Dare to comment? Observe the rules!
Would that Columbia University's president Dr. Lee Bollinger had added insult to injury by asking Ahmadinejad: "You must have executed homosexuals?"
I opine that inviting Ahamdinejad to the United Nations would be like trivialising Hitler! That is an insult to the intelligence of Jewish people as well as deaf people and homosexuals.
I may be naive, ignorant or whatever. I never thought something like this would happen in any other country where homosexuals are persecuted in today's era! It is scary.
When I saw that the Iran leader said homosexuality doesn't exist in their country, initially I attributed to the suppression due to their religious belief and law that kept them in closet out of fear.
I don't get it why Columbia University invited him after what he has done to his own people!
Because, Katherine, Columbia U. is full of idiotic people thinking free speech extend to those outside of the U.S. who do not practice free speech in their own country. And even more idiotic are the people/students/staff/faculty who attended to hear what Uncle Ahmadinejad talk only to cheer and clap whenever he spoke.
What Congress need to do is write up a bill limiting on who is allowed to come into the U.S. such as despots and dictators like Uncle Ahmad.
Reember President Clinton invited a famous PLO terrorist to the White House and Camp David. Clinton had Yassar Arafat shaking hands with the Israeli Prime Minister. That is even worst!
Mike,
Iran is a horrible place to live. It's a good example of why I'm so glad we have separation of church and state.
As to why all gay people are in the closet, it could simply be a cultural thing--especially since we haven't heard reports of them being killed.
Or maybe they're being killed in secret? Maybe it's so shameful, the family kills them, like they kill their daughters who dishonor them? Who knows?
When my son was in Korea last year he said Koreans are in denial about there being any Korean gays too. It's a cultural thing there. They believe they are a superior race and therefore they cannot possibly have any gay people.
I thought Ahmadinejad sounded like Comical Ali.
Republicans in America are not much different than Ahamadinejad. In Capitol Hill, there will be upcoming votes on hate crimes law protecting sexual oriention. Most Republicans already set their minds to vote down and protect anti-gay bigots' rights to attack and hate. If passed, Bush will more likely veto. It doesn't happen only in Iran. It does happen in America and even Republicans allow that hate crimes attacking and killing LGBT people. It shows not much difference.
Republicans are not even close like Ahamedinejad. This includes Democrats and anybody else in the party. What you're succumbing to the old Godwin's law type of response when comparing a dictator to a non-dictator. Quite disengenious and doesn't serve anything useful in a debate. Hate criime bill is an attempt to police thought crime. It's like a 6 year kid that draws a picture and many people think it's a gun when it's not and punish the kid for even drawing/thinking that. It happened once like that. It'll happen again with more frequency with this kind of bill gets passed.
Bob Rourke,
I think that Bush and Republcians got a rude awakening. Why? Because they are as anti-homosexuality as Ahamdinejad. Americans will say: "Ah, there is no difference between Ahamdinejad and most Republicans, including Bush.
Mike, We have hate crime laws in my state. If a person puts a burning cross or signs with N-word on a black person's property and does other stuff like slashing tires, they can be charged with "Hate Crime." It's not about policing thought. You have to damage property or hurt someone. Children do not get charged with crimes.
With people like Fred Phelps out there, we need a Hate Crime law. He is not only dangerous to Gays, he is dangerous to America! There are Hate groups everywhere. Many are militant types with guns. They scare me. Fred Phelps also says God Hates America.
Mike,
You seem to be more concerned with kid's freedom drawing guns than killing gays.
One thing you have to be very careful about instituting a hate crime bill (or law) is that it does promote the policing of "thought crimes".
Fred Phelps (or any other religious zealots" have the right to say what they want. I think Phelps clan are a bunch of morons and do not represent the rest of the people who are Christians. Just as I despise other hate groups, black or white or green, but they do have the right to their bad rhetorics (as long as they don't act upon their wishes). It is after a form of free expression, even if is about hate. Once you start going down the slippery slope on hate crime/ thought crime direction then there's no going back.
This is all about tolerance. Are you tolerant when it comes to free expression of speech?
The "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." This bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about outlawing peaceful speech – speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.
Still some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals or other "hate" actions. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. And yet, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals.
From Capitalism Magazine:
"A proposed federal "hate crimes" law would give the government authority to declare certain ideas to be against the law, and should be rejected, said an Ayn Rand Institute senior writer.
"What will a ‘hate crimes' law add? Despite its name, it is not ‘hatred' as such that the proposed law targets," said Robert W. Tracinski. "The real target is the criminal's ideas. The proposed law declares that criminals motivated by a government-designated set of intolerable ideas -- racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, anti-homosexuality -- deserve special prosecution and additional punishment."
Tracinski noted that proper criminal laws prohibit criminal actions of force and fraud, not "criminal" thought.
"A ‘hate crimes' law would expand the law's concern from criminal action to ‘criminal thought,'" argued Tracinski. "It would institute the premise that the purpose of our legal system is not to defend the rights of the victim, but to punish socially unacceptable ideas. This is a premise that should be abhorrent to a free society."
Both the Left and the Right are already politicizing crime, said Tracinski, citing violent left-wing environmental protestors and right-wing anti-abortion activists who have received lighter sentences because of the political views of prosecutors and judges.
"Under such a politicized system, anything goes," Tracinski said. "The entire criminal justice apparatus can be used as a political tool by whatever faction happens to be in power. Crimes can be whitewashed if done for the ‘correct' political motives...
