Huckabee Downplays Violence Against Gays: Christians Are Having Their Crosses Taken From Them Too
Huckabee Downplays Violence Against Gays: Christians Are Having Their Crosses Taken From Them Too
Last month, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee went on ABC’s “The View” and argued that the gay rights movement hasn’t suffered enough violence to be a real civil rights issue, unlike African-Americans’ struggles.
Yesterday at a book signing, Huckabee stood behind his statement that there was a “difference” between the LGBT movement and African-Americans’ struggles, saying that the latter group was persecuted for “being black, not for their behavior, not for anything other than their race.” While he acknowledged that the LGBT community does suffer some violence, he downplayed it by claiming that gays are also attacking Christians. The two examples that he cited, however, were not violent:
HEYWOOD: Are you saying the LGBT community does not suffer violence?
HUCKABEE: No, I think they do. And so do the Christians. It was in Michigan that people barged into a church and were rather violent —
HEYWOOD: Have you seen the video of that incident?
HUCKABEE: I have.
HEYWOOD: It wasn’t actually particularly violent.
HUCKABEE: Well, it was certainly disruptive. In California, when some peaceful protesters, including a 79-year-old lady by the name of Phyllis, was out holding a cross, it was violently taken from her and stomped. I don’t think there’s justice in that.
HEYWOOD: What about the 50-year-old gay man who was beaten yesterday in Salt Lake City?
HUCKABEE: Nobody justifies any violence on anyone.
Huckabee also said he opposes hate crimes legislation, adopting the common right-wing talking point that government shouldn’t regulate what people think. “[Y]ou should punish and consequence the violence against another person,” said Huckabee. “Why they did it is of less consequence than the fact they did it.” Watch it:
Being gay is not a choice. These people are also victims of discriminatory attacks not for their “behavior,” as Huckabee says, but for who they are biologically.
Federal officials, in fact, are already able to investigate and prosecute attacks “based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right,” but unable to intervene “in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are.” Additionally, hate crimes legislation goes after criminal action, like physical assaults, not name-calling or verbal abuse. The bill clearly states that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”
Transcript:
HUCKABEE: No, I didn’t say they hadn’t experienced enough violence.
HEYWOOD: Could you clarify for us then?
HUCKABEE: Well, I just said that there is a difference between the civil rights movement of African-Americans who were essentially hosed down in the streets by Bull Connor in Birmingham and beaten with their skulls crashed in on the bridges of Selma for being black, not for their behavior, not for anything other than their race. And I said that’s a different situation than asking for marriage to be overturned in California.
HEYWOOD: Are you saying the LGBT community does not suffer violence?
HUCKABEE: No, I think they do. And so do the Christians. It was in Michigan that people barged into a church and were rather violent —
HEYWOOD: Have you seen the video of that incident?
HUCKABEE: I have.
HEYWOOD: It wasn’t actually particularly violent.
HUCKABEE: Well, it was certainly disruptive. In California, when some peaceful protesters, including a 79-year-old lady by the name of Phyllis, was out holding a cross, it was violently taken from her and stomped. I don’t think there’s justice in that.
HEYWOOD: What about the 50-year-old gay man who was beaten yesterday in Salt Lake City?
HUCKABEE: Nobody justifies any violence on anyone.
HEYWOOD: So would you support hate crimes legislation?
HUCKABEE: You know, if you penalize people for their thoughts, the question is — I mean, I’m not for violence against anybody; it doesn’t matter what the purpose is. If you had an 80-year-old woman who’s trying to get in her house with a bag full of groceries, that’s just as wrong as it is to hit somebody for a thought.
And the point is that you should punish and consequence the violence against another person. Why they did it is of less consequence than the fact they did it. So I don’t care if a person is homosexual, or they’re elderly, or they’re a child — if someone is violent toward them, they should be fully consequenced to the fullest extent of the law. But for their violence, not for their thought. When we start having the government determine what we can think, I think we’re moving in kind of a frightening area.
That’s the only problem I have with a lot of the hate crime legislation. You essentially are asking the government to start regulating what people can think. We have a right to regulate what they do. In fact, we have a responsibility to regulate what they do. But to regulate what they think? I don’t think any of us really want that.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So Buckhead thinks Christians are being mugged by people who tell them, “Your cross or your life!’?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am“Hucka” who?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:19 amGood grief. What a colossal BOOB.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:19 amThe cross is a Late Bronze Age implement of execution.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:22 amWhy wouldn’t everyone want to stomp it into the dust?
I still don’t understand the Christian attachment to a death symbol.
They will not stop until Moderate and Liberal Christians kick them out of the club. And it is the Moderate and Liberal Christians who must stand up to these people. No one else effectively can, because we are not in the club.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:23 amWhaaaaaaaaahhhh poor oppressed Christians….
