No. See other post referring to this point. We shouldn't have hate crimes laws at all. But yeah, if you're going to make the mistake of singling people out for special protection, you might as well include sexual orientation, as well. Which is what we did in Texas (and include physical disabilities and age, as well).
Gotta edit. This thing's going pretty fast. My original post is below. I think you have a good point re: hate crimes. I agree with you it's slippery, but I still strongly support it as a deterrent to hate-based crimes. I don't guess we have any real strong disagreement after all. Here's my original post: Cool then, mrpaige. I do still disagree with you re: hate crimes though. They apply to everyone. The beating of Reginald Denny and the beating of Rodney King were both hate crimes. The firing of someone for being straight is as much discrimination as the firing of someone for being gay. We all have a race, we all have a sexual orientation, we all have a religion (even atheism is a religious choice and is protected), and we all have a gender. Laws which penalize discrimination or crimes toward someone on the basis of their race, religion, color, creed or gender are accepted as basic civil rights, and they offer equal protection under the law to all people. This was not always so, but it is now and it is accepted as morally imperative in this country. In some cases, sexual orientation has been added to the list of characteristics it is not okay to discriminate against. In the cases where it hasn't been yet, it will be. And to that I say God Bless America.
He did not. It was a random killing. The person who got probation was eventually brought up on federal Civil Rights charges and convicted. The jury claims it made a mistake when filling out the form and that they meant to sentence him to prison and probation. But it doesn't make any difference. Why does the reason behind the crime make it a worse crime deserving of special attention? I'm against all murders regardless of what prompted them. I don't think the murder of the young mother in Balch Springs earlier this week in an apparent robbery is any less tragic than the Matthew Shepard murder. They are equally tragic and deserve equal justice.
If we all thought the same, it wouldn't be much of a world, would it? I'm just glad we can have a debate on a contentious topic and keep it civil. I respect your opinions even when I disagree with some of them to some extent.
mrpaige: Lynchings are a long, embarassing, tragic episode in this country's history. All murders are tragic. Hate crime laws are especially poignant though in a country which used to be okay with race-based killings, and even in their symbolism they are powerful. They send a strong message that, as a people, as a country, we have changed our minds about discrimination. One of the things to appreciate about this country is that we're supposed to be able to walk the streets without being killed for just being who we are. That said, you make valid points, all intellectually sound, that maybe don't take into account the emotional impact of years of abuse toward certain peoples. You will say that emotion, etc. has no place in a court of law, and I will say I'm conflicted on that. You're a reasonable dude though, and I appreciate your posts.
I just have to take on one of Isabella's comments that we all can be lumped into the god lead/radical conservative or human lead/radical liberal orthodoxy--and that someohow the radical conservatives get a raw deal on fairness or being heard here. I can't remember who did it (maybe RM95), but someone a while did a great thread a while back about how politically diverse the BBS reall is. Some posters were radical conservatices, moral conservatives, fiscal conservatives, moderate conservatives, moderates, libertarians, liberals, neo-liberals, socialists, etc. Just look at Mr.Paige or Major's posts over the last few days to find someone who won't be pinned down by a simple orthodoxy. Of course some could say those guys are just lost findings there way to one pole or another, but given their quality of insight I'd say they are on the more insightful track than most. Personally, I am a neo-liberal social libertarian , which makes me pretty middle of the road as far as the politcal spectrum across within 1st world democracies--which makes me on the liberal side here. But again it is a whole lot more complicated than that, but it is a whole lot easier to think of people as liberal/conservative, right/wrong, god fearing/secular humanist, etc, than a more complicated mix of political tendencies and leanings that describe most of us. Sorry for the thread distriction
Hate Crimes is a totally different discussion They are worse than a regular murder because they attack society more than an individual Rocket River Hell . . it's the summer ain't nothing on but wasteball . .er. . . baseball. . . . LET'S START A NEW THREAD
Desert Scar, I agree with most of what you say. There are many more shades of gray in this world than black or white. I take (not personal, but intellectual) exception though with the implication that radical rightists or leftists are less complex thinkers than those who hold somehow moderate opinions. And I'm not even saying you're saying that -- only that your thread leans in that direction. I worked for California Governor Jerry Brown in 92, running the Houston office of his quixotic presidential campaign. You'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal politician, though he was also almost a Jesuit priest. Here's a quote from Gov. Brown in the 92 primary debates, loosely referencing (of all things) the Bible... This came just after Clinton and Tsongas had an especially tepid debate as to which of them was more moderate. The moderator asked Brown if he had anything to say on the subject. Here's what he said: "You are neither hot nor cold, so I vomited you out of my mouth. That's what I say about moderates." I mean no disrespect to either of the posters you referenced, each of whom made sincere, thoughtful points. I only say that, presuming you've arrived at these ideas on your own through study and medidation, there is a logic to and an honor in pure ideology on either side of the aisle. After all, these poles didn't invent themselves. They evolved through generations of impassioned debates, and they have a purity to them. Moderation vexes this, but more often than not it's not so much a symptom of complex thinking as a case of a cynical attempt to be all things to all people, in order to win elections. There are courageous examples of politicians on both sides who have thrown cynicism aside in favor of conscience. Among conservatives I respect for this reason are John McCain, Jack Kemp and Jim Jeffords. There are also many conservatives who back legalizing drugs, gay rights and abortion rights. There are also liberals who are pro-life, pro-death penalty and tough on crime. These are tough issues and there will always be honest disagreement. I'm extremely pro-choice, but I totally understand the pro-life arguments and I respect them, even if I sometimes disrespect the arguers. Ditto for my anti-death penalty stance. I don't mention any of that to disagree with anyone about anything. Your post just led me to think about these things. On that note, thanks to everyone for the sincere, respectful arguments on a touchy subject. I love this board. You'd be hard pressed to find such a respectful exchange on any board, let alone one dedicated to a sports team in a southern town. Good work, guys.
