Recent Entries
Just A Rambling Meandering Smattering of Almost-Completed Thoughts…
You Have To Serve Before You Can Lead
Seriously, Obama - Why In the World Southwest Virginia?
Monthly Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
RSS Feeds
Let’s Talk About Hate
Posted On:Jul 29, 2008
To me though, the most sinister thing about these latest reports is the reminder that legally, something called a “hate crime” even exists in the first place.
Think about it.
Three people were murdered and four people were seriously injured, and judging from the amount of ammunition that the shooter had on his person that he did not have the chance to access, the intent was far worse than the outcome. Murder was the crime, along with attempted murder, etc. – now explain to me why the motive matters.
Seriously. With the exception of self-defense or accident, why should it matter whether a murderer acted because his mother didn’t tuck him in at night, or his father didn’t show him enough affection as a teenager, or he hates a church’s liberal philosophy? I hold that the “why” should NOT matter, and the fact that it does is indeed kind of sinister.
Again, think about it. To kill someone is bad. But as it stands, to kill someone for reasons that the law find particularly egregious is worse. See, the big picture here begs that we consider the following – aren’t we ceding to the government the right to decide what is and is not acceptable thought?
While surely few would disagree that killing someone because you hate their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is horrible, in the eye of the law (that phrase is crucial here), why should it be worse than killing someone because they cheated you out of raise at work or wouldn’t go on a date with you? And given a power - ANY power - when has the government EVER reigned itself in? It hasn’t. It doesn’t. And with the door open on the idea of government deciding what is acceptable thought and what is not, can we really be naive enough to think it will stop here?
Two words that are even more ominous that “hate crime”?
How about “Thought Police”?
Posted by Jody Lee Back to the blog »
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Aarah ) on July 30, 2008 at 7:55 am
Sorry, but I must disagree with your premise. First, you say all violent crimes are “hate” crimes. By saying that, you must think the thug who hijacks a car hates the driver or that the bank robber hates the bank teller.
You say motive doesn’t matter but I ask that you too think about something. Crimes motivated by hatred toward a group rather than an individual not only harm the individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. This generates fear and apprehension throughout the entire group not only in the community involved but everywhere the incident is reported and sometimes these crimes can then lead to violent retaliation as happened in LA following the Rodney King beating.
You ask “aren’t we ceding to the government the right to decide what is and is not acceptable thought?” and my answer is NO. You may think whatever you like. You may even say whatever you want with few exceptions like the screaming “Fire” in a crowed theatre example. What you cannot do is attempt to intimidate others through your violent actions so that they fear for their lives should they express their differing views on religion, happen to have a different skin color or be from a different country.
Long ago Blackstone said “It is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.”
Think about it!
Posted by ( Freedomman ) on July 30, 2008 at 10:28 am
Many yrars ago a man named Cain killed his brother Abel because he hated him. This sort of thing has been going on ever since!!
Freedomman
Posted by ( D.Hutch ) on July 31, 2008 at 9:33 am
Ponder this ! Why are crimes that end in a death (murder) of someone of a particular group, race, religion, sexual orientation, ect. labled as a “hate crime”? If someone deliberately damages or destroys personal property of said groups listed above, like a building (a church for example) then that act is considered by “the law” as vandalizing the property. One doesn’t have to murder someone to commit a hate crime against humanity, it’s just they are bigger cowards and low lifes of society.
Posted by ( Freedomman ) on July 31, 2008 at 11:42 am
Yep! The primary responsibily of civil government is to protect property rights and establish courts to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Whether a crime is committed out of hatred or otherwise, it should be dealt with in even-handed justice--a crime is a crime!!
Freedomman
Posted by ( dadw5boys ) on July 31, 2008 at 6:02 pm
When I was 15 I taught Sunday School and over time I grew tired of a local LEGEND IN HER OWN MIND’s comment constantly in the class about who she hated over and over every Suanday. Finally one Sunday I ask her how she could testify to others about the goodness and geatnees of god if she hated so many and would not talk to them. That shut her up finally.
Adter church that day the Preacher RANGLED ME BY THE NECK into a room where he read me the riot act.
He said “What do you think you were doing?”, “DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY HER DADDY PUMPS INTO THIS CHURCH”?
He replaced me after only 3 years as the Sunday School teacher. Since that day atteninfg church has been hard because each time I have seen the easy life the preacher have and the amount of money they take in from usually the people who can least afford it. While the wealthy in the church make all the decision on how the churchs money is spent.
I have seen long black cars with drivers pull up to churches where hard working farmers go to worship and the Preacher climb out still smelling of the whiskey from the night before. I have seen church buses taking the wealthy member children to the beach while the poorer member were not even aware of the church owning a bus.
I can’t bring myself to enter a church anymore espically with the total support od Israel. The U.S. Taxpayers are ask to support 290,000 Ultra Othdox Jews who will not work and only study the Koran and live off welfare. We dog single mother here to work but feed whole familys with the U.S. $3.6 billion dollar AIDE PACKAGE!
I think of Rev TUTU’s statment. He said, “When the Whiteman came to Africa we owned the land and he had the bible. After a few years we had the bible and the whitman owned the land and told us we got the better deal!”
So count me out of this trade off of ethics for greed I want no part of it.
Posted by ( Freedomman ) on August 01, 2008 at 7:42 am
Injustice of any kind can cause a reaction from any affected person or group. It can lead to outright revolution, (the American Revolution), if the established system will not protect the rights of others--property or physical. With the First Amendment an American treasure, and our system of courts, our civilization can function without “hate crime legislation.”
Freedom gives no one the right to murder and laws can deal with the murderer. Whether he hated his victim or simply wanted his wallet, the victim is just as dead and his convicted killer can be punished.----Freedomman
Posted by ( rawbleedorange ) on August 01, 2008 at 6:02 pm
plain and simple the motive behind any murder is irrelevant. it doesn’t make a wrong any better.to me it is used as a scare tactic.to invoke fear into a particular group of people.to the media the juicier the details the better the sales.
Posted by ( Freedomman ) on August 02, 2008 at 8:03 am
All of us “hate” something. It is good to hate evil, according to Holy Scriptures. Hate towards other persons is an unfortunate malady of the human race. It is what makes one distinctively human, for the animals only kill out of hunger or fear--no malice toward their victim. If someone carrys their hatred to the point of murder, they can and should be punished. If you hate me because of what I have said in this little note, then hate away. Just don’t kill me or mess with my stuff!!! No more comments on this subject from me.
Posted by ( Chriss ) on August 04, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“plain and simple the motive behind any murder is irrelevant”
Wrong. Motive is an important factor in our judicial system. Ask any investigator or D.A. We already have harsher sentencing for certain crimes involving murder. For example, killing a police officer without pre-meditation is a capital crime. In a sense, as a society we already punish certain crimes more severely based on the motive or the actions. Are we saying that a police officers life is more valuable than some Jane Doe? I don’t think so. Societies designate certain actions as being more intolerable because of motive. From a personal standpoint, I would find the murder of a black man simply because he is black as much more heinous than one inner city gang member killing another gang member. To me there is a distinction based on the societal nature of how we view vile acts. In the end, I firmly believe the severity in punishment of criminal actions can and should be determined by motive. The senselessness of the act, as determined by societal measures, should play an important role punishment.
I also wonder why the “liberal media’ hasn’t given more attention to this man killing people because they were “liberal”
Posted by ( Freedomman ) on August 05, 2008 at 7:15 am
All life is valuable. Murder is murder. If “beating a dead horse” is a hate crime, the contributors to this column are in big trouble!!!
Posted by ( Chester ) on August 06, 2008 at 7:58 am
Freedomman,
From that assertion, I would assume that you feel laws which give harsher punishment for killing a police officer or a governemnt official while doing his duty?
I don’t buy the “murder is murder” argument. For example, what if a father takes the law in to his own hands and kills someone who molested his daughter. Is that murder the same as some redneck dragging a black man chained to his truck for miles to his death? If all life is valuable, then why do we have the death penalty?
Posted by ( Freedomman ) on August 06, 2008 at 8:45 am
Be careful how you use the term “redneck”, Chet. You might offend someone, and you will be accused of a hate crime! As far as I know, the death penalty is applied for murder and other crimes deemed justifiable, depending upon that nations national and cultural mores. The courts in America will determine if death is justifiable but in the end, God will do the sorting, for all the basis of civil law in America is a code held to the highest standard--the Word.
Posted by ( TnAndy ) on August 06, 2008 at 8:53 am
“From that assertion, I would assume that you feel laws which give harsher punishment for killing a police officer or a governemnt official while doing his duty?”
Uh....you DO realize that sentence is incomplete and makes no point or sense.
“For example, what if a father takes the law in to his own hands and kills someone who molested his daughter. “
There was a case a couple years back where a guy went over and killed his next door neighbor, who he thought molested his young daughter. The child later recanted her story.
What category does this murder go in ?
Posted by ( Freedomman ) on August 06, 2008 at 9:47 am
I believe you have addressed your inquiry to the wrong dude!
Posted by ( Chester ) on August 06, 2008 at 11:43 am
TnAndy,
I agree, after re-reading that sentence, I left it incomplete. It should have read “From that assertion, I would assume that you feel laws which give harsher punishment for killing a police officer or a governemnt official while doing his duty as unfair?” It was a response to Freedomman’s “murder is murder” statement. It is really quite simple, currently there are laws in place which make it a capital crime to kill a police officer or government official during the performance of his/her duties. Essentially that means punishment for such a murder is harsher then punishment for a murder where some guy gets murdered during a fight (for example). The point is that, as a society, we have already chose to judge motive and actions to be quite relevant when punishing the crime of murder. If “murder is murder” then what is the point of harsher sentences for specific types of murders? The logic he puts forth simply insinuates that murdering a police officer is no different than murdering a friend in a drunken brawl. I disagree. Therefore I see no issue with society punishing a murder in which the motive is hate for color, sexual orientation, etc more harshly. We essentially do it now by punishing certain murders more harshly than others. As for your example, you have lost me. I used that example to show that there is a difference in how we judge murder based on motive and the actions of the crime itself. It’s not up to me to catagorize your example, but thanks for adding validity to my overall point. “Murder is murder” is flawed logic if you approve of some murders being capital crimes and some not. BTW, are you the Andy who owes me one ounce of silver on a bet?
Freedomman,
With all due respect you are confusing me. First you say “Whether a crime is committed out of hatred or otherwise, it should be dealt with in even-handed justice--a crime is a crime!!” and “Murder is murder.” Forgive me if I have misunderstood your logic here but are you not saying that there should be no distinctions drawn in crimes such as murder based on motive or the heinousness of the crime? If so, then why do you seemingly support such distinctions when you wrote “the death penalty is applied for murder and other crimes deemed justifiable, depending upon that nations national and cultural mores. The courts in America will determine if death is justifiable” Are you not directly contradicting yourself here? If murder is murder and crimes should be dealt with in even handed justice, then how do you rationalize your passivity towards allowing the courts to hand out differing degrees of punishments based on national and cultural mores? Seems to me that if the national and cultural mores at the time indicate that a crime towards others based on race, sex, etc is more heinous than otherwise, you should have no issue with the idea of “hate crimes.”
Posted by ( D.Hutch ) on August 06, 2008 at 5:51 pm
This “hate crime” topic is relapsing into the “who died and made you God” Blog posted earlier by Jody. She doesn’t believe in capital punishment by means of the death penalty, stating morals as her reasoning. However a “hate crime” resulting in a death of the innocent makes that stance shakey doesn’t it? Yes! Freedoman, your right, God will do the sorting in the end but think about this. A State makes the death penalty legal by a state law. The United States also makes the death penalty legal by a declarication of War. So in light of that let me ask this, does that statement “murder is murder” justified here? when is “a hate crime not a hate crime”?
“D.Hutch”
Posted by ( Jody Lee ) on August 10, 2008 at 4:25 pm
D., you bring us full circle. When is a violent crime NOT a hate crime?
Chester’s comment about “even-handed justice”, regardless of whether the crime was committed out of rage, jealousy or hate (or whatever), hit the nail on the head.
Freedomman, your comment - if “beating a dead horse” is a hate crime, the contributors to this column are in big trouble!!! - is my favorite zinger so far.
And Aarah, your posting of Blackstone’s remark - Blackstone said “It is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.” -
is one I would agree with, yet I do not think it addresses the issue of motive. That’s just my interpretation, anyway.
Finally, as I originally said, circumstances must be considered in sentencing a murdering. But as to whether the murderer was driven by hate of a race or hate of a person, in my opinion, should not be a consideration.
Thanks for the interesting feedback.
jody
Posted by ( Lewis ) on August 20, 2008 at 4:35 am
The Knoxville shootings, hypocrisy, and biased reporting
Sunday, July 28, 2008: Jim D. Adkisson, an unemployed truck driver, was accused of killing two and wounding six others at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee. He was described in news reports as a “stranger” to the church and his ex-wife attended there years ago. His criminal record consisted of a few drunken driving charges. At the time 25 kids were doing a play called “Annie,” about 200 people total were in the church. He avoided shooting the children and walked right by some of them, but targeted adults. (AP)
Yet these brave people were not going to sit by and be slaughtered, they jumped and disarmed the murderer. They prevented another Virginia Tech style massacre by their actions. Yet the Unitarian Universalists as an organization, supports other murderers that do the very same thing to others.
What are the UUs?
The Unitarian Universalists were formed in 1961 from the then separate Unitarians and Universalists and are not a church, but a left-wing, liberal social and political organization. Most are Humanists, pagans, atheists, etc. If anything they are anti-Christian in many respects. Because they are mostly atheists, but desire a “church” social structure, they turn to many far-left political causes instead of God. (This is also true of other “liberal” Christian denominations.)
For example the Unitarian Universalist Society of Sacramento was in full support of Palestinian terrorism and the destruction of Israel. (Report of the Third North American Conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement Rutgers University - New Brunswick, New Jersey October 10-12, 2003) So why are they silent when Arabs do this same thing with Jews? In fact most of their agenda is political, but that is no excuse for this crime.
To quote, “Eight members of Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East—seven from First Parish UU Church in Cambridge, MA and one from First UU Church in San Diego, CA—traveled to Israel and the Palestinian Territories on a 10-day fact-finding mission. The trip, initiated by Don McInnes, co-chair of UUs for Justice in the Middle East, and inspired by the 2002 UUA General Assembly Action of Immediate Witness entitled Toward Peace and Justice in the Middle East, was intended partly as a journey of self-education and partly as a show of solidarity with the people involved in the daily struggle for peace and justice. We prepared for our trip in an atmosphere of great uncertainty and more than a little anxiety—uncertainty over gaining admittance to first Israel and later the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and anxiety about the escalating violence in the region, including the looming US invasion of Iraq.”
None of this has anything to do with a church. This “fact finding tour” was bought and paid for by a terrorist supporting group known as The Holy Land Trust. The entire “report” was just PLO propaganda. For example they whined about Israeli roadblocks and the hardship on Palestinians, the occupation of Gaza, etc. The only problem is Gaza hasn’t been “occupied” by Israel in two years, no Jews are allowed to live there, and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians is an everyday event. (This was in 2002, but they still refuse to condemn it today.) Before Israel liberated the West Bank from Jordan (there was no Palestinian state) in 1967, they (the leftist’ UUs) failed to mention that the Jews there were wiped out and daily terror attacks occurred from there too. Just like the UUs did in Knoxville, Israel is defending its children from murdering savages. It was OK in Knoxville, but if Israel does it, it’s wrong. Liberals are simply obscene and deluded on these issues.
With due respect, once a “church” meddles in politics they deserve no respect as a church. Ref. http://www.cjpsd.com/uujme_trip.html and more on the Holy Land Trust at http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=DA46F78E-7A77-4A21-9BDB-F2E28E442135.
Biased Reporting
This shooting got all sorts of national coverage and was indeed a crime I believe Adkisson deserves the death penalty for, but a far more brutal Knoxville crime was committed in 2007 when five blacks carjacked, gang-raped and murdered a young white couple because they were white. So why did the left-wing press jump all over this crime, yet have ignored the more brutal murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom. See http://www.sullivan-county.com/liberal_racism.htm
Knoxville shooting suspect targeted church for ‘liberal leanings’ screams many headlines across America as they demand “hate crime” charges against Adkisson. But isn’t “liberal” a political position? When did liberals become a race or protected minority? “Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals “who are ruining the country,” court records show.” So says http://www.knoxnews.com (July 28, 2008) and every other major liberal paper.
To continue, “Inside the house, officers found “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by radio talk show host Michael Savage, “Let Freedom Ring” by talk show host Sean Hannity, and “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.” The they followed that with the following words such as: The shotgun-wielding suspect...motivated by a hatred...he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement...as well as gays...” What else did they find? Let’s list all of it.
They also provide proof this isn’t a church, but more a political organization: “Owen (Knoxville police chief) said Adkisson’s stated hatred of the liberal movement was not necessarily connected to any hostility toward Christianity or religion per say, but rather the political advocacy of the church. The church’s Web site states that it has worked for “desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women’s rights and gay rights” since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers.” They also said, “Adkisson does not appear to be a member of any church himself...”
So the press connects the actions of a disturbed man as somehow being programmed by talk radio, the political rival of much of that press, as being at fault for this. Yet the millions of other talk radio listeners have never done such a thing. It’s part of their political agenda of right-wing hate (it’s hate anytime it isn’t left-wing) and yet they failed to report the Christian/Newsom murders outside Knoxville because it was politically incorrect. Why was it incorrect? Race killings are always by whites in their view, blacks are always victims.