Thank you for coming forward, and my heartfelt sympathy to you. I am related to people no better, and maybe so are many of us. If it was a little further back sometimes, that is sheer chance. It doubtless took courage to come here, but if you can help us to understand, that would be a valuable contribution.

*That* sums up the attitude of the Republican Party (all right, just change the nationality)

You’re probably right about the reasons why Romeny Inc has been so vicious in quelling discussion about the Mormon faith.

But I think part of it too is because many Catholics, who have deep doctrinal rifts with the Mormon faith (not the least of which is posthumous baptism by proxy), only reluctantly supported his campaign. I believe Romney knows quite well without Catholics his campaign is dead in the water (this by the way from my many astute Catholic friends).

I’m by no means against Mormonism or any faith for that matter, but I tend to agree that the pre-emptive attacks against any social criticism on gender roles within the context of Mormonism are likely one and the same with male supremacy, just as with fundamentalist Protestants in the Bible Belt.

In fact, the Republicans know that if people really understood what the Mormon Church believes about women that Mitt Romney is toast – that is why they have preemptively attacked any discussion of Mormon beliefs as being “anti-Mormon prejustice.” Naturally this belief in male supremacy creates common ground with the rest of the religious right who believes the same thing.

But that really should be the Republican Motto:

“We Believe that Women are Second Class Citizens”

Hear hear!

Republicans: the Party of Pro-Rape.

“The concept does not help the society or justice system in deterring or punishing crimes. It does not contribute socially in helping to overcome racial, or other bigotries. It does, however, offer comfort to the bigots and racists who use the existence of hate-crime legislation to support and justify their claims of victimhood.”
That may be true in a few specific instances, but as a whole, this is an argument that feeds straight into the radical right propaganda machine of punishing so-humorously decried’thought crimes’ and creating the narrative where nobody ever experiences discrimination, prejudice or hatred for an inmutable characteristic (race,class,gender, religion,etc.) Before we had The Civil Rights, Fair Housing and Voting Rights Act of the 60′s and Obama’s recent signing of the James Byrd Hate Crime Pact, we had countless blacks, and even hispanics and white jews, who were the victims of lynching in addition to Jim Crow segregation and second-class subjugation and terror in every facet of American society, to say nothing of the nativist immigration policies and religious fundamentalists who tried to impose a softer form of state sanctioned fascism regarding women, non-Protestant/Evangelical believers and the like. We can argue all day that Hate Crime legislation doesn’t ‘stop the crimes’ in question (they do, and there have been historical and empirical evidence strongly supporting, make it less likely with proper government enforcement), but try telling that to any of the marginalized minority groups who have faced decades of institutionalized disenfranchisement. If the laws seem unfair to you, they probably DON’T even apply to you (especially if you happen to self-identify as a heterosexual white Christian male) so its probably not your place to complain about them in a country and world that’s been more than over-zealous in granting you privilege.~

“The problem is that hate crimes are that most heinous type of law: the thought-crime.They depend not on what a person does, but on what they think, on what are their internal social or political views.”
~How right-wingers, and even some self-declared lefties, could POSSIBLY keep coming to this illogical and ill-determined assessment of hate crime legislation, to say nothing of the even more hot-button topic of affirmative action, is beyond educated thinking. First of all, ALL crime in question has an inherent bias or thought that preceded it; when you go to court and a jury over this stuff, particularly murders, there must be evidence presented in favor of declaring the party guilty whether empirical or otherwise. If you’re a neo-nazi or skinhead involved in any black or other racial minorities murder (James Byrd), a young ‘Christian’ and bigoted fundie justifying the murder of an LGBT community member (Matthew Sheppard) or high-powered corporate man beating your wife within a fraction of her life on a daily, and there’s ANYTHING relative indicating you guilty to the public at large of you doing it, you bet your annual salary its a ‘thought’ crime, but than again, so are all the others if we recall the most all action, whether conscious or not, are preceeded by some sort of thought, and never more so than in the case of doing objective evil…~

“Why create this self-inflicted wound? Why not just charge criminals with murder, assault, or other crime, then use their motives or beliefs are aggravating factors in sentencing?”
~Why don’t we ask that to the individuals and society at large that continues to perpetuate these same crimes generation after generation and ourselves why we allow discrimination, bigotry, prejudice and so many other dark bedfellows of human nature’s uglier underbelly rule our social discourse and relation to the word around us? Nobody asks for these things to happen to them, and continuing to let them occur unpunished only creates GREATER tension, resentment and discontent between races, genders, religions, orientations and the like because events like these make and enforce an “us against them” narrative that can make it an anomaly for civililty and order to operate. We didn’t have all these reform, human rights or advocacy groups throughout the past for nothing and the work clealry isn’t done when events like this rear their ugly head. This is actually a case where white people, the de facto majority in the U.S. and much of the Western world for now, are on complete equal standing in the context of the ‘hate crime’ and federal statutes as well. How ironic is it than that the same crime so many White Right-Wingers of the reactionary stripe so decry would actually bring due justice and resolve should they or anyone under that racial classification, God forbid, find themselves in the unfortunate pair of shoes Mike Darby was here. There simply is no excuse or good enough explanation why this shouldn’t be investigated and charged as a hate crime; lest we ever wish to see a true ‘post-racial’ America after the rise of President Obama where we have had enough of hate and the completely irresponsible and incompetent haters that want to continue boiling the pot of it.~

“Aside from helping the self-justification of reactionaries, hate-crime law does at least one other serious harm. It causes us to seek out racial antecedents to every violent crime, even if there is none. In any community with racial tensions, this is an unwelcome focus. And it plays the game of the racialists, where every crime involving persons of differing races must have a racial dimension.”
~No, their just mad when karma and the better angels of humanity makes them stuff their cake and eat it, too. Most of the people who are in favor of repealing and not granting ‘those OTHERS’ due rights are of course, the reason we need them in the first place. More power to the victims and their fellow minorities looking for justice and equal opportunity in a planet that has become about everything but being that. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time…~

Based on the statements you provided, people quite rightly pegged you as a right winger, if not something of a concern troll. You attack hate crime laws, using arguments very similar to those of typical right wingers, and also display the same kind of beliefs about hate crime laws which right wing pundits propagate.