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=96
"Under such a politicized system, anything goes," Tracinski said. "The entire criminal justice apparatus can be used as a political tool by whatever faction happens to be in power. Crimes can be whitewashed if done for the ‘correct' political motives, while extra punishment can be meted out to those with ‘incorrect' motives. Instead, we should insist on the one principle that forms the foundation for the protection of all rights; that the purpose of law is to punish criminals for initiating force against others-not for holding bad ideas."
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=96
Bob Rourke,
Yours is a red herring example. Let's not go there, shall we?
Kim, it's like your disdain on banned books because it's about censorship. It'd be no different for Fred Phelps to say those things in person and pen the same words and feelings into a book form for distribution. You are in favor of banning Fred Phelp's own idiotic spews. Is it because you are intolerant of talks and not so in the book form?
I thought we were talking about the Hate Crime bill. Not Fred Phelp's right to spew hate. Yes he has a right to say whatever he pleases. If he or some of his followers commit a crime against someone because they are Gay, they should be charged with a Hate Crime.
I'm against censorship. We have free speech in this country. That's a good thing. We are NOT free to hurt people. There's a fine line between preaching hatred and inciting people to go out and commit crimes against others. It's a dangerous thing to do.
Maybe Tracinsiski is wrong Mike? Here is how it worked in action in my state awhile back. A black family lived in a condo. They came home to find their front door had been painted with the words "Go Away N----r!" in red, and some other vandalism to their property. Normally the vandalism would be punishable under one law, but the perpetrators were accused of a Hate Crime. This was very, very frightening to the black family. A threat. So it's more serious than vandalism. Mostly in my state the hate crime law has been used to protect blacks. Very few hate crimes against gays. However, we must be aware sometimes gay are beaten up just because of the fact they are gay and for no other reason. People who do this should be charged with Hate Crime on top of assault.
On a similar not-- I was disappointed last week about that poor girl in W. Virginia who had been kidnapped, repeatedly beaten, raped, stabbed and called the n-word the entire time. They ALL should have been charged with Hate Crime on top of the other charges because they admitted they did it to her only because she was black.
Passing a law federal law against hate crimes would be good for our country.
Kim, you said - "With people like Fred Phelps out there, we need a Hate Crime law." You specifically targeted Fred Phelps in the context of a Hate Crime law. What do you mean by "With people like Fred Phelps...."?
With that line of thought conjures that very slippery slope on the encouragement of criminalizing thoughts as one of the dangers of Hate Crime law.
BTW, there are state laws that do cover the incitation of riots in whatever form. You don't need a hate crime law for that if somebody incites a riot in the context of hate. If that's the case, then include additional charges of hate crime to many numerous Democrats who went about and destroyed many properties belonging to local Republican organizations prior to the 2004 election.
You can preach hatred as long as you don't act upon it. You can write a book with full of hate, conspiracy theories and what not but should the author be charged of a hate crime because he is suggesting (that is you're trying to read his thoughts on his ulterior motives), whether directly or indirectly, for his book readers to commit certain crimes?
Look at the Black Pather. Fred Phelps' clan. White Supremacist groups. The KKK. And so on. I agree there is a fine, often blurred, line between preaching hate and getting people to do your bidding such as creating a riot.
And suppose a white family comes home to their condo and see graffiti "White devils" and "Honkies" and so forth done? A hate crime?
What about Christians or other religious groups that deal with verbal threats or verbal hate? A hate crime? Let's throw the book at those haters for another 10 years in prison.
As for the girl that was raped, it was an unconsciousnable act. The very act of rape, kidnapping, repeatably beaten, stabbed and so on are violent crimes. What purpose does it serve to include a hate crime charge when the very violent nature is already a hate crime in action?
I think passing a federal law against hate crime doesn't serve much purpose but only to create more opportunities to regulate on how people should think.
The hate crimes law applies ONLY after violent crimes happen like attacking physically, killing, assaulting, raping, etc...
Hate crimes will have nothing to do with any speeches or create reasons or opportunities to regulate how people think.
You will have a lot to explaining to do in the faces of those relatives, spouses of hate crime victims. Shame on you.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top...nd_beaten/2321/
Mike, explain to him why you don't support hate crime law.
Bob, I said it opens the door on more possibilities on regulating thoughts.
Any violent crimes is committed by acts of violent rage is in of itself a hate crime. You don't need a bill on hate crime anyway.
About hate crime charges....
Under the Idaho state's "hate crime" statute, a perfectly law-abiding citizen is being prosecuted for using a racial slur—and faces a ruinous five-year term in the state prison.
"Hate crimes" have always consisted of acts that are already criminal—acts of assault, murder, robbery, etc. — but are supposedly aggravated by the use of racial or other kinds of slurs or expressions held to indicate "bias" or "hate" as motivating the crime. Critics of the concept of "hate crimes"—most especially yours truly—have always argued that it was only a matter of time before authorities sought to separate the expression of thought from the criminal act and try to criminalize the expression and the thought themselves. That's exactly what's happening in Idaho.
The case concerns a man named Lonny Rae, whose wife, Kimberly, worked as a staff reporter and photographer for their local newspaper in Council, Idaho. Last October, after a particularly heated high school football game, Mrs. Rae took a few photographs of the referees as they left the field.
An official ordered her not to take the pictures, so she didn't, and turned to leave with her husband. Then, Mrs. Rae found herself grabbed from behind and dragged backward by a black official who also grabbed for her camera. Mrs. Rae was pulled by the strap on the camera around her neck, and she screamed for her husband to help her.
