1. More evidence of Unhinged Leftist Disease. Seems to be spreading.

   I wonder….. when Massachusetts (or maybe California) starts sanctioning 3-way marriages, will the rest of us be subject to hate crime penalties for criticizing that as a perversion? Of course we will.

   Comment by RedBeard — 04.27.07 @ 9:54 am

---

2. La Shawn, the way I read the bill, the new Hate Crime definition only comes into play when someone kills, sexually abuses, kidnaps or injures someone, or attemps to kidnap, sexually abuse or injure someone, while using fire, a firearm or an explosive or incendiary device.

   I don’t think anyone will get into trouble for just speaking their mind, unless they’re also brandishing a bomb or a gun.

   Comment by Jim — 04.27.07 @ 10:27 am

---

3. To the point of the producer, I do not know how you kept your cool, LaShawn. I’m not sure I would have. I think the producer needs to lose his job at the least.

   To the point of the law, I’m not a lawyer, but the law refers to anyone who commits “bodily injury” OR uses a firearm, etc. So, in my mind, I ask, what does bodily injury mean. Well, I did a little googling and some insurance companies include “mental injury” in the definition of “bodily injury” and so then I ask myself, what does that mean? A slap that leaves a mark for a while? An insult that results in a person’s mental anguish? I’m not condoning violence by any means, but having worked in a regulatory capacity all of my career, I’m very careful with terms. I’d like to get a legal opinion on this.

   To your main point about the threat to Christians speaking in defense of the Bible and Christ’s teachings, I know you’re right. Well, you won’t be sitting in jail alone

   Comment by dianne — 04.27.07 @ 10:39 am

---

4. Hate mail…

   Ya gotta love it because when you receive it, you KNOW you’re doing something right…

   Keep on firing La Shawn, it’s like I told an old and dear friend last night, my stance on the war in Iraq may not make me popular with hard core Republicans, but I don’t care about popular, I care about the truth and our troops…

   And always telling the truth as you see it is something I learned about blogging by reading YOUR blog, if people want ‘touchy-feely’ pics of a kitten, my place isn’t for them, if they want sugar coated lies, you place isn’t right for em either…

   If the guy gave you that kind of a reaction, apparently you did the right thing once again…

   Kudos!!

   Comment by TexasFred — 04.27.07 @ 11:02 am

---

5. I oppose and and have always opposed “hate crime” in any of its forms or manifestations. What would PETA like to enact in the”hate crime” slugfest?

   We must cleanse ourselves of this whole “hate crime” burden. It does not matter if I batter, defame, abuse, maim, kill, etc. a person because my heart and mind are infected, the actual criminal statutes are the same. Let the jury and the judge be repulsed by my character and drop the max on me. Let the parole board measure my state of mind. The law must be objective. Let the others handle the subjective stuff.

   So far as the e-mailer is concerned, I say let the sun shine on him and let him take his lumps in the bright light of day.

   “Ethics of journalism” has become an oxymoron. Journalists get all adelpated when they wax on about getting the “facts behind the facts” and putting their findings out there so we (the great unwashed) can make an “informed decision.” Bull hockey! That is just doublespeak for pushing their personal agenda.

   This producer is in a power position for manipulating the news. If he is exposed and no one particularly cares, then he continues on his crusade. If hot lava rains down on him, he is getting valuable information about where he stands with the little people. That turns into advertising revenue for his employer and probably a “Don Imus moment” for him.

   Comment by heliotrope — 04.27.07 @ 11:14 am

---

6. LaShawn, you are right on point about the threat to Christians, and what our Lord tells us will happen. I’ve noticed the trend for about 20 years; and I often pray to be strong like the martyrs of history when the time comes.

   Comment by Rebecca — 04.27.07 @ 11:16 am

---

7. Oops! Meant to say “an advertising issue for his employer.” I probably should have tried going to bed last night.

   Comment by heliotrope — 04.27.07 @ 11:17 am

---

8. Jim, I hear what you say, and I hope you’re right, but Canada’s ministers are having problems with preaching against homosexuality, I think. It was in the news about 1-2 years ago…

   I agree with Heliotrope (except on his spelling of addlepated) about the hate-crime thing - but then, I usually do.

   Comment by suek — 04.27.07 @ 11:23 am

---

9. Didn’t Canada pass or try to pass something similar where speaking out against homosexuality even if done from a religious perspective is against the law? I think you did the right thing here, although I wonder if the two Pharisees Sharpton and Jackson would come running to YOUR defense after this obviously racially motived email…

   Comment by Greg Laurich — 04.27.07 @ 11:27 am

---

10. #8 suek: Being critical of my spelling is a hate crime. Consider yourself as good as locked up.

    Comment by heliotrope — 04.27.07 @ 11:31 am

---

11. I’m not feeling loved, either.

    Yellow Pages…..
    Attorneys……

    

    Comment by RedBeard — 04.27.07 @ 11:36 am

---

12. This is just another front in the war on Christians, or I should say, on Christ. Another issue that is looming right now is that libs are trying to get the “Fairness Doctrine” reinstated. This will require broadcasters to give equal opportunity for discussion of opposing views. Think about the ramifications that could have on Christian broadcasting.

    Comment by ElCee — 04.27.07 @ 11:58 am

---

13. [B]ut Canada’s ministers are having problems with preaching against homosexuality, I think. It was in the news about 1-2 years ago…

    That’s true, but Canada, if I’m not mistaken, doesn’t have the same guarantees about free speech that we do here. Hate crimes must be crimes first, and thanks to the First Amendment, preaching against homosexuality at the pulpit is not crime.

    I dislike hate crimes laws in general. I mean, I really dislike them. I think the very thought of them is ridiculous. No thought, no matter how vile, should be a crime. However, if race, sex, and religion are protected classes, they might as well go on and put sexual preference up there too. With our current government, there is no chance that all hate crimes legislation will be done away with. Jesse Jackson would have a fit if that happened.

    So, even though I hate hate crimes legislation, I have to get behind H.R. 1592. However, if another bill comes along proposing to get rid of these childish laws, I’ll get behind that, too.

    Comment by Jay — 04.27.07 @ 12:22 pm

---

14. It’s a sad commentary about America that a man who sexually desires a voluptuous, sexually developed 15 year old is considered a bonafide sexual deviant whereas men who engage in all sorts of sexual acts with one another are given a free pass. Despite their claim to being “scientific,” it’s amazing how so many of the things that the left defends have no basis in science, or contradict a fundamental point.

    Comment by MikeT — 04.27.07 @ 12:47 pm

---

15. If you’re interested, here’s much of the Canadian hate crime law. As noted above, the Canadians don’t protect free speech as much as we do. (You’ll also note the difference between the Canadian and US proposed law because the US law applies only when there’s physical injury. The Canadian law covers speech but would usually apply only when somone is inciting or publicly promoting violence).

    318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

    (2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

    (a) killing members of the group; or
    (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction…

    (4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

    319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

    (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
    (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
    (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
    (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada…
    (

    Comment by Jim — 04.27.07 @ 12:55 pm

---

16. I don’t want be a self-promoter but I am going to do it anyway. I was on The Hill last week lobbying against thought crimes and have been blogging about it quite a bit lately.

    Thanks for speaking up about it and good for you for not taking revenge on the person who called you that name.

    Comment by Randy — 04.27.07 @ 1:02 pm

---

17. Jim (#15) says:

    >>The Canadian law covers speech but would usually apply only when somone is inciting or publicly promoting violence).>>

    Then quotes:

    (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

    These don’t say “promotes violence against”…these say “promotes hatred against”. I can see where preaching that “homosexuals commit sin” could be seen as “promoting hatred” since we are also taught to “hate sin”. Agreed(before you even say it!) that we are also supposed to love the sinner, but I think you’d agree that Christians often find themselves having a problem separating the two concepts.
    I’m pretty sure I read where charges had been brought against ministers in Canada for preaching that homosexuality was a sin, but I’ll have to search for it. Later.

