First, I'd like to state that I personally believe persecution of hate crimes are a violation of equal protection. (sort of, my opinion's a little more complex, see followup posts)

As some of you are aware, religious groups, specifically conservative religious groups, are frightened about an upcoming hate crime bill. They are worried that crimes perpetrated because of "sexual orientation" will be tacked onto the hate crimes list. Specifically these groups try to scare people by using a falacious argument, they point to DIFFERENT laws in canada and sweden and say, "look, come on, they don't let people even criticize homosexuality, like preaching from Leviticus ."

Concerned Women For America

AFA: U.S. Hate Crime Bill Could Criminalize Biblical Truth, Pro-Family Spokesman Fears
(lord forbid we prevent people from advocating death for homosexuals like Leviticus 20:13 did. Thank goodness the USA doesn't accept "biblical truth" as law. Fortunately for right-wing nutbags there's always Iran, an axis of evil country)

To sum up... religious groups claim the slippery slope argument; that they won't be able to practice their religion if our country adopts laws punishing those who would speak ill of homosexuality (which aren't even on the drawing board yet).

Questions for debate:
1. Should crimes motivated by the homosexuality of the victim be added to the list of hate crimes?
2. Should the government's authority extend to prevent christian sects from advocating hatred against homosexuals, even curtailing their rights to practice their religion in order to do so? Or not?

1. Should crimes motivated by the homosexuality of the victim be added to the list of hate crimes?

I'm undecided about hate crime legislation.

2. Should the government's authority extend to prevent Christian sects from advocating hatred against homosexuals, even curtailing their rights to practice their religion in order to do so? Or not?

Calling homosexuality a sin, abomination, etc., is not the equivalent of telling your followers to take up their brands and pitchforks.



It's hard to say whether the Hatch-Kennedy bill will encroach on free speech as it allegedly does in Canada and Sweden. You didn't provide a link to the bill and I'm out the door... I doubt this or any bill that enables "Christian persecution" will be in effect long. Considering just how dandy Christians have it of late with several threads indicating this (read here, here, and here), the pendulum has swung in their favor thanks to a Republican government.

The Old Testament calls for the burning/stoning of witches, adulterers, disobedient children, fornicators, and others. Sorry to disappoint but homosexuals aren't in a special hell bound league of their own--unless the preacher has tunnel vision. I'm against any bill that would curtail religious speech in a religious context. Most belief systems advocate increasing the number of followers. Disagreeing with their message doesn't make the follower a criminal. Christian "sects" have as much a right to spreading their message as Aryan organizations (making a free speech, not moral comparison here).

By the way, God Hates Fags is a satirical site similar to Landover Baptist Church.

1. Should crimes motivated by the homosexuality of the victim be added to the list of hate crimes?

If the crime was commited soley because the individual was gay then yes it should be a hate crime. But if that was NOT the motivation of the assault, then no. Just because you are gay does not give you any right to knock anyone's chip off of their shoulder. Being gay should NOT prevent you from getting a whoopin' if you deserve it for some other reason.

2. Should the government's authority extend to prevent christian sects from advocating hatred against homosexuals, even curtailing their rights to practice their religion in order to do so? Or not?

I think that there should be some boundes. Look what is going on in Afganastan. The religious extreamists feel that women should be covered head to toe, not work or attend school, and never vote. If a majority of Americans converted to Islam, and held this same belief, then I would hope that the Government would intervene and extend their authority to prevent such religious extreamists.

1. Should crimes motivated by the homosexuality of the victim be added to the list of hate crimes?

I disagree with hate crimes legislation in the first place, so I would also be opposed to this. To me a murder is a murder is a murder, it shouldn't matter if the victim was white, black, homosexual, female, etc.

Instead, the penalty for murder itself should be stiff enough to cover all the bases.

2. Should the government's authority extend to prevent Christian sects from advocating hatred against homosexuals, even curtailing their rights to practice their religion in order to do so? Or not?

As much as groups like this turn my stomach, the government absolutely should not infringe upon their right to free speech or freedom of religion. These rights are a double edged sword many times, and often you have to allow things that you personally don't care for in order to ensure everyone is eqully protected.

However, the second someone in one of those groups commits a violent act, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Additionally, the leader of said group should also be investigated to determine if the violence was done "on orders".

1. Should crimes motivated by the homosexuality of the victim be added to the list of hate crimes?
2. Should the government's authority extend to prevent christian sects from advocating hatred against homosexuals, even curtailing their rights to practice their religion in order to do so? Or not?

