Democrats & Liberals Archives

GOP and GOD

Hate crimes are hate crimes. Why do we have the GOP and the far right supposedly religious and moral fighting against strengthening our laws to protect the victims?
I want to judge too, no fair. I want to be on the God team so that I too can judge others and persecute those Americans among us who are different. I also want to take a crack at ignoring the rights of those same people whenever I see fit.
Here we go.
My visit to the right.

Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin.

The Democrats with their "secular progressive", anti-God, pro-Gay, don’t support the troops; give everybody abortions, "cut and run" agenda want to expand the Hate Crimes Law to cover gender and sexual orientation. Those bastards!

Apparently the “Lefties” are unaware that god wants us to bust a few heads in his name, especially if the person is female and or homosexual.

These additions would allow Federal investigators to step in if local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay rights group, said this, “federal intervention could have made a difference in the case of Brandon Teena, the young Nebraska transsexual depicted in the movie “Boys Don’t Cry” who was raped after two friends discovered that he was biologically female and then murdered when local police did not arrest those responsible.”

If you are with God, you are against those who the spiritual moralists label unfit. When women wanted rights, those who wanted them to continue to live as second-class citizens cited scripture to protest the women’s suffrage movement. Women won and there has never been a more dangerous blow to mankind. When blacks wanted the same rights as whites, out popped the Bibles. Unfortunately for those of us who have the right to judge others and persecute them, we lost that one too.

God is not about love and charity like those Democratic Socialists think. He’s about kicking ass and taking numbers. Wake up America. We must fight for our right to gay bash, ignore sex trade, keep glass ceiling in place and objectify women on T.V.
We must not have our God given right to tell a good “Fag” joke taken from us.

A quote from one of our most revered spiritual, moral guides on this matter.

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was “to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.” If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, “you may be guilty of committing a ’thought crime.”

It’s this kind of mindless, irrational exaggeration and flawed logic that makes me proud to be one of the flock. The GOP and the far-right for me.

Why is it I’m never able to find the judgmental, hate fueling passages in the Bible that the far right kooks and their followers, the GOP, historically and currently in some cases use to justify their hatred of gays, people of color or any thing to do with the human anatomy (the fun parts anyway)?
I'm so jealous.

Listen to these words from another moral lawmaker from the GOP (One letter away). You just know he’s with us on “Gods” team.

““Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim.”

The nonsensical spin is just part of the appeal of being on "Gods team." The finger pointing and scorn makes me all tingly too.

The only victims here are the “good” God fearing folks of this nation.

We must stamp out those who are different. We must stamp out the gay plague that is upon us. If we allow this Bill to pass, we’ll all be interior decorators and clever, or should I say, “sassy” sidekicks for middle aged women.

We must keep our women in line. My girlfriend called me a “dumbass” the other day because I forgot to pick up dinner.
In the good old days, before they were given rights maybe I could have gotten my “Ike” on, but unfortunately not any more. She has a job and earns her own money too. On a positive note she does walk around barefoot at home. It’s up to us morally superior to protect our rights and ignore the rights of others. It's what we're good at.

May god bless you all..... well not all, not gays or rappers, not illegals or prostitutes, definitely not Muslims or homeless(They're creepy and they smell) The homeless I mean, not Democrats especially Hillary or that Michael Moore guy, definitely not Keith Olberman or those snake oil salemen in the "main stream media." or people who disagree with me or think differently, you know who you are.

O.K. I'm back.
That was one frightening trip over to the right.
The ranting was fun though.

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at May 4, 2007 1:00 AM
Comments
Comment #219359

Andre:

I was going to write about Bush vetoing the hate crime bill, but you beat me to it. You did such a great job, so I’ll skip the post.

I think this is one of your finest posts. I enjoyed it greatly. I’m afraid, though, that “righties” will not. They will hate it, and maybe hate you. How dare you stick up for gay people!

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 4, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #219364

Andre
You don’t have to join the “God team” to unfairly judge others. You prove that with your entire post. In fact, you unfairly judge the right, the GOP and Christians as all being racists who hate women and gays.

You also are guilty of persecuting those Americans among us who are different than yourself.
Believing homosexuality to be wrong is not a crime but, your entire post does nothing but harrass anothers belief and attempts to make them feel guilty for having a differing belief than your own.

And, you want to “take a crack at ignoring the rights of those same people whenever you see fit?
Well, mission accomplised. You do exactly that by suggesting people do not have the right to be racists, sexists or disagree with homosexuality.
Sure, you try to hide it behind satire, but that is the underlying message.

Here’s a couple things to think about:
—-If the death penalty does not deter a criminal from murdering another, why would the word “hate” or, an extra life sentence, deter one from murdering based on race, gender or sexual orientation?

—-You scream awful loud about the evil rightwing Christian white males hating homosexuals so much, but, can you explain why a survey, after the gay marriage laws were put to the voters, showed that 70-80 percent of black Americans voted against gay marriage because they disapproved of homosexuality? Do 70-80 percent of black Americans fall under your rightwing, GOP blanket statement?

It is NOT a crime to be a racist, sexist or to disapprove of homosexuality. Hell, its not even a crime to hate those people with all of your heart.
It is, however, unConstitutional to say people cannot believe as they wish.
Is your intolerance of them any different than their intolerance of others? Nope, not one bit.

Hate crime laws are stupid, unfair and make no sense at all.
They condemn and punish crimes, based on the victim being “different” by having seperate laws for “different” people.
Feel-good, vote-buying legislation at its finest.

Posted by: kctim at May 4, 2007 2:43 PM
Comment #219371

Andre-

I guess I enjoyed your rant, but….

This bill really is a bunch of crap. Using the Commerce clause to justify another Grant program for the States is pretty pathetic IMO. And the mandatory sentences that have all the pastors (you are mocking) worried about only apply if interstate or foreign commerce is involved. I’m sure that happens all of the time. At least it’s capped at $5m/year and $100k per jurisdiction. That will at least keep the price tag down.

You peel the onion on this bill and it’s clear it’s nothing more than a political stunt aimed at contrasting votes in 2008. It has none of the benefits proponents claim, none of the negatives opponents fear, and in the end it’s a total waste of time and energy. Well maybe not a total waste; at least it keeps our great politicians from doing real damage.

Posted by: George in SC at May 4, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #219375

kctim,

“It is, however, unConstitutional to say people cannot believe as they wish.”

Where did I say this?

I laugh at those beliefs. I mock them but I do not forbid them.
It’s just as OK for me to laugh at the (Look at the post) “far right” as it is for you to enjoy these beliefs.
I never said Christians because I am a Christian.
I mock the religious zealots who warp my religion to bash those they judge unfit to have rights. God weeps everytime the Bible thumping kooks waste his gift of life on earth with diversity and beauty to judge others and crap on their fellow man because it makes them feel better about themselves.
I find them silly and at the same time dangerous. I guess It’s less sad to focus on the first.


Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 4, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #219376

Hate crimes legislation seeks to punish more severly based on intent. There is nothing wrong with punishing a criminal more severly based on intent. We do it everyday, there is precedence. Murder is not just “Murder.” We have 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree and manslaughter, each based on INTENT. Theft is judged the same way, with varying degrees. So, why should it be any different for hate crimes? Why should intent not be factored into the punishment? Hate crimes legislation is kind of a no-brainer to me. I don’t get why the religious right is so opposed to it. I thought they were all for punishing crime. I guess just not when they are the ones who are committing the crime.

Posted by: Wisdom in Faith at May 4, 2007 3:34 PM
Comment #219377

Outstanding Andre!

I just want to mention one thing that is in the Bible about homosexual activity (notice I DID NOT say homosexual people).

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13—are unequivocal passages demonstrating God’s view of homosexual behavior. Also Romans, chapter 1 (verse 27 specifically deals with homosexual behavior but you must read the entire chapter to understand the context of Romans 1:27).

There are sincere, devout, spiritual individuals that oppose “gay rights”-type legislation on, among other thing, the scriptures above that I cited. Such people, however, typically leave the “judging” of sin to God. They oppose legislation because they believe it is wrong for them to support a behavior that God detests, and they have that right to agree or disagree in accordance with what they believe. I would not lump them in with the “moralists,” “GOP—one letter away,” “religious right,” and the like who more often tend to (unrighteously) judge, reject, deny, disadvantage homosexual PEOPLE.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at May 4, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #219379
It is NOT a crime to be a racist, sexist or to disapprove of homosexuality. Hell, its not even a crime to hate those people with all of your heart. It is, however, unConstitutional to say people cannot believe as they wish.

kctim,

You are absolutley correct and hate crimes legislation does nothing to stop people from being bigots. The hate crime is not holding bigoted beliefs, the crime is to cause physical harm to another because of those beliefs. Why is it not ok to punish someone more severly based on intent. Should we punish the person who snaps and kills an abuser, after years of physical and mental abuse, the same as someone who kills simply because of who a person is? Crime legislation is already based on intent and extenuating circumstances are taken into account, hate crimes legislation simply adds another layer.

Posted by: Wisdom in Faith at May 4, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #219381

George in SC,

Sounds like Democrats have picked up some of the GOP’s nasty habits. Non-existant flag burning legislation? Yeah, that was a good one!

Posted by: Wisdom in Faith at May 4, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #219382

Andre
Where did you say that? Your entire post says it.
You mock, condemn and harrass people who have a differing view than yours. Why? So as to belittle their beliefs and make them feel guilty for not believing as you.

I find it silly that you believe in a God who weeps. But where does that get us?
You don’t want the “kooks” to “judge others and crap on their fellow man because it makes them feel better about themselves,” but you too are judging others and crapping on your fellow man for the same reasons.

Name calling and not respecting anothers right to their own opinion is why this issue is such BS.

You laugh, they laugh. You mock them, they mock you. You find them silly and dangerous, they find you silly and dangerous.
With such disrespect, minds are not changed and NOTHING moves forward.

The fact that you need to see a difference in people and the way they are treated is what is sad.

Posted by: kctim at May 4, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #219383
You mock, condemn and harrass people who have a differing view than yours. Why? So as to belittle their beliefs and make them feel guilty for not believing as you.

kctim,

Andre has a right to his views, and I don’t see where he said that bigots are not entitled to their’s. This is about causing PHYSICAL HARM to another based soley on those views, it has nothing to do with holding those views an not acting on them. What part aren’t you getting?

Posted by: Wisdom in Faith at May 4, 2007 4:06 PM
Comment #219385

GOP and GOD? That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Anyone with even a casual understanding of the teachings of Jesus knows that the GOP has nothing to do with God.

Where exactly did Jesus condemn homosexuality? He didn’t, he taught understanding. Some will say, but the Bible condemns homosexuality. To which I say, so what? The Bible says a lot of things that Jesus said were wrong. An eye for an eye? Nope, wrong. Hate your enemies? Nope, wrong. Stone adultresses to death? Nope, wrong. Don’t do any work on the Sabbath? Nope, wrong. Follow the levitical food laws? Nope, wrong. Aren’t Christians suppose to be the followers of Jesus Christ? Why is it that so many of them cannot seem to muster the kind of understanding he did? That they cannot follow his simple requests to not judge and not to be a hypocrite? To love your neighbor as you love yourself?

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at May 4, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #219386

Afraid to live by the strenght of our own wills,we invent religion as a way of generating then explaining our perpetual sense of being downtrodden and defeated in life. Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900)

Posted by: the libertine at May 4, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #219390

Wisdom
I “get” the part about everybody being entitled to their own views. I personally do not care that Andre is bigoted against those with differing opinions than his.
His entire post however, is nothing more than doing the same thing he condemns others for. That is not going to have any positive affect on the issue.

IF his reasoning was to just bash the religious right, then my bad for hoping people actually want a fair end to that issue.

As far as hate crimes legislation, it simply adds another needed layer that is not needed.
Treating a crime different because of the victims race, sex or if they are gay is not different than telling them they ARE different and need special treatment.
Would you rather be thought of as a person or as that gay person or that black person or that hispanic person etc…?
I wouldn’t and I don’t.

Besides, to justify a “hate crime,” you must prove a persons thoughts and that the suspect had those thoughts in his mind when he committed the crime.
And determining what thought crimes are, is not something I want my govt doing. They already tell me who to care for and who I must give my money too, I sure as hell don’t want them telling me what to think about it.

Posted by: kctim at May 4, 2007 5:07 PM
Comment #219394

Andre / Wisdom,

If someone kills you because of you race, gender, orientation etc. are you more dead than if say they kill you because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

If they beat you up because of your “protected class” are you more beat up than if they just jump you for no particular reason?

Wisdom, you keep going to “intent”. Since when have we allowed mind readers to become expert witnesses? There is no way to know someone’s intent for the crime unless they directly tell you why they did it. Regardless, it does not increase or decrease the level of death or physical harm that the victim suffers.

If a white man kills a black man, how do we know when it is because he hates blacks and when it is because he hated the individual? He could hate the individual for reasons that have nothing to do with being part of a “protected class”.

Posted by: Kirk at May 4, 2007 5:30 PM
Comment #219395

There needs to be a hate crime law.This law will be good for everybody.If you are not for it,you are more than likely out of touch.Kirk would like us to go back to the 1800s,so would kctim.This is the 21 century,get out of the 1800s kirk and kctim.

Posted by: the libertine at May 4, 2007 6:21 PM
Comment #219397

When blacks wanted the same rights as whites, out popped the Bibles.

Civil Rights Act of 1960 - 18 Democrats divided into 6 teams of 3 Senators each to filibuster the legislation. The filibuster went on for 125 hours and 31 minutes straight. It ended only when the section to allow the Attorney General to intervene in cases of voter registration abuses against blacks was dropped.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - In the House only 61.2% of Democrats supported the legislation compared with 80.2% of Republicans. In the Senate ony 68.6% of Democrats supported the legislation compared to 81.8% of Republicans.

Posted by: Kirk at May 4, 2007 6:46 PM
Comment #219399

Libertine,

Are you a mind reader? Can you know someone’s thoughts? Do you know what motivated a person to do something?

Next you will have us putting John Edwards of “Crossing Over” on a special Hate Crimes Court so that he can contact the dead victim to know why they were attacked.

