Comments for: “Terrifying Tango: Religious Right Horrified By March Of The (Gay) Penguins”

Hateful, vicious sons of female Rottwilers.

They bristle when charged with book-banning, yet here they are, advocating book-banning without remorse:

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006600.cfm

Come on, I’ll wait for someone to explain to me why book-banning is not really book-banning.

The RR works to show themselves as the moral compass of humanity…. in fact they are some of the most immoral humans I have ever had to misfortune to encounter… misguided and bent on the domination of all others…. wasn’t there a major world conflict fought from 1939 to 1945 to stop another group who wanted to do basically the same things in regards to control of fellow human beings?

This would be hilarious if not so sad. The RR appears to be one of those groups that go about diligently seeking something about which to be outraged. They remind me of a fictional protest coterie in the late Al Capp’s “Li’l Abner” comic. He dubbed it “Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything” — S.W.I.N.E. for short.

And this:

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005737.cfm

Come on, somebody whine about how this isn’t book-banning.

Ever wonder why they struggle so hard to denigrate/discredit Banned Books Week?

Because they know that during Banned Books Week, the entire (politically aware) nation will be thinking of them — and in not so favorable a way.

I am wondering if the death penalty provision for homosexuality as detailed in Leviticus 18:22 would apply to penguins. Are there any qualified theologians here to anwer this question? Are these penguins making a moral choice?

Now on my part, I am assuming that God would apply the same sexual standards to penguins that he applies to humans but I could be wrong. It could be that God smiles upon gay penguins.

The Religious Right is obsessed with sex! Especially GAY sex….

For foul, offensive, hateful, mysogynistic, murder-mongering reading there’s certainly one book that can’t be beat:

The “Holy” Bible.

But it shouldn’t be banned. It should be required reading in every high school, with special emphasis on all the bloody and lurid passages. As many young people as possible should be made wholly aware of just exactly what this “good book” really has written in it.

Could help to turn a lot of impressionable minds away from any religion embracing the Bible as their foundational scripture.

Good ole Loudoun County Va.!

“In overruling himself, Hatrick relied on something of a technicality. He said that the resident who complained about the book is not a parent of children in the county school system. School policy states that challenges to curriculum material, he pointed out, must come from parents.”

Anyone out there besides me have a problem with especially the last sentence in the above quote from the article?

Since I live in the area, I had read about this incident when it first occured. If I remember correctly the initial challenge went to a parent’s committee which ruled in FAVOR of the book. The disgruntled community member (now known not to be a parent)appealed, and after another review, the adminstrators decided to disregard the parent’s committee’s assesment and put the book behind the librarian’s desk. This was not an outright ban, and I think the admistrators thought it would be a good “compromise”. Cowards!

Given the initial support from the school parents and the poor attempt at a “compromise” I’m glad they are using a technicallity to reverse their decission. It was the wrong thing to do in the first place. Maybe they learned a lesson.

Not completely off topic, but a bit tangental, is this video that my son called to my attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCJO_deJy70

Most Fundamentalists are completely unaware of the historical context of the bible. They are just told what to believe, mostly by people who prey on them and have no theological training. Every theologian agrees on the importance of reading and understanding the Bible in its historical and cultural context. When considered in this way, the life of Jesus and everyone in the old testament is unimaginable in modern times, though the teaching of Jesus are beneficial when understood in our time in history. I am a convinced Christian and I don’t agree (call me conservative) with all of the fundamentalists that promote murder, polygamy, torture, incest, and idol worship. If you want to be a Fundamentalist and disregard the historicity of the Bible, then you agree with all that is in it and thus know that many sanctioned people of God in the Old Testament had several wives, had sex with their children, and killed their relatives (the poor kids that did not obey their parents). Oh wait, they probably don’t agree with that. It is convenient to use the historical argument for that, but not for the issue of homosexuality. Please worship God and follow Jesus out of love and devotion, rather than what is convenient for you.
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com

“The RR appears to be one of those groups that go about diligently seeking something about which to be outraged.”