I mean, we’re only the majority and some of us can actually get away with saying ‘The US is a christian nation’ and not have anyone call BS on it… but poor us.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:23 amThat’s the only problem I have with a lot of the hate crime legislation. You essentially are asking the government to start regulating what people can think. We have a right to regulate what they do. In fact, we have a responsibility to regulate what they do. But to regulate what they think? I don’t think any of us really want that.
Oh yes you do. Just as long as it’s what YOU think.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:25 amNevar Says: I still don’t understand the Christian attachment to a death symbol.
Odd isn’t it. But, I suppose that if you consider the gist of the religion, it’s essentially saying that humanity must be saved by a man having had to bleed to death because two naked people once ate an apple given to them by a talking snake. Based on that, I suppose an attachment to a cruel death symbol isn’t too far off…
December 4th, 2008 at 11:28 amConsider that any party to a debate, when building an argument, is going to use its strongest evidence to make that argument.
It can be assumed, then, that “President-elect Hucakbee” (h/t: Daryll) brought out the most vivid examples of violence against Christians that he had at his disposal, correct? A “disruptive” group of gay activists, and an elderly woman who had a cross ripped from her hands and stomped on.
Not exactly compelling evidence that an equivalency exists, there, Governor.
Was the elderly woman stomped, like Matthew Shepherd?
When a Christian is brutally murdered by a gay activist mob, THEN come talk to us about all the “violence” that Christians suffer at the hands of gays, okay?
Thanks.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:29 amIn a just World Phuckabee would meet his demise by being held captive by Richard Simmons and sodomized until his last breath – in a VERY loving manner of course.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:31 ambeing a bigot hiding behind christianity is a choice. believing utter nonsense and fairy tales should subject you to ridicule and not the esteemed position given to these morons by society. they deserve all the violence they get in my opinion, not that the examples this idiot cites fit the bill.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:33 amAnybody who opposes hate crimes legislation must think that Kristallnacht was just random vandalism and hooliganism.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am“And so do the Christians.”
Um, no, sorry but they don’t. A few isolated incidents of violence carried out by a handful of people does not amount to the huge amount of bias, hate and violence directed at gays and lesbians. No one is going around, targeting Christians and then beating them to death. No one is tying up Christians and beating them to a pulp and leaving them to die strung up on a barbed-wire fence in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming. No one is forcing Christians into oncoming traffic. No one is vandalizing their houses and burning them down.
So-called “Christians” like Huckabee have absolutely no idea whatsoever what persecution really feels like. Huckabee should make a point to visit victims of anti-gay violence and hear from them first-hand how it feels to be the target of violence because of who and what you are. Remember: being a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/etc. is a CHOICE. Being gay or lesbian, however, is not.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 amBut being an anti-intellectual, uninformed, and senseless reich-wing GOPig IS a choice.
Maybe, but which comes first, the chicken (GOP) or the egg (blind ignorance), cause I know a few stupid leftists as well:
But being an anti-intellectual, uninformed, and senseless reich-wing GOPig IS a choice.
Some Brains Are Wired for Change
People who welcome new experiences have stronger connections between their memory and reward brain centers than people who tend to avoid anything new, research now shows.
Specifically, people who actively seek lifestyle changes may have a more developed connection between two specific brain areas: the hippocampus, a site for storing and retrieving new and old memories, and the ventral striatum, a reward system which is responsible for those carpe diem moments, said researcher Dr. Bernd Weber of the Life & Brain Center at the University of Bonn in Germany. Turns out, if the hippocampus identifies an experience as new, it then relays signals to the striatum to release neurotransmitters which lead to positive feelings.
“The strength of the connection is positively correlated to novelty seek[ers] … but this does not imply that having weaker connections is a ‘bad’ thing,” Weber told LiveScience.
LINK
December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 amExactly what are Huckabee’s qualifications to discuss the nuance of either the LGBT movement or African-Americans’ struggles? We need to stop asking these people what they think. They’ve shown how little they have to offer.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 amWhen you live in a fishbowl, you tend to only think about the things in your bowl.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:37 amKeep talking Chuckles. You and Sara are going to be an awesome ticket in 2012.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am“In opening statements, prosecutors characterized the beating death of the 22-year-old Mathew Shepard as a premeditated “cold-blooded, savage” attack by assailants who lured the student out of a Laramie bar and pistol-whipped their victim as he begged for his life, finally leaving him for dead tied to a fence.”
OMG! A 79 year old lady had her cross taken from her and stomped on.
Yeah, that equal to what happened to Mathew Shepard.
If I remember correctly, the religious right were at the trial and were chanting and showing signs that said Shepard deserved it for being gay.
WWJD?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:38 amI went back and watched the video. No one was “attacking” that woman. They were challenging her on her bigoted views.
Don’t point a cross at me and tell me you’re going to violate my civil rights. I’d have knocked it out of her hand, too.
