Hate crime laws, religion, and Fred Phelps.

I read something on the internet that Fred Phelps has hate crime protection because of religion. I feel that in some ways, religion should not be a protected characteristic under hate crime legislation because, except in the case of Jewish people because Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion, religion is a choice. A person can change their religious beliefs as they are not born a Christian, a Muslim, Buddhist, etc, but you are born with a certain skin and eye color and sexual orientation is more likely to be an inborn characteristic. I, for instance, have had (homo)sexual attractions toward men since I was about 10 or 11 years old. It was not a conscious choice but came on when I started reaching puberty. Do you agree or disagree with my argument about whether religion should be protected under hate crime laws? It's not right to allow a scum bag like Fred Phelps to commit hate crimes but then claim hate crime victimization when someone challenges him assholity.

 

Hate crime laws are a violation of free speech to begin with. No one should be charged under these laws for any reason whatsoever.

 

you two don't have any ideal what in the hell your talking about!

first off 'ethnicity' only fits anyone who is NOT of the christian or jewish faith. everyone else is a ethnicity because they are heathens (non beliver of "the one true god"... WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT THAT IS! THERE ARE MANY TRUE GODS!)

second, hate crimes laws DON'T infringe on free speech.
any individual of sound mind can choose and edit in their thinking what, where, when, why, and how their going to say something.
when an individual is of un-sounded mind when they say something, that is when the legal and judicial system step in.

 

As much as I dislike that prick and others-KKK,for instance--They need to have the same freedoms as everyone else.I'd love to see a huge crowd standing across from them laughing and pointing just to show them how ridiculous they are.-------------I do feel that churches should pay taxes like mostly everyone else.Particularly if they meddle in politics.

 

That doesn't even make sense. You can't decide whether someone is sane or not based on their opinions. No one has the right to legislate what is a valid opinion and what is not. As long as the words do not become actions, there's nothing the law can do about it. Trying to stop the expression of opinions as a pre-emptive strike against the crimes that may occur when those opinions are acted upon completely goes against free speech. I think it's you who has no 'ideal' what you're talking about.

 

Hate crime laws DO NOT violate the first amendment. There's a difference between premeditated murder and negligent homicide and criminal law takes that into account. Likewise, there's a difference between spray-painting your name on a water tower and spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue or "die faggot" on the front door of a gay bar. Frame of mind has always been taken into account when it comes to things like that.

For the record though, you don't see gays spray-painting "die breeders" on the front door a "normal" bar or Jews spray-painting anti-Christian sayings on Christian churches, but if it was to occur, I would say that those should be handled as hate crimes also, although such things would be reactionary to the bigotry suffered.

 

People should be free to hate what they want to hate, it's there life and hate crime laws border on thought crime.

If they commit a crime they should be charged with it, in the case of spray painting obscenities on private or public property it should be viewed as vandalism, in the "die faggots" example perhaps it can be viewed as a death threat I suppose, but if that's the case why would an additional charge of hate crime matter?

When a husband beats his wife to the brink of death would that qualify for hate crime?

What about two kids fist fighting on a playground or a basketball court, should one or both of them be charged with "hating" the other person?

Hate is not a crime.

 

Vandalism. The law doesn't take frame of mind into account unless you have committed a crime to begin with. The judicial system does not have the right to assess your 'frame of mind' in regard to your opinions and beliefs.

 

That's always a nice way to start a post.

I don't even know where to start here, i guess i would just like to say, i dont think you know what "ethnicity" means.

If you have to choose to edit your speech for fear of being charged with something... guess what? thats not free speech. If the "legal and judicial system step in" and decide what opinion makes a person insane and what makes a person sane... guess what? thats not free speech.

But hey, if you don't like the idea of being responsible for your own words, i guess there is every motive to wish some wonderful government can do the job for yourself and your fellow citizens.

