The idea that Christians in the U.S. are being discriminated against seems a bit odd.

^They feel threatened by a society that is increasingly more tolerant towards gay people and minorities. I'm not sure how many lies you have to tell yourself before you actually believe that kindness towards others is somehow oppressive.

Somebody should sue www.silencingchristians.com for not selling the product advertised.

magic is real

>> ^Geo321:
The idea that Christians in the U.S. are being discriminated against seems a bit odd.


It's not odd at all. Square watermelons are odd. Albino monkeys are odd. The idea that christians are being persecuted in America is : RIDICULOUS. 70% of Americans are Christian.

And not only is this kind of thing moronic. It's also dangerous. People do some crazy things when they feel their religion is under fire. This kind of shit scares me.

KKKristians.

I'm getting the feeling none of you actually watched the video in its entirety or at all, most notably the poster. I just finished it. So I can now objectively comment and respond without looking like a gobshite.

In fairness, the video, overall, has a hint of a Christian propaganda agenda. But what did you expect? It was produced by a Christian organization of, get this: Christians! Go figure eh?

However, the main message and concern that I picked up on was the danger and impact that hate crime legislation has on our freedoms and the foundation of our Constitution which has been a concern of mine for quite some time now.

Do not confuse the two: 1) hate crimes, and 2) hate crime laws.

Hate crimes are awful. I oppose them just like any other justice loving person would, but with hate crime legislation we may very well be opening pandora's box.

Anyone ever listen to certain maladjusted people babble on and on about how anything and everything around the globe is this giant conspiracy perpetrated by a multinational group of government officials who are trying to control the world? Ya, it's a bit silly and far fetched to a certain degree eh? Well do you know where something like that would start? "Thought Police" that can arrest, charge, convict, and sentence you based almost exclusively on conscience.

Maybe you should just watch the video instead of kneejerking at the "rock-brained Christians" and their "silly, ignorant videos".

Tags for this video have been changed from 'christian, speechless, propaganda, white people, moronic' to 'christian, speechless, propaganda, moronic' - edited by Bleedingsnowman

Smooman, hate crime legislation, for the most part, only codifies more explicitly elements that have been part of the American legal system for a very long time. The punishment for a crime has always been dependent on the motivation. In fact, that's the difference between murder and manslaughter. Hate crime laws simply recognize that there's something particularly heinous about crimes motivated by certain kinds of prejudice.

Hate speech laws are much more problematic. Fortunately, they're prohibited under the US Constitution.

Smoorman, I don't need to jump into a cesspool to tell you that it smells bad. A simple whiff will do.

With all due respect, it sounds like you are confused as to what a hate crime actually is.

A hypothetical for you:

A gang member tags his name on one side of a Jewish temple. A neo-nazi tags 'Fuck off Jews" on the other side of the temple. Is one of these crimes worse than the other? Would it be unfair to punish the neo-nazi worse than the gang member?

Just watched the full video.

Eh... a hint of Christian propaganda, Smooman? The video is mostly fuzzy "Think of the children" crap (the main argument? Being exposed to homosexuality might make kids uncomfortable or even "perplexed.")combined with "homosexual agenda" conspiracy theory fear-mongering.

The trump card they brought out was the story of what they called the "Philadelphia Eleven." (Apparently trying to steal the thunder of the originalEleven) What the video fails to mention is that the courts found that they had committed no hate crimes. In their civil suit against Outfest, however, the courts dropped the case, finding that the police had been right in arresting them and removing them from the scene, as a result of their refusal to follow police instruction, their attempting to obstruct a legal gathering, and their deliberately antagonizing the participants of Outfest.

Other than that, what is there? Mayor Naugle faced criticism from gay men who apparently didn't like being stereotyped as regular participators in anonymous gay sex in public restrooms. (The video doesn't mention that the police spokesman came out saying that this wasn't a problem in the area.)

Some high school students apparently objected to being shown a video that portrayed homosexuality in a sympathetic light. There might be some Constitutional issues involved, depending on what the contents of the video are (though I'm inclined to doubt it), but I don't see how we could be reasonably called on to make a judgment.

The video mentions the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. This bill passed the House, but didn't make it through the Senate. For such a bill to pass, there will have to be an exemption for religious businesses. Except for that qualification, I can't think of any justifiable reason to oppose it. You don't get to kick gays out of your community by denying them the opportunity at a fair wage.

im not confused at all. The murder manslaughter analogy is a bit off. That's not a difference of motivation that's a difference of circumstance. If you said the different degrees of murder that wouldve made more sense.

Riddle me this, why is it that it is deemed a more serious offense which comes with a heavier penalty for one to assault a minority than it is to assault an elderly man? To me they are both assault which is precisely how it should be.

The example you chose completely missed the point. Painting your name vs "fuck (insert social group here)" on the side of a church, or coffee shop, or ANY building. You may not like my point of view but it is this. They are both vandalism, nothing more, nothing less. Sure one might be more despicable than the other but that is measured by conscience not by law.
But say charging someone with a hate crime for robbing a shop owner at gunpoint because the perp is white and the victim was Persian. Says who? To me, no matter how you slice it, it's armed robbery.

