I’ve been waiting for this for a long time. James Dobson gives up.
I want to tell you up front that we’re not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.
There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can’t stop them.
We tried with [Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and sent thousands of phone calls and emails to the Senate and they didn’t pay any attention to it because they don’t have to. And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation… As I see it, there is no other answer. There’s no other answer, short term.
Oh, no…wait. They’re going to start praying? Don’t do that! When they’ve got the power of their almighty god behind them, they’ll be unstoppable! Please, conservapublitards, don’t do that. Don’t spend all your time on your knees, praying. That would give you such an unfair advantage! Play fair!
Pray. Give up. One in the same.
But they CAN pass a resolution to rename the Democrats!!!
Sic transit gloria mundi, as they say.
Yes, but before he tells them to pray, he says this:
So he knows that praying is “nothing.” What a shock!
Glen D
http://electricconsciousness.tripod.com
@ #2, I won’t mind calling democrats “socialists” if we can call republicans “fascists”.
Dobson, et. al. have also failed in New Hampshire. Gov Lynch will sign the bill allowing same-sex couples to legally marry so long as redundant language providing exemptions for anti-gay churches is included.
I know of something they could do that would help them:
Evolve.
If Dobson’s so busy telling other people to pray, then he’s not really contributing to the moronic prayer circle. What he needs to do is to lay prostrate on the ground, pour gasoline over himself, and allow one of his followers with a match to bestow a glowing aura around him. That’s what Jesus would have wanted. Seriously, I know because he told me. He said he was from El Salvador, and wanted me to purchase his bag of oranges, but that was just a holy sign.
Check out the pushable poll at the lower right of the article, too–though it’s somewhat inane.
Praying is not nothing. It’s better than nothing.
http://teabaggingforjesus.blogspot.com/
If prayer worked, why would he have ever told his followers to do anything other than pray to start with. It would be much easier to pray than write a letter or make a phone call.
For years I have counseled the deeply religious to pray intensely for long hours on their knees, beseeching the lord with their petitions. After all, they keep prating about the power of prayer. Go for it! (Better that than actually doing anything.)
They should spend more time praying. That’s less time bugging the shit out of other people.
Heh. Praying is worse than doing nothing, you think you’re doing something but you aren’t. Doing nothing is a step up from praying.
There’s no limit to what the left can do at this time? If only that were true… Of course, Dobson has one thing absolutely right: writing and calling your Senator seems to do nothing.
And then there’s this bit:
What’s remarkable about today’s broadcast is that Dobson plainly states that the only way for Christians to start winning again politically is for the GOP to regain power. He makes no effort to avoid coming across as a Republican activist.
They complain that the Senate doesn’t react to their letters and want to pray instead? Yeah right. We all know that God always answers every single prayer.
Why is prayer the last resort instead of the first one for these people? Better to gather donations before everybody falls to their knees?
Enjoy.
wow. that was easy
Congress has stopped listening to Daddy Dobson???
(looks outside) It’s Christmas already? Santa, you’re real? Oh this is the bestest Holiday special ever!
Seriously as a triple queer (trans, asexual, in a same gender relationship), there is no better taste than his impotent tears of frustration as he comes to terms both with his irrelevance and rapidly approaching mortality. Your legacy will be unfortunately famous, as was George Wallace’s.
At least with the phonecalls they were making a small contribution to freedom, bo overwhelming the sneakret service buggers.
BTW – Over on Dispatches there’s an interesting thread on the latest carrie prejean inanity, including the question; What lingerie would jesus wear?
Maybe Helioprogenus @18 can tell us.
I am entirely with Dobson on this one. I think it would be particularly effective for these conservative christians to sequester themselves on election days and devote themselves to 24 hours of uninterrupted prayer. Jebus couldn’t ignore devotion like that! Surely they’d be rewarded with elected representatives who will work tirelessly towards their dreamed of theocracy.
It doesn’t look like Mr. Dobson is getting much sympathy in the responses of the US News readers under the article. I thought US News was the most conservative of the big three US news mags. I guess if the neocons can redefine the Democrats, they can redefine conservative, too. Redefine them right out of the party.
They’ve got two ways to respond.
1. Lord why have you forsaken us? Have we not yet been callous enough to those who we believe are evil? We’ll try harder to be offensive.
2. Your refusal to answer our prayers is indicative of your belief that Kathleen is fine with you. We understand and will support her with all Godly enthusiasm.
Enjoy.
$string =~ s/bo/by/
$string =~ s/@18/@8/
Are they gonna use the Radio Shack thingy?
Maybe we can listen in via short-wave radio or send an alternate signal to confuse god by walkie talkie.
