Hate is good for Christians

Sorry, but this is simply bait.

Any responsible pastor of an Evangelgical Christian church is going to say sex outside of a marrage between a man and woman is wrong, but he is not going to incite violence ("Thy Shalt Not Murder"). For instance, Charles Manson is responsible for Sharon Tate's death - not Helter Skelter....if a killer commits a Hate crime - they take responsibility.

Speaking of hate crimes, this is a hate-inspired post.

 

I particularly like the last sentence in the article quoting the woman from Focus on the Family. Not only is that one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard in a long time, she exploited the victims of the VA Tech shooting to make her point.

 

Also, the representatives of these "Christian" (and I think it's been too long that these bigoted organizations have been allowed to represent Christians) either did not read the bill, did not understand it, or they are just lying. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 specifically only establishes penalties for someone who directly injures or attempts to injure another person. The only way that it could ever possibly be applied to a preacher giving a sermon, and this even would seem to be a real stretch (but I'm not a lawyer), is if that preacher told his congregation to go out and beat up homosexuals. Just givng an anti-gay sermon in no way has anything to do with a hate crime. These groups oppose the bill simply because it affords rights to people (LGBT) that they consider immoral.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ May 4 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]435890[/snapback]</div>

Well doesn't the church have a histroy of protecting and recycling priests who were pedeophiles?

If christianity is the religion of love, then that statement from the Westboro is an interesting way of professing "love."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ May 4 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]435577[/snapback]</div>

This Pastor, me, won't say that. But I'm a liberal Preacher, who believes in love and peace.

Weird things like that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 5 2007, 12:36 AM) [snapback]435910[/snapback]</div>

This is pretty old tact at FHOP - taking a few bad apples and declaring the entire bunch to be rotten. I was not refering to the Catholic Church, but I'm sure the percentage of molesting priests is a very small number that have done a great deal of damage - that statement suggests burritos is too busy harvesting vitrol to understand Christianity taken in it's context...actually there are plenty more as he may have been the one that several months ago that said all it's done is start wars, while conviently ignoring the efforts of William Wilurforce (ending slavery in the Br. Empire), Martin Luther King on Civil Rights, the printing press promted by the desire to publish The Bible - a book some of you skim to quote out of context to express hate (which I don't understand since the same people emphatically say they don't believe it).

Got to get ready for the Live Green Expo...Scripture has something about not spending too much time bickering - of course some at the FHOP don't believe it because it's too in-context and positive to be used as bait here. Besides, what's the point in getting lectured about love by bitter people????

 

You folks will probably beat on me for this, but I think the entire concept of "hate crimes" is absolutly insane.

If "Bob" beats up "Mike" and "Bob" is white and "Mike" is black, it can be labelled a "hate crime".
If "Bob" beats up "Mike" and "Bob" is black and "Mike" is black, it is not labelled a "hate crime"
Unless "Mike" is gay and "Bob" is not...

To me, the act of the crime is what deserves punishment that is fair and just for all concerned. Whether a person committing a crime is racist, sexist, or otherwise categorized into a hate crime grouping makes no difference in terms of the criminal act committed.

The concept of additional punishment because of the motivation of the crime does not make sense to me. Committing a violent act against another person is just as bad, in my opinion, regardless if the victim is white, black, male, female, or whatever... The punishment should fit the crime, not the motivation...

How long before we create a hierarchy of victimization and special rights that completely skews the concept of all people being created equal?

So I may have less sympathy in general for prejudicial person? So what? This should be a subjective matter for a jury and a judge to sort out in regards to sentencing options. I see the concept of hate crimes as another way to provide "special rights" to people who fully deserve equal treatment, not special treatment.

I'm sure plenty of folks will disagree with me on this but from where I stand we are all human beings regardless of what we do with our privates, what color our skin, and what god(s) if any, we pray to and I see the hate crime concept as a potentially real threat to our becoming a truly equal and fair society.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ May 5 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]436014[/snapback]</div>

But where do we draw the line? Should the punishment be the same for someone who carefully plans out the killing of a child vs. someone who accidentally kills a friend while cleaning his gun? In one case, you have a horribly heinous crime, while in the other case, you have a careless mistake having terrible consequences. However, both scenarios have the same final result: someone else's life has been taken away by another person. How about killings in self defense? Do we draw the line there?

How about a case that's a little less straightforward: A premeditated murder vs. a drunk driver killing a person. Both of those are cases where the person doing the killing is responsible for the other person's death. However, I still think that most people would think the premeditated murderer deserves a harsher punishment.

For quite a long time I took the position of "punish the crime, not the thought/motivation," but I came the the realization that we already are "policing the thought" in some ways, and I don't have a problem with that. Now, maybe hate crime legislation takes it too far, but I don't think it's as easy as saying that you're only going to punish the crime without attention to the motivation behind it.

 

The circumstance of a crime, premeditated or not, are one thing... The motivational issues are what I view as not relevent...

Heck someone could pre-meditate a crime for 50 years before doing it... Someone could pre-meditate a crime for a week.... The bottom line it it is pre-meditated and a plan was put into action and the result was a crime... Punishment, in my opinion, should generally be different for this type of activity than someone who causes a crime through complete accident... In general...

