No one showed up for the “Bible Reading Marathon” on the West Front of the Capitol on the National Day of Prayer. The part I like is this event was sponsored by a group that had that stout hearted Christian leader, Jeff Gannon, as their spokesperson. You remember, the hot military stud $200-an-hour gay escort that got press credentials in the Bush White House.
The article then goes on to talk about my good buddy Rick Wingrove.Today is a real puzzle. I go for weeks without that much to post and then a day like today comes along and the list seems endless.We have the Christians who object to passage of H.R. 1592, `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007′ because it adds GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY- to the list of offenses. I don’t know that much about Christianity since I have never been a Christian, but really, Jesus preached about the need to spread hate filled speech in the Sermon on the Mount? Gee, what was Congress thinking when it passed this secular law and outlawed religious hate crimes?
And there is even more… but I’ll share that later.
Peter Nuhn
What I don’t understand about these goofy bastards is we have a whole slew of laws against what the babble tells its followers to do.
I fail to realize how this is any different, other than they get to bitch about gay homosexers some more.
Sorry Dave, but I thought you and my fellow Americans would like to know Texas is heading backwards.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_XGR_Texas_Pledge.html
The entire concept of “hate crimes” is nothing more then the result of trying to be politically correct…
**** OFF TOPIC ****
Gee…did they ignore American Atheists? Or is Dave going to surprise us with the upcoming debate…Dave…I hope you don’t have an unlisted number…
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55507
re phreedm’s off topic:
There’s an entry in PZ Meyers’ blog about this – well worth a read at
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/two_idiots_get_a_forum.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=sublink
The article is reposted at Richard Dawkins’ site at
http://richarddawkins.net/article,938,Two-idiots-get-a-forum,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula
Which includes a link to Comforts last “proof” of god: “The miracle of the banana” Otherwise known as thinly veiled sort gay pron.
It’s actually hilarious on too many levels to cover here.
I have iffy feelings about hate crimes myself…
it seems strange to pass legislation about how someone feels when they commit a crime.
I do think that when there is evidence that a crime is commited due to the victims race, gender, sexual oreintation, religion, etc, that the perpetrator ought to be forced to go to specific counceling as part of his sentence.
on a side note, by turning water (with sugar, citrus fruits, dandelions, and yeast) into wine, I have completed the first of three miracles neccesary to make me a saint! I think if I rack up a few more than three I ought to be made an honorary messiah.
As a person who could benefit on two counts, sexual orientation and disability, from this proposed new hate crime legislation I am firmly against it. This is treading into waters that could clamp down on free speech and criminalise a person’s thoughts. We already have laws that punish a person for assaulting another and it really should make no difference what the attacker’s motivation is.
bravo alex murder is murder just as assualt is assualt.i am hetero but if someone beats up a gay .i don’t need a hate law to tell that is wrong.
i need to use spell check.
Jeff Gannon! That’s a riot. Sounds like a SNL skit.
Actually phred, those 2 incompetents staged this as a response to the Rational Responders YouTube Blasphemy Challenge, of which Sapient is a founder.
mxracer652
Clicked your myspace link. Stevey Ray fan. Outstanding!
What,
You made me curious so I had to look too.
mxracer,
You wouldn’t believe how hard it is to find Leftover Crack fans, let alone people that even know they exist. Glad to know there are some out there though.
The only progressive blogger I have seen who seems to understand the danger of so-called “hate crime” laws is TalkLeft,
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/09/15/068/86258
There is further discussion at the site,
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/3/212610/5786
In my comments I point out a specific case of the danger of such laws.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070502.wvatican0502/BNStory/International/home
“The Vatican’s official newspaper accused an Italian comedian on Wednesday of “terrorism” for criticizing the Pope and warned his rhetoric could fuel a return to 1970s-style political violence.
In an unusually strongly worded editorial, L’Osservatore Romano said a presenter of a televised May Day rock concert, which is sponsored by Italy’s labour unions, had launched “vile attacks” on Pope Benedict in front of an “excitable crowd”.
“This, too, is terrorism. It’s terrorism to launch attacks on the Church,” it said. “It’s terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life and love for man.”"
In other words, criticism of the Pope or the Church might lead to someone attacking a priest or nun and thus be a “hate crime”.
More,
“The Osservatore said Rivera’s monologue came amid growing anti-clericalism in Italy which included graffiti and Internet messages supporting the Red Brigades, the Marxist group involved in political violence particularly in the 1970s.
“Some people have even twisted (Bagnasco’s words) to start an insidious `war’, a new season of tension, which is inspiring those who are looking for motives to return to taking up arms,” the newspaper said.”
This law will come back to haunt us.
If one plans an agression or a murder, the plan is enough to aggravate his case. You don’t need to speculate about the philosophy of the person who made the plan.
All “hate crime” laws are essentially “thought control” laws. Above I showed just how the religious wingnuts can and undoubtedly will use the law.
Who knows, if some atheist somewhere attacks a xian, the wingnuts could claim it is because he hates the victim for his religion. How are the courts going to decide between hating the religion and hating the person who practices it?
To avoid possibly annoying the spam control, continue here with a link to the law and to its use of definitions.
The law,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592
The definitions, “(2) the term `hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000994—-000-.html
Warning, it is rather long and tough slogging.
Curiously, the word “hate” is not mentioned in the cited section.
Another curious aspect is,
“The Commission shall give due consideration to any petition filed by a defendant requesting modification of the guidelines utilized in the sentencing of such defendant, on the basis of changed circumstances unrelated to the defendant, including changes in?
(1) the community view of the gravity of the offense;
(2) the public concern generated by the offense; and
(3) the deterrent effect particular sentences may have on the commission of the offense by others.”
So, the commission can decide based on things “unrelated to the defendant” such as “public concern” and “community view”.
Just how are those determined? By reading the press? Then what about orchestrated press campaigns?
The act piously concludes by saying that free speech under the first amendment is preserved, but in the act,
“1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that–
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”
That seems to open up fishing expeditions, particularly if the government decides to use racketeering definitions implying collusion between 3 or more people.
Furthermore, there is a federal grant program which seems to incite the “discovery” of more “hate crimes”,
“(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall–
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.”
Bernarda
If you are going to be so far off topic this early in a thread at least do some editing would you. Like maybe an order of magnitude smaller posts!
I too am against the hate crime laws. I understand that they were meant as a way to ensure some behaviors of our past do no happen again, or at least not widely. A black man in the south could easily be murdered then the perpetrator be called innocent by a white jury. Having the Feds step in an set it straight is a good goal. But, this is not the way to do it.
Screw you What.
This thread mentioned the proposed law, didn’t it?
If this is a law against crimes of violence based on such things, I’m fine with it, but if it would really outlaw verbal insults, I’m against it.
I don’t understand the term hate crime at all. Aren’t all crimes that involve the hurting of someone motivated by some form of hate no matter the race. I don’t know, that just makes too much sense.
Actually CAL many crimes are not motivated by hate. If someone attacks me with the intent to steal my wallet or car then the motivation is greed and not hate. I was targeted for my posessions and not my sexuality. Saying that all crimes are hate crimes is a tactic employed by the republicans to simplify the issue for their constituents who prefer to see the world in black and white. Having said this, hate crime legislation is still wrong.
What
You’re damn straight, I was raised on Double Trouble.
And for that matter, ZZ Top, Robben Ford, Satriani, Eric Johnson, and on & on & on.