10-4, affirmative, over. What’s your 20 godtard?
oo there’s a poll on the sidelines of the article too! http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/14/james-dobsons-political-surrender.html
Ok, admittedly, I’m only an amateur student of evolution (read: hack, poser, dabbler, whatever), but the more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that we’re fighting a battle to rid the world of a scourge that, given time, evolution will deal with quite handily! Here’s an example of a meme that has mutated into a disadvantage. Confronted by an imminent threat, it directs the host to engage in behavior that is patently futile and at the same time, prevents it from mounting a productive response. What chance of survival does such an organism have in an increasingly intellect-driven environment? It will have many chances to respond to external threats and in a fair percentage of those instances, it will respond in an inappropriate and futile manner, further diminishing its chance of survival. We need only wait for the steady flow of evolution to carry the “adapters” into the future while the less adaptable drown in its wake.
Well, I’m pretty sure churches always told me something about giving up. Something about how you don’t do it if Gawd’s on your side?
Huh, I guess god has no problem with teh gehz getting married.
I’m afraid that’s not the true source of the evil in this story. Try looking on the north side of Colorado Springs.
Maybe he he were to actually focus on families (all of them, by the way) rather than trying to keep ruthless warmongers and war profiteers in power, he would be lass crabby.
@10
Actually, nothing is better than prayer.
Yeah…that’s worth some gloating. :) Maybe some diabolical laughter, even.
Dr. Evil!
Seriously?
Wow. I knew the blowback from Pharyngulating that National Day of Prayer poll would be delicious, but this is simply wonderful.
Dobson forgot to take his meds.
Why in the hell should the Dems pay attention to a humanoid toad like Dobson? Focus on Overthrowing the Government picked Palin as McCains running mate.
Dobson and the toads almost destroyed the USA and are in the process of turning the Theothuglican party into a lunatic fringe party in more ways than one.
What makes him think god is a republican anyway?
I don’t believe they are giving up. Like an oppurtunistic pathogen, they will always be sitting in the dark, waiting until they can strike again.
Ah, all those knee-mails going into the spam folder of nowhere.
The more time they spend on their knees, the more time for us to do as we please.
#28
Unfortunately, religion as a meme doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon. Regardless of whether or not its reactions are inappropriate, they still end up reproducing. It also tends to absorb scientific advances as gifts from god. Now, if they were internally consistent, your hypothesis might work, but it’s not. It appears that religion is simply a meme that evolves like any other. It’s followers are simply too capable at doublethink.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/14/james-dobsons-political-surrender.html#2928575
:)
Now is the time to taunt them so the numbers that pray rather than take actual action increase.
Say things like ‘Even if every right-wing Christian in the US prayed and did nothing else, such as voting, to stop the Democratic party, you would not stop us. Even if you all put your faith in your god rather than contributing to political campaigns, you would not stop us.’
More Christians convinced prayer is the best method of achieveing success means fewer doing anything that actually works.
Ok, I went to the article to find out what, specifically, was causing this poor man to wail, rend his garments, and gnash his teeth. As far as I can tell, it’s because
1.) a current hate crime law which now gives added additional penalties to people who are assaulted based on their race, color, religion or national origin is going to be amended to include violent acts based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability.
2.) a federal health insurance program for children has been expanded.
3.) a bill was passed to reverse a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in order to make it easier to sue for discrimination in the workplace.
Well. No wonder.
Will this nightmare never end? How long, O Lord, how long?
There, there Sastra. All of these protections for uppity homosexuals, coloureds, Muslims, and children are enough to give anybody the vapours.
Is it just me or is it incredibly sad and ironic that Dobson is so upset by lawmakers passing laws to help people… you know that thing he should be doing as a Christian and yet abuses the name of his Messiah to be a hateful, pompous pundit hiding behind false piety?
Its about freaking time its covered.
http://twoandahater.blogspot.com/
Anything?
Cool!
Let’s see. I want a million- dollar book contract for my atheist book… and a six- month free vacation in Tuscany and Provence… and the knees I had when I was 25… and well- attended lesbian sex clubs in every major U.S. city… and chocolate fountains on every street corner…
Oh, yeah — and a pony. At the lesbian sex club, in the chocolate fountain. (Actually… scratch that. That sounds gross. Never mind.)
I’m waiting…
And in the meantime… you know what? I’d settle for the prosecution of people in the Bush administration who authorized or perpetrated torture… and an immediate end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell… and the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act… and for global warming to be the Number One priority of every government on the planet, including ours…
Weird. I’m not getting those, either. Could James Dobson be mistaken?
The hate crime bill would give people extra time in jail for assaulting or killing gays. Since the Bible specifically requires that gays be stoned to death, it’s no wonder Dobson is annoyed and frustrated. This law is going in entirely the wrong direction.
Are you kidding? The place would fill up with televangelists and other flaming fundamentalists. You’d make a fortune.
Nothing else they can do?
How about offering us some reality-based policy alternatives that work for everyone, not just monied straight white Christian patriarchs? Now there‘s something they could do.
Not that I’ll be holding my breath.
“I’ve been on the air for 32 years and I’ve never seen a time quite like this.”
So, I may misunderstand this – but in 32 years the worst thing thats happened in his opinion is that beating up homosexuals is now a Federal crime? Really? …Really?
No resignation over recent wars, endorsement of torture by the previous administration, ect, ect. ?
Yaaaaaay!