What an idol these “Christians” have made out of a device used for capital punishment. As if the only important thing that Jesus ever did was die. It makes me sick.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:40 am“Huckabee also said he opposes hate crimes legislation, adopting the common right-wing talking point that government shouldn’t regulate what people think.”
This whole argument is totally bogus. Many crimes, especially violent crimes, are defined in terms of intent and purpose. The difference between first and second degree murder centers on intent. Likewise for all the other flavors of homicide charges. What was in the mind of the killer before and during the crime are of the utmost importance at distinguishing which of many criminal charges might be applied. Intent also matters when determining how an assault is charged. Huckabee and all the other Republican politicians oppose hate crimes legislation because they know their political base of racist crackers oppose it.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:43 amIs Huckabee’s point that MLK’s cause was legitimate only because blacks were being beaten up?
It’s like saying a civil rights movement can become justified only when bigoted assholes become violent bigoted assholes.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:44 amExactly what are Huckabee’s qualifications to discuss the nuance of either the LGBT movement or African-Americans’ struggles?
His qualifications are the same as Hitler’s with regard to “purifying” Germany.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:45 amVerbalKint Says:
Huckabee and all the other Republican politicians oppose hate crimes legislation because they know their political base of racist crackers are threatened by it.
fixt.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:46 amBeing gay is not a choice
I knew as soon as my son came out of the womb that he was homosexual. It was just the feeling I had the minute he was born.
I seriously doubt that at 5 minutes old he made the “choice” to be gay. Stupid people.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:48 amCOProgressive Says: WWJD?
Unfortunately, there are passages in the bible(s) where he supports the Old Testament violence against gays, blacks, non-believers, and even kids. Granted, many Christians ignore those things (or don’t know about them in the first place), but the rabid right celebrates them and uses them to justify their hatred and use of violence.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:49 amHate crimes have more victims than random acts of violence; they are terrorism against a whole group as well as crimes against individuals. There are valid societal reasons to treat them more severely.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am“if someone is violent toward them, they should be fully consequenced to the fullest extent of the law.”
Consequenced? Is that a word?
-Your honor, this defendant needs to be consequenced!
-Dude, you got consequenced!
To equate a woman having her cross snatched away to what gays have gone through over the years physically, emotionally and legally is beyond absurd.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:54 amThe bibles are a collection of writings, by men, for men. While many of the concepts put forth are worthy examples of the evolution of higher consciousness, as many more are corrupted to serve the purpose of controlling human societies.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:56 amThe rigid extremism of the Huckabees of Christianism only serve to feed the flames of violence and fear in our world.
Peter C wrote: ” We need to stop asking these people what they think.”
You are 100% right on that point. What possible authority does Huckabee have to speak out on this issue? He’s no expert, and no his “biblical qualifications” as a pastor don’t count.
Government cannot be concerned with what “God” says; it can only be concerned with what the law says. Huckabee can continue thinking whatever he’d like, but he has no standing to say anything about the gay rights movement.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:57 amHUCKABEE: Well, I just said that there is a difference between the civil rights movement of African-Americans who were essentially hosed down in the streets by Bull Connor in Birmingham and beaten with their skulls crashed in on the bridges of Selma for being black, not for their behavior, not for anything other than their race. And I said that’s a different situation than asking for marriage to be overturned in California.
Wrong. They weren’t beaten for being black. It was their “uppity” behavior.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:58 amIn another age, would Huckabee have been a Pharisee or a Sadducee?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:59 amFunny how the whole jeebus thing causes people to kill one another on a massive scale while there are other organized religions that strive for peace.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pmI’ll have to study up on why that is.
He’d have been one of the moneychangers that Jesus threw out of the temple.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pmIt is interesting that the greatest scope of organized violence among humans has come from the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pmAll killing each other, and anyone else they can trample along the way, trying to decide which one of them are “god’s” chosen people.
What bothers me about Huckabuck’s statement, is the quoted “they haven’t suffered enough violence…”, which to me is not so subtly saying that they need to suffer more.
And, having an elderly woman’s cross stomped on is NOT THE SAME as being tied up and pistol whipped to death.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:15 pmI’d gladly stomp on my own mother’s cross than have one person murdered for any bigoted reason, including sexuality.
See the difference, not-to-be-president-elect Huckabuck?
Dear TP,
You make the claim in this post, “being gay is not a choice.”
Your source your claim by reference, through another post, to the American psychological association.
However, that source does not support your claim. The APA website specifically states:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
Now, I support gay rights and act as an ally to GLBT people. (This is true, so save that “concern troll” label for someone else). However, I believe that it is ultimately hurtful to gay rights to make unfounded claims. TP rightly jumps on those at the opposite end of the spectrum for making unfounded claims and should live by the same standard.