    Comment by suek — 04.27.07 @ 1:54 pm

---

18. Helio, right on.

    I lost track of the case either in Sweden or Norway where a preacher did g to jail for preaching against homosexulaity. Likewise, I recall a case in Western Canada where a preacher was also prosecuted & penalized.

    I agree in principle with the assertion that our fundamental rights are different from that of Canada and elsewhere. On that alone, it could not conceivably happen here, not ever! So long as it stands on the Constitution.

    B-u-u-u-ut, why do you think the elites are so anxious to look to international law? It’s the constitution, stupid. By looking abroad to others for judicial inspiration, we’ve set the precedent for extra-constitutional decision. Coupled with the over-emphasis of stare decisis, that camel done stuck his nose under the tent. It is now just a matter of when, not if.

    Message to Believers, if you support social progressives, you’re only helping to lead us all to slaughter.

    Rest assure, nutjobs like the “God-hates-fags” Phelps would be left alone under free speech, even defended by the ACLU, because it serves as a useful public display of Kooky Christians.

    It is the true Gospel Bringers that will wind up in the slammer & persecuted, because their message has the power to convict the hardest of hearts and that’s what p***es Satan off. (Ever read that Jack Chick comic “A Demon’s Nightmare & you’ll know what I mean)

    Comment by Andy — 04.27.07 @ 2:19 pm

---

19. Suek, you could research the LBC archives. I recall all of that being discussed at length.

    Comment by Andy — 04.27.07 @ 2:21 pm

---

20. Remember Abdul Rahman? His being a Christian/former Muslim in Afghanistan was considered “traitorous towards Islam”. So in effect, his Christianity put a death sentence on his head, as it has for many, many believers in Christ through the centuries. He received a commutation of his sentence due to the public pressure brought to bear on our ALLY…think about that…in the war on terror. And then he was kicked out of the country, and Italy offered to let him live there. If you think “It can’t happen here.” remember that it is happening elsewhere.

    It may not be a hate crime to tell people that God exists, but some of those people get really angry when you mention that fact.

    Comment by Doug — 04.27.07 @ 2:37 pm

---

21. The internet is NOT real life. It sure would do some folks some good to remember that.

    Damn internet gangsters..LOL!!

    Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 04.27.07 @ 2:50 pm

---

22. I have read the bill and it looks to me as if it pertains soley to physical acts of violence, not to speech. Of course when the “living document” people get a hold of it, who knows what will happen. I have a problem with the whole thought crime thing. If someone commits a crime is the result worse because of what they were thinking? We should prosecute bad behavior, but to prosecute bad thinking is quite a stretch. But it fits our whole drift into Orwellian thought and speech control.

    Comment by grillsgt47 — 04.27.07 @ 4:42 pm

---

23. Tiffany, To what are you referring?

    La Shawn, Maybe you should contact the network and request a sit-down, not to get an apology, but to have a face-to-face with the sender of the e-mail and whoever are his keepers to discuss it to whatever end that might be.

    Comment by RaLph — 04.27.07 @ 4:48 pm

---

24. It has been interesting to read some of the defenses of H.R. 1592. They remind me of those who defended campus speech codes back in the 1970s and 1980s and helped give us the present totalitarian nightmare that is American colleges.

    When you examine “hate crime” legislation like H.R. 1592 one thing becomes evident - the groups “protected” resemble nothing so much as a roll-call of Democrat Party donors and voters. This should not surprise us - the party that perfected handing out tax dollars in exchange for votes and campaign cash has expanded operations to trading civil liberties for the same.

    “Hate crime” advocates have a (mostly) fool-proof system for winning passage of their bills. Simply slime anyone who opposes them as being “anti” this-or-that group. With spaghetti-spined GOP legislators (meaning 99%), it always works. And folks from “protected” groups like La Shawn seem to have to pay a huge price (in terms of public scorn) when they dare to think for themselves.

    Andy (comment #18) is right - the ACLU readily rushes to the defense of the Nazi Party or KKK (since they see them as no real threat) while zeroing in on Christians and others they hate and would like to get rid of.

    Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 04.27.07 @ 5:20 pm

---

25. Ralph - I was referring to the person who sent LaShawn the email.

    Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 04.27.07 @ 5:33 pm

---

26. I disagree strongly with hate crime laws. The very act of assaulting or murdering someone with malice aforethought is a hateful act. If a crime is motivated by bias of any kind, I would tack on any statute that punished the criminal for deprivation of the victim’s civil rights.

    Hate crimes laws are not designed to punish (although that is what happens). They are designed to change thinking by force. Instead, they build resentment toward “protected” groups. There’s already enough of that. I would rather know that someone is a racist than wonder.

    And, while I’m at it…the clearance rate for homicides in Boston is at an all-time low because of the “Stop Snitchin’” BS. Of course, the victims are as black as the probable perpertrators. I would ramp up the penalties for witness intimidation. And, I would use the RICO laws to bust up some of these gangs too. They are actively engaged in a conspiracy to terrorize urban centers with impunity.

    Comment by Angel — 04.27.07 @ 5:36 pm

---

27. Re #26: When you examine “hate crime” legislation like H.R. 1592 one thing becomes evident - the groups “protected” resemble nothing so much as a roll-call of Democrat Party donors and voters.

    I disagree. A hate crime is still a hate crime whether you are black or white, gay or straight, Christian or Muslim. At least, that’s how the FBI has kept track of hate crimes since 1995. In my eyes, they have less to do with the status of the victim and more to do with the motive of the criminal.

    That’s all well and good, except for the fact that we already have laws on the books that punish unprovoked, senseless violence, so hate crimes laws are overkill. On that, I do agree.

    Comment by Jay — 04.27.07 @ 5:52 pm

---

28. >>When you examine “hate crime” legislation like H.R. 1592 one thing becomes evident - the groups “protected” resemble nothing so much as a roll-call of Democrat Party donors and voters.>>

    Hmph. Kind of makes me think of muslims. Everybody else pays the jizyeh tax.

    And the Borg. “Resistence is futile”

    Comment by suek — 04.27.07 @ 5:54 pm

---

29. Jay (#27)

    When you think about it each and any crime that involves murder/rape/assault could qualify as a “hate crime” since a solid case could be made that the perp “hated” the victim. I am certain (for example) that a man or woman who murders their relative “hated” them. Debunking the reasoning behind “hate crime” legislation is too easy. Determining motive may necessaty for solving a crime, but it is a terrible rationale for determining punishment. The potential for abuse is endless.

    H.R. 1592 is not about protecting the public. “Hate crime” legislation is just a way of telling non-protected groups just how unimportant they are (no low friends in high places, so to speak), so you had better clind on the bandwagon. Unless you pony up - meaning dollars and votes - don’t expect justice.

    Still, should I see Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton prosecuted under a “hate crime” bill, then I might think that this stuff is on the up-and-up. Not before.

    Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 04.27.07 @ 6:29 pm

---

30. Funny — I received hate mail from a yahoo account…twice, as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, the lunatic decided to use her work computer to do it and the IP was easy to trace (to a cancer center associated with a major university health care system). A simple email to the head of IT security, an official complaint filed, a call to campus police to follow up — badabing — FIRED. She lost her job.

    Never mess around on the workplace computer.

    Comment by Carol — 04.27.07 @ 7:57 pm

---

31. “A simple email to the head of IT security, an official complaint filed, a call to campus police to follow up — badabing — FIRED. She lost her job.

    Never mess around on the workplace computer.”

    I’ve received hate mail, but I’ve never tried to get anyone fired. Hate mail stings, but the loss of a job does major damage. Unless, the person was threatening me or my family with bodily harm, it seems over the top to me.