The agony of defeat. Suck it Dobson!
Oh, yeah — and a pony. At the lesbian sex club, in the chocolate fountain. (Actually… scratch that. That sounds gross. Never mind.)
That depends, is the pony magical and wingèd? Are its wings quantum?
This calls for the big guns. So, I’m gonna sit here and actively wish them all away. Gotta fight fire with fire.
Of course, after his 4 or 8 years are up, I’m sure it’ll be all their prayers that prevented the world from imploding. All the credit to god, all the blame to humanity.
Hallelujah!
Sastra, you’re not falling under Rev. BDC’s influence, are you?
Oh, I’ll have to disagree PZ. I’d say if praying makes them shut the hell up and leave people alone, that’s fine by me. If they spend so much time praying that they forget to eat and starve to death that’s even better.
So he has given up and starts praying.
When he realizes that is useless too, maybe he will end his own life so he can get to his ‘reward’ sooner.
I will cheer him on.
Wrong term- Dobson doesn’t “give up”.
He goes into remission.
When he realizes that is useless too, maybe he will end his own life so he can get to his ‘reward’ sooner.
I will cheer him on.
Please don’t. Shinto and other ritualists aside, most religious people aren’t content to do this quietly and alone, and they like to send a few innocent folk in the opposite direction.
That made me smile. :)
Gloat? Nay, sirrah, I shall not gloat, not until this vexing, goat-bothering he-strumpet is caught in flagrante delicto with two highly embarrassed sheep and a dead girl. I shall not gloat until the last of his mewling pack of muddy-mettled applejohns flees back to the Stygian depths from whence they sallied forth. When his last contribution is as naught but a pitiful footnote in some history yet to be written, then and only then shall I gloat.
I shall instead indulge in a brief moment of schadenfreude, for this is among the most impotent bleats of outrage from the likes of this old fool in some time.
The MadPanda, FCD
Democrat socialists? How about “Repiglicans”.
Am I the only one who is opposed to ALL hate crime legislation? It’s redundant. ALL crimes are hate crimes.
Onward, zealot prayer sayers! Start talking to yourselves!
Seriously, I had thought of “doctor” Dobson as anything but funny.
BooHooHoo Dobson!
Go take a cold shower–without your kid!
JohnnieCanuck #55 wrote:
Yes, I not only gave an added additional word, but additionally managed to add penalty to the victim, as I fell helplessly under the spell of the KOT. Plus, I think I was shaken by the force of Dobson’s distressful distress.
Oh, the HUGE MANATEE! (And now I’m forever in Owlmirror’s debt for that phrase.)
“Is it just me or is it incredibly sad and ironic that Dobson is so upset by lawmakers passing laws to help people”
Yeah. After eight years of fear and warmongering and a horribly corrupt government, suddenly all the Republicans are getting in a froth over the new president’s attempts to expand healthcare. And it’s like they have no desire anymore to hide how hateful and spiteful and mean they are. So I say by all means, carry on.
And to paraphrase Sean Connery, “Shuck it, Dobson. Shuck it long and shuck it hard.”
Dobson, you dick weed. Jebus did answer your prayers. HE SAID NO! Not only that, he said HELL, NO!
Now, I’ve never been a fan of “hate crime” legislation. Not because I think people should have the right to attack others due to hate; of course that’s not acceptable. But I’ve never been a fan of these laws because an assault is an assault, and assigning relatively more or relatively less horror to an assault based on the perpetrator’s personal motivations strikes me as weird. It’s a horrible crime no matter what the reasons behind it, and a person who is assaulted for non-hate-crime reasons is still a victim, no less than one who is assaulted for hate-crime reasons.
But that’s not why Dobson dislikes hate-crime legislation. He is freaking out like a little crybaby because he’s lost his last legal twig to stand on to back up his disgusting hatred of homosexuals. It’s his right to express his hate (in non-violent ways) all he wants; but now the government has said that it’s just as terrible to beat somebody up for being gay as for being Christian, and OH DEAR GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN US, NOW THE EVIL GAYZ HAVE THE SAME LEGAL PROTECTION AS THE REST OF US!
Dobson is a douchebag and he deserves this public humiliation, and I hope he realizes what a hopeless waste of toilet paper he is on his deathbed, at the same time he realizes that there is no God and his life has been an awful farce.
Dan Pinto #63
Apology if you already know this, but, in addition to the local police, the Feds can investigate and prosecute. Think of a town of 500 and some of the Good Old Boys who are cousins to everyone else in town kill a black man who was driving through town and caused a fender bender. Said town would draw back into it’s shell and do nothing. Maybe because the cost to the local law enforcers would be too great. Money and Grief.
The Feds could, maybe, bring the GOBs to justice.
Dan Pinto, is that a Mexican name? Could be you next time.
Big Up The MadPanda FCD!
Was that done with Insult Generator in Shakespeare mode?
Also BigUp Sastra, Queen of Typos!
Re: “All crimes are hate crimes.”
