The best line of Chuck Norris's career was in that statement....

"Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture."

These guys are throwing around terms like 'progressive restriction' and they can't figure out why the country feels that republican's are out of touch with American values and why American's overwhelmingly agree that the Republican agenda is nothing but damaging to our nation. Keep it up Chuck.

I disagree. This law violates the EQUAL PROTECTION clause in the Constitution. Maybe it's one of those "inconvenient Rights" that Obama speaks of, but it Is in the Constitution, and it Is the law of the land.

Why should a homosexual's life carry more legal value than, say, the life of a Cripple - even as cripples are the most mistreated minority on the planet - so much so, that even the Messiah has cut spending aimed at helping these, the poorest, and most discriminated minority in the world.

I support gay Rigths, but this gives Priviledge.

Bobby, please cite your sources. When and how did Obama cut spending on "Cripples"?
I agree with the title of this blog post, "Chuck Norris should shut up about hate crimes." Perfectly good advice. But that doesn't change the First Amendment's proscription, "Congress shall make no law..." and that includes this law.

My source was the Mainstream Media's reoprt that he has said there will be no Cost Of Living increase for Social security recipients.
You know... the SPECIAL OLYMPICS people. the ones who really are poor, but can't march in the mobs that intimidate politicians and voters ? The ones Barry makes light of...
The ones that Ronald Reagan gave a 60% increase to, and the ones who ended up on the streets of NYC in the summer of 1995 - as Clinton was congratulated for balancing the budget... on who's backs ?

I may have missed a correction of Bobby Steele's explanation of his "cripple" comment but from what I think I read and understood he thinks that Social Security is for Special Olympics mentally challenged folks.  Social Security is for retired and elderly folks.  And we may be elderly but we are not "cripples".  And not all Social Security recipients are "really poor".  And might the "Tea Party"  gatherings meant to have "intimidated politicians and voters"?  Is it ok for mobs of conservatives to gather and stand up for their beliefs but not for liberals?  If this was meant to be sarcasm I think a lot of us Social Security recipients may be offended

That's a sadly clueless response, and I wonder if you really are a retiree.
Being disabled as a result of eing born with Spina Bifida, contracting a rare form of Polio, developing a tumor at the base of my spinal cord... all before I was 13, left me disabled, and on Social Security. Y;see - it's also there to help the Disabled. My income is $19,000 BELOW the poverty line.
It's funny, how you attack me for my statements, and make Prejudicial comments to that fact.
I can understand the belief of most Liberals that cripples should stay out of the public eye, but this GIMP had the audacity to not only enter society - but to join Little League and TAKE two years of verbal abuse from teammates and coaches who were also 'OFFENDED' by me. I'm glad you're offended - it is your Right.
Wait until I fill in my profile - compared to Obama, I have accomplishments. I actually took one of the worst neighborhoods in the US, and took the initial steps to turn it into the EAST VILLAGE...
Hate all you want.... 53 years of prejudice and bigotry - I've had it all, threats, beatings... what didn't kill me made me stronger.

Oh, yeah... After Chris Reeve mocked me for being disabled, during a phone in on Phil Donahue, I warned him that "you're only a split second away, yourself". He laughed again. Who got the last laugh ? When he appeared on Leterman after his accident, he said " I used to be callous to the disabled, but I learned that we are all only asplit second away". Apology accepted.

If the FBI already tracks sexually-oriented biased offences as hate crimes, why is it so hard to admit we should include it legally?
Bobby, i'm sorry that there have been people who expressed hate towards you and your conditions, and we should strive to make that come to an end, but that does not mean that we should neglect all other forms of hate instead.  If we add the definition of sexual orientation to federal hate crimes legislation, that does not mean that your disability is suddenly okay to target.  It means they are all equally wrong.  Systemic allowance of any kind of hate is wrong and demoralizes our society as a whole.
Your comments on how funding is being cut "for cripples" says alot about our government's prioritites that need to be fixed, but social security is not just for the poor or for the "crippled."  Perhaps that part of the conversation needs to be lead away from your own hate and into the realm of policy administration.

sorry, forgot to add my link.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm

Correction: REICH WING is a weak attempt at connecting the American Right Wing with the European Left-Wing, National Socialist Party.
It is the american LEFT, The Democrats, who formed the Terrorist KKK, who opposed the Rigths of Blacks for over 100 years, and who still wishes to re-enslave the BLACK PARTY - Republicans, which is why they promote such hate against the party co-founded by Fredrick Douglas - the party of Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King... in favor of the party of Gov George Wallace, the KKK, the lawmen who turned dogs and hoses on the Freedom Marchers... and who to this day promote hate, and enslavement.

Hey Bobby, the Demcocratic Party does not want to re-enslave Black people, it is the party of choice for minorities across the country with the exception of Cuban-Americans in Florida.  We JUST elected a Black President, and we do not claim any affiliation with the KKK?

Bobby, you would be correct with one HUGE exception - the US underwent a major political reallignment in the late 1960 when Nixon introduced and successfully carried out the Southern Strategy. You might want to read up on that. Nixonland by Rick Pearlstein is a great book that will teach you EVERYTHING you need to know about today's Rethuglican Party that switched from being the party of individual freedom to the governmental interference in private lives.

Apparently you've never heard of the Dixiecrats, because it is they who sought to oppress minorities (mostly Blacks). But what you FAIL to realize is that those same Dixiecrats later changed their party affiliations to ReTHUGlican. A perfect example would be Strom Thurmond.

Oops I meant to say mid-to-late 1960's.

Rudy, Here's a couple links to blogs that you might find interesting. 

http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/

http://www.dcthornton.com/

I think you oughta hit review your notes from history 102 and 112 again.  The National Socialist Party was a right-radical party not a "european left-wing" party as you represent.  And, although segregation is associated with the southern democratic party, the "Dixiecrats" as they were called, there was a fundamental ideological rift in the Democratic party.  The Southern Dems. were more in line with a conservative ideology, or what we would refer to as right wing.  
Current party ideology doesn't represent the parties in the first half of the 20th century.  It is an anachronism to project current Democratic and Republican values back that far into history.   

Dave, I think the NH rep. was trying to hold firm against the governor's attmpts to stall and water down a bill which had already been passed. Not sure how to feel about the "religious protection" language in the bill, which many legal scholars have said is not necessary.

I see a lot of you make assumptions...
I did my homework, and I know about the dixiecrats - like Sen Rob't Byrd - who was a Kleagle in the KKK, and who vowed "I would rather die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in te dirt never to rise again, than see this beloved land of ours becmoe degraded by race mongrels. a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds".

I'd suggest that you might want to research the vast libraries of historical information at www.Nbra.info - the website of the National Black Republican Ass'n.

Democrats only like blacks when they're poor, and toe the line... or if they're mega rich, like Oprah and as most blacks who have moved up - forgot about where they came from.
Democrats want you to depend on them - the government - for everything. What do you think Universal Healthcare is..."uhhh, let's look at your record. Oh, you voted for the other guy - sorry, we can't do your open heart surgery...".
Maybe you like to be a slave, but I'd rather earn my own way.

And why is Obama "black" when his mother was white, and he was raised by white people ?

Is it that Good Olde Democrat standard, that said "one drop" makes you black ?

Doug,

Socialism is a LEFT-WING concept. It is in complete opposition to the principals of Republicans. National Socialism is Socialism... period, or as Al Gore would say - "the discussion is over".

In fact, I can quote a flame left on the Conservative Punk forum a few years ago..."Conservatives are stupid. I'd never be a Conservative - I'm a National Socialist".

It's Republicans that give opportunity. Democrats just give money.
In terms simple enough that even a Liberal could understand - a Democrat will give you a fish to eat, every day. You must go to them and ask for their kindness - every day. They believe you are incompetent and can't do for yourself.
Republicans, on the other hand - will feed you, give you a rod and reel, and teach you how easy it is to catch your own fish. They know that an individual is intelligent enough to know what's best for them.
Statistically, Republicans are also more charitable - though vastly poorer than Democrats, who only give their money to where it gains them more political power/control - and need to be taxed to help the poor.

Bobby,
Actually, the National Socialist party, also known as the Nazi party in Germany, was not a leftist party. The Communist party is leftist. Leftist refers to something along the lines of Lenin. While there are similarities between the two groups, there are major differences. The Nazi party is Nationalist, Fascist, and radically right-ist. Not really comparable to either American mainline parties.
Second, your quote from a forum holds no weight, seeing as the individual is no scholar.
Lastly, the Republicans are hardly the "opportunity" party. This is not to say that Democrats are much better, but I think Republicans do all of the same things, it just depends on where the money goes.
Actually, I have one more thing to say: while I respect you and am sorry for the hardships you've endured, it does not take away from the disturbing hate-crime statistics (oh and I believe disabled individuals are covered by this very same bill).

Funny, considering that an active charter (I believe that is the correct term?) of the KKK is still up and going in a very conservative town I used to live in, and it was run by the same uber-conservatives whom everyday made racial, sexist, and homophobic slurs around me.

I would say that Obama is "black" not because of one drop of blood, but because the previous 43 Presidents were white, so it is notable that he has minority status.  There are those that consider half-white and half-blacks as "hard yellow," but I am not going into name callng about anyone...for any reason.  If the President would be Latino, Asian, Black, a woman, LGBT or NAZI, it would still be a notable change from the President's predecessors. 