Since this is the ONLY material we have from you, it is only logical that people assume you are some sort of conservative. In other words, people infer based on the data available. You certainly haven’t said anything to differentiate yourself from the right, especially with your “look how fanatical leftists are”-type comments.

Various posters have shown again and again that you clearly don’t understand what hate crimes laws do, and several people including myself were kind enough to explain it to you.

Ok cool. Let’s make it so judges can’t consider motive at all in cases while we’re at it. So murder will be murder whether you did it due to provocation and extreme emotional distress or whether you planned to kill someone in cold blood. Assault will be assault whether you jumped someone or stepped in to protect a friend. Brilliant!

If you were more than 16 you would realize that this is one of the oldest and lamest clichés on the intertubes.

Your original argument was that hate crime laws cause more harm and that they should be abolished. The question of what would happen if the laws were abolished was already implied in your original statement, because, a priori in your argument, removing the laws would remedy an alleged harm.

It would, in your words, end “a politically correct joke”. There is really no other way to interpret what you said.

Now, having been handed your hat so to speak by people who are better informed about the law and its effects, you turn around and claim that the issue is one of bias against you. That you have exposed some hidden agenda. That all along what you were really trying to do is offer opposition to progressive orthodoxy, and thereby prove some hidden bias when we disagree.

However, if you would kindly go back and re-read my “inference”, there was no comment about you before you began the wild accusations.

I stated merely that it would be a banner day for racists and haters. There was no implied slur against you or your views. There was nothing at all but an objective rejoinder to your observation.

So now, having been unable to substantiate your original claim that hate crime laws cause harm, you have attempted to prove we are merely reactionaries who jumped to conclusions about you.

If your “hunch” was that we would quickly prove you wrong when you present a fallacious argument, yes, I agree, that is a safe hunch. But the mere fact of being proved wrong implies nothing more than you failed to argue your point.

In short, dearie, your claims of “inferences” against your person simply do not proceed from the facts. That, I think is merely sour grapes.

Broadly speaking, if hate crimes (crimes motivated by bias toward specific groups of people) were “abolished” then those crimes would not be treated as differentially more serious than ones where bias toward specific groups of people was not a factor. Categorizing crimes that are superficially similar as more or less serious based on the motivation of perpetrators is a conventional part of the criminal code. Categorizing some crimes as “hate crimes” is intended at least in part to reduce bias-motivated crimes in society. I’m not sure what you mean by “indicate mandatory attacks on minorities”, but if you are asking if attacks on minorities would increase if hate crimes were “abolished”, I’d respond that there are too many factors contributing to such crimes to know with any certainty. It’s certainly plausible. Eliminating hate crime statutes would send the message that government no longer considers bias-motivated crimes to be any worse than others, with the implication that a skinhead murder (like that of Mulugeta Seraw) is no different than a random street fight gone bad.

Also, my name is not John nor am I Caucasian..I’ve always wanted to get inside the mind of “leftists” who exhibit an identical zealotry in their beliefs much like a right winger whether they realize it or not.

This being the case, you have all been unwitting participants in a mental study at your expense. Thanks for playing along :)

In the meantime, you might study up on the difference between a statement and a question, because you seem to show some confusion about that in your point No. 2.

That must have struck a nerve, because all of a sudden you explode and start projecting your issues on everybody, calling people right wingers, saying I don’t know my own gender, saying Erika is the same person. I mean, what’s up with that? You even tried to verbally bitch slap Ruslan and CM…which is definitely not a good idea. Not to mention Reynardine.

I’m sorry you are so upset honey but the cognitive dissonance in your remarks is a clear indicator that not all is well with your head. I could be mistaken, but i don’t think you’ve managed for all your bellowing to convince anyone otherwise.

CM, my post is very coherent and aadilla’s inferences are off base. what i meant by my statement is that a criminal should be punished for crimes against another person and that a person’s race or sexuality shouldn’t be a factor..

Why? it’s very easy for said “hate crimes” to become a “boy who cried wolf” situation.. now to address your questions:

1. the term “hate crime” is a joke..whatever laws deal with assaults or murder against gay or black people, being those laws are used and they are, should suffice

2. I’m not familiar w/ any National Front sites…and you realize what you just did by stating that, right? you ASSumed

And it seems like you’ve attracted an unwanted admirerer in John. “Banana” related issues definitely appear present in this one.

CM, i probably just use them because its never too late to have a happy childhood (actually adolesence in this case) :)

John, everything since aadila’s original reply to you has been nothing but protest. You have about the same level of charm and content as a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Why don’t you start here:

http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/lgbt-rights

Come here,

little mosquito,

closer….

SWAT!

Nothing really “wrong” with emoticons, but they do have somewhat the same qualities as outdated slang. : þ