Please issue a correction, as the only accurate statement on the question is that it is unknown whether or not it is a choice to be gay.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pmNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
NOT THE CROSSES? WHAT WOULD THIS DEATH CULT BE WITHOUT THEIR FAVORITE SYMBOL OF THEIR STUPIDITY?
WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pmThe guys jacket in the video should read “Team Phuck”
December 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pmA Huckabee AND gay thread without Daryll?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pmEskwaya Says
December 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
__________________________________________________________
Right within the APA quote that YOU pasted as part of your argument that it’s unknown if sexual orientation is a choice, I find this:
“…most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
Obviously, that’s not good enough for you, but it’s good enough for me.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm‘When fascism comes to America, it will come draped in the flag and carrying a cross’ -Sinclair Lewis
Huckabee & Bible Spice aren’t exactly knows for their original thoughts.
They do have original sin, however.
For me, it’s a real sin they choose to keep opening their mouths.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pmwell you certainly sound like one.
There is plenty of consensus……you just don’t want to accept it. You sound like the global warming deniers who make the same claim…….
December 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pmTell ya what, Phuckabee – when we start passing laws making it illegal for Christians to marry – then we’ll talk equivalency, ya moron.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pmKeith H. Says: Funny how the whole jeebus thing causes people to kill one another on a massive scale while there are other organized religions that strive for peace.
I’ll have to study up on why that is.
Just read the bible. It’s an atrocious book with a handful of peaceful things. It’s been used to enslave populations, torture, wage wars, force conversions, and hate.
Fortunatley, most Christians don’t read it in its entirety. The problem is those who do, and don’t immediately reject it, but use it to justify their violence and persocution.
There isn’t one religion that hasn’t, at some point, waged war in its name. Except the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster… :)
December 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pmNevar Says:
It is interesting that the greatest scope of organized violence among humans has come from the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
All killing each other, and anyone else they can trample along the way, trying to decide which one of them are “god’s” chosen people.
I read an interesting book on the topic a few years ago (which I’m too lazy to look up) that argued that monotheism was the problem, because it does not allow for any god other than the approved god, while polytheists are more tolerant of other people’s religions by definition. In other words, if there are 30 gods you know of, than it’s entirely possible that there are another 30 (or 300) you hadn’t run into before.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:44 pmEskwaya Says:
Please issue a correction, as the only accurate statement on the question is that it is unknown whether or not it is a choice to be gay.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
________
Why would anyone choose a sexual orientation that could cause them to be shunned by friends and family, forced into second-class status by the government, vilified by organized religion, and in some countries executed?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pmI’m starting to wonder the same thing about republicans…..do you suppose it’s genetic and they really don’t have a choice?
December 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pmThis party is dying right before your eyes.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:12 pmWhile I basically agree with you hussein toasterhead, I’m wondering if you read that Newsweek story about Rachel Maddow?
It’s a good article and Rachel’s partner is quoted at one point saying that they reason that they stay “happily unmarried” is because “we both have a real fondness for the outsider part of our gay culture.”
I’m sure it helps a lot to be so feisty!
December 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pmwtf does this even mean, some half-assed attempt at denial without substance?
It is second nature for Christians to justify their bad acts in God’s name.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pmBeing gay is not about ’sexual orientation.’ These are people living their lives the way any of us are.
Viewing their situation from a sexual perspective is ironically perverse and stunts societies growth on simple human rights issues.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pmunbelievable Says:
They will not stop until Moderate and Liberal Christians kick them out of the club. And it is the Moderate and Liberal Christians who must stand up to these people. No one else effectively can, because we are not in the club.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Since many of the “Moderate and Liberal Christians” wear the name Christian without actually believing in the divinity of Christ, they can’t – and are probably not interested – in kicking the Conservative Christians out of the club.
Would guess this means that they – the Moderate and Liberal Christians – have their club for a different reason. Which would seem to bit, to mean the Liberal, Moderates, and Conservative Christians are not all in the same club.
bit does not understand Christians to be latitudinarians with an incoherent belief.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:39 pmjpopphan : No one is going around, targeting Christians and then beating them to death. No one is tying up Christians and beating them to a pulp and leaving them to die strung up on a barbed-wire fence in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming.
Nevar : It is interesting that the greatest scope of organized violence among humans has come from the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
All killing each other, and anyone else they can trample along the way, trying to decide which one of them are “god’s” chosen people.
I maintain that ‘religious persecution’ is actually an inherently political act because an organized religion is a political organization.
The history of Christianity illustrates this well.
It would appear that Jesus challenged the religious establishment and political establishments of his time and so too did Mohammed.
The rise of Roman-Catholicism and Christianity as a global religion resulted not from some mystical mass-acceptance of a psychic ‘truth’ about human existence and purpose but because an ambitious Roman credited a dream to his successful bid to become absolute ruler of an existing empire that had been established through military force.