Do "right-minded, fair-minded" people listen to Al Gore? Not the intelligent ones, that's for sure. Chuck Norris makes a lot more sense.

Why should committing a crime when you hate someone be different/worse than committing a crime? I doubt that many criminals victimize those that they love. Let's get back to a nation ruled by laws instead of one-liners trumpeted by the media.

A person shouldn't go to jail because he made you feel bad. What happened to "if you do the crime, do the time"?

Just because Chuck Norris is a celebrity, that does not necessarily make him intelligent. With his recent statements, he does not sound like the kind of person in whose company I would enjoy to be. That kind of intolerance simply gives me the willies.   

No, "Fair-minded, intellegent" people don't listen to Chuck Norris, but who said those kinds of people are in the majority? Remember, those were the exact same kind of people who voted Bush into office...TWICE...and the same type of people who still watch Faux Gnus and think it's "Fair and Unbiased" reporting!

In response to "Why should committing a crime when you hate someone be different/worse than committing a crime?"

Paul, respectfully speaking, I think you miss the boat here. There absolutely is a difference between committing a crime against someONE you hate, and a group you hate because of sexual orientation, race, etc. If you hate someONE, it is presumably because something went awry in the relationship. Doesn't make it right at all. But it is one person. When the victimization occurrs, that ONE person knows to stay away from the perpetrator, can seek help, can file charges.
Hate crimes, however, have the potential to be serial. They are not related to anything any individual person has done to the perpetrator and the victims have no reason to thing they should protect themselves against any particular individual until it is too late. The criminals then select another innocent victim.
This is entirely different.

I beg to differ -- the Holocaust was more than 6 million isolated murders -- it was a crime motivated by and inconceivable in the absence  of hatred, not only for for an entire people, but also for any one or group perceived to be weak.
The parallel between people like Norris and the perpetrators of the Holocaust is that they idolize (make a false god of: I mean it literally) strength. They have no qualms about victimizing the weak because, in their world view, the weak have no right to exist -- and anyone who is not like them is weak.

The Holocaust death toll was actually 12 million, the other 6 were political enemies and gypsies, while I'm assuming the 6million you mentioned were just the number of Jews killed.  Not only was it multiple hate crimes, it was genocide.

Do fair minded, intelligent people really listen to Chuck Norris?

Yes, we do. We may not agree with everything he says. We may disagree with everything he says, but as Republicans are far more open minded than Democrats (which isn't saying much...), we're not afraid to hear the other side, whereas Democrats are so afraid of being found out for their lies, they tell you - and you obey like a 'good rebel' - and don't listen to who they tell you not to listen to.

To Stacy,
I didn't vote for Bush either time but Norris is making sense.  Listen to who you want to (or not) but think for yourself.

I've never seen chuck norris advocate taking advantage of the weak. I do have a lot of trouble with the creation of "thought" crimes. If you start with this, where does it end?

Genocide is certainly worse than an individual murder, so maybe the punishment is 1x that for a murder plus 1,000,000x that for an attempted murder. Just a thought.

Fortunately, Norris is stupid enough to guarantee that his stupidity would hurt him.

Don't group everyone in Texas together.  Here in Austin we're way different than Chuck Norris, but we still love the State just as much.  Doesn't mean we want to go away though..

Thanks, Juan, for your comment.  I live in San Antonio, but I share your sentiments.  I LOVE TEXAS!!  (And I am a transplant from California).  But I don't agree with Chuck Norris one bit - and I cringed when I read in the article "WALKER TEXAS RANGER".  Oh, please, people!!  That is TV!  Please don't lump us all into one.  I don't care too much for Governor Rick Perry, but I respect his position, even though I believe he shouldn't be in it, and I think the whole secession thing is ridiculous.  So, hold your horses, Chris Marshall!

LOL I am familiar with Austin, Houston and Dallas. It is just a play off of the radical Texan stereotype. "THAT MAN SAID ANAL SEX! ARREST HIM!!!" But you you know your right we should thank Texas, if it wasn't for your state Lawrence v. Texas would have never happened and we would still face criminal charges for the people we love.

I am familiar with how Texas is evenly divided on social issues. Surprisingly and interestingly enough it's the extremes on both sides. Quite similar to Michigan. The only differnece is your supreme court isnt in a civil war with each other lol.

But, sadly, people (and a lot of them) DO listen to celebrities and are easily swayed by them.  In general (and most of the folks on here excepted) most Americans are not intelligent and rational.  Why do you think they like reality tv so much - a chance at instant "stardom".  Believe me, I know plenty who hang on every word said by a "star".  And that's a very sad fact.

I agree like morons that listen to Matt Damon, Barbara Streisand, and Alec Baldwin. 

There is absolutely NO reason for there to be a Federal "hate crimes" bill.  That is a State's rights issue.  Every state in the union has laws that punish anyone that harms another.  Barring mental issues, all physical crimes against a person that are not in self defense are rooted in hate.  When it comes to speech...didn't we all get over giving names an idiot called us when we were like 8?

Heidi, that was quite elitist of you to say most Americans are not intelligent and rational (of course excepting you and those who post here that share your beliefs).  Actually your disparaging most Americans intellect is the kind of speech you should be against. I would hazard a guess by the construct of your straw man argument that you haven't had much of a formal education in logic and as such are not qualified to ascertain whether most Americans are rational and intelligent.

Everybody does that to some degree, and the less they are capable of reasoned, original thinking, the more they do it.  What makes it annoying coming from actors is many of us have this unspoken assumption that they should be just as "larger than life" in real life as they are on screen.  There is no logical reason we should feel this way, but we do.  And yet, you can't blame them for using the limelight they already have to promote causes they care about.  You'd do it too.  So would I.  How many nonprofits out there would kill to have the kind of publicity Chuck Norris has?  I'd be willing to bet more people know about him than know about the Sierra Club.

Cool. Lets start tageting the Christian-Taliban. NO MORE PROTECTION FOR THE CHRISTIAN-TALIBAN!

I agree with you that no one should be given special treatment, but it's a bit harsh to say there are special failures.

It would be better to just try to influence society in a more constructive way, through education, not through dumb laws.

If this passes, I will try to quit cussing, never defend myself against anyone attacking me for fear he might have a different life style or belong to a different political party, stay in my room, doors bolted, blinds pulled, never express my opinions again, quit voting and not apply for a job for fear someone in the protected areas may also apply, and take my children out of school for home schooling to protect them from the Hate Crime Laws.

Nice use of hate speech there Hershey.

Rick, hmmmmm, a little offended there I see. GOOD! Did I beat anyone up for being a member of the Christian-Taliban? No I didn't, never have, never will. I will SPEAK out against ANYONE who seeks to oppress ANY minority group. If I cross the line and physically attack someone simply because of their association with the Christian-Taliban, then yes, I would expect to be prosecuted under hate crimes legislation. But since I have NOT nor will I cross that line it qualifies as free-speech.

In this country, the LGBT community (among MANY other minority groups) is the target of violence for simply being a member of that group. THAT my friend IS a hate crime.

The only thing that hate crime legislation does is determine motive. And anyone who doesn't think that motive shouldn't be a factor in determining crimes, then they simply don't understand the law.

No a hate crime is not "simply a crime."  It is a crime based on one's perception of a specific group of people being "less than."  I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to comprehend...

If I were a burglar, and randomly burglarized stores, it would be a crime.  If I targeted stores owned and operated only by a certain group, it would show a pattern of abusing and oppressing that group of people.  THAT is a hate crime.

When we unfairly target a specific group of people, based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ability, or anything else, it is far more insidious than a typical crime, and it does need to be dealt with more harshly.  Hitler was successful in wiping out millions of human beings by starting with campaigns of persecution against targeted groups.  They escalated and became genocide. I realize this is an oversimplified generalization, but if you study genocide, it starts with tolerance for hate crimes.  They are in a class by themselves.

Chuck Norris is just a martial arts expert and not-very-talented actor.  He is not an expert on social justice.  But it shouldn't be surprising that someone who chooses acting roles that glorify violence on TV and the movies would have little empathy for victims of violent hate crimes.

I think the biggest problem with both sides of this issue is that we don't understand a common meaning of what a hate crime is.  I'm not a lawyer so I can't define it well enough, but I've suffered discrimination.  For being a Latino, being well educated (Ph.D.), and as a scientist doing medical research my colleagues are stalked and attacked by fanatics who place their hatred of animal research above human life.  Hate crimes can target many different groups, not just gays & lesbians.  I can protect myself against physical attacks but this legislation is to protect those who can't.  It doesn't change anything about freedom of speech or thought, it merely EXTENDS legal protection. 

I support Inclusive Hate Crimes legislation, but I really have to agree with Phillip. I don't like the idea of "hate crimes" but I believe that as long as the category exists, we should expand it to sexual and gender minorities. When the designation disappears, I would have it because all hate crimes legislation disappears.
In other news, Chuck Norris is irrelevent. He's a cowboy. Nobody cares what he has to say about social politics.

Phillip, I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I'm guessing that with 20 years experience, you graduated the academy without anything even close to up-to-date training on hate crimes and cultural sensitivity. From what I see in your posts, you totally misunderstand how hate crimes legislation works. You're right that a murde is a murder, assault is assault, etc. Hate crimes law DOES NOT create a special category where the charge or penalty is automatically enhanced because of the class of the victim. It's not like you catch a mugger and say, "That victim was gay--that's an automatic extra five years if you're convicted!" It doesn't work that way. Your objections are based on a misunderstanding of the law.

