"See how beautiful we looked."

Dear Naral, No, I definitely don't. Not one of you is wearing a skirt or dress. Not one of you is pregnant. And you look about as diverse as a bunch of Chinese Communist workers from the 1960's.
Older and Wiser | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 8:23 am | #

"See how beautiful we looked."

Dear Naral, Yes, I definitely do. It's wonderful to see that you will protest outside of their clinics the way they protest outside of your clinics. Women should know the broad range of options when they get pregnant. And if you don't want to wear a skirt, there is nothing wrong with that! But please, just don't wear any of those low riding jeans. They're really REALLY offensive.
jjoyce | 07.12.05 - 8:34 am | #

Huh? jjoyce, are you serious? It is wonderful to see a group protesting life? It is wonderful, in our abortion soaked culture, to see a clinic that deals in options for life instead of death? Yeah. I am quivering with shock.
Colleen | 07.12.05 - 8:38 am | #

jjoyce, in FY2002-03, less than 1% of Planned Parenthood's services were adoption referrals, and that was 3,537 fewer referrals than in 1998. The number has declined for at least 6 years. They don’t spend more than about 5% of their annual revenues of $766 million to help women keep their babies or give them to loving adoptive couples.

This is all from PPFA’s 2002-03 annual report, described here and actually found here

They say they “want to reduce abortion” but the report shows the opposite: they performed 6.7% more abortions in 2002 and made a 300% increase in profits from those abortions over 2001, or $36.6 million profit. They also showed record income in 2002 of $766.6 million and the taxpayer funds that they received hit an all-time high of $254.4 million. That taxpayer money exceeded the amount donated from 2002 and 2001 combined.

They do minimal, window-dressing adoption counseling for $45 million annually in Title X funds, but their bread is more than buttered by the $254.4 million from taxpayer plus other charitable donations.

You can’t do much less than "less than 1%" of something that qualifies one for Title X. THAT's the only reason why they do adoption counseling. To get their paws on another $45 million a year.
Annie B. | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 8:54 am | #

I say, give 'em enough rope and watch them hang themselves. The general public will be really revolted if this catches on.
Christina | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 9:01 am | #

Don't get me wrong, jjoyce, I’d like to see more adoptions come out of PP and all those making $1.3 BILLION on abortion (the size of the entire abortion provider industry in the US alone!). I really would. I’m just not going to give them “credit” until about half their clients choose adoption instead of abortion.

But they don’t make any money off adoptions. $45 million in Title X, while still coveted by them, is a drop in their bucket: it’s only 17.7% of the amount they get from taxpayersm, and only 5.8% of their total income. They can live without it, really, and would probably, if not for the oh-so-nice windowdressing it provides them.

It fooled you, it fooled me, it's fooled millions.

And as for their adoption questionnaire? For decades, Planned Parenthood has raised the specter of adoptive child abuse by asking women (here, http://www.plannedparenthood.org...ub- pregnant.xml on their website) whether or not they believe this about adoption: "I'll know my child will be treated well." Many pregnant moms (and even fathers) have personally told me that they’re afraid their baby might be abused after adoption or even by themselves, so it is better the baby die than to live with abuse! They learned this from PP.

PP and others don’t tell women the facts from child-abuse centers: that in families where children WERE abused, between 91 and 96% of those children were WANTED, not unwanted.

PP doesn’t tell them the fact that, in the 23 years between 1973 (when abortion was legalized) and 1996, CHILD ABUSE IN THE U.S. HAS INCREASED MORE THAN 1,000%, according to the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect. After New York legalized abortion in 1968, there was a 44% per year rise in child abuse. Washington state made it legal in 1970, and in just the first 2 years, child abuse in its largest city (Seattle) skyrocketed 379%.

Dr. Vincent Fontana, author of "The Maltreated Child," (Macmillan, 1973)
"Dr. Vincent Fontana has investigated thousands of abuse cases nationwide. He personally directed the establishment of the first (and largest) medical facility devoted exclusively to the treatment of abused and battered children. In his book, "Somewhere A Child Is Crying," Dr. Fontana wrote:
"’It is unfair, uninformed, and, I believe dangerous to preach the doctrine that abused and neglected children are unwanted and to imply that unplanned children are going to be maltreated. The assumption that every battered child is an unwanted is totally false. Many maltreated children are children who were very much wanted before birth. In search of a quick and easy solution to the ugly reality of child abuse, a great many people have come up with glib answers based on the pill and other birth control devices, planned parenthood, vasectomies, and abortions for the asking. Abortion is the favorite theme of the moment. It might be a wonderfully neat solution, if it were only not quite so sweeping and simplistic, or if it were only valid."

Dr. Philip G. Ney, Psychiatry, Univ. of British Columbia, Canada, and founder of International Institute for Pregnancy Loss and Child Abuse Research and Recovery (IIPLCARR) has published extensively on this issue: "Abortion not only increases the rate of child battering at present; it will increase the tendency to batter and abort in succeeding generations." (sources include: The American Feminist, Winter 1999-2000, Karen J. Gordon, Feminists for Life, http://www.feministsforlife.org/...er/ childabu.htm .
Annie B. | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 9:05 am | #

The horror of showing a mother an ultrasound—how dare anyone suggest it is "her baby"! It's not a baby, it's a VENOMOUS PARASITE OUT TO SUCK HER BLOOD, MAKE HER HIDEOUSLY FAT, AND DEPRIVE HER OF HER SOCIAL STANDING!

Some perspective? No one is saying this.
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 11:52 am | #

"See how beautiful we looked."

I bet you were all beautiful babies, too...
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 11:58 am | #

I still think one man, one woman, two parents, one of each gender, women who look and smell like beautiful women, men who look and smell like strong, loving, and sheltering men, men who are not afraid of being great fathers, two people, one of each gender, who love each other, who commit to love each other for a lifetime, who commit to loving their children for a lifetime...these people are REALLY beautiful.

Hey, jjoyce, orgasms are cheap. You can always get one. We're talking about something different.
rrr | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 12:43 pm | #

Okay so what next? A Protestant group standing outside a Jewish Temple protesting that the Rabbi is not teaching the New Testament?

The far left has no where else to go...but to imitate the far right's position. I agree with Christina - NARAL will hang themselves with these tactics.
Lee Anne | 07.12.05 - 1:34 pm | #

Dawn,

The links to the NARAL function and the Stranger article don't seem to work. Have they been taken down in the last 12 hours?
Andy | 07.12.05 - 3:24 pm | #

Andy, it was a technical problem with my coding--a couple of extra line breaks got in there. Thanks for the heads-up.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 3:31 pm | #

So, these NARAL types are standing outside the clinic with a sign saying Fake Clinic. And yet, the clinic website says that they do in fact have medical staff to provide consultations. If this is correct, wouldn't NARAL's actions be libel?
EileenR | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 4:30 pm | #

Okay, if ya wanna criticize the other side's position, fine.

But not showing up in party dress is hardly an offense in my book. It's Washington state - maybe it was cold out. Older and Wiser - do you have a tie on right now? If not, get busy - Esquire says the Windsor knot is required this year.

The CPC in question claims it presents abortion as an option. It doesn't, according to NARAL. Not sure who's lying but: I love the story under 'for guys' where the guy was uncomfortable with his role in the couple's joint decision for an abortion:

"After counseling and a medical consultation, 'Mark' and 'Joyce' decided that they wanted this baby in spite of the hardship raising a child would involve. However, a short time later they decided they must terminate the pregnancy. They just couldn't support a child.

When their abortion date drew near, however, 'Mark' realized that he would be violating his own beliefs if they went through with the abortion. He was deeply bothered and they returned to explore their options further. They finally decided to go with adoption."

Not much about Joyce's thought process there, but a lot about Mark's. I wonder if Joyce's "Christian" boyfriend slapped her around a few times before 'they' decided to go through with adoption? I wonder if Jouce was convinced she was making the right decision because she chose life for her kid or because she's nothing but a functional uterus to Mark.