Mr. Rae ran to her aid as her attacker, more than six feet in height and 250 pounds in weight, was still trying to grab the camera. Mr. Rae pushed him back and in a rage yelled to the other officials, "Tell that nigger to get out of here, 'cause I'm gonna kick his butt."
Mrs. Rae had to be treated for her injuries in a local hospital, and two days later the couple went to the city prosecutor to bring charges against the man who had injured her. As it turned out, it wasn't her assailant who had to face legal charges.
It's Mr. Rae himself who now faces charges, because, by uttering the N-word, he supposedly violated a "hate crime" statute outlawing "malicious harassment." Originally brought by the city prosecutor, the charge was turned over to the state and increased to a full felony offense carrying a sentence of five years in the state penitentiary. To date, no charges have been brought against his wife's black assailant. After the usual crusade by the local media to expose the "bigot" and "hate criminal," Mr. Rae and his wife were banned from the grounds of the high school where the attack took place, even though they had children who were students there. Mrs. Rae also lost her job with the local paper because, she was told, local advertisers threatened to pull their ads. When their money ran out, t
It's Mr. Rae himself who now faces charges, because, by uttering the N-word, he supposedly violated a "hate crime" statute outlawing "malicious harassment." Originally brought by the city prosecutor, the charge was turned over to the state and increased to a full felony offense carrying a sentence of five years in the state penitentiary. To date, no charges have been brought against his wife's black assailant. After the usual crusade by the local media to expose the "bigot" and "hate criminal," Mr. Rae and his wife were banned from the grounds of the high school where the attack took place, even though they had children who were students there. Mrs. Rae also lost her job with the local paper because, she was told, local advertisers threatened to pull their ads. When their money ran out, the couple was evicted from their trailer home, and they've lost the equity they'd built up in it. In short, even before Mr. Rae has even been tried, he and his family have been ruined.
http://www.vdare.com/francis/
fre...free_speech.htm
And you say the policing of thought will not happen as a result of these hate crime laws? Will it did and it continues to happen across the U.S. Let's not be naive here, Rob. It's a slippery slope argument you're trying to bargain with against those who are faced with disproportionate punishments just for making some slurs or derogatory comments.
Shame on you to even suggest it won't happen when it did.
More on thought control. I agree with what David Limbaugh had to say.
http://www.townhall.com/columnis...l&
comments=true
You cannot have free speech and hate crime operate in the same environment. It's asinin e and unnecessary, not to mention a waste of human resources on law enforcement against people who speak out differently or have different viewpoints that others may not like at all.
Enacting a hate crime bill or law is pure thought-police tactic to stifle or crush inconvenient/uncomfortable free speech and freedom of expression. It would just to demonstrate how really intolerant and passive a civilized society can become, in a fashionable nutshell.
Some prejudicial, injudicious or doltish views may make others feel uncomfortable or angry, so if you don't like to read or hear what they're saying, just ignore or dismiss them. Don't enhance their credibility by screaming, "hate crime! Stop them for speaking out!"
Thanks God for the Second Amendment protecting the First. Crazy people will do anything to stifle/oppress free speech in the name of passive tolerance and social *cough-cough* harmony.
Please, write up some rules regarding when free speech becomes a hate crime.
Um, hate crime is a made up law in the attempt to criminalize thought and speech. In other words, free speech in of itself runs the risk of it being a "hate crime."
In short, supporters of "hate crime" laws are unwittingly becoming the ones who are trying to stiffle and oppress free speech in such an intolerant manner and not even realize it.
Now, that's just great.
Here is an interesting question....is homosexuality hurting the deaf culture in general? Both hearing & deaf people already know that there is a very high degree of homosexuality in the deaf culture. Would it play a big role in scaring parents of deaf children in steering them clear of the deaf culture in fear that they would become homosexuals one day? Do you think many hearing parents are already turned off by the widely accepted homosexuality in the deaf community that they would be more than willing to consider options where their deaf kids would not have an opportunity to experience deaf culture in order that they would be less likely to become homosexuals?
One may wonder why the deaf community in general doesn't help deaf gays & lesbians in overcoming homosexuality like many hearing homosexuals would be successfully able to do so! Is it because many deaf people don't care what kind of life other deaf people lead or what their morals are? In addition, is it because the deaf culture may subconsciously practice self-hatred where it would not care if many of its members end up to be homosexuals?
Do many deaf homosexuals feel hopeless about their sexual orientation that they would not consider any changes since they can't change their deafness? Since many deaf homosexuals are quite well visible in the deaf community, do they prove to be assets or liabilities? Do they force their gay agenda down the throat of the deaf community as if the gay issues are more important than deaf issues? Would the deaf community be able to advance without the deaf homosexuals pressing on their gay issues?
No need to jump to conclusions. Just some questions to consider & discuss in depth. Of course, everyone needs to be respectful toward homosexuals whether if or not they agree with homosexuality!
Mike, the Rae case is rare. The slippery slope argument is abstract. I don't believe that. I did a little research on hate crime law and found the followings:
The Human Rights Campaign, the national gay group leading lobbying efforts on behalf of the bill, has said it agrees with a provision in the bill that would allow anti-gay groups to denounce gays and homosexuality through verbal messages.
I strongly don't believe that hate crime law supporters would want to oppress or stifle freedom of speech. Actually, most supporters are more of opposite, big fans of freedom of speech. We need to be proactive for violent hate crimes to prevent more killings. Your links don't suggest or show any interest in how to prevent or come up with another solution but criticize the hate crimes preventers.
Idaho's law is different from Washington's Hate Law. I understand why Idaho might have such a strict law--but I think it's too strict. Idaho has a problem with neo-Nazi groups in N. Idaho. Very militant racist groups stockpiling guns who live in the mountains up there.