Basically, hate crimes laws are supposed to address acts of small scale, domestic terrorism. If you burn your neighbor's house down because his dog crapped on your lawn one too many times, you've committed arson. If you burn your neighbor's house down because he's black ***and you EXPRESS that that's why you're doing it, so as to SEND A MESSAGE to all other black people who live in your neighborhood or are considering moving there*** (say, by starting the fire with a flaming cross in his front yard) then you've committed arson AND a hate crime.

A crime against a person is just a crime against a person. A hate crime is intended to be both a crime against a person AND intimidation against a whole class of people not directly victimized. The prosecution has to prove that this was the offender's intent by offering evidence such as graffiti, threatening letters, verbal statements at the scene, etc.

That said, you might still be against it, but I want to make sure you're opposing this for the right reasons. If someone goes into a convenience store and shoots a bunch of people, that's a sad, random act by one nutcase. If someone does the same thing in a church and claims they're a member of a group that hates that religion, that suggests a whole movement of violence may be coming. Why wouldn't you want tougher penalities for that kind of thing? Should dictators who commit genocide just be charged with multiple counts of murder, or is it something more serious than that?

I can't imagine ANY form of murder, assault, rape or whatever violent crime being anything other than a "hate" crime. How can you behave like that if you don't "hate" your victims? Hate crimes are just another form of double jeapordy and another excuse for juries to find people innocent because of the extra penalties associated with such crimes.

The 9/11 hijackers did commit a hate crime. Their crime is the exact definition of hate crime because they attacked us just because we were supposedly a christian nation.And regardless what people say this is not a "christian" nation it is just a nation by the people for the peole and of the people.

I live in Chicago and agree that this is horrifying. I don't believe it has much to do with this particular conversation though. If the students were targeted because they were black (as most were)--or Latino, or gay or disabled, it would certainly get more attention. These deaths are mostly attributed to gang violence though and I believe that the public has become somewhat apathetic to gang violence in poor areas.

Ms. Schimeck, you might want to read Mr. Shingler's response to Philip so that you to might understand what hate crime law are actually all about.

Mr. Hershey, I did read it, although later (his was posted later than mine, so I did not have the benefit of taking it into account prior to that to which you are responding).  It is a well thought out and logical response, and did make me think a bit (and I love an intellectual challenge, despite my sometimes glaring deficiencies).

In a perfect world, we as a society would be able to look at all of those crimes that may be suspected of being a "hate crime" logically and without bias to determine whether it actually should be classified as such.  It would be easy if all people who perpetrated these acts would just shout from the rooftops their intent; how often is that the case?  When you start to inject these qualifications into the legal system, do we not then start to look at ALL crimes against someone defined in these groups as possible hate crimes?  Doesn't this then bring more of a political or an emotional charge to the air surrounding the facts?  Does this further "blind" justice, however imperfect our system may be?  (And yes, I understand that the system can already be fraught with emotion, particularly for certain crimes.)

My concerns stand, though, despite Mr. Shingler's explanation.  Crimes should be dealt with as the crime itself.  To create classes of people that are defined as more "worthy" (for lack of a better word) of stricter legal protections (aside from a very few vulnerable groups -- children, for example), seems to me to be counterintuitive to how I understand equal protection (where a crime against you and a similar crime against me would be dealt with in the same manner in a court of law, irrespective of race, religion, etc.).

Sarah, my apologize

The problem is however that if you are targeted specifically for your association with a group, and the attack was due to that association, then the act is meant to terrorize the entire group.

Let me give you an example here in San Diego, about 3 years ago (http://www.workers.org/2006/us/san-diego-0817/), there was a group of two to three 18-22 year olds who were literally stalking out the Pride Festival in Hillcrest (the "gay" area of the city). They waited for their victims and attack them with baseball bats and knives because they were gay. Hate Crimes legislation goes toward determining motive. And if determined to be the motive, then there is a harsher punishment. The intent was to terrorize the entire group because these crimes are not random, the individual who is attacked may be random, but the individual is attacked because they belong to a specific group.

Motive is a major determinant in our laws. That is why we have different degrees of such crimes and each degree carries harsher punishments than others.

Sarah, oops - I didn't finish my thought (at the beginning)

My apologies, I didn't look at the times of the two different posts.

Mr. Hershey, there is no need to apologize; the time stamp is an easy thing to miss.  And I am well aware of the Hillcrest area, having lived in North SD County (and working downtown) for eight years or so.  I am sorry to hear of that story.

Please forgive me if I'm misstating, here, but I was under the impression that the degrees of a crime were determined by premeditation as well as heinousness.  The story you tell, absolutely SHOULD be viewed more seriously because of the premeditation and heinous nature.  However, this should be done REGARDLESS of the boys' reasoning behind the attack.  The criminal act itself is sufficiently heinous to merit stricter punishment.

My primary concern is this.  How do you maintain equality (or the perception thereof) in the eyes of the law when the federal government creates or defines groups of people against whom certain crimes are seen as more severe.  To go back to your story, not knowing the particulars, would (or SHOULD) the kids have been charged differently had they perpetrated that crime against surfers or military wives (keeping it within SD County)?

Another (less well-thought-out) issue I have with this is this.  Now, I don't for a second buy into Mr. Norris' argument that this intention of this legislation would extend protections to pedophiles.  However, there are many clever people out there who COULD make legal arguments for it (or some other group).  Does the intention of the Congress matter?  If you start banking on "well, that wasn't the intent..." or "we didn't mean for it to cover...", I would refer you to those affected by the CPSIA or fighting the Food Safety Improvement bill.  The effect of legislation is not always that which is intended, and some of those "unintended consequences" can be worse than the original problem.

This isn't to say that I am at all unsympathetic.  I can certainly understand the feeling that legislation like this is called for.  Behavior like that is not something that we should, as people, tolerate (this being outside of free speech arguments, of course).  That said, I don't believe that federal legislation is the answer.

I would like to respond to your post about the perception of equality.  A quote: "would (or SHOULD) the kids have been charged differently had they perpetrated that crime against surfers or military wives (keeping it within SD County)?"

I think I can answer that with a question.  Do surfers or military wives have a history of systemic oppression?  Is there a documented history of harassment, beatings, and discrimination?  Now compare this to the history of maltreatment of racial, ethnic, sexually diverse, differently abled, and other people, and the distinction is obvious.

Nobody has said it better than Wayne Shingler, the former police officer a few posts back who really did a spectacular job of highlighting these differences.

The object of this law is to help stop oppression, and it recognizes that certain groups have been targeted unfairly.  I also want to say that I appreciate your respectful polite demeanor, as opposed to some of the posters on here, who seem to view name-calling, obscenities, and other childish behavior as somehow okay.  You sound like a nice person.

First, thank you for your kind words.  I'm grappling with the issue and find that the best way to do that is to be civil.  Some do just come onto sites such as this to spout off, which doesn't help anyone to have an honest discussion. 

I did read Mr. Shingler's posting several days ago (as I stated above to Mr. Hershey) and indeed reread it after you suggested it.  He did do a good job explaining his position, and I agree with parts and disagree with others.

I see your point answering my surfer/military wife scenario.  And while I am in no way condoning discriminatory behavior, the crime is equally heinous, regardless of the victim, be they surfers, military wives, or LGBTs.  Therefore, I believe the punishment should be the same.  The perpetrator(s) should answer for their specific crime, should they not?  Or are they to be held accountable for every injustice (both real and perceived) that went before?

Chuck Norris is sick bastard. Flat out lying to conflate individuals with disabilities with pedophiles is as pathetic as it gets.

And for those who think a "crime is a crime," I'd say it gets bigger than that when an attack sends a message to an entire group of people that they are being targeted and will have their safety in danger for their beliefs, race, etc.

John, I would direct you to this article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gAKXik1dx7VPnwT87ONx2w8ibCKwD98AUEK01
"the largest gang takedown in United States history."
People were targeted because of their race and the Feds managed to arrest or charge 147 people. There was no need for hate crimes legislation, why pass a law now?

Why do we have voluntary manslaughter versus involuntary, or different degrees of murder?  Intent matters at other times, why shouldn't it matter in this instance?

Obviously you've never heard of a "crime of passion" that warrents less time than a premeditated murder so I don't know how you or anyone thought there is no "love crime" because that is just what a crime of passion means.

You wrote:"But let's not pretend that there's no difference between someone getting shot during a bank robbery (however tragic that is), and someone being targeted specifically because of their gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc."
That's a straw man. Nobody is pretending there is a difference, only that there are already appropriate laws on the books throughout the States which take the perpetrator's motives into account.

Nobody pretending there is _no_ difference, that is.

But there really aren't appropriate laws in all 50 states that take into account a perpetrator's motives.  Massachusetts, for example, has different laws than Mississippi, which has different laws than Florida, and on and on. 

And again, these aren't special laws.  Gay people don't get any extra bonus by having hate crimes legislation.  Religious people don't get any extra bonus by having protections based on freedom of religion.  People of color don't get anything extra by having hate crimes protections based on race.