I wonder how many of you care about that concept, or Joyce, at all.

CPC's are fine. NARAL should confine protests to places that lie and confuse women who have unplanned pregnancies.

I'm not convinced that Life Choices is such a place. But I'm not sure it isn't either, and Dawn, your blanket defense is a little scary. Hope you don't wind up facing Joyce's choice thorugh no fault of your own.
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 5:15 pm | #

rrr - Wow. How about the lovely, feminine woman who wears Shalimar and her delightfully masculine husband who is redolent of Old Spice who also beat their kids regularly?

They committed to loving their kids for a lifetime, but they failed.

So instead, the kids get placed with two ladies who wear Body Shop perfume and dote on the kids as though they are their own, or two guys who splash on Armani when they get out of the shower and would gladly take a bullet for them.

Are they not REALLY beautiful?

I think they are. And I think that the exclusionary part of your sentiment is REALLY ugly.
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 5:25 pm | #

I love the story under 'for guys' where the guy was uncomfortable with his role in the couple's joint decision for an abortion ... Not much about Joyce's thought process there, but a lot about Mark's.

Hence the name of the section, "For Guys."

I wonder if Joyce's "Christian" boyfriend slapped her around a few times before 'they' decided to go through with adoption? I wonder if Jouce was convinced she was making the right decision because she chose life for her kid or because she's nothing but a functional uterus to Mark.

I think you're mixing things, Thom. What is more of a macho fantasy for an immature man - to settle down to raise a child with the mother, or to abandon her? Or to ask her to get an abortion so his sexual convenience is maximized? It's already sickening the number of times one hears about abusive live-in boyfriends killing their lover's kids, behaving like wild creatures eliminating the whelps of a rival. Often such prize-winners are addicts and petty criminals, and nearly never are they believers.

I wonder how many of you care about that concept, or Joyce, at all.

The concept is pure slander. I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't care to hear such wizened old lies. Got a little secret to share: there is a faith of the book heavily involved in honor-killing and wife-as-property, and it isn't Christianity. Or do you doubt at all that even one such similar story in the Bible Belt wouldn't attract a horde of media attention?

NARAL should confine protests to places that lie and confuse women who have unplanned pregnancies.

Sort of awkward blockading one's own doorways. Gets in the way of profits, too.

I'm not convinced that Life Choices is such a place. But I'm not sure it isn't either,

Bold and decisive as always.

...and Dawn, your blanket defense is a little scary.

Sure, but your description of Mark slapping Joyce around wasn't meant to frighten anyone.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 5:50 pm | #

Baloney, bro. I'm not trying to frighten people, there are lots of police reports for that. It's hardly shocking that the evangelical South has the highest domestic abuse rate, while Massachusetts has the lowest, as well as the lowest divorce rate. www.fbi.gov, mon frere.

Hence the name of the section, "For Guys."

Oh, so guys in your world don't discuss things like preganancy with their girlfriends? It's all theri decision? How disgusting. Welcome to 1910 Alabama... oops, 2005 Alabama. Same thing.
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 6:05 pm | #

Love your Muslim-denigrating too - I wonder if those of them who follow the true version of their faith view you as an apostate fanatic Christian, or just a regular one?
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 6:09 pm | #

Thom, if you wish to continue commenting here, kindly tone down your tone. Shrilljess and antagonizing fellow commenters are not welcome here.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 6:15 pm | #

Thom's statements regarding Massachusetts and the South are misleading as well as inflammatory, and they're not even original. I debunked them a year ago in "Sullivan Unravels."

Also, Thom, before you go throwing around statistics, I suggest you reveal sources—and that those sources should, if possible, come from something other than a purely partisan Web site such as Sullivan or Daily Kos.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 6:18 pm | #

Dawn have you been to www.fbi.gov for crime statistics? That's my source, and I'll keep it, thanks.

You debunked nothing I said.

However, I do regret my tone. No one should have their message lost in the delivery process. My response to Nightfly was accurate and complete, but not nice. I apologize.
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 6:23 pm | #

Thom, with regard to sources, it would help if you would provide a link to a page that contains the specific information you cited.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 6:25 pm | #

Okay Dawn, how 'bout this one:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/fy2004grants/

It goes state by state, and if you do the math (dollar figure by head count) you will see that so-called 'red states' (where the folks are oh-so-religious) whomp on their wives a lot more, by headcount. In other words, the percentages are similar, but based on population alone, lots of rural guys are using their wives as punching bags.



Edited By Siteowner
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 6:47 pm | #

Thom, I edited your last comment because you insulted me without giving a specific example of what sparked the insult. Last chance. No gratuitious insults.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 6:49 pm | #

Gotta be more specific: just 'cause more folks get married in Gooberland (ill-advised) and more are younger, and ignorant (thanks to absitence only sex-ed) doesn't mean Andrew Sullivan's conclusions were wrong. I think it makes them more correct.
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 6:50 pm | #

Not trying to insult you, though I seem to have succeeded. Sorry.
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 6:52 pm | #

As a new reader, this is my first time making a comment. Thanks for all of the info Dawn. I love your blog.
And thanks to NARAL for inspiring me to donate money and support to Life Choices!
Nance | 07.12.05 - 7:03 pm | #

Dawn thinks I speak from my tuchis. I do not.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/04prelim.pdf

Go in and click to see that crime has risen in the Bible Belt, especially hate crime and violent crime. No surprise, given the views of evangelicals on gays and other minorities.

Debunked? I don't think so. One can play with numbers like Andrew and Dawn both did, and still find ways to justify one's own beliefs.

Prolly more important to examine those beliefs and make sre they are in line with God's teachings.
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 7:08 pm | #

Thanks, Nance!

Thom, you're WAAAYYYYY off-topic, using this thread to make points about something that has nothing to do with NARAL's picking a clinic because it doesn't kill babies.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 7:11 pm | #

You invited me down this road, but okay...

Does Life Choices denigrate the women who make the choice of abortion? Does it make women who want it feel guilty? Does it refuse to discuss it?

NARAL says yes. Life Choices says no.
Want to find out who's lying? Here's a hint: I got all the info I needed, as I already did.

Call up. Pretend you're pregnant. Ask a few questions.

Then decide whether federal funding should go to this clinic, which is waaaaaaayyyy off the Law of The Land.
thom413 | 07.12.05 - 7:19 pm | #

Where's RICO when you need it? If you remember, liberals got some prosecutors to use the RICO law against pro-life groups such as Operation Rescue which engaged in civil disobedience. (When RICO was passed, Teddy Kennedy was worried that it would be abused to target political activists.)

Abortion is the only big business that liberals don't want regulated, want subsidized, and want protected from competition (i.e. from adoption or crisis pregnancy centers).
D------ | 07.12.05 - 8:20 pm | #

There is always one angry and/or opinionated commenter on every blog, I suppose, and Thom's audition is going splendidly. Here are some questions for him that I will ask theoretically, since I don't want to derail this thread any further.

Where is the Bible belt, in your opinion? It is not an FBI category. Nor is "Gooberland". I wonder where that is and if you have ever been there to be so dismissive of this place.

I live in the Bible belt (the real thing) now in a rather large metropolitan area and can tell you that it is a lot less violent and crime ridden than Boston, where I last lived. There have been no reported crimes against gays, since I have lived here. There have been only half as many murders (if you leave abortion out of it) so far as in Boston.

Are you actually able to interpret stats correctly? I am sceptical; there are some 104 tables to work through if you use final FBI crime data for 2002-2004 and, adjusting for population, it simply doesn't support your conclusions.

