Gotta protect hate from the pulpit - wonder if Jesus would agree? -Kevo

"This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans -- that homosexuality is sinful," says Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "It's more of a slippery slope argument than about the law itself."

That's not any more intellectually honest than the rest of their argument. First, cite the poll that says a majority of Americans think homosexuality is sinful. Second, hiding behind a religious belief is a poor justification for opposing a law that protects life and property in a secular society.

Why don't these people just come out and say they don't like gays and lesbians and are obsessed with their sexual activities? At least on that score, Pat Buchanan and his racist rants are intellectually honest.

boy, them Episcopals are on that there slippery slope... next thing you know, they'll really offend their god and give all people the respect they deserve, and the equal right to marry whoever they love...

luckily, per nietzsche, that ol' boy is daider hell...

or, per heidegger, at least he's run off for sometime now...

so i think the episcopals are safe... if they want to go ahead and whole hog do the right thing...

Again I guess I'm at risk of losing my liberal credentials, but hate crime laws worry me, too. I don't think the government has any place passing judgment on what people believe. To quote Danny Kincannon, no murder is better or worse than any other murder. The state should hold you accountable for demonstrable actions you take, not thoughts you hold.

"For reasons that are all too clear, as they are consistent with the way they've handled the abusive-priest issue for decades (see: Law, Bernard Cardinal), church officials claim to believe they have a First Amendment right to keep the materials, which help document how church leaders handled abuse allegations, from the public."

FTFY

Lots of church groups are, or say they are, worried about rules requiring them not to discriminate w.r.t. sexual orientation etc. in hiring. Is it possible to give at least some private, esp. non-profit orgs the right to make their own rules (or do they have it already, is it really threatened with change etc.)

It seems to me that people who believe in the old testament (including, implicitly, the Jewish), also believe in hate and revenge (never to forgive, never to forget). So it's a no-brainer for some of them to worry about hate-crime laws.

"I don't think the government has any place passing judgment on what people believe." Bernard Gilroy on July 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM |

And so, to be consistent, you of course oppose laws and courtroom norms that distinguish 1st-degree murder from manslaughter, and anyone who causes the death of a person in an auto accident should be given the chair?
For approximately the 12000th time, hate crime laws do not criminalize thoughts or beliefs, or even speech other than that which demonstrably incites to a specific criminal act. Racist / sexist / homophobic / anti-semitic thoughts and expression thereof are under no threat whatsoever from hate crimes legislation. Such laws recognize, entirely properly and in ways consistent with centuries' worth of law, the intent integral to a criminal act.
As this is not exactly an original observation on my part, I wonder how it is that someone with your "liberal credentials" (mine seem to have gone missing, too; haven't set eyes on them in weeks; perhaps they've run off together) is not fully conversant with that aspect of the argument? (If I'm reading you wrong, apologies; I have no patience w/concern trolls, and it's clearly possible you're not one of them. Sometimes it's hard to tell w/o a smiley or a scorecard.)

---"This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans -- that homosexuality is sinful,"---

Standard flat-out lie by the ADF. Idol worship is government protected, even though a majority have religious beliefs prohibiting it. I'm not sure how many of the whacked-out prohibitions from the OT a majority still accept, but most are illegal to enforce. (Stoning for wearing multi-fabric clothes, for instance.)
Isn't it an amazing coincidence that their god conveniently happens to hate all the things the RR hates? It's almost like instead of their god creating them, they created their god. Nah, that can't be right.

for Bernard Gilroy-

The logical reason for punishing hate crimes more severely than other crimes is that hate crimes have more intended victims and and more intended effects than other crimes. If a man shoots his wife, the intended victim is the wife, and no one else is affected. If a man shoots a person because that person is gay, part of the intent could be to intimidate other gays. If that can be proven, it is a hate crime.

I'd say the religious right has reason to be concerned. They've been in effective political power in this nation on the cultural issues for well over a decade now, and they are seeing their power slip away.

It's not just the election of Obama and of the Democratic control of Congress. The Economist just reported the fact that Texas is slipping from Red to Blue. I can assure you, the theocrats here running the conservative Theocracy of Texas find this intolerable. But Texas is rapidly becoming more urban as it's population increases and as the suburbs age and become more urban themselves. Every major city in Texas except Fort Worth voted heavily Democratic last November. (Fort Worth is a major beneficiary of military spending on aircraft, so it is still strongly theocratic and John Birch Republican.)

The Theocrats here represent the rural parts of the state, and they are at last losing power. So if the national Democrats would quit soaking the money out of the state for every national election and not leaving it here to effect elections, the 2010 election could switch the State legislature back to Democratic just in time for redistricting after the census. We don't need any more rich useless farmers and oil men running our state. Fortunately we don't have a requirement that budgets require supermajorities like some populist ungovernable states do.

Nor do we need to export more conservative idiots as government officials to Washington, as I am sure everyone reading this will agree. That may soon come to pass.

