Hate Crimes Legislation [Archive]

View Full Version : Hate Crimes Legislation

mack

04-18-09, 08:37 PM

As always, there are two sides to any debate. More from the other side that someone sent me today:

Religious Freedom Threatened by H.R. Bill 1913 (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3618)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMh4jvRRsNM&feature

Gohmert is here speaking on HR 1592, which is, I believe, an 2007 version of a similar bill passed in the House. See relevant conservative text on that here (http://au.christiantoday.com/article/us-house-committee-to-vote-on-hate-crimes-bill/6037.htm).

http://www.maplight.org/map/us/bill/82243/default/links.html

It boggles my mind - this legislation - because its overly broad and at base, and will be used to target Christianity in any shape form or size. Further, it derogates the constitutional protection of religious freedom.

Easy example: I dont get to call everyone here who openly disagrees with President Obama's policies and administration a racist. Granted, he's black. Granted, some people who disagree with his policies might really be racist. Granted some people who disagree with his policies very strongly might discuss their disagreement of those policies with someone else who is an extreme racist - and that someone else may even attack blacks on their own time.

Does the conversation alone make the person who disagrees with the Obama Administration a racist? Cmon. If that's the case, we'd have to define all TV & Radio pundits as committing Hate Crimes, because we cant even begin to scratch the surface of the people who listen to them, believe/internalize what they say, and also commit criminal behavior.

Next rung down this horrible ladder of a slippery slope is that they are going to define Christianity as a cult, in order to remove it from the religious protection granted by the constitution.

And on a final note - have we even touched on Freedom of Speech? People often openly and very strongly discuss being "politically correct" and that they will not be. Isnt it wonderful that they actually have a choice in the matter? Its not like they have the choice to

(a) be PC, or

(b) go to jail for a Hate Crime.

Go ahead. Laugh. But I am deadly serious. This subject irritates me because you know what? Racists have a choice - even though there are more racially motivated hate crimes than homosexually motivated hate crimes. Sexists have a choice, even though there are a whole LOT more heterosexual gender motivated hate crimes than homosexually motivated hate crimes.

A bill like this will not give Christians that choice. This is essentially saying they will be PC or go to jail for a hate crime. So I ask you - why is it that Christianity alone occupies that special pedestal of demonized existence within the US? I'll tell you why. Its because homosexuality alone crosses race and gender and touches - hurts! - that majority segment of American society who most occupies the halls of justice (...erm, Congress/legislative arm). Apparently, when something like dislike or disagreement or....minority status.......touches "them" its really, really bad. And I find elevating disagreement with LGBT issues to a crime beyond even racism or sexism to be nothing more than a majority way to yet again specially protect themselves ....and well.....racist and kind of sexist too, because I strongly believe that congress is made up of more men than women - and if there were more open lesbianism than gay men, this issue wouldnt have even been allowed to run up the flagpole.

bleacheddecay

04-19-09, 12:55 AM

I find it hard to have sympathy for the so called persecution of Christians. I live surrounded by close minded conservative Christians who would take away any gay rights that the movement has already gained and those of others.

The gay rights movement which should have not been necessary because those rights should have been available all along has made some wonderful progress lately. Whenever the movement makes progress people feel threatened and a need to do something to lash back. It's just sad.

Mack, I'd like to understand what you mean by the following:

"And I find elevating disagreement with LGBT issues to a crime beyond even racism or sexism to be nothing more than a majority way to yet again specially protect themselves ....and well.....racist and kind of sexist too, because I strongly believe that congress is made up of more men than women - and if there were more open lesbianism than gay men, this issue wouldnt have even been allowed to run up the flagpole."

Could you please explain a bit more what you mean?

adidasss

04-23-09, 09:12 PM

Yoda

04-23-09, 09:18 PM

adidasss

04-24-09, 05:00 AM

Eh? How is that even remotely a rebuttal of what was said? The fact that you have to commit a crime isn't in dispute, and putting it in bold doesn't address the core concern: the idea that the exact same crime committed against one person is deemed somehow worse than when it's committed against another. That's a reasonable concern, and one that is most definitely not limited to Christians, conservatives, or any other releated group. Most serious Libertarians have major concerns about this, too, because it imposes harsher punishments for identical crimes based only on whether or not the victim falls into some predefined group.

If you support hate crimes legislation, hey, fine, let's talk about it. But completely ignoring the arguments against it and brushing it off as "paranoid hogwash" just won't do.

Err, I must still be a little groggy because I don't see anything even remotely resembling what you've said in mack's post. What I did read is her focus on homophobia being included in the hate crimes legislation and being somehow elevated beyond racism? I'm reading the act now and see nothing of the sort.

Maybe I'm just stupid, can someone explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old. How does hate crime legislation lead to the criminalization of Christianity? And what was all that about Christians not having a choice as opposed to racists...?

Incidentally, my impression was that she wouldn't have such a problem (or maybe a problem at all) with hate crime legislation if it didn't include discrimination based on sexual orientation.

As for your post (which again, I fail to see the connection with mack's ramblings), I believe the prominent reason for hate crime legislation is that such crimes affect not only the victim and their families, but also other members of the said class of people (be they homosexuals, black people or any other minority which is subject to discrimination), which is why they're considered more disruptive to society than regular crimes which aren't motivated by bias. :\

Yoda

04-27-09, 11:09 AM

Err, I must still be a little groggy because I don't see anything even remotely resembling what you've said in mack's post. What I did read is her focus on homophobia being included in the hate crimes legislation and being somehow elevated beyond racism? I'm reading the act now and see nothing of the sort.

Maybe I'm just stupid, can someone explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old. How does hate crime legislation lead to the criminalization of Christianity? And what was all that about Christians not having a choice as opposed to racists...?
Perhaps I'm confused, but I think she's basically saying that hate crimes are a form of thought control (not a terribly hard case to make, really), and therefore threaten everyone, in the same way tossing an innocent man in jail "harms" you, even if you have no connection to him. It might sound a little silly to single out Christianity, but the broader point -- if not the specific rhetoric -- is about hate crimes themselves.

If you're taking issue only with some of the rhetoric surrounding it, I suppose I wouldn't put up a lot of fuss. What stood out to me was the text you bolded in your response, which I took to be an implication that hate crimes need not concern anyone who isn't planning on commiting and act of violence.

As for your post (which again, I fail to see the connection with mack's ramblings), I believe the prominent reason for hate crime legislation is that such crimes affect not only the victim and their families, but also other members of the said class of people (be they homosexuals, black people or any other minority which is subject to discrimination), which is why they're considered more disruptive to society than regular crimes which aren't motivated by bias. :\
I understand that this is the argument for it, and at first glance it's not unreasonable...but I think, upon further examination, it's a fairly meaningless distinction. I'm sure that, if an openly gay man, for example, is beaten merely for being gay, other gay men in the area will be fearful that it may happen to them. But if any crime is committed in an area, that area's inhabitants will worry more. If someone robs my neighbor, I'm going to be concerned for myself.

In other words, I don't think we can parse fear out and deem that some types of it are worse than others, and punish more accordingly. I think the entire concept is, at best, a well-meaning by completely futile attempt to snuff out hate, and at worst, an attempt to force people to think a certain way through brute force.

adidasss

04-27-09, 05:25 PM

Perhaps I'm confused, but I think she's basically saying that hate crimes are a form of thought control (not a terribly hard case to make, really), and therefore threaten everyone, in the same way tossing an innocent man in jail "harms" you, even if you have no connection to him. It might sound a little silly to single out Christianity, but the broader point -- if not the specific rhetoric -- is about hate crimes themselves. Um, I may be wrong, but again, I don't think she was referring to hate crime legislation in general, but a specific bill which expands the hate crime legislation to include crimes towards homosexuals (I'm not very familiar with American law, but I read a bit about hate crime legislation and it appears it has covered race and gender for a few decades now).