I think I speak for everyone, if I invite you to talk with us. It is not a bad thing to admit not knowing something. It is a bad thing making up "facts" to prove your point. It is a bad thing to insult people who are discussing an issue they are interested in and have varying perspectives about.
Colleen | 07.12.05 - 9:56 pm | #

Thom,
While you've shown us FBI statistics that show a general increase in crime in the Bible Belt, you've not shown us statistics that show the causation of the rise in crime. You're drawing two statistics together, the percent increase in crime and the number of religious persons in those states, which are not related, to draw a misleading conclusion. Yours is only an attempt to take cheap potshots at organized religion and side-rail the discussion.
Rachael | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 10:25 pm | #

"Does Life Choices denigrate the women who make the choice of abortion? Does it make women who want it feel guilty? Does it refuse to discuss it?"

How could you know? Have you ever been in an unplanned pregnancy situation and received this center's services in person? You basing you're accusations off of politically-slanted questions asked over the phone and the word of a political lobbying organization.
Rachael | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 10:37 pm | #

"Go in and click to see that crime has risen in the Bible Belt, especially hate crime and violent crime."

Considering how subjective (and stupid) the concept of "hate crime" is, I'm not surprised.

"Jesus loves you."

"Hate crime!!"

Create new "crimes", and eventually, you create higher crime rates.
JonathanR | 07.12.05 - 10:53 pm | #

"Baloney, bro. I'm not trying to frighten people, there are lots of police reports for that."

Right, you're not trying to scare people, just insult them.
JonathanR | 07.12.05 - 11:10 pm | #

"Call up. Pretend you're pregnant. Ask a few questions."

Thom, I think that's misleading--I doubt very much that anyone can
A) effectively counsel a pregnant woman in a crisis over the phone. Part of the crisis is her health and her feeling of isolation. You can't check the one or comfort the other over the phone. Try it the next time an out-of-state friend gets knocked up by a royal a**hole and see how effective it is.
B) realistically assess a clinic's--not a phone bank's, but a clinic's--level of service, knowledgeability, or "caring for Joyce" from a phone conversation. You'd need to be a patient, Thomasina.

I have no problem with LifeChoice asking women on the phone to come in for a conference. Nor do those women need to be wearing skirts to receive good medical treatment. I think NARAL's picket is a red herring, however. In my yellow pages, "abortion" comes before "adoption." If a woman is desperate and calling clinics for help, she could clearly see from the phone book that the name of the place is LIFE CHOICES. Unless she's been hiding under a rock for the last thirty years, I don't know how she would not figure out that the clinic doesn't do much in the way of abortion referral.

Most women already know what their options are if they get pregnant: keep, abort, give up. Some of them have already decided against one of those options before they even call a clinic. Is NARAL protesting the existence of a clinic that caters to those women? If so, what does that say about NARAL's committment to choice?
Kate B. | 07.13.05 - 9:27 am | #

Thom413,

No its not beautiful when a child is intentionally deprived of a balanced set of parents. You can ask me and my siblings how well that goes. Our mother, while currently married for Social Security purposes, had little care for us. Why is it always the straight parents who beat the kids and the gay ones who offer loving solutions? Those people don't really exist or if they do the are so few they are invisible.

I lived in the homosexual/pagan community my entire childhood till I was 13. There is alot that isnt said and much thats done behined closed doors.

And before the argument starts about how one can be a fathering figure and one can be mothering-regaurdless of sex- I have to say thats not how it works. My mother was a doofy pot smoking ditz who constantly wrote bad checks and couldnt manage writing a grocery list much less turn said groceries into edible food. And she attracted like woman.

If I have any difficulties parenting its because of the sexually confused/charged enviornment I grew up in. Would it help my kids to take them from me and give them to a gay couple? Absolutly not it would leave them in the same confusion, distrust and social ineptness I have now as an adult. I can remember the social isolation from my childhood. I also remember abuse and mistakes made on my part because I didnt know any better. It is not ever better for a child to be placed in a homosexual home. Not when there are so many families willing to adopt. And yes there was a couple in Ark who wanted to adopt me and my older sister but no, mom got us back. God only knows why?
josephine | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 11:02 am | #

The protesting of a crises pregnancy center is just foolish. It is rather like watching a fish flapping around on the bank before it yeilds to suffocation. They have nowhere else to go so they try to use our tactics. Its not the same one is giving hope and the other is trying to deny it. In the end people of any civilization choose hope and life and the ones that have chosen too late have sunk beneath the sands.
josephine | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 11:14 am | #

If you remember, liberals got some prosecutors to use the RICO law against pro-life groups such as Operation Rescue which engaged in civil disobedience.

And things like threatening to murder doctors who performed abortions, I recall. Randall "Let a wave of hate wash over you" Terry is nothing more than a domestic terrorist.

One can be pro-life without spewing hate and murderous intent. Operation Rescue is hardly a mainstream pro-life organization...more like the Earth First or Animal Liberation Front of this issue.
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 11:32 am | #

Vidiot, we already have laws on the books against murder. Those who murdered abortion doctors were arrested and charged under those laws.

Do you believe that peacefully blocking the entrance of an abortion clinic is "domestic terrorism"? So how come liberals can engage in "civil disobendience" but not conservatives or pro-lifers?

The RICO law was never intended to be used as a weapon against political activists, left or right.

Liberals got upset that some conservatives were borrowing their own tactics and abused the law to punish them.
D------ | 07.13.05 - 12:53 pm | #

Vidiot, the issue is not whether Operation Rescue engaged in illegitimat activities, but whether the specific activities for which it was prosecuted were illegal.

A similar case would be the one of the Nazi group that wanted to march in Skokie, Ill., in which they were defended by the ACLU. Regardless of whether the Nazis were committing illegal activities in other areas, they had the constitutional right to march, and the Supreme Court refused to intervene.

If the Nazis have freedom of assembly and freedom to protest in areas where they are not wanted, so too does anyone who wants to protest on the sidewalks. That goes for NARAL, and it should go for Operation Rescue. But I don't see the ACLU helping OR—or any pro-life groups, for that matter. (There might be one token case I don't know about, but if so it's the exception that proves the rule.) As far as I can tell, they're always on the side of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 1:01 pm | #

Josephine- I'm so sorry about your childhood. We have helped a lesbian mother with her children. She was very loving, but she exhibited poor judgment with the home environment- for example, decorating with sexually explicit lesbian photos, etc., and having inappropriate conversations about genital experiences, while around her young children. Although the children's parents were drug addicts, they still preferred the unpredictability of the two-parent, one of each, poverty home environment, versus the well-to-do professional (loving) lesbian home. Our friend eventually lost her kids, due to an error in judgment. The four-year-old was badly hurt in an avoidable accident. The children were returned to the parental home with their (presumably now sober) parents.

I think it is a no-brainer to assume that if children could state their preference at birth, they would always want a mom and a dad, because that's what they were made of: they received half their chromosomes from one parent and half from the other.

If you need help and support in caring for your kids, and you would like a motherly mentor, Focus on the Family can lend you a hand and direct you to very helpful and caring friends. Sometimes you just need a sympathetic ear. Be kind to yourself, Honey.
rrr | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 1:20 pm | #

I wasn't aware that Operation Rescue was prosecuted under RICO -- I believe that NOW brought a civil suit against them under RICO, however. (Many things are different in civil vs. criminal charges, including jury makeup, burdens of proof, and presumptions of innocence vs. preponderance of evidence.) And I'm not commenting on whether RICO should have been used by NOW in its lawsuit; I don't know enough about it. I would agree with you in principle, though, that RICO isn't meant for those purposes. (Don't assume that all "liberals" think exactly alike, and I said nothing about civil disobedience not applying to conservatives.)

D----, you're twisting my words. I never said that "peacefully blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic" is domestic terrorism. (However, I don't think that people should block other people from doing something that's perfectly legal, even if you disagree with it in the strongest possible terms.) I consider "domestic terrorism" to include things like shooting doctors in the head (not that Terry has done this, but he certainly has encouraged wingnuts very close to him to do just that.) In the same regard, I'm not sure I'd consider delivering a fetus to the president, blocking peoples' access to clinics (whether they're there for abortions or not), or assaulting people by getting up in their face and screaming at them to be "civil disobedience."