Good point. Theres a case that crimes commited in cold blood ought to be punished more (enron, AIG), even that ‘passion’ is a mitigating factor.
I’m more of the view that the more victims hurt, the more severe the penalty. Anti minority crimes don’t just hurt the immediate victim, but intimidate the whole group.
Democratic Party would do well to consider being referred to as democratic socialists as no disgrace. Check out how the ds group of parties get on in european politics.
Just don’t call them liberal democrats.
The Republicans have just as great a persecution complex as the xtian wingnuts,I guess the 2 sets overlap somewhat.
They have held absolute power for 8 years,and he can still write something like this:
Unbelievable.
Thanks, Eddie.
Yes, the initial Elizabethan epithet was generated thusly. The rest was more or less just me. :)
The MadPanda, FCD
*does shameless victory dance*
wohoo!!! free beer and bacon for everyone!!!
——
on a more serious note though, I agree with those who said that this is just an interlude. They’re like a cancer: they go into remission, only to come back with a vengeance later.
You can has intertubes meme lulz!
Fair enough…
If there is an onus on the state to prove that the crime in question was, with malice aforethought, intended to intimidate the whole group.
That is to say, if Bubba beats up a dark-skinned person, it’s not enough to say that Bubba doesn’t like dark people. The onus should be to prove that at that time, in that situation, Bubba attacked the dark-skinned person expressly for the purpose of sending a message to all dark-skinned people.
If that test can be passed, then it might just be reasonable to give Bubba a little extra time as a guest of the state.
If a lower burden of proof is going to be used (Bubba doesn’t like dark people) then it better be applied both ways – when the white guy gets shot in the darker parts of DC, people better be screaming “hate crime”.
Libbie,
“But I’ve never been a fan of these laws because an assault is an assault, and assigning relatively more or relatively less horror to an assault based on the perpetrator’s personal motivations strikes me as weird.”
I’m pretty sure these laws aren’t the first ones to create distinctive crimes based on the state of mind of the guilty party.
Then you think that there should be no distinction between manslaughter and 1st degree murder? Really?
Pray your asses off that you do, indeed, Evolve into something capable of reasoning, listening to facts, avoiding hateful rhetoric and outdated mantras….. and please, please, please, vote for the candidate who will look to the future instead of refusing to accept the past.
And so what you can do is talk to yourself, talk to yourself for this great nation.
so many emails, so little content.
maybe I’M a conserve o’ republicatard! Ooh… death where is thy sting?
but I’m not, I’m a conservative atheist, you know, we exist. Not a fan of the Xtian right.
and you liberldemotards are hilarious tripping over yourselves to respond to pz
comment please
paul fcd wrote:
On what? You wrote nothing of substance. You can’t even tell the difference between a blog-post and an email; why should anyone bother to engage you*?
*Yes, I’m aware of the irony implicit in engaging with someone to tell them they haven’t presented anything worth engaging with. So it goes.
Paul FCD asked for comments. OK.
Your “post” (not email) was content free. I fail to see what other comment can be made. When you have something to say, I suggest you create a post and remember to use a dictionary and a book of grammar – since your spelling is atrocious and your grammar is worse.
Made you look like a moron. Just sayin’
Re: “James Dobson gives up.”
Party time! Excellent!
Off topic:
If you already use Greasemonkey for killfile, you might want to see how this works for you.
Create a file called:
with the following content:
And add it to Greasemonkey.
So far, I’m liking what I see, although, as with any Greasemonkey script, it’s kinda slow.
Dobson is still bitter over the failure of his efforts to to maximize the risk of cervical cancer in sexually active women.
Re: “wohoo!!! free beer and bacon for everyone!!!”
Bacon can and will solve the world’s problems!
http://gizmodo.com/5254616/bacon-lube-only-works-on-vibrating-gadgets-body-parts
@ #61 The Mad Panda,
Thanks…if I needed a proof of my keyboards resistance to moisture via jets of nasal coffee, I don’t anymore…..
I love how he NEVER even considers that maybe there were thousands of people calling in to support Katherine Sebelius. Nope, they were just flat out ignored by the eeeeefil libruls.
“I love how he NEVER even considers that maybe there were thousands of people calling in to support Katherine Sebelius. Nope, they were just flat out ignored by the eeeeefil libruls.”
Never considered those calling and supporting Sebelius? They haven’t yet considered that their fellow citizens voted Obama into office by 10 million more votes, including states McCain was supposed to walk away with. They still think THAT’s an international – or at least highly subversive home-grown – “socialist” baby-eating satanic plot to destroy the USA. It’s no surprise at all they didn’t consider that people actually think differently and that Sebelius is qualified.
They aren’t in the business of considering positions they don’t have on their official talking points card. It’s just easier to log everything in the Satanic cosmological cataclysmic armageddon recipe column. In which case one has to wonder why they even care, if their afterlife is supposedly so great and salvational.
