AmericanPapist Comments
Press your TOM button.
I understand his main point, but his statement is erroneous:
1.) It is actually not a Hate Crime to attack a gay person, because sexual orientation is not covered in any Federal Hate Crimes law.
2.) It is also not the same thing because Christians are not a minority group. (Please let's not debate what constitutes Christianity. I'm simply ascribing self-descriptions.)
So one has to be a minority to be hated?
Kinda like that old lady with the cross was?
I googled "California hate crime law" and got this:
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual
orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has
one or more of those characteristics.
I don't know about federal law, but it looks like in California both religion and sexual orientation are in. And it doesn't say anything about the victim being a minority.
According to the hate crime sentencing act: http://www.adl.org/
issue_governm...tencing_act.asp sexual orientation is considered in sentencing for a federal hate crime. It also says nothing about being a minority.
I don't think the incident in question (or the reverse if homosexuals were being attacked instead of Christians) would fall under under federal jurisdiction.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, so maybe I'm somehow interpreting everything wrong. But if not, I think whoever you got your info from is misleading you, Thom.
Brian, the federal government records and reports hate crimes nationwide, but the federal statute does not cover sexual orientation. Many states and communities do, however, and those are the statistics that are reported.
Ok, Thom, this is the Wikipedia article on the Hate Crime Statistics Act:
The Hate Crime Statistics Act, 28 USC 534, requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed because of the victim's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The bill was signed into law by George H. W. Bush, and was the first federal statute to "recognize and name gay, lesbian and bisexual people."[1] Since 1992, the Department of Justice through one of its agencies, the FBI, has jointly published an annual report on hate crime statistics.[2]
1) It specifically lists sexual orientation.
2) It doesn't say anything about the victims being minorities.
It semantical ploy to dress up and pass hate crime statutes. All crimes of violence are hate crimes. I can think of no crime committed against somebody someone liked.
I agree, FH, but if we're going to have them we should at least apply them equally.
Thomas,
You once again manage to present something that is both inaccurate and in fact out of line with the Catechism (CCC 2358). It is under CCC 2358, that we could interpret support for legislation ensuring that crimes committed against gay and lesbian people are recognized as hate crimes.
Secondly, nearly EVERY hate crime act in the United States and many in European countries, include provisions identifying crimes committed on the basis of "religion" as being "hate crimes."
Diogenes lived in a time that predated modern hate crimes laws. In addition, crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation and religion, are both worthy of strict punishments. We are a society that CANNOT condone any means of hatred regardless of an individual or community's understanding of morality.
Regards,
Joseph
A fellow theologian
It's a bit like that Bash Back group who attacked that church. The secular media ignores it when these people attack Christians.
It seems that violence is a part of the homosexual life style.
I wrote about this attack on my blog.
why do we allow perverts to roam freely in this society. they need to be locked away and treated for their illness. then we would not be wasting time on these silly discussions.
Secular Heretic and Joanna:
In response to your comments -- do you not read The Gospel of Luke or the very words of Christ and witness words of compassion? Your comments are beyond absurd and frankly your comments attempt to degrade the masterwork of God... hmmm... sounds as if you may have the perverse complex.
Brian, again I tell you that reporting crimes is not the same as having that legislation on a federal level. If you must rely on Wikipedia for your research, go back on read the article in its entirety.
Ok, Thom. First you said that sexual orientation isn't a factor but being a minority is - and I googled the federal law on sentencing for hate crimes. Then you said that wasn't it, the real thing is that it's not recorded federally and I looked up the federal hate crime statistics act.
So you're the one who made the claim in the first place. Why don't you show your evidence that sexual orientation is not factored into federal hate crimes an that the victim must be a minority.
Brian, hate crimes laws were enacted primarily to combat the targeting of minorities of any stripe for offenses. Hence my minority comment.
As far as the federal hate crimes law goes, it does not cover sexual orientation or gender, to name a couple, that some individual states and municipalities cover. The federal government, however, tracks all crime in the US according to laws in place in individual states and muninipalities. Thus, the federal government tracks sexual orientation hate crimes on a local level, even if that legislation is not in place nationally.
You're right, however, in saying that federal law would not cover hate crimes in the instance specifically mentioned, because federal hate crimes law only applies to federally protected rights, or crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction. In this case, the California hate crimes legislation would apply, and it does cover sexual orienation AND religion in its statutes.
Ok, I found what you're talking about, this page lists just about everything:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hat...e_United_States
To be a federal hate crime the crime must be committed on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin and the victim must be engaging in a federally protected activity (I assume that means their rights must have been violated).
But since 1994 sentencing for violent federal crimes have been required to to give increased penalties for hate crimes including the sexual orientation of the victims.
And since 1990 the federal government has been keeping statistics on hate crimes including those based on sexual orientation.
It looks to me like violent crimes, which are what most people associate with hate crimes, committed against a person because of their sexual orientation are covered by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. But, for example, someone running a fraudulent business across state lines to steal money from people based on their sexual orientation isn't considered a hate crime under federal law. I personally didn't even realize their were hate crimes that weren't violent crimes.
I'm confused Brian... are you arguing that those who commit hate crimes against gay and lesbian Americans should not be punished? Please clarify.
Commenting by HaloScan
