Hate Crimes Legislation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

wow, i now have my own thread about this stuff? 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. 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.

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

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).

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...

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

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.

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...&postcount=246

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, here, here and here.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. :\

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.

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. It was laborious gibberish and completely pointless, the topics are obviously very different.
I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

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.

I'd say you're intrinsically paranoid.

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. 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).

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".
Yes let's!

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

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.

well ruf, i enjoyed the departure, and that entire post had me 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. (it did to me! )

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..

We'll take it under consideration.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

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.

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.

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! )

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.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page