Here in Washington state a crime must be committed. But what if it's a milder crime such as hanging nooses on the tree of a black family's yard? The problem with that kind of message is it's a form of emotional bullying. There are black people who grew up fearing lynchings in this country. People do this to run blacks out of the neighborhood. A firm message needs to be sent that it's NOT OK to terrorize people like that.
I have just been reading about the "Little Rock Nine."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2078...week/?
GT1=10357 This woman suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from the racism she endured in Little Rock as a child. I am white so it's hard for me to imagine how being called the N-word could hurt so much.
Concerned Deafie, What are the statistics on gays and deafness? Is it the same for men and women?
To Kim,
You have brought up a good question. There needs to be an extensive formal research done regarding homosexuality associated with deafness. However, even without definite statistics, it is easy to see how homosexuality thrives in the deaf community.
Attempting to legislate attitudes isn't a solution. It does in fact present a slippery slope situation and I have already presented links to show why it only takes a few of these incidents as early warning signs. These are not just mere isolated incidents but there are more than enough cases to show that attaching a hate crime charge, which is a felony, to an already "lesser crime" doesn't really serve much justice in the first place.
Concerned Deafie wrote:
One may wonder why the deaf community in general doesn't help deaf gays & lesbians in overcoming homosexuality like many hearing homosexuals would be successfully able to do so! Is it because many deaf people don't care what kind of life other deaf people lead or what their morals are? In addition, is it because the deaf culture may subconsciously practice self-hatred where it would not care if many of its members end up to be homosexuals?
Bob writes:
It is nothing new that people keep bringing up "moral" and many hearing are able to overcome homosexuality.
This is a pure insult. I am just tired and sick of this BULLSH**. Let me be clear that:
"Homosexuality is sin" has no positive impact. It kills people, hurts people, divides people, causes hate crimes, leads to self-loathing, suicide, drug problems, runaways. What makes you think? Hatred and bigotry are very CLEAR behind this message.
I just can't believe how people can believe Homosexuality is a sickness. APA already proved that it is not a sickness over 30 years ago. Nobody can prove that homosexuality is THREATENING, not even YOU!
"Bible tell me so" doesn't help anything since Bible used to say, "World is flat". "Homosexuality is sin" = "World is flat" concept!
I suggest you to end your bigotry and hatred right now. It helps nothing but hurt and alienate gays. The success rate of homosexuality changes included hearing is ZERO! They cannot be changed, but only SUPRESSED.
The fact behind "Homsexuality is sin" are simply THE DOUBLE STANDARD, HATRED AND BIGOTRY to us, LGBT communities!
Concerned Deafie wrote:
Do many deaf homosexuals feel hopeless about their sexual orientation that they would not consider any changes since they can't change their deafness? Since many deaf homosexuals are quite well visible in the deaf community, do they prove to be assets or liabilities? Do they force their gay agenda down the throat of the deaf community as if the gay issues are more important than deaf issues? Would the deaf community be able to advance without the deaf homosexuals pressing on their gay issues?
Now Bob shoots back questions:
Do many deaf hetrosexuals feel hopeless about their sexual oriention that they would not consider any changes since they can't change their deafness? Since many deaf straights are quite well visible in the deaf community, do they prove to be assets or liabilities? Do they force their straight agenda down the throat of the deaf community as if the straight/traditional family/marriage issues are more important than deaf issues? Would the deaf community be able to advance without the deaf straights pressing on their straight/traditional family/marriage issues?
Concerned Deafie: Don't you think it is time to end these such ridiculous questions? These questions are more likely comments. END YOUR BIGOTRY AND HATRED RIGHT NOW!
Bob,
Concerned Deafie already said...
"No need to jump to conclusions. Just some questions to consider & discuss in depth. Of course, everyone needs to be respectful toward homosexuals whether if or not they agree with homosexuality!"
Let's not start accusing people here of something, especially bigotry and hatred. Not a place to do it.
I personally believe homosexuality is biologicial and most my friends believe the same way, but I do have a few "by the book" Christian friend who believe homosexuality is a sin. However they still believe in love the sinner, hate the sin-- and have homosexual friends themselves.
For them-- it's sort of like saying "gluttony" is a sin, but we can still love fat people. None of us is perfect, so we shouldn't judge.
Anyway-- I don't have an opinion on Concerned Deafie's question. I have never seen any articles dealing with hearing parents concerns about homosexuality in deaf community, and have never talked to any hearing parents about that. I know a few with deaf kids. The subject has never come up. That's not to say they haven't considered it though.
Here is the latest article on Fabricated fears about hate crimes legislation.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe...me_legislation/
Kim,
Unfortunately, the "Love the sinners, hate the sins" message still judges LGBTQ people. LGBTQ people can still sense hatred behind the judging message. Indeed, most LGBTQ people find it hard that they really love them. I really cannot respect their anti-gay beliefs. They destroy LGBTQ people in many ways. For an example, Maryland Governor recently said he believe that a marriage should be between a man and woman by invoking his Catholic religious belief. That still affect us, gay families especially with children.
I am trying to educate a general community that there is no loving way or approach with "sin" along with gay. It is BEST that "sin" needs to be dropped completely out of gay before you can reach LGBTQ people especially LGBTQ youth who are vulnerable, growing up in conservative, anti-gay religious families.
I know it may be hard to believe for some. Yet, we can educate like "World is flat" belief slowly going away.
Below are some more hate crimes that have been ignored because they happened the “wrong way” (i.e., they were black-on-white instead of white-on-black).
