In response to my post about the hate crimes bill, Commenter "Dean Myrick" writes:
"I am against any kind of hate-crime legislation. My reasoning for this is three-fold:
1. There are already laws on the books that cover all of these crimes. These laws should be enforced to the fullest.2. I do not believe in laws that are specifically targeted to any group or individual, no matter the purpose. The law should be applied equally to all human beings, otherwise it is not an effective law and should be thrown out. The death penalty is a perfect example of this. It has never been applied equally and is not currently. It should be abolished until such time that it is. Then the debate over it's use should begin anew.
3. Hate-crime legislation involves punishing individuals for their purported thoughts. There is no way to prove the existence of a thought. There is no way to prove the content or intent of a thought. I have always held freedom of thought above of all other rights, it is essential and fundamental to all other human rights. Deeds are all we should be punished or rewarded for. They are concrete and can be evidenced either physically or by witnesses.
This is one of the most articulate arguments against hate crime legislation I've seen -- sure better than the Coral Ridge "argument" that the bill would "mean a loss of liberty for Christians who stand up for the biblical truth that homosexual conduct is sin."
Part of the problem in American life is that much "argument" (on the left and right) is not actually to persuade but to a) raise money b) increase radio ratings, book sales or web traffic and c) get validation and applause from those who already agree with you.
One quibble, with reason #3. There's no crime at all if the thoughts don't translate into violence or attempts at violence. However, it does provide for greater potential penalties and federal law enforcement involvement if the crime was directed at certain groups -- including, by the way, evangelical Christians.
P.s. I forgot to mention in the original post: while I think conservatives way overstate the dangers of hate crime legislation, I agree with much of the conservative critique about regulating hate speech. That's dangerous territory which invariably conflicts with the First Amendment.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"One quibble, with reason #3. There's no crime at all if the thoughts don't translate into violence or attempts at violence. However, it does provide for greater potential penalties and federal law enforcement involvement if the crime was directed at certain groups -- including, by the way, evangelical Christians."
My 'quibble' Steve, is that violence-prone people generally don't get up out of bed with an intention to just go out and bash someone - anyone, and particularly not 'I think I'll go out and kill a Christian today.' They very often do, however, get up and think to themselves, 'I'm gonna go get me a queer today.' Or a Muslim, jew, black guy, etc.
This is what is called pre-meditation. They involve demonstrable thought and planning. Pre-meditation is influential in placing a charge of 1st or 2nd degree murder, which come with different penalties.
I disagree with Dean when he says, "Hate-crime legislation involves punishing individuals for their purported thoughts. There is no way to prove the existence of a thought. There is no way to prove the content or intent of a thought." And I believe the pre-meditation argument disproves his theory. People already are 'punished for their thoughts' (as in pre-meditated/planned murders vs. manslaughter charges). And lawyers very much do prove the content AND intent of a thought in these very cases. Exactly why, for example, Dr. Tiller's assasin had his computer searched - what websites did he visit? Did he plan his actions? Well, planning involves thought. And thought very much does enter into it in hate crimes.
"P.s. I forgot to mention in the original post: while I think conservatives way overstate the dangers of hate crime legislation, I agree with much of the conservative critique about regulating hate speech. That's dangerous territory which invariably conflicts with the First Amendment."
Again, although we can (and do) differentiate between free speech and responsible speech, the law likewise takes into account the incitement to terror, or to violence/harm. Just as no one is "free" to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, I doubt anyone is free to stand on a street corner and yell out, 'The fag at 221 West Wiltshire should be strung up, shot and set fire to.' Explain why preachers should still be allowed to (quoting the Bible, natch) advocate killing gays saying "surely they shall be put to death"? Is that the kind of "free speech" you wish to encourage? No limits at all, Steven?
Pace Matt Shephard.
jack ellisd,
Ezra Levant is about as far right as you can get. You'll need a much better example to convince me.
If we preachers are so concerned about people using our condemnation of homosexuality to kill homosexuals, then we should also remind our congregations that it is their Christian duty to sacrifice their life for the rights of those homosexuals. There is more in the Bible on the latter than the former. Maybe our fears will balance ourselves out.
I think section 245 and S 909 are both a violation of the 14th amendments, but Christians generally only oppose the latter.
Hate crime laws send the message that when local law enforcemnt ignores crimes that are covered the Feds can step in. No longer can the local bully and bigots feel free from prosecution. It was always against the law to lynch african americans but they knew it was not going to be enforced by the locals. Things change with the civil rights laws.
Hate crime should be illegal unless someone can somehow tie it to be a crime against Christianity.
Then the criminal should be roasted alive.
Now that I have fed the persecution complex of the 80% Christian population,
What is the number of children born without arms or legs that have been miraculously restored and verified by a before and after video by a prayer to Jesus?
1. Too many to count
2. Over 1,000
3. Several dozen
4. Zero, but only because their faith was not strong enough, and a video is testing God, and conveniently God should not be tested
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.