention. But what about cases where judges refuse to give a proper punishment because of the victims sexuality. I know at least one judge didn't even give five years because he "wouldn't want to ruin their lives just for killing a fag." How does the law protect us there?
well, if a judge is just going to disregard the law, especially in a murder case, there isn't much hope for any of us recieving justice.
i don't pretend that the courts are always fair to minorities, or that there aren't instances where the federal government needs to step in to inforce the laws.
but for the most part, i trust that murder cases are going to be treated as a serious crime, and the courts will handle them correctly. murder, rape, torture... these are convictions that cary a great deal of weight as is, so hate crime penalties don't add much to punishment in the grand scheme of things.
but in an battery case, like the hypothetical attack from earlier, it's potentially a huge difference.
so how are laws that don't add any meaningfull punishment for the most voilent crimes, and turn what would be "minor" crimes into potential felonies, benefit anyone?
But, please, just let me explain my rationale for thinking so called "Hate Crime" laws provide a benefit to society as a whole and see if you can agree that, while you may not favor such legislation, there is a valid rationale for it to exist.
Let's assume that in a particular state, over a period of 6 months, 9 white women are shot while leaving various movie theatres in various cities in that state.
The first 5 women were shot by their husbands, who were heard to shout after the shooting, "That'll teach you to cheat on me!"
The last 4 women were shot by a person who, after shooting the women, screamed, "Death to all white women!" and ran away.
Chances are, in a big state, people in one part of the state may never even hear that such a crime occured in another part of the state simply because the state is so large that domestic violence is just not statewide news.
Maybe the co-incidence of 5 husbands shooting their wives as they were leaving a theatre would become news but probably only because of the unusual circumstances.
Now consider the impact of the random shootings by the by the person who claimed to want all white women dead. This would be very much and quickly in the news. In addition, consider the effect this second group of shootings would have on the community of white women. They would be in fear of being shot simply because of their status as white women.
It's not too likely that, in the first instance, the community of white women would be put in fear in the first scenario because, if the shooters were killing on their spouses who they believed cheated on them, no women except the spouses of the shooters would have reason to fear.
Everyone would have reason for outrage and concern, but hardly any valid reason for outright fear of their own safety when going to the theatre.
But consider the impact on the targeted community in the second instance. All white women would become afraid to go to the theatre because they might be next.
In a very real sense, it would be like declaring "war" on the community of white women because the whole community is under fear of attack, regardless of whether they ever cheated on their spouse or not.
In addition, consider the bigger impact. What about women who are not white? Should they, too, be afraid to go to the theatre because they may be mistaken for a white woman? Maybe they have lighter skin, maybe it's cold and they'd be wearing a coat that makes their skin less visible, or maybe a thousand other reasons, but the entire community of white women, and maybe the entire community of all women, would have reason to fear going to the theatre.
Then consider their partners or spouses. They may not be able to go to the theatre and enjoy a new movie because their partner was afraid to go with them. Do they both not go to the theatre, or even leave the house?
Then consider the impact on the theatre owners and the movie industry. The number of tickets sold would go down, the concession sales would go down, etc. etc,, until, possibly, entire populations and businesses not even originally targeted are suffering. In other words, as I said above, in a real sense, an act of war has been declared that starts to impact everyone.
This is not to discount your argument that all assaults, shootings, murders or crimes should be treated the same but I'd ask you to consider whether they are, in fact, the same. Is the fact that the spouses in the first instance were cheating a mitigating factor that should be considered when determining punishment that should be given to those shooters? What if the shooters contracted a life threatening STD as a result of the spouse having cheated? Should that shooter be treated the same as the random shooter who was just attacking unknown white women?
I'm not able to answer that question for you. I can see a certain amount of validity to the argument that all perpertrators of acts of violece should be treated the same. At the same time, if we are to have justice tempered by mercy, I believe other circumstances must sometimes be considered.
My question to you is: whether or not you agree with enhanced penalties for hate crimes, can you at least agree that there is a valid, logical reason for some people to want to see this enhanced punishment?
but in that hypothetical situation, they throw the book at the shooter. from the murders all the way down to expired tags, he's going to get every measure of the law available. just like the two people responsible for matthew shepard's murder- even without hate crime laws, the system worked and justice was served. and in the case of james byrd, i don't think justice was better served because blacks are protected under existing hate crime laws.
and while i can agree that the effect that such crimes has on the society as a whole can't be underestimated, the state simply isn't quallified to judge that, especially when it comes to "hate". i honestly can't think of any violent crime that isn't somehow rooted in "hate". so, the best you can hope for is a standard, perscribed punishment for those convicted of a crime, that's based on their actions.
BUT- i honestly hope and believe that banning gays and lesbians from marriage will one day be ruled unconsitutional, so will hate crime laws, and for the same reasons.