It doesn't matter whether the premeditated crime was based on dislike of a race, sex, or religious issue, or whether it was premeditated because the sun comes up somewhere in the world each day... The premeitation factors can be the same regadless of the motivation behind them.

I wouldn't want the though police poking around in my brain although I have never committed a crime (well... I stole pea shooter in third grade and then felt guilty and went back to the store and apologized and paid for it).

I'm sure some of my enjoyable "marital moments" are probably considered illegal in some states and as such the very concept of thought crime I find insane...

 

Hate crime legislation usually piles on more punishments if the person commits the crime and announces it is because of his hate toward that person's race, creed, religion or, if this bill passes, sexual orientation or gender identity.

I'm a conservative that approves of these laws. Pile up as many charges as you can, because people who victimize others deserve to be put away. The perp who mugs and murders an Asian businessman is not only charged with assault, assault with a gun, assault in the commission of a crime, murder one, murder in the commission of a crime, but also, a crime committed because of the victim's race. Hate crime charges are very rarely put out by a DA without other, primary charges being filed.

Hate speech laws are another deal altogether, and I reject them. If the bill in Congress makes any kind of speech illegal, unless already illegal, then the law is wrong. But I doubt that's the case. I'll have to read the bill to see if it has any of the restrictions that the Canadians put in their hate speech laws (Canada does not have a constitutional protection of free speech, and hate speech ... including saying homosexual practices are illegal ... cannot be aired on their public airwaves).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 5 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]436070[/snapback]</div>

I'm a liberal and agree with you 100%. Hate speech, unless it is a CLEAR incitement to commit acts of violence, is abhorrent, but still protected by the first amendment.
The bill passed by the House does not restrict speech in any way. It only applies to the perpetrator of a violent crime. The reason for hate crimes is not to punish the criminal because of "thought". It is because hate crimes don't just victimize the actual person who is assaulted or murdered, it also terrorizes the people who belong to the same group as the victim. For instance, if a Jewish person is murdered in a synagogue, and swastikas are spray-painted over the walls, it is an act of terror against Jewish people. It is because these acts serve to terrorize that they are often committed.

 

I disagree. I understand the concept of terrorizing a group and fully agree that is is wrong and should not occur, but legislation concerning that "opinion", right or wrong, only serves to give credibility and viability to the criminal.

If someone rapes a white woman, for example... And writes "rape white women" on a wall, then if it is a white guy that raped her how is it a "hate crime"? And if the rapist isn't white, and it determined to he a "hate crime", why shouldn't he simply be punished like a white guy... Based on the atrocity he has committed?

We have laws on the books already concerning terrorism, stalking, rape, murder, torture, and a hot of other crimes. Why do we need to add the hate crime category as an extra bargaining point for lawyers when we should be focused on matching the punishment to the crime itself?

I think of it like I do any "special rights" legislation... What we should have in my opinion are human rights which apply to all people. We do not need special rights based on our genitals, skin color, or choice of religion. We did need them, back when we were starting to become civilized (as recently as the 1960s), but now they serve to promote a society of entitlement which in my opinion hurts all concerned.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 5 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]436153[/snapback]</div>

This is the misconception that many people have about hate crimes legislation. In does not afford special rights to any particular groups of people. In does not imply that murdering a white man is any less a despicable act than murdering a black woman. What it primarily does (you can read the provisions of the legislation by the link I provided in an earlier post) is provide local law enforcement organizations with the resources necessary to investigate and prosecute these crimes.
We already use intent as a determinant of the seriousness of a crime and the appropriate punishment (that is why we distinguish first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc.). Hate crimes legislation recognizes the act of terrorizing an entire group of people, beyond the act of committing an act of violence against a single person.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 5 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]436159[/snapback]</div>

You are right. Most of the objections to hate crime laws tend to say that a crime has been committed anyway, and the end result is the same. But that's the case with any violent crime; there are often dozens of charges for the same crime. The DA will file all the charges that apply, and our system will weed out which ones the guy is guilty of.

The other issue with hate crime laws is recognizing the higher probability of repeat offenders. A guy that gets into a fight in a bar just lost his temper; the guy that went out victimizing Gays is targeting not someone who made him mad, but a group of people that will still exist when he gets out of jail and is "cooled off". It would be nice if we also used a determination of a hate crime to get further psychological testing of the perp. I doubt that we do that in our prison system, but it sure looks like a good opportunity to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ May 5 2007, 02:23 AM) [snapback]435926[/snapback]</div>

Weirdo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 5 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]436227[/snapback]</div>

Yup! That's a me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 5 2007, 06:38 PM) [snapback]436159[/snapback]</div>

I stand corrected as I was unaware of the detail. however your comment raises a huge issue for me... Why would not all avaiable resources be available in a non-hate crime scenarion. I "assume" you are referring to additional agencies in terms of access and co-operation, perhaps additional funding, and additional lessening of common restrictions on operations... And probably a lot more things I know nothing about... Why wouldn't "additional resources" be available anyway?