Curmudgeon, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with that observation. They’ve got to keep people stirred up with evidence of the “immorality” that’s all around them. Even penguins are immoral these days! (I guess none of the RR liked Farce of the Penguins, either.)

I’m inclined to split some hairs. It was my understanding that the bible specifically prohibits sodomy, not homosexuality. Have these penguins engaged in sodomy?

David, I rely on you for scriptural accuracy, so can you shed some light on just what the bible says about the subject?

Alan, nice video. Hopefully, it will never be nothing more than a work of fiction.

My daughter is a sophomore in high school and happens to have a great English teacher. Just two weeks ago her teacher passed out a list of the most frequently banned books. My daughter, because she is stuck in a household comprised of unrepentant freethinking atheistic secular humanists, was quite indignant about the whole book banning concept. She has pretty much decided to read everything on the list.

Curmudgeon said: “The RR appears to be one of those groups that go about diligently seeking something about which to be outraged.”

First, Curmudgeon, it’s good to see you back. Second, they have to find something to be outraged about and rile up their followers in order to keep the coffers full.

Sky, I always try to get to a few books on the list every year and have even read some of the age appropriate books to my daughter. Recently, since she has entered puberty, I checked out and let her read one of the books on the list about changing bodies.

Jax, “David, I rely on you for scriptural accuracy, so can you shed some light on just what the bible says about the subject?”

Jesus Himself says absolutely nothing.

Leviticus says “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22).

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 mentions it; Young’s Literal Translation is often handy if you suspect that words have been altered to impart a different connotation:

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....version=15;

I’d say that it’s pretty hard to argue that it’s OK under the Bible (sorry, folks), though you can definitely argue that such people should be treated fairly and with love.

Sex with children, though, finds no categorical condemnation in the Bible. Go figure. Maybe that’s why Numbers 31 was perfectly OK with God.

RE: A list of the most frequently banned books

Since a lot of the banning and challenging going on today is in the area of K-12 education, it is kind of funny what sometimes gets included. One year Captain Underpants and the Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants made the list!

Your daughter can skip that one with no harm done, but if she wants to read everything, it is a “shorts” read.

The Rabid Religious Reich is fixated on homosexual sex because so many in the RRR are closet queens themselves. And they try to keep their attraction to the same sex hidden even from themselves.

That’s why they hate themselves. And same-sex attraction.

They feel guilty about their own feelings.

The RRR cherry picks to find bible passages they can quote so they can try to justify their bigotry and ignorance and guilt.

They fixate on biblical passages about homosexuality, yet they ignore the line in Leviticus that condemns eating shellfish.

I bet James Dobson loves eating lobster.

Thanks, David. I have to agree that the terms are fairly explicit.

Book-banning in the 21st century… I wonder what’s next. I take that back. I’m not sure I want to know what’s next.

I am not one to make biblical judgment calls, (or to call on biblical judgments!) but I have been told that a case can be made that the biblical references against homosexuality may be more applicable to unrestrained sexuality and not really apply to a committed, loving relationship. Not that I have anything against unrestrained sexuality - I’m just saying.

Here is a link for a movie about religion and homosexuality:

http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexe.htm

I think Hatrick gave himself an easy out; he isn’t saying anything about rejecting censorship - only that the complaint must come from a district parent. He basically told them how he could go about removing the book again without any legal complications.

These days with computers and video games and cell phones, etc…it is hard enough to get kids to read at all. The way I see it, if we can encourage a love for reading, and Captain Underpants is what tickles their fancy at a particular time, we should be thankful they’re reading at all. (I can’t believe that made the list, Alan. When one of my kids was younger, every book in that series was in my house at one time or another, and then passed on to the neighbor’s kids. I can still hear them giggling while reading!)

The RRR once again displays their true colors - haters of intellectual freedom.

This is slightly off-topic but relevant to the RRR and censorship. Do a search on library internet filtering companies with religious affiliations.

You’d be surprised to know that Chicken Breast recipes could spark a block. Then you might be interrogated by the librarian about what you were actually searching, and maybe even asked why, when asking that the filter be turned off!!

These verses also deal with homosexuality:
Genesis 19 (This gives a clue to Numbers 31 as well) These men were struck with blindness before the cities were destroyed.