    Comment by Angel — 04.27.07 @ 8:35 pm

---

32. A “self-hater”? That doesn’t even make sense. How would you be a “self-hater” in this example? You’re not going to attempt to get married in Massachusetts are you? And I know you’re not gay, so this person was definitely too emotional to think straight.

    Unless he meant that you’re a “self-hater” for not commenting about Imus, but that’s still ridiculous. How much more needs to be said about Imus, anyhow?

    Comment by Tom Blogical — 04.27.07 @ 8:40 pm

---

33. #31 Angel,

    Just out of curiosity, if the hate mail came to your wife or child would you feel the same?

    I ask, because sometimes we are more comfortable in our own skins than we are when someone we love and protect is involved.

    Comment by heliotrope — 04.27.07 @ 9:01 pm

---

34. “Fight. Never, never, never give up.”

    Winston Churchill said that.

    Comment by The Machine — 04.27.07 @ 9:21 pm

---

35. Helio,

    “I’ve received hate mail, but I’ve never tried to get anyone fired. Hate mail stings, but the loss of a job does major damage. Unless, the person was threatening me or my family with bodily harm, it seems over the top to me.

    Comment by Angel — 04.27.07 @ 8:35 pm”

    Comment by Angel — 04.27.07 @ 9:35 pm

---

36. Helio,

    People can handle things in whatever fashion, they chose. I don’t know the nature of the e-mail that was received. Was it, “You suck” or something far worse or even criminal, I don’t know. It just reminds of when cell phones became prevalent and state police were getting calls from motorists who were cut off. It’s an extreme step that may not be necessary. But, again that is up to the person who receives the e-mail.

    Comment by Angel — 04.27.07 @ 9:39 pm

---

37. Mwalimu,

    Blacks do get prosecuted under hate crimes laws. All the suspect has to do is utter an epithet like “cracker” during the commission of the crime and the additional charges get tacked on.

    Comment by Angel — 04.27.07 @ 9:43 pm

---

38. Andy,

    Jack Chick? Really? What’s up with all this alleged victimization of Christians? I thought you couldn’t be a victim unless you wanted to be. Stop being crybabies and all that. What happened to all that advice? Right, if you’re gay, black or a woman and you complain about mistreatment, you’re a crybaby. But, if you’re a Christian…

    Comment by Angel — 04.27.07 @ 10:09 pm

---

39. ‘Hatemail’ is dodgy subject. Do we go on rampages of revenge and try to lose someone their job/livelihood because of a few words?

    Margaret Cho, like Michelle Malkin, gets the most disgusting hate mail and threats from opponents; Racist, sexist, directly threatening and foul-mouthed. But I do admire Margaret Cho’s response/attitude to the hateful mail and threats that she gets, acknowledging that although 99.9 percent of the hatemail she receives is from the self-avowed Right , she is honest enough to state:

    “I’ve gotten a lot of apologetic e-mails from some right-wingers and conservatives who are saying that this hateful response does not represent them. We are not like this, and we’re very sorry.”

    http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04004.

    I guess what I’m thinking is when do we return fire with fire, and when do we return fire with love?

    Is Margaret Cho wrong NOT to follow a punitive/self-promotional road towards all the hatemail and threats from the Right? Or should she do as Malkin does, i.e. Wail about it, and use it for generalized political rhetoric/propaganda/hate-mongering and further polarizing?

    Please note, I do not see either Cho or Malkin as representative of the Left and Right. That may be someone else’s game, but not mine. It’s silly and disingenuous to do so.

    I do see the two above women,who get very similar (racist/sexist) threats and hatemail, dealing with it in two very different ways.

    Proof that there is nothing to choose between right and left as the insults are the same (racist and sexist), yet proof that people DO ignore this fact, and disingenuously state that their own ’side’ don’t do ‘it’. Like schoolyard politics, but worse on account of being adults.

    “They do it”
    “no THEY do it”
    “No they started it, nya nyah, my teakm NEVER lies and if they do, they are on YOUR team, nyah nyha”

    Ad nauseum.

    I also agree with Angel’s statement on #35.

    LaShawn shows maturity by not using a capitalized email/(hatemail?) to either promote herself or lose someone their job. If they became repeat offenders or directly threatening, I would request they desist before taking action. If they then continued, I would request that their employer intervened. If the threat was physical or involved my family, I would seek legal advice.

    Regards,

    JohnD

    Comment by JohnD — 04.28.07 @ 6:51 am

---

40. “The Gospel is offensive to most unbelievers.”

    So is the Qur’an. They preach against homosexuals and unbelievers also.

    I support their right to do so, just as I support anyone’s right to respond to the religionist’s claims against others.

    Comment by JohnD — 04.28.07 @ 8:52 am

---

41. Lashawn, don’t tell on him to his bosses. Just write a post using his name. He should be comfortable with the public’s “right to know” (:

    Comment by michael — 04.28.07 @ 11:00 am

---

42. Learn to discern.

    The Left is fighting a war of attrition.

    By letting small infringements go ignored, we have come to where we are at today.

    If we continue along this path, tomorrow will be a very ugly day.

    Comment by The Machine — 04.28.07 @ 11:43 am

---

43. The Machine,

    What would these small infringments be?

    Comment by Angel — 04.28.07 @ 1:50 pm

---

44. infringements

    Comment by Angel — 04.28.07 @ 1:50 pm

---

45. “Hate mail…

    Ya gotta love it because when you receive it, you KNOW you’re doing something right… ”

    Wow! Nice reasoning.

    So if you were to fire off a volley of ‘hate mails’ to, say, a Jew, a Chinese immigrant, a pro-abortion liberal, a homosexual, a Muslim, a Sikh and an atheist archaeologist… would the rage expressed at these people by your hatemail also validate their ‘doing something right’???

    Or does this ‘rule’ only apply to people who you personaly authorize the ‘rule’ to apply to?

    Regards,

    JohnD

    Comment by JohnD — 04.28.07 @ 3:41 pm

---

46. I used the think hate crime legislation was a good idea, gave the prosecution something “extra” with which to nail a perp.

    Then I started noticing that whenever the victim is Christian or Jewish, or white, or middle-class or upper-class, or just a woman, the law is real sloooooow in pronouncing something a hate crime. Why can’t we call all rape a hate crime, for example? Don’t all rapists hate women? It is just such a farce. When the Muslim jihadi shot up the Seattle Jewish community center and killed someone and wounded others, it was not deemed a hate crime against Jews. No, the shooter was just an unstable guy who happened to be Muslim. No hatred of Jews evident. The horrific gang rape, torture, and slaughter of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, two white kids, by a black gang with a long criminal history was likewise not considered a hate crime. No, these were just regular old criminals who didn’t particularly target a couple of white kids lost in their neighborhood at night.

    So they can take the whole “hate crime” thing and shove it. It was created to protect gay people primarily, and selected minorities secondarily. If it had been shown to be helpful in gaining convictions of guilty people, then fine; but it doesn’t and since its definition is highly subjective, it’s just become completely offensive to me. We already have laws prohibiting violent acts. Maybe if we UPHELD the LAWS that we ALREADY HAVE, we wouldn’t feel the need to keep making newer, “better” ones.

    Anyway, interesting point, LaShawn, about people of faith being ready to stand for what they believe in. It’s really scary when it comes to that. There is strength in numbers. Let’s stand together.

    Comment by batyah — 04.28.07 @ 4:39 pm

---

47. This guy called you a self-hater because you expressed opposition to homosexual marriage? Gee LaShawn, I didn’t know you were a lesbian . . . what, you aren’t? I didn’t think so. Then on what grounds does an anti-gay marriage stance render you a self-hater? The boy is confused. And he’s a producer? Wow.