The point of hate crimes legislation is to simply recognize that when violence is committed against someone solely because of who they are - and they are targeted because of who they are - that's a form of terror that is far different than the random act of violence committed on the street, or the bar fight that breaks out because someone had too much to drink, etc., etc.  It's a form of terror that targets more than just the victim, but rather a whole community of people simply because of who they are.

Mr. Jones, I have to disagree with your line of reasoning a bit.  While there is no benefit, per se, there are additional punitive ramifications to those who perpetrate crimes based on these legislatively-defined groups. 

The concern that I have is that we are now not seeing everyone as "equal" in the eyes of the law.  With this type of legislation, crimes against one designated group are seen (in certain circumstances) as worse than an equivalent crime against someone else.  Then which group will be next to have this special designation?  Will it end, or will we all have a designation at some point?  Isn't it more in line with our society to perceive all people as just that -- individuals and people?  Or are we to be seen differently in the eyes of the law?

And I believe that there are adequate laws on the books that do take into account the actual crime and the severity of that crime, which is what should be adjudicated and punished.  We should not punish a person more because s/he may be ignorant or racist or ... whatever.  That is what I believe is perceived as coming dangerously close to policing people's thoughts.

State's rights is an important issue to bring up in this discussion.  I think the problem comes to whether or not all states are protecting equally.  In the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's state's rights determined equality in the law.  However there were states that abided by the "separate but equal" policy (which we now know never worked) and some that didn't.  It came down to the federal courts to decide that these were not actually equal under the law.  This is not to say that the two civil rights struggles are the same, but it is an example of how the State's Rights argument can leave some groups out based upon the majority opinion in different areas of a nation as large as ours.

My gosh, Gerald, it sounds like you hate conservatives!  If you were to commit a crime against one, would that be a hate crime?

Janice, If I assault a conservative at all you sure can call it a hate crime because as you noticed I do hate conservatives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That's too bad - but you probably wouldn't actually be prosecuted for attacking someone based on their political beliefs because that's probably not one of the definitions of a hate crime. 

But are you suggesting that conservatives condone crimes against people they don't like?  That's absurd. 

Why is it that some liberals can't stand it when someone disagrees with them?  (For example, the author of this initial blog who wants certain people to just "shut up".) Why can't people disagree with each other but remain respectful and have a dialogue?

Aren't liberals supposed to be tolerant?

Aren't Americans supposed to be tolerant? You showed your intolerance with your posting by saying crap like "Why do LIBERALS b;ah blah blah"
When the evidence surely shows that it is you the conservatives who are the intolerant of the two. You don't want women to have their own choice,yet you want to kill everyone you think is a murderer like soon to be mothers. It is a fact that the republicann party at this time in history is the most intolerant ever. You even have your own news station that is reminicent of NAZIsm.you know who I mean Faux news?
And y'all call liberals intolerant.
hahahahahahahahahaha

I said "some" liberals, not all.  And I am a tolerant person.  My basic philosophy is "live and let live, so long as a person is not causing harm to another.  It's funny that you automatically assume I am a conservative.  Oddly enough, I'm not.  Some would call me a "classical liberal" which is actually a bit different from today's definition of liberal.  For the record, I rarely watch Fox News and have watched very little since the Iraq war started.  Frankly, I don't think it's worth pursuing a discussion with you as you're not interested in rational discussion without name-calling - and your tend to jump to false conclusions. 

I know one thing for certain and that is that after I made a comment after somone made theres about this being a "christian" nation and I have a problem with that statement. Then you hop in with your side comment,true but a comment meant to hurt nonetheless, about how I must hate conservatives . I hadn't said a word to you. Being right does not preclude one from rudeness. I was a republican until Reagan lied to us and actually listenmed to the wall street bums and voila' the "trickle down theory". After that, no more and the republicans have gone more and more into the pits of theocracy with their evagelical support system and the NRA/ KKK. But the main point is if you're not a conservative as you say then why are you defending them and why is it any business of Chucks or anyone else who gets hitched and by whom. If it were me I wouldn't care if I did get a religion to say I'm married, the state is the only one that counts anyway.As with my comment you commented back and asked a question and I thought it was an interesting query too. But I answered it honestly and now you wanna bail on me??? Very conservative of you.
 

The problem, Gerald, is that most people love free speech so long as there is actually stable logical reason to both sides of the issue.  As a reader, i took Janice's comment as an example of possible speech that could be used against one should that person speaking then attack a conservative as a seemingly random assault.  This could have opened an interesting debate with reason on both sides, but it immediately deteriorated into name-calling and a string of logical falacies.  THAT is why she's left the debate.  Come back with more than a five year-old's debate tactics, and perhaps someone will speak with you as an adult.

The problem Erin is what you just said made no sense. I don't know how to explain your nonsense because it is nonsense, I didn't get it.No I'm not attacking you,I'm serious, what does this mean;  as a reader, i took Janice's comment as an example of possible speech that could be used against one should that person speaking then attack a conservative as a seemingly random assault. ???  What?  And what about ramdom untruthful attacks against others not conservative? I'm not even a "liberal" I just read janice correctly and she left and you defended her.so,OK....see ya later.BTW, I'm not nor have I ever professed to be a "debater" as a thing........I'm speaking my mind.

My point was that you were not speaking your mind in an adult fashion.  Name calling is childish, and has no room in an adult's debate.  And any logical discussion of ideas is a debate.  You have your right to say childish things.  Just don't expect the rest of us to pay any attention when you stop making sense.  I hope this simpler grammar structure is easier for you to understand.

If you don't know what they are thinking, you can't use the law.  My experience?  People who want to terrorize someone for being the wrong [religion / color / gender / race] are quick to tell their victims exactly why they're getting the sh*t kicked out of them.  At that point, motivation's not exactly secret anymore.  And that's the point where the law cuts in.  Simple, actually.

If I run over someone with my car, it may be considered involuntary manslaughter in court.  If i send an email to someone saying that i'm going to run them over with my car, and i do, its a first degree murder charge and conviction, without doubt.  Intent makes a difference in our court system already.  Your straw man about a self defense being taken as a hate crime takes intent out entirely, and has nothing to the law. 

The repurcussions of this self defense scenario is that you would face criminal and civil suit charges for killing your burglar irregardless of race, but those specific laws vary across the states.  I dislike politically correct language and frequently choose to not use it - but I belive this belongs in a discussion of 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, and not in a hate crime forum...?

I bet Joy that the state you're in isn't a concealed carry state. If it is you could pull a Clint Eastwood and Make their day !!

Joy - I apologize for the flip remark - that situation is a scary one.  But I fail to see how passing this legislation, somehow will make nasty jerks become not nasty jerks!

I was very sympathetic when a little while ago I read a post from a gal who has/had been threatened by vandalism around her home, among other things and she couldn't get the police to be pro-active.  Later she lamented that they ripped up her gay flag, among other things. And made very valid points about how she was being singled out.

That bothered me for a few weeks now, until I started thinking after reading you folks. I thought about how when I (a WasP) lived on a street where only a few years before around the corner was where some of the rioting took place. Now there were a few incidents on the block, but I sorta expected it. But then if I had put out a confederate flag and sign saying "this house protected by Smith & Wesson" - I bet things would have been significantly worst.

So what's the story Richie? Everyone and everyplace is different.

I lived in the V.I. for a while when young. One evening in St Croix while I waited for the boat to St Thomas, as I walked down a main street, a guy who I've never seen before, punched me in the face as he walked by.  Hate? Nasty? Stupid?  I guess I should have been a bit more aware, since it was only a few months after MLK was killed. And I also was in St croix that day and shortly after I had lunch at a little restaurant in the boonies, a black guy (from NYC) was in that restaurant and shot a native white guy who walked in with his daughter. Hate? Nasty? Stupid?

Well Ron, welcome aboard for one, and now that you're here I can only hope that you realize all the crap you were fed was not reality, was it? 

OK, they ARE going to cover gender?  Because that would be a relief.  Maybe now the Southern Poverty Law Center will start seeing rape of women as a hate crime along with classifying environmental activists as hate groups.  *grumble*

Actually, gender, race and religion are already covered under the current hate-crimes legislation. The Matthew Shepard Act adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the current law.

Certain environmental and animal rights groups are classified by the FBI as criminal terrorist groups because of their actions, not just what they say...they do not need to be classified as hate groups.
And as a student of Bruce Lee's students (not Chuck) I have the feeling Sigung Bruce would not appreciate Chuck's role in this debate..

We are ALREADY protected under current "hate crimes" legislation. It has done us no good. We are still raped and beaten *because* we are women. A crime is a crime. Do men rape "because it sends a message" to all women. Some absolutely do. Are they prosecuted for it. No.
Will this legislation help LGBT people? I don't know. But having special classes of people- be they black, women, Latino, whatever, is NOT equal protection under the law. I actually know someone who was convicted of a crime (that he didn't do, but that's beside the point) in CA, and under one of these lovely "thoughts/motivations" laws (not a racial crime), the charges were given special additional weight (sorry, not a lawyer, can't remember what they called this), which increased his jail time. He tells me that in the jails they are racially segregated. In his prison, if you speak with someone of a different ethnicity from yourself, you will be beaten. So, sending people to jail for racism is certainly helpful.
Why can't people just be people in the eyes of the law? If the crime was commited to spread fear in a group of people, it was probably premeditated, and this is an already acceptable consideration in the eyes of the law and highter penalty crime. I seems to me that classifying people based on some *thing* other than their basic humanity ENCOURAGES racism, phobias, etc. Can't we please all be people?