If you're taking issue only with some of the rhetoric surrounding it, I suppose I wouldn't put up a lot of fuss. What stood out to me was the text you bolded in your response, which I took to be an implication that hate crimes need not concern anyone who isn't planning on commiting and act of violence.
Actually, that was what I was trying to say. Why do other people need to worry about it? Honest question.

I understand that this is the argument for it, and at first glance it's not unreasonable...but I think, upon further examination, it's a fairly meaningless distinction. I'm sure that, if an openly gay man, for example, is beaten merely for being gay, other gay men in the area will be fearful that it may happen to them. But if any crime is committed in an area, that area's inhabitants will worry more. If someone robs my neighbor, I'm going to be concerned for myself.

In other words, I don't think we can parse fear out and deem that some types of it are worse than others, and punish more accordingly. I think the entire concept is, at best, a well-meaning by completely futile attempt to snuff out hate, and at worst, an attempt to force people to think a certain way through brute force.
Hmm, I disagree. Unlike random crimes, hate crimes send a message of intolerance towards a certain, defined group of people, plus they affect the perception of safety on a much bigger scale than random crimes. A bashing based on bias in any part of the country affects members of the targeted group of people regardless of whether the crime happened in their area. I won't be as threatened by a random mugging as with a gay bashing because one is specifically directed at a group of people which I belong to, the other isn't so there's much less chance I'll become the victim. Regardless of that, there is nothing personal about random acts of violence so the emotional impact isn't the same as with a hate crime. I've read somewhere that hate crime victims feel similarly violated to rape victims.

On the other hand, the general population isn't (as) worried about gay bashing (or crimes based on race) because they aren't members of the said group of people. This is why I think there's a need for hate crime legislation, not only to alert other people to the problems of homophobia, racism etc., but to send a strong message that such intolerance will not be tolerated. Haha...yeah, you get my meaning...:\

Btw, this should all be separated and moved into a separate thread.

7thson

04-27-09, 06:23 PM

On the other hand, the general population isn't (as) worried about gay bashing (or crimes based on race) because they aren't members of the said group of people.

Empathy does exist, certainly for family members. My daughter is so in my case at least you are wrong. I actually think it bothers me more than it does her for that matter.

adidasss

04-28-09, 02:54 AM

I was referring to people who don't have any relations with gay people...it goes without saying that family members of the victims will be affected by hate crimes...:|

Yoda

05-09-09, 01:35 PM

Um, I may be wrong, but again, I don't think she was referring to hate crime legislation in general, but a specific bill which expands the hate crime legislation to include crimes towards homosexuals (I'm not very familiar with American law, but I read a bit about hate crime legislation and it appears it has covered race and gender for a few decades now).
I couldn't speak for mack, but I thought she was referring to it in general. Dunno for sure, though.

Actually, that was what I was trying to say. Why do other people need to worry about it? Honest question.
I think everyone needs to worry about the relative justness or unjustness of any law. Just because I don't plan on suing anyone doesn't mean I don't want a fair legal system in place. I think wanting the law to be as fair as possible should be a built-in desire even for upstanding people. Heck, I'd say it's one of the things that makes them upstanding people to begin with.

Hmm, I disagree. Unlike random crimes, hate crimes send a message of intolerance towards a certain, defined group of people, plus they affect the perception of safety on a much bigger scale than random crimes. A bashing based on bias in any part of the country affects members of the targeted group of people regardless of whether the crime happened in their area. I won't be as threatened by a random mugging as with a gay bashing because one is specifically directed at a group of people which I belong to, the other isn't so there's much less chance I'll become the victim. Regardless of that, there is nothing personal about random acts of violence so the emotional impact isn't the same as with a hate crime. I've read somewhere that hate crime victims feel similarly violated to rape victims.

On the other hand, the general population isn't (as) worried about gay bashing (or crimes based on race) because they aren't members of the said group of people. This is why I think there's a need for hate crime legislation, not only to alert other people to the problems of homophobia, racism etc., but to send a strong message that such intolerance will not be tolerated. Haha...yeah, you get my meaning...:\

I do get your meaning and it makes sense, but I do think there are some issues with scope. For example, couldn't this apply to any minority group? The much-discussed "Craigslist killer" seems to have targetted masseuses, and therefore could arguably have had the same effect on local masseuse as a "hate crime" would on members of the minority in question. Why punish that any differently? Same effect.

By the by, not that the phrasing is that important, but the phrase "hate crime" isn't doing its supporters any favors. Given the arguments that defend it, it sounds like "fear crime" fits a bit better. But as indicated above, there are lots of ways criminals can strike fear into small groups of people.

Btw, this should all be separated and moved into a separate thread.
I think you're probably right 'bout that. I'll see if I can rustle up a new one.

adidasss

05-09-09, 02:31 PM

I do get your meaning and it makes sense, but I do think there are some issues with scope. For example, couldn't this apply to any minority group? I believe the hate crime legislation is meant to protect groups that have suffered a long history of hate and discrimination. Hence what I said earlier about the main intent of the legislation, which is ending such discrimination. The much-discussed "Craigslist killer" seems to have targetted masseuses, and therefore could arguably have had the same effect on local masseuse as a "hate crime" would on members of the minority in question. Why punish that any differently? Same effect. Yes, local masseuses, possibly. That was an isolated case, hate crimes aren't...Unless there's a burgeoning subculture of masseuse-haters out there, I wouldn't say it's the same thing. :\

Yoda

05-09-09, 11:24 PM

I believe the hate crime legislation is meant to protect groups that have suffered a long history of hate and discrimination. Hence what I said earlier about the main intent of the legislation, which is ending such discrimination.
But surely you see the problem here: it's being applied to specific crimes, but is altering standard punishments for some vague attempt at broader social change. They're making an example out of people, in other words. Using brute legal force to try to affect people's thinking.

Yes, local masseuses, possibly. That was an isolated case, hate crimes aren't...Unless there's a burgeoning subculture of masseuse-haters out there, I wouldn't say it's the same thing. :\
You can't actually measure fear, though. Some local masseueses were probably terrified. Others, not so much. The same spectrum of emotion probably applies to any group that feels targetted, which is just another reason hate crimes legislation is so dubious. It's trying to measure the immeasurable and drawing a largely arbitrary line as to which groups even qualify, and all for some unquantifiable social benefit.

Whatever you feel about it on a personal level, surely you see how incredibly shaky the legal ground is here: they're telling us it's worse to kill someone who's gay than someone who's, say, blonde.

Two more things to consider: first, whatever the abstract merits of hate crimes laws, they have to exist in the real world, which means judges and juries making all sorts of arbitrary value judgments even on top of the ones inherent in the idea. It's especially subjective, and therefore ripe for abuse.

Second, these laws clearly breed resentment for some, in the same way racial quotas and the like sometimes breed racial resentment. When people feel they're being forced to think a certain way, they're as likely as not to reinforce their thinking. So it's entirely possible that, even if we ignore the legal and moral hurdles here, it might be counterproductive anyway.

rufnek

05-26-09, 04:52 PM

It boggles my mind - this legislation - because its overly broad and at base, and will be used to target Christianity in any shape form or size. Further, it derogates the constitutional protection of religious freedom.

Don't blow a gasket, Mack. Even if the legislation is overly broad as you claim, there is no guarantee (or as far as I can see, even the slightest threat) that it "will be used to target Christianity." That's just your personal interpretation of it. Hate crimes law has not prevented membership in or public marches by the Ku Klux Klan because membership in the Klan and assemblies by the Klan is not against the law, as long as they get the proper parade permit which is also required of the NAACP. Show me anywhere in this country where it's against the law to be a member of any church or for any religious group to assemble, and then I'll start to worry with you.

Easy example: I dont get to call everyone here who openly disagrees with President Obama's policies and administration a racist.

Why, what's to stop you? It's not against the law to say someone is racist or bigoted or has stinky feet. But if you do it in public, the person you're calling names has the right under civil law to sue you in civil court for defamation (if you say it) or libel (if you write it). But it's not a crime and is not punishable under criminal law and therefore is not subject to hate crime laws. Now if you say, "Those people have stinky feet--let's go kill 'em," then you have broken criminal laws by inciting a riot, advocating an attack on or murder of people simply because their feet stink (or they're black or Jewish, or homosexual, or whatever).