1. NO. Hate crimes legislation constitutes thought crime. It does not matter if I kill someone because they're gay, or if I kill them because they looked at me wrong. I would still be a killer and still be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law, which in many cases is death. Hate crimes add no further punishment for the crime, it is simply a feel good measure designed to placate special interest groups and to be used as a lightning rod to further agendas.

2. Every American has the right to advocate hatred. Just as hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional IMO, so is the restriction on free speech.

I am not a fan of hate crime legislation in general. Certainly, motive is one factor that should be taken into consideration when judging individual crimes, but it should not be written into law.

As much as I loathe tirades against same-sex relationships, I have to tolerate them. The best way to discredit wicked ideas is to allow them to be heard.

1. Should crimes motivated by the homosexuality of the victim be added to the list of hate crimes?

I believe that in instances such as murder, the laws on the books suffice without having to worry about extra penalties for a hate-based motive. However, if someone assaults someone severely and they live, I think that the perpetrator should receive a stiffer punishment because of the heinous nature of the crime and the foolish nature of the crime. If these people act on their intolerance and kill someone, that should be presented to the jury. As I mentioned, the murder penalties are stiff enough. Well, if the hate crimes bill is going to be passed, homosexuality should certainly be added to that list. Homosexuality is just as much a motivation for a hate-based crime as race, sex, etc.

2. Should the government's authority extend to prevent christian sects from advocating hatred against homosexuals, even curtailing their rights to practice their religion in order to do so? Or not?

Absolutely not. The government's authority should never extend to prevent someone from presenting their ideas, no matter how ridiculous and virulent they are. I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt, and I have to hear this sort of vitriol all the time. These people tell others to hate gays, but they aren't directing a threat to a specific person. If they aren't making a specific threat or acting on their hatred, then they have every right to say it. The government can't step in and stop them from saying these things; they shouldn't be able to. In an open society like ours, the best way to combat tripe like this is to let it see the light of criticism. It will shrivel up and die when it meets tolerance, and that's how it should be.

1. Should crimes motivated by the homosexuality of the victim be added to the list of hate crimes?
As a matter of principle, I don't think that anything which isn't in itself already a crime should be added to a list of hate crimes. With the constitutional right to free speech, we don't need to create new crimes by making more things illegal. Motive should be taken into account in sentencing, so maybe there should be some

(On the other hand, where there is no cast-iron right to free speech, as in the UK, I have no special problem with the creation of new offences that curtail such rights in hate crime cases, such as the "incitement to racial hatred" offence created under the Race Relations Act.)

2. Should the government's authority extend to prevent christian sects from advocating hatred against homosexuals, even curtailing their rights to practice their religion in order to do so? Or not?
I'm not sure - as I say, I think on balance the right to free speech that US citizens have trumps any kind of verbal attacks, and existing laws should be adequate to prevent or punish any physical attacks.
However, I think that the Nation of Islam will be a useful test-bed. If their advocacy of hatred of whites (in the more traditional NoI that talks of "blue-eyed devils") would be covered under hate crimes legislation (as seems likely), and if any legal challenge that they mount under free speech laws were to fail, then I do not see why, in a secular constitution such as that in effect in the USA, the Christian church should be afforded any special privileges not afforded to any other religion. i.e. if NoI can't be anti-white, Christianity can't be anti-gay.

This scenario would presumably reignite public debate over nature-vs-nurture in homosexuality, with nuture arguments tending towards acceptance of a different standard over racial and homosexual abuse, and "nature" arguments leading to the idea that both should be treated the same.

The answer is no. They should not be able to pass a law that infringes on someones religion especially one that is already covered in the Law.

This is not and never has been an issue until recently. Real Christian do not hate homosexuals. They just reserve the right to say that it is a sin against the Laws of God just as theft and murder and adultry are sins against the Laws of God. Are they going to make it a law that it is a crime if you talk against people that cheat on their wives?

The people that created the white supremists and these hate groups which are not Christian in the least, are the same ones that are pushing for the complete anihilation of the Christian Faith and the furtherance of the homosexual agenda.

A typical example of this was a few years ago in Dearborn Michigin a town with a high percentage of Jews, a KKK rally took place. It stired up quite an uproar then come to find out the leaders and people that marched in the Rally dressed up like Naxi's were members of the ADL. Most people don't take the time to think about that they just go into denial like the ostrich with its head in the sand when the Lion is stalking.

Its called misdirection to create hatered for the "hate groups" like those nasty dangerous Christians, and those Muslems. It also creates an atmosphere of fear that is the incentive to enact legislation to take away more of our civil liberties so the government can protect us. Problem, reaction, solution. They create the problem for a predetermined solution, and It works very well on most Americans because our news sources are crap, and most Americans do't read anyway. They believe whatever they see on the boob tube and their to busy watching the ball game.

