Talk:Hate crime

Cut from the article:

A common form is racial hate crime, 90% of which is committed by blacks on whites.[Citation Needed]

Two questions:

1. Are we saying that most inter-racial crime is black on white, rather than white on black?
2. Are we saying that 90% of racial hate crime is black on white?

BTW, I've heard that most crime perpetrated on blacks is black-on-black crime.

P.S. I'm a math teacher, so be careful with your statistics. --Ed Poor 11:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

It is mostly black on white, and I am starting to think this site is trying to piss of white people. Well, maybe I meant interracial. Tyhorm 11:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Likewise, Ed Poor: Please provide a cite for the "The new Speaker of the House for the 2007-2008 Congress, Nancy Pelosi, seeks to pass hate crime legislation proposed in the prior session of Congress in H.R.3132." sentence, as the "Children's Safety Act of 2005" doesn't seem to mention "hate crimes". thanks Rob Pommer_talk 11:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Just for the record, title X of the Children's Safety Act delas with hate crimes.[[1]]--Steve 11:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, Steve. Sorry Ed if I gave you the impression of not trusting your source but please try to include kinda exactly where to find these things; trying to wade through an entire piece of legislation for the germane section can be taxing.

Rob, I don't know anything about Pelosi or H.R. 3132. I suggest you ask Mr. Schlafly. --Ed Poor 11:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, unless he comes and visits this page he won't see my "complaint" and I'm not going to "pollute" his talk page with piddling details. Could you, though, Ed, at least fix the sentence: Changing seeks to sought ought to do it. Thanks. Rob Pommer_talk

Done. Rob Pommer_talk

I'm wondering if the section "Free Speech and the Gay Agenda" needs to be changed. Lines like "Homosexuality, on the other hand is not God-given or godly in any way. It therefore does not merit any protection or honor whatsoever, and is just as wrong as other perversions (such as incest), even when performed by "consenting adults"." seem to both confuse facts and beliefs (How do we know that homosexuality isn't God given or godly? That's a belief, not a fact), and is a non-sequitur (why, assuming that homosexuality isn't godly, does it not merit any legal protection?) Could I suggest changing that section so it reads as follows:

Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion, free speech, and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice.

Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice".

Liberals promote hate crime legislation to legitimize certain lifestyles by declaring them to be protected by law, and to chill free speech that criticizes those lifestyles. Hate crime legislation is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws.

As part of the homosexual agenda, the gay rights movement has attempted to equate racism and anti-Semitism with the condemnation of homosexuality. To do this, they must of course gloss over the fact that race is 100% inherited and immutable, while there is a debate whether or not homosexuality is immutable, and that religious and ethnic persecution against Jews involved a 6 million person Holocaust (see genocide and ethnic cleansing), which greatly exceeds any discrimination homosexuals have suffered.

Nonetheless, the strategy of some of those supporting extending hate crime legislation to gays is to insist that condemnation of homosexuality is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate".

This matter is complicated by the fact that some religious denominations consider homosexual behavior sinful and homosexuality to be a choice. So, from the point of view of members of these denominations, their criticism of homosexuality is nothing more than pointing out evil and telling people to stop committing sin. They see this not as hate but an expression of love.

This both expresses the point of view of those opposed to extending hate crime protections to gays, while making it clear that it is a point of view.--Steve 17:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure why that needs "clarifying". Sounds more like "diluting".

We need to get across the point that the Homosexual Agenda wants to use any means possible to prevent Christians, et al., from declaring that (1) homosexuality is sinful and (2) homosexual behavior is 100% by choice.

This is not the article to stick on objections or quibbles about immutablity of "orientation". There's another article about that (or should be): sexual orientation. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Abuse of the law

Matt McReynolds, a staff attorney for Pacific Justice, said:

It's gotten to the point even pure speech is being criminalized, with no actions or violence," he said.

"That's where hate crimes legislation inevitably has led in other Western societies," McReynolds said. His organization has worked on a number of such cases already involving California's own version of a "hate crimes" plan.

"The law of unintended consequences – or perhaps intended consequences cleverly disguised – is starkly illustrated by the ongoing federal case Harper v. Poway Unified School District," he wrote in a summary of the problems. "In Harper, a student responded to the annual pro-homosexual 'Day of Silence,' which was being heavily promoted on his high school campus, by wearing a T-shirt which expressed his religious viewpoint that homosexuality was 'shameful.'

"Instead of allowing a differing viewpoint, school officials pulled aside Harper, demanding that he change his expression or face suspension. An assistant principal even suggested to Harper that he needed to leave his faith in the car while at school, in order not to offend homosexual students," according to McReynolds.

"Such a result clearly undermines basic Constitutional protections," including free expression and religion, he noted. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57583

No one is saying that they are in favor of hate crimes. If you assault someone because they are Christian or homosexual, it's a hate crime.

Their objection is to suppressing pure speech. If I say, "God prohibits homosexual behavior", no one should say I'm breaking the law; rather, they should defend to the death my right to say this! --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:48, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Article title

Shouldn't this article be called 'Hate Crimes and Homosexuality', since it really doesn't mention anything about racialy (two Ls?) based hate crime, or religious based hate crime except against Christians. Maestro