So your pastor (or rabbi or even Klan Wizard) can safely say, "It says right here in verse whatever that God is against homosexuality." You can quote God or Hitler or Gomer Pyle. Just so long as you don't say, "God is against homosexuals, so let's go get 'em." It's the "let's go get 'em" that will have your parson up on criminal charges, just as if he had said, "Following today's service, I expect the congregation to form a car pool and go bomb a birth-control clinic." It's the advocation of a crime that will put your butt behind bars--and rightfully so.

Next rung down this horrible ladder of a slippery slope is that they are going to define Christianity as a cult, in order to remove it from the religious protection granted by the constitution.

Now you're really streaching on this one, Mack. They don't even define cults as cults. Tell me a single religion or cult that has been outlawed.

And on a final note - have we even touched on Freedom of Speech?

I'll just refer you to the famous Supreme Court decision to the effect that "Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Saying or writing something with even the intent to provoke attacks or otherwise encourage or cause bodily harm to anyone is against the law and subject to additional penalties if the intended victims are members of designated minorities.

rufnek

05-26-09, 05:07 PM

I believe the prominent reason for hate crime legislation is that such crimes affect not only the victim and their families, but also other members of the said class of people (be they homosexuals, black people or any other minority which is subject to discrimination), which is why they're considered more disruptive to society than regular crimes which aren't motivated by bias. :\

I'm with you on this one, adid--the lynching of a black man or a Jew or a homosexual is not just an attack on that individual but an act aimed at intimidating any and all people who happen to be black or Jewish or homosexual. Such attacks aren't like most criminal acts aimed at robbery or killing in passion or for profit or burglary or drug running or any mundane random crime. The whole idea behind such an attack is solely that the individual is a member of a specific group hated by the attacker(s).

rufnek

05-26-09, 05:46 PM

I think she's basically saying that hate crimes are a form of thought control (not a terribly hard case to make, really), and therefore threaten everyone . . .

With all due respect, Yoda, that is a gross over-simplification of hate crime laws. No one is trying to control your thoughts, because simply thinking something is not criminal. There are laws against robbery, but in my mind I can plan the world's greatest heist. There are laws against murder, but I can picture in my mind slowing killing my ex-wife's boyfriend (which in my case would be mass murder). There are laws against incest, but I can imagine lewd acts with my sister (if I had one). There are laws against criminal actions against minorities simply because they are minorities, but I can think to myself all Star Wars fans are less than human and should be stamped out as soon as possible (I don't really think that, of course).

Simply thinking such things hurts nobody but my own sick mind and personality, but no one can know or, more important, prove what is going on in my imagination. It's only when one goes beyond thinking about evil and actually commits the evil acts he's been fantasizing that one breaks the law and is rightfully subject to punishment.

There's a big difference between using the N-word among your friends, making jokes about blacks and insulting them in public compared with going out and lynching a person just because he's black. It's the actual attack on the black man, just because he's a member of a group that one hates and wants to intimidate, that makes it a hate crime.

Yeah, if someone robs your neighbor, you might be worried about being robbed. But you're not worried about being robbed just because you were the neighbor of the first victim. In reality, although your neighborhood may be a crime area, it would take a very dumb criminal to burgularize the house at 101 the first night, then break into 103 the next night, come back to burgle 105 the third night, and so on down the block. By the time he got to 107, the cops surely would be lying in wait for him. Point being, you're actually in less danger of being burglarized after your neighbor has been burglarized.

On the other hand, if someone starts gunning down black people night after night after night, then all black people can safely assume any one of them could potentially be the next victim. That's not a truly random crime like burglary; that is a crime specifically aimed at a certain group and certainly qualifies as a hate crime because the shootings are intended to frighten and intimidate all blacks in that town. That puts the racial killer above and beyond the wife who knifes her cheating husband or the hyped-up teen who shoots and kills the Stop-N-Go clerk in a bungled robbery. The wife is revenging herself against a specific husband, the teen has killed the clerk while trying to get money for his next fix. The wife was not trying to intimidate all cheating husbands; she didn't necessarily hate all husbands--likely she'll remarry if acquited. The teen wasn't interested in killing that or any other store clerks--he just wanted a fix. But the hate killer is targeting a special group based solely on his hate for that group and therefore is a threat to all members of that group. And this ol' white, Protestant-raised, native Southern boy thinks people who commit hate crimes deserve extra punishment.

Besides, it not a bit different than the RICO laws that provide extra-tough sentences on members of organized crime vs. an individual hop-head burglarizing neighborhood houses or sticking up 7-11s.

Harry Lime

05-26-09, 05:52 PM

No one is trying to control your thoughts, because simply thinking something is not criminal.

Not yet at least.

Yoda

05-26-09, 05:57 PM

With all due respect, Yoda, that is a gross over-simplification of hate crime laws. No one is trying to control your thoughts, because simply thinking something is not criminal.
Because knowing exactly what you're thinking is, at the moment, impossible, but this inability in no way implies that there is no attempt to do so.

When the law tries to punish someone for having one thought as opposed to another in any form, that is undeniably an attempt at thought control. The fact that no one is capable of policing actual thoughts is beside the point. Whether or not it works is beside the point. The point is the attempt to influence thinking through imposing special penalties for certain types of thoughts, and hate crimes legislation quite obviously qualifies.

Simply thinking such things hurts nobody but my own sick mind and personality, but no one can known or, more, prove what is going on in my imagination. It's only when one goes beyond thinking about evil and actually commits the evil acts he's been fantasizing that one breaks the law and is rightfully subject to punishment.
This only means that hate crimes legislation involves retroactive thought control, though. It punishes you for the thoughts you had that led to the crime, on top of the crime itself.

Yeah, if someone robs your neighbor, you might be worried about being robbed. But you're not worried about being robbed just because you were the neighbor of the first victim. In reality, although your neighborhood may be a crime area, it would take a very dumb criminal to burgularize the house at 101 the first night, then break into 103 the next night, come back to burgle 105 the third night, and so on down the block. By the time he got to 107, the cops surely would be laying in wait for him. Point being, you're actually in less danger of being burglarized after your neighbor has been burglarized.
What if the robbers are drug addicts? Junkies are not half as logical as you or I might be about where and when to rob. Not to mention that any legal principle reliant on criminals doing things that makes sense strikes me as fairly shaky.

But aside from all that, simply swap out this hypothetical neighborhood for any random demographic group. There are millions of sub-sets in society, and the overwhelming majority do not even merit a mention under proposed hate crimes laws.

Whether or not it's logical to feel fear isn't the point. The point is that fear is still felt, and that the fear created in a group is one of the primary arguments among hate crimes legislation proponents.

rufnek

05-26-09, 06:11 PM

They're making an example out of people, in other words. Using brute legal force to try to affect people's thinking. That's like saying narcotic laws are aimed at altering people's thinking about smoking hash or popping pills. Or that the extra "aggravated" rating on crimes involving guns is aimed at discouraging criminals from thinking about sticking a gun in your ribs. Or that the capital punishment provision is aimed at discouraging people from even thinking about killing a cop. You're free to think whatever you want; just don't do it if there's a law against it.

they're telling us it's worse to kill someone who's gay than someone who's, say, blonde. We also have laws and sentencing rules that tell us you're more likely to get capital punishment if you kill someone in the commission of another crime. Judges and juries also are likely to come down harder on someone for killing a child than for killing an adult.

. . . which means judges and juries making all sorts of arbitrary value judgments . . .
That's the whole point of the jury system, Yoda. A jury of your peers from your community decide on their personal evaluation of the evidence and the general moral standards of your community whether a crime has been committed, whether the defendent committed the crime, and, in the punishment phase, whether the defendent is likely to commit similar crimes in the future. Our whole system is based upon the collective judgment of jurors, with all the faults and benefits that entails.

