why are a lot of Christians against hate crime laws?
Cite?
basically, it is because hate crimes are interpreted as anything that are not in conformance with political correctness. christians=not in conformance with political correctness.
(is conformance a word?)
I think it’s the idea that, if we start giving miniority groups (homosexuals, non-Christian religions, women-- wait, those last two are majorities) the idea that abuse and molestation don’t have to be a way of life, they might get uppity regarding things like picketing homosexuals’ funerals, burning crosses, lynchings… you get the idea.
A lot of Christians are against hate crime laws in the same way a lot of Southerners are against them (and a lot of Nor’Easterners, and a lot of Westerners, and… you get the idea). The worst of them are staunchly against them, and there are enough of the ‘worst’ to make some of the better ones wonder if they’re really all that good of an idea, even when they really should know-- er, better.
Sooo…
Is it okay to hate Christians?
Bet this thread gets moved.
Hate crime laws are a joke. Their only purpose is to make politicians appear on the side of minorities that when added together like in a hate crime bill, become the majority.
And if the majority like you, you win elections…
The fundamentalist Christians I knew when I was one of them who were against such laws (and that was certainly not all of them), said that they didn’t like hate crime laws because ALL lives have enormous value, and ALL violent crimes should be severely punished. They were very uncomfortable with a law that seemed, to them, to say that some lives were of greater value and thus some violent crimes should be punished more severely.
Not saying I agree, just trying to convey a point of view.
Allah(sp?) will bless you…
That was stupid
My apologies
apology accepted.
If something isn’t Officially Classified ™ as a “hate crime”, does that make it a Love Crime? Bob kills Joe because Joe is diddling Bob’s girlfriend. However, by Legal Definition ™ Bob CANNOT actually be hating Joe, since killing a guy for diddling your girlfriend is not a “hate crime”.
I say that all crimes of violence should have the sentencing guidelines applied to “hate crimes”. All such crimes are vile. Why introduce thoughtcrime into the equation?
Rename the fecking concept, every bloody discussion I see on this goes into the “well, isn’t it kinda hateful no matter what”?
Screw “hate crime” if you can’t handle the concept, call it “Incitement to Hatred” if that is easier for you to get your head around.
A “hate crime” is one that can reasonably be thought to cause fear amongst a specific group of people. If I go with a spraycan and spray “Bobby loves Sue” on a synagog wall, it’s not a hate crime. If I spray a swastika it is. Both messages cost the same to get cleaned off, but they have had a different impact. One is vandalism, the other is “incitement to hatred” where I come from. If you can’t see a difference between the two cases shrug.
The “semi-official” position of those who oppose hate crime laws is that “every crime is a hate crime” and that by singling out specific categories you’re saying that one type of the same crime is worse than others of the same type. As the opposition to hate crimes laws from Christian groups generally only seems to manifest itself when “sexual orientation” is discussed as a category, I find the reasoning a little disingenuous. IMHO a major component of the opposition is rooted in opposition to any mention or protection of sexual orientation in the law. Once the concept enters into law in one area, the argument goes, it’s that much easier to expand it into other areas (civil rights, relationship recognition, adoption).
FWIW, SCOTUS has ruled that hate crimes laws are constitutional.
Not only did SCOTUS do so, what most people don’t realize is that they found them constitutional in a situation where a group of black men and boys beat a white boy into a coma. The attackers’ penalty was enhanced under hate crime statutes because they chose the white victim on the basis of his race. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
My 2 cents: killing a person you know over a dispute is an attack against a person. Killing some random person because they are a Jew is an attack against society. I.e., you are not trying to harm just that one person, you are trying to create problems within society. You have a larger purpose than getting rid of that one person. It’s no longer “one-on-one” but “one-on-many”. That makes it obviously a more serious crime.
Remember, folks. If you just kill somebody for personal reasons, it’s a Love Crime.
You know, I have always thought ‘hate crime’ laws were wrong, and may still think that, but the last few posts have certainly given me reason to think harder on the subject. Thanks.
What about the following notion? (And, I make the assumption that a ‘hate crime’ has additional punishment.)
If you vandalize a church with “Bobby loves Sue” (as in a previous example) and get caught. You might receive a punishment of (example only) 1 day in jail. But if you paint a swastika and it’s classified a ‘hate crime’ then you get another, more serious punishment. Let’s say 2 days in jail.
Is the extra day for hating Jews? Wouldn’t this be criminalizing hate? Hate, while awful, is legal in America isn’t it? Is it acting on hate that is being made a crime in a ‘hate crime’? What am I missing here?
I like to consider myself open to more information and willing to change my mind on things like this, but up to now, I’ve always thought ‘hate crime’ legislation criminalized ‘hate’ which is (and should be) legal. BAD, AWFUL etc, but LEGAL.
Thanks for the information.
hermn8r, some of those who are against hate crime laws say exactly that–the extra day in jail criminalizes being in the state of mind of “I hate Jews.”
Those who are for hate crime laws say that the extra day in jail is extra punishment for the additional act of terrorizing a group of people.