Posted by: Kirk at May 4, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #219408

Wisdom,

The hate crime is not holding bigoted beliefs, the crime is to cause physical harm to another because of those beliefs. Why is it not ok to punish someone more severly based on intent. Should we punish the person who snaps and kills an abuser, after years of physical and mental abuse, the same as someone who kills simply because of who a person is?

I would agree with this if such laws about intent if they applied to everybody. However, hate crime laws we are discussing here only apply to certain sexualities, genders and “races.”
These laws are there to divide the nation along those lines. This, of course, completely defeats the purpose.
I happen to believe that all of us are created equal, but maybe that’s just me and Tom Jefferson.

the libertine,

There needs to be a hate crime law.This law will be good for everybody.

It wouldn’t help me in any way shape or form. If a crime is committed against me, it won’t affect the punishment of that criminal, no matter the intent.
This law also wouldn’t protect anyone at all.

Kirk would like us to go back to the 1800s,so would kctim.This is the 21 century,get out of the 1800s kirk and kctim

How so? You are the one who wants certain groups to be treated differently.

Posted by: TheTraveler at May 4, 2007 7:17 PM
Comment #219419

If you commit a crime, you should be punished for what you have done. Why you do it should be no part of it. You can hate anybody you want. It is none of anybody’s business unless you act on it.

Conversely, if you assault someone you do not hate, what does that matter?

When I was in college, the manager of the book store where I worked was gay. After me, he hired only gay people and after a while I was the only straight guy working there. One day a bunch of my coworkers came to me complaining that straight men were bad. Seems one of our colleages was beat up by a couple of guys. They told the story and then it turned out that he was not only beat up, but also raped. I had to point out that the assailants were not on my team. I suppose they could have been bisexual, but they were not straight.

Now, was that beating a hate crime? What about the other thing? I think both the beating and the rape were very hateful.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 9:15 PM
Comment #219467

You are wrong about the vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.Do some fact checking sometime,you might find things out.I still think this law,will do everyone some good.You are more than likely,a self-hateing gay.I read F.U.B.A.R,Sam Seder says guys like you just hate yourselfs,so you go around bashing other gays.To make yourselfs feel much better.

Posted by: the libertine at May 5, 2007 12:26 AM
Comment #219501

Andre:

I mock the religious zealots who warp my religion to bash those they judge unfit to have rights. God weeps everytime the Bible thumping kooks waste his gift of life on earth with diversity and beauty to judge others and crap on their fellow man because it makes them feel better about themselves. I find them silly and at the same time dangerous.

Dr. Gnostic:

GOP and GOD? That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Anyone with even a casual understanding of the teachings of Jesus knows that the GOP has nothing to do with God.

Where exactly did Jesus condemn homosexuality? He didn’t, he taught understanding. Some will say, but the Bible condemns homosexuality. To which I say, so what? The Bible says a lot of things that Jesus said were wrong. An eye for an eye? Nope, wrong. Hate your enemies? Nope, wrong. Stone adultresses to death? Nope, wrong. Don’t do any work on the Sabbath? Nope, wrong. Follow the levitical food laws? Nope, wrong. Aren’t Christians suppose to be the followers of Jesus Christ? Why is it that so many of them cannot seem to muster the kind of understanding he did? That they cannot follow his simple requests to not judge and not to be a hypocrite? To love your neighbor as you love yourself?



I agree wholeheartedly with both of these sentiments. The enormous danger and glaringly obvious problem with the Religious Right segment of the GOP is that they loudly moralize and mouth platitudes shamelessly, but have clearly never taken the teachings of Jesus to heart.
The Sermon on the Mount actually negated many things that were written in the Old Testament, and it contains all of the wisdom that Jesus gave to this world, but these people (despite all of their claims) clearly don’t know it, or live by it.
The Sermon warned us of hypocrites, of false prophets, which come to us in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves, and that we would know them by their fruits, asking us whether men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles.

The Religious Right gives us nothing but the thorns of their wish to control people, and thistles of legislation to deny certain people their rights and their freedom to live and do as they wish. That is in fact, what they have made of their supposed love of their religion and their deep faith: Control backed by well funded, non taxed, Political Action against anyone they don’t approve of, or who doesn’t agree with them and their interpretations of the truth.

The Sermon also told us that good trees bring forth good fruit, but that corrupt trees bring forth evil fruit. All one need to do is look at the evil fruit these “Christian” Neocon’s who enjoy the full support of the Religious Right have given us:
The destruction of our Constitution. Pre-Emptive War and Occupation based on Lies. Utter callousness toward death and those that mourn. The breaking of the Geneva Conventions and an official policy of Torture and Extraordinary Rendition. White Phosphorus used as a Weapon of War. Corruption, Greed, Crooked Cronyism. Ignoring Science and a complete willingness to allow the Destruction of our Environment on behalf of Wealth and Greed. A short-sighted, hard-hearted, selfish focus on the present, with no thought of what kind of world our children will inherit from this generation, or what kind of debts (debts which come in many different forms) we have heaped upon their future. Demonization and Lying about people in order to gain further control.

It is very easy to see and to know these people by all of their thorns and thistles and evil fruits.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Good fruits: Generosity toward the poor. Kindness and comfort toward those who mourn. Kindness to the meek, weak and helpless. A hunger and thirst after righteousness and justice. Mercy. Pureness of heart. Peacemakers. A willingness to defend the persecuted. Strength in the face of those who revile, persecute, and speak falsely against other people, and ourselves.

Yes, it’s all very clear and full of wisdom to me — a Liberal, Agnostic admirer of Jesus’ true philosophy.
Btw, I’d like to thank everyone for the kind and sincere condolences that were offered in my last posting here to WB. Really appreciate it.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 5, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #219522

You are wrong about the vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.Do some fact checking sometime,you might find things out.

Really, am I now? Please enlighten me. What exactly were the percentages of those voting for and against the legislation?

You are more than likely,a self-hateing gay.I read F.U.B.A.R,Sam Seder says guys like you just hate yourselfs,so you go around bashing other gays.To make yourselfs feel much better.

Wow, I thought the rules here were to attack the message not the messenger! Just more typical leftist tactics, when you can’t refute the message just attack and smear the messenger.

Posted by: Kirk at May 5, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #219525

I know the discussion of the life of Christ and his ministry was not the intent of the original post. But, I feel I must comment on this point because it is not accurate.

Adrienne said

“The Sermon on the Mount actually negated many things that were written in the Old Testament, and it contains all of the wisdom that Jesus gave to this world”

Christ himself said (as is recorded in Matthew 5:17) that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but he came to fulfull them. This passage precedes much of his Sermon on the mount.
Similar passages occur in the other 3 Gospels as well (Mark 7, 10, 12; Luke 16:16; John 5, 6, 7). In addition, Jesus frequently teaches from the Law and Prophets during his entire 3-year (or so) ministry on earth. He does not ever disavow any part of the Law and Prophets. He was Jew and kept Jewish laws and traditions.

No part of the Bible, when “rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15) contradicts any other portion whether reading the Old or New Testaments.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at May 5, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #219536

Kim Sue:

He does not ever disavow any part of the Law and Prophets. He was Jew and kept Jewish laws and traditions.