. . . these laws clearly breed resentment for some . . .

Yeah, like Gore's supporters resented election laws and most of us resent income tax regulations. If we start throwing out laws because someone (usually the worse offenders) resent those laws, then we'll soon be back to the law of the jungle.

rufnek

05-26-09, 06:38 PM

This only means that hate crimes legislation involves retroactive thought control, though. It punishes you for the thoughts you had that led to the crime, on top of the crime itself.[/quote0

"Retroactive thought control" is a misnomer. No matter what some may wish now or the future may hold (I'll worry about the future when it gets here), thoughts cannot be controlled--past, present, or future. Our court system cannot "control" what has already happened, be it in one's mind or one's actions; it can only punish the crime committed; and it's the motivation of a hate crime, not the mere thought of it, that opens the crime to additional punishment. The defendent can claim that all 10 people he killed with a sniper rifle over the past 14 months just happened to be black or just happened to be homosexual or just happened to be Jewish, but most jurors are going to believe the prosecutor's claim that the defendant only killed those people because they all belonged to a group the defendant hated. The defendent still has to provide some proof in support of that motive--like hate letters written, hate literature collected, hate comments made to coworkers, previous history of attacks on members of that group. It's not an open and shut case as you imply.

[quote=Yoda;534809]What if the robbers are drug addicts? Junkies are not half as logical as you or I might be about where and when to rob.

Yoda, I've covered hundreds of crimes and criminal trials in small towns, middle-size towns, large cities and their counties, and never in all those years have I ever encountered a case where specific mixed neighborhoods were targeted for repetitive crimes out of hate for that whole neighborhood or for a crime aimed at intimidating the entire neighborhood in hopes of making them go away. (In fact, if you're burgled, there's a better than even chance that the burgular is a neighbor--especially if young and on drugs.)

On the other hand, I have seen many, many cases of criminals that targeted certain groups out of hate for that specific group. The whole concept of hate crimes is that all members of a specific group are potential targets of that crime, which has been proven again and again by the facts of the cases.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course. But mine is based on observed facts, not imaginative theories. :)

Yoda

05-26-09, 06:45 PM

That's like saying narcotic laws are aimed at altering people's thinking about smoking hash or popping pills. Or that the extra "aggravated" rating on crimes involving guns is aimed at discouraging criminals from thinking about sticking a gun in your ribs. Or that the capital punishment provision is aimed at discouraging people from even thinking about killing a cop. You're free to think whatever you want; just don't do it if there's a law against it.
I don't think it's like that at all -- all the things you're describing are still based on the actions of the criminal, not their thought process. There's no extra punishment for what you were thinking before you used narcotics, just for using them.

Any time you punish something, you're obviously discouraging that thing. The laws you mention above discourage a specific action by punishing that action. Similarly, hate crimes laws punish the person for their action and their thought process, and thus are trying to discourage both.

We also have laws and sentencing rules that tell us you're more likely to get capital punishment if you kill someone in the commission of another crime. Judges and juries also are likely to come down harder on someone for killing a child than for killing an adult.
But there's no law mandating that they must. Murder is murder, legally speaking, as it should be. We don't need special children-hating legislation to aid us in punishing people who kill children as opposed to adults.

I'd also argue that there's a meaningful difference between killing a child and killing an adult. Aside from the obvious fact that the distinction is not nearly as arbitrary, they're also two different people; with hate crimes legislation, you can kill the exact same person for two different reasons and receive two different sentences.

That's the whole point of the jury system, Yoda. A jury of your peers from your community decide on their personal evaluation of the evidence and the general moral standards of your community whether a crime has been committed, whether the defendent committed the crime, and, in the punishment phase, whether the defendent is likely to commit similar crimes in the future. Our whole system is based upon the collective judgment of jurors, with all the faults and benefits that entails.
The fact that subjectivity is present in our system doesn't mean introducing more of it is a good thing. Subjectivity is inevitable, of course, but you'll notice we compensate for this heavily with copious numbers of guidelines and procedures to mitigate these elements and try to steer the system towards objectivity when possible.

So, I'm not saying any system which contains subjectivity is worthless, I'm saying that introducing more of it carries with it more problems. The more flexible and nebulous a law or process, the more easily it can be abused, and there are few things more nebulous than how we think. Thus, charging people with figuring out what someone thought is more prone to error than figuring out what they did.

Yeah, like Gore's supporters resented election laws and most of us resent income tax regulations. If we start throwing out laws because someone (usually the worse offenders) resent those laws, then we'll soon be back to the law of the jungle.
Sure, but I didn't advocate "throwing out" any laws because someone will resent them. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, either, because income tax laws are not about getting people to act chummy, but about simply collecting money. And at that, they succeed (and how).

Hate crimes laws, on the other hand, clearly exist to discourage the hatred that they punish (hence the punishment), which means any resentment they might breed is directly relevant to whether or not they can achieve their goals.

Yoda

05-26-09, 07:14 PM

"Retroactive thought control" is a misnomer. No matter what some may wish now or the future may hold (I'll worry about the future when it gets here), thoughts cannot be controlled--past, present, or future. Our court system cannot "control" what has already happened, be it in one's mind or one's actions; it can only punish the crime committed
It's only a misnomer if you use the phrase literally, and I would think it'd be obvious that I'm not proposing time travel. The phrase "thought control" refers to the attempt to decrease certain thoughts or motivations as time goes on, not in a specific instance which has already taken place. The "retroactive" part only refers to the fact that people can be punished for thoughts which took place well before the crime.

and it's the motivation of a hate crime, not the mere thought of it, that opens the crime to additional punishment. The defendent can claim that all 10 people he killed with a sniper rifle over the past 14 months just happened to be black or just happened to be homosexual or just happened to be Jewish, but most jurors are going to believe the prosecutor's claim that the defendant only killed those people because they all belonged to a group the defendant hated. The defendent still has to provide some proof in support of that motive--like hate letters written, hate literature collected, hate comments made to coworkers, previous history of attacks on members of that group. It's not an open and shut case as you imply.
I'm not sure how I've implied that it's open and shut; some cases would be, I'm sure, and I imagine others would not. I have a problem with it either way.

Anyway, I'm not sure I see a meaningful distinction between thoughts and motivations here. They never actually change; we just call them something else after the crime is committed. They remain thoughts up until you commit the crime, at which point they suddenly become "motivations." The word denotes the action we've attached to them, and not any actual change in the thoughts themselves.

Yoda, I've covered hundreds of crimes and criminal trials in small towns, middle-size towns, large cities and their counties, and never in all those years have I ever encountered a case where specific mixed neighborhoods were targeted for repetitive crimes out of hate for that whole neighborhood or for a crime aimed at intimidating the entire neighborhood in hopes of making them go away. (In fact, if you're burgled, there's a better than even chance that the burgular is a neighbor--especially if young and on drugs.)

On the other hand, I have seen many, many cases of criminals that targeted certain groups out of hate for that specific group. The whole concept of hate crimes is that all members of a specific group are potential targets of that crime, which has been proven again and again by the facts of the cases.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course. But mine is based on observed facts, not imaginative theories. :)
Come now; I am not even remotely hanging my opinion on a single hypothetical about neighborhoods. I mentioned hair color as another example of arbitrariness, and even invited you to speculate about any other sub-set of the population to make the same point. Not to mention that this is one point out of a dozen in this discussion.

If your point is that this particularly hypothetical should be more realistic, then you may be right, but that doesn't invalidate the point being made about arbitrariness, nor the other objections which have been listed, and it obviously isn't the root of my objections.

rufnek

05-26-09, 09:10 PM

I'm not sure I see a meaningful distinction between thoughts and motivations here. . .

I suspect this is the crux of our problem of apparently talking past each other. Under the law, there really, truly is a very meaningful distinction between thoughts and motivation. As I keep saying, you are free to think anything you want as long as you don't act on it. No matter how horrible the thought, merely thinking is not now or ever will be a crime simply because it cannot be proven what someone is actually thinking at the moment.

