Semper members only ...Hate Crimes in the US

[Proeliator]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200509\CUL20050915a.html


I dont know if other have seen this....Does it concern you or not?

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

To begin, I think federalizing crimes impinges on states' rights.

"Hate crimes" laws violate the 14th Amendment by creating unequal standing in law. If a homosexual is assaulted, that's a "hate crime" being committed in addition to the crime of assault. But if a straight person is assaulted, it is merely assault. And on what basis can one be prosecuted for "hate crimes"? You can bet it will almost always be presumption. "Hate crime" bills promote a skewed version of justice that I believe promotes, rather than stifles, tyranny.

And what is "sexual orientation"? Does "blonde-oriented" count?

"Hate crime" laws are political weapons, not tools of justice.

 

[mlqurgw]

To begin, I think federalizing crimes impinges on states' rights.

"Hate crimes" laws violate the 14th Amendment by creating unequal standing in law. If a homosexual is assaulted, that's a "hate crime" being committed in addition to the crime of assault. But if a straight person is assaulted, it is merely assault. And on what basis can one be prosecuted for "hate crimes"? You can bet it will almost always be presumption. "Hate crime" bills promote a skewed version of justice that I believe promotes, rather than stifles, tyranny.

And what is "sexual orientation"? Does "blonde-oriented" count?

"Hate crime" laws are political weapons, not tools of justice.

What he said. It is becoming clear that in the US those who are not a special interest group with a powerful lobby are not really considered as people. Perhaps we should develop our own group of unpeople. Those who are ignored.

 

[inchristalone221]

Now all we need is for "hate speech" to be outlawed as well.

 

[mlqurgw]

Now all we need is for "hate speech" to be outlawed as well.

Boy am I in trouble if that happens which it probably will in the near future. IIRC it has already happened in Australia.

 

[inchristalone221]

Boy am I in trouble if that happens which it probably will in the near future.

You and me both. They'd put a "homo-phobic", catholic bashing, five-point, Christian bigot such as myself right in line for the chair.

 

[edie19]

To begin, I think federalizing crimes impinges on states' rights.

"Hate crimes" laws violate the 14th Amendment by creating unequal standing in law. If a homosexual is assaulted, that's a "hate crime" being committed in addition to the crime of assault. But if a straight person is assaulted, it is merely assault. And on what basis can one be prosecuted for "hate crimes"? You can bet it will almost always be presumption. "Hate crime" bills promote a skewed version of justice that I believe promotes, rather than stifles, tyranny.

And what is "sexual orientation"? Does "blonde-oriented" count?

"Hate crime" laws are political weapons, not tools of justice.

I don't get it myself - say my 24 year old heterosexual son is shot leaving a bar (he doesn't go to bars so I'm ok - but it's just an example). Is he any less dead just because he's heterosexual instead of homosexual? Does having something classified as a "hate crime" give anymore comfort or closure?

 

[inchristalone221]

If a bunch of homosexuals shaved their heads, decked themselves out in docks with red laces and kicked the merde out of straight men, we could accuse them of hate crimes as well. But guess what? It doesn't happen!!! Those with the power are not the victims of hate crimes.

First of all, that would never happen. Secondly, what is the bloody difference between killing someone for their color or orientation and killing them for some other reason. When last I checked, both crimes end the life of a human being made in the image of God.

 

[mlqurgw]

I suggest you avoid Canada as well.

I have been to Canada and enjoyed it. Actually I believe I will just avoid you.

Btw: This is the Reformed forum and we are not allowed to debate in here.

 

[inchristalone221]

Was the lynching of blacks by racists not worthy of being called a "hate crime"?

And isn't killing anyone worthy of being called a hate crime? I want to know the difference.

 

[mlqurgw]

I believe it's just a question of semantics that seems to offend some people.

Was the lynching of blacks by racists not worthy of being called a "hate crime"?

If I came to Canada and killed you would that be considered a hate crime? I don't hate you but we do disagree strongly, So?

 

[Jon_]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200509\CUL20050915a.html


I dont know if other have seen this....Does it concern you or not?

All crimes are "hate crimes." The distinction is nothing but the impiety of secular morality at work.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[mlqurgw]

Please do. Be sure to avoid my church as well. Others are in fact debating here. Perhaps you should rephrase that to something like "Don't post here if you don't agree with me."

Those who are technically Reformed are allowed to debate here but as neither you nor I are technically Reformed we aren't allowed.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Only if you were killing me because I am gay or a member of some other minority.

So killing someone because he is a member of a minority is hate, but killing someone because he is a member of a majority is not?

 

[Febe]

My dear brothers!

Peace, love and understanding is not bad, is it?

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Here is the definition wikopedia gives:

"The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797). In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act added disabilities to the above list."

So, no. You may kill me because you hate me but it would not meet the definition of a hate crime per say.

"The feddle gummint says so. I believe it. That settles it."

There are a lot of funny definitions coming out of Disneyland on the Potomac. I can't see how the number of people in a given classification we assign to someone affects the reality of the crime done to him.

 

[inchristalone221]

Yes, citing a government for a definition in an ethical debate is rather...I dunno...weak.

 

[mlqurgw]

Yes, citing a government for a definition in an ethical debate is rather...I dunno...weak.

I think it should be remembered that politicians are playing to what they think the people want. They have a lust for power and once they get it they are very reluctant to give it up. Right and wrong hold very little meaning for most of them.

 

[Proeliator]

Please do. Be sure to avoid my church as well. Others are in fact debating here. Perhaps you should rephrase that to something like "Don't post here if you don't agree with me."

Please be sure to avoid my posts from now on as well please, I dont like my threads hijacked by something off the mark.


#2- I guess many people miss the point of how this can then change into where jst preaching against homsexuality will become a crime. For all that live in the US, we deal on a constant basis with this issue, as they try to push it in the public schools to teach tolerance.

 

[mlqurgw]

Please be sure to avoid my posts from now on as well please, I dont like my threads hijacked by something off the mark.


#2- I guess many people miss the point of how this can then change into where jst preaching against homsexuality will become a crime. For all that live in the US, we deal on a constant basis with this issue, as they try to push it in the public schools to teach tolerance.

I wonder if someone from Australia could comment on how it has worked for them? I seem to remember a post or two dealing with how some preachers have been jailed there for this very reason.