We do? I thought it was murder regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim. What rules are you speaking of?
In that instance I was talking about marriage laws, the military, the Boy Scouts, adoption and just the general idea of what kind of sex and love is okay. There are still anti-sodomy laws on the books in some states, too. Good enough for you?
Batman Jones, I didn't mean to say that moderation equates more thoughtful or insightful thinking. I think a lot of people would consider me very liberal or even radical liberal (perhaps not too different form your own views, I don't know)--it is all a matter of your perspective. One point I was making is on the global 1st world democratic stage I am pretty middle of the roader--it just comes off as quite left of center in Texas for instance. I did want to point out a lot of people don't fit neat ideological categories as Isabel seemed to indicate. Further, the implication that god-directed (fearing) people lead ideologically to the current right wing republican conglomeration of idea--as if Jesus would have been such a proponent of gun rights, military buildup and the flat tax for instance--seems totally ludicrous to me. It is obvious to me those ideas are lumped together for political/pragmatic reasons, not ideological and Christianity-based ideas. I also wanted to point out two of the people I think are quite insightful and thoughtful on the board defy "neat" political characterization--not that they are the only two or even that they necessarily be "moderates". For instance Jeff (and maybe you, I look forward to reading more of your posts ) is another thoughtful and insightful poster, but who would fit more as a strait liberal in most peoples view (there are many others who I really enjoy reading and respect with various political/social bents but don’t want to get into a popularity contest here). It isn’t a bad thing to be non-“moderate”, again I think most would call me relatively ideological (and liberal) as well. I think as long as someone makes an attempt to look at things logically and critically, and re-examines one's own positions and evidence for them, the thoughtfulness and originality will come out wherever they fall on the political spectrum. Heck, I like to read George Will, though I almost invariably come to a vastly different conclusion final policy conclusion based on sometimes a very minor difference in an often unstated assumption before he begins his argument.
Sorry if some of the stuff I've said was misunderstood: what I meant is that I'm trying to step back and look at all this from a completely neutral perspective. Logically, you'd think you would see a bunch of shades of gray. And, sometimes, you do. I'm just surprised that people line up along the same ideological lines as much as they do. While I'm mostly conservative (very rare for my age group), there are certain people in my family that pretty much agree with everything in the National Review and other conservative publications. That's a little far right even for me. For instance, I feel that we're not concerned enough about the environment. I don't want to just give up on the public schools - that hurts kids somewhere. And I don't mind full rights in civil society for practicing homosexuals - just because it's against my religion doesn't mean other people can't do it, or shouldn't be allowed to. That's between them and God. They can deal with marriage... and divorce, and all the other messy stuff that comes with it... if they really want to. About <b>hate crimes</b>, though - one murder is no worse than another. I can understand that society may not be as concerned if the person was choosing a dangerous lifestyle for himself (gangs, drug dealing, fights, etc.). But each innocent person's life lost is the same: one person gone who can't be brought back. The cost to "society" is the same. There should be stiff penalties for all of it, hate crime or not.
Man. See, this is what I'm talking about. Two more smart, opinionated, respectful-because-they-wanna-be-not-for-the-sake-of-being-respectful posts from cc.net oldtimers. This is why I love this board. If you can make it to senior member here, you are almost definitely a hell of a good poster. And usually a smart one to boot. I'd like to retract not the content but the incendiary tone of some of my earlier posts. No matter how long you lurk here, it takes actually posting for a while to get the hang of how people treat each other here, which is, in perfect golden rule form, the way they'd like to be treated. Good stuff, Desert Scar and Isabel.
Isabel--I see where you are coming from, I probably misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Does every murder really have the same effect on society? In plenty of WW2 battles we lost more people and a more proportion of our population than 9-11, but does it mean the latter is any less of a crime or have any less impact on society. Terrorism is designed to provoke terror (thus the name) on far more than the immediate victims, which is why it is thought by some deranged folks as a political tool. Or from the individual level, don't you think someone who tortures and butchers a child, or someone who publiclly shoots down another simply because they are gay, black, white, Jew etc, have a greater social effect than the spouse who kills another spouse because the murdered spouse was cheating. None are defensable in a civil law based society (and personally anyone who did any of these things including the latter should be put away for life)--but I think the effect on society at large is more chilling and more wretched for the former. Again, of course if we had life w/o parole for all muderers (my view) we wouldn't need hate crimes regarding murders, but they might have place for other crimes (assalts etc.).