Romans 1:18-32
But for children:
Leviticus 18:6 “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.” (children are close relations they are referred as close relations in the chapter as well)

And Matt 18:5,6 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Leviticus 18:6 “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.” (children are close relations they are referred as close relations in the chapter as well)

What does this have to do with homosexuality?

Where are the bibical references that prohibit children from reading about penguins? Inquiring minds want to know.

Beats me. There aren’t even any Biblical references to prohibit children from seeing or reading sexual content, though the RR somehow sees one through their 1 Corinthians 2:14 glasses.

Anne, you’re thinking Leviticus 18:22.

Oh, I see what Anne is getting at.

Sorry, doesn’t fly. The context of that passage of Leviticus makes it quite clear that incest is the question. Your own children, or your sister’s children, would be close relatives, but the rest are not.

Alas, Wordpress is being a piece of junk again.

Anne, Leviticus 18:6 deals with incest, not children in general. Matt 18:5-6 is a real reach, unless you’re suggesting that there was a new rule added on since Old Testament times — when Leviticus existed, but the Gospel of Matthew, didn’t.

Back in the “good old days” with the single-room tents and animal herds sharing space with the humans, it would be very hard for the kids not to have a very good idea of what life is all about from a very early age.

Alas, Wordpress is being a piece of crap again.

Anne, Leviticus 18:6 deals with relations within the family, not children in general. Matt 18:5-6 is a real reach, unless you’re suggesting that there was a new rule added on since Old Testament times — when Leviticus existed, but the Gospel of Matthew, didn’t.

The following is still on topic, Alan, inasmuch as it deals with things that the RR would like to see banned in books, especially children’s books:

Another thing that 95% of Christians don’t realize is that nothing was ever wrong with toplessness. (Actually, there is nothing wrong with nudity, Biblically, but clearing up that doctrinal error is a longer task.)

Yet you can be sure that the RR would be militating crazedly to censor textbooks that showed female breasts.

When Eve donned her wrap-around after she alienated herself from God, her wrap-around was a waist garment — the Hebrew word used in its place, chagowr, refers to an apron or loincloth.

The Old Testament makes mention of nursing women as a matter of course, yet not a word is said of what “proper” “modesty” would consist of.

I don’t think public schools should teach that theism is right or wrong. Likewise, I don’t think public schools should teach that homosexuality is right or wrong. Leave that to parents.

Besides, most kids graduate without knowing who won WWII, without being able to point to the US on a world map, and without being able to put two sentences together. We should to stick to reading, writing, math, science, history. We don’t need to waste time teaching kids that Susie has 18 mommies.

The RRR is worried and they should be. Increasingly, people are viewing homosexuality in a positive light. And rightly so - homosexuals are regular people who share the same values and humanity as everyone else.

The RRR fears that the more homosexuality is accepted, the greater chance public opinion will turn against them. So they are running a desperate smear campaign. And part of that campaign is to make sure that children - all children, not just their own - remain ignorant of homosexuality. That way, when the RR tells these children that homosexuals are evil and depraved, they won’t know any better and will take their word for it.

Matt, I agree with you on what parents and schools should teach; however, many schools have zero tolerance policies on bullying so bullying someone who may or may not be gay needs to be addressed. Regardless if homosexuality is normal, acceptable, etc., bullying on any grounds is not. Sadly, many RR followers believe that teaching tolerance and zero tolerance policies on bullying infringe on their rights as Christians and take it as an endorsement of homosexuality. No one is asking anyone to be gay just because they can’t beat the “homo” up in the locker room. Also, my daughter who insisted that she is straight when my 8 year-old nephew called her my wife has been called a lsebian by a few boys at school who couldn’t come up with a coherent and original thought on their own and one girl on the soccer team–and that was just because she was doing her job as a defender and took control of and then cleared the ball.

Matt, I think you are right about focusing on academic subjects, as opposed to “values education.” But I also believe that school libraries should provide a varitey of interesting and informative books for the kids, even if they are a stretch with regard to the core curriculum.