As emperor he was able to impose his new found ‘Christianity’ on tens of millions by fiat, backed-up by military power. Thus Christianity (in name only) was joined with dominant political power, hence the Holy Roman Empire.
The HOR then proceeded further afield not through intellectual or philosophical persuasion, one convert at a time, but from the position of instituional military and economic strength and by threatening their use unless local feudal power-brokers bent to the imperial will, which they usually did. As a result compliant minor kingdoms progressed to became nations, but still bound to the church’s imperial will and resources.
When Henry VIIIth replaced Roman Catholicism in England it wasn’t a crisis of faith but of political and economic power and some 350 years of conflict ensued as the Roman Catholic Church sought to destroy the challenge to what was actually its secular, rather than spiritual, authority.
Back-tracking a bit the same was true when Islam reared its head. The rise and maintenance of Christianity has always depended not on some inherent truth to be accepted by or rejected by God’s own creation (’His children’) but by threats and force (just as the Old Testament attests).
Ardent Christianity and Islam are today engaged in a secular conflict, not an existential spiritual battle. and both are simultaneously trying to combat the influence of pragmatic earthly needs. The only difference between them is that Christianity got a 500 year head-start and were handed a functioning practical empire, whilst Islamists are still trying to establish an equivalent Caliphate–but both suffer from the erosion of time and secular circumstance, and experience; God or Allah clearly aren’t involved in individuals lives, despite the respective religions to the contrary.
Any expansion of either religions’ congregation today is up to circumstance, which is to say birth rate and control of education–hence the common ground of opposition to sex education, freedom of choice and intellectual freedom.
I could go on but, anywhoo…. that’ll do for now.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pmidjit says:
Since many of the “Moderate and Liberal Christians” wear the name Christian without actually believing in the divinity of Christ
As I am one of the “Moderate and Liberal Christians”, please link, or cite, or provide proof that me and my ilk don’t believe in the divinity of Christ.
Otherwise, DRxJ must conclude your post is baseless, and DRxJ must further conclude you’re a mucking foron!
December 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pmDRxJ Says:
idjit says:
Since many of the “Moderate and Liberal Christians” wear the name Christian without actually believing in the divinity of Christ
As I am one of the “Moderate and Liberal Christians”, please link, or cite, or provide proof that me and my ilk don’t believe in the divinity of Christ.
Otherwise, DRxJ must conclude your post is baseless, and DRxJ must further conclude you’re a mucking foron!
December 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
bit acknowledges that DRxJ notes that bit’s assertion is baseless. bit notes that DRxJ didn’t assert his belief in the divinity of Christ, just that bit’s previous assertion was baseless.
bit further notes that “mucking foron” would not be a term, at least in bit’s understanding, that brings honor to the name of Christ.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:01 pmPlease don’t take this as a defense of Huckabee’s right-wing us-versus-them policies or mentality, because it is not.
I confess that I have a lot of mixed feelings regarding the use of separately charged hate crimes, and generally disagree with the above post.
The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is not a question of the intent, but when it was formed (specifically, was it formed at approximately the same time the crime was committed or some time prvious to the crime itself).
Similarly, while degrees of criminal assault may differ based upon specific intent, these classifications are based upon the amount of “damage” that the accused intended (intent to maim, intent to blind, intent to kill, etc.), and not the motive behind the the crime itself.
If someone hates both Catholics and short people, and kills one of each based upon this hatred, should he be convicted of a separate crime for what is essentially the same offense? Going further, even if he kills for money, is this not the same offense as that committed by someone who hates?
This is not to say that the motivation underlying a criminal act should not have a place in sentancing, which of course it should, but only to posit that a criminal offense should be based strictly upon the criminal act, and should not vary based upon the purceived motive behind the act.
I would love to see some other views on this. My feelings are mixed on this, as I have little tolerance or compassion for people who hate.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pmbitblt Says:
bit does not understand Christians to be latitudinarians with an incoherent belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a liar and a fool bit. YOUR beliefs are incohernt not to mention ignorant and bigoted. You also just questioned the heart of other Christians which is QUITE un-Chrisitan of you. See people dont HAVE to be as bigoted and ignorant as YOU to be Christians. That is just your intolerance and hatefulness talking. Dont you realize how much you embarass other Christians who ARENT as hateful, bigoted and ignorant as YOU are?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pmbitblt Says:
>>>>>>>>>>>
Your third person stupidity is tiresome. You are a moron without a doubt not to mention hateful bigoted and judgemental. You are a disgrace to our entire species
December 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pmMr. Lizaaaard is out in the yard, Mr. Turtellll is up at the well. Mr. rabbbBit is here with the shit.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:09 pmbit is a bit…..see tron.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pmyes/no probably belongs to one of those churhes where if jesus christ himself walked up to the door in his goatskin coat…..they would not let him in…..
christains are frauds.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pmDoes anyone remember how many gays were killed by the Nazis? Please don’t ever say the gays haven’t suffered.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian, because of his formal and informal Biblical study, is aware that a comment such as “Since many of the “Moderate and Liberal Christians” wear the name Christian without actually believing in the divinity of Christ” can only be made if a person claims to possess the ability to read another one’s heart. PatrioticLiberalChristian questions whether such a comment is a form of blasphemy.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pmEskwaya ..,
The first homosexual I ever encountered was a neighbor that my parents allowed me to call “Uncle” and who they trusted to be alone with me from an early age (about 6 years old).