Hate crime legislation is a cathartic. The way I see it it's no different than the problems we have with gun control. More gun control laws dont keep crimes involving firearms from happening. In the same way hate crime laws dont keep crimes being commited out of prejudice from happening. We sacrifice a slice of freedom so we can sleep better at night and feel better about ourselves.

I'll ask YOU a hypothetical question: the person who tags "fuck jews" on a synagogue, what should he be charged with? Vandalism or a hate crime charge? The latter would insinuate that his negative opinion of Jews is in conflict with the law which would be a very gross perversion of speech freedom. Being racist is NOT against the law. But vandalism IS and tagging is most often illegal regardless of what it says.

I think today we get so hung up on making everyone feel good and not stepping on anyone's toes and trying to make the world more and more like ice cream that we forget the importance of certain freedoms or even freedom in general. Plus ice cream sucks after a while.





As per the video: When I said it was only a "hint" of Christian propaganda it was meant to be sarcastic. In fact some of the "homoconspiracy" fear tactic crap they used made me scoff at the ridiculousness of it. LOCK YOUR DOORS!!! THE GAYS ARE COMING!!!

Not to be insulting, but again, I don't think you understand what a hate crime is.

A hate crime is an attempt to intimidate (an individual) or community, which is a form of terrorism, and I'm guessing you are no big fan of terrorism.

If a black man is attacked by a person who seeks to intimidate a black community by way of the attack, there are two crimes - the attack and terrorism. You can substitute elderly, white, female or any other group in place of 'black man'.

If a neo-nazi writes swastikas on the side of a Jewish temple, it is two crimes - vandalism and terrorism. This applies to churches, mosques, etc... as well.

It seems to me that you think any attack on a minority constitutes a hate crime. This is not so. You also seem to think that white people are not victims of hate crimes, which is also not the case.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?

Crime + terror = Hate crime.

I see what you are saying, however, I'm afraid that is not necessarily the way hate crimes are viewed in the public eye today.

Also I DO know that majorities such as whites or whatever are victims of these offenses too.

Often times i'm not very eloquent with words. I found this in the wiki entry and it sums up some of my viewpoints on the matter:

In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity.

that being said,

Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced. Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution. To try to isolate motivation in cases such as rape and murder to fit into one of two categories is ridiculous. The victims in either case suffer the same result. To legislate different penalties based upon a changing definition of what constitutes hate criminalizes thought and not actions. In a free society, one's thoughts and ideas should be protected even if they offend the sensitivities of other groups. It’s when a physical crime is perpetrated, regardless of the motivation, that the same punishment should be enforced.


And just to put it out there:

hate crime
 
–noun
a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group. Also called bias crime.

Not at all like how you defined it

and from http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/hate-crimes-more/ ,
A civil rights violation may become a crime if it involves the use (or threat of use) of force. Hate crimes are intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability.

"someone" could be argued to include a group of people or community.
I am not confused. What I think is relevant, however, is how it is defined by the People and by the Judicial Systems.


I'm at a point where I'm not entirely sure what I think about it anymore. I DO know that it makes me uneasy. Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I love liberty. I love it through and through. I think liberty in addition to love are the ONLY things worth fighting and worth dying for. I fear that these laws are giving up our liberty just to obtain a little safety.

I dunno, perhaps I'm seeing things that aren't there. Perhaps my worst fears ARE true. Just wanted to express my concern =)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^They feel threatened by a society that is increasingly more tolerant towards gay people and minorities. I'm not sure how many lies you have to tell yourself before you actually believe that kindness towards others is somehow oppressive.


I think you would be pleased to know that I, a self professed Christian, support the human/civil rights of homosexuals even if I dont support the lifestlye =)

So leave me out of the "They" please =P

My definition certainly does fit with the wiki definition you pasted. Do you not consider a crime motivated by prejudice to be intimidation, or an attempt to terrorize? (Although I should have included (individual) along with community.)

I've heard the argument you posted many times, and I agree that these laws should not be used dishonestly as a way to silence others, but I've never actually seen this type of exploitation played out in real life.

In my experience, this argument is usually cited by people* who have bible-based problems with gay people, and feel they* can't address them publicly because of social pressure. Their* problems have nothing to do with law - as they* can go around banishing gays to hell all day long without any fear of being arrested. Their* problems lie with the growing cultural acceptance of gays, and the resistance they get from the general populous when they* criticize gays. I believe 'culture war' is the term they* use to describe this.

*My new Christian friend and sparring partner 'smoorman' is not included in this group, as he supports the human/civil rights of 'gay people' even if he doesn't support their lifestyle. (Better? )

Anyway, nice conversation. You forced me to do some thinking on this issue. Feel free to bust my chops whenever you like.

thought provocation, our greatest tool of learning =)

thanks for the asterix hehe.

I think this is just one of those things that has the potential to have grave implications. Whether or not they will play out I think is yet to be determined.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Haldaug.