However, crimes are solved by discovering who had the opportunity, means, and motivation for committing a particular crime. Say a wife is accused of poisoning her husband. The prosecution can prove that the couple had breakfast together in their kitchen at 7 a.m. that morning. A neighbor came by to borrow a cup of sugar and sees the wife pouring her husband his first cup of coffee. She knows it's his first cup of coffee because the man was just sitting down at the breakfast table, his cup was clean, and he actually remarked it was his first cup of the day. Moreover, the neighbors know the wife drinks tea, never coffee. Ten minutes later, he's dead. Police discover traces of a drug in the coffee pot, despite the fact that the wife had put it in the washer before calling an ambulance for her husband. The washer was running when the paramedics arrived too late to save her husband. An overdose of the drug can have the same general appearance of a heart attack, but the man had taken a medical stress test the day before and his heart appeared to have no defects. Morover, the drug is a type of barbituate prescribed for his wife. She just picked up a month's supply of the drug the day before; they can prove she was the one who picked it up because the druggest recognized her and she paid with a personal check that bears her signature. Now the prescription bottle is empty. So the police can prove she had both the means and opportunity to murder her husband. On top of that, the husband had recently taken out a large life insurance policy that would have paid the wife $1 million if the husband was thought to have died of a heart attack. The prosecutor claims this was the motive of the crime.

But at the moment she slipped the poison in his coffee, the wife in truth may have forgotten about the insurance policy as she claims during her trial. She actually may have been thinking at that moment about being free to run off with the postman or that it served the cheating husband right for running around on her or simply that she couldn't stand one more morning looking at him over the breakfast table. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove what she was really thinking. He's only got to come up with a motive for the killing that the jury will believe. The jury sees she has means, opportunity, and a possible motive, the insurance policy. And that's all they need to convict. They got the wrong motive because they can't know what she was really thinking, yet the right killer.

Now say a person goes out and, before he's caught, fatally shoots 15 people in a group covered by hate-crime laws. His original motivation may be that he wanted to surpass the body count of the top mass murderer. It so happens that the mass murderer with the highest body count had killed children, boys and girls of various races. But the killer challenging his record selects all of his victims from a particular group he hates--blacks, Jews, homosexuals, whoever. At trial the prosecution is able to match the fatal slugs to the killer's rifle that has his finger-prints and that he had with him when arrested. Eye-witnesses testify they saw the killer and his vehicle at some of the murder sites. Police are able to match his tire treads to prints left at the scene. So they've got means and opportunity established. Moreover, the suspect has a police record for attacks on members of that group. He has a membership card in an organization that advocates hatred of that group. Coworkers testify that he often talked of wanting to kill members of the targeted group. The prosecution puts all of this together to establish a possible motivation--he killed out of hatred for the target group. His original thought may have been to go down in history as the biggest mass killer, but the people he targeted were members of a minority included in the hate-crimes law. The prosecution doesn't have to prove his absolute motivation or what he was thinking each time he pulled the trigger. They only have to show enough evidence of a possible motive to convince the jurors of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Guessing he may have had other reasons for the murders is not a reasonable doubt.

The point is, the killer's actual thoughts and a motivation that the prosecution may establish in court need not be anywhere the same.

As for punishment of a crime preventing others from even thinking about such an offense, I only wish that were true. If so, there would not be so many people committing crimes for which the sentence is death or life in prison. Problem is, like the soldier in combat or the cop on the beat, criminals generally never think they are going to be the one who goes down.

Come now; I am not even remotely hanging my opinion on a single hypothetical about neighborhoods. I mentioned hair color as another example of arbitrariness, and even invited you to speculate about any other sub-set of the population to make the same point.

Oh, come now, Yoda. :) You drew the parallel to your being afraid of a burglary if your neighbor was burgled. I responded with an argument why that differs from hate crimes. As you said, you invited speculation of some sub-set of the population. Any bedroom community is as much a sub-set of the population as blondes or men who have mustaches or Star Wars fans (who I also mentioned as possible examples.)

You and I simply disagree on the fundamentals of hate-crimes. You say it somehow makes some people more important than others (the same argument against laws that make killing a child or an on-duty policeman a possible capital crime). I don't disagree that there's political capital to be made by elevating certain groups to hate-crime status, but I do argue that hate crimes really are worse than run-of-the-mill random crimes because they are specifically aimed at terrorizing a certain group and inflaming prejudices and conflicts between various categories of US citizens. In my opinion, such crimes really do deserve greater punishment. I don't see it as setting one group above others; I see it as the proper level to which other groups and individuals should be elevated. I'm all for death sentences for people who kill and maim and rape--or life sentences, if they really can be forever isolated from the rest of mankind, even other criminals, which is not really possible at this time.

We disagree on politics--you're a Liberaterian, I'm a cynic. But I don't think any less of you, because there are other things we agree on, frequently involving films. :)

mack

05-27-09, 06:38 AM

wow, i now have my own thread about this stuff? :confused: it must have really veered off course to be split out. i logically understand why it was split, but i think we may be missing the point of the overall connectedness between the hate crimes legislation and the advent of "legalizing" same-sex marriage. segregating the little points out detracts from the overall picture. lost in the forest for the trees, so to speak.

some look at trees, others at the entire forest. agreed, the trees should each be examined in their right for their own relevance, but the examination of one tree alone, to the exclusion of all the other trees in the forest, should not mean that the forest does not still exist. at day's end the tree discussed is still a singular part of a greater whole.

i take issue with the entire forest. i therefore take issue with the underbrush, saplings and towering old trees that make up the sum of its whole. when debating the pros and cons of the entire forest, i have no problem with the singular discussion of the one tree, or of following that one discussion to its conclusion, but never, ever at the expense of understanding the one tree's relevance to the entire forest. that connection explains why i'm having the discussion at all!

Legally speaking:

a. this is how it was: (legally, no same sex marriage)

b. this is how some want it to be: (legally, same sex marriage)

c. this is how some want it to remain: (legally, no same sex marriage)

cue the debate over the singular issues (political, popular culture, religious, racial, etc.) that comprise the whole.

as far as I'm concerned, the post of mine that comprises the initial post of this split thread fits solidly within the context of the discussion in the Same Sex Marriage & Polygamy thread.

they are not mutually exclusive, nor does either discussion exist in a vacuum.

if everyone else wants to go a different way with the discussion, by all means(!) be my guest - and I fully agree that Hate Crimes Legislation is a great subject with many facets. however, in my view, it is not a standalone subject, and that is not what I intended.

so no. I did not post it in a separate thread. If you guys want to take hate crimes laws down a standalone discussion path, be my guest, but please - not with me as the Thread Author.

please change it.

p.s. ruffy, im glad it piqued your interest, because in my experience, that is a very, very hard thing to do. :D wholly separate from my feelings voiced above i'm actually quite interested in what you and Yods have had to say so far. i'll have to pop back in at a later date and give the discussion a proper read-thru.

mack

05-27-09, 07:10 AM

please change it.

mm. strike that. i'll respect your decision, ye mods.

adidasss

05-27-09, 10:11 AM

rufnek

05-27-09, 05:19 PM

p.s. ruffy, im glad it piqued your interest, because in my experience, that is a very, very hard thing to do. :D wholly separate from my feelings voiced above i'm actually quite interested in what you and Yods have had to say so far. i'll have to pop back in at a later date and give the discussion a proper read-thru.

Yoda is one tough opponent in a debate! The force must be with him. :)

Hate crimes and gay rights are usually emotional subjects to discuss. Discussions become debates, which becomes arguments which too often become personal.

People come at these subjects not only with different viewpoints but sometimes different vocabularies, as witness my and Yoda's opposing interpretatons of thought and motive.

Mack and I certainly have different points of view. Mack comes at it from what he believes about religious teachings. I had a Baptist upbringing and still think the Baptist Hymnal is the best religious music on the planet--hymns you can two-step to!:) But the cynicism that serves me so well in my profession separated me from all organized religion many years ago. (My three children are active in their churches, however, so I'm not completely unfeeling about an individual's religious faith so long as it's not harming others.)