Bernard Gilroy, the government has always legislated intent into the criminal law as a factor to consider in guilt and punishment for crimes. The so-called hate crimes simply clarify the basis for the intent.

Is is giving officials too much power? Some of us think that giving the government to power to kill someone or to decided who to prosecute or not prosecute for their behavior is quite iffy, but it works most of the time if it is carefully monitored and inflamed mobs don't take over.

It comes back to the basic issue that government must have coercive powers to function and provide social stability. Not everyone will ever support how officials use such coercive powers, but someone has to do it or we go the way of Somalia with bandits applying unmonitored power.

The thing about hate crimes laws is that they set a public standard that tells individuals what they must not base their personal behavior on, and sets standards for determining guilt and punishment. Some people reject any standard that is not coercively enforced. If it doesn't work, like so many such experiments, (three strikes familiar, or confiscation laws for drug dealers? But integration was even more iffy when passed.) then it gets repealed.

Two examples for Bernard Gildroy to consider.

Ex. 1: A love-struck teenager spray paints "Chachi Loves Joanie" on the side of a synagogue.

Ex. 2: A KKK member spray paints a swastika and "Jews Must Die" on the side of a synagogue.

Which one is the hate crime? Why? Should that vandal be punished more severly than the other?

Think about it.

If the Catholic Church is forced to release the info on child abuse hidden behind the pay-offs, will other wealthy sex offenders be forced to do the same?

The issue of religious liberty came up briefly during Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings this week.

It shouldn't be a shock that Sotomayor is strong on religious freedom.

There is another case which has gotten little notice where Sotomayor argued (in a dissent, thankfully) that religious organizations are free from having to follow anti-discrimination laws.

It's a damn shame that liberals have rolled over for this nomination without asking any tough questions.

Which one is the hate crime? Why? Should that vandal be punished more severly than the other?

Because whereas Ex1 in merely a property crime, Ex2 is an act of terrorism meant to terrorize an entire community. Even a child understands that.

I don't think the government has any place passing judgment on what people believe.

It's not belief -- it's *intent*, which needs to be established in practically every crime.

Yes, Disputo, but I was trying to get Bernard to see that. Using a small crime like that helps to show the difference between, say, a robbery gone awry and what was done to Mathew Shepard.

"For reasons that aren't entirely clear, church officials believe they have a First Amendment right to keep the materials, which help document how church leaders handled abuse allegations, from the public."

Really -- the reasons aren't clear? I'd say they're downright transparent. When a religious body has to be threatened with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to fess up to its misdeeds (Google "RICO and Boston Archdiocese") I'm guessing it's willing to believe the moon is made of green cheese if it helps it wiggle out of its responsibilities.

There should be laws to protect LGBT's, period.

It's interesting how the "Christian" community put so much pressure/or the GOP bows to pressure about LGBT. ***This is one of the reasons we have so many GOP's in the closet.

This causes the GOP to have "fake marriages" in order to please someone else. As a heterosexual female, I'd be angry to spend my time/life with someone only to find out through the press (as most GOP fake wives do) that my husband is not "into me." This is no different than a man cheating on his wife with another woman.

On Abortion - this causes so many GOP's to rant against abortion - yet, when you look at the track record of GOP and their followers/assistants....the long list of crimes against children is sickening. - child pornography, child rape/sexual assault....

see www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
***State by State GOP Scandal Scorecard (10/21/05)

www.theopalinism.com/blog/2009/06/27/
***Grand Ol Party I don't Think This is What They Meant

The churches need to look at how this damages their messages and causes if they are using the voice of the GOP, who in turn damages the reputation of not just the GOP but the church.

After all, this is nothing more than letting a thief mine the store of valuables.

It is possible to believe that homosexuality is a sin while simultaneously believing that violence against a person because he or she is homosexual is also a sin. That is what I do not understand about the FRC and the ADF message. While I'm sure they wouldn't actively encourage violence against homosexuals, I doubt they are doing anything to really discourage it either.

Know what? Fuck the churches and their sheep. Those pathetic little bastards have nothing to cry about. Religion is a Constitutionally-protected lifestyle choice, and meanwhile my family and I get to suffer under the burden of having no legal protections all because a bunch of busybody, sex-obsessed christians are offended by the fact that I refuse to kiss their asses.

If I burned down the local mormon church with all the faithful inside because I think mormons are all evil people who deserve to die, I could be charged with a hate crime under federal law. Whereas if a few of them came out of church and crushed my skull because they saw me holding hands with my partner, and they believe all gays are evil and deserve to die, it wouldn't be a hate crime. It would just be simple manslaughter, and they'd be out in under five years. Who has "special rights" again in this country?

Both the House and the Senate versions of the hate crimes bill go above and beyond to fellate the delicate sensibilities of people who make money spewing Constitutionally-protected gay hate from the pulpit. We discuss the whole thing at Pam's House Blend, complete with links and text from the bill outlining the "special rights" that christians have in this country. The Senate version of the bill, S7492 section X10, says this:

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.--Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION.--Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Whereas the House version only says this:

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.

