Our New Hate Crimes Law

[Andy T.]

Johnv, so you put the color of one's car or deciding which shoes to wear in the same category as hate crimes legislation which carries with it a decidedly moral component?

 

[Robert Snow]

Read the legislation (apparantly, I'm the only one who did so). There's nothing in it that exalts one sexual preference over another.

Again, I don't favor hate crimes legislation. But to claim there's some scripture that supports or condemns hate crimes legislation simply isn't so. The issue of hate crimes legislation is not a sciptural issue, it's a societal issue. I don't favor such legislation, but not out of some falsely spiritual pretense.

I don't think I said anything about there being a Scripture supporting or condemning hate crime legislation, but I don't need a specific verse to see how the accepting of the gay lifestyle goes against the Word of God. Just like I am against the legalizing of heroin and cocaine, although the Bible does not directly speak to these issues.

 

[Sakuras]

Hello,

I think the law is good. Hateful words can hurt people in ways beyond physical abuse. We don't allow people to hit others in public, why do we allow hateful speech?

The constitution was meant to be a living document in my opinion, changing as society changes.

Does that mean I condone abortion or issues that Christians oppose, no. However, if the masses in a democracy agree to a change then society has spoken.

Why do people need hate speech? I guess some can say it can be abused and it mutes one from being able to have free speech. Maybe we shouldn't be concerned about peoples feelings. Some feel they are doing a service to a country by expressing words.

I just feel this law is meat to curve the mentality it is okay to abuse someone verbally based off gender, sexual orientation, or what have you.

On the boards last night I talked about fat people in a way that angered some. They were upset. Yet they were words. I have to try and look out for what I say too. Not so much because I didn't feel what I said was correct, but that it hurt someone. Some could say "Too bad, suck it up. I did nothing wrong". Where does it end? Soon people will get arrested for looking at someone the wrong way. I don't have an answer to this.

Regardless, a society must protect its people. I don't know how we can do that without having laws to make sure people are not abused.

 

[Johnv]

I don't think I said anything about there being a Scripture supporting or condemning hate crime legislation, but I don't need a specific verse to see how the accepting of the gay lifestyle goes against the Word of God.

Again, the legislation doesn't in any way force a person to accept the gay lifestyle, or, for that matter, any sexual lifestyle.

I think the law is good. Hateful words can hurt people in ways beyond physical abuse. We don't allow people to hit others in public, why do we allow hateful speech?

Amendment I allows free speech, whether it's hurtful to another or not. That Amendment has not changed since its enaction in 1791. That said, the legislation in question of the OP doesn't address speech. It addresses violent criminal acts towards persons, when the criminal act is motivated by the person's sexual orientation.

The reason I generally oppose hate crimes legislation is because those acts are already illegal. I question whether an additional penalty based on motive is necessary or warranted in such sitautions.

Johnv, so you put the color of one's car or deciding which shoes to wear in the same category as hate crimes legislation which carries with it a decidedly moral component?

Hate crimes legislation is not a moral issue. It's a societal issue.

Now, as a Christian, we are commanded to love all men. But the government cannot tell you who you must love, and they do not have the right to tell you you cannot hate someone. I am not a bigot, but if someone else is, that is their right.

I concur, which is why I generally oppose hate crimes legislation. If I've committed a crime against a person, I do not belive a greater penalty should be imposed based on a personal prejudice.

 

[Sakuras]

Hello John,

Thank you for the correction. I appeciate it.

If a crime is motivated by hate, the pentaly must be exceeded. Society must protect minority groups (blacks, gays, etc.)

People can say all violent crime is motivated by hate. But if evidence shows a persons was targeted base off their skin colour or what have you, it is up to society to send a strong message that it will not be tolerated.

The government isn't saying you can't hate someone. It's saying that if you act in a criminal manner because of your hate (minorities etc.), then they are going to nail you hard.

Why do certain groups require special laws? These groups are more targeted. Thus, stronger enforcement.

 

[Johnv]

If a crime is motivated by hate, the pentaly must be exceeded. Society must protect minority groups (blacks, gays, etc.)

Actually, hate crimes legislation protects all groups, not just minority groups. The question is whether the additional penalties laid down in hate crimes legisation is necessary.