And LBJ, Carter, and Clinton didn't close their eyes to issues that they didn't want to address?

Did you happen to read his columns? Only takes a few minutes, if that. I didn't read him, but I have read some of his previous ones - tend not to agree with him but agree to allow his opinion as I will fight for yours. But the reason I started to read this blog, was that I was surprised that people would call Norris's opinion rage and hate!

Read it then post, Leonard
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31927

 

After reading this column, it seems he was really talking about 1st Amendment rights, not so much the hate crime act.  His knowledge of the Matthew Shepherd Act should be in question, not his views on freedom of thought and speech. 

HOWEVER, it was the Bush Administration that started monitoring our phone calls, emails, text messages and electronic communication, then pardoned Telecom companies for this invasion of privacy.  The monitoring he cites "might be around the corner" is already here.  I am disappointed that Obama has upheld the Bush Administration's pardons of the Telecom companies and did not have the Attorney General file charges to protect our rights as private citizens.  It's not just a black and white issue is it?  And no I wasn't referring to race.

Dean, you gotta quit with the silly god stuff if you want to be taken seriously. God(s) and people's interpretation of their god's will are totally irrelevant in any sort of intelligent discussion.
The right of free speech is granted by the constitution - not by a bronze age sky god. There is not doubt that our system of laws has root in biblical text - but there is plenty of doubt that any supernatural being had anything to do with the bible.
You asked,
Should I be prosecuted for finding you repulsive?</blockquote>
and the answer is obviously no. But, if you commit a crime against me because you find me repulsive, then you should receive special attention from the courts. 
That is the essence of this legislation. It does not remove your right to hate - apparently a right that you REALLY want to preserve. You can go ahead and hate all you want. You can express that hate using your right of free speech. But, if you express your beloved hate in a crime of violence, you will get to learn all about the real definition of a hate crime.
Maybe you need to re-read the new testament - I am afraid your attention to old testament barbarism may be negatively influencing your outlook. This is the 21st century you know.

The system of laws which formed the basis of our legal system stem from ancient Sumerian law texts, which predates the 10 Commandments and Mosaic Law, please see this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_hammurabi

But if we really need to bring up the Bible or God, please recall what the "Great Commandment"  Mark (12:28-34) & of Matthew (22:34-40) :
One should love God with one's entire heart, soul, mind and strength; One should love one's neighbor as one would love oneself.
It is further reiterated in The Gospel of John (13:31-35) "A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another"

Stop the hate, allow everyone to live peacefully together and we wouldn't need such legislature.  If you are really worried about AIDS, most of the sufferers throughout the world got it through blood transfusions or through heterosexual intercourse.  Check out the World Health Organization for statistics.

Hello Monica

The skinheads and KKK will not be the ones left it will be the muslims. Just think under the rule of muslim law females will not have opinions because they will never be taught to read or write this an example of what a special class gets you.
The debate is this simple. If you make a group of people a protected class and then provide special legal protections for them  you have removed due process from all other non class members. In short you have created a barrier to free speech and opened a door to injustice for all non class members. Judge the crime using laws on the books now. All someone has to say is he called me a "fill in what have hate based wording you like" and now I am going to be punished for my "WORDS" not a crime. Murder is murder irregardless if  I like the person or hate the person. Murder is murder if the person is white, black, gay, Indian or whatever tag you wish to use. The victim is just as dead and the law should only look at the crime and not what class that person belongs to. Yes there are extenuating circumstances and they can be used to increase the punishment for a crime, these circumstances apply to all persons. Opening this door in our legal system is one step closer to adding thought crime to the books and we do not wish to go there. I for one think its nice to hold and expound on what ever opinion I wish to have without having to worry about the government arresting me for what I think and say. I like to argue sometimes for the sake of arguing and think that's what the founding fathers intended.
Phil M.

Mr. DiNoto, I am well aware of that.  People are imperfect; we do have the ability to reason, but are often driven by emotion.  The world will never be a "perfect" place (because, to be honest, who defines "perfect"?).  My point was, however poorly stated, that we must tolerate those who disagree.  Are the KKK and other groups like them repulsive?  Yes.  Do they have a right to their opinions? Yes again.  While we may not like the message (or find it wholly offensive personally, culturally, socially, or just humanly), in our country they have a right to their opinions.  That is not to say they may act criminally on those opinions or impulses.  We already have laws against that.  Do I tolerate their existence?  I do, whether I agree or not.  In this imperfect world of ours, it's the fair and right thing to do.  (And I could never expect anyone to tolerate me or my positions if I didn't offer the same courtesy.)

Should we use emotionally-charged legislation, or should we think this through logically and thoughtfully, in an unbiased fashion?  If we allow ourselves and those we elected to pass legislation based on the emotions du jour (real or perceived), is that good governance for all?

Heather, Aiken did something really stupid. Free speech comes with consequences just as Ms. Prejean has found out.

Aiken saw ONE performance of Adam Lambert's and NONE of Kris Allen's yet he made a judgment about the entire show. I happen to disagree with Aiken because I tuned in for several shows (I don't really follow it real closely, I never have.) And the truth is, they are BOTH very talented, and the results could have gone either way. It is MY opinion (and that of many others) that Lambert (the runner-up), like Aiken, will become MORE successful than Allen. Why? Because he is much more original than anyone else that has EVER stepped foot on that stage.

Dave,
Honestly, I could care less who won because both are going to have awesome careers.  What I was getting at and the point I was trying to make was that while reading the blogs responding to Aiken's interview, I was sickened by the amount of gay bashing taking place.  Hense the curiosity as to who is going to be policing these things because those blogs would technically be considered hate crimes.  At what point does freedom of speech turn into criminal actions?  Who will be the ones making that determination?  It is a valid fear.

Heather, you clearly don't understand what hate crimes are, if you think that those blogs "would technically be considered hate crimes."

Hateful thought or speech is not prosecuted unless the individual acts on that thought or speech. You see, people can verbally bash gays all they want, plenty of it takes place on this site alone, but nobody can be prosecuted. Why? Because of our first amendment rights to free speech, but we must also consider that not all speech is protected under the first amendment (ie, yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater.) These laws are only applied after a crime has been committed.

"humans were here long before Moses ever saw a burning bush, or as we call it these days a forrest fire."

I love It! Thanks for the great laugh Ron!

Thank you for the link to the full article!  I had done a very quick search yesterday, but got distracted.  I had suspected that the opening article told only part of the story (as happens so often, on both sides).  I appreciate the opportunity to read the full story, without editing.

Thanks Sarah - I was wondering if anyone else read the original. What's your guess.

Too bad the initial blog is faulty, but the comments have evolved to a nice discussion.  I've only found one other site that has a respecting balance of invigorating debate.  http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/ 

Thank you for providing the link!  It is most interesting to see the actual words Chuck Norris wrote and to see the truth of what he said.  This blogger, frankly, should be ashamed of himself for his misrepresentations.  And in re hate crimes laws, they are bad because regardless of the motivation of someone who hurts/kills another person, a life was harmed.  Does it matter that the victim was a man, a woman, gay, straight, black, white, young or old, etc., etc.???  A crime is a crime and should be punished.  To hand out a harsher sentence based on the beliefs of the criminal is absurd.

okay, I just went over and read it. Once again, the man uses fallacious reasoning. He is using a strawman argument and then argues against that strawman. He doesn't attack the merits of the legislation. Nobody is charged with a crime for calling a gay man a faggot. Once they begin beating the hell out of him, and the motivation behind that beating is because the man is gay, THAT is precisely the moment it becomes a hate crime. It is ALL a matter of motive.

If motive were not a factor in our system of justice, then there would be no need for degrees of crime. For example, we wouldn't have voluntary or involuntary manslaughter or three degrees of murder, we wouldn't have assault and aggrevated assault, etc.

"While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived."

Hate crime legislation has been in place for decades now and have not been extended to this length.  Why does anyone think it will be now that suddenly LGBT people are covered by it?

I agree that a crime is a crime, but intent plays a role in our legal system, and if a crime is committed as a way to send a fearful message to others in a perceived group of people, how is that not domestic terrorism at a particular target set?

Yeah and I came from MIchigan, what is your point? Incipiency and insipid rantings certainly makes no point. What a drag!

Shannon, first of all, our justice system is slammed to the brim with people who don't need to be in jail (like many drug users who need treatment not incarceration).  I don't see where the idea of a justice system just waiting for more crimes to happen comes from.
Also, if you're getting into fights that often, perhaps you yourself would need treatment and are the perpetrator, but the fact is that a hate crime charge requires evidence of long standing hate and a clear target based upon that standing alone.  And a jury decides if that charge is merited or not, just as all charges are considered separately and can be dropped to a regular assault charge if that jury of peers deems it is unnecessary.  It is not just slapped on an assault charge because some dummy yells stupid things while getting in a fight. Once again, you are creating a straw man that distracts from the real issue of whether or not current legislation should be extended to another group.  Now whether singling any group out (or several groups) is proper for our justice system is a valid discussion, but please stop taking it where it hasn't gone and is not likely to go.
If i am wrong, and you have evidence of a court case where this very same slapping on of a charge happened, please share and link it, but don't speculate where you know nothing.

