Terrance Has a Good Project
Terrance at Republic of T has been doing something really cool. You remember that Congress was considering a new hate-crimes bill that would have extended the definition to include violence motivated by the victim's perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. The religious right went nuts when this was proposed, I know that's hard to explain how you go nuts when you're already nuts, but let's say they really opposed this new amendment. They get protection, based on their religious beliefs, which they choose, but gay and transgender people shouldn't.
Anyway, as he explains HERE, Terrance started compiling information about hate crimes against sexual minorities and posting them at Wikipedia. There's already a pretty good page on Violence against LGBT people, but T. wanted more precise documentation.
As far as I can tell, Terrance hasn't posted a list or index to the entries he's contributed to Wikipedia, so I just went through his blog, picking out the ones I saw. This might be the list so far, in alphabetical order:
I suggest you click on each of those links, read those stories. You tell me what it is that makes the so-called Christians feel so strongly -- you explain to me why they want this kind of behavior protected.
Any of these cases will turn your stomach. The whole bunch of them will haunt you for the rest of the day.
It's bad enough that individual people behave this way, that they manifest their ignorance in violence, but you would think our society would be unanimously opposed to it. So why are groups like Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, American Family Association, President Bush, and the rest of them so adamant about defending this kind of behavior?
Anyway, as he explains HERE, Terrance started compiling information about hate crimes against sexual minorities and posting them at Wikipedia. There's already a pretty good page on Violence against LGBT people, but T. wanted more precise documentation.
As far as I can tell, Terrance hasn't posted a list or index to the entries he's contributed to Wikipedia, so I just went through his blog, picking out the ones I saw. This might be the list so far, in alphabetical order:
- Paul Broussard
- Roxanna Ellis
- Steen Fenrich
- Jason Gage
- Glenn Kopitske
- Gary Matson
- Nizah Morris
- Ronnie Paris
- Richie Phillips
- Arthur Warren
- Rebecca Wight
I suggest you click on each of those links, read those stories. You tell me what it is that makes the so-called Christians feel so strongly -- you explain to me why they want this kind of behavior protected.
Any of these cases will turn your stomach. The whole bunch of them will haunt you for the rest of the day.
It's bad enough that individual people behave this way, that they manifest their ignorance in violence, but you would think our society would be unanimously opposed to it. So why are groups like Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, American Family Association, President Bush, and the rest of them so adamant about defending this kind of behavior?
posted by JimK at 6:40 AM
9 Comments:
Thanks for the link! Actually, I've just upgraded my blog, and added a special function to group posts together as series.
You can find a link to the hate crimes project in the series category. The hate crimes project also has its own category page.
There are more updates to come. Sadly, I haven't run out of cases yet.
"It's bad enough that individual people behave this way, that they manifest their ignorance in violence, but you would think our society would be unanimously opposed to it."
They are.
"So why are groups like Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, American Family Association, President Bush, and the rest of them so adamant about defending this kind of behavior?"
They don't defend it in the least. I'm sure they would agree that the sentences are too lenient. They just think that the crimes are the crimes not the thoughts of the criminal.
They don't defend it in the least. I'm sure they would agree that the sentences are too lenient. They just think that the crimes are the crimes not the thoughts of the criminal.
Then how about we remove religion from the list of hate crime criteria? After all, it's definitely a chosen status. We could then make a case for removing religion from civil rights protections, too.
"Then how about we remove religion from the list of hate crime criteria?"
I think you're right, Terrance. Hate crimes laws of any kind are superfluous and inappropriate.
Crime investigators have enough to do examining the physical evidence without trying to figure out this.
There are no good motivations for assault, vandalism and murder. Treat it all the same.
"After all, it's definitely a chosen status. We could then make a case for removing religion from civil rights protections, too"
This is a problem. Religion is a chosen status but, unlike, sexual preference, is put at a disadvantage by the Constitution.
If you want to say it's unconstitutional to teach about sexual preference, then we can talk about this.
Boulder,
You seem to be implying in your last comment that it's unconstitutional to "teach about religion." Is that what you believe?
The main value of hate crimes laws is not to ratchet up the punishment, but to collect data to allow better protection and enforcement and to teach that terrorizing groups is not acceptable.
Btw, the law already takes motivation into account -- murder vs. manslaughter, for instance. so the right wing arguments are without validity.
And I just love these whiners who complain that "religion" is placed at a disadvantage by the Constitution. Let's wipe out all the tax breaks and close all the private religious schools, and then maybe we could talk.
"The main value of hate crimes laws is not to ratchet up the punishment, but to collect data to allow better protection and enforcement"
Illegalize for the purpose of statistics? Among the stupidest things I've ever heard.
"and to teach that terrorizing groups is not acceptable."
Groups are not more important than individuals in America.
"Btw, the law already takes motivation into account -- murder vs. manslaughter, for instance."
The Dr manages here to be right and wrong at the same time. The difference between murder and manslaughter is that one is done for hate's sake. This again displays the superfluous nature of hate crimes law. The purpose is not protection or punishment or restitution, it is to promote a certain group. Crimes motivated by hate are already illegal.
"so the right wing arguments are without validity."
above
"And I just love these whiners who complain that "religion" is placed at a disadvantage by the Constitution. Let's wipe out all the tax breaks and close all the private religious schools, and then maybe we could talk."
Wow! How indulgent. Society is permitting us to have religious schools. What did we do to deserve such graciousness?
Tax deductions and non-profit status is available to all groups with altruistic missions. It's not a big break being given to religion.
Since when are religious institutions "altruistic"?
The collection of data is indeed a very important aspect of this legislation.
When did I ever say groups were more important than individuals?
You still haven't explained how the Constitution interferes with your religious beliefs.
Oh, do you believe that I should have the right to deny you medical treatment because you're a Christian? Or maybe ask you to leave my restaurant? I doubt it, so stop complaining about "special rights."
Hate crimes are targeted to specific groups of people. The penalty is higher because the crime is greater - an entire group of people is threatened and terrrified when one member of it is targeted merely for being a member. The thoughts are not punished, the psychological terrorizing of a group of people is.
Post a Comment
<< Home