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Upset about a racial name-calling that occurred earlier that night, several black men savagely beat a random white man who had had nothing to do with the incident. He slipped away from his attackers, but they forced him to swim into a lake to escape. He drowned. The three men were sentenced to less than a year in jail.3
Massachusetts. Four black men decided to murder the next white person they saw. That unlucky soul was a college student from Boston, whom the men stabbed to death.4
Indiana. A black man was arrested for killing seven white people with a shotgun. He explained that he murdered his victims due to his “deep-rooted hatred” of white people.5
Miami, Florida. The leader of a black supremacist sect (i.e., the “Yaweh ben Yaweh cult”) was convicted of the murders of several white people. He ordered his followers to kill any and all “white devils.” They killed at least seven white people, bringing back body parts to their leader.6
North Carolina. Seven black men kidnapped a white woman, raped her, put her in a tub of bleach, shot her five times, and dumped her body. The murderers said they did this for racial reasons.7
North Carolina. Four black teenagers lured a white, ten-year-old girl into an empty house. “There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board. In the past few weeks, the trials in the Tiffany Long case have received extensive coverage in the North Carolina press. But with two of the three defendants already sentenced to lifelong prison terms, and the third now standing trial, the national media have all but ignored the story. Only the Associated Press has reported on the trials, in a single, cursory piece. The AP, of course, failed to mention the race of the people involved — an oversight it seldom if ever committed in the case of Amadou Diallo.”8
Boulder, Colorado. After discovering that one of their members had never had sex with a white woman, an Asian gang went looking for one. When they found a white University of Colorado student, the six men gang raped her in their minivan for two hours.
At their trial, “Detectives described the woman’s night of terror, including repeated threats to kill her.
“The woman leaped out of the minivan after one of the men raped her. Naked, she sprinted across Lefthand Canyon Road before Steve Yang tackled her, authorities said.
“‘They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her,’ Detective Jane Harmer testified.
“Yang put her in a headlock and dragged her back into the van, where she was raped repeatedly, Harmer said.
“‘It was a free-for-all,’ Harmer testified.
“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”9
“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”9
Kansas City, Missouri. An Ethiopian immigrant shot two white coworkers — killing one and critically injuring the other — at his workplace, then turned the gun on himself. At his residence, police found a three-page, signed note he had written in which he railed at “black blood sucker supreme white people” for oppressing him and black people in general.10
New York City. In a Midtown office building, a white woman was assaulted, raped, and anally raped by a black man who called her racist names during the attack. Police refused to label it a hate crime.11
Alexandria, Virginia. A black man walking through a neighborhood went over to a white eight-year-old boy playing in his great-grandparents’ front yard and slit the child’s throat, killing him. A witness says that the attacker shouted racial epithets during the attack, and the main suspect in the case owns anti-white hate literature and had written a note about killing white children. He had been previously arrested for attacking an unarmed white stranger with a hammer. (During the attack, he called his victim “Whitey.”)12
This particular case provides a perfect example of the terrible way that anti-white hate crimes are handled. First, the investigators decided not to tell police officers about the racial aspects of the case, even while the police were conducting a manhunt to find the boy’s killer. When this was revealed by the Washington Post, city council member Joyce Woodson defended this withholding of information from the cops on the front line. “What they did was proper. We already live in a racially charged world.” The Democratic mayor of Alexandria implied his agreement: “Efforts to sensationalize this investigation will only hurt this investigation.”13
To make things even stranger, the FBI offered to send agents and a fugitive task force to help with the manhunt, but the local police rejected the offer. They also refused the help of the FBI’s profilers, forensics experts, and others.14
Eventually, the police arrested a suspect who was reportedly tied to the scene by DNA evidence. In another bizarre move, the Justice Department — which had acknowledged that it was monitoring the case — declined to prosecute the killing as a hate crime. The government’s prosecutor in the case cannot charge the victim with a hate crime. “There’s no applicable hate crimes law in Virginia,” he explained.15
An editorial in the Washington Times pointedly commented on the deafening silence surrounding the brutal child-murder: “Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson around lately? Kweisi Mfume? Al Sharpton? For persons whose political antennae are ordinarily so sensitive that they can pick up racial tremors a thousand miles away, they seem to have overlooked a possible hate crime right here in the vicinity of the nation’s capital.”
And there's plent
An editorial in the Washington Times pointedly commented on the deafening silence surrounding the brutal child-murder: “Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson around lately? Kweisi Mfume? Al Sharpton? For persons whose political antennae are ordinarily so sensitive that they can pick up racial tremors a thousand miles away, they seem to have overlooked a possible hate crime right here in the vicinity of the nation’s capital.”
And there's plenty more where that came from.
"It’s obvious that the media, politicians, and civil rights groups have an agenda: They want to keep us ignorant of the realities of race relations. They present us with the completely untrue view that only white people commit hate crimes, or, if it must be admitted that blacks also commit hate crimes, they are seen as isolated incidents, bizarre anomalies that somehow don’t qualify as hate crimes."
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=ca...n&gl=us&
strip=1
Which is why charges of "hate crime" doesn't work. It's obviously one sided and doesn't serve any purpose other than for it to act as a sort of "reparation" of sorts to those who ancestors had to endure racial hatred for centuries.