Praying is inane, plain and simple. IMHO, the logic of praying conforms to the usual christian cherrypicking of instances in which their principles/beliefs apply and in which they do not apply: God as a perfect being supposedly knows what is best for you, so you might as well drudge on and trust in him. Does your prayer influence the will of god in your favor? Strange idea that an all-benevolent god demands you to grovel in order to do something he already had in mind. Besides, can god act through people (thus bypassing their alleged free will, necessary basis for christian ethics), or only through environmental causes/miracles? And is he knowledgeable of these mysterious workings’ effect on human minds (again questioning the concept of free will)? But that’s off topic.
Regarding the will of god, how can there technically be a difference of you praying for something to happen, or working for something to happen? There is no reason for a superstitious individual to resort to prayer, or not to resort to prayer, “his will be done”. For further demonstration:
1. You pray, your prayer is not answered – it is god’s will for something bad to happen/something good not to happen.
2. You pray, your prayer is answered – it is god’s will for something good to happen/something bad not to happen.
3. You do something and fail/something bad happens to you without praying – it is god’s will for something bad to happen/something good not to happen.
4. You do something and succeed/something good happens to you without praying – it is god’s will for something good to happen/something bad not to happen.
Cases 1 and 3, and 2 and 4, respectively, are identical. Only case 2 might be particularly remembered…
Yes, one wonders where they draw the line between resignation to god’s will and self-efficacy (probably adopting whatever rational justification for their behavior is most convenient). Fits well in the incoherent mumbling I just posted concerning prayer.
“I love how he NEVER even considers that maybe there were thousands of people calling in to support Katherine Sebelius. Nope, they were just flat out ignored by the eeeeefil libruls.”
Never considered those calling and supporting Sebelius? They haven’t yet considered that their fellow citizens voted Obama into office by 10 million more votes, including states McCain was supposed to walk away with. They still think THAT’s an international – or at least highly subversive home-grown – “socialist” baby-eating satanic plot to destroy the USA. It’s no surprise at all they didn’t consider that people actually think differently and that Sebelius is qualified.
They aren’t in the business of considering positions they don’t have on their official talking points card. It’s just easier to log everything in the Satanic cosmological cataclysmic armageddon recipe column. In which case one has to wonder why they even care, if their afterlife is supposedly so great and salvational.
Never considered those calling and supporting Sebelius? They haven’t yet considered that their fellow citizens voted Obama into office by 10 million more votes, including states McCain was supposed to walk away with. They still think THAT’s an international – or at least highly subversive home-grown – “socialist” baby-eating satanic plot to destroy the USA. It’s no surprise at all they didn’t consider that people actually think differently and that Sebelius is qualified.
Wonder what this re-posting of BlueIndependent’s #91 is all about…
Spam. Turkish spam. I would not advise following the link offered.
Isn’t prayer basically witchcraft?
1. There’s the ritual. Hands together, eyes closed, possibly on your knees. Possibly cross yourself when you’ve finished.
2. There’s an incantation. “Dear Lord Please … etc.
3. There’s the expectation that reality will be somehow altered.
Surely these people should be tying themselves to lamp posts and setting themselves on fire.
@Sleeper (#98), I actually think it’s “theologically” sound to say prayer is not witchcraft. After all, the author of effect is god (who is being asked to do it), not the praying person.
On second thought, some might argue that to call upon forces in order to really alter reality makes one in league with Satan. Surely some or other lunatic will reject prayer on this ground (and not on the obvious, that no matter how you rationalize it, it is ineffectual magical thinking).
Is this hate crime bill such an anathema to Dobson…?
I mean is gives a wider range of protection under the law to potential victims I would imagine…folks that before were laughed out of the cop shop or ignored on the beat…
Is it because xians are not special little sunbeams… well not no more?…no special privileges bestowed because they have a toddlers belief in mythology and an aversion to rationality.
Or is it more a practical aversion to social rights?
Like them ‘gud ‘ole ‘boys might now have to think twice before tying one of them uppity coloureds to the bumper for a little xian fun and games?
And good Christian folk cannot discriminate not no more cos it might be an interpretation in the bible but it is not so interpreted under the law?
Are they that shallow?…or just that insane?
They really do not like being one of the crowd do they…?
@Gorogh (#100) Ooh good point. Makes you wonder why using Ouija boards is so discouraged whilst prayer is not.
If the danger is supposed to be that you don’t know what force you might invoke (well apart from ideomotor ones), why is prayer so casually undertaken. They even let children do it. Who knows what dark forces they might encounter if they don’t do it right?
Damn it, having to rely on written communication alone – paranoid as I am I detected some probability of sarcasm in your post, Sleeper (#102)… to make this abundantly clear, I am not arguing for myself but just playing advocatus diaboli, assuming what opinion those in a contrary position to ours might adopt. I am not considering it to be true (for I am an atheist and believe that faith belongs in childhood or, at best, somewhere it cannot hurt anyone), just stating it might actually be internally consistent. Logically, my #100-argument is along the No True Scotsman-line.
That said, I agree with you.