Thanks for the invite to read the Bible, been there done that. And I have rejected it as being false in its premise. I have the tendency to lean more toward things that can be proven, you know, like SCIENCE.

But thanks again for the invite. But I'll pass.

You mean not empathetic. Where in the Constitution does it forbids it, or whatever you talking about.I am half Asian and lived in an allwhite community. So, I have been targeted for hate. Does finding me repugnant is all right to hate me?Is that okay dokey with you Dean?

Sorry, I quite believing in fairy tales when I was 8.

I stopped after i survived my ex-gay therapy and read all thirteen different bibles. FYI George read genesis and ask yourself... why did god lie to adam and eve about the apple killing them? Why did he place a moral judgement in front of them when, before they ate the apple, they did not even know what good and evil was, that they were even naked? Don't you think that is somewhat contradicting? Your god made people who had no ability to know right from wrong, choose right from wrong. That like giving a child who has no idea of the preciousness of life a button to launch a nuclear warhead and then expecting them to not press that shiny, red, flashing button.

No one is forcing anything upon you.  These people just want the right to live as you and i do, which is to live as they choose.  You choose to hate them based on your religion, fine.  And so long as you don't attack anyone you're entitled to your opinion.  But your religion is not the legislation for a reason.  Plenty of others read the bible every day and come to different conclusions of what your god expects of them when they meet him. 

Yup.God is schizophrenic homocidal maniac, according to the Bible. Why does the Bible insults God so?
  Here is another.David in his old age couldn't get it up, so they tried this and that,until they bedded him with an underage girl. Read IKings 1.
  Or Saul was fighting a tribe. He spared the king and queen.Samuel got angry and told him God wants everyone in that tribe to die,even the animals.So, Samuel killed the king and the queen got away and gave birth.The descendents of her baby became thorn to Esther's side(see the movie Night with the King).Its based on actual Bible story.
 Early Christians wanted to do away with Old Testament and Revelation and Epistles of Peter, John and James and Jude,because they were saying things 180 degrees from Jesus.But Augustine convinced the Christian leaders to accept Revelation,as long as Christians do not take it seriously and it was metaphors for inner struggles of being a Christian, than on any actual events.

Just as the "sea of reeds" eventually became the "Red sea", after centuries of translation - and translation of the translation - until it became a theological game of 'Telephone', you have to take things with a grain of salt.

You say you are tolerant towards other people,until they ask for the same rights you have?Interesting.

Forgive me, Mr. Boughan, if I've missed something here.  How do they not have the same rights?  Are not those crimes tried in essentially the same manner with essentially the same criteria in the courts, regardless of the victim?  I fail to understand how holding crimes against specifically defined groups out as "worse" makes the legal system more fair.

Sarah,You are missing something.It is like the difference between a terrorist and a murderer. A murderer would single out someone to kill ,but a terrorist would single out a person to kill so to spread fear amongst a class of people. That was how the KKK operated.We all want to fight terrorism, here is your chance,don't blow it. By the way, the targets of KKK are gays, disabled people, Catholics, mainstream Protestants,blacks, Asians,Jews. All the people mentioned in the Hate Crime Bill. Says something,don't it?

Mr. Boughan, here is where we differ.  You are equating criminal acts (relating to, involving, or being a crime) with  terrorism (the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion) (Websters).  While your argument may hold some water with respect to the use of fear, it lacks the element of coersion; those acts accomplished as a means to force a government to do something.  Where is the coercion in these crimes?

To use your example, I would concur that the KKK is a hate group.  Their tactics, however heinous and at times vicious, lack the coersive element.  Therefore, the acts that the KKK and its members perpetrated have been (and indeed are) considered criminal.

Your comment that there are several groups who support this Act are those that have been targeted by the KKK isn't effective.  To my understanding, almost every group of people is disliked by the KKK (except, of course, for themselves); the pool from which to pick is pretty much the entire US.  There is bound to be some overlap.

Lastly, please don't patronizingly implore me "don't blow it."  We don't agree, that much is obvious.  However, I have in all my posts attempted to be courteous and civil and honestly explore this topic with an open mind, not just spout off my opinion and call it done.  I take from your comment that disagreeing with you would be blowing it.  While we may agree that tolerance is the best approach generally in life, I cannot agree with you on encroaching federalism, emotion-based legislation, and the treatment of crimes against certain groups as "worse" than others.  It goes against what I was raised (in a left-wing home) to believe was right (correct) about what America was all about.

Sarah,As one who is half Asian and lived in an all white rural town,I've been subject to racist attacks. Sure seem like terrorism to me. Yes, there is coercion,but it doesn't have to be forcing a government.And no I am not patronizing you,but recruiting you, like Harvey Milk.Sorry if you think recruiting is being patronizing.
 You got it backwards about federal involvment. No, it is about local enforcement using federal resources when they need to.It isn't about some paranoid fantasy. It is about upping standards and helping the local enforcement. Going back to KKK, they have organizations that cross state lines and in some ways would be too much for locals, unless they can get into government records and use it to strengthen their case.No, I was being optimistic about you,not patronizing. This law is the same one that passed Congress and Senate last year and have bipartisan support,but Bush vetoed it and not enough votes to override it. This time it will go through,already went through Congress. I mentioned the groups support to show you how wide the support is it for it. But you seem to dismiss that,am I right on that?But it is true. Go check MALDEF, the Hispanics Rights Group, NAACP, ADC( Arab-American Defamation Coalition,),National Council of Churches,ACLU, Anti-Defamastion League(The Jewish group),DAV, and look on their websites and see what they say about Matthew Shepherd Act, aka Hates Crime Bill.You don't have to take my word. I been following this and Matthew Shepherd case for a long time.You sound more libertarian than liberal,but that is my perception. Peace.

Mr. Boughan, point of clarification:  I grew up in a liberal household (then attended a liberal, East Coast university), that does not mean I am now.  Currently, politically I reside in the middle.  I am not a member of any party; I vote my beliefs, research and conscience.

I do not dismiss those groups you enumerated per se, nor was I being dismissive of your argument.  I was merely pointing out that the argument was relatively weak one.  The KKK hates virtually everyone; finding wildly disparate groups who oppose them is not a difficult task.  Also, to invoke the KKK on either side of an argument is appealing to emotion (good or bad), or to use emotion to "recruit" a person such as myself which is what I find patronizing.  Appeal to intellect or reason. 

To believe that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law is not (and should not be) under the exclusive purview of one group or another; it is an inherently American ideal.  To extend greater protection to one group or another (outside of a narrowly defined group truly unable to protect itself, e.g. children) is inherently unequal.  To say a crime against one is worse than a similar crime against another effectively states that the first group is more deserving of protection (or legal punishments) than the other.

So here is my question to you again:  Should not those two crimes described above, tried in the same jurisdiction with essentially the same criteria in the courts, regardless of the victim?  How does holding out one of the crimes as more deserving of a harsher punishment and more prosecutorial resources (federal) make the legal system more fair to ALL persons?

The idea is not that a crime against one person is different when committed against another.  It makes a difference when that crime (lets say vandalism of a particular type) is specifically intended to "coerce" others of that type to leave or stay quiet (thereby curtailing their own rights of speech or choice).  When a cross is burned in front of the house of the only black family in a neighborhood, it is generally accepted as message to leave; they're not welcome.  That is coercion.  When a gay person is targeted because they act gay, it is generally taken as a signal from others to hide what they are; just stay in the closet and you'll be fine.  It is coercion meant to curtail their right to express themselves.
It is not just that a crime against a person in one of these groups if suddenly worse than against someone else, but that it is motivated by that person's being in that group, and meant to send a message (or coerce).

I see your point, Erin (and thank you for the well-thought-out answer).  For me, if I hear the word "terrorism," though, I think first of coercion at a governmental/corporate/organizational level.  That isn't to say that there isn't an element of coercion in these crimes, nor that fear isn't an element.  Just the first thought that generally pops into my mind at the word.

But the idea is, actually, that the two victims' crimes are seen as different.  In the case of a violent crime, you are saying that the hatred shown to one victim is somehow worse than the hatred shown the other.  If you then try to preempt that crime on the basis of stricter protections for the victim, does that not speak more to the thoughts and feelings of the perpetrator?  Are we as a society to punish thoughts and feelings or criminal acts?

To use your example of the vandals, does it really serve "justice" to punish vandalism (misdemeanor in many places) in a more severe manner?  Let's take two groups of dumb 16-year-old kids, both vandalizing the same piece of property.  One group writes abominable epithets to intimidate the owner or a group of people.  The second groups just tags without purpose.  Both groups are caught and tried.  Assuming that most aspects of the two cases are essentially the same, isn't the application of stricter punishments a punishment of the (hateful) thought rather than the act? Should the federal government and its resources become involved in local vandalism?  How does this serve fair (blind) justice?

That is a really good example!  And I'm not sure, really.  I'm still trying to argue from both sides and figure out the middle.  Right now i feel as though the context may make a difference.  Stupid 16 year olds will make mistakes, and usually punishment is meant to teach them how stupid it is.  But if its vandalism in an area already highly vandalized, and may be a result of peer pressure to create damage, perhaps not.  But if its against a minority in a particular area (say it happened to a white family in an affluet mostly black neighborhood) then there may more factors for a judge or jury to consider.
I'm not even sure if i agree with the harsher punishment factor unless this is clearly shown (without a doubt, as all charges are supposed to be proven) that this was meant to coerce.  I feel as though it should be used mostly to track where public opinion lies in terms of hatred so we, as a society, may be able to better ourselves through public education or social entrepreneurship.  But these things can become slippery, which is always where the danger lies.