It’s not the job of public schools to delve into homosexuality.

The RR wants public schools to teach that it’s abnormal. The leftists want public schools to teach that’s it’s normal. I don’t think it should be discussed at all. Schools have much more pressing tasks, as I’ve mentioned above.

I’ve never been convinced that this is even a church/state issue. I think AU is off topic. If a school fails to promote homosexuality, that’s NOT a church/state violation. It’s called focusing on relevant and higher priority goals.

I see your point, but it becomes a church/state issue when they want to remove or restrict books in public libraries.

They pride themselves in their efforts to do that as well, all while fuming and fulminating whenver someone mentions “book banning.”

[Btw, my 12:51 post was in response to Dave (not Titania or Alan). Wrote that response before seeing T or A's posts.]

Alan: Yeah, I’m talking about classroom instruction, not libraries. Having said that, I’m not saying I’d be thrilled about schools spending precious $ on pro-homosexual books. But I wouldn’t censor them after being paid for.

Titania: I see what you’re saying. But, as you seem to agree, bullies should be punished regardless of their target.

And I’m fine with a very short lesson on bullying. But teachers don’t need to get into the topic of homosexuality or read about multiple mommies even for that purpose.

Kids get bullied for being fat. So should kids have to read “My Daddy is Morbidly Obese and That’s OK”?

Teach that ANY name-calling is off limits, that physical violence is off limits, explain the punishments, and voila, you’re done. 15 minutes. Then get on to math and grammar.

Matt, I understand your point. Is it safe to say that we at least agree on zero tolerance regardless of the reason a bully targets a victim? Though I have no problem with homosexuality and have discussed with my daughter that homosexuals are still human beings and some oppose it while others don’t, I do understand that parents have an issue with it being “taught” in school. I also agree that precious time is taken away from acedemic instruction; however, there is more to education than the three Rs of yester-year. It’s a tough balance to strike between the values of every family, the social skills needed to at least survive in the adult world, and the academics required for successful employment as adults.

As far as this being a church/state issue, I agree that this doesn’t qualify exept when a church tries to interject their dogma into state matters, e.g., public schools and libraries. In this case, I have to agree with AU for taking a stand. This is less about homosexuality and more about a religious group attempt to pressure the state based on their holy text.

Ah, but what about that pesky subject often termed Social Studies?

Public schools can and should offer more than the basics.

The fact that many public schools discuss sexual orientation is anathema to the Rabid Religious Reich. That’s one reason many RRR people pull their kids out of public school and home school them. So they can teach their kids that gay kids are immoral, evil, and ungodly.

It’s why the RRR tries to undermine public schools.

They want everyone’s kids, not just their own, to be ignorant.

“Teach that ANY name-calling is off limits, that physical violence is off limits, explain the punishments, and voila, you’re done. 15 minutes. Then get on to math and grammar.”

Matt, I agree. They should be learning about these things – respect for oneself, for others and their rights, etc. – at home. Unfortunately, that’s often not the case. But schools don’t need to express approval or disapproval for life choices, or for systems of belief. They only need to teach respect for the rights of others to practice their chosen life styles or beliefs. The RR, however, doesn’t appear to respect those rights, and probably equates teaching respect for them with an expression of approval.

I agree with Titania that this is more about pushing an agenda than it is about homosexual penguins. The idea is too laughable to take seriously.

One issue, Matt, is that gay kids are most often targets for bullying and assaults. Most gay kids have been such victims. It’s no fun going to school every day…or trying to…wondering when you’re going to get punched or taunted that day. Believe me…I know.

Schools have a responsibility to offer an environment where kids can feel at least a little secure, and that includes kids who are gay.

Teaching a little about sexual orientation takes away much of the mystery and hatred and fear of same-sex orientation, and that goes a long way toward ending some of the taunting and bullying.

And another point…sexual orientation isn’t all about sex. In my own experience in life, sex hardly ever came into the picture. A person’s orientation is about to whom he/she will feel attracted, and maybe even fall in love with.

There’s nothing immoral about that.