@strangebrew (#101),
is presumably correct. While this is rather lay psychology – and certainly not entirely accurate, historically and otherwise -, christians (religions as a whole?) might be experiencing a long fall towards irrelevance at least in some realms, and it must hurt. To have one’s deity reduced to a god of the gaps and to forfeit much influence in traditionally strong christian realms, e.g. ethics (with such topics as abortion, “family values”, rights of homosexuals, stem cell research) or education, must hurt.
Gut so.
Fuck! I actually agree with James Dobson.
I am really peeved that the hate crimes legislation is advancing. Not that I’d like to get my ass beat for being queer. But I have a problem with protecting minorities by increasing funding to the prison-industrial complex that subjects the same minorities to even more profound discrimination than they experience in the rest of society.
And the argument that hate crimes laws are a deterrent is as valid as the death penalty being a deterrent. If they really want to help LGBT people, pass legislation that protects us when we enter the justice system whose only current ‘protection’ against nearly universal rape and violence because of our identity is administrative segregation (aka: solitary confinement.)
“In a prison environment where sexual violence is generally rampant and homophobia is a given, it is well known that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender places a prisoner at heightened risk of torture, sexual assault, and rape. This is also true for LGBT youth in juvenile correctional facilities. Transgender youth and adults are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse, harassment, and forced nudity in correctional facilities.” http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_pr_prison_release_081905
goddammit.
VenomFangX is back… sort of. He says he “doesn’t expect to come back” because of the imminent danger of a bunch of Muslims (yeah I know, you all can stop laughing now).
http://www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX
Oh gross.
Glad to know he does not claim to be the next Jebus. After all, it took him more than three days to resurrect, even though his homepage still has the same three-day-notification.
Of course, being continually humiliated by Thunderf00t (and rightly so) might have poisened his ambition to continue his youtube-existence. He still has godtube left.
Don’t knock the praying!
At least in the time that takes they don’t get any other shit done affecting the rest of us.
Just imagine if they spent say 8 hours a day praying, 6 hours a day reading their inane book, 2 hours eating, and 8 hours sleeping, then all the problems with that variety of stoopid would be solved.
And they don’t need sex, because said inane book fucks their head.
And they can stay indoors, because coming outside they might meet someone who’ll lead them down the sinful path, or they might see that there is a REAL world out there as well.
“Please, conservapublitards, don’t do that. Don’t spend all your time on your knees, praying.”
Please don’t throw me in the briar patch?
Oh, and: a hate crime is small scale terrorism.
The entire American prison system (and many other aspects of American attitudes towards and treatment of crime & criminals) is a shocking, almost unbelievable horror from a European point of view. A prison inmate transported from an American to a Norwegian prison would think he’d died and gone to summer camp. And I really don’t think it’s because all “our” criminals are naturally well-mannered.
@Gorogh (#103) No, no I really meant that, that was a good point. (Where’s the ‘I’m being serious’ emoticon FSMdammit?).
I got that you were playing devil’s advocate. You’re right of course that theologiaclly because they’re pettioning God rather than say, any of the Loa, trying to influence the course of events is fine and dandy.
When Pharaoh’s magicans turn sticks into snakes that’s an abomination. When Moses does it, coz it Jehova power, that’s alright then.
@Sleeper (#110), glad we agree. Actually, one of the reasons I usually endorse the use of emoticons, written communication simply does have its shortcomings.
Yeah, read that just recently. What a remarkably idiotic chapter, “go and ask Pharao to let your people go… but I will harden his heart so he will not believe you anyway, so I can make him believe”. What a striking example of non-omnipotence that chapter is.
What makes him think god is a republican anyway? -raven
Oh , I think he’s on firm ground there. To judge by the Bible, God is a violent, bigoted, megalomaniac, pathologically jealous, psychopathic sadist.
who the hell is james dobson
why should I care
He’s a controversial religious-right activist, evangelical pastor and leader of the group “Focus on the Family.” All this information can be easily elicited from his Wikipedia article.
Maybe you shouldn’t.
And maybe you shouldn’t.
Prayer could be an effective means of sitting back and rethinking one’s priorities. The main criticism against the Christian right in recent decades is their extreme rhetoric. Maybe this could be a chance for them to step back from politics and demonstrate for the country that they are not the only one’s engaging in extreme rhetoric. For example, unlike Helioprogenus, members of the Christian right do not make a habit of suggesting that their opponents light themselves on fire with gasoline.
#105
“And the argument that hate crimes laws are a deterrent is as valid as the death penalty being a deterrent.”
But ..and I might be off beam here…it now opens the door for those crimes to be persecuted wherever they may arise…
Before nothing was much done legally because it apparently beating a gay or a coloured victim was not specifically on the books.
Any half competent defence lawyer found the gaps…(tis what they do)..in the legislation…and presumably managed to down grade a homophobic or racist attack to a minor common assault…probably one reason why few such assaults were reported… is now firmly under the hate law umbrella!
Now tis a serious crime under the law…a damned good reason for the police…or indeed society…to not be able to ignore it now as accidental high spirits!