Even the Jena 6 event doesn't cover the event fairly. It was about 6 blacks jumping a white student and beating him senselessly. And why? It's an overblown event according to CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/
0...ref=mpstoryview
Which is worse? When racial epithets were supposedly thrown or the fact that a white victim was beaten by 6 black students? Why not charge the 6 blacks with hate crime? Or is that too politically incorrect? Had it been the otherway, 6 white students beating a black student you can bet your bottom dollar the MSM would have a field day with this and you'd probably likely be calling for a charge of hate crime like a banshee. No?
Charges of "hate crime" is a lopsided effort to try and legislate and control attitudes.
Excellent, excellent points Mike. There is steam coming out of my ears from the garbage some have posted in this comment section. I am of course at a far higher risk of rape than you Bob, because why? My gender. Seems like a hate crime to me. If I'm attacked because of my gender, shouldn't there be special laws to protect me and prosecute my perpetrators? Don't ever accuse the Republicans of being like Ahmadinejad. That is pure stupidity. FYI, I am a Christian, my best friend is a lesbian and I am currently reading a book about how homosexuality has a biological cause. Thanks for the stereotype.
Bob,
You seem to stress that you want to force people in thinking that homosexuality is not a sin. But of course, it would not sit well with many people especially Christians especially with the Bible stressing strongly that it is wrong. Of course, no one can force anyone in thinking adultery or stealing would be fine all of a sudden! It is morally wrong to twist people's arms to change their opinions just to satisfy the small minority's selfish requirements when it involves moral values!
It seems ironic that gays are afforded more rights than other minorities including the deaf culture. It is because they have more money & political clout. Would they fight for our rights as well once they get all the rights they want?
It appears that the gays only care about being accepted & respected by the society in general because they don't want to confront their homosexual sin which would prove to be too difficult to absorb! Sorry to say this but how can God bless the gay lifestyle when He created only one man & one woman for the purpose of marriage?
Kim,
A hearing mother of a deaf kid once told me how alarmed she was to discover how rampant homosexuality was in the deaf culture. Naturally, she was very concerned for her son because she didn't want him to be exposed to homosexuality & possibly become one!
Concerned Deafie wrote:
It seems ironic that gays are afforded more rights than other minorities including the deaf culture. It is because they have more money & political clout. Would they fight for our rights as well once they get all the rights they want?
Here it goes again.
They (anti-gay so-called "Christians") live in a world where they not only speak out against the political, social, and governmental matters that they seen contrary to a fair society (which is fine), but also a world where they lash out against any and every event, person, or idea that falls outside of the strict and narrow mold of far-right evangelism. On the gay side of things, we tend to lash out against the bombs that are thrown at our community. Their side, however, tends to be the ones lighting the fuse!
What did we do to you? We never throw out bombs toward you, anti-gay Christians. Not only this, the anti-gay so-called "Christians" keep spreading the lies just like above.
The fact already proves that gays has less average incomes than general populations.
The fact is that gay runaway shelters are filling up in big cities. The fact is that gays teens are most likely to commit suicides.
The fact is that we have less rights than everyone else! One can take away our properties, block our hospital visitations, lose benefits, lose jobs, housing, etc. THOUSANDS OF HORRIBLE STORIES....
I think it doesn't matter since you don't care about us. You keep throwing us bombs and spinning around to the lies about us. WHAT DID WE DO TO YOU?
We have enough. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I am really running out of patience with all these lies, assaults, gay marriage bans, ridiculous religious beliefs while HOMOSEXUALITY DOESN'T THREATEN ANYONE.
I heard NO REASON, PROOF, EXAMPLE. All I heard is "Bible tell me so" and all BullSH** abstract/slippery slope!!!!!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Nobody can describe to me how homosexuality hurt anyone. I heard NONE.
It has been very slicky to associate homosexuality with sin, drugs, stealing, promiscuity, murderer, etc.
That's the only way they can convince you to believe that homosexuality is a sin.
THe problem is that when they drop all associated words such as sin.
They can't find any reasons to pinpoint homosexuality as threatening. ZERO!
Be surprised that world is no longer flat!
"The fact already proves that gays has less average incomes than general populations."
If you are going to spout "facts" please provide links to support your contention. It has already been shown that gays and lesbians earn more income that do heterosexual.
http://answers.google.com/answer...dview?
id=367810
As for suicides among gays, etc..
"it has been estimated that as many as 30 percent of all youth suicides are completed by gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendereds."
http://www.suicide.org/gay-and-l...an-
suicide.html
Which leaves the other 70% of suicides among straight youths. But you said that gay teens are much more likely to commit suicide, I'd like to see some sources/statistics via links showing this to be true, of which is probably very true anyway. Still, the idea is to offer at least some sources to help support your arguments rather than just talk about it which anybody can do.
Now back to hate crime legislation,
Mike, these stories are indeed sad. I don't understand why hate crimes were not applied to some of these cases you mentioned above. They should cover even black to white hate crimes as it applies to any races.
However, hate crime laws require a concrete proof such as anything that depicts hatred toward races, gender, religions, etc.
Many gay victims felt that it was hate crimes and yet they declined to prosecute the attacks/killings as a hate crime many times due to lack of concrete proofs anyway.
Mike,
I will be more than happy to find some sources and links. Trust me. I have been reading gay news for more than 20 years and have been involved in gay communities for almost 30 years. (Gee, I am getting old!) I will be back with you later when I have time. I have been wandering away from my homework. Me, bad, bad, bad. In fact, even though I may sound bitter, I suspect that I enjoy arguing this hot topic. Or is it the misery that company loves?
And that is where the slippery slope would come in. Prosecutors would have to try and delve into the mind of the assailent to try and prove their actions were entirely based on racial hatred or something else (pick your politically correct hate actions, gays, religious, income, ethnic, political affiliation, sport team support, etc).