On a visit to his house once ( I was 8) I noticed many paintings of male nudes. Later I remarked upon this to my mother. She explained the “uncle” Tom (!!!) was an artist,BUT, he also was naturally attracted to young men.
Though I’d received no formal sex education at that point I got her drift as at that point I was beginning to realize that I had developed an attraction to girls for some reason . My subsequent state-mandated sex-education explained sex as an inevitable yet kind-of circumstantial mechanical event resulting from ‘love’, but didn’t mention god or choice.
I know damn well I didn’t ‘choose’ to be heterosexually inclined, and later-on at an all-boys school and given a good deal of unprofessional physical attention by certain male teachers I know damn well I wasn’t being given a ‘choice’ to succumb to any generic sexual urges just because I was being offered many opportunities to do so.
In short, Eskwaya, I suspect you are are inexperienced and th thus not very well informed, intellectually or experientally about this issue, so you might want to criticize your own declared position as you criticize that of the TP post in such a particular fashion.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
PatrioticLiberalChristian, because of his formal and informal Biblical study, is aware that a comment such as “Since many of the “Moderate and Liberal Christians” wear the name Christian without actually believing in the divinity of Christ” can only be made if a person claims to possess the ability to read another one’s heart. PatrioticLiberalChristian questions whether such a comment is a form of blasphemy.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Seems like the perfect opportunity to set bit straight on exactly what it is PLC believes? How about those at PLC’s place of worship? Do they openly talk about Christ as if He’s divine – you know – as if He’s Son of God?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pmidjit says:
Blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah. Show me your proof of Christianity so I can further ostracize and condemn. Blah blah blah. Gays are bad. Blah blah blah.
Been there.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pmDone that.
Boring.
Care to address the topic?
bit, yes.
And I will not allow that to be a justification for oppressing others and I will not presume that man, rather than God in his wisdom, has been responsible for consistently throughout time and across cultures creating homosexual people in roughly the same percentage of the population. I will not play God and deny basic human rights to any of God’s children. I will not deny any human the right to seek God’s blessing on his or her consentual loving relationship. I will not sign on to my government judging whether or not anyone has sinned and to usurp the power of God to decide whether or not a homosexual is acceptable or not to him. I choose to love, not judge.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pmAny TPer know the name Bart Allen?
Bart was an homosexuality and the die because of it.
Perhaps it’s better said the Bart died because of someone’s homosexuality.
Bart Allen’s name, however, should be widely known and mourned. He was in the process of leaving the homosexual lifestyle when he was strangled and murdered by his gay roommate.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pmhttp://www.narth.com/docs/increasing.html
Ahhhh, but PLC, you didn’t address the question of believing in the Divinity of Christ, therefore your rather intelligent and honest post will go ignored by idjit.
Word of advice, idjit. If someone proclaims to be a Christian, he/she does not have to prove to you if he/she believes in the Divinity. What is understood need not be discussed.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pmPLC. Happy to hear that!
December 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pmBart Allen, sadly, is one more victim of domestic violence. Of course, most of the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence are heterosexual but that fact does not advance some people’s agenda to oppress a particular group of people.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pmAny (c)hristian homophobe know the name Lawrence King?
Lawrence was a 15 year old homosexual, and died because of it.
15 year old student shot in class
Perhaps idjit should show compassion towards all humans, regardless of their sexuality.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pmbitblt Says:
PLC. Happy to hear that!
Don’t get too smug or happy because you just read the “yes” part of my response. You and those like you who use the Bible as a weapon or a cage are an abomination to me. Jesus had a lot to say about religious people who do that – and it was not complimentary.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pmThe right is playing a game of whose oppression is or was greater in the hopes of dividing those who might find a common ground, mainly civil rights. The right has always been the enemy of progress, civil rights, and freedom, except for the wealthy and well-connected. It is no surprise that Huckabee wants to rile up his base in touting that Christians are persecuted in this country.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pmwhy is the rum gone Says:
The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is not a question of the intent, but when it was formed (specifically, was it formed at approximately the same time the crime was committed or some time prvious to the crime itself).
The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder IS intent. The moment intent was formed is often an issue — one second is enough time to form intent.
Similarly, while degrees of criminal assault may differ based upon specific intent, these classifications are based upon the amount of “damage” that the accused intended (intent to maim, intent to blind, intent to kill, etc.), and not the motive behind the the crime itself.