No, but they do claim that God will light their opponents on fire forever and that this is a good thing. Also, when they say this it is not meant as hyperbole (as Helioprogenus’ comment almost certainly was) but with utmost sincerity. Your concern is, however, noted.
Looks like I’m in the minority here, but hate crime legislation really pisses me off too.
Giving special privileges under law to anyone fosters jealousy and resentment in those without said privileges. It deepens existing divides by making those divisions law – no matter what the sentiment behind it.
I’m in the UK, so I can’t speak from experience in terms of righting the wrongs dating back to slavery, but my experience of these kinds of laws is that they won’t make the slightest difference to how good public servants act.
But for the racist thugs still in the police who should never have been given a uniform, they will be yet another reason to be suspicious of said minorities. By enacting hate crime legislation, you are validating their stupid ideas that these people get special treatment.
Show me a love crime and I might start to understand what a hate crime is.
If not, then what the hell is wrong with treating everyone the same and making damn sure that’s adhered to?
And isn’t looking at the individual crime and what led to it, then using discretion to increase/decrease sentence exactly what we have judges for?
(Not too hot on US systems here – is it your judges or juries who set sentences?)
You’re comparing one post by one person to the habits of an entire demographic? That’s not a very convincing argument.
If you browse wingnut sites, you’ll find plenty of paranoid, hateful, and violent rhetoric aimed at liberals and non-believers.
#102 & #104–two good points which should be emphasized.
1. If prayer were efficacious, the world would look very
different not because of the well-intentioned prayers of
good people, but because of the spiteful & malicious
prayers of children who don’t yet know any better & of
sociopaths who will never know any better;
2. A religious worldview, as I interpret it, requires
everyone to acknowledge god somehow; they can’t
accept the notion of a true atheism which simply admits
of no such entity.
Helioprogenus is one anonymous commenter on a blog. Do you mean to tell me that with all the whackos that fall under the Christian Right umbrella, including such groups as Joel’s Army and the Christian Identity movement, you could not find one single individual expressing similar or worse wishes on the Internet? I think some of the examples of hate mail PZ receives refute this idea quite neatly.
I do not approve of such nasty sentiments either, but you would have to be seriously delusional to pretend the Christian Right is any better.
“Then you think that there should be no distinction between manslaughter and 1st degree murder? Really?”
No, let me clarify: I think it’s stupid to make the same crime worse because a person hates you. I think hate, as dumb as it is, is a right. It is basically just an expression of free thought (hating, that is; not violence.)
To say that it’s somehow WORSE to beat a person or kill a person because you hate them as opposed to, say, because you wanted to take their money or because they were cheating on you lessens the atrocity of murdering or beating for other premeditated reasons. And it makes the clear implication that it should be illegal to have your own opinions of others, even when those opinions are disgusting and brutish.
Let me further clarify my position: Why call anything a “hate” crime at all? A crime is a crime.
Amen to that Libbie. A similar problem in the UK comes with “victim impact statements” from families of murdered people, etc.
These just seem to make it a worse crime to kill someone people liked than one who wasn’t quite as popular, or indeed, not in contact with their family. A deplorable system, which to me goes against the spirit of the rule of law.
-Please don’t use derivatives of the term “retarted” (“conservapublitards”) as derogatory. It took women and gays decades to raise our consciousness about language. Let’s not jump out of those holes and straight into another.
#118
“I can’t speak from experience in terms of righting the wrongs dating back to slavery”
Probably because the wailing, gnashing of toothypegs…and self debasement via the beating of the contritional chest..is not a high trait amongst the Brits…
Still..the slave trade in Blighty enabled the infrastructure of Liverpool to flourish as well as London and paid almost entirely for the the port of Bristol…In fact British merchants became the bankers of the slave trade.
Barclays Bank & Lloyds Bank were up to their armpits in it…or at least were the beneficiaries that bought into the historical banking system from then…even the Bank of England were holding the tab for the trade.
Maybe the Brits were not so aloof from that time as they like to pretend.
I do agree that such laws probably will manage doodly squat…but to leave the system as it was with that legal whole only encouraged the nonsense…and literally left victims with no redress…unless they were willing to stand in court and hear the defendant walk cos it was just common assault…no biggy!
Of course on the other hand it does allow certain minorities an opportunity for mischievous use of the law to bolster an agenda political or personal…but the alternative is to allow other folks to be abused probably to the same degree of injury sustained by a Christian victim if not worse…but unlike the xian would receive nowhere near the same recourse to justice!
Methinks somewhere summat is not quite right in that!
The Christian Hate groups are far worse than a stupid joke on an internet forum (it was stupid). They occasionally kill people, burn down and bomb family planning clinics, and foster an environment where death threats and beatings are common. Between 1 and 2 family planning clinics are burned a month in the USA.
There wouldn’t be such a need for federal hate crime legislation if not for the Xian Right. I can see why Dobson is upset. He is a man of strong and numerous hates. It is going to make it just a little bit harder for him and his hate group to operate. But not much, they can still hate, they just can’t beat up and kill the people they hate anymore without risking federal penalties.