    Comment by batyah — 04.28.07 @ 4:44 pm

---

48. Batyah,

    Do you have any statistics to show blacks are not prosecuted under hate crimes statutes. If that is what you’re implying, it’s simply not true. It’s one thing to cite a high-profile case, but there’s a lot of crime in the States.

    Comment by Angel — 04.28.07 @ 4:49 pm

---

49. Angel, let me put it this way; I have never yet read a news story about a hate crime in which the victim was not gay, Muslim, or black. So no, I don’t have statistics. Do you? I’d love to see some as well. But I’d like to know why we never hear about it unless the victim is black, gay, or Muslim (as was the ridiculous case in MA about the junior high school kids who put a lunchbag containing a ham sandwich on a table where Muslim kids were eating — the infidel kids got suspended and are being charged with a hate crime!!).

    Here’s another brainchild, taken from a CNN news report today about the crack addict who punched a 101 yr old lady in the face in Queens before robbing her and pushing her and her walker over.

    “The bill, offered by Sen. Martin Golden of Brooklyn, would make a felony of assaulting anyone more than 70 years old. Currently, the crime is a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than a year in jail.”

    Excuse me? I mean, I think it’s despicable that anyone would attack an elderly frail woman, but please. Why not make all assaults a felony? Are we going to need special laws protecting people with canes? This is absurd. But furthermore, is he going to be charged with a hate crime, say, hating the elderly?

    Comment by batyah — 04.28.07 @ 4:57 pm

---

50. Kudos to Jim for quoting Canadian law.

    Free speech in Canada and Europe is one right among many as opposed to the US where it is considered a higher right.

    The minister in Sweden, Aake Green was acquitted.

    In the Canadian Charter of Rights:

    1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    Fundamental Freedoms

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    d) freedom of association.

    We have Human Rights Tribunals, I don’t know if the US has the equivalent, and that is how this was addressed.

    I believe you are referring to Rev. Steven Boisson (2004)Red Deer Alberta. The ruling was a win win.

    The passage of Bill C-250 was fodder for US lobby groups. (free speech chill)

    “In order to be found guilty of an indictable offence under the code, which carries a penalty of up to two years in prison, a person must communicate statements, in a public place, which incite hatred against an identifiable group in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.”

    A Calgary minister got some attention in the US a few years ago for being arrested for street preaching outside a local fair. It was less about his preaching and more about his behavior. Police laid charges, it wasn’t a free speech issue.

    The US will work out it’s own laws, in the meantime, it would be helpful if US media and lobby groups published outcomes when they cover or publisize ‘hate’ speech cases being prosecuted in other countries.

    The passage of C-38 has led to provincial confusion regarding marriage commissioners, and that is an ongoing concern.

    No minister, priest, iman or rabbi in Canada is in jail, or has been prosecuted or forced to do something that is against their faith.

    Comment by BD — 04.28.07 @ 6:12 pm

---

51. I, too, was curious about who was accused of hate crimes. Below is what I found, though unfortunately they were not for the same year and so cannot be compared with accuracy.

    On hate crimes:
    68.2 percent were triggered by anti-black bias.

    19.9 percent were motivated by anti-white bias.I assume that these would be perpetrated by non-whites though that would not automatically presume a black person.

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm

    On interracial crimes:
    Its most recent publication (1997), “Criminal Victimization in the U.S.,” reports on data collected in 1994. In that year, there were about 1,700,000 interracial crimes, of which 1,276,030 involved whites and blacks.

    In 90 percent of the cases, a white was the victim and a black was the perpetrator, while in 10 percent of the cases it was the reverse.

    Another finding of the NCVS report is that of the 2,025,464 violent crimes committed by blacks in 1994, 1,140,670 were against whites - that’s slightly over 56 percent. Whites committed 5,114,692 violent crimes; 135,360, or 2.6 percent were against blacks.

    Comment by jan — 04.28.07 @ 7:26 pm

---

52. Batyah,

    On that front, white on black hate crimes are “sexier” stories, but then again so are vanishing nubile blondes…so, there we are. But, black girls vanish, so it stands to reason that blacks are charged with hate crimes too.

    Comment by Angel — 04.28.07 @ 8:13 pm

---

53. Batyah,

    As far as the ham sandwich case you cite, I think that happened in Lewiston, ME and occurred in the midst of strife between the natives and recently settled Somali Muslims. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a hate crime as much as I would call it rude and disrespectful. As a child, I don’t recall ever playing a prank on someone based on their religion. Rubber snakes, yes. Mother jokes, yes. Ham sandwich put on the table of a Muslim or Jewish student, no.

    Comment by Angel — 04.28.07 @ 8:17 pm

---

54. Angel, the problem is the ridiculous over-reaction.

    The kid who did this should have been disciplined, of course, because his actions were rude, offensive, and never acceptable in a school setting. Suspension and/or after-school detentions are completely justified.

    But to label his prank a hate crime and call in the police to investigate possible criminal charges is absolutely ludicrous, and more than a little scary.

    Comment by redbeard — 04.28.07 @ 8:31 pm

---

55. Redbeard,

    What did I say that was any different than what you said?

    Comment by Angel — 04.28.07 @ 9:37 pm

---

56. Getting back to the original topic, the original 1913 law in Massachusetts was aimed at preventing interracial couples from settling in Massachusetts. That may be why the producer tossed out the “self-hater” barb. Not excusing or endorsing it, just trying to make sense of it. It is ironic that we would even consider using an archaic law that was once used to deny civil rights to one group to do the same to another. We really have not progressed very far. It doesn’t really matter what people profess their religion tells them about gays. This is a matter of public policy affecting our fellow citizens who pay taxes just like we do. In fact, I would argue that gays are the best friends a city could have because they often will move into a depressed urban center and revitalize it as they did with Boston’s South End and some parts of Roxbury.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 12:38 am

---

57. Thanks Jan, for taking the time to pull up those statistics. Angel, Jan’s stats are my answer.

    As for the Somalis and the ham sandwich, locals from the community posted comments to the news story. One mother had a daughter in that schooled who was constantly being harassed by a gang of girls, even to the point of them bashing in her stall door when she was trying to go to the bathroom. The mother went down to the school to register a complaint and see what could be done to make the school safer for her daughter. She was totally “blown off” by school officials and told point blank that the ham sandwich issue was a much more important event they had to deal with. Nothing was done to the girls at all. I don’t know the race of the girl gang harassing her daughter; if they are Somali or black, then that makes me pretty angry simply because I’m sick of reverse discrimination and I’m sick of hearing about every black-on-white crime when the opposite scenario is far more frequent. But even if they are white girls like her daughter, they are still violent and menacing, and their actions are FAR MORE serious than a silly ham sandwich prank, however disrespectful that one may be. And of course, the kids who did that should be disciplined. Calling it a hate crime is absurd, though.

    Comment by batyah — 04.29.07 @ 1:05 am

---

58. Angel, what did I say that made you think I thought you were saying something different than what I said?

    Comment by redbeard — 04.29.07 @ 5:52 am

---

59. Batyah;

    A couple of years ago, someone painted a mustache on a statue of MLK. UT treated it as a catastrophic example of hate and immediately hired a diversity czar, Gregory Vincent, who left his last university in a caldron of divisivess.

    MEANWHILE, a Jewish kid was bashed in the head so severely that he required plates in his skull. His attackers were using anti-Semitic slurs. This was the fourth incident that was quite serious in a short period of time,yet there was nary a word. One of my friends, a professor there, did not even know about any of the four incidents.