No part of the Bible, when “rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15) contradicts any other portion whether reading the Old or New Testaments.

As an Agnostic, I am not at all hung up about the authoritative rules that have been traditionally handed down, or in observing a careful respect for that dogma that is clearly involved in the avoidance of comparing the Old and New Testaments. In my personal view, there is nothing wrong in comparing them, and the stark philosophical differences and contradictions that are apparent between what is written in the Old Testament and what was said by Jesus in Sermon on the Mount (and elsewhere) seem to me as plain and as obvious as can be.
My previous post was merely my considered opinion, and I meant no disrespect to those who do carefully observe and follow traditional religious rules and tenets.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 5, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #219543

Kim-Sue,

If the Bible quoted Jesus as saying, “The sky is orange not blue,” would that make it true? For most, the answer is obviously no. The same is true for the many, many contridictions in the the Bible. You can point out all the passages you want that seem to say there are no contradictions, but that doesn’t make them true. I have personally done a comparission of the Old and New Testaments, the contradictions are numerous. Even the very description of God from Old to New Testament is hugely contradictory. Adrienne is right, Jesus does negated many things from the Old Testament in the New Testament. In the Gnostic scriptures he downright demolishes the Old Testament as a work of evil.

You can continue to say that the sky is orange, but many of us can clearly see that it is still blue.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at May 6, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #219557

kctim, you miss the point of the legislation entirely. The point is to disincent those who hate from acting on it. They can hate all they want, but, this legislation says if they refuse to be responsible for their hate and harm others with it, they will face extra ordinary punishment.

These particular hates are legislated against because they are shared by discernible large groups in America, and America is not about hate, nor was it founded on the principle of one groups passions ruling the lives of others.

It is appropriate for America, in light of her shameful past toward American Natives, Africans, Chinese, and Japanese, to legislate in ways that will constrain such hate filled passions from acting out on innocent other people who are targeted for nothing more than belonging to a discernible class of people.

It is appropriate for America to embody in her laws the ideals reflected in her Declaration of Independence, that all persons are created equal in the eyes of the law, and those who would treat others as less than equal shall be punished harshly.

Most appropriate! And Necessary, given the intolerance we witness amongst many groups in our nation today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2007 1:37 AM
Comment #219558

Kim-Sue, Dr Gnostic and others: This is a political debate site. Take debates about religion to other sites appropriate for that debate. Religion as it bears on American or international politics is fair topic at WB. The merits or demerits of religion or particular religions are not.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at May 6, 2007 1:40 AM
Comment #219562

David,

It is appropriate for America to embody in her laws the ideals reflected in her Declaration of Independence, that all persons are created equal in the eyes of the law, and those who would treat others as less than equal shall be punished harshly.

While trying to make a point in favor of special treatment, you give the example of the exact reason not to do so.

If all persons are created equal, why in earth should crimes against some be punished more harshly than crimes against others. By doing so you are in essence saying that the two are not equal. That one is valued more than the other.

Posted by: Kirk at May 6, 2007 2:18 AM
Comment #219563

Lets call a spade a spade. The definition of “hate crime” is going to expand from actions to speech and at some point those of us on the right will no longer have the right to debate issues such as whether homosexuality is right or wrong because to claimit is wrong will be deemed hate speech and we will be subject to fines or prison. I suspect many on the left look forward with great anticipation to that day.

Posted by: Carnak at May 6, 2007 2:44 AM
Comment #219569

Dr. Gnostic

You can’t do it now, because we have been admonished by the Watchblog editors, but seems to me that may arguments are back up with actual references. Too bad you couldn’t do the same. Hmmm, wonder why?

Just wanted to point out that distinction to participants because it is an important one irrespective of the debate topic. Question the statements of others, especially if they can not even back-up their own points of view with legitamate references. There is not greater example in modern history for the need of people to question the word of others that the history of the past 7 years of our federal government, in particular the “executive” branch!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at May 6, 2007 7:38 AM
Comment #219621

Sad !!!!! One would have thought this to be one of the last places to have free speech challenged or restricted…….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 6, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #219689

Kim-Sue,

Nice the way you throw that in there because you know I cannot respond properly. Believe me, I could give you a long list of references that prove my point.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at May 7, 2007 2:48 AM
Comment #219700

Carnak and Kirk,

You keep focusing on the minority (Black, Hispanic, gay) as the victim.
You focus on that so that you can spin this as seperating, treating one group special, and not the fact that it goes both ways. If a gay man goes around attacking straight men on the basis of their being straight then punish that as a hate crime. If blacks attack whites based on race it’s a hate crime. Stop trying to spin this into a “we have to treat them differently” issue when it’s not. Race(including white), national origin, gender(including male), sexual orientation(including straight).
Spin and rhetoric are not going to win this debate. Based on the actions of the far right, it’s obvious where they stand.
IMO bigotry is the cornerstone of the far right and the GOP. They divide to conquer. They spread fear. They bully. They twist Christianity to further an agenda and they’re so busy foaming at the mouth about every ones private parts they don’t see just how similar they are to the Muslim kooks who want to blow them up.
What is the difference between Muslim far-right kooks and Christian far-right kooks? Not much.
They use fear and hate. They use violence to further their cause. They twist their religions to fit their needs. Use religion as a tool to keep women down. They use religion to persecute others. They believe all other outside of their faith are flawed and therefore not having the same worth.
Fanatics are fanatics. Kooks are kooks. Cross or Koran, it doesn’t matter.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 7, 2007 8:41 AM
Comment #219702

Adrienne,

Excellent points. Very well said.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 7, 2007 9:16 AM
Comment #219739

If a gay man kills another gay man, black kills black, white kills white…. these are somehow different than a straight man killing a gay man, a white man killing a black man or vice versa?

If I kill a black man becuase we are rivals for the same position at work, it is somehow a lesser crime than if I kill him because I hate him for being black?

Just because I didn’t kill him because I hate blacks doesn’t make him mostly dead. He is dead.

Why is it that those on the left seem to always resort to name calling and smearing of their opponents when they can’t win a debate on logical grounds? You jump right into that liberal playbook with the second half of your post!

IMO bigotry is the cornerstone of the far right and the GOP. They divide to conquer. They spread fear. They bully.

Lets see, it was Democrats who said to blacks “when you don’t vote you let another church explode, when you don’t vote you allow another cross to burn”

It was Democrats who handed out Oreo cookies at a debate mocking black Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele.

I could go on if you wish.

You see liberals and democrats want to ensure that blacks and minorities continue to vote democratic so they constantly scream of Republican racism and division. They do it to gain political points because theu know a lie repeated enough becomes a “truth”.

I again point to the Democrats past behavior on Civil Rights legislation. They can only be hoping that minorities buy that old line from the Wizard of Az “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”.

As for your comparrison of Muslims and Christians, man you are dead nuts on. I have heard of the Christian terrorist training camps and seen the videos of the Christians lining up by the hundreds to conduct suicide bombings. Come to think of it we did just pass a new church doctrine requiring all women to be covered from head to tow. We really got one over on them, told them the burkas were the new choir robes. None of that black stuff though, ours are holyer than thou white!