It’s possible to sentence someone taking into consideration the intent AND the amount of damage inflicted. It’s not an “all or nothing” deal.
If someone hates both Catholics and short people, and kills one of each based upon this hatred, should he be convicted of a separate crime for what is essentially the same offense? Going further, even if he kills for money, is this not the same offense as that committed by someone who hates?
Are you f ucking serious? If you kill two people — even if it’s for the same reason — you have committed two separate crimes. What the hell does killing for money have to do with it?
This is not to say that the motivation underlying a criminal act should not have a place in sentancing, which of course it should, but only to posit that a criminal offense should be based strictly upon the criminal act, and should not vary based upon the purceived motive behind the act.
Wow, you’re weird.
I would love to see some other views on this. My feelings are mixed on this, as I have little tolerance or compassion for people who hate.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
You might want to work on that compassion — and maybe add a dash of common sense.
Just sayin’…
December 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pmPeople like Huckabee make me glad I don’t consider myself a Christian. Too many wannabees who fail to practice what Jesus preached!
December 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pmThis guy compares isolated instances to widespread abuse. I think there’s a difference. There’s not some concentrated effort by gays to steal and stomp on crosses. There is a concentrated effort, however, to steal rights from gays and treat them poorly.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pmHi bit.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:21 pmIf you are still about I was wondering if we might revisit this whole conversion thing. A few gay related days ago you took the stand that a gay can be made straight but a straight could not be gay by “conversion therapy”. In light of this ralph the wonder llama asked as did I why then some folks have concerns about gay camp counselors adoptive parents and the like since clearly there is no way that any heterosexual could be made gay by them. You never got back to us on that. Might you now have the time? Also I was wondering if you might be able to point me toward any real peer reviewed research which suggests that conversion therapy works. I mean like published by credible sources tyoe stuff. Thanks
As you point out above, intent is not, in fact, the issue. The one second is the issue. The intent requirement is exactly the same for both 1st and 2nd degree murder. The dispositive issue is when that intent was formed.
I think you missed the point…. by just a little bit. We’re talking about two different examples of the same crime, but each receiving different treatment under the law. In my example, the killer of the short person would, naturally, be charged with murder. However, under a hate crimes statute, the person who killed the Catholic would be charged, not only with murder, but with the additional and separate offense of a hate crime.
The concern that many, both conservative and liberal, have with this is that is makes someone’s motivation a crime in and of itself, separate from the act of murder, assault, or whatever.
Hmmm… harsh… I guess.
Not sure where I am missing compassion or common sense. Since many of the points I was making above seem to have eluded you, maybe you should re-read it and get back to me.
Fundamentally, the question is, should the motive or intent (e.g. hate) be a separate chargable offense when a violent crime is committed? I think there are some good arguments that is should be, but you did not provide any.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
.
.
.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
You mean something like a person free soloing a mountain, and he slips and falls and immediately multiples his number of individual bones by about a 100. Of course, said person dies in the fall.
So was it the fall or was it mountain climbing that kill said person?
December 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pmBeing devoutly religious is without a doubt a choice. You have to not only choose but stretch the imagination to believe in religous teachings.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:58 pmIt was the fall
December 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pmDRxJ Says:
Ahhhh, but PLC, you didn’t address the question of believing in the Divinity of Christ, therefore your rather intelligent and honest post will go ignored by idjit.
Word of advice, idjit. If someone proclaims to be a Christian, he/she does not have to prove to you if he/she believes in the Divinity. What is understood need not be discussed.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Closet Christian?
bit’s not much interested in a Christian who’s not quick to discuss their faith.
What is understood need not be discussed.
What does this mean?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:26 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian recognizes an immutable truth: people who profess to be Christians die physically. Contrary to bitblt’s logic, however, PatrioticLiberalChristian does not believe that the chosen Christian lifestyle is the cause of their deaths.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pmcome on bit. Ralph and I really want to know. Might you also remind me of that study you used to always throw about. Didn’t it have something to do with young males identifying themselves as gay and contact with older gay males or something like that?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pmMany decades of Republicans deriding the role of government have come home to roost with the multitudes of mindlessly faithful Christianistas opining about areas of expertise upon which they can so faciley cast their ignorance par excellance, like mud cast upon the Mona Lisa. This Huckabee caricature of smug self-serving certitude has no clue as to the essential questions of criminality learned minds have labored over since the institution of this Great American Representitive Democracy. Have you ever heard of a scholar named Herbert Wechsler down there in Arkansas where lynching once had to be restrained by the “damned government”? Mens rea is an essential determination in finding whether an alleged perpetrator possessed a “guilty mind” when the criminal act was commited. Listen, you anti-social, anti-cultural hay seed: The state of mind of the accused has “everything” to do in determining at which level of guilt an accused is charged! Got it, you know-it-all who must have stopped thinking when you found out that droves of dopes liked you enough to elect you to a public trust! Having once shed many pounds of bodily fat, Huck darling, does not mean that you escaped being a fat head whose pontifications have no basis in research or reality. Please join a monastery and regain some Christian humility, acknowleging that your perception of the world is more narrow than that of Huey Long. Is that a name you know? Forgive me my typos, oh Lord!