(Incidentally, my opinion on this last bit may have been colored a little bit, considering that I've been assaulted by screaming pro-life protesters in the past who spit at me, screamed at me, shoved mock fetuses covered with blood (or blood-like substances) in my face, et cetera, without any provocation whatsoever.)

Dawn, anyone has freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The ACLU works to protect and advance those rights. They do work on behalf of conservative groups, but I agree that the public perception is that the ACLU is a "liberal" organization. (Perhaps it's because conservatives want to restrict individual rights and liberties more than liberals?) As a member of the ACLU, I wish they were more publicly identified with supporting cases protecting the civil liberties of conservatives (such as their support of a student in West Virginia who wore a Confederate battle flag T-shirt, their support of an Ohio minister who was denied a permit to protest abortion during a parade, their opposition to McCain's political-reform bill in 2000, etc.), because I do believe they have an image problem.
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 1:26 pm | #

Josephine, we've all read your story, and are sorry you had to go through that. That said, my lesbian neighbors are fantastic parents and I would say they do a better job than 90% of their heterosexual counterparts. Perhaps they feel that they are under intense scrutiny because of the ignorant bigots who live behind them. The bigots seldom clean up their lawn, are constantly yelling at their own poorly behaved brats, and the last book they read probably had something to do with how to keep black people from moving in, maybe "Cross Burning 101". Yet they think nothing of allowing their 10 year old to address my friends as "The Dykes". The bigots are devout Baptists. Nice. Oh, so Christian.

Josephine writes: "It is not ever better for a child to be placed in a homosexual home. Not when there are so many families willing to adopt."

One of my nieghbors' kids has AIDS. No one wanted him. The other kid is a girl from China. We know how well girls do over there. Both of them are thriving, with good grades and excellent manners. I'm not denying your experience, so please don't deny mine, thanks. My wife went to school with a man named Jim, who is now an LAPD officer. Jim and his husband adopted two unwanted kids, a 5 year old boy and a newborn girl. Jim's husband quit his job to stay home with the kids. Jim and Brian will make fine parents, and I call those kids lucky.

Vidiot makes a great point about the ACLU. All one has to do is look at their web page to see the work that they've done for conservative causes. It's more than you think.
joe | 07.13.05 - 1:55 pm | #

Welcome back, Joe!

Hope you don't mind, but Dawn, Steve G., and I gave you a superhero name: Joe LeGrand. Soon, the Gnu, the PetPo, and BK will call upon you to fight evil with them. Be prepared!
Kate B. | 07.13.05 - 2:20 pm | #

I read that, and it made me laugh out loud - I love it.

I'm all about using my powers for good.
joe | 07.13.05 - 2:30 pm | #

Vidiot, conservatives would have good reason to disagree with you on your assuming they wish to restrict rights and liberties—it's liberals who are behind the umbrella-like attempts at hate-crime legislation, which are used in Canada to silence peaceful clergy. One group which includes conservative-leaning members and is very pro-individual rights, is Libertarians for Life.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 3:32 pm | #

Dawn, hate crime legislation should not be used against peaceful clergy. EVER. And even though The Odious Fred Phelps would classify himself as such, the rest of us would disagree. (*note - when referring to Rev. Phelps, one should always preface it by the prefix "The Odious")

However, there is a regrettable need for such legislation in our pluralistic society. When people are still atttacked in 2005 based on the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, and even their religion, society has a vested interest in heightening the punishment for those crimes. (Note that all 3 occurred in the NY metro area in the last few months).
joe | 07.13.05 - 3:52 pm | #

I agree with you that such crimes may be hateful, but--and this opens up a whole different thread--I and many others would argue that they should be prosecuted for what they are: crimes. Bringing the "hate" element into prosecution opens up many cans of worms.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 3:57 pm | #

I'm fine with those worms out there in the light of day, as are most people. A key element of crime is intent. If the intent of the criminal is to commit a crime based on the victim's race, etc. - well, it takes the crime up a notch.
joe | 07.13.05 - 4:05 pm | #

Oh my, this hits way too close to home. I am just horrified. I live a mile from where this protest took place. From what I know, Life Choices is a good pro-life CPC (which would of course be why NARAL is attacking it). There is, however, a large Planned Parenthood very closeby as well as a little PP branch in a storefront not six blocks from the original one that just popped up out of nowhere last week. My friends and I are mightily upset about this new outpost - it's less than two blocks from our church (we obviously need to pray and make more of a stink than we have been). But why would NARAL be so militant when they have all this local representation? It's quite maddening. This is normal for Seattle, unfortunately. Our city is in desperate need of prayers. Dawn, thanks for being such a pro-life warrior.
Janelle | 07.13.05 - 4:10 pm | #

Joe, by "worms" I wasn't referring to hate. I was referring to using a supposed hateful intention as reason to heighten prosecution of a crime that should be prosecuted regardless of the intent.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 4:12 pm | #

Thanks, Janelle. Hang in there--you're not alone, and others are praying with you for an end to abortion.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 4:13 pm | #

Joe- I believe that _anyone_ who can take in and not abuse an orphaned kid should have the right to do so.

You will never get me or most defenders of traditional and natural marriage and parenting to agree that same-sex couples should introduce more kids by borrowing sperm or ova from anonymous "donors" and cooking up new human beings in test tubes, just so they can deny those beings the right to a mom and a dad. The two lesbians and two gays on either side of your house should trade partners with each other so the kids can have their natural right, the right they would have chosen, if they could have chosen at birth. I'm sure your neighbors and friends are very loving indeed. Having lived in the gay community and been confidante to many many gays and lesbians, I don't doubt their lovingness in the least. But, face it: men still can't grow breasts naturally, although they can get their hormones screwed up unnaturally. (I've always thought that would be a great punishment for sex offenders, i.e., shooting them up with female hormones and letting them experience the empathy and tears of a cyclically influenced young woman.)Men also can never know what it is like to feel a child growing inside of them, to feel it move, to experience the physical oneness with the child. There is research that shows that preborn infants and neonates recognize their mothers voices and personal body odor.

Oh, yeah, I anticipate your making light of these points with your endless nightmarish exceptions of wire-monkey mothers who don't know how to nurture and soft tender men who do. Just go with the script for a while, Joe. Stop always playing "Yes, but"...and admit a few points.

As well, babies react differently to fathers than to mothers. There is research to show that babies are calmed more easily from fears when they are picked up and held by their fathers. The instinctive and early fear of falling, for example, is exhibited less frequently when fathers hold their babies. Who of us that was blessed to have a halfway decent father did not experience the specialness of a father's hands, arms, shoulders and chest? Dad felt absolutely different from Mom, safer and stronger.

Any other combination is second best, except in cases of difficult-to-place children, who would otherwise have to be relegated to institutional care. If there were some way to rule out the artificial cookery of babes who are denied moms _and_ dads, dads _and_ moms, then I, for one, would be less of a foe of same-sex "marriage".
rrr | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 4:42 pm | #

I hear you Dawn. I'm just saying that I see the need for such legislation in our society.
Even the proponents of such legislation would look askance at clergy being prosecuted under it. (If one doesn't like what one hears from the pulpit, one may leave.)

That's a far cry from "Die, (minority), die!" Most of us don't want society's minorities dead - they add flavor (flava? flavour?) to society and are valuable contributors. Assaulting them because they are minorities deserves heightened punishment - all crimes should be prosecuted the same way. (A legal distinction, but an important one.)
joe | 07.13.05 - 4:45 pm | #

In general, I think "hate crimes" to be a redundancy - nobody busts a cap in yo' azz 'cuz they care. Beyond that, it takes crimes committed against members of a class and makes them more serious, which seems to me to fly in the face of equal protection under the law. After all, the motivation joe describes can move in many directions, such as "Die whitey" or "Die infidel." I don't want those to be hate crimes either.