Why do certain groups require special laws?

They don't. Therefore, there should be none.

 

[Andy T.]

Hate crimes legislation is not a moral issue. It's a societal issue.

What is your source for this claim?

A piece of legislation that deals with violent crimes against other persons is not a moral issue? The Bible in no way whatsoever speaks about hate, crime and the role of civil gov't over such matters?

Like I said, I pity your compartmentalized religion.

 

[rbell]

Hello,

I think the law is good. Hateful words can hurt people in ways beyond physical abuse. We don't allow people to hit others in public, why do we allow hateful speech?

The constitution was meant to be a living document in my opinion, changing as society changes.

Does that mean I condone abortion or issues that Christians oppose, no. However, if the masses in a democracy agree to a change then society has spoken.

Why do people need hate speech? I guess some can say it can be abused and it mutes one from being able to have free speech. Maybe we shouldn't be concerned about peoples feelings. Some feel they are doing a service to a country by expressing words.

I just feel this law is meat to curve the mentality it is okay to abuse someone verbally based off gender, sexual orientation, or what have you.

On the boards last night I talked about fat people in a way that angered some. They were upset. Yet they were words. I have to try and look out for what I say too. Not so much because I didn't feel what I said was correct, but that it hurt someone. Some could say "Too bad, suck it up. I did nothing wrong". Where does it end? Soon people will get arrested for looking at someone the wrong way. I don't have an answer to this.

Regardless, a society must protect its people. I don't know how we can do that without having laws to make sure people are not abused.

um...there's this thing called freedom of speech.

Once you begin to censor speech you disagree with...get ready for totalitarianism. And if you aren't in power...you're pretty much messed up.

Hate crimes are a judicial train wreck because...

1. They elevate the life of one person (be it black, gay, handicapped, left-handed, white, whatever) over another. Generally, the "empowered" party is worth less than the "powerless." ergo..."All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." We found that repulsive in the 1960's...why should it not be repulsive now?
2. They are essentially crimes of thought, which cannot be proven. Remember..."innocent until proven guilty," and "prove beyond a reasonable doubt?" Throw that out the window with hate crime bills...We can only prove crimes of action...and if we'd enforce the laws already there, we wouldn't have to crawl around inside someone's brain, looking for prejudices.
3. They are unequally enforced. For instance, in Alabama, you will never see a black-on-white crime listed as a hate crime." The reverse is not true. I am for equal justice under the law. A white man who kills a black man should be penalized the same as if the race of the victim/perp were reversed.
4. They needlessly clog up the justice system. If someone's on trial for life, why try separate the hate-crime separately?
5. They begin erosion of rights: now instances of offensive speech is considered "hate crime." If you preach against homosexuality, get ready...you're next. It's true in other locales worldwide; it will be true here.
6. They are, at their core, unneccessary. If you gave people who murdered, for instance, the death penalty, no hate crime legislation would be needed. If you castrated rapists, that would just about do it right there.
7. "Hate crime" is itself a logical fallacy. Who ever commits "love crimes?" All crime comes from hate.

 

[Trotter]

Why do people need hate speech?

What is hate to one may not be hate to another, but such a law would force its definition on all... or, should I say, the government will force its interpretation on all.

Should a pastor preach against sin? You know, things like same-sex mariage, sex outside of marriage, drunkeness? All of that could be considered hate speech if the government decides to make it such.

Such a law, while it might have an intention otherwise, could be used to shut the mouths of pastors across the nation on the threat of criminal charges.

 

[rbell]

If a crime is motivated by hate, the pentaly must be exceeded. Society must protect minority groups (blacks, gays, etc.)

That's absurd. Why do gays get more rights than straight folks? Do their bruises hurt more? What a silly rationale.

People can say all violent crime is motivated by hate. But if evidence shows a persons was targeted base off their skin colour or what have you, it is up to society to send a strong message that it will not be tolerated.

We already have those laws on the books. If you murder someone, you should get the death penalty. I don't care if you are a skinny, protestant, white, monogomous redneck in a double-wide, or an overweight, left-handed hispanic lesbian.

The government isn't saying you can't hate someone. It's saying that if you act in a criminal manner because of your hate (minorities etc.), then they are going to nail you hard.