I joke that I'm in favor of same-sex marriage because why should only we heterosexals have to suffer through marriage. I haven't signed any petitions or made any marches, but I would if my gay cousin Beverly ever asked me. Beverly is one of my favorite friend and relative, with a great sense of humor. Her partner is very nice and they have a great little girl. The only danger to the kid as far as I can see is that she has to put up with two overly protective mothers! :)

I went to high school in Ft. Stockton, Texas, out in the western desert. It was a little bitty town with an interstate now running through it. My senior year there was barely 400 students in the whole dang school. At our 20-year reunion, some of us started counting up how many of our classmates later came out of the closet, and I think there were 6-7 that we knew of--a pretty large number out of such a small school, so I figure there probably are lots of gays in our population. Surely more than we're aware of.

One of my classmates who later came out of the closet was my best friend from the 6th grade, when I moved there, through graduation when I left. Looking back, I guess there were hints that I missed. Like the fact that, although he was probably the most handsome guy in our school, he never dated! I used to tell him to grab a date (lots of girls actually wanted to date him) and we'd double-date sometime. But he never did. But before you start shaking your head over me being that dumb, let me share this. Hayes (my friend) was one hell of an artist--paint, sculpt, whatever. He could take some rusty metal and old wood and fashion something you'd be proud to hang in your living room. Another time, he took a wooden shingle from the roof of an old house, used a piece of charcoal to draw a picture of the house on the shingle, and later colored it with water colors, and it looked great!

Point is, the wife of one of the local bankers realized ol' Hayes was a hell of an artist, and she used to carry him around to all sorts of art shows and contests all over Texas and New Mexico and gawd knows where else. Now this banker's wife was good looking, really stacked, and had this sports car that Hayes used to drive. So I and about half the guys in our school thought Hayes was the boy-toy of one fine looking cougar. Why waste your time on shy school girls when you have a hot older woman who will pay for the whole weekend? The only bad thing about him coming out of the closet was that he ruined all of my boyhood dreams of him carrying on with an older woman! :)

So based on the gays of both sexes that I've known, I've got no problems with same-sex marriages. Hey, I've been married 3 times, my brother has been married 6, my mom had three husbands, my dad 2 wives, and my cousin Beverly is still with her same partner. I mean, who's the best custodian of family values in our group?

If society won't allow gays to marry, they certainly should change some regualtions to give them an equal crack at insurance coverage for employee and spouse at work, consider a couple's combined income when buying property, and give them the same treatment as a married couple under income tax regulations. In other words, remove all of the legal discrimination against same-sex couples. I don't see any harm in that.

But I strongly believe that anyone who attacks another person simply because of the victim's race, creed, ethnic background, or sexual preference should face the extra penalties for the hate crime that it is.

mack

05-27-09, 06:56 PM

I asked for the posts to be split because they have nothing to do with same-sex marriage and I thought the topic is interesting enough to merit its own thread (and would bring it to the attention of people who aren't necessarily willing or interested in discussing same-sex marriage).

oh, I already knew THAT, adi. you would. say what you want but from my vantage point you desire to excise any point or strand of argument that you cannot win with a resounding triumph from that thread. it's why you've gone on record asking a certain gay man not to discuss his negative views of gay marriage in the thread. interesting.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=528219&postcount=246

Let's try to keep our personal disillusionment with gay men separate from the fight for equality...http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/hug.gif

moving on, the email i got showed you saying more - that i was just a homophobe. so I added it back into your quote, and i'll answer you old post, not your edited one, since you did the same for me.

call me whatever you want, adi. im sure "homophobe" is tame compared to what i may be called elsewhere, if only in your thoughts, so im ok with it.

besides, its not as though I have ever shrank from that point. in fact, i explained what I think quite clearly, and with painstaking detail here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=476787&postcount=140), here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=477179&postcount=149), here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=477220&postcount=153) and here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=477321&postcount=155).

but lets not digress into that discussion that we've already had. i also explain, quite laboriously above i might add, why i think my point about hate crimes fits squarely within the gay marriage discussion.

i dont agree with gay marriage - no bones about that. im comfortable with it. and anyone who harbors the belief that i think homosexuality is a good thing is probably blind or hasnt been reading the words ive been typing. however, i also do not have a problem with hate crimes legislation as a whole. i have a problem with it as it applies to gays because....

...i believe that there is a gay agenda (lobby). this is understandable, nor do i have a problem with people lobbying for respect. i dont have to agree with an ideology to understand it or to understand why a person would want to fight for it. but far from being responsibly "above it all" or from taking the high road, i believe that that agenda (lobby) is hell-bent on bending everyone to their will, by any means necessary. and if we continue to chart a course faithful to one we've been on, i see legal strong-arming in our future.

Rufnek thinks im overreacting, or that it wont go that far. I hope he's right.

but im intrinsically a cynic. look what happened with the Patriot Act. people twiddled their thumbs and believed in George W. Bush, and told the nay-sayers they were "over-reacting" until we got raped of our exisiting rights - in the name of Freedom.

Maybe one day we'll even get a clarification on what you meant with your stream of (un)consciousness posts which triggered the discussion but I'd say your above posts show I was right and you don't actually have a problem with hate-crimes legislation as such but only with expanding it to homosexuals, which would hardly be surprising [since you're a homophobe.]

we've long since traversed the ground that we disagree fundamentally about gay marriage and even homosexuality - im well beyond that point in my arguments. thus, my points about Prajean were meant as a supporting proof of the irresponsible-ness and unreasonable-ness of the gay lobby. they excuse in themselves what they condemn in others, and its unfair and hypocritical. your little digs make me laugh - far from being stream of consciousness, i point to these deviations to support my point about being against gay marriage and broad, overeaching gay hate crimes laws.

my point is quite simple, really. once you've tasted blood, i just dont think you all will stop there. your endgame is utter annihilation of the opposing view, and it shows.

whatever the case - the deed you did in splitting the threads is done. as I clearly indicated was ok before you posted.

so let's talk about Hate Crimes.

mack

05-27-09, 07:41 PM

Mack and I certainly have different points of view. Mack comes at it from what he believes about religious teachings.

But the cynicism that serves me so well in my profession separated me from all organized religion many years ago.

Very well stated. I'm a girl, though. ;) And I consider myself and am considered by most people I know - religious or not - to be quite cynical, so I wouldnt paint me as "charmed by religion." I graduated college at 18 yrs, and received my law degree from a 1st tier US law school at the age of 21, so I think Im well grounded. :D This is also true of all but one of my siblings (we had a black sheep).

I would say the difference between you and I is first that Im a much younger (29yrs old) girl, and that of all my education and cynicism, the one thing I have never lost is my faith.

My friends and I often discuss in terms of religious belief that intellectualism precedes the death of Faith. We do not think it has to, or that one necessarily has to exist mutually exclusive of the other. One of our friends went to Harvard undergrad and Johns Hopkins and is basically working as health advisor to 3rd world countries. She is "no more" as it were in terms of truly believing in God, though she is still very religious and goes through the motions.

So, it is somewhat of an experiment as it were, for me. When we were young we mixed with a lot of people who actively worked against education and enlightenment for fear that it would precede spiritual death. As children, we strongly believed in God (still do), and took the attitude that we would break the ceiling in religion, and span the divide between the highly educated and deeply devout. Jews do it - why cant Protestants?

God, if there is a God, should have an answer for any question asked, and the answer is not to "not ask questions." This is the philosophy I live my life by, and to date, I have no issue with God, nor do I feel that he hasnt been able to provide an answer for any question I pose, and believe me - I dont hold back. The answers may not satisfy everyone, but the most important thing is that they satisfy me.

But yes, a lot of the religious argument within religion takes on a new level of depth, depending on one's education - I know, because I worship with a lot of people who havent had the benefit of advanced education. It does not make their Faith any less real.