But my biggest misgiving has got to be this. A hate crime takes a person and makes him a victim solely on categories. In order to show how wrong this is, hate crimes legislation takes the exact same approach - the crime gets extra punishment based on the same categories. In effect it cedes the point to the criminal, by making the victim's class or race more important than his individual personality. We're balkanized enough without enshrining such things in legislation.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 5:04 pm | #

Hate crime legislation is as foolish as it is dangerous. How on earth do you parse the following crime:

A woman gets beaten within an inch of her life by a man who hates women and says so. Is that a worse crime than the same beating administered to a man?

What if the woman is black? Is it a worse crime, if he beats a black woman to a pulp than if the woman he beats is white? What if the white woman is handicapped?

Is beating up a white handicapped woman a worse crime than beating up a healthy fully mobile black woman? What if the black woman is also a lesbian ...

This game can be played forever and we can multiply possibilities limited only by our creativity.

The only thing hate crimes legislation has accomplished so far is the jailing of a swedish pastor for reading from the book of Leviticus during a sermon. Canada is poised to put the Swedes to shame in its prosecution of anyone who doesn't think gayness equals all that is good and noble in the human condition.

In our own country it didn't put those two black depraved killers in St. Louis away for murdering and raping 5 white people while shouting racist slogans.

Somehow, I think we would all be safer if justice were blind and carried out without regard to the incidental characteristics of human beings.
Colleen | 07.13.05 - 5:50 pm | #

Joe

A key element of crime is intent. If the intent of the criminal is to commit a crime based on the victim's race, etc. - well, it takes the crime up a notch

Yes, but the law only differentiates between intent and accident, not the content of the intent. If a person commits an intentional crime b/c of someone's race, b/c he needs target practice, b/c he likes the victim's shoes and wanted them - all these things point to intent and should therefore be punished as intentional crimes. If believed (eg, it was committed because of race, need for practice, wanted the shoes) then the element of intent is met.

Once we get into "upping it a notch" based on the content of the intent, rather than just its existence, we are moving into thought punishment - we are punishing not b/c the crime was intentional, but b/c the person had thoughts we deem inappropriate. Sorry, don't want to go there.
c matt | 07.13.05 - 6:26 pm | #

Joe. I knew kids who were from seemingly loving homes. It didnt change the fact we were a phycological mess. It didnt stop us from experimenting sexually nor did it make them feel more loved than I did by my mother. Of coarse this was before you could go to a clinic and cook your own on a bank loan. You had to get kids the old fashioned way for most back then.

Also, of those Ive know all my life, only a few are straight and those who are are struggling with it. Thinking men were usless was a part of my upbringing and its my husband who has paid the price for it. A price he may not have had to pay had I had a father and known what they were like.

Being well off or your mothers or fathers seeming like great parents doesnt make the situation right. It messes up your head. No mater how brilliant or fabulouse the parents. I believe had I never suffered the abuse I still would have been a mess.

I do know people who lost a parent as a child and they arent as messed up as those of us I knew who had gay/bi parents. I know so many people whos parents divorced when they were young. Even they seem more stable. Well in fact are more stable. And I really doubt the woman you know are better than 90% of thier straight counterparts.

As for all those kids whom nobody wants. Its just not the real problem. Red tape is the problem. Its hard to get one of those children and I know several who have wanted to adopt one of those children but couldnt. In my church there are no less than 5 viatnamese/chinese children adopted from overseas. And these children often have psycological problems and handicaps. And I go to a small parish church. My sisters church has no less than 15 children from overseas and 3 of them are russian. Several of the little girls who are from china need braces to walk because of atrophy of thier muscles and the ones from russia have sever abuse issues and 2 are on medication. We are going to other countries and adopting children. And its mostly christians that I know who are doing it. Why do people act like we can never find 2 parent opposite sex homes for the american children when those from other countries fare just fine finding homes here?
Josephine | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 6:27 pm | #

Wait a minute - thom said the Bible Belt has more crime, but joe says NY just had three hate crime incindents, what gives?

I know, the Bible Belt crime increase is due to Yankees moving south - 'splains it all!
c matt | 07.13.05 - 6:46 pm | #

However, there is a regrettable need for such legislation in our pluralistic society. When people are still atttacked in 2005 based on the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, and even their religion, society has a vested interest in heightening the punishment for those crimes.

You mean when people are being assaulted based on their studying in school, or their exercise of free speech, or their having money that the criminal does not want to work for -- society does not have a vested interest in heightening the punishment for those crimes?

Really, we don't need to hang the word "hate" on a crime to make it bad. Crime is bad and deserves to be punished. To single out some crimes is only to raise the question of why you don't care about the others.
Mary | 07.13.05 - 9:08 pm | #

Vidiot,

And which mainstream pro-lifers (e.g. Dr. James Dobson, the late John Cardinal O'Connor, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Nat Henthoff, etc.) opposed prosecuting people who murdered abortion doctors? All these figures condemned the acts. In fact, the cardinal urged anyone who wanted to shoot a doctor to shoot him instead.

I never twisted your words. I simply asked if you believe that blocking clinic entrances is domestic terrorism. You answered my question, which was a "no."

I think you're confusing Operation Rescue with Rescue America. One of the latter organization's members did kill a doctor (and was arrested and convicted).
D------ | 07.13.05 - 9:20 pm | #

I don't know if the CPC people were being evasive, but, wouldn't you? What with all these "pregnant" girls calling to see if they'll offer to refer them to Planned Parenthood? Let's see: what if I call Planned Parenthood and NARAL and pretend that my "girlfriend" is "pregnant"; and when they don't refer me to a CPC, I call them evasive and suggest they don't want to give me all the information. What a joke.

Tim
Tim | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 9:36 pm | #

There are some things you cannot discuss over the phone because you have no way of knowing what you are dealing with on the other end. I know of no reputable doctor that will diagnose and recomend a surgical procedure based on a phone conversation, unless PP does that, we know they shield statutory rapists so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they did make such snap recomendations.
J Rob | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 9:53 pm | #

Joe,

I have kind of an odd question, but you're better with the legal system than I, so I hope you can help me out.

In alot of the discussions on this board, the lines get blurred between act (homosexual sex, contraception, NFP, abortion, whatever) and motivation or intent. This leads people to make blanket statements like, "All contraceptors hate babies!" or "All post-abortive women are selfish!" or "All gays are noble savages!" or "All NFP users do it for the right reasons!" It seems that judging the act and judging the content of the intent are two different acts: one we can do fairly clearly (the act happened, after all). The other is, I think, beyond our capabilities. It leads to a conflation of sin and sinner, if you will. So where, in hate-crime legislation, is the line drawn that prevents such a conflation? Can we safely and legally judge intent without condemning the sinner as well as the sin?
Kate B. | 07.14.05 - 10:28 am | #

Colleen, your logic crumbles yet again.

Hate crime legislation is as foolish as it is dangerous. How on earth do you parse the following crime:

It's very easy - if you can establish intent to commit the crime based on the race, etc of the victim, the criminal gets heightened punishment, because in our society, we do think that those thoughts -and actions- are inappropriate.


The only thing hate crimes legislation has accomplished so far is the jailing of a swedish pastor for reading from the book of Leviticus during a sermon. Canada is poised to put the Swedes to shame in its prosecution of anyone who doesn't think gayness equals all that is good and noble in the human condition.

Aye, here's the rub: Colleen wants to be free to say nasty things about her gay 'friends'. She is, and so are most pastors, priests, etc.

Even a gay person in America wouldn't be upset about a preacher man howling about The Evil Sin Of Gayness. (I checked with one to be sure.) It's when the preacher man rounds up like- minded folks with baseball bats that it crosses the line.

