Should this bill pass, or not? Wouldn't you think that a group of black Christians would be the first to uphold the rights of, and seek protection for, other minorities? What about white Christians? Is it so important to you that your minister be allowed to preach against gays that you would oppose this legislation, which might actually save lives?

Ministers oppose shield for gays

By HAMIL R. HARRIS

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- A coalition of conservative African-American religious leaders is lobbying Congress to reject a bill that would extend federal hate-crimes laws to cover gays, saying they fear it would prevent them from preaching against homosexuality.

Several ministers last week urged House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., a sponsor of the bill, and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

They say it would pin the hate-crime label on their sermons against homosexuality, which they consider a sin.

"This bill will offer a status for gays, lesbians and transgender people under the equal protection status that can muzzle the black church," said Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in suburban Lanham, Md.

Gay activists compare the bill to civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

Oh for goodness sake Sunta, what a horrible thing to say.

NO I dont want to see any violent crime happen to Gays.

I dont want to see any violent crime happen to ANYONE.

Nothing is going to deter someone who hates someone or a group of people if they are hell bent on destruction.

One more law on the books is not going to stop anyone.

Hate laws only make the politicians feel better about themselves.

Nothing is going to deter someone who hates someone or a group of people if they are hell bent on destruction.

Really? Nothing will deter anyone from committing any crime?

Well, then, let's remove ALL the laws in place designed to do that then.

It'll be anarchy!

Since nothing deters people from committing crimes, what good is having any prison sentences for anything?

Think of the money we could all save on taxes!

And as for being "horrible", since no one has provided me with a shred of evidence of the detriment of such a bill, I am forced into that conclusion and stand by it.

PS: Does anyone else see the extreme irony that it's mostly Christians who oppose hate crime legislation?

Would you read the whole sentence PLEASE?!

If the existing laws out there are not going to deter someone who already has it in thier head to destroy someone, a measley 10 addition to a crime is not going to stop them

And I still stand by 95% of any violent crime is already fettered with some kind of hate.

And in 20 years, instead of ENFORCING laws we already have to punish people for commiting a crime (No parole, no deferred sentencing for violent crime) we will probably have to go back and add another group we "missed"

And another

And another

And another.

Sunta,

First of all, your claim that Christan's wish harm and violence to anyone is absurd! I am not opposed to the bill. My point is that all crime should be treated equally, a hate crime is a hate crime regardless of races, gender, sexuall preference, etc, make no difference to me. I oppose all violent crime and think the penalties should be very harsh equally across the board. I think the point Jill was trying to make (and she can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that someone bent on committing a crime out of hatred will do so regardless of the penalty and adding extra time won't be a determining factor. I am sorry you have such disdain for Christan's and religion in general. I think I have been very respectfull of you in my posts on religious matters, but it definately seems you have an agenda against organized religion.

Would you read the whole sentence PLEASE?!

If the existing laws out there are not going to deter someone who already has it in thier head to destroy someone, a measley 10 addition to a crime is not going to stop them

And I still stand by 95% of any violent crime is already fettered with some kind of hate.

And in 20 years, instead of ENFORCING laws we already have to punish people for commiting a crime (No parole, no deferred sentencing for violent crime) we will probably have to go back and add another group we "missed"

And another

And another

And another.

An attempt was made to add senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, the unborn, court witnesses and members of our armed forces to the bill, giving them the same “protected class” given homosexuals. The Democrats defeated all amendments, reserving the “protected class” for homosexuals only.

This came in my AFA Action Alert

The quote below is from Wikipedia, which is not the difinitive legal treatise out there but it does give some explanations for hate crime laws that are worth considering.

If someone robs a person and beats that person, that is a crime that causes harm to the person. But, if in addition to robbing and beating the person, the attacker also calls him nigger and faggot and all that stuff, many have the view that this causes even greater harm, attacking a person at their core, and that this deserves a stiffer punishment.

With all respect, Neal, when you argue that all crime should be treated equally, you do not demonstrate an understanding for how painful it is to be attacked, physically and otherwise, all your life, based on who you are. See the quote below and see if it does not make some difference. The followin is the quote from Wikipedia (the underlining of certain words is from the Wikipedia article).

Arguments for hate crime laws tend to center on the notion that, when an offender has a biased motive, that offender’s crime should carry a more severe penalty because the injury suffered by the victim and by society is greater. Proponents believe that hate crime statutes do not conflict with the tenets of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression but rather for motivation for engaging in criminal activity, a factor often considered when evaluating the seriousness of an offense. It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California, that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[7]

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature included legislative findings that offer a survey of the various arguments for hate crime legislation. The legislature specifically found that:

"Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

An attempt was made to add senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, the unborn, court witnesses and members of our armed forces to the bill, giving them the same “protected class” given homosexuals. The Democrats defeated all amendments, reserving the “protected class” for homosexuals only.