Posted by: Kirk at May 7, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #219786

Andres,

I argue that these Hate Crime legislations have been used predominantly as a political tool to demonize particular groups, who by the way receive more hate crime than those that the left protects. Hate crimes are not reported accurately, or administered fairly due to politics in prosecution. The left talks about the unfairness in the firings of Federal Attorneys and that politics should not play a role in the justice system, but it does over and over again. Let me end by giving some facts regarding Hate Crimes:

An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:

55.7 percent of the victims were targeted because of race.
16.0 percent were victimized because of religious belief.
14.0 percent were victimized because of ethnicity
13.8 percent were targeted because of sexual orientation.
0.6 percent were targeted because of a disability.


Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime

67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.
5.3 percent were victims of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).
4.9 percent were victims of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
2.0 percent were victims of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.


Of the 1,405 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:

69.5 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias.
10.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
8.4 percent were victims of an anti-Christian bias
7.5 percent were victims of a bias against other unspecified religions (anti-other religion).
3.3 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
0.4 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.


In 2005, of the 1,213 victims targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias:

61.3 percent were victims of an anti-male homosexual bias.
19.2 percent were victims of an anti-homosexual bias.
15.3 percent were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias.
2.3 percent were victims of an anti-bisexual bias.
1.9 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias.


There were 5,190 hate crime victims of crimes against persons in 2005. Regarding these victims and offenses:

0.1 percent were murdered or forcibly raped
48.9 percent experienced intimidation.
30.2 percent were victims of simple assault.
20.5 percent were victims of aggravated assault.
0.3 percent were victims of other types of offenses, which are collected only in the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).‎
(U.S. Crime Statistics)


Out of the 5,190 hate crimes directed at persons in 2005, nearly 80% would have been considered misdemeanors or less (intimidation or simple assault), 20% were considered aggravated assault, and less than 1/10 of 1% resulted in a serious offense like rape or murder. However, judging by the way the Press and Democrats report Hate Crimes, one would conclude that homosexuals are being beaten and killed by radical Christians in an almost epidemic proportion. The fact is, that very few people in the U.S. are victims of Hate Crimes at all. Where is the evidence that the left keeps bringing that America is so full of hate? They should try being a homosexual, a Jew, or a Christian in an Islamic run nation and see what hate is really like!


These are the Overall Statistics for American Hate Crimes below.

The number of Hate Crimes as a percent of:

All Crimes 0.8%
Violent Crimes 3.0%
Major Violent Crimes 2.6%
Property Crimes 0.2%
(U.S. Crime Statistics)


There are two main sources for Hate Crime statistics collection. One is the FBIs National Incident Based Reporting System which is a voluntary system in which law-enforcement agencies can send statistical information to the FBI. The other is the National Crime Victimization Survey. (See below)

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation’s primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.
(U.S. Justice Dept. FBI)


In reality, the FBI only investigated about 300 cases of Hate Crimes in 2005. However, it helped in the investigations carried out by local and State authorities with technical support and assistance in many cases. This is because the FBI has limited jurisdiction regarding hate crimes. They tend only to investigate and prosecute hate crimes when local and state authorities refuse to do so. (See Below)


FBI Jurisdiction
A hate crime is not a distinct federal offense. However, the federal government can and does investigate and prosecute crimes of bias as civil rights violations, which do fall under its jurisdiction. These efforts serve as a backstop for state and local authorities, which handle the vast majority of hate crime cases.


How Hate Crimes are Investigated and Prosecuted
The FBI initiates a hate crime investigation when an allegation is received from a reliable source. Most complaints are received from the victim, a witness, or a third party. Many cases are also initiated by media reports, community group complaints, referrals from Department of Justice or U.S. Attorneys, and congressional inquiries.

Under guidelines developed in conjunction with the Department of Justice, once a complaint is received, the FBI will determine if the matter warrants a preliminary or full investigation.

Once a case is opened, a logical investigation is conducted within a reasonable period of time‎
(U.S. Justice Dept.)


Your rantings toward misrepresenting Christians who disagree with you pretty much sums it all up here. Hate crimes are a useful tool to demonize the groups that liberals don’t like. While Dems rant about hate being so rampant on the right, the numbers just don’t seem to depict an epidemic crisis now do they. Political much ado about nothing!
It is my opinion that the Democrats are so interested in hate crimes and their investigations primarily due to the fact that thay are initiated in many cases by “media reports, community group complaints, and Congressional inquiries. So much for keeping politics out of the Justice Dept.”!!!!!!!
Black Church burnings in the 90’s is a perfect example.

JD


Posted by: JD at May 8, 2007 1:12 AM
Comment #219796

JD and Kirk,

1. I am a Christian and have made that abundantly clear. I’ll let you know when I become so mentally limited that you can tell me what I’ve said because I can’t remember. I clearly stated “far-right” and GOP, not Christians.

2. The “far-right” and GOP have a problem(bigotry) with gays. If you are unaware of that then I have to ask you what cave you’ve been living in? They’ve campaigned on this issue for years. That’s what make them so morally superior (laughing).

3. The veto of hate crime legislation that would include gender and sexual orientation is this administrations way of saying, “hey core base of far-right Bible thumping extremists, we got your back.”

4. Feel free to disagree.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 8, 2007 8:26 AM
Comment #219811

I don’t really care what you call yourself Andres. The point that the right makes is valid. The media and liberals use political correctness to only demoize those groups that disagree with them. Other groups that fall into the fold of the Democrats are never depicted as those who commit hate crimes, yet the evidence above speaks for itself when you look at the religious persecution. Those who practice religion are targeted more than homosexuals. Yet, it would not further the agenda of the Press or Democrats to criticize those who attack religious freedoms now would it? When was the last time you heard about a church burning that didn’t happen to be a Black church burning? That just doesn’t fit the agenda of the left does it? That wouldn’t be plastered in the headlines for months because people might think some of those Christian haters out there, many who are on the left, have got to be stopped.
Again, the way the Press and the Democratic Party tout this anti-gay thing from the right, you would think that gays were out there dropping like flies, but the numbers just don’t add up do they? It is a completely fabricated myth designed to demonize certain political groups who simply disagree with Democrats regarding right and wrong, morality and immorality. But if we can get the “U.S. government” to protect a certain sexual practice of a group then it must be OK, because the “U.S. government” says it is OK. The U.S. government is then protecting, condoning, and some might think encouraging what some believe to be immoral behavior. This is the reason that Christians who believe the passages of the Bible which discourage the practice of homosexuality as sinful think that this legislation needs to be stopped. This is also the reason the left pushes so hard to grant protections for homosexuality, not that they are being killed in rapid succession by, (what did you call them?), “far- right Bible thumping extremists”, but because it promotes the acceptance of homosexuality as something more mainstream and politically and morally correct. Many Christians worth their salt, I think you know the verse of the Bible which that salt refers to, just do not think the U.S. government should pass legislation that forces the acceptance of what they deem immoral. It is the same problem that Christians on the right have with legislating the legality of abortion. The Supreme Court gave women the protected right to an abortion in the 60’s and now it is being done to the tune of about 4,000,000 a year. Christians do not want special protections for homosexual practice because as it becomes more widely accepted and condoned by our government, it will undoubtedly increase in practice just as abortions have increased. That is contrary to a Christian’s moral belief and is seen as a dangerous path for our nation to take into moral decline.
No one condones beating homosexuals on the street. That is why it does not happen much at all, as the Dept. of Justice figures above prove.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 8, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #219821

JD,

2005 single bias hate crimes:
7,160 single bias incidents according to the FBI

54.7 percent were racially motivated.
17.1 percent were motivated by religious bias.
14.2 percent resulted from sexual-orientation bias.
13.2 percent stemmed from ethnicity/national origin bias.
0.7 percent were prompted by disability bias

8,380 hate crimes reported in 2005
61.9 against persons
Which translates into 5,195 people

1,171 reports of hate crimes against homosexuals.