Most schools have taken on the subject of sex education as part of its’ health program. Education about sex, pregnancy prevention, ways to reduce disease transmission, would necessitate addressing all aspects of sexuality including orientation.

If schools are using abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, they need to rethink their tolerance approaches, as they are lining kids up for bullying and intolerance. The programs stigmatize all kids who might come from a single parent household as destined for a lifetime of mental health issues. They are (obviously) opposed to cohabitation, and share this distaste freely in their programs, as well, and finally they convey that marriage, and therefore sex, is to be between a man and a woman only within the confines of marriage. When an entire population is isolated, ignored, or disparaged, intolerance flourishes.

Alba, I’m with you there. I am a single parent by design. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard statistics show that daughters raised by single mothers are desitined for failure. My daughter is so much more well adjusted and balanced than many of her friends with two parent homes. I left my old church because both pastors said single mothers are the reason for this country’s ills–while I was sitting int he chior loft with my then three year old daughter. When I asked for their help in telling my abusive ex-husband that I wanted a divorce, they ambushed me and told me I had to stay married to him. When I tossed him out, he played the “illness card” and checked himself into the local hospital psych ward–a play straight out of the abusing husbands handbook. I was told by the psych nurse to get away and stay away from him becuase he is violent and it was a matter of time before he started hitting me. Well, I have to tell you that I’m one to hit back. I know this is getting a little off-topic, but it is a demonstration of the ignorance of the uber-religous when it comes to domestic situations–gay, straight or single.

Titania, given the RR’s selectiveness and their source material, it doesn’t surprise me that they seem to have an understanding of human nature that is limited to its sinfulness. It’s also not surprising that they draw criticism which compares them to Nazis. Any deviation from their “norm” is somehow bad and must be eradicated.

Falwell never said Tinky Winky was gay, or even aluded to it. He merely stated that he felt gay communities were adopting him as an icon. Just as they did with the rainbow. The rainbow itself is not gay.

Titania wrote: “Is it safe to say that we at least agree on zero tolerance regardless of the reason a bully targets a victim?”

Yes. My position, btw, also applies to crimes. That is, I’m opposed to the government’s efforts at mind reading (i.e., hate laws). I don’t care WHY you murdered someone. You get punished for murder, period.

I never understand liberals who agree with hate-crime legislation. We (should) believe that everyone is treated the same. And yet a murderder of a straight person should get 30 years while a murderer of a gay person should get 40 years??? And why’s that? Cuz the gay person’s life is more valuable? Equality means equal punishment for the same crime.

(Btw, I’m not picking on gays, here. I’m opposed to hate-crime legislation in general. Feel free to substitute blacks, Latinos, left-handed people, whatever you like. Don’t make no never mind. Point being: Treat people the same. And stop the Big-Brother attempts to read people’s minds. How scary is that!?)

But I digress.

Don wrote: “gay kids are most often targets for bullying and assaults.”

I’m not sure I’m interpreting you correctly. Are you saying that the majority of bullying incidences involve a gay victim? If so, evidence?

Murder cases are not so cut and dry, Matt. Motivation is always a considering factor when determining the charge.

Matt, I largely agree with you vis a vis liberals and the habit of many to want to specially protect/cater to people by group identity. While I understand the compelling need for some of that in decades past, it’s an old way of doing things that some just don’t want to move past.

I also appreciate your trying to keep us honest by demanding evidence for the bullying claims. There are a lot of articles of faith in our culture that may or may not be true — yet we base policy decisions upon such unquestioned aqssumptions.

If they (here) do succeed in supplying that evidence, then we are all stronger. If not, maybe it’s one article of faith in our culture that we should lose faith in.

I still can’t help but to hear my inner warning sirens when RR groups balk at gay-related hate crime legislation, though. While your argument in itself has merit, their reaction to such bills and laws still tells me a lot about the RR groups that is important to know.

In other words, I can’t help but to react to the RR’s reactions.

Further, I have never understood religious conservatives who argue against hate-crimes legislation, since they are under the umbrella of protection. Would they care to remove this protective factor for themselves, and then argue their case? Unfortunately, as the law is written it fails to protect “all” equally.