By the way, before believing the views of this crackpot group about 'laws in Canada and Sweden', allow me to point out that its statements (about Canada anyways) are pretty6 much entirely fiction.

It is not against the law to criticise homosexuality in Canada. It is unpopular, to be sure, but there is no legal basis for prosecution of people who do not like homosexuality UNLESS they advicate action or violence against the group.

Canadian broadcasters are NOT forbidden to debate homosexuality, however there are broadcasting limits on how far criticism can go, just as in the case of race or religion. Thats not the law of the government, thats the policy of the broadcasters, and is entirely normal.

To answer my own questions...

1. Yes, not because I necessarily believe in hate crime laws, but for consistency. Many states and organizations consider hate crimes to be crimes motivated by the perceived race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity (isn't ethnicity race, i'm lost) of the victim at least according to Religious Tolerance.org.
It's only the federal laws that are behind.

I do believe that crimes committed because of the victims race, religions or sexual orientation are particularly [/quote]vile, but I don't know if they deserve "extra" punishment.

2. No. I'd like to appeal to victoria silverwolf's argument,
*edited because I messed up the tags

I believe the article cited is very fear based. Hate crimes legislation will not infringe upon free speech. Now if a particular religion organizes a lynching of a homosexual, that would be a hate crime. Saying the homosexuality is wrong or evil (while very narrow-minded) is not.

Those who've commented on murder have made good points, however, I'd like to look at another possible hate crime.

Should the same punishment for assault be the same for someone who starts a bar room brawl as for someone who specifically targets someone who is homosexual to beat them up? I think the intent is very different and we need to send a message that it's not okay to target someone for being different.

Here in Utah we've had a difficult time getting hate crimes legislation passed. It almost passed the last legislative session, except that the authors of the bill refused to take out "homosexual" -- in other words, the lawmakers felt that hate crimes legislation is okay for every group except homosexuals.

Another interesting point that is overlooked is that this can apply to anyone who is targeted because of who they are. This means if a group of people decided to target white males due to a hatred or prejudice of white males, that too would be a hate crime.

First things first, this statement is a falsehood. For anyone interested in the truth about Fred Phelps, you can look here if you have the stomach to read it.

On to the point of debate, I believe that crimes motivated by the race, creed, gender or sexual orientation of the victim should be punished more severely. For much the same reason I feel that rape should be punished much more severely than it is. It is a public safety issue, and the danger of recidivism is greater.
If someone attacks someone over a business deal, only the person who does business with that person has to fear for their safety. When someone attacks someone based on the color of their skin or their sexuality, everyone who shares that meaningless factor with the victim has to fear for their safety.
When a friend of mine was beaten by gaybashers to the point he had a fractured skull, I was terrified to go anywhere in public for quite a while afterwards. I don't have that same worry when someone gets beaten in a bar fight.

As for religious speech- when taken in context the bible is not hate literature, but when people like Fred Phelps quote the most vile, bloodthirsty, flat out evil passages of the bible out of context it most certainly is being used as hate literature. For Christ's sake, Leviticus calls for the death of people like me. How is it possible to interpret that as anything other than hate speech?

I stand corrected. Not that it makes him Christian. He is still entitled to his extremist opinion and communicating it so long, as others have already stated, as he isn't an accessory to crimes.

No! "Hate crimes "are "thought crimes". Mere "thought" is not "criminal". Actions can be! Criminalize bad "action", not bad "thought"!



No! See above! And nor should "the government's authority extend to prevent" socialist "sects from advocating hatred against" free-market capitalists.

You and vermillion are quite wrong. Hate crime leglislation IS restricting free speech. There is a man that is in prison in Canada right now that does not advocate violence in any way. But his belief and the scientific facts he has presented in written form and speechs are being judged "hate crimes". The Canadian government has refused to release him on bail until his wife living in the United States removes her website from the internet. IF THAT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH THEN WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS.

As a matter of fact there are people in prison in Germany, France, and Austria for the same reasons. Most of them have said nothing, or published anything that can be construed as promoting violence. But because of the broad application of interpretation by the courts they are in prison anyway for what is called "hate crimes" which should be more accurately termed as "thought crime". Some of them for years, and will be in prison for years to come.