I, of course, don't have the answers either.  And like you, I'm trying to wrestle with these in my head.  This forum has been a really good place for me to do this.

You make a good point about context.  My hypothetical 16-year-olds could be just stupid 16-year-olds doing what others did before them (tagging with epithets).  Does that make them "haters?"  Not necessarily.  Should they be labelled as such for the remainder of their days because of a federal law?  Shouldn't localities (and by extension individual states) be responsible for the punishment of these and other crimes?  Does it change if they're dumb 19-year-olds?

The problem also with using "hatred" as a definition, in my opinion, is that it can be fairly subjective.  There are, indeed, instances where it's pretty cut-and-dry.  In others, though, it's not as clear cut.  And of course, you can "what-if" this ad infinitim.

And I wholeheartedly agree with the danger of the slippery slope you mention, which is mainly why I have trouble with legislation based on emotion or (for lack of a better term) "political correctness."  It is easier for legislators to pass legislation based on the emotion du jour than to have an honest debate, either in the Congress or in our society as a whole.

Sarah, you can call me Tom.No, not trying to be patronizing.Maybe, I am emotional, because I was a victim of hate for decades. I was being overly enthusiastic about this bill.No, it doesn't make any one group better than any other or more privileged or more protected.
Let me put it in a way Martin Luther King did about affirmative action. At track event, you see the runners are starting at staggered lines. Why? Inside track is shorter than outside.It is about putting people on equal footing to begin with.Did  you check out the websites I suggested?They had more about hate crimes bill and say it better than i can.
 When civil rights bills came out in 1960s,I remember people saying about it going to put preferences to minorites and special protections and special rights. Sound familiar?
 Or like the Loving case: "Oh, does that mean we have to have mixed marriages, even though our church don't believe in it?" No one forcing it on you.
Or most recently. Luis Rameriz was killed by a few teens,because he was Hispanic. Courts dismissed them.MALDEF is fighting it. That is a Hispanic rights group.They sent me emails supporting hate crimes bill and used Rameriz case as an example why we need it. How? You will have to go their site to know how. Have you checked out other comments I made here?

Sarah, I too am wrestling with all of this.  I'm wondering if "hate crime" would apply to non-violent acts by juveniles, as in the case of your hypothetical 16-year-old taggers.  I would imagine so.  Not that I am saying that racial epithets are okay by any means.  Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing how this law would apply to this situation.

And who's to say those 16-year-olds won't grow up to be burning a cross on someone's lawn someday?  Or beating someone to death because they don't think hate is wrong?

It makes me sick to think about all of the human beings who have been targeted, beaten, harassed, raped, tortured, maimed and killed, just for being different.  I believe as a society we HAVE to take a stand.  I like what Tom said about the staggered lines at a race track; this isn't preferential treatment either, it's just fair.  That said, I'm not sure if the homeless are added into this law, but if they're not, they should be.  Again, it's people targeting a specific population for violence.  Not okay.

You are right that targeting specific populations isn't okay.  The staggered lines on a track are staggered so that each runner runs EQUAL distances and takes into account the curvature of the track; on a sprint, there is no staggering of course, because there is no curve.  They run an equal distance and are judged on how fast they each run that same distance.  No preference. 

In a fair society, should we not look at each crime separately and as dispassionately as possible?  Certain cases can be removed from their jurisdictions for the express purpose that an impartial jury may not be possible.  To add a "hate" charge to a crime appears to me to inject a whole host of emotions that may or may not be pertinent to the immediate case.  Aren't we then holding these defendants accountable for all injustices of this type?

I think I understand what you are trying to say.  And maybe the term "hate crime" is problematic.  Sometimes semantics are a problem, when the concept is at stake.  Hate is an emotionally charged word; on the other hand, it is very descriptive of the kind of thinking that inspires the crimes we are concerned with.  Maybe if we called it "oppression crimes...."... or maybe that would muddy the issue further, I don't know.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a difference between someone spray painting random nasty messages somewhere and someone committing an act of violence against a particular group of people for the purpose of oppressing and harming that particular population.

One term that is rarely heard any more is "race relations."  It became "cultural diversity," then "cultural competency," and most recently, "anti-oppression."  Maybe these terms resonate differently with different people, and as our language and collective culture morphs, we need to rethink the terms we use.

However, I still feel that "hate crime," while emotionally charged, is very descriptive of the attitudes behind these sorts of crimes.  These aren't random thoughtless acts with some criminal intent; they are targeted attacks.  For instance, if someone robs a store and assaults the owner/employee who happens to be in a wheelchair, it's a crime either way, but is that a hate crime?  That depends... intent is the key.  I agree with you that each crime needs to be looked at separately and that designation given only to those crimes where it is evident that the criminal was deliberately targeting that population.

Why?  Because it isn't a matter of that person being simply a habitual robber, and the victim was in the line of fire.  It's because that person may be someone who lives by the premise that it is okay to target and harm a particular group of people, and they are likely to continue their pattern of abuse, with lethal results.  This IS more serious (not to downplay the seriousness of robbery).

So that's my humble opinion on the matter.  I believe we have a responsiblity, as a society that claims to value equality, to realize that certain groups of people (who do not fit into the middle-class, white, heterosexual, Christian America) may be more at risk, and that we will not tolerate crimes that are obviously based on oppressing others.  How would the world be different today if people worldwide had stood up for the oppressed in Nazi Germany before millions of people lost their lives?

Semantics is a sticky issue.  But changing the wording doesn't change the issue ("a rose by any other name..." and all that).  I will use my example from (far) above that you answered earlier. Taking the group of kids who targeted the Pride Parade in San Diego and then the hypothetical attackers of military wives -- assuming the hatred felt by both groups of perpetrators is equally strong, why should the punishment be worse for the attackers of one group over another?  Isn't then the defining factor then the thoughts or emotions?

I'll be honest, I do believe that crimes perpetrated based on race, gender, etc. are rather a bit more disturbing.  But I can't say that I believe the perpetrator should be punished more for their hatred.  I believe that the mark of a just society is how we treat those at-risk; is it not a mark of just that dignity to treat all individuals as equal?  While individual crackpots may not do that, I believe our legal system should.  The only people who should be defined specially as deserving of their attackers' elevated punitishments would be those who are most vulnerable, those who have no or limited understanding of their legal rights or responsibilities or who CANNOT stand up for themselves (this would include children, the mentally disabled, infirm, etc.).

Also, we could certainly debate the merits of standing up for the oppressed under the Nazis earlier. (And we can't forget that the American Progressives were enamored of Hitler and Mussolini and their programs for a time which, among other things, may have kept us from entering the war.)  But we also cannot forget that those who answered the call were to a large extent white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian Americans.  I see where you were going with this, but the hair needed to be split.  Though I don't believe it was your intent, it could be extrapolated (and it is admittedly a stretch) that pretty much everyone should be more equal than that group is, that they should be punished for the sins of the proverbial father.

Not sure where you get the idea the American Progressives were enamored with Hitler or Mussolini. They were more enamored with Lenin, Stalin, maybe.
 When a detective go to a crime scene, one of the things they look for is modus operandi.Yeah, an earlier poster explained this.
  Anyway,like isaid,don't take my word go to the sites I listed before.They can explain it better than I can.

Tom, that idea came from my education; college history classes and additional reading over the years (yes, I understand that American progressivism did produce some meritorious results).  Yes, I understand the theory of an "MO."  And no, I haven't gotten to all of the sites you listed yet, but to some.  In the interest of fairness (and because I like to read material from as many viewpoints as possible) do you have a (reasonable) site with a dissenting opinion? 

Take care.

You just proved my point. I heard this red herring crap since 1960s about special and protected rights that so-so groups doing this and we got to hire incompetents now etc,etc, etc, .Boy, I got to get my wading boots for this. Loving case: "Oh, now we got to accept mixed marriages now, even if it is against our religious beliefs,blah,blah, blah."
  "Equally qualified" is in the books. Ever heard fo it? Not "you got to hire incompetents."Then, that reverse discrimination case at Ann Arbor, where a white person claimed he wasn't accepted in U of M because he was white.It goes on and on. 40 years of this and not hearing the end of it. No wonder I am bit cranky. Not a liar, because truth always set you free. Difference of opinion,but not a liar.
 

deeds not words.

So you don't believe that there are degrees of crime. For example you don't think there should be a voluntary or involuntary manslaughter? You don't think there should be 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree murder? You don't think there should be assault or aggrevated assault?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Indeed. :D

They have distanced themselves from Palin and then when Obama gets elected what do they do? They march out the little Indian guy from Louisiana, you know, the gov.  And then it's the party elite where they pick a negro to be their head and voice. I said negro in sarcasm please don't scold me. You know what I mean you've all seen it.

Your welcome heresey (interesting nickname) a legal term? Anyway, my "hate" is transparent sarcasm and obviously worked but you give Ron and I too much credit after all. 

A letter to everyone.  