    The following article points out how ludicrous much of this is.
    How Faculty Radicals Made Me a Paleo-Conservative
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19254

    Comment by jan — 04.29.07 @ 9:46 am

---

60. Batyah,

    I doubt the girls harassing the student in ME is Somali. And, there aren’t that many blacks in Lewiston. My point isn’t that it’s a hate crime. Just that it’s rude and disrespectful. As far as the stats go, they don’t address blacks being prosecuted under hate crimes laws, which they are. The simple existence of an interracial crime is not evidence of a hate crime under the statute in most states. There have to be other indicators, one is language. This is my main objection to hate crime laws. ‘Cause you know what, if I’m fighting you in the middle of the street, I’m going to call you every name I can think of with every swing. The very idea of assaulting a fellow citizen is a hate crime in and of itself. It’s a hate crime against civilized society.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 9:55 am

---

61. Redbeard,

    The fact that you said anything at all.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 9:55 am

---

62. And, the school in ME may be been extra cautious because of the aforementioned strife between the Somalis and the natives. I worked with a nurse who lived there. The stuff that used to come out of her mouth about the Somalis just because they were different than her. The sad part is that she was perfectly comfortable with saying that stuff. I had to walk away and our friendship suffered because of it. People complain about political correctness. I don’t like it either, but at the same time, what happened to civility? What happened to being polite? Every facet of our society has become so coarse and crude. Legislation won’t change it. But, when I walked away from that conversation with the nurse, she was forced to think about the unfounded things she was saying about the Somalis and we had a real discussion about it. That doesn’t stop her from hating Somalis, but it does let her know to be mindful of her fellow citizens who don’t tolerate hate for hate’s sake. I like this woman personally, but I hope a Somali never rolls into her emergency room because it would not be good.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 10:05 am

---

63. I think reasonable people agree that physical assault is worse than vandalism. But, both have to be addressed. If I were a student on that campus, I would wonder the level of discourse regarding racial issues if someone felt free enough to paint a mustache on MLK’s statue.

    Obviously, the assault on the Jewish student is worse. And, I would also wonder the level of discourse on religious differences on that campus.

    When I was in high school, the cafeteria was divided along racial lines somewhat. It seemed to be a male phenomenon as most girls’ tables were integrated. Most of my friends were white because we were all middle class or had middle class values. We also shared common interests. The one time I had to question my choice is when we had our MLK assembly and half the white students would bail and the remainder would be disruptive. This was in the late 70s and early 80s in Boston at Latin Academy. This wasn’t some neo-diversity seminar like you see today. We tended to discuss racial differences amongst ourselves to greater understanding. Something that is impossible now. And, we can blame Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton all we want, but they don’t live in our neighborhoods or in our hearts. We got to this point in our history somehow and we were all complicit. The shackles have to come off and we have to relate to each other as individuals. That’s the only way we’re really going to see each other. When the race pimps on both sides pop up, ignore them. There are plenty of people out here that want to have this discussion without finger-pointing.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 10:22 am

---

64. “There are plenty of people out here that want to have this discussion without finger-pointing.”

    So far, I think, you’re the only commenter I’ve seen state such a thing here, so excuse me if I find the word ‘plenty’ to be somewhat overstating.

    Do you know of any political/philosophical blogs that don’t mostly generalize/mislead/race-bait to suit their own agenda…? I’d be interested in reading them…

    Regards,

    JohnD

    Comment by JohnD — 04.29.07 @ 10:33 am

---

65. >>Do you know of any political/philosophical blogs that don’t mostly generalize/mislead/race-bait to suit their own agenda…?>>

    Gosh…that sounds like a generalization to me.

    Comment by suek — 04.29.07 @ 10:58 am

---

66. John D.

    I’m talking about the real world. But, if you’re talking about a blog, I’m relauncing mine pretty soon, if you’re interested. Race is not my obsession. Neither is politics. But a return to civility is. Political correctness is a misguided attempt to force people to do what they should: respect people to their faces. Hate them in private all you like.

    I would like to see our schools teach civics again. We need this more than prayer. Kids need to know they have a responsibility to each other. Now more than ever. An outgrowth of this ignorance of our civic duties: the insidious “stop snitchin’” movement propagated by these rappers fronting huge corporations who care nothing about the consequences of the chaos it unleashes on urban centers in this country.
    There is a subculture that is slavishly devoted to silence and hatred of the law that endangers all of us. It needs to stop. If the gangbangers want to kill each other, I could care less. But, their subcultural touchstones are being absorbed by the black cultural mainstream. That needs to stop. We’re letting immature multi-millionaires set the agenda for our community. It needs to stop.
    A return to civics discussed solely in terms of citizens (not black citizens, not white citizens) may help turn this around. It seems insurmountable, but so did teen pregnancy at one time. Those numbers decreased in time. I think this is where the real culture war is to be fought. Because like it or not, we (blacks) are the tastemakers for popular culture in this country. We have to stop this. It’s not entertainment, it’s suicide.

    But, I have to warn you JohnD. I’m a pop-culture fanatic, movies in particular, so you may have to wade through all of that. I haven’t had a lot of time to work on it. I’m writing a movie now so it’s been a long time between entries on my blog.
    There is my podcast which you can find on ITunes. I won’t give the name unless I have our host’s permission.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 11:03 am

---

67. “What would these small infringements be?”

    Comment by Angel — 04.28.07 @ 1:50 pm

    In the biblical model, it is very important to understand that God SPOKE the whole thing into existence, us included.

    This is our model.

    Everything that humans have ever done has started with some words of some kind.

    We speak it, then we make it so.

    Hosea 6:5
    “Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth;”

    The Machine learned while still a middle-schooler (long time ago now, early 60s) faced with being the only black kid in an all-white ivy league prep school that ignoring the first kid who voiced a racial epithet or locker room offhand comment never ended up in a better situation for The Machine.

    Just as Rudy Giuliani proved empirically that the way to reverse NYC’s rampant crime and return the city to a place where tourists would once again feel safe to visit by enforcing the existing laws for lesser crimes and the instances of the bigger crimes fell exponentially, it is equally important for good people not to ignore the “jaywalking” of a few obvious miscreants and troublemakers, for they will embolden to the point where a simple communication with an empoyer becomes a useless endeavor, the employer will not be able to stop them.

    However, The Machine also knows that this is a very basic inherent difference between the mentally healthy human male and the human female.

    Don’t read that wrong, The Machine is certainly all for equal pay in the workplace for both sexes, etc. But to deny the fundamental differences in design of the two sexes is folly.

    But the woman is not designed to react to the verbal attack in the way that the healthy heterosexual man is designed to react to it, to put it mildly. There’s a reason for that and the fact that it exists does not make one sex inherently “better” than the other or any dumb socialistic prattle like that, it is simply being pragmatic to the ground rules of our human condition.

    When a man says those kind of things to The Machine’s wife, that man will be dealing directly with The Machine in no uncerain terms. That is not a threat, it is a promise that is codified in our marriage vows.

    The lack of mature MEN among the present-day Black community has meant that The Machine has occasionally been pressed to do the same for a few other women of all races.

    “A few good men.”

    The VA Tech shooter is a good case in point.

    There was a young lady who turned him in to the campus police for stalking her.

    The police told her that she had a case, but that she would have to press charges.

    She declined to press charges.

    I understand the reason why she would do that.

    I would go so far as to say that MOST women by themselves in today’s society would do the same thing. Fear of repercussions in a society that does not protect her from criminals is the reason.

    But if there had been ONE male willing and able to stand up and support her, to TAKE CARE OF HER when she needed it, to stand by her at that police station and encourage her to do the right thing and press charges on that obvious and evil miscreant, more than 30 people would be alive today.

    The Machine does not depend upon the definitions of others to define what is or is not hate speech.

    I will do that for myself, thank you very much.

    The first freedom of liberty is self defense.

    The shortest biblical verse in the Bible comes to mind today:

    “Jesus wept.”

    .