Just as you said, "..many gay victims *FELT* it was hate crimes..." .
As I have said before, any violent attacks is hate anyway regardless of why the attacks were initiated. It was wrong in the first place to do so. You cannot legislate attitudes away. Just not possible. And this "hate crime" bill will always be a one-sided attempt to correct what is perceived as only a problem on one side when it is not. It's politically correctness gone amok.
Fine. Find the sources. It's better to have them to support your arguments rather than to scream away. Let the links do the arguing for you but then again, depending on the links/sources, it could also prove problematic due to credibility issues. But I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm trying to convey here.
Why should Bob have to supply the "higher than average" suicide rate among gay teens when it's a well-known fact? Are we going to be that picky in here?
They are very troubled youth. This is one huge argument against the "homosexuality is choice" theory. No one would choose such a life for themselves. When kids realize they're "different" from their peers they go through a psychological/emotional/identity crisis. Being Gay is so negative in our society.
Bob, I would like to add not ALL Christian churches interpret the Bible the same way with regard to homosexuality. It isn't really THAT clear. Several Christian religions do NOT believe homosexuality is a sin-- Congregational, Lutheran (ELCA branch), Episcopalean and Presbytarian (I *think*--but I could be wrong about Presbytarians). Quakers allow their members to decide for themselves. There is no such thing as a sermon at a Friends Meeting.
Hi Kim,
You are correct. I agree completely not all Christians think same. I am sorry that I was hurrying and writing too fast, rubbing in a wrong way which is a lame excuse. I have a homework to do that I keep avoiding.
I am very passionate about this anti-gay issues and gay marriages.
I have been involved in gay communities for many years (almost 30 years) and heard many sad stories that some of my gay friends who were disowned by their family members, treated badly, and struggled with their own self-esteems. I am blessed with my loving mother who supported me 100%. I have to respect my Dad who doesn't approve me as long as he doesn't bring up. He has been so good to me in many other ways like help raising me, feeding me, giving me shelter, sending me to college, etc... Anyway I have read so many sad stories. When I heard something about gay being a sin or a choice, it certainly hit my hot button. I must learn to swallow my subconscious (EGO!) and try to approach in different educating ways with meaningful sources. I plan to develop my own website, after finishing graduate school next year.
I was so disappointed in gay marriage bans voted all over the country. I feel so much relieved about Arizona's failed gay marriage ban. It hurt so much and affects us all. I feel it is critical to educate and educate until all are treated fair. I better quit now and go back to bury my head in books!
Kim, you sound like a great person. I am glad to know you. 
Mike,
Thank you for the references & comments regarding the hate crime legislation! I find them to be informative & sound!
Let's hope the hate crime legislation won't pass. Too many people are misguided about what it really stands for. It could end up serving to trample our beloved Constitution.
Bob,
You keep insisting that homosexuality is not harmful & would not hurt anyone else who are not gay. Here are the links below explaining how homosexuality can be harmful to homosexuals & others. Many families are shattered when the husband/father would leave to embrace the gay lifestyle leaving the wife & kids to struggle with hurt & betrayal. And cultures would suffer greatly when homosexuality is widely accepted. It is up to you to keep an open mind about this.
http://www.missionamerica.com/ho...p?
articlenum=35
http://www.choice4truth.com/pledge2.htm
http://
www.familyresearchinst.or...uPamphlet6.html
http://www.godandscience.org/
doc...osexuality.html
Check out the article shown below. If many people are able to leave the gay lifestyle behind to embrace a new life as heterosexuals, why is there the need to have hate crime legislation? Wouldn't resources be better used to help gays change for something better? Of course, it would be no easy feat for people to unlearn gay sexual behavior. But let's look at people who managed to overcome alcoholism, drug addictions & other addictions. For them, they may have lived thru hell to get where they are but they consider it worth every bit.
http://dailyherald.com/story/?id=43190
Concerned Deafie,
Help yourself and educate yourself at:
www.goodasyou.org
www.boxturtlebulletin.com
Your links point to the most dangerous, anti-gay junk scientist ("Dr." Paul Cameron) who was dropped from memership in the American Psychological Assocation and condemned. Your link also points to Family Research Council which is the most anti-gay political organization. They help killing LGBTQ children, dividing families, encouraging more runaways, suicide, drug problems, etc...
They need to re-focus their energy to somewhere else rather than attack good, law-abiding, responsible, hard-working, committed people.
It is a waste of time. I guess I am wasting my time here too.
Concerned Deafie,
About life expectancy study from one of your anti-gay links, I have a link for you to read.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com...les/
000,018.htm
There are several problems with this data. First of all, notice the number of “unknowns” for all ages. This figure is significantly higher than the figure answering “homosexual” or “bisexual” for all age groups. Why is that? We don’t know. But we do know that when a straight person is asked about his or her sexual orientation, there’s little hesitance to simply checking off the “heterosexual” box. It’s one of the easiest questions for a straight person to answer — and for most it’s one of the most eagerly-given answers one can ask for. (“Hell, yeah — I’m straight!”) And yet in this survey we find about 7% of respondents who either didn’t want to answer the question or didn’t know.
Those of you who are so SURE of what causes homosexuality, that it's a "choice" -- I would like to ask how well do you personally know any homosexuals? And if you've ever talked to them about it?
Kim, it may be a "well known fact" to you but not everybody knows these facts. Putting down sources/links allow readers whether the case is true or not (or in between). Just as Bob said that gays earn less income than heterosexual. If this was a "known fact" taken at face value then you'd have problem considering that the actual fact is that gays etc have a higher income earning than heterosexual. Not the other way around.