This came in my AFA Action Alert

I don't have all the facts on this, but when you look at this list: "senior citizens, children under 18, court witnesses" etc., it is clear that individuals in these groups are not "hated" in particular. There is not a big problem with people "hating" children under 18. Hate crimes are to protect the harm that comes when people are attacked for who they are. That is what makes a hate crime worthy of extra penalty. If all these other categories were added to the bill, it would detract from the reason for the bill, and again just make it a general bill saying it is wrong to hurt anyone. And, yes, of course, it is wrong to hurt anyone. But it is extra wrong, and extra damaging to society, to attack and harm people because of who they are. It goes to the core of existence in a way that is not the same with "children under 18."

The quote below is from Wikipedia, which is not the difinitive legal treatise out there but it does give some explanations for hate crime laws that are worth considering.

If someone robs a person and beats that person, that is a crime that causes harm to the person. But, if in addition to robbing and beating the person, the attacker also calls him nigger and faggot and all that stuff, many have the view that this causes even greater harm, attacking a person at their core, and that this deserves a stiffer punishment.

With all respect, Neal, when you argue that all crime should be treated equally, you do not demonstrate an understanding for how painful it is to be attacked, physically and otherwise, all your life, based on who you are. See the quote below and see if it does not make some difference. The followin is the quote from Wikipedia (the underlining of certain words is from the Wikipedia article).

Arguments for hate crime laws tend to center on the notion that, when an offender has a biased motive, that offender’s crime should carry a more severe penalty because the injury suffered by the victim and by society is greater. Proponents believe that hate crime statutes do not conflict with the tenets of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression but rather for motivation for engaging in criminal activity, a factor often considered when evaluating the seriousness of an offense. It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California, that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[7]

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature included legislative findings that offer a survey of the various arguments for hate crime legislation. The legislature specifically found that:

"Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

That's the one thing I understand. I grew up as a child in Libya. As Americans we targeted because we were Americans. Though not physically abused, our house was broken into several times and our pets killed. So yes, I do understand what its like to be singled out and be a victim of crime because of who I am.

That's the one thing I understand. I grew up as a child in Libya. As Americans we targeted because we were Americans. Though not physically abused, our house was broken into several times and our pets killed. So yes, I do understand what its like to be singled out and be a victim of crime because of who I am.

Your story about growing up in Libya convinces me that you do understand. Not meaning to pick on you in particular, but if you do understand that, it seems to me you would also understand the type of pain and psychological damage it causes to gay men and women to be pounded relentlessly by the hate directed toward them all their lives because of who they are. It seems so clear to me that a law against robbery in general does not cover a crime based on hate.

I honestly believe that the reason many people are against hate crime bills is because they, themselves, harbor hate for gay men and women, and believe that such people are sinners who more or less deserve the hate. I think it is fair to say that many people who fit that description are religious conservatives. I think that this is clear by looking at who is on which side of which issue on this forum.

I don't have an agenda against organized religion. But I can't help but notice the obvious, which is that many religious conservatives seem to truly "hate" gay people. I don't see how you can reach any other conclusion if you read this forum. And this is not directed at you Neal. I have not seen any comments from you on this topic.

But other religious conservative types seem truly to hate gay men and women as people who are "choosing" sin and abomination. It's so sad that these people are unable to see how much pain they cause this way. It seems so inconsistent with a purportedly "religious" live.

Sunta,

First of all, your claim that Christan's wish harm and violence to anyone is absurd! I am not opposed to the bill. My point is that all crime should be treated equally, a hate crime is a hate crime regardless of races, gender, sexuall preference, etc, make no difference to me. I oppose all violent crime and think the penalties should be very harsh equally across the board. I think the point Jill was trying to make (and she can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that someone bent on committing a crime out of hatred will do so regardless of the penalty and adding extra time won't be a determining factor. I am sorry you have such disdain for Christan's and religion in general. I think I have been very respectfull of you in my posts on religious matters, but it definately seems you have an agenda against organized religion.

Absolutely you have been more than respectful, and have demonstrated what Christians are supposed to be like. Unfortunately, though, most I run into are nothing like you whatsoever, and that is what has given me my negative impression, overall, of Christianity.

You say you are not opposed to the bill. Well, that could be because you are indeed a loving person who actually embodies the love that Jesus was all about.

Unfortunately, most Christians are opposed to the bill, and since they cannot provide any evidence as to what detriment it would pose, I am left with no other option that to assume that along with their often nasty and self-righteous attitude, they also get a certain (perhaps guilty) pleasure at the thought of "sinners" getting what they deserve.

Do you see any problem with the fact the leaders of this bill's opposition are so-called "Christians"? How do you reconcile the ironic nature of that fact?