Maybe Xian Hate groups like Dobson’s should think a little bit about why those two words sum up their organizations and how appealing that is to the normal xians and normal people in the USA.
FWIW, during a cofrontation once. a leader of Dobson’s orgs. asked a gay activists, “What are you people going to do when we win?” A bit chilling as a threat. We all know religious fanatics are capable of astounding evil. Forced deportations, concentration camps, mass murder or what. In Iran, gays are occasionally hung.
Libbie @ #122: I agree. We’re flirting with Thoughtcrime here.
This argument doesn’t follow. You’re conflating motive and intent. Don’t do that.
Let’s say that you and I are having an argument, and you push me because you’re angry. Your intent is to push me away; your motive is that you’re angry about our disagreement. Normally, something like this might damage our friendship, but it otherwise no big deal even if, technically, the push is a form of battery. If I stumble and fall backwards, hit my head on the pavement and die from the head injury, it’s the intent – not the motive – that makes it manslaughter and not murder one.
Neither the motive nor the intent change according to the outcome of the event – a wounded friendship versus a death – but, in the latter case, the severity of the criminal charge is based on an evaluation of the intent, not the motive.
IANAL, but I believe this point is valid.
The thing to remember before you pee us all off.. there are a lot of atheist conservatives out here. Why would you want to alienate us? Gay mariage has nothing to do with the Constitution and neither does abortion. These are the godpeople and their influence over the party.
Conservative ideals are less government and more personal responsibility.. With less government there is less government intrusion. Conservative is the way to think.
I’m reminded of one of my favorite lines from HBO’s Deadwood, “Pray on, you moron, for all the harm you’ll do.”
Let ’em pray pray pray … and stay out of political activism. Sounds great to me!
Chris Chandler – thanks. I was going to say something, too.
I think it’s stupid to make the same crime worse because a person hates you.
That’s not what “hate crime” means. In many ways that was a very unfortunate name, since that’s the connotation people take from it. A hate crime is one in which the actual target of the crime is being used to send a message to other members of their group. Small-scale terrorism is a better descriptor. Person kills a gay person because he hates the gay person – not a hate crime. Person kills a gay person because the person is gay and he wants everyone else to know what gays should expect – hate crime.
‘those attacks based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.’
No mistake or arbitrary wording there…this is a law aimed at extending the present legislation to cover gay bashing primarily.
I am not sure about the statistics for the number of assaults or discrimination against those with mental or physical disability…but law of averages predict it does occur some time or some place…but this is about human dignity of Homosexuals…mainly men …I presume!
I cannot see the reason why any assault and discrimination should be tolerated against anyone including gays….it seems obvious that under the old protocol it was!
Methinks it is not the end of civilisation as we know it…but maybe for some it could be the beginning of same!
Ok strangebrew @126 – I take your point. I wondered about highlighting the Brits’ involvement in slavery (I did study it at length at college), but we don’t have the same legacy of it here in terms of the deep racial segregation that survives till today.
However we do seem to be labelling everything we can “hate” crimes now – even down to a new bit of the latest raft of legislation making it a hate crime to attack someone because of what they are wearing, coming directly from a local 20-year-old who was brutally attacked and murdered because of her “goth” dress.
It all makes me deeply uncomfortable – either someone is a victim of crime for the criminal’s personal gain, or because the criminal hates them. Surely this is self-evident, whoever the victim.
Gay mariage has nothing to do with the Constitution
The 14th Amendment would seem to disagree with you on that point.
“Isn’t prayer basically witchcraft?”
I need that on a T-shirt.
“Conservative ideals are less government and more personal responsibility.. ”
Hahaha! I love starting my day with a good laugh. Thanks!
Why is it that those objecting to the idea of “hate crime” seem unable to read any of the posts pointing out what the term actually means?
That much I agree with.
Unfortunately, however, self-proclaimed American “conservatives” in the last eight years have singularly failed to deliver smaller and less intrusive government.
From Pete @129:
That is the kind of thinking that got the US, and therefore the world, into the current financial mess we are in. This is directly caused by taking away regulations and the greedy opportunists swept in to make quick money, leaving a mess for everyone else.
Conservative is not the way to think. Progressive humanism is a far better way to think and live.
Ok, good point, Carlie. This brings motive into the picture.
How do we determine which motive applies in which case?
Are we really talking about two different crimes? The murder against the individual, and the terrorism against the group?
Your language betrays your bias, which is rooted in the assumption that all government “intrusion” is uniformly detrimental to a society and its members.
“Maybe the Brits were not so aloof from that time as they like to pretend.” – strangebrew
Which Brits is that, then? I am British, and very well aware of the role slavery and the slave trade played in funding British economic growth – without them, probably, there would have been no industrial revolution – at least, not when and where it happened – since cheap slave-grown cotton was what enabled the British cloth trade to take off in the 18th century – with a bit of help from tariffs against Indian imports. There are museums of the slave trade in Bristol and Liverpool, and exhibits about the issue in many other museums; the topic is taught in British history at school; and somewhat absurdly, Tony