It doesn't hurt to add in the sources with your argument. In fact, it actually helps with your argument seeing that it matches. And a source for readers to refer to rather than accept everything in here at face value.
Kim, about choice. Are you saying that those people who choose to try and have sex with the same member (ie "experiment") cannot be about choice? Even though it's about homosexuality. Not everything is black and white here but I agree it's the same concept as heterosexuals that they are born with it and not about choice.
Mike, I get a lot of my information out of books. Internet sources aren't always the most reliable. What I find often happens in some groups if people send constantly request sources and others constantly send in unreliable sources, so there's this continual exchange of debate of sources--whose sources, the disparities between the sources, whose sources are right. Most everyone can back up their opinions with some questionable source or another. It's tiresome. So anyway-- I thought most people knew the suicide rate was high among gays. They live with a lot of rejection.
Bob,
Thank you for the nice compliment
. I didn't feel you were over-generalizing about Christians and didnt' take offense. I only wanted to point out that not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way. Many homosexuals have had bad experiences in church and consequently turn away from their Christian spirituality without realizing other Christian churches will accept them as they are with open arms.
Many states voted for gay marriage because it's the right thing to do. This issue isn't going to go away.
"Most people" know about the high suicide rate? You're giving way too much credit to at least 50% of the population or 150 million people who should know already about the high suicide rate as a fact. I've already shown that Rob's "fact" was incorrect by pointing out the amount of income gay's earn is higher than that of heterosexuals'. Is Bob one of those "most people" who should've known about the fact that gays earn more than heterosexuals?
Whoa! There are a lot of misinformation here.
First, Mike, yes there are some proofs that gay couples earn less than hetrosexual couples.
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...33/
ai_n18616237
Like Kim said, Internet resources are not always reliable. This one comes from book.
Kim, I don't feel it is right to vote on minorities' constitutional, fundamental rights that is marriage rights. If we vote on interracial marriage back in 1950's, it would fail a big time. The majority is so uneducated and feared by church's teaching lies about "homoseuxality is sin".
Here is article of my good friends who has children. Gay marriage ban hurt not only them, many more friends of mine who have children plus gay families with no kids too. Anyway, in the article, Barry is the one who knows ASL. I held his daughter in my arms when she was baby. They are awfully cute. They deserve marriage protections. Check out the link below:
http://www.hometownannapolis.com...07/09_23-14/
COL
Concerned Deafie:
I am very concerned about that article you posted here about guy leaving gay lifestyle behind. So many misleading informations here in the article, it is not gay lifestyle, it is gay life. If gay lifestyle, tell me what gay lifestyle is exactly. This article seemed to emphasize that a gay lifestyle involves drugs, bar clubs, HIV+, prison,...
I can tell you why this guy fell into unhealthy lifestyle (drugs, unsafe sex). His family rejected him in first place. If his family accepted him in the first place, he would not have to turn to this dangerous lifestyle. Church keeps saying, "Love the sinners" which is very dangerous. It is not wise to mentione "Sinners" or "Sins". It doesn't feel loving at all and causes LGBTQ youth to feel alienated and unloved. IT is critical to be loving and supportive. That's what most counselors and psychologist say to relatives/friends of gays.
Also, the big difference between drug addictions, alcoholism and other dangerous addictions is that they disrupt your daily lives.
Homosexuality do not disrupt anyone's life. I know many gay couples who last together for over 35 years. Several even passed 50 years together. No problem can be found related to homosexuality.
You see this article very misleading. It often associate homosexuality with drugs, addictions, HIV+, etc... In fact, lesbian group is the lowest group with HIV+.
Gee, I can write a book on this. We really have a long way to educate people about LGBTQ folks. I believe around 95% gay population don't lead these kind of unhealthy lifestyles. They go to works, cook meals, go to schools, work hard, commit, are responsible and busy, volunteering, contributing to societies with activities, even church activities. LGBTQ folks come from all walks of lives included Christian, Catholic, Baptists, Jewish, Muslims, Mormons, etc, and all races just like deaf people from all walks of lives.
"This finding is particularly true for gay men with lower education levels--because their job mobility is more limited, they are more likely to be working in discriminatory settings."
My source talks about gays vs heterosexuals, not about partners vs married couples which is an entirely different set of questions here. You did not say that partners make less than heterosexual married couples but rather gays earn less than heterosexual. My link was about a marketing research firm that deals with the bottom dollar (Forrester) and are more detailed in their marketing analysis.
In that same link it also discussed that more gays get higher degrees than heterosexuals do.
Yours talked about a "domestic" situation while mine doesn't.
Bob,
I have two Lesbian friends who have raised kids from one of their previous failed marraiges. The marriage failed because the father was an abuser. It wasn't a case of the mother leaving for her woman friend. I wanted to make that clear. AFTER the marriage failed she went through some therapy and realized she wasn't really all that attracted to men.
My friends got married, but the federal government rescinded their marriage. They're still committed to each other.
The father never supported the children at all, didn't visit, didn't give them a dime. The children were raised with two "mothers" if you will. They have turned out fine-- both adults in their late 20s with college degrees now. The young man is working on a Masters in Psychology. Both are getting married in the coming year.
They don't go to gay clubs. They don't use drugs or even drink alcohol.
One of them has MS. Without the legal protection of a marriage, if something should happen to her medically she'll be at the mercy of her family to make medical decisions. Her all lives out of state. This isn't right. Her partner is closest to her and should be the one to decide.
Commenting by HaloScan