I don’t think that Jesus would mind if we protected 1,171 people each year from intimidation, abuse or property damage. Do you?

Christians are charitable, kind, helping and appreciate the world around them because it is a gift from god. Christians don’t attack non-Christians, they do not judge others and they do not twist their beliefs to persecute others.
Jesus was kind to prostitues and the diseased, while most of the modern far-right kooks would only look at them with scorn and hate with pity and contempt.
Don’t lecture me on attacking Christians. I know what it is to be one.
Hate + GOD = Far Right kook, Fanatic, etc.
Love + GOD = Spirituality
It’s that simple.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 8, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #219826

Andre,

Here you go point by point.

1) You did say Christian!

IMO bigotry is the cornerstone of the far right and the GOP. They divide to conquer. They spread fear. They bully. They twist Christianity to further an agenda and they’re so busy foaming at the mouth about every ones private parts they don’t see just how similar they are to the Muslim kooks who want to blow them up. What is the difference between Muslim far-right kooks and Christian far-right kooks? Not much. They use fear and hate. They use violence to further their cause. They twist their religions to fit their needs. Use religion as a tool to keep women down. They use religion to persecute others. They believe all other outside of their faith are flawed and therefore not having the same worth. Fanatics are fanatics. Kooks are kooks. Cross or Koran, it doesn’t matter.

2) Please provide a campaign add from the GOP showing bigotry toward gays.

If there is a party that show bigotry it is the liberal Democrats. The amazing thing is that they show this bigotry toward the very people who vote for them. Democrats go to great lengths to further the dependence of minorities on the government trough of handouts and entitlements. They fought welfare reform tooth and nail until the GOP lead congress finally shoved it down Clinton throat. Democrats continually divide the populace along racial, class, orientation ect…. as shown by the campaign add I reference as just 2 examples.

3) No, a veto of “hate” crime legislation would be an acknowledgement that we already have laws onthe books to deal with these crimes and that no one victimization is more worthy of punishment than anyone elses.

Again I will ask the question that you will agian not answer.

If I kill a black man becuase we are rivals for the same position at work, it is somehow a lesser crime than if I kill him because I hate him for being black?

Posted by: Kirk at May 8, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #219829

JD,

“Christian far-right kooks”
Not Christian.
Just because alot of the far right are so arrogant they don’t see or can’t imagine fanaticism within their ranks does not mean it does not exist. Some of us “Christians”, not the fire and brim stone hide your breasts, the birth canal is dirty “Chistians.” Not the burn down clinics and shoot doctors to save lives kinda “Christians” do see the “far right” as extremists and bigots. They judge and legislate based on a manipulation of Biblical text. They call themselves “Christians” but they want political power. They want to police other peoples behaviors. They claim to be superior to those they judge. They are not Christians.
As far as your silly, illogical question, If you were to kill a black man because he was a rival for a job you are a murderer and fall into the system. If you kill him because he’s black, then you fall into the system with the additional hate crime charge that should sway parole board and expose hate as harmful and could be used to educate young bigots in training to the pitfalls that come from hate.
If you kill someone because they’re gay, female, blue or because you hate Canadians it should be exposed and punished severely.
If someone were to hurt you because of your beliefs or because of your faith or the color of your skin or who you happen to love, I’d want them punished to the fullest extent of the law.
It’s that simple.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 8, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #219830

Kirk,

I meant my last reply to go to you.
I apologize JD.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 8, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #219861

Andre,

I would agree with you 100% that those who shoot abortion doctors and bomb clinics are not Christians. Regardless of what name or ideology they wrap themselves in. I too am a Christian and these people give Christians a black eye.

I will pull one line out of your post where you alomost got it right. You should have just stopped and saved yourself several key strokes.

If you kill someone because they’re gay, female, blue or because you hate Canadians it should be exposed and punished severely.

Posted by: Kirk at May 8, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #219878

Andre,

Certainly God is a God of love. Christians are people of profound love.
However, God is also a God which becomes angry with and some might even say hates sin, especially the arrogant display of sin. God certainly dislikes it when entire communities and the political rulers and authoritative figures of communities embrace sin. There is plenty of evidence for that throughout the Bible.
Then, from a political standpoint, if God can dislike or (hate) sin, why is it wrong for Christians to resist the political acceptance and authoritative encouragement of others to practice that which God deems sin?
Surely you can see why those who believe homosexuality is sin are not going to support a legislative agenda to protect, promote, and encourage its participation. That would be equivalent to a denial of their own beliefs and faith. That has nothing to do with hate. Rather, it has to do with standing up to those that would try to legislate or force religious compromise. It is a little more complicated than your simple love / hate analogy.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 9, 2007 3:27 AM
Comment #219898

JD and Kirk,

How is homosexuality or being born female a sin?
Hate crimes are those crimes committed against people who have not made choices to be born in Africa or Mexico, did not choose to have breasts and a vagina, who did not wake up and decide to have feelings for someone of the same sex.

Would either of you agree that 3year olds are without sin or at the very least pure of heart?
Would you agree that a three year old would have no knowledge of the “Gay agenda?”
Science proves that homosexuality and gender confusion can be seen in children as young as three.
I’ve personally seen this through a friend who had a son who acted like a girl, played like a girl and defined himself as a girl from the age of three. He would say, “I’m really a girl.” My friend and her husband, who happened to be a bully in middle school, didn’t lose sleep over whether it was a phase or not. He was healthy and happy and that’s all they cared about. He’s now a happy, well adjusted gay teen.
These men and women deserve the protection of the United States government. They are citizens just like all of us. Your Bible does not give you the right to judge. Leave that to God. You don’t have the right to judge those who sin, and you especially do not have the right to judge people who were born exactly the way God intended because they’re different than you.
Who would choose to be Gay in America?
I’d rather have three heads than go through the ridicule and scorn these people have to deal with. Families who abandon them. Friends who are now enemies. The jokes we’ve all told and perception we all have. How they’re portrayed.
Who’d choose that?
Hate is what seperates us, promotes war and creates and fosters intolerance.
Those who act out of hate towards another person should be punished more severely. We should use hate crime convictions to deter and educate those who choose this path or have the potential to do so.
I’m confident God wants to protect all of his children, not the ones the “Far-right” choose.


Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 9, 2007 9:44 AM
Comment #219903

Andre,

Scripture teaches against men being effiminate. Homosexual activity is condemned by scripture. I didn’t write it. Don’t blame me! But, as a Christian, I choose to try to live by all the teachings of the Bible, not just the ones that I feel are pertinent to today’s political correctness.
But, you didn’t answer my question really. Why should those that feel homosexuality is sin, (simply because they believe the Bible), be expected to support legislation that protects, condones, and encourages homosexuality (sin) by commandment of the U.S. government?
Many do not support this legislation because they do not choose to condone sin, or wish for the government to do so.

A second thought:

When Robert Kennedy’s daughter, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend had a debate with Black Republican Michael Steele, her constituents threw Oreos at him on the stage.
Would this deliberate public humiliation of Michael Steele (related to his being Black) in front of the people of Maryland be considered intimidation, therfore, a hate crime?
Should these people from Townsends’s camp been prosecuted for hate crimes?
Is it any different to throw Oreo cookies at someone in front of hundreds of thousands of people watching in the State of Maryland just because of someone’s race to say, “You are not one of us?”, than to say “Sorry Michael, you’ll have to use the rest room for the whites in the back?”

A third thought:

The parents of this obviously confused child who thought he was a girl at the age of three would probably have been wise to explain the difference between boys and girls to him at some point along the way, instead of accepting that everything was OK for him to pretend that he was girl, thus encouraging his gender confusion. Maybe they could have prevented some of his embarrassment that he has faced because of it. Just a thought.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 9, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #219915

Kirk said: “I would agree with you 100% that those who shoot abortion doctors and bomb clinics are not Christians.”

What a preposterous statement that was. You mean if a person sins, they are not a Christian? Not what the Bible or Jesus taught at all. In fact, it teaches that we are all sinners. But by the logic of your statement above, there are no Christians, because sinners are not Christians. I have to meet a perfect non-sinning human being nor even heard of one.

This is what happens when folks try to make everything about religion. Much of what goes on in life is not about religion. Shooting abortionists is not about religion. It is about hate and intolerance, and hate and intolerance infect Christians just as easily as Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus. Not even Jesus was without sin. But, its pretty safe to say he was a Christian despite his sins, wouldn’t you say? :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2007 1:08 PM
Comment #219917

JD,

You don’t have to support their way of life. But we have a duty as Christians and fellow Americans to support legislation that protects their lives.
Unfortunately we live in a society that not only disagrees with some peoples lifestyles, religious beliefs but attack them for it.
We have an obligation to protect those who may be vulnerable.
History tells us people of color, foreigners, religious observers, gays, women and children, the elderly, handicapped can experience bigotry, and in extreme cases violent hatred. Let’s prevent it.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 9, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #219951

Remer,

“Not even Jesus was without sin?”

Did you happen to be there when he committed one?

“But, it’s pretty safe to say he was a Christian despite his sins…”

Christians are those who follow after the (spotless) Lamb of God, Jesus. His being with sin of his own making would cause Him to be unworthy of His position as Savior of the world. Unless, you are referring to the sin of others that He took upon Himself for their salvation.
Therefore, how could Jesus be a Christian? By following after Himself?

You are not making sense.

Andre,

Should the supporters of Robert Kennedy’s daughter, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in Maryland be charged with a hate crime for publicly humiliating and intentionally intimidating Michael Steele based upon his race? I’m still waiting for your answer.

Posted by: JD at May 9, 2007 10:16 PM
Comment #219969

JD,

How is throwing cookies the same as burning down a church?
How is calling someone an “Oreo” the same as raping and killing someone because of their sexuality?
How is protesting in an inappropriate way the same as dragging a man behind a car until his skin falls off because of the color of his skin?
You keep coming up with these silly questions that are in no way connected to hate crime.
Calling names is not a crime outside of a first grade classroom.
Rape, beating, torture, murder, property damage etc. These are hate crimes.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 10, 2007 7:44 AM
Comment #219981

Andre,

You just made my point! Individuals (a Democrat or Republican prosecutor) will have to decide what is and is not a hate crime. Had a Republican thrown Oreo cookies at Presidential candidate Barak Obama during a debate because of his multi-racial background, I’m sure you would be demanding that he be charged with a racially motivated crime of intimidation and harrassment. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be demanding the most severe prosecution under the law, and Democrats throughout the country would be demanding hate crime charges. There is no way such behavior would be tolerated by a Republican candidate, and it would be plastered on the front pages of every newspaper in the country. But, since a Democrat was the one doing the harrassment and intimidation no such charges would be brought against them because of political agenda and partisanship, and it would be scarcely mentioned even in the local newspapers within the State that it occurred much like the Kennedy Townsend / Steele incident received no attention further than Maryland. This is the problem with hate crimes. They are not administered fairly and are used as political tools of the left.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 10, 2007 9:23 AM
Comment #219985

JD,

Read this:

“Since Maryland’s lieutenant governor, Republican Michael S. Steele, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate on October 25, numerous media have reported as fact allegations that, at the September 26, 2002, Maryland gubernatorial debate between Democrat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Republican Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., Democratic supporters of Townsend threw Oreo cookies at Steele — then a candidate for lieutenant governor. The accounts have referenced the incident as a racial slur of Steele, an African-American; in such a context, Oreos represent, as the website of Washington, D.C., radio station WTOP noted, a “slur for being black on the outside and white on the inside.”

But as The Baltimore Sun reported November 13, eyewitnesses at the debate — held at Morgan State University’s Carl J. Murphy Fine Arts Center in Baltimore — dispute the allegations of cookie-throwing, and accounts of the purported incident offered at different times by Ehrlich, Steele, and Paul S. Schurick, Ehrlich’s communications director, contradict each other. Moreover, the Sun noted that initial news accounts of the debate made no mention of Oreo cookies at all. The first mention of cookies surfaced five days later, when the Sun reported Schurick’s charge that Oreos were passed out — not thrown — by Democrats at the debate.

A Media Matters for America review of media coverage of the alleged Oreo-throwing incident has revealed little evidence to substantiate the claims originally advanced by Ehrlich, Steele, and Schurick.”

You jumped on one of several GOP false stories to prove a point and that has to be a little embarassing for you. The GOP is a propaganda machine that uses far-right bigotry, ignorance and a need to judge others to win elections and sell government to the highest bidder. You folks are being used by the GOP. The more far-right and fanatical a person is, the better for them. All they have to do is throw gays and Holliwood under the bus. These folks don’t vote for them anyway so they lose nothing and gain the bigot (moralist) vote.
Advice for the far-right:
1. Turn Rush, OReilly and Hannity off. They lie to their listeners. It’s what they’re paid to do.
2. God has not annointed you judge and jury over his flock.
3. God does not promote intolerance, your particular church does.
4. Stop worrying what goes on in other peoples bedrooms (It’s creepy).
5. Let the rest of the world enjoy the beauty of the human body, art and free speech.
6. Stop focusing all of your energy complaining about imagined wars on Christmas or the evil of Harry Potter and hold the Catholic Church accountable for their priests behavior. Hold the Ted Haggards who walk amongst you accountable so real Christians don’t look like repressed perverts and hypocrites.
7. Do something kind, in God’s name.
8. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 10, 2007 9:50 AM
Comment #219993

Andre,

“I was present at the Morgan State University Maryland gubernatorial debate in 2002 where Oreo cookies were present and used as a means of ridiculing then-candidate for lieutenant governor Michael Steele.