That means that good old Amurkin gay hate can still be screamed in Gawd's House, and still be milked for money so long as the good upstanding christian leadership doesn't actually say outright, "Now go kill them filthy fags!"

So shut up, Bernard. Nothing in any of these bills infringes on what people believe or say. Gullible fearful idiots can still think whatever they like (if thinking is really an accurate word for what goes on), just like they always have. The only difference is that if this bill passes, now when they murder one of us because Jebus told them to, the federal government can actually force and fund an investigation when Sheriff Bubba sweeps it under the rug because he thinks a faggot's death isn't worth the time and effort.

I certainly support giving more protection to persecuted groups, but I keep feeling that we haven't really figured out the right way to formulate "hate crime" laws.

The counterargument against hate crime bills is that the victim doesn't suffer more for having being singled out for his/her ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. Being beat up or shot or lynched feels about the same, regardless of the motivations of your torturers. To me, the big difference between hate crimes and random acts of violence is that often hate crimes are really acts of terrorism. The point of lynching a black person, or a gay person is not just hurting one person, but sending a message to an entire group: "You could be next".

It seems to me that the terrorism aspect of hate crimes could be separated as a different crime. The intent to terrorize a group is an additional crime.

smartalek,

Yes, I agree that it is common to take into account intent, but usually the question is whether the perpetrator intended harm or not (or whether they intended the harm to be as great as it actually was). In the case of beating somebody up, it seems like to me the issue is whether they intended to cause extreme pain, humiliation or disfigurement or whatever to their victim. It seems strange to think that it's a defense to argue: "Your honor, I had no thought about the victim's ethnicity or sexual orientation. I was just beating him up out of pure sadism, the pleasure of inflicting harm on the innocent."

Tim H,

I certainly understand and I agree with the distinction between a crime that only harms the one victim, and a crime that is intended to terrorize a population. However, it seems to me that the fact that someone was motivated to commit a crime by their hatred of the person's ethnicity or sexual orientation does not necessarily imply that the intent was to terrorize.

Erik Stanley is lying! Most Americans do not consider homosexuality sinful. This is comparable with the false claim that the U.S. was founded as a christian nation. Most of the founding fathers were deists. If Stanley does not like it he can challenge as if he were a gentleman.

I'm with Keori on this one. With all the hateful speech coming from the GOP, especially Patsy Buchanan, I'd say just go with the hate crime bill.

Obviously, Patsy made it clear, if you're not white you're not alright.

In this case, any one that does not fit the mold of what they consider the "superior race," should be charged with a hate crime.

When the abortion clinics are targeted, they don't try to distinguish whether the doctor was female, male, or ethnic background.

When these idiots are charged with crimes against children, it is not distinguish between boy or girl (victim).

Again, I feel they also need to back-off with the Abortion. It makes me wonder if they want to make sure they have a readily-available supply of kids to do harmful acts to.

Let me say why I am against doing away with Roe v. Wade,

It's the GOP that have caused this massive mess in which we find ourselves in today.

They don't want Social Security,

They've made it impossible for people to afford college or pay back college loans

They don't want Welfare

They don't want free (tax-payer) education for kids,

There are no jobs out there (it's been pointed out on one of their websites - a blogger asked "If we didn't have all the illegal immigrants in this country, what would umemployment rates be?")

People who had 401k's have nothing if little left

Most people who had homes no longer have them

To sum it up, why are the GOP so hell-bent on Abortion when they've made it clear they don't care about other people's kids?

"Hate Bill" Favoritism

If "hate bill"-obsessed Congress can't protect Christians from "gays" as much as it wants to protect "gays" from Christians, will Congress be surprised if it can't protect itself from most everyone? If "hate bills" are forced on captive Americans, they'll still find ways to sneakily continue to "plant" Biblical messages everywhere. By doing so they'll hasten God's judgment on their oppressors as revealed in Proverbs 19:1. (See related web items including "David Letterman's Hate, Etc.," "Separation of Raunch and State," "Michael the Narc-Angel," and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.") Since Congress can't seem to legislate "morality," it's making up for it by legislating "immorality"!

Freedom of belief. Damn right. Secret altar-boy fucking is a fundamental sacerdotal praxis of the Catholic Church, protected by the first amendment? Those two hairy Catholics on the Supreme Court better hop to it and protect religious liberty.

"it seems to me that the fact that someone was motivated to commit a crime by their hatred of the person's ethnicity or sexual orientation does not necessarily imply that the intent was to terrorize."

It seems to me that people who kill others because of their ethnicity or sexual orientation are the most fucked up kind of fucked up sociopaths there are so put em away and throw away the fucking key.

Hello. Hi Friends, i am new here and i am from Canada. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Used residential tanning beds. I found only this - free Tanning bed lotion samples. So yes, I do believe children under should not be allowed to tan. Billion dollars had to be used because of smoking related illnesses. Waiting for a reply :rolleyes:, Ashlyn from Central.