“government’s efforts at mind reading” - red herring. Shame on you.

Hate crimes are more than an attack against an individual. They are a statement of intimidation to an entire group of people. For instance, take the KKK. When they lynched a single black man,or placed burning crosses on the homes of Jews, their message was to all black people and all Jews, not the individual victim. Much different impact, don’t you think?

FBI: Hate crimes escalate 8% in 2006

excerpt:

Some significant increases:

•A 19% increase in crimes motivated by religious bias. Attacks on Muslims increased 22% to 156 last year. Attacks on Catholics increased by almost a third to 76. Almost seven in 10 were crimes against Jews, which were up 14% to 967.

•An 18% increase in crimes against gay men and lesbians to 1,195 in 2006.

•Attacks on people with mental disabilities were up 94% to 62 in 2006.

•Hate crimes against Hispanics were up 10% to 576 incidents.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n.....rime_N.htm

I would also like to remind you, Matt, that more than half of all incidents of bullying are ignored, or go unreported, and often fail to address the motivating factor.

Not to speak for Don, but “knowing” him, I can say that part of his statement is based on his personal experiences of being a gay man and working with gay youth in the schools.

Albatross wrote: “Motivation is always a considering factor when determining the charge.”

Sure, motivation is important. It helps determine whether the person is guilty. Combine that with physical evidence, witnesses, etc, and we have either a guilty or not-guilty verdict. All good.

Having determined that the person is guilty, we should then provide the same punishment for the same crime. The skin color, sexual orientation, blood type, or singing ability of the victim should be irrelevant. (I might add: Ditto for the perpetrator.)

Our legal system provides for degrees of guilt in murder cases. A person convicted of man-slaughter is “less” guilty than a person convicted of pre-meditated murder. The motivation has to be taken into consideration when the person is charged. I believe there are also degrees considered in other violent crimes as well, although I’m not certain. From that perspective, I think our system in part already addresses hate crimes, although they made not be labeled as such.

Albatross wrote: “When they lynched a single black man,or placed burning crosses on the homes of Jews, their message was to all black people and all Jews, not the individual victim.”

They should be charged and punished for the laws that they break. That sends a signal that we don’t like people breaking those laws. Lynch someone? Death penalty. Voila. One less lyncher in the world. Lynching a black person should be viewed as being as reprehensible as — not MORE reprehensible than — lynching a white person.

You provided stats. Was that in response to my request to Don? If so, I don’t see the answer. If those were just stats for everyone’s edification, that’s fine. Hate crimes are up — for all sorts of groups. And hopefully the perpetrators have been brought to justice under laws that guarantee fair treatment.

Albatross wrote: “I would also like to remind you, Matt, that more than half of all incidents of bullying are ignored, or go unreported, and often fail to address the motivating factor.”

Ok. Not sure why you’re telling me that, though. I’ve already said that bullying should be discouraged in class and punished.

Matt, I do not necessarily disagree with you on the issue of hate crimes, but as a “devil’s advocate” I’d like to point out a rational that might be being overlooked.

Here is a definition of assault and battery: “In the context of criminal law, ‘assault and battery’ are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, ‘assault’ and ‘battery’ are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching.”

So a distinction is made in law between “creating a fear” of harm and actually doing harm. And “creating a fear” is (at least in tort law) a separate offense that can be punished separately.

Now, in the case of some hate crimes, the purpose of the offense is two fold - to actually harm someone (the battery) and to intimidate or terrorize a class of people (the assault). When a black person is lynched, it serves as a “warning” or threat to the other black people in the community. It creates a reasonable fear of, perhaps not imminent, but unjust harm. And, I might add, this is not a hypothetical issue - that really is why lynching were carried out and is actually the effect they have.

So we see that the law traditionally does, under some circumstances, treat threats, intimidation and the deliberate creation of fear as a separate and punishable offense in and of itself. While this is just a sketch of an argument, it is enough for me to be a bit skeptical of my natural inclination to reject “hate crime” as an illegitimate attempt to create a “thought crime”.