When I walked towards the auditorium where the debate was held, I saw a young girl approaching me holding some Oreo cookies. She attempted to hand me some. When I asked her what they were, she cheerfully replied, “they’re Michael Steele cookies.”

I did see an Oreo cookie fly through the air in the direction of Mr. Steele during the event, but I did not see it hit him. The cookies were just part of a wide-ranging intimidation campaign employed against him and Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert Ehrlich that night which included booing, insults directed at the candidates’ families and vandalism of their supporters’ cars. While the thrown Oreo cookies may not have been “thick in the air like locusts” as Paul Schurick, spokesman for Governor Robert Ehrlich, has said, I feel compelled to ask those who are trying to downplay the events just how many Oreo cookies would constitute being offensive?”
(National Center Blog, National Center for Public Policy Research)

This was an eyewitness account, though other accounts have refuted such. However, the Democratic Party has admitted to passing out the Oreos at the event to their supporters. If you choose to believe that the Democratic base, seeing their hatred for Bush, were all so hungry that they decided to eat all the Oreos without anyone tossing one at Michael Steele, well that is your perogative.

Here is Steele’s account of the event.

“STEELE: Well, what actually — and, you know, let’s just be clear about what happened since I was there. When I finished — when we finished the debate, this was for the debate for Governor Ehrlich and myself for this office in 2002.
When the debate was over, I was leaving. As I was leaving the auditorium, I noticed at my feet Oreo cookies, and they were there. There were two or three there. I turned to a friend and said, “Got milk?” You know, I was like, “Hey, what’s up with this?”
I got the joke. You know, here is a guy, he’s black on the outside, white on the inside, ha ha. It happened.
But what it speaks to is this — a certain sadness by some who don’t understand that that’s what people hate about politics. They hate that kind of political behavior that seeks personal destruction as opposed to let’s battle it out on the ideas of the day, to come to some consensus on how we move together and move forward.
And, you know, it’s just part of what you have to go through as a black Republican, where people are afraid of your message and how you deliver and the response you’re getting from people.”
(FOX News)

I know the Democrats today would like to call a Black Republican a liar as quickly as an 1800’s South Carolina lynch mob would, but it seems to me that if the cookies were there as Maryland Democrats admit handing them out, we have an eyewitness, and Michael Steele himself says he saw the evidence of it, it takes some real partisan blinders to say that it never happened.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 10, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #220002

JD,


“thick in the air like locusts”

This was an outright lie.

“Had a Republican thrown Oreo cookies”

A softer version of same lie.

Apparently your argument has run it’s course and you resort to using false information and trying desperately to convince me that passing out cookies and a single cookie (Maybe) being tossed on stage amounts to humiliation, intimidation, harassment and can be compared to
hate crimes.
Wow.
This is the Rush, Hannity, OReilly logic, that while it makes you laugh, it’s difficult to debate.
Take care. Thanks for chatting.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 10, 2007 12:34 PM
Comment #220008
Kirk said: “I would agree with you 100% that those who shoot abortion doctors and bomb clinics are not Christians.”

What a preposterous statement that was. You mean if a person sins, they are not a Christian? Not what the Bible or Jesus taught at all. In fact, it teaches that we are all sinners. But by the logic of your statement above, there are no Christians, because sinners are not Christians. I have to meet a perfect non-sinning human being nor even heard of one.

This is what happens when folks try to make everything about religion. Much of what goes on in life is not about religion. Shooting abortionists is not about religion. It is about hate and intolerance, and hate and intolerance infect Christians just as easily as Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus. Not even Jesus was without sin. But, its pretty safe to say he was a Christian despite his sins, wouldn’t you say? :-)

David,

First, I definitely stand behind that statement. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not make it so. Yet, I see you have followed the typical liberal tactic of taking an opponent’s statement twisting, stretching, folding, spindling and mutilating it to say they said something so far from the original that it is not even recognizable.

You see taking your gun to specifically hunt down an abortion doctor or building a bomb to destroy a clinic takes much forethought and is so antithetical to the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures, that I do not believe a true Christian could sit down, plan this out and then follow through with it. See Romans 16:17-20.

Second, how in the world did you go from my statement to “if a person sins, they are not a Christian” or that my logic equates to “there are no Christians”? Evil Knevil wouldn’t even attempt to jump that chasm and yet you went full steam ahead. Unbelievable!

Third, I never tried to make it about religion. Andre is the one who brought Christians into the mix, I was simply responding to his statement.

Fourth, you want to talk about preposterous statements you close out with a doooooooozy! “Not even Jesus was without sin.” Please list one, just one sin that Christ committed. Then read Hebrews 4:15.

Posted by: Kirk at May 10, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #220018

Andre,

You are going to use Media Matters for your back up on this? Why not try to come up with some non-partisan source rather than a group whose stated purpose is to attempt to refute anything they see as conservative in media?

From the Media Matters website:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
1. Turn Rush, OReilly and Hannity off. They lie to their listeners. It’s what they’re paid to do.

As opposed to Seder, Hartman and Rhodes? Is your problem that the listenership is so small that the MoveOn/Air America liberal “media outlets” can’t afford to buy better liars? Or is it the typical liberal tactic of “if you can’t smear the message smear the messanger”?

2. God has not annointed you judge and jury over his flock.

Nor do I want to be.

3. God does not promote intolerance, your particular church does.

Quite the contrary. We have folks from all walks of life as members of our church. Even liberals.

4. Stop worrying what goes on in other peoples bedrooms (It’s creepy).

Couldn’t agree more, God will sort it out in the end. However, I do feel that I have the responsibility to call a sin a sin and if it is done in front of me I will do so. I would also welcome you to do the same if I sin in front of you. You see pointing out a persons sin to them is not judging its helping your brother up when they stumble which we all do.

5. Let the rest of the world enjoy the beauty of the human body, art and free speech.

I have no problem with that at all. Even if someone wants to call hardcore pornography art, I will defend their right to view it. I will call a sin a sin and try to persuade them to do otherwise, but in the end it is their will.

6. Stop focusing all of your energy complaining about imagined wars on Christmas or the evil of Harry Potter and hold the Catholic Church accountable for their priests behavior. Hold the Ted Haggards who walk amongst you accountable so real Christians don’t look like repressed perverts and hypocrites.

An imagined war on Christmas? Not only is there a war on Christmas there is a war on Christ in general just as Scripture tells us there will be. To say that it doesn’t exist takes the imagination. As for the Priests and Haggards, tey all should be held 100% accountable for any laws they break here on earth and will be held 100% accountable for their actions once they depart it.

7. Do something kind, in God’s name.

Try to do so on a daily basis. However, I am a flawed human and often fall short of that goal.

8. Have a nice day.

same to you.

Posted by: Kirk at May 10, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #220102

The entire concept of additional penalties for ‘hate crimes’ is crap.

If I bash a guy over the head with a pipe so I can take his wallet my punishment should be less than if I bash him over the head because he’s white? Ridiculous!

Posted by: wallster at May 11, 2007 5:23 PM
Post a comment