    Comment by The Machine — 04.29.07 @ 11:13 am

---

68. The Machine,

    Okay…

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 11:24 am

---

69. I will take issue with this idea there are no mature men in the black community. This is similar to the idea (false) there are no black men worth marrying. We’re out here. Stop looking for a new car and a glamorous career. There are guys I know who are solid and moral, but drive a garbage truck or paint houses. We’re out here. You just look past us.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 11:27 am

---

70. Angel, I can’t argue with anything you’ve said so far. My contention is that everyone is responsible for racial harmony, and in general, IN GENERAL, in modern times, I see more white people working to that end than black people. I agree that gangsta rap culture is destroying everyone’s quality of life. I don’t understand why there isn’t more of a vocal protest from the black community. Then again, I don’t understand why white kids are the major consumers of rap music and why their parents don’t seem to mind. As you pointed out, those who are getting rich off these stupid and morally degenerate rappers are those who never have to live with the consequences of the crap they put out into the world.

    Don’t worry about the nurse mistreating a Somali patient. Only in rare instances would a nurse abandon her professionalism to that degree. I had to treat plenty of patients I “hated” (with good reason, I might add, as I worked in a trauma center and we routinely received murderers and rapists after they’d been shot by the police) and I just did my job quietly and competently and kept my feelings to myself, as did every other nurse I worked with. On some level, this nurse knows she is not being fair or reasonable. She probably just needed to vent.

    It IS disconcerting to see how crude and course speech has become in our society, though. Definitely need a return to civility. I don’t think it’s gonna happen, though. I remember when I was in high school, I think Carter had just won the election. My English teacher didn’t vote for him and didn’t like him, but I remember her telling the class that now that he had been elected, she was going to respect the office of the presidency and not express any more negative feelings, that the time for doing that was before the election. Yet prior to the election, I never remember her saying ANYTHING even remotely as disrespectful as the stuff I hear about presidential candidates today. Like I said, I don’t think we are ever going to return to that polite society, but it would be nice.

    Comment by batyah — 04.29.07 @ 11:31 am

---

71. Batyah,

    Everything you say is great, but you can’t resist pushing the idea, that we (blacks) are to blame for racial strife. There are plenty of blacks working toward racial harmony. After all, this has been our fight for a long time. There are 30 million blacks or so in this country. Interracial marriage numbers increase every year. Are the white halves of those couples working harder toward racial harmony than their mates? (I was one of them, so were my folks and my grandparents, paternal and maternal). You make a mistake in ignoring all of that. If by what you say, you mean the Black Panther Party, the Nation and all those other folks…you have to consider they no more represent us than David Duke and the Klan represent you, assuming that you are white.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 11:41 am

---

72. And, there is protest from the black community regarding gangster rap. Essence Magazine has denounced it editorially for years. So have several others. But again, that’s not a “sexy” story for the media to cover. All you have to do is Google a bit and you will see countless efforts on the part of blacks to combat this.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 11:44 am

---

73. In fact, Essence has partnered with Berklee College of Music in an initiative called “Take Back the Music”. The page also has a top ten listing of postive rappers like Mos Def, Common and Guru (originally from Boston!).
    If you’re interested.
    http://www.essence.com/essence/takebackthemusic/

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 11:52 am

---

74. Oh…..my….gosh! I had no idea how many thousands of miles apart the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are from the “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution of United States.

    Here is what BD posted in #50:

    “1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    Fundamental Freedoms

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    d) freedom of association.”

    Here is the Ninth Amendment from the “Bill of Rights”: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    In the United States, all rights belong to the people. It is the GOVERNMENT we fear when rights are defined or abridged.

    Canada and the United Nations, EU, et.al. have decided that a transcendently wise group of humans at a given point in time can adequately list and define the rights of the people. This means that rights are a consensus issue and in the hands and control of the government.

    Our Founding Fathers knew that governments and panels of human minds at a given point in time are merely actors on a political stage promoting their agenda of the day. That is why the Ninth Amendment makes it abundantly clear that the rights belong to the people.

    Our liberal Supreme Court Justices have never used the Ninth Amendment in their opinions because it is a poison pill for their habits of reading auras, emanations and penumbras. It makes not a jot of difference what international laws or the laws of other nations may say, because “We the People of the United States of America” are not beholden to them. Our sovereignty arises entirely from within ourselves.

    Poor Canada.

    Comment by heliotrope — 04.29.07 @ 12:07 pm

---

75. Batyah,

    As far as the consumption of this stuff by white kids, the danger is they will now think this is the genuine black experience in this country. The image of the hypermasculine black anti-hero has been with us for a long time. D.W. Griffith knew the power of that image. We thought we could tame that power. But, if the genesis of an idea is warped, it remains warped no matter who wields the power over it. We have celebrated that image for far too long. So much so that any positive movies we have feature not the middle-class, but wealthy black protagonists. I try to address this in my writing, but it’s a hard sell. “The Pursuit of Happyness” was an exception, but the real guy is wealthy beyond imagination. What about the average black guy trying to raise his family and live his life?

    A couple of authors come to mind: John Ridley and Walter S. Mosley. They are the most genuine voices I have “heard” in a long time.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 1:02 pm

---

76. I think reasonable people agree that physical assault is worse than vandalism. But, both have to be addressed.- Angel

    I agree, but the tragedy is that the physical assaults were not addressed enough for even the faculty to be aware that they occurred.

    The shackles have to come off and we have to relate to each other as individuals. -Angel

    I totally agree but I do not see this happening while we live in a world that see folks as merely members of a “collective.”

    Comment by jan — 04.29.07 @ 1:16 pm

---

77. And, so it goes…

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 1:30 pm

---

78. “I totally agree but I do not see this happening while we live in a world that see folks as merely members of a “collective.”

    Jan, I’m not sure what you mean when you say:

    “a world that see folks as merely members of a “collective.”

    Comment by JohnD — 04.29.07 @ 3:14 pm

---

79. Thanks, Angel, for taking the time out to respond thoughtfully to my post. I learned something new today and I’m glad. I actually feel uplifted to know that members of the black community are taking steps to protect their children from bad musical influences.

    As for my perspective being skewed, well, I think that someone needs to shut Sharpton and Jackson up once and for all. That would help tremendously.

    Comment by batyah — 04.29.07 @ 4:18 pm

---

80. “You suck” isn’t hate mail. I don’t know any reasonable people who would think so. Out of respect for LaShawn, there frankly isn’t much I can repeat from the original emails — suffice to say it went way beyond a simple “you suck”.

    Or…as one particularly amusing email went:

    “U R a Losser!!!!”

    Sometimes I think the internet just isn’t for everyone…

    Comment by Carol — 04.29.07 @ 4:26 pm

---

81. Batyah,

    No problem. There will always be Sharptons and Jacksons. Do what most of us do. Ignore them. You give them power with your attention. And, don’t be fooled by the right-wing versions of these fools either. They have an agenda as well. it all involves power and money. By focusing on them, you distract yourself from what’s really going on out there.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 4:30 pm

---

82. JohnD;

    I think that we hold conflicting views within/about society that closely mirror our conflicting views about personal responibility and degrees of culpability.

    So, we have a tenuous balance between a desire to be seen as individuals and policies/ideologies that treat/view people as primarily members of a collective.

    For example, in the case of Laura, (see below), she is seen as part of an Hispanic monolith, and one feels the tension as she writes about how this makes her feel.

    There are obvious benefits to a collectivized view, but there are equally obvious drawbacks and it requires a fine balance that we have certainly not achieved in America.

    http://www.theindependentutsa.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&uStory_id=0420e45b-6ae1-4c78-966e-e8be5c170012)

    Comment by jan — 04.29.07 @ 4:43 pm

---

83. Thanks for explaining Jan. I read the link, thanks, and yes, I agree, certain American leftists see Conservatives as a ‘collective bloc’ of racists with an elitist agenda. This is every bit as misguided and cheap as seeing liberals as a ‘collective bloc’ of racists with an elitist agenda.