In our own country it didn't put those two black depraved killers in St. Louis away for murdering and raping 5 white people while shouting racist slogans.

Well, I guess St. Louis needs to beef up it's prosecution of hate crimes. Sounds like it didn't work as intended.

Somehow, I think we would all be safer if justice were blind and carried out without regard to the incidental characteristics of human beings.

Try telling a black woman how her blackness is an merely an incidental characteristic and I will stand back as she slaps you.

When people are subject to discrimination, harrassment, abuse, and murder by an ignorant few based on characteristics that are an integral part of who they are, we need to stop it. Because next time, the ignorant few might be coming for you.

To clarify for others - heightened punishment for hate crimes doesn't equate to not caring about victims of non-hate crimes. It just recognizes the heinous nature of crimes based on bigotry.
joe | 07.14.05 - 10:38 am | #

Kate, an excellent point and question.

When one is discussing 'sin' as defined by God in the Bible, I think most religious tradtions agree that intent is a key component. Most religions also state that only God can - and, more importantly, should be the one to determine intent.

We all keep screwing that part up. Including me.

It's easier in some cases - an adulterer clearly intends to cheat, as evidenced by the actions leading to the cheating. So we can feel smug and gather stones to stone her with... ah, but Christ addresses that specifically, doesn't He?

Man's laws contain a mens rea - 'the guilty mind' and an actus reus 'the guilty act'. You need both to prosecute most intentional crimes. (I leave out negligence here, though reckless endangerment is intentional.)

We punish these crimes based on how the guilty mind led to the guilty act. Reduced intent is the difference between Murder One and manslaughter. So you see, we already alter our punishment based on what we can prove of the mind of the offender.

Hating whole groups of society - gays, blacks, whites, whatever - poses a grave danger to society as a whole. That's why, when you can show here on earth that the intent of the crime was based on hate, we punish it more. God will handle the rest.
joe | 07.14.05 - 11:00 am | #

Joe - first, welcome back. I always know I'm going to get an actual debate when you come by.

Second - YOU'RE WRONG! =p

Seriously, I do have to repeat my earlier objection, which is ironically summed up best by something you said to Colleen: "Try telling a black woman how her blackness is an merely an incidental characteristic and I will stand back as she slaps you."

That simply assumes that the woman is black first and a human being second. But for hundreds of years people have been fighting for the opposite premise, "that all men are created equal," working for equal protection under law, voting rights, and a host of other things. "Hate crime" simply takes that whole concept of equality and regard for individuality and tosses it out the window.

I know you well enough to know that you don't make that assumption and that you see individuals, not classes. I only ask that the law see things the same way.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 11:19 am | #

Actually, Nightfly, Joe does see classes and not individuals. And if you don't love his preferred class, he advocates violence against you.

Poor Joe, he thinks he is a sensitive caring guy--a veritable Alan Alda, but he can't help himself when a woman dares to contradict him. He likes to pretend that my logic has crumbled but we all know that it hasn't. And, as already pointed out, his own statments prove my point.

It is amusing to go back and count the number of messages in which his wish to shut me up is expressed in his thinly veiled hope that someone will slap me.

Some modicum of sanity is preventing him from saying the obvious-- that he would like to belt me himself for disagreeing with him.

So Joe, according to your logic, your slapping me for disagreeing with you is somehow qualitatively different from your slapping me because you dislike women. You have to be kidding right? Your motive won't make the slightest difference to me.
Colleen | 07.14.05 - 11:49 am | #

LOL Nightfly - I knew I could count on a spirited welcome from you!

I'm NOT wrong. You write:
"That simply assumes that the woman is black first and a human being second."

I didn't put any order on it. But her skin color - and how she is treated by society as a whole because of it - IS an integral part of who she is. Many gay guys are guys first and gay fifth or sixth - ask your local gay rugby team. (Go, Gotham Knights!) They become gay first, or black first, or Jewish first when the criminal injures them based on that.

Hate crime legislation recognizes that the majority has an obligation to protect the minority. It does not punish thought, it merely punishes crime in a manner consistent with its intent and the resulting damage to society as a whole.
joe | 07.14.05 - 11:52 am | #

Aw, Colleen baby, I don't want to slap you, I'm just amazed that given your views, no one else has done so yet.

I rather believe there's a conflict between your printed ones and stated ones. Just a guess.

And I love women. Just ask my lovely wife, my daughter, and my female friends. Your gender matters not. Your views, on the other hand, those I find revolting.

I have no prayer of shutting you up, and in fact I enjoy your comments because they really help me understand what makes some people treat others the way they do. I was having a hard time figuring it out, but here you have provided a living example.

If you shut up, how would I be able to call you on it?

I don't hate ya. I don't know you. Nothin' personal.
joe | 07.14.05 - 12:00 pm | #

PS to Colleen: Kate and Dawn and I seem to be able to disagree. They're women and I'm not. I think you might be being a tad oversensitive, but I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Also - if you can't refute the argument, trot out the razzle-dazzle! It worked in "Chicago", why not here!
joe | 07.14.05 - 12:11 pm | #

Umm Joe,

I didnt know many growing up that didnt absolutly abhore christianity. And the friends Ive had since growing up who were gay were always talking about some fat evangelist on TV who had a real hard on for abortion and gays. He has a big son and 2 big daughters. They sing. Cant recall the name though. Theres this place in nashville called the spagetti factory and about 6 years ago almost all the guys who worked there were gay and I kne w some of them, one who worked at the sunglass hut next to the EB I was at, and they didnt like christianity either. In fact several of them claimed to be wiccans. Now I know most when I was a kid were less likley to make a fuss about christians but the new gay movement is a whole different breed. They not only make a fuss but march on it. It being christianity or whatever they see as holding them back.

My hubby works for a very-well-known-to-cater-to-gays company and they are being sued for allowing sexual harrasment of a man(nearly resulting in attempted rape) and another lady got beat up after work by a cross dressor chick who was mad that the christian lady was protesting her coming to work as a man. She didnt use any baseball bats or organize anything just noted crossdressing was a distraction. My husband has 2 crossdressors at work and they are both disallowed to crossdress at work because of the incedent above resulting in a lawsuit. Also the guy just above him is real effeminant and whenever gay guys are in training(and when word gets out your company caters they all show up) they always ask about him and harrass him after they are hired. 3 guys have been fired for related activities in the past 2 years. However I must mention that there was a christian lady who had several pictures of her kids in christian piccy frames and they waged an outright campaign against her. Saying she was in the restaraunt downstairs quoting bible versus when it was well know she was actually at the olive garden down the street eating lunch with her husband. They, ironcally enough, broke her tiny footprints frame with her little daughters photo in it. They eventually got her fired but this was 3 years ago before the most recent outing of thier policies and the 2 most recent lawsuits. They could never "prove" they broke her frame but the 2 gay men were the ones who were there when the crash was heard. I personally think the bosses were just too afraid to stop them. Its the hatecrime mentality. Anything done towards gays can be interpreted as a hate crime but if its a christian she was just getting her due. And besides back then gays had the leftover clout from the clinton era to sue for discrimination and the burdon of proof would have been on the accused.

And now I think the support for homosexuality has become diminishes and the homosexual lobby is freaking. But thats just my opinion.
josephine | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 12:21 pm | #

Hmmm. Sensitivity is in the eyes of the beholder. It cracks me up to see you wishing violence upon me. You don't have a clue, do you, as to how funny that is. You amuse me, Joe, but you don't bother me. You have created a straw woman to try to slap around. But you have never yet succeeded in cogently answering any argument I have made. You merely declare victory, and run-- to the delight of us all.

My views are the views of the vast majority in this country and on this blog. You know who I mean. The ones who would like to live and let live but are not willing to see our laws upended and further disastrous social experiments carried out in our society to make one sad (and sadly misnamed) minority feel better about itself.