December 4th, 2008 at 6:48 pmTHERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THROWING A CROSS,(THAT SOMEONE IS USING TO LITERALLY THRUST IN SOMEONE’S FACE), ON THE GROUND AND STOMPING ON IT, AND BEATING A PERSON FOR WHAT THEY ARE
BUT HUCKLEBUCK IS NOT THAT SMART
HE DOESN’T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE SO DNA IS A STRETCH FOR HIM
AND HE IS A HATER- NICER THAN SOME BUT A HATER
December 4th, 2008 at 7:45 pmbitblt Says:
bit’s not much interested in a Christian who’s not quick to discuss their faith.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thats OK Bitomoron. I am not much interested in hatefilled bigoted morons like YOU that wear their Christianity on their sleeves because there is NOTHING IN THEIR HEARTS. You are a disgusting pile of hate and stupidity
December 4th, 2008 at 8:36 pm______
jpopphan Says:
As if the only important thing that Jesus ever did was die. It makes me sick.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:40 am
______
Yeah, just a minor detail. Ridiculous! ;)
December 4th, 2008 at 11:38 pmWell after he dies he did get ressurected by a big bunny who for reasons unknown carries around lots of hard boiled eggs. That seems like more than just dying
December 5th, 2008 at 12:06 am.
Dear Governor Mike Huckabee,
What gays did Jesus bash?
.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:00 amT-Sirt
“I want to FCUK HUCK”
(But spelled correctly, I could not post it spelled correctly)
December 5th, 2008 at 8:21 amWow – lotta hate there. Perhaps you should be charged with a crime.
Is that what you learned in law school? Perhaps you should get a refund. Murder, as with most criminal law, is defined by statute, and varies from state to state. Many states, however, clearly define 2nd degree murder as a specific intent crime, but without any degree of planning. That is, the intent requirement is the same as for first degree murder, but without any plan to carry out the crime. Lesser degrees of homicide usually lack the specific intent requirement, and call for a lesser mental state (recklessness, negligence, carelessness, etc.) The one general exception to this is felony murder, which in many states many be proven merely by the commission of a felony that results in the death of another – but without any specific intent to kill. Again, these are all spelled out in the state code – there is no “second degree is any kind of murder other than the 1st degree.” Instead of responding with epithets and hyperbole, perhaps you should check your facts … and the law.
Your statement is a tautology. You cannot prove that I am wrong by merely stating that “Charging people separately for separate acts is perfectly standard and reasonable” merely by stating it as thus. What standard? What degree of reasonableness? I’m not saying I have the answer here, but I will say that I am aware of no historical precedence in the American or Western European criminal laws where the intent or motive (or mens rea for you legal scholars) could be prosecuted as a separate offense.
Finally, you accused me of “excusing those that commit crimes out of bigotry and hate.” I am doing no such thing, and to make such an accusation, I would argue, is intentionally dishonest. I think we should throw away the key for someone who kills another for their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, race, or whatever. At the same time, I think we should throw away the keys for someone who kills because he wants the victim’s tennis shoes.
Hey, I love a spirited debate as much as the next guy, but your prolific use of invectives and conclusory statements shows a certain lack of mental fortitude on your part. I would suggest that you would better prove your points with logic and reasoning, and leave the “gop-tards” at home. (By the way, truth be told I have only voted for the GOP once, about 28 years ago, and still regret that mistake.)
December 5th, 2008 at 9:13 amA response to this post that questions the wisdom of the immutability defense (”being gay is not a choice”) is here. Check it out if you’re interested.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:20 amJust to clarify a bit further, under the Federal Criminal Code, 18 USC 1111 (which several states follow), 2nd degree murder is defined as any murder other than 1st degree. However, the statute defines murder as a homicide with malice aforethought, i.e., the specific intent to kill. 1st degree is defined in terms of typical homicides that involve some measure of planning, e.g. “murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, etc.” 2nd degree murder is limited to crimes where killing is specifically intended, but where no substancial plan occured.
Other types of homicide without specific intent, “…INCLUDING INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER which is NO-INTENT and OF THE MOMENT PASSION killing…” are not classified as second degree murder (or murder of any other kind), but as Manslaughter under 18 USC 1112.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pmFor those of you who advocate hate crimes legislation:
QUESTION: What specific crime do you expect this legislation to penalize that has yet to be addressed by existing laws?
December 28th, 2008 at 6:58 pm