And to those who say hate crime bills are unnecessary: Do you think painting a happy face on a bank wall and painting a swastika on a synagog should be treated exactly the same under the law?
it's legal to draw happy faces. it's legal to draw swastikas. both of those are protected under free speech laws.
however, it's illegal to paint graffiti on buildings. so the only crime is the graffiti.
why does the federal government need to, and frankly, why whould we want the feds involved in such a petty crime? aren't hate crime laws are just another avenue for the steady incroachment of federal influence and power?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8CrabYgivQ
To me, the saddest part is that these people have tax exemption. I have to pay taxes for this glorious empire, while these leaches get to live high on the hog, telling their congregations who to kill and then lie about it. Welfare for the religiously intolerant.
[Sen.] or [Rep.] [FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]
Washington, DC
RE: STOP Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, H.R. 256!
Dear [Sen.] or [Rep.] [LAST NAME]:
I'm writing to ask you to please oppose ANY bills that include ANY type of Hate Crimes Prevention that take away my Civil Rights to Free Speech and Freedom to Worship.
Ronald Reagan said that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
Democrats have introduced House Bill H.R. 256 to authorize unprecedented intervention in states' rights. This proposed legislation the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 takes the assault on Free Speech to a whole new level. The bill will add homosexuals as a protected group to existing hate crime legislation. The bill will make it a federal crime for pastors and individuals to use the Bible to speak out against homosexuality. This will effectively stifle the ability of pastors to preach the Word of God without fear of prosecution.
The fact is the federal government has NO business destroying the Constitution. Please, PROTECT my Civil Rights to Free Speech and Freedom to Worship and not be sent to jail. I will be watching your stand on this matter very closely.
even though what they're saying is complete crap... they use, essential, the fear of losing their first amendment rights as a tool to create fear amongst their congregations.
when, in reality, if they had their way... we wouldn't have that first amendment right at all.
.
As things stand, they can't drag black folks, women, or jewish folks from trucks. Gay folks are pretty much the ONLY people they can drag from trucks. If that's taken away from them, then they'll have NO ONE left to drag from trucks.
Why can't you see just how important this is to chritianists?
:P
I wonder if I could get McCain to vote for it this time, now that he has no hope of being president.
Although we are miles away from this scenario as of today, it is entirely likely that in many of our lifetimes, we will see gay families become fully established, fully recognized, and able to perpetuate themselves in a profoundly significant way. I don't mean that gay families will be able to routinely perpetuate themselves by having gay children and grandchildren born and raised by gay parents. As it stands now, and is likely to stand up in the near-future, gay parents will not be able to expect to have gay offspring routinely either by adoption or by alternative means of procreating. They can adopt gay youth, but that means not bringing a baby or very young child into the family, which is what many gay men and women actually want. Today's gay families will produce more heterosexual than gay offspring. That's just the way the cards are being dealt today. . But --- and this is a huge "BUT" today's and tomorrow's gay famileis can produce offspring that will be far less homophobic, far less willing to maintain any extended family tradition that fosters homophobia, such as membership in a homophobic church, and far more willing to extend support and relief to gay family members trapped in homophoibic religious households.
In the near future, many extended family trees will produce branches that are shaped by gay parents producing gay-friendly offspring. And in families that have significant roots in homophobic traditions, like the Southern Baptists or the LDS, this means that gay youth trapped in families that routinely expose them to soul-destroying, suicide-inducing religious indoctrination will have gay-friendly blood relatives who may see it as their family duty to take away, bring in and otherwise shelter these young lives. It is very likely that we will see a new Civil Rights cause come into being centered around the right of gay youth to be raised in supportive, accepting environments. And that definately is not what is happening today in millions of households dominated by a homophoibic religious life. This true right to life will be waged on their behalf by gay supportive family members who wish to shelter and raise their abused and threatened gay siblings, cousins, neices and nephews, etc. And the prospect of having court action taken to change custody of some of the children of their membership cannot be good news to men like Rick Warren, who sell themselves as "Pro-Family." Nor is the prospect of having to defend the suicide-inducing tenets of their homophobic interpretation of what their religion demands in the court of wide public opinion. They stand on losing ground, and will in time, either change their tune or like the Mormon fundamentalists, flee into the hinderland and set up compounds of hate and retrogression.
[Bartender] "I'm sorry, Madam, that was your last drink! I'm not getting thrown in jail just because you won't control yourself! I'm taking away your keys, and calling you a cab."
[Lush] "I have every right to say what I want!
[Bartender] "Lady, right now you're a loaded missile with no guidance system. Taxi!"
Indicting Pastors for being "partners-in-hate-crimes". Now THAT is Change We Can Believe In!!!
Any dittoheads out there in fruitcake land care to disagree?
(Note: I don't really want to do this, given that non-Christians get a little protection from current hate-crimes law. I just want to see what the religious right says if this trade-off is suggested.)
Wasn't their precious jesus put to death for his religious beliefs? Didn't great apostles, like paul, lose their lives because they continued to teach the "christian" message in defiance of the law and good common sense?
So, even if the claims of the right wing evangelicals were correct (which, we all know, they're not), shouldn't they be proud to be following the same path to martarydom as the great christians who came before them?
Come on, you christians, put your money where your mouth is and be happily willing to follow jesus in death for his cause! Oh, Hally Lou!!!
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/05/tv...