It is too bad that you and your ilk will only accept total victory. You aren't going to get it and you are creating ill will and a backlash wherever you go.
Colleen | 07.14.05 - 12:27 pm | #

All I have to say is, Josephine, your experience is real, valid, and true. So is mine.

So is this, with which I wholeheartedly agree, and yes, I did read all 135 pages of supporting documentation:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ 3...039_ENG_HTM.htm

Dawn hates when people put links without describing their relevance. Briefly, the Windsor Report invited the Episcopal Church to present a theologically sound basis for full inclusion of gay people in the Anglican Communion. This document does that. I agree with it.

Are there gay people who are child abusers, drunks, unChristian and just plain nasty?

Yup - they're just like the population at large that way. Sorry your experience was with them instead of the people referenced in this document.
joe | 07.14.05 - 12:33 pm | #

Aw, Colleen, did they teach you that in Christian Charity Class?

I don't wish violence on you, but I do predict it if you spew your invective directly upon its intended recipients.

You created a straw man - The President of The He-Man Woman Haters Club - to slap around. Not especially gracious, but I don't expect an apology from you for falsely saying I hate women and want to beat you. Dawn can handle that as she sees fit.

Just because my responses aren't cogent to you doesn't mean that the reader doesn't get them just fine. Most people here seem to think I'm a good debater.

"My views are the views of the vast majority in this country and on this blog. You know who I mean."

Oh, I do, I do - though you're not the majority, and even if you were, that wouldn't make you correct. And, yes, total victory is the only option when it comes to vanquishing crime, injustice, or exclusion based on hate.
joe | 07.14.05 - 12:41 pm | #

Oh joy, the Windsor report. Issued to shore up a splintering and rapidly dying ECUSA. Another quixotic but ultimately hopeless, not to say hapless, cause. Like the majority of former Episcopelians I prefer (or would, if I hadn't gotten out) African oversight.

Do I take it that crime, injustice and exclusion based on econmic disparity is ok with you? How about the current state of my digestion? Or say, my current mood? Ok then? Is it ok for me to beat a gay to a pulp based on my need for his money, so long as I love and respect him?
Colleen | 07.14.05 - 12:55 pm | #

Joe, could you please tone down the "Aw, Colleen"? I realize there's sarcasm in many places in these comments--and I don't approve of it anywhere unless it's making a truly funny point--but I've been noticing it especially in yours. I'm sure you can make your point without bringing up a vision of violence against another commenter, and then addressing her like she's a little baby when she objects. Thanks for your cooperation.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 1:06 pm | #

Colleen - I think I might have something to do with the state of your digestion. Please don't beat up anyone.

Your argument keeps failing. If you love and respect someone, you don't mug them, even if you need their money. Crime is never ok. Crime based on hate is punished more in most states and at the Federal level because of the danger to society as a whole.

This doesn't punish mere thought - hate away if you like. Nor does it punish mere speech - spew away too, if you choose. It punishes criminal actions which are predicated on the thought that some minority groups are inferior. That IS equal protection, as I see it.

Enrollment at my Cathedral is up 5 percent as of June, and we just got a donation of 50k from an anonymous source for repairs to the bell tower.
Dying? Splintering? Hardly. Check ENS for the true story. This is no different than the ordination of women issue or the Book of Common prayer in plain English issues.

We'd still welcome you if you eased up on gay folks!
joe | 07.14.05 - 1:07 pm | #

Dawn, I realize that Colleen's views mirror yours. That's no excuse for ignoring the fact that she falsely says:

1) I hate women
2) Advocate violence against her
3) Want to slap her
4) Did slap her

Courtesy is contagious. I apologized. Please clarify - does the application of the courtesy standard extends to some commenters and not others?
joe | 07.14.05 - 1:14 pm | #

No, it doesn't Joe, but I don't see where Colleen said anything about your hating all women, or where she said that she physically met you and you physically slapped her. You did antagonize her by repeated expressing shock that no one would slap her.

Joe, you're no stranger to generalizations or exaggerations. I don't understand why you're accusing someone of them because she called you on your sarcasm and violent imagery which--if she and I didn't know you somewhat from your postings--could easily be mistaken for malice.

Remember what the great liberal thinker Kurt Vonnegut wrote in "Mother Night": We are what we seem. If you don't want to seem like you're advocating violence, then don't bring up the vision of someone committing violence against your ideological opponents.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 1:27 pm | #

Dawn, I suppose this escaped you: "Poor Joe, he thinks he is a sensitive caring guy--a veritable Alan Alda, but he can't help himself when a woman dares to contradict him."

Note that Kate B. and I disagree on much, but... hey, whatever. I will dispense with my predictions of what will happen if Colleen airs her views about certain other human beings directly to those human beings in a real-world forum, with the knowledge of precisely what that is.

Anyway, it provided a convenient distraction from her failed argument on hate crime laws, which has been made in many state legislatures and Congress with predictable results.
joe | 07.14.05 - 1:43 pm | #

"They become gay first, or black first, or Jewish first when the criminal injures them based on that."

We are at an impasse, Joe. The very thing you cite as a reason to enhance punishments is the reason why I don't like it. In short, I don't give a toss what the criminal thinks. The law lets us judge, rightly, based on whether or not he has an intent, as compared to simply "losing it" and doing something in a fit that he would not otherwise. But judging one intent as more harmful than another is to put the criminal's logic foursquare in the legal process.

In other words, a bigot may see gay, black, Jew first - but the law must not, if it is to be equal for all. It can only see accused and victim. The only possible way I can think that the law has a reason to charge criminals differently based on the victim is if it could be proven that the crime committed was part of a larger plan to commit others. That would then involve additional charges, and not an aggravation of the first crime.

(To make it a little less theoretical, if Eric Rudolph killed me, having wanted to all along, it's murder, no matter why he wanted to. The law can then charge him with conspiracy and try to prove that he planned to kill more people just like me - but absent that, the law must not punish him more severely because he hated "my kind." That is to value my life more than the life of a different victim.)
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 1:55 pm | #

Nope, Nightfly, it's not.

You may not care why the criminal commits a crime, but the 'why' is an underpinning of our penal system. We do it all the time.

The crime victim who uses deadly force to protect his home is not in turn guilty of premeditated murder. The abused spouse may kill her husband as he assaults her and he's just as dead as the man whose wife wants the life insurance cash and decides to get it via a little arsenic. The DWI perp kills someone with a car, but isn't viewed the same as one who aims his vehicle at a pedestrian.

When a mugger attacks someone based on their minority status, it may be difficult to prove. But we have a vested interest in punishing such crimes more harshly. Since we are all equal under the law, those among us who think otherwise must be punished more for it. In other words, punishing the hater the same as the garden variety murderer validates the hater's position: that the motive of the hate crime isn't somehow worse or more heinous (or dangerous to all of us) than any other.

We can discuss who's a minority and who isn't all day - I think the legislative process here resembled triage more than sonnet writing.
joe | 07.14.05 - 2:08 pm | #

I'm not convinced that we mean the same thing with intent. The law indeed cares if someone intends murder or not - a simple binary choice, yes or no. The examples you gave are binary choices - self-defense is wholly based on the aggressor's actions, so the defender can't have intent to murder.

But deciding intent is not the same as deciding what kind of intent it is. The law wants to see if I had murder on my mind, not why. That would take us out of yes and no, one or zero, and into a wilderness of decimals. I'm not eager to return to the days of three-fifths of a person, or eight-fifths, for that matter:

"Nightfly, you murdered two people. Twenty years each."

"But wait! That one guy was an X."

"Oh. Well, then forty years for X, but twenty for Y."

That doesn't say that Y is half as valuable as X?

"Sir, I've read the accused's statements. This particular X was killed for his money, not for his X-ness. The accused doesn't actually hate X-ness."