So there you have it. The difference between me and Ruffy, according to him is that I still believe in God. Check back with me in 30 years and I may have stopped, but if I have any say about it - I'll still believe in God. :p

adidasss

05-28-09, 09:19 AM

oh, I already knew THAT, adi. you would. say what you want but from my vantage point you desire to excise any point or strand of argument that you cannot win with a resounding triumph from that thread. Your vantage point is wrong, I had no such intentions with my request. The only reason I wanted it separated is because they were two very different and very interesting topics. This one is much less clear cut, in my mind, so there's plenty of room for a reasonable and intelligent debate. This is why I tried to get more people involved, also baring in mind that you tend to be forgetful regarding responding to posed questions so I felt a separate thread on the issue might even draw your attention to it. Obviously it worked. Well, it drew your attention anyway, you haven't actually addressed any of the questions posed.

it's why you've gone on record asking a certain gay man not to discuss his negative views of gay marriage in the thread. interesting.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=528219&postcount=246
I don't have much respect for Sexy as a person or as a gay man. That post is a clear indicator of why I feel this way. I'd also disagree that I've asked him not to share his negative views on gay marriage, he has expressed them but they weren't based on anything but his personal disillusionment with other gay men. How anyone could feel that could be a reasonable basis for denying the millions of other gay people whom they've never met of the same rights other people have is beyond me. That's what I was trying to tell him, to look at it more objectively and reasonably. Sorry if it didn't translate. Obviously he could have responded but didn't because let's face it, he rarely has anything insightful or intelligent to say. :\

moving on, the email i got showed you saying more - that i was just a homophobe. so I added it back into your quote, and i'll answer you old post, not your edited one, since you did the same for me.

call me whatever you want, adi. im sure "homophobe" is tame compared to what i may be called elsewhere, if only in your thoughts, so im ok with it. Just another little sign of the paranoia that's probably eating you up. Try to keep it to yourself, or see a therapist.

I removed the word "homophobe" from my initial post because this forum showed some very peculiar reasoning when it comes to its use and on occasion it made the other party look like some kind of victim which I was trying to avoid here. But I'm glad we agree you're a homophobe though, at least you're reasonable about that.

besides, its not as though I have ever shrank from that point. in fact, i explained what I think quite clearly, and with painstaking detail here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=476787&postcount=140), here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=477179&postcount=149), here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=477220&postcount=153) and here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=477321&postcount=155).

but lets not digress into that discussion that we've already had. A discussion which you ran away from when you were faced with a simple, very easy question to which there was only one, very simple answer. But yes, let's not, obviously it won't lead anywhere, just like any discussion with you really. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering responding to this post, clearly I have too much time on my hands. i also explain, quite laboriously above i might add, why i think my point about hate crimes fits squarely within the gay marriage discussion.
It was laborious gibberish and completely pointless, the topics are obviously very different.

i dont agree with gay marriage - no bones about that. im comfortable with it. and anyone who harbors the belief that i think homosexuality is a good thing is probably blind or hasnt been reading the words ive been typing. however, i also do not have a problem with hate crimes legislation as a whole. i have a problem with it as it applies to gays because.... I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

...i believe that there is a gay agenda (lobby). this is understandable, nor do i have a problem with people lobbying for respect. i dont have to agree with an ideology to understand it or to understand why a person would want to fight for it. but far from being responsibly "above it all" or from taking the high road, i believe that that agenda (lobby) is hell-bent on bending everyone to their will, by any means necessary. and if we continue to chart a course faithful to one we've been on, i see legal strong-arming in our future. So in other words, you disagree that gay people should have the same protection other minorities already have solely because of your prejudice and paranoia of what might happen in the future? There's something deeply disturbing about that.

Rufnek thinks im overreacting, or that it wont go that far. I hope he's right.

but im intrinsically a cynic. look what happened with the Patriot Act. people twiddled their thumbs and believed in George W. Bush, and told the nay-sayers they were "over-reacting" until we got raped of our exisiting rights - in the name of Freedom.
I'd say you're intrinsically paranoid.

we've long since traversed the ground that we disagree fundamentally about gay marriage and even homosexuality - im well beyond that point in my arguments. thus, my points about Prajean were meant as a supporting proof of the irresponsible-ness and unreasonable-ness of the gay lobby. This argument has nothing to do with Prajean, I'm not sure how you've managed to connect it. Your posts related to that incident remained in the thread because they were related to the topic. This is a separate topic. they excuse in themselves what they condemn in others, and its unfair and hypocritical. your little digs make me laugh - far from being stream of consciousness, i point to these deviations to support my point about being against gay marriage and broad, overeaching gay hate crimes laws. But you've yet to explain how they're broad and overreaching. And if they are, can they be somehow fitted to conform with your (paranoid) views? I've already posted a quote which explains very clearly that religious freedom is not and cannot be threatened with this legislation. Did you not read that or are you just ignoring it? I'm perfectly willing to hear your concerns, as long as they're based on more than paranoia.

Also, if you're talking about the insistence on equality in law and social respect, then I'd say their (our) goal is justified. But I've read somewhere that you don't really care about racism or changing people's mind about it. That's fine, some of us have a more proactive approach to human rights. I also think it's mind boggling you don't see that everything you've said about the gay rights movement can be said about the African-american civil rights movement (both of which have the same agenda).

my point is quite simple, really. once you've tasted blood, i just dont think you all will stop there. your endgame is utter annihilation of the opposing view, and it shows. Again, as stated above, I'm not sure this is such a bad thing, but I'd say that about any human rights issue, racism included. In any case, I think "we're" just fighting for equal rights and respect, based on logic and human compassion rather than a 5000 year old "sacred text".

whatever the case - the deed you did in splitting the threads is done. as I clearly indicated was ok before you posted.

so let's talk about Hate Crimes. Yes let's!

Very well stated. I'm a girl, though. ;) And I consider myself and am considered by most people I know - religious or not - to be quite cynical, so I wouldnt paint me as "charmed by religion." I graduated college at 18 yrs, and received my law degree from a 1st tier US law school at the age of 21, so I think Im well grounded. :D This is also true of all but one of my siblings (we had a black sheep).

I would say the difference between you and I is first that Im a much younger (29yrs old) girl, and that of all my education and cynicism, the one thing I have never lost is my faith.

My friends and I often discuss in terms of religious belief that intellectualism precedes the death of Faith. We do not think it has to, or that one necessarily has to exist mutually exclusive of the other. One of our friends went to Harvard undergrad and Johns Hopkins and is basically working as health advisor to 3rd world countries. She is "no more" as it were in terms of truly believing in God, though she is still very religious and goes through the motions.

So, it is somewhat of an experiment as it were, for me. When we were young we mixed with a lot of people who actively worked against education and enlightenment for fear that it would precede spiritual death. As children, we strongly believed in God (still do), and took the attitude that we would break the ceiling in religion, and span the divide between the highly educated and deeply devout. Jews do it - why cant Protestants?

God, if there is a God, should have an answer for any question asked, and the answer is not to "not ask questions." This is the philosophy I live my life by, and to date, I have no issue with God, nor do I feel that he hasnt been able to provide an answer for any question I pose, and believe me - I dont hold back. The answers may not satisfy everyone, but the most important thing is that they satisfy me.

But yes, a lot of the religious argument within religion takes on a new level of depth, depending on one's education - I know, because I worship with a lot of people who havent had the benefit of advanced education. It does not make their Faith any less real.

So there you have it. The difference between me and Ruffy, according to him is that I still believe in God. Check back with me in 30 years and I may have stopped, but if I have any say about it - I'll still believe in God. :p

Oh wait. There doesn't seem to be anything in your post about hate crimes at all. Maybe next time? :\

rufnek

05-28-09, 08:56 PM

Very well stated. I'm a girl, though. ;) And I consider myself and am considered by most people I know - religious or not - to be quite cynical, so I wouldnt paint me as "charmed by religion." I graduated college at 18 yrs, and received my law degree from a 1st tier US law school at the age of 21, so I think Im well grounded. :D . . . The difference between me and Ruffy, according to him is that I still believe in God. Check back with me in 30 years and I may have stopped, but if I have any say about it - I'll still believe in God. :p

Sorry, you don't look female in your emails. :) One of the oddest things about the internet is how people get into deep discussions and passionate arguments and never really know who they're talking to!