Any bill or law which even had the possibility of deterring even one person from violent crime is a good law in my book, and it is outrageous that someone could call themselves a Christian and yet oppose such a law. What detriment would it be to them, exactly, if Gays were added to the existing legislation? The law does not limit free speech and there are no provisions in it to do so. So that means that all the ministers protesting it now will still be able to spout their ignorant homophobia to their nasty little heart's content, even if the bill passes.

Like I said before, I could never live with myself if I voted against a law that protected Christians from harm if they happened to be a persecuted and often-targeted minority.

But they won't return the favor.

The detriment is this.

If a "hate crime" against someone is committed who is not part of the "special minority" is not considered a hate crime.

What then, is this then, when a group of people, push down and kick a person and call them horrid names only because they are fat?

Is that not a hate crime? Is the fat person not a "worthy enough" minority to have that extra penalty enforced?

Either they COVER ALL SITUATIONS WHERE A HATEFULL CRIME OCCUR OR THEY DONT COVER ANY OF THEM.

I would fully approve of a bill where anyone was a target of a hate crime, no matter what the hate was, is covered.

But still is the case that if someone is that dam ignorant, they will do a hate crime anyway.

Oh and dont tell me that crap doesnt happen, because it sure as hell happened to me.

Equal coverage for all people!!!

The detriment is this.

If a "hate crime" against someone is committed who is not part of the "special minority" is not considered a hate crime.

What then, is this then, when a group of people, push down and kick a person and call them horrid names only because they are fat?

Is that not a hate crime? Is the fat person not a "worthy enough" minority to have that extra penalty enforced?

Either they COVER ALL SITUATIONS WHERE A HATEFULL CRIME OCCUR OR THEY DONT COVER ANY OF THEM.

I would fully approve of a bill where anyone was a target of a hate crime, no matter what the hate was, is covered.

But still is the case that if someone is that dam ignorant, they will do a hate crime anyway.

Oh and dont tell me that crap doesnt happen, because it sure as hell happened to me.

Equal coverage for all people!!!

I do think you could make a good argument that crimes against fat people, if committed because they are fat, could definitely constitute a hate crime. I have to say, though, that violent assault happens pretty rarely against people because they are fat. Fat people get rejected, insulted, etc. But rarely do they get beaten up, or lynched. Whereas gay people are beaten up quite frequently. Far more than people hear about.

But still, if a fat person was beaten up because they are fat, I think this should be a hate crime.

Where I disagree is that crimes against, for example, "senior citizens," or "children under 18" are hate crimes. They are not. They are crimes, yes, but they are not "hate" crimes. There is no great problem with hatred in our society against children and senior citizens. When a 17 year old or a senior citizen is robbed and beaten, they are victims of a terrible crime and they deserve protection. But they don't have to face the additional psychological issues that go along with rejection by the society in which they live.

In contrast, when gay people are attacked, beaten, and called "faggot," they understand that they are rejected in this society by a large number of people. This causes psychological damage that is far beyond what people ordinarily understand. Crimes that cause this type of damage are hate crimes, and they deserve special penalties.

But yes, I agree, if this type of hate crime is perpetrated against a fat person because they are fat, that should also qualify.

wavydaby, if you do answer this post, I hope you will respond to the point I am making. It is not enough to just say "HATE CRIME LAWS SHOULD PROTECT EVERYBODY!!!!" I think it is fair to say that there is a difference when a crime is committed against a group because of who they are. The damage to the person, and to society, is significantly worse. Please have a look at that section from Wikipedia where this is discussed. If you disagree with the points made there, if you don't mind, please let us know why.

The detriment is this.

If a "hate crime" against someone is committed who is not part of the "special minority" is not considered a hate crime.

Ok, so by this argument you're saying "If I can't have it, then no one else should be allowed to have it either."

Right?

By your argument, I think the lottery should be illegal, because when someone else wins, I don't win.

This argument is completely illogical and does nothing to prove that the law is any way detrimental to you. Nothing will change for you should the bill pass. It does not affect you negatively in any way nor does it detract from your current life.

If you feel strongly that fat people should be protected under the current legislation, then you should work to make that happen instead of working to take protection away from others.

My arguement stands. I personally do not care if you agree with me or not. That is what living here is all about. I believe my way, you believe yours.

Your argument about the lottery is a red herring and has not logical flow.

When the original hate crimes laws where put out there, people wanted it more inclusive.

So, now, we have to add more, and in coming years, add another.

If they would fix it now, we would not have to waste time and money to keep adding groups of people.

Also from Wiki:

"Hate crime laws are intended to protect minority groups, yet any majority can be easily divided into subsets that are minorities"

Also

"Following this line of reasoning, violence targeting women, e.g. rape, should also be considered a hate crime against women. However, there is still virtually no recognition of women's rights in this regard."

There are flaws in this bill.