Dear Believer: I do not accept the Bible as God’s word because it contains thousand of errancies and contradictions that can not be solved, only rationalized.  I refuse to accept Jesus as my personal savior, for his behavior and teachings often expose one who should be escaped and not worshipped.  I ask that you read this pamphlet in light of the bible’s teachings; Christians should be “open to reason” (James 3:17 RSV), that we should “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18) and “he who hates correction will die” (Proverbs 15:10) to understand my perspective that the bible has MANY shortcomings. 1.  According to your Bible I am to believe that human kind is sinful for Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge.  Why are we being punished for the original sin?  After all, they ate the forbidden fruit, we didn’t.  Reason would lead one to say it’s their problem, not ours.  Even the bible contradicts itself by claiming in Deuteronomy 24:16,“children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers.” 2.  We are told that the Bible has no scientific errors and is utterly perfect/protected, yet it says the bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13 & 19), hares chew the cud (Leviticus 11:5-6), and some fowl (Leviticus 11:20-21) and insects (Leviticus 11:22-23) have four legs. 3.  Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place.  It is of course, the place you strive for and name “salvation”.  Yet, it experienced a war (Revelation 12:7).  How can there be a war in a perfect place and if it happened before why couldn’t it happen again?  Why would I want to go to a place in which war can occur?  That’s exactly what I’m trying to escape, aren’t you? 4.  We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18 & 36) and then the Bible claims that it is repentance that shall save us (2 Peter 3:9) yet Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments-Matthew 19:16-1 8 (saving by works)-if he wanted eternal life. So which way is it and how do you know your belief is the correct one? 5. According to the text there are 29 cities listed in Joshua 15:21-32.  One need only count them to see that biblical math is not to be trusted.  The total is 36. 6. Surely you don’t believe Ecclesiastes 1:9 RSV (“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun”)?  How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945, and how many people walked on the moon before 1969? 7.  If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)?  Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered.  The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men.  Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday? 8.  If God created everything, (Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 3:9, Revelation 4:11 & John 1:3), then he did create the world’s evil (Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38). Thus, he is responsible.  Any being who could create situations such as rape, death, malnutrition, disease, molestation and murder is certainly not fit for worship. 9.  For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime.  No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit.  Yet, hell’s punishment is infinitely greater.  It’s eternal.  Shouldn’t a sinner suffer until remorse is felt and the crime is atoned for?  What “justice” is there in infinite damnation? 10.  Jesus said, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22).  Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 27:19, Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show.  Shouldn’t he be in danger of hell too?  Jesus also told us to “Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition.  Matthew 12:34 (“0 generation of vipers”), and Matthew 23 :27 (“... hypocrites... ye are like unto whited sepulchres.“) are excellent examples of hypocrisy.  If Jesus himself is a sinner by his own admission then surely he can not be the “perfect lamb of god”. 11.  Except those of biased Christian writers, there isn’t one writing outside the Bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth.  The decision to dedicate my life to a deity requires at least one shred of conclusive evidence.  Your lord knows non believers exist as a result of this, yet he makes no attempt to supply proof.  How can the bible claim god wants all in heaven if he doesn’t make efforts to ensure that we all believe in him? 12.  Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14-17).  Yet Jesus made many promises concerning his return during the lifetime of his then followers.  (Matthew 16:28: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”.  Matthew 23:36, 24:34, Mark.9:1, 13:30, Luke 9:27, 21:32 & John 21:22) None of these prophecies have come true.  Does this not make Jesus a false prophet?  If so wouldn’t that make Christianity invalid? 13.  I find the idea that a man had to die for my sins revolting. If God was truly omnipotent he could have simply forgiven us. What kind of deity, would execute one child in order to forgive it’s others?  Modern society would call an individual like this sadistic, insane and cruel. Surely, you would not worship a child killer, why do you expect me to?  Would you find a judge worthy of the title who would allow my child to be executed in lieu of my sins? 14.  John 14:12 states a follower in Jesus can perform any of his works and do it even greater.  If you continue to insist I believe in Jesus, it is only fair I may ask of you to show just how strong your faith is. After all, you would be my “mentor” in Christ.  I’m not a believer as of yet, but surely you are.  Would you mind perhaps resurrecting a dead relative or walking on water? 15.  Okay, obviously you didn’t do number 14 and backed out with the “this is metaphorical” excuse.  Surely you can try Mark 16:17-1 8 which says believers can drink “any deadly thing” and “it shall not hurt” them.  But I don’t think you would be naive enough to drink any arsenic offered.  Perhaps I’m wrong and you would be willing to test the Book’s veracity-”lay it on the line” so to speak? 16. All right, so now you have backed out of two of my questions.  I’m starting to think you don’t really care about my salvation as much as you claim.  Well, unlike your Jehovah, I shall be kind and offer a third chance at redemption.  Consider Jesus’ teaching in Luke 6:30 “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”  Perhaps, if you emptied your wallet and “give of thee” I may seriously ponder accepting Jesus as my savior.  A far greater number of Biblical discrepancies can be found on the web at the following addresses: http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/main.htm http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com http://www.cygnus-study.com

Paragraphs are your friend, and not so hard on the reader's eyes. :D

("What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun")?  How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945, and how many people walked on the moon before 1969

There is no way we can truly know this. I'm no bible thumper, but I believe this statement to be basically true. Study ancient history a little closer. Don't let someone dictate your conclusions for you. :D

To add to my last statement, such a statement by Solomon is probably not meant to be taken too literally. Human beings have always been human beings, and will continue to do the things that humans have done since the beginning of Mankind.

However, he may have been right literally as well. Mankind has basically been in its current form for more that 100 thousand years, and that's a conservative estimate based on the fragments of true knowledge we have.

Our recorded history, in its current form, only goes back, at most, to about 6000 B.C. But all of this is a completely different argument. I do not mean to derail. :D

Shannon, that diatribe was too hard to type as it is.

You do have obsession with the penis for some reason.
 Original sin did not come about until St. Augustine in the fifth century came up with the concept.
 Gerald is right, rabbits do not chew their cud.Nor insects have four legs( they be classified something else, since to define an insect, it must have six legs).The rest seem to be making some excuses .
 By the way,prophecy is not predicition.Prophecy is running commentary on events before them and some guess what will happen if things continue on the same track. Remember, there was no freedom of press, no freedom of speech back then, so they coached their words in coded meassages we call prophecies.
  As for Bible and homosexuality,read Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Winks, a noted theologian.Peace.

I'm not confused about anything but obviously you are in a delusional state and should see someone about it before you hurt your children.I know exactly what I wrote which is why I wrote it you numbskull. I'm trying to wake you up out of your stupor and hopefully get you to think with independent thought, unless you're really willing to stone your daughter to death at your front door in front ofd the neighbors just because she had sex with a boy, go ahead and tell her you're going to do that. You might as well you worship a serial killer and make excuses for it at the same time. Do you realize your King James was a homosexual pedophile??? Did you even read your bible????? And you still not only think a loving god wrote it(that is the biggest crime in history) you will force your children to go to church and be threatened with death and toture for your god. You are a sick individual. And should be thrown in jail for child abuse.And if you don't have a family....I see why.

Notice how few words it took to read you?

Tom, trust me, they are way too fearfull to read anything but the bible.

Well, it sounds to me as if Dean ought to go find Konde and work out his problem with her errr him....hahahaha...BTW, Dean et. al. As a Viet Nam combat veteran, double amputee with CHF, Hep-C, Berguer's Disease ( An afliction of the vascular system)and a few old age conditions who is on Social Security, he worked for all his life and deserves, I can attest to the inequities of the so called health & Welfare depsrtment of our nation and it is sorely lacking.I'm expected to live on less than $1500 a month and food stamps. The worst part of my disability is that even though the amputation was from a disease known to be associated with agent orange I was still denied my service disability. I am a hetero grandfather of a very intelligent young man who will one day be a leader and I have his ear so you'd better look out president Reynolds is on the way!!! I accomplished all this with schizophrenia and I just wanted Dean to know who he has been attacking senselessly out of shear ignorance. Just like a good christian should.

Michael,I agree. There is a term that fits the Bible,mythopoeic,that is epic made up of mythic and poetic language. I didn't make it up, someone else did. When I said myth, I mean it in the way Joseph Campbel meant it. That is it might be true or not. That is mote. What is important is what it is saying on deeper levels.Bible is like multilayered onion.Each layer is different meaning.
 Like I said before, quoting Jonathan Swift,"We learn just enough religion to hate,but not enough to love."

Dean says he doesn't know why my comments about myself were not edited when they were a defense to the attacks by this character calling me a gay man who doesn't know where to put his penis or whatever ignorant chant he gave.  What about that moderator,should Dean be able to be so vulgar in his gods name?

Dean, I'm a scientist (both Life Science & Physical Science), but I am confused about what you call a "natural scientist?"  I have studied the history of natural philosophers which include such giants as Newton, Boyle, Charles, the Rennaissance men (many of which were gay), all the way back to Socrates and Plato (which also had men-on-men relations). 

As a scientist, how can you claim that hate crime is nature's way of punishing the LGBT community?  And surely you have heard of the natural component in being homosexual, it's not always a "choice" and indeed in nature among other animals there are also plenty of "natural examples" of homosexuality.  I'm not even going to touch on the Lemuria hoax...  For the record, I'm straight but I believe in the founding principles of our great nation as set forth in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Laws of our Nation should reflect the protection of these inalienable Rights.