Well, male or female doesn't matter--at least for discussion purposes. :) But I did recognize you are intelligent. Graduating college at 18! You musta studied your fanny off, so to speak. By the time I even got into college I was older than some of the faculty.

I would never say you or anyone are "charmed by religion." That's much too dismissive. I've also taken exception when someone in the forum said something one time about people being "brainwashed" by religion. A basic belief in God and embracement of various church doctrines are of tremendous benefit to most people, including other religions outside of Christianity.

Certainly my Baptist upbringing never did me any harm, although I joke that I couldn't keep up the payments (Seems every time I attended a Baptist service, they were taking up "special offerings" for one thing or another.) Believe it or not, when I was about 10-11, it was my ambition to be a missionary. :) One year I decided to go for a religious pin in Boy Scouts. I had never seen anyone with one, so I figured I'd go for it--be the first. Part of the requirements was to attended Sunday school and church for 52 consecutive Sundays. I did it even when we went on vacation to visit my grandparents--even got dated copies of the weekly church bulletins to prove I'd been in church. Did that for 51 consecutive weeks--and then skipped out on the last day. Got ready and everything but then decided there was something basically wrong with going to church just to get a pin--and basically fun in getting that close and then say, "To hell with it." :)

My dad once complained that I was OK until all those liberal college professors got hold of me. Hell, I did both my under-grad and graduate work at Texas Tech! In Lubbock, that at the time was the largest "dry" city in the state, if not the whole US! Had to drive to liquor stores out on the county line to buy a beer. Not exactly a hot bed of liberalism by anyone's standards!

My religious backslide began in Sunday school classes way before I ever got to college. Trouble was, I used to really read the weekly lessons and, like today, was always trying to argue points in class. It used to really bother me that the Sunday school teacher could blithely espouse a verse or story from the bible one week and then later say something that seemed (to me at least) completely opposite. I was always asking them to explain the differences to me. And soon discovered that the folks trying to teach me Christain doctrine didn't seem to know a damn thing about it. I remember this one guy who taught the boys Sunday school class used to get so bugged at me for asking questions. Tried to ignore me, then tried telling me to shut up, and finally started using me as a bad example to explain lessons to the other guys--"Now suppose Rufnek were to rob a bank . . . " Some years later, a bunch of us teens were riding around one night looking for girls or trouble, when some of the guys decided to steal some gasoline. They picked my former Sunday school teacher because he had his own gas storage tank next to a back alley at his house. So we cruise down the alley with our lights off, and some of my buddies--including a couple from the same Sunday school class--jump out with a gas can and sneak toward his house. I jump out too and start walking in the opposite direction. Figured if they got caught, he'd be disappointed that his former Sunday school students would steal from him. But if I was among them, he'd think he was right all along that I was just no damn good. And I was damned if I would give the ol' SOB that satisfaction! :)

But I've got nothing personal against religion. Some folks are Christians and that's fine with me. Some folks are homosexuals, and that's fine, too. Personally, I wouldn't want to be either one, but if it floats their boat, where's the harm? :)

And some folks really need the support of a religion. I know it was a big help to my daughter and youngest son and ex-wife to get them through after my oldest son died 2 years ago. Strangely enough, my lack of religion helped get me through too, because if I'd really believed God moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform, then I would have wanted to kick God's butt for taking my kid from me. As it is, I know it was just a random happening--all my life none of my relatives had ever died of anything but old age, so the wheel of misfortune was bound to stop on some disaster sooner or later. Unfortunately, it happened to be my boy.

Guess I should at least mention hate crimes in this posting--don't mean to get off subject, but it seems to me a discussion of religious belief--which arguably does help shape some people's opinion on the subject--is not so far off line. Threads seldom run in a straight line, anyway--there's usually some deviation from time to time before it loops back again.

mack

07-08-09, 08:19 AM

well ruf, i enjoyed the departure, and that entire post had me :rotfl: plus, i clearly agree that many overarching themes have general relevance to the immediate discussion - and while they may be attenuated from the main thread of discussion, they are important insomuch as they have shaped a person's worldview, or are the framework by which they reason.

if that makes sense. :D (it did to me! :p)

Ish1987

07-08-09, 08:43 AM

Sorry for pushing the subject but.. "...religious freedom?"
In my mind you are not at all free, if you are bound to a religion..
Ex. can't eat pork, have to go to church on Sundays etc..

Iroquois

07-08-09, 08:53 AM

We'll take it under consideration.

Yoda

07-08-09, 11:15 AM

I owe some people replies upthread (sorry, people...I always get involved in more discussions than I can find time for), but to reply to Ish's post: the phrase "religious freedom" refers to the freedom to choose a religion. It has no relation to what guidelines someone follows once they join that religion.

That said, religious people are still perfectly free, because they follow these guidelines voluntarily. They're no less free than someone who takes a job and shows up on time, or meets someone when they say they will.

rufnek

07-08-09, 08:54 PM

Sorry for pushing the subject but.. "...religious freedom?"
In my mind you are not at all free, if you are bound to a religion..
Ex. can't eat pork, have to go to church on Sundays etc..

Bound to a religion? Back when I was a dues-paying Baptist, I still drank booze and danced, although both are no-nos by Baptist doctrine. No other Baptist ever met me at the church door to prevent me from coming in to pay my tithe. (However, a few asked me to pass them a bottle down at the local liquor store.) I've known Catholics who have eaten meat on Friday either because they forgot the date or nothing else was available. Many Jews are less orthodox than others. And some hungry Muslim somewhere likely grabs a quick afternoon snack during Ramadan.

The point being that no one is looking over one's shoulder every second to make people adhere to every doctrine in their religion. It's up to the individual--some do and some don't. Plus unless you're in Jonestown or some armed nut cult, the door is always open with most religions. You're free to walk in if that religion addresses your needs, and you're free to walk out if it doesn't. You're free to start your own religion or play like you're a druid or a witch or worship the devil if that's your bag. Or you can just sit home on your butt Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and not attend any religious service at all.

It's not religion that shape's people, it's people that shape religion. People establish religions based on their concept of how to worship their particular god.

mark f

07-08-09, 09:12 PM

So all these gods keep evolving? The God of the Bible evolved, especially in the way He interracted with man. The more primitive Man was, the more primitive God seemed to be. In John the Baptist's and Jesus's time, God seemed to believe that Man was ready for fewer physical rules and more spiritual openness in trying to "work with Him". So, although Jesus did reinforce some old laws, he brought a new covenant which did away with such things as eating/not eating such and such. Paul tried to adhere more strongly to what the Old Testament said than even Jesus did, at least according to some more-than-casual readers. Nowadays, when you'd think that Man would be open to more spiritual awareness and fellowship with his fellow Humankind and the Universe in general, more and more people seem to feel the urge to look at "religion" as only a negative, bloodthirsty, warmongering, hateful thing, kind of like the really Old Testament where God seemed to have to keep destroying most of his people to save the idea that they were actually worth saving. Nowadays, God has been replaced by Humanity and "Science" as a kind of God for some, and when we blow up hundreds of thousands of people with a nuclear bomb (or kill them with other weapons for non-religious reasons), it's all good because it wasn't God who was responsible, it was science and this thing we call a non-superstitious human, who is, as we all know, much kinder and gentler than anyone who feels some personal relationship with somebody they can't see or hear in person. (Wait a sec; it sounds like the Inter Nets now! :cool:)

I hope this isn't too off-topic. The idea that God created "Evil", if you believe it exists, has always been fascinating to me. The idea that you should blame a God for all the bad things in the world is equally interesting. Now, which God do you want to take on? Maybe we need to divvy them up? Maybe I need to shut up.