    We are not, arguably, talking about ‘a world’ here though Jan, just bits of American politics at the extreme edges which tends to shout loudest at all times. I mean both sides, too.

    Comment by JohnD — 04.29.07 @ 5:08 pm

---

84. If you think hate crime legislation pertaining to homosexuals is a mere continuation of a good thing the “civil rights” struggle, think again. Once written into law, everything will change forever. It’s another huge step towards a secularized Big Brother society. It will be another brick in the mythical and nonsensical wall called the “Separation of Church and State.”

    All that we have come to know as hallowed and sacred will be in danger. We will then be forced to accept anything that a liberal and unelected judge legislates as ‘normal.’ Militant homosexual activists say that Christian morality needs to be kept out of the law because of the counterfeit requirement of separation of church and state, yet they demand that special rights and protections be granted to them under the law! Interesting. Alan Keyes brilliantly said in an appearance in October, 2004:
    “We are legislating a morality that says you gotta care about your neighbor. Whoa, that sounds familiar. Where did we get that from? As I often tell people, we not only legislate morality in America, we legislate Christian morality. And we do it all the time. See? And the simple fact of the matter is that you can’t avoid it, because all [Judeo-Christian] morality involves a distinction between right conduct and wrong conduct.”

    Welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, free emergency room health care, Section-8 housing and all manners of government assistance are really “Christian” in nature, and they all sprang from Christian morality. This moral code has been there all along. Even illegal aliens get help in America, so don’t tell me that we need to keep Christian morality out of the law. Otherwise, let’s end all those ‘Christian’ entitlement programs. That puts things into a different light, doesn’t it?

    The statement about a wall of “separation between church and state” was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson made it clear in this letter that this ’separation’ was there ONLY so that government would not establish a national religion or dictate how men should worship God not to outlaw its presence in public expression or in governmental function. If you or I support this misbegotten separation, then we support limitations on our religious and free speech liberties. This is an extremely dangerous position to be in. Mark my words. Let the reader beware. One of the areas where this battle is being fought sometimes covertly is in the areas of homosexual marriage and supra-constitutional rights.

    For the most part, militant homosexual activists hate Christians because Christianity has a code of conduct which prohibits homosexuality. It is these activists’s goal to outlaw any speech, behavior, and eventually expressed thought, that criticizes their ‘lifestyle.’ Their mission in life is to outlaw your “civil rights.” Some of you may not believe this. Think again. Please read Hitler’s Cross by Erwin Lutzer (Moody Press). It details how without much opposition except from the likes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and a handful of others Hitler was able to slowly outlaw ‘wrong thought,’ eventually leading to a complete ban on any behavior that opposed or even threatened to oppose, the Third Reich. This happened in the most civilized country in central Europe in the land of Luther. Once the Nazis codified their twisted mores, they quickly went from Luther to Liquidation. But by then, it was too late for decent Germans to do anything about it.

    The same thing is happening now in America, little by little. Unelected judges are telling Americans that the Liberal concepts of morality and conduct are the only correct ones. They have the audacity to tell us that most of what we cherish is wrong and that under the guise of diversity and civil rights we must now redefine and undermine the hallowed institution of marriage and sacrifice it on the altar of “tolerance.”

    In reality, they claim they are the tolerant ones and it’s the Christians who are intolerant, but it is in fact they who are intolerant of our Christian beliefs.

    There are many homosexual activist groups working today. These and many other seemingly normal organizations like the National Organization of Women (NOW) who now promote homosexual issues frequently enlist other civil rights groups to help fund and push their liberal homosexual agenda. These groups willingly assist them because the homosexual activist groups will also help push ‘good’ civil rights causes. This is all done under the umbrella of “civil rights.” That’s part of the problem! There are also groups with patriotic sounding names like People for the American Way, who are really intolerant liberal organizations working feverishly for enforced public acceptance of the homosexual agenda. Be afraid; be very afraid. Better yet, oppose them.

    These activists, along with many liberal legislators and most newspapers, want to make you appear to be hostile to civil rights if you oppose homosexual rights or hate crime laws specifically aimed at ‘protecting’ homosexuals. They say that homosexuals are such an unprotected group that special legislation is needed to protect them. Hogwash. The reality is that existing criminal laws already protect all citizens equally.

    Remember the murder of homosexual Army Private Barry Winchell, 21, who was beaten to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier at Fort Campbell, Kentucky? Army Private Calvin Glover, 18, was recently sentenced to life in prison for the slaying of Winchell. Homosexuals are not in need of any special protections. Another homosexual, Matthew Shepard, was a student at the University of Wyoming. He was robbed and attacked by two men near Laramie, Wyoming on October 6. He died from his wounds several days later. His killers are both currently serving life sentences in prison. The homosexual men’s killers got justice they got what they deserved. Justice is indeed blind. Please understand that the real goal of all this ridiculous homosexual rights ballyhoo is to covertly codify their lifestyle by a series of legal protections and maneuvers. They do NOT need hate crimes legislation and special protection. It’s a lie. Don’t believe it.

    Better yet: oppose it, but do it legally and peaceably. Call and write your legislators and tell them that you do not support the gay agenda, gay marriage and special hate crimes legislation.

    For many years, militant homosexual activists have been silently working behind the scenes under the guise of civil rights. Now they more stridently work toward that end. For example, it has been recently noted that approximately 80% of American universities do not require an American history course! When I went to college many years ago, it was required in every college curriculum guide I read. Why not require an American history course now? Because if you talk about the Founding Fathers, you have to discuss their Christian beliefs. It was out of these beliefs that our wonderful Constitution was born. Almost all of the Founders were Christians, and Christianity imposes (oh no, that dreaded word) a MORAL CODE. It is this moral code that the militant homosexuals and liberal activist legislators are against. They want no judgments regarding personal conduct it’s anything goes, unless of course you’re a Christian.

    Most recent public high school’s history texts are revisionist, to the minimization of our original core beliefs. In 2003, just fewer than 90% of American university professors classified themselves as “liberal.” Not Democrat, but Liberal. There’s occasionally still a difference at least there used to be. Ronald Reagan said that “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party it left me.” This gap is narrowing even more lately, with most leading Democrats leading the charge for abortion, homosexual marriage, total gun control, increased taxes, free speech protection for pornography, and in general the secularization of America

    Comment by Guy Adams — 04.29.07 @ 5:33 pm

---

85. John D.;

    I think it is much more pervasive than just at the edges and I am talking about much more than labeling in the political sense.

    The Duke case is a phenomenal example on so many levels that it is hard to capture them. While many decried the failure to see Mangum as a person, those same folks often failed to assign any degree of individual “choice” to Mangum’s actions and painted a picture of her as a victim member of a repressed minority collective, despite the fact that untold numbers of women in her situation, and far worse for that matter, do not make those same choices.

    As to the lacrosse players, they were painted as part of a blah blah blah collective all over America. It was/is certainly not just a fringe view.

    Another small example:

    Many, if not most, teachers’ unions reject performance pay and generally demand formulaic pay scales that do not differentiate a failing teacher from a superb teacher.

    Rather, one is part of the group.

    There are obvious advantages to being a part of the collective, particularly if one is a mediocre performer and there are disadvantages to those whose performance is stellar. But, there is an additional friction to this dynamic. Teachers’ unions want to be seen as a group for the advantageous aspects but wish to eschew their group identity when it comes to criticism and relegate failures to “individuals.”

    This is what I mean by the tension of the views.

    As to Laura…I have interviewed her and she says that this attitude about her is overwhlemingly pervasive at her university and in society in general.

    Comment by jan — 04.29.07 @ 5:45 pm

---

86. #84 Guy Adams: Whew!

    1) I believe your epistle to be stunningly on target and well stated.

    2) It will be interesting to read the shots at your “attitude” that are soon to come.