Matt, the stats were to show that hate crimes were up. A closer look shows that most of the groups that are victims of hate crimes are already receiving “special” protections. I am presuming, by your responses that you are saying that none should have those extra protections of the law, whether they were targeted because of their race, gender, national identity, or religion. Is that right?

I just think that your “equal protection” ideal in not realistic.

Here’s a hypothetical - if a Christian evangelical is proselytizing, and a group of atheists decide to beat the living hell out of him (excuse the pun), and while they’re beating him, they’re shouting, “Die, fundie, die,” but he doesn’t. He lives to tell of the crime committed against him, has witnesses, and is even able to identify those who assaulted him. They are brought to trial. Under the present law this is a hate crime with which those who committed the crime would be penalized above and beyond because their crime was motivated by hate. Does this sit OK with you, or is it simply an assault with intent to kill? As the laws are written now, our young evangelical will have the benefit of his attackers being more severely punished. If we substitute him for the gay, lesbian, transgender individual, who heard, “Die, faggot, die” can we really say the law as written is equal justice?

Thanks Albatross.

Matt, regarding what I said about gay students being the most frequent victims of bullying, I refer you to an organization called GLSEN. Here is their website URL.

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/i.....index.html

Another organization concerned with the problem is PFLAG.

One of the problems faced by gay students suffering bullying is many are afraid to seek help. They may be still hiding their orientation. Or, they may have tried to get help but their teachers and school administrators didn’t try to help. Often, teachers and school administrators blame the gay kids, saying “What do you expect”? or “Boys will be boys”.

Regarding hate crimes, Matt…the hate crime laws do not single out gay people for “special protection”. They are written specifically to cover anyone who might be attacked because of their orientation, be it heterosexual or homosexual.

In other words, if I were to assault you, and while doing so yelled slurs that indicated I had selected you because I hated heterosexuals, then I could be prosecuted under a hate crime law and I could face a more severe penalty.

The laws are specific that if a perpetrator selects his victim because of a certain trait…religion, race, or sexual orientation…then the attack can be prosecuted as a hate crime.

The laws do not say “if a straight guy beats up or kills a gay guy, it’s a hate crime”.

So, hate crime laws do not favor blacks, or Jews, or gay people.

Another thing to consider regarding hate crime laws is that such crimes are meant to send a signal to an entire community. Such crimes are meant to terrorize people who are among the targeted group. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism.

Hate crimes like assaults and killings also are often more brutal than an average run of the mill assault.

GLSEN, PFLAG, and many other organizations, including Southern Poverty Law Center, ADL, PFAW, and NGLTF have plenty of information about all of the above.

Thank you, Don. I refrained from posting the following until after you commented. I did not want to appear to be speaking for you. I was going to post this:

Stats on bullying of gay youth in schools:

The results of a 2003 survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network echo the findings of Human Rights Watch. This report found that eighty-four percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (”LGBT”) students reported being verbally harassed in the past school year because of their sexual orientation. More than ninety percent of LGBT students reported regularly hearing homophobic comments at school and, most shockingly, eighty-five percent of LGBT students reported that when faculty or staff heard homophobic remarks, they never intervened or intervened only some of the time. In addition to the verbal abuse, nearly forty percent of these students reported being physically harassed in the past school year because of their sexual orientation.

http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ ATTACHMENTS/file/300-3.PDF

You may not deem GLSEN as non-biased, but there are statistics available from other sources - I think GLSEN is closest to the issue.

I’d like to reiterate - many instances of bullying are simply NOT REPORTED whether the target is straight, gay, black, white, Christian or Jew. (and anything else I may have overlooked.)

Our laws definitely need to be written in such a way where people are not divided, but Good Lord, don’t specifically “cover” some people and not others in a society where we supposedly proclaim “And Justice For All.”

Matt says: Sure, motivation is important. It helps determine whether the person is guilty.

I do believe that you are mistaken. The facts of the case determine guilt. Is this another red herring? Motivation determines the degree of guilt, as others have so kindly pointed out. It is a secondary factor to the crime enforceable by additional punishment.