Again...more vacuous reasoning. Of course that's what they're saying...because they're punishing thought. And speech. UnAmerican...anti-freedom...ridiculous. Punish the crime, not your pet peeve of the day.

Why do certain groups require special laws? These groups are more targeted. Thus, stronger enforcement.

Translation: a minority group cannot commit a hate crime.
Where's the justice in that?

Sorry...but it's easy pickings knocking down this line of thinking.

 

[Sakuras]

Hello,

After reading some responses to my answers, I see some good points.
I will look more into this subject.

I am not a person who has an IQ 50 points north of genius. I'm just average and I am sure I have said some naive things.

Thanks for your responses.

 

[rbell]

Sakuras,

Good to have you here.

Looking at my response to you...I was responding to the rationale behind hate crime, and not you personally. I'm not sure that was clear enough.

 

[Sakuras]

rbell,

Thanks for the reply. I know it is not personal. I'm on the baptist board.

Your points are valid. The whole subject is complex to me.

I put in my 2 cents on many subjects. What I enjoy is that I can learn things.

I value all input.

 

[Nonsequitur]

Hello,

I think the law is good. Hateful words can hurt people in ways beyond physical abuse.(Yes of course. Calling a woman a "mean, spiteful woman" will put her in a coma) We don't allow people to hit others in public, why do we allow hateful speech?(You mean like, the 1st Amendment? It may not be 'nice' and it may be 'hateful', but since emotions and intentions started the hurtful words, how are you going to legislate that? Now you are talking about 'thought-crimes'. )

The constitution was meant to be a living document in my opinion, changing as society changes.(Which is totally wrong, and just from your statement, shows your ignorance of the issue.)

Does that mean I condone abortion or issues that Christians oppose, no.(You did mean, 'as WE Christians oppose....Right?) However, if the masses in a democracy agree to a change then society has spoken.(Does that include abortion? And does that mean Christians will change their mind because of ,"then society has spoken...")

Why do people need hate speech?(We don't.) I guess some can say it can be abused and it mutes one from being able to have free speech. Maybe we shouldn't be concerned about peoples feelings.(Well, if you believe that someones feelings will be hurt without a law stopping someone else from saying what they feel. Then you must feel equally bad about the person who doesn't get to say what he/she wants to in the first place. ....Right?) Some feel they are doing a service to a country by expressing words.(Right!....now you get it....see?....you are expressing that others need to be censored but you are free to be free to tell others that their speech is objectionable.)

I just feel this law is meat to curve the mentality it is okay to abuse someone verbally based off gender, sexual orientation, or what have you.(Gee...another law to make sure we are nice to each other.)

On the boards last night I talked about fat people in a way that angered some. They were upset. Yet they were words.(Gee....don't they have a law about that?) I have to try and look out for what I say too. Not so much because I didn't feel what I said was correct(WAAAIIITT, what do you mean, you don't think it was correct?), but that it hurt someone.(Shame on you.) Some could say "Too bad, suck it up. I did nothing wrong". Where does it end?(When you stop saying stupid stuff?) Soon people will get arrested for looking at someone the wrong way. I don't have an answer to this.(Yeah, but you seem to be an advocate for it.)

Regardless, a society must protect its people. I don't know how we can do that without having laws to make sure people are not abused.

SNIP
I also recommend, that if you want to amend another country's laws.....that you mind your own business.
If you need a hobby, try to reconcile the Canada/Quebec problem.
SNIP

 

[Sakuras]

Hello nonsequitur,

Okay. Sorry.

 

[Johnv]

What is your source for this claim?

Source? Find me scripture that says a person should vote a particular way, and then you'll have something.

A piece of legislation that deals with violent crimes against other persons is not a moral issue? The Bible in no way whatsoever speaks about hate, crime and the role of civil gov't over such matters?

Interesting, since you appear to oppose hate crimes legislation citing scripturally moral grounds. Again, show me scripture that says a person should vote a particular way.

Like I said, I pity your compartmentalized religion.

Interesting, given that it is you who is compartmentalizing.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Thread Closure

As this thread is on its fourth page and is heading into the ditch, I'm closing it.