http://www.zundelsite.org/

Where there is hate, there is ignorance. Perhaps we should legislate ignorance out of existence? It isn't going to happen, not as long as we have very old people leading the way based on what their poorly educated parents taught them which is based on biased mis-interpretations of the Bible as done by even older, more ignorant people.
IMO, using all of the Bible as a standard by which our laws should be founded is an error of the first order. I don't believe for a minute that all of it is good for us, or that all of it is true, or even important. However, there is enough direct teachings in the 4 gospels of the New Testament to tell us (who profess Christianity) how we should treat each other. But we wander all over the rest of the Bible to find something obscure to use as a club to beat up on those who we don't agree with.
Seems that many modern religions like to do this, and even many of the white supremist groups did their best to find support for their hatred in the Bible. I am already in favor of religious groups losing their tax emempt status for going political, and I can also support them losing it for other reasons. The religion of my parents was against everything, so much that I did not know what we were for. I left it behind when I started thinking, something that many so-called Christians seem to be incapable of doing. The "what we stand for" should be stressed far more than "what we don't like".
The message of Christ was love, not hate.
And he also made it very clear that it is not up to us to judge others.

Some might say this:
When rights conflict, moderation is the key.....
First Amendment:

(underlined to stand out)

Well guess again.
(rant on)
maybe we should pass this amendment:

(rant off)

ANY judge that decides that some form of speech is harmful SHOULD be impeached!

Love for the unborn, to let them experience life, to let have rights as the born do??

Gay marriage???
Biological necessity for continuation of our citizenry (male-female unions)??

These are one of many reasons why I, as a conservative libertarian, are against both.

And again, what about 'tough love' (doing what is best for others even though they don't like it)?

From a Christian perspective, this does not prevent the obligation of proclamating the Truth (aka the Bible) in love, regardless of the consequences.

Yes.



No. As repugnant and contradictory as I find hatred in the name of Christianity, it is the "right" of those organizations to practice their religion up to the point where a crime or crimes are committed by its members. Then the individual members should be arrested and tried for those crimes.

As far as "freedom of speech" goes:

Are some posters really suggesting that it will be a better country or better world if we all indulge ourselves by uttering whatever hateful thing we want to say, all in the name of our all-important freedom of speech?

Would "Death to America" be considered okay, too?

Let's just all express ourselves any way we want to because our rights supercede someone else's feelings. After all, we're not interested in personal maturity or tolerance or teaching our children that there is a better way to treat our fellow human beings.

So if I call a gay person the six-letter synonym for "stick," that's okay!? And I can use the "N" word and blast any group that isn't like me by calling them female parent fornicators, or whatever. Anything goes, right?

No wonder this country is in trouble.

Edited to add: Remember, folks, that there are also laws regarding "fighting words." You might want to check the laws on the books in your state.

The idea of a "hate crime" is just plain wrong. Judges already have discretion in sentencing based upon motivation and other factors.

It is pre-judgement (and an assumption of guilt) to try someone based upon a un-proved motivation.

Freedom of speech remains an essential liberty, a liberty upon which all other liberties are based. I agree that the best way to discredit bad ideas is to expose them publicly.

Enhanced penalties for "hate crimes", which is what "hate crime" laws amount to, violate equal protection. Furthermore, they assume a standard of proof that is woefully inadequate.

This does not mean that there may not be some value in the concept of "hate crime." The value is simply as a factor in determining whether or not the accused had MOTIVE. And even then, the risk of using "imputed hate" as a motive to railroad defendants is very, very high.

We already see it in black/white issues, where a significant portion of the black population assumes that any crime committed against a black by a white has been commited BECAUSE of race. Ya know, the honky may have robbed the brother just because the brother had a lot of money!

Prosecute people for the crimes they commit, not the thoughts they have while committing them.

hey, lets flip the corrollary. Do we have lighter sentencing for "love crimes." Stalkers anyone?

We do however, make distinctions due to intent. If you accidentally shoot your neighbor(you were cleaning your gun and it went off for some dumb reason) you will be treated differently as opposed to an intent of purposely firing at him. You might even intentionally shoot your neighbor, but be found to be insane. We do differentiate based upon what goes on in a person's head. All hate crime laws do is to solidify intent and base punishment on that intent-something that is not illegal to do.

P.S.-love the Reagan photo avatar of yours.

Nice try. But you are mixing apples and orangutans. Your example of how we differentiate between a guy who accidently (unintentionally) kills someone while cleaning his gun vs. another who kills someone intentionally (for whatever reason)does not is equate to comparing a guy guy who intentionally kills someone for their wallet vs. someone who intentionally kills someone due to hatred. Your "gun cleaner" had zero "intent". The others had definite "intent". Furthermore:

The mere thought-"I want that wallet" is not a crime. Taking and/or killing for it is.

The mere thought- "I hate that person" is not a crime. Assaulting or killing that person is.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.

The best way to teach against ignorance is to show it in the light of day. I'd rather see racists out in the open to show how stupid they are. I'm sure that you would want the same to illustrate the idiocy of the 'God hates fags' wing of Christianity, no?