 

If straight white men were living in constant fear of being physically attacked, jailed, having their property vandalized or destroyed, or even being killed because they were straight and the law looked the other way when such crimes happened, you better believe that they would be clamoring for a hate crime law to deal with the problem! Blacks in the deep south had that happen all the time. A black man would be murdered but the jury would refuse to convict the perpetrator.

Heterosexual men just don't get it! They have NEVER had to worry about being criminalized because of their sexual orientation of being sexually attracted to women, unless they committed a sex crime like rape, child molestation, or prostitution. It was not that long ago in the United States that admitting to having homosexual attractions was enough to land a man in jail even if he had not been seen in an act of homosexuality.

Again, it is not the underlying thoughts, it's the bigoted conduct that's being punished. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism and should be treated as such. If some jackass in a Fred Phelps like church cult commits an anti-gay or anti-Semitic crime, then maybe the preacher should be investigated for subliminally inciting an act of violence because of the Bible verses he quoted to subtlely justify the violence. One should not be permitted to hide behind religious belief to break the law like that. What do you think Osama bin Laden did to justify the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001? He started quoting the Quran.

If organized religion wants respect from the government by not being investigated for hate crimes or accused of harboring hate crime fugitives, then organized religion has to respect the government by complying with the law and telling its followers to not be violent toward others or they will be prosecuted for such negative actions.

Romans 13 says to obey the law of the land.

 

x

 

Oh, you're one of those 'whitey has never had to deal with any shit' types. That's just plain retarded. Poor whites have been treated like shit all throughout the history of Europe, and they did have to fight for laws that would protect them from being beaten and killed by nobles for no reason, from having their belongings taken away and their families split apart. This way the law of the land, before it was changed. You seem to forget that the law is not always just, and should not be followed if it is not.

Regardless, these 'heterosexual males' fought for their very right to live, and many of them died in the process -- they were a lot less fucking concerned with what any of the nobles were saying about them.

Regardless, that diatribe has nothing to do with hate crime laws -- it's just emotionally charged bullshit, and doesn't prove your point at all. And for the record, a lot of black people do say some very unpleasant things about white people, and will certainly act on them if they catch you in the wrong neighborhood (not generalizing blacks here, just referencing a certain type). Even still, I will be clear in saying that I do not support any kind of laws to stop them from talking shit about white people.

And this... I don't even know what to say to this. Anyone can quote anything they want, for any reason they want, and it is not a crime. I frankly find your contempt for the personal responsibility of the criminal, and your willingness to violate the basic rights of anyone in order to satisfy your prejudices, completely disgusting. You are a philosophical retard and a sociopolitical monster, a tyrant who pretends to be a champion of the masses. God help any country in which you manage to attain even the slightest authority.

 

Zorba, I am a gay white male, and I am tired of being blamed for society's ills because of that. Have you EVER heard of a straight man, regardless of his race, being attacked or murdered simply because he was a hetero? I haven't, because that doesn't happen!

 

Also if people who profess to be Christian would love their neighbor as themselves, regardless of their social status, then there would be no crime, hatred, and of course no hate crimes. And yes, I'll admit that I have room for improvement in that regard but it's hard when people hate on me and want me dead or in prison because of who I am.

People like Fred Phelps need to be in reeducation classes to make them stop hating.

 

You can't legislate opinion. That's just all there is to it. It's not a crime to hate someone. I'm sorry if you think people hate you, but no one really cares if you're gay or not. You're overly-sensitive about a certain issue, and because of that you want to use the law to force everyone else to agree with you. Get over yourself.

 

None of that was because they were white and heterosexual. I think that was the point of Mr. Bravo.

However, free speech is our most precious liberty. If we impede on that, even slightly, I wouldn't trust anyone else to uphold it at all. Fred Phelps is committing a hate crime but that's my opinion, which luckily coincides with the majority's. What if it didn't? I'd be demanding to see the person who makes these decisions.

 

Exactly. I consider it hate, if not a hate crime, and I don't support it. But as I said, opinion is opinion, and no one gets to legislate it.