"Well why didn't you say so? Forget what I just said. Twenty each."

That doesn't say that X-ness is more valuable than X's life?

Let the bigots obsess over such things. In fact, let them be the only ones who do.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 4:13 pm | #

Ah, but Nightfly, those things are jury questions, properly presented to a jury.

A murderer whose victim happens to be black needs to be punished differently than a murderer whose victim was chosen because he was black. It doesn't automatically follow then that black murder victims are more valued and mournable than victims of other races. They aren't. But the overriding principle that all people have the right not to be assaulted based on their skin color, etc, is critical to American jurisprudence.

I concede that not all murderers stand over their victims wearing KKK attire and shouting racial epithets. However, when they do, it's time to send a message. The message isn't that some victims are more valuable. The message is that society can't abide the murder of minorities based on their minority status.

It makes us uncomfortable when people do these things, like the lovely Italian gents in Howard Beach NY who took a bat to a man because he had the nerve to be black on their block. They said this was their motive as they did it. Or the nice chaps in the Bronx, who gave Colleen one less gay guy to complain about, who did the DA a favor by shouting anti-gay curses in front of witnesses as they kicked in his skull. (Though I'm sure Colleen would prefer that they hadn't done that.) We wish that they wouldn't do them and we wish that prejudice was gone from our society.

Wishing won't make it happen. Targeted law enforcement will.
joe | 07.14.05 - 4:53 pm | #

On the hate crime thing. If I understand correctly, Nightfly beleives that murder is wrong, period, and the whys are irrelevant if the reason involves minority status. Of course, other mitigating/aggravating factors are fair game for sentencing, but not race, sex, etc.

Joe, on the other hand, argues (well) that murder is wrong, but some murders pose an elevated threat to all people. In otherwords, Nightfly wants only bigots to worry about the color of their victims. Joe wants to give the bigots something more to worry about, so perhaps there will be fewer victims. We've just gotten around to acknowledging lynch mobs in Congress and some people don't even want to touch it.

Gotta agree with Joe.

Edited By Siteowner
thom413 | 07.14.05 - 6:40 pm | #

Thom, in case you didn't get the memo, the comments rules call for "polite discourse"--which includes avoiding any kind of fantasizing out loud about violence against fellow commenters. That is why I edited your comment.

It.Is.Not.Funny.

This is your last warning. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 6:51 pm | #

What anti-gay screed?

If I hurt your feelings by pointing out that "Gooberland" and "Bible Belt" are not FBI regional categories, I do apologize!
Colleen | 07.14.05 - 6:51 pm | #

Colleen, the only way you could hurt anyone's feelings is if they took you seriously. Based on your previous comments, I think the only two here who might do that are Dawn and yourself. I sure don't. Your lef-description:

The ones who would like to live and let live but are not willing to see our laws upended and further disastrous social experiments carried out in our society to make one sad (and sadly misnamed) minority feel better about itself. Is the 'sadly misnamed minority' gays? Or Christians who use the Bible to perpetuate bias and the Constitution to perpetrate discrimination?

Might be a good time to point out that the unexamined life is not worth living. Joe's positions are clearly articulated and reflect the result of deep thought. Yours appear to be a carefully crafted, very fragile justification for some really unpleasant sentiments about your fellow man. Maybe you should consider that Joe has a point. Nightfly did. Kate did. I did, and so did Dawn, though she didn't comment on it. Even Josephine, whose life would horrify anyone with kids, gave Joe a fair reading.

So why not you?

As Joe said, no one's hindering your speech. But calling a spade a gardening implement isn't my style.
thom413 | 07.14.05 - 7:08 pm | #

Thom413, how do you know that I considered Joe had a point "though [I] didn't comment on it"? Are you wearing your Flash Gordon thought-wave helmet?
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 7:17 pm | #

You read his comments, didn't you? You must have considered his point of view before rejecting it, and I really, really hope that you agreed with some of his statements if not his conclusions.

I'm more Buck Rogers that way.
thom413 | 07.14.05 - 7:20 pm | #

If I understand correctly, Nightfly beleives that murder is wrong, period, and the whys are irrelevant if the reason involves minority status. Of course, other mitigating/aggravating factors are fair game for sentencing, but not race, sex, etc.

You do not understand. No aggravating factors. Nothing. I don't care why. The whole purpose of intent is to find out what you were up to, not why you were up to it. In the famed, terse words of Calvin Coolidge, "Let the guilty be punished." The color of the skin has no more to do with it than the color of the socks.

Joe, on the other hand, argues (well) that murder is wrong, but some murders pose an elevated threat to all people.

This is self-contradictory - by definition, someone targeting a particular segment of the population is not threatening the remainder at all. That is no reason to ignore his crime, or excuse it. As I said before, if the state wants to prosecute additionally for conspiracy to commit further crimes, they can.

Unless, of course, you want to say that losing any individual hurts the whole. I agree, but then the conclusion naturally follows - the value is in the individual and not in any single characteristic - not creed, not sex, not nationality.

Joe wants to give the bigots something more to worry about, so perhaps there will be fewer victims.

No doubt. I respect the intentions and support the goal of fewer victims. Well-intentioned as it is, however, the only incentive the bigot gets from this is the incentive to keep the bigotry to himself when committing crimes. All he needs to do is not broadcast his intentions. That sweeps the problem of bigotry out of sight, without actually doing anything. Besides, it's not like the KKK will say, "Gosh, we'd off that negro for 30 years, but 35? Let's just break for lunch." It's much more likely that they'll say, "Leave the hoods at home and we can say it was a robbery gone bad, and be out in 15 for good behavior."

The real pity is, I was going to just let Joe have the last word on this thread until Thom came in...
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 7:23 pm | #

I can't argue as well as Joe, but I do know that there are degrees of crime and incarceration guides for a reason.

It's not self-contradictory to say that bias against a particular group threatens society more than bias against an individual. There are more liberals than Joe. There are more Southerners than Colleen. Someone hating all of them poses a threat to the entire group.

You make a good point that it may cause people to hide their bias when committing crimes. But that's okay - it's better than having the KKK lynching people out in the open as they used to. (Plus, not all criminals are smart. Having worked in a white collar jail I can tell you they're not.) I think it's important to tell these people that if they act on their hate, we think they deserve a stiffer penalty.

It's hard to prove, I agree. But when you can, you must. Is your objection that it punishes thought? Because it's pretty clear it doesn't. If it is that it sends a message that some victims are better than others - well, no one thinks that. It's that the social benefit of fixing a bigot's wagon justifies longer sentences. All of us benefit by that.
thom413 | 07.14.05 - 7:34 pm | #

And to think this thread started with innocent comments about pants-wearing NARALers and the very solemn declaration against hideous low-riding jeans .... By George, Dawn, you've done it again!
jjoyce | 07.15.05 - 4:04 am | #

jjoyce,

Nah its not Dawn its our resident one trick ponys. I responded to both the blog post about abortion advocates and to the message box post about gays and got only a response on the gays. Maybe I shoulda not responded to the other stuff but I hate to let it go unchallenged as though it were truth. There is an unseen connection, unfortunantly, it is assumed that if only we would let gays adopt kids then they would support life instead of abortion. Not by anyone on the board but its the things Ive heard from family. Prove your really for life right. No matter how bad .
Josephine | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 10:34 am | #

Am a tad confused by the generalization about the connection between allowing gays to adopt and their support of abortion rights. I would imagine gays might be more inclined to support abortion rights because it goes hand in hand in their mind with society's control of their body. But, and I know this is not a view shared by many on here, I think it is wrong to bar a gay couple that has been proven stable and capable by authorities from adopting unwanted children. Putting them with a father and mother is, no doubt, better, in my opinion. But barring adults who have love and a good home to give an unwanted child from adopting that child, to me, does not make sense. Discuss ...
jjoyce | 07.15.05 - 9:37 pm | #