I believe one of the reasons behind hate crime laws is because local law enforcement agencies will often not put much effort or any into investigating crimes movtivated by hate based on gender preference, race, etc. I’m not sure that hate crimes carry a stiffer penalty as much as they make it a federal crime and the FBI will step in where as local law enforcement refuses to act.

It remindes me of the good old days of domestic calls–and it still happens today–where the perpetrator, usually male, gets walked around the block by a cop, while the victim, usually female, cleans up thier bloody face while another cop talks them out of pressing charges. I have a freind who was assulted by her husband. When he cop got there, he asked HER what SHE had done. I know the husband and I know the cop, who also happened to have had a personal acquaintance with the husband. It is this type of bias in local law enforcement that hate crime laws are trying to prevent. When a gay person can wallk down the school hallway or public street without being assulted for being gay and when law enforcement at the local level actaully starts treating these assults as crimes instead of brushing them off, then hate crime laws will not need to be enacted.

Very well stated, Titania. In very, very, very mild defense of local authorities, sometimes they don’t have the financial resources to fully prosecute the crime, and so it is the “bias” element that is disregarded as irrelevant.

I’m understanding Matt to say this is how it should be.

Matt says: Sure, motivation is important. It helps determine whether the person is guilty. Albatross: I do believe that you are mistaken.

I think it is acually both. Means, opportunity and motive go toward guilt. Afterwards, in the so called penalty phase, motivation may be considered again, and additional facts or indications regarding motivation may be introduced.

Thanks, Albatross and Titania.

Hate crime laws usually include stiffer penalties because those crimes are aimed at an entire population…the terrorism aspect. And the authorities want to send a signal that such terrorism will be discouraged.

Hate crime laws may also allow the federal agencies to become involved if the local law enforcement agencies fail to act. Such failures to act have occurred, because some police officers were prejudiced against the victims. That prejudice often caused gay victims to not even try calling the police. Gay bashers would often count on such fears of their gay victims, and be confident they could get away with their attacks.

Good arguments, folks.

Thanks, Alan. I see what you’re saying.

One of the biggest issues I’ve wrestled with in reflection on hate crime laws, is the argument of double jeopardy.

On a separate note - vandals graffitied a church in Live Oaks (CA, I believe). Police have labeled it a hate crime.

“On a separate note - vandals graffitied a church in Live Oaks (CA, I believe). Police have labeled it a hate crime.”

Was the content of the graffiti revealed to be against the faith of the church in question? I think most of us would agree, for instance, that a swastika painted on a Jewish synagogue would easily be seen as a symbol of hate, and therefore the act of painting it would be seen as a hate crime.

Actually, I was being facetious for posting that. Shame on me. It was going to the prior debate with Matt. Why have the police labeled it a hate crime? It matters not. The crime is simply vandalism by Matt’s standards.

Here is the link. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_8452020

My apologies - the article details numerous instances of these crimes at various locations throughout Santa Cruz over a period of time. The Live Oak graffiti incident was a Seventh Day Adventist school quad, and it was all “anti-religious, racist, and Satanic” graffiti.

Simple prank, right?

Albatross, no need for apologies. We all know tone is sometimes hard to convey in this kind of forum.

This article is very interesting. I wonder why chalk was used rather than spray paint. I wonder if the reaction expected from the public was something like “it’s just chalk. It didn’t really do any damage”. I think the reality of the situation is the opposite. The act of vandalizing seems to be far less the motivation than leaving a message of fear and hate.

Maybe “hate crime” is just the wrong terminology. Maybe “intimidation crime” or something like it would be more accurate.

I think “hate crimes” is the best description, and I honestly doubt it would make the scenario any more palatable to the objectors if we call it anything but what it is. Their leaders exacerbate the reality by screeching hysterically that this will violate their right to preach hatred from the pulpit, or that the evil secular “thought police” will climb inside their narrow minds and arrest them.

I still wonder, would they object so forcefully if they were not under the protective umbrella for hate crimes committed against religion?

Albatross, if the fundamentalist nutcase “christians” were not already under the umbrella, they would be clamoring to be included under it. However, at the same time, they would be clamoring that sexual orientation NOT be included.

They are hateful, bigoted hypocrites.