    Comment by heliotrope — 04.29.07 @ 5:59 pm

---

87. To HelloTrope, thanks! I’ve just about had enough of the homo agenda. See GuyRandallAdams.com and ValuesUSA.net — We’re at a point not unlike our Revolutionary War; either we stand up for Righteousness or we fade into obscurity. No other options avialeth themselves. Similarly, Lincoln faced such a decision in 1863, and thankfully, he arrived at the correct path: free the slaves. What will happen if fathers, sons, pastors and friends, get locked up for simply saying what God commands to be true, that homosexuality is an “abomination”??? Guy Adams, Dir., ValuesUSA

    Comment by Guy Adams — 04.29.07 @ 6:05 pm

---

88. Oops, Heliotrope

    Comment by Guy Adams — 04.29.07 @ 6:19 pm

---

89. Guy,

    Yuck.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 6:44 pm

---

90. As I have stated before, I don’t agree with hate crime laws. But, I also don’t believe in curtailing the civil rights of my fellow citizens. Gays don’t frighten me or threaten my marriage or my children. You guys can believe what you want and justify it with religion, but we do live in a secular society in which we make allowances for people whose views or choices with which we do not agree (within reason).

    Guy and Helio,

    Don’t believe the hype! Nobody is ever going to go to jail for preaching against gays especially in a country where a major political party has made denying gays the right to marry a major plank in its’ platform. When do you start crying about the media stopping you from getting your message out?

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 6:55 pm

---

91. “I will take issue with this idea there are no mature men in the black community. This is similar to the idea (false) there are no black men worth marrying.”

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 11:27 am

    Angel, you have changed the conversation in order to take issue with yourself.

    Here is what I wrote about the subject:

    “The lack of mature MEN among the present-day Black community has meant that… “

    “A lack of” NOT “there are no”.

    This is an example of a phenomenon that is far too prevalent in these times.

    Use of the extreme circumstance as a means of denigrating what someone else has not even said in the first place is not debate.

    It does border on the ad hominem, though.

    Comment by The Machine — 04.29.07 @ 8:00 pm

---

92. “I don’t understand why there isn’t more of a vocal protest from the black community.”

    Comment by batyah — 04.29.07 @ 11:31 am

    It is called, “terrorism”.

    We can’t even get members of the black community to finger the killers when their own children are the ones killed.

    And now the rappers wear “Don’t snitch” T-shirts and it is a fullblown campaign.

    “Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.” –D.H. Lawrence

    Comment by The Machine — 04.29.07 @ 8:10 pm

---

93. “And, there is protest from the black community regarding gangster rap. Essence Magazine has denounced it editorially for years. So have several others. But again, that’s not a “sexy” story for the media to cover. All you have to do is Google a bit and you will see countless efforts on the part of blacks to combat this.”

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 11:44 am

    Here I stand in 100% agreement with Angel.

    Would also mention Dr. Bill Cosby while on this subject.

    Comment by The Machine — 04.29.07 @ 8:12 pm

---

94. The Machine,

    That constitutes an ad hominem attack? Semantics? The Angel is at a loss.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 8:15 pm

---

95. I wouldn’t count the parents of murdered children among those not working with law enforcement. It’s the so-called friends of their children who are not co-operating. As I’ve said before, the clearance rate on homicides is very low, but it’s not the parents. They suffer while these kids control the agenda. The best thing would be to allow a one-time beatdown from adults to set a few things straight, but that will never happen.

    A natural consequence of this will be lax enforcement of the law in these communities. And, like so many other things sadly, the kids will be to blame. And, somewhere a record executive and his stable of gangsta rappers quell their consciences with millions.

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 8:21 pm

---

96. Comment by Guy Adams 04.29.07 @ 5:33 pm

    You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

    Pleasure to meet someone versed in both scripture and history — and not pop culture!

    Angel, history is real. The meme that all of history is a lie because it was written by the victors is not entirely true, to put it mildly.

    Pop Culture, on the other hand, is entirely delusional and fictitious drivel.

    The Machine finds Angel to be both intelligent and able to communicate well in the writing genre, I invite Angel to do some extended study of history.

    A very good way to find much food for thought is in the study of the quotations of the movers and shakers throughout all of history.

    Quite often the discovery of a quotation that resonates with you is the jumping off point to find out more about a subject.

    Don’t draw conclusions until you have devoured the writings from both sides of any argument.

    Always keep the eyes and ears peeled for the “ring of truth”.

    Comment by The Machine — 04.29.07 @ 8:25 pm

---

97. #90 Angel,

    Thanks for the paternal reassurance that we lesser minds need not cower in fear. “Curtailing the civil rights of my fellow citizens” is an amazing assumption on your part.

    The government does not possess the power to anoint anyone in dealing out the vaunted “civil rights.” That power resides exclusively with “We the People.” Should “We the People” elect and maintain representatives that “give” a civil right to marriage between people who identify themselves as practioners of sex between members of the same sex, then Guy and Helio with just have to lump it. But, as of today no gay is denied a right to marry; they just can’t marry each other.

    If you can step out of your zone of bias and become a disinterested party in the matter of marriage between gays, you will find there are several significant points to ponder.

    1) What compelling interest dictates that the state should regulate marriage in any manner?

    2) Would those interests apply equally to marriages between people of different races? More than one spouse? Those sharing the same mother and father? Large groups? Children and adults? Those of the same sex? A human and a loved non human? Parent and child? Man and sports car? Ear and ear wax?

    Please give us your advice. We are eagerly awaiting an epiphany.

    If the Anna Nicole Smith turdblossom proved nothing else, it clearly showed the bankruptcy of moral relativism.

    Obviously, the marriage between a man and woman of different religions, race or social class is a relatively easy puzzle to solve under our Constitution. But when you shift to the concept of same sex marriage, marriage to a child or between children, marrying pets or plural marriages, marriage between siblings or a parent and off spring you have embarked on a voyage into the darkest depths of enigma.

    Being a responsible citizen requires one to be more than a bleeding heart for those less “empowered”. It requires the sharp introspection of a logical and informed mind.

    My gay neighbors may consider themselves married and I may choose to let them live in their fantasy world. After all, they can adopt children and conduct business and find a church to attend. But my doleful interest will suddenly be aroused if they essay to open a day care business or enter into teaching sex education at the public high school.

    I humbly suggest you get with the program of enlightened citizenship. Passing out “rights” is chump work and the love child of elitists and oligarchies. Defending the framework of logic and reason means that you must take uncomfortable stands.

    Comment by heliotrope — 04.29.07 @ 8:29 pm

---

98. Guy Adams,

    Very well put! Your missive puts things clearly into perspective in a way that I have rarely seen, to be quite honest.

    Comment by Tami Gill — 04.29.07 @ 9:07 pm

---

99. Helio,

    There’s nothing to say. In one fell swope, you conflated gay marriage with bestiality which is a predictable right-wing move. And, you pulled out the “child predator” canard. Nice. Classy, too?

    Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 10:39 pm

---

100. The Machine,

     Backhanded compliments are better than none at all, I suppose. But, if I may point out, I did receive a classical education so I’m not some punk that can be impressed by someone who can pull out a copy of Bartlett’s.

     Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 10:43 pm

---

101. Helio,

     So, are you saying you are a good citizen (against gay marriage) while I am not (not my business or anyone else’s)?

     Comment by Angel — 04.29.07 @ 10:44 pm

---

102. Do gays realize that they’re fulfilling the Bible and therefore making its predictions even more believable? Jesus gave two signs in Luke 17 that will characterize life on earth just before His second coming: “days of Noah” (violence) and “days of Lot” (”ancestors” of GBLTers). Wow, those days are actually here! Can’t gays pull out all the stops and hurry up with their predicted roles? They’re holding up the second coming peace that Jesus wants to give when He returns! Marge

     Comment by Marge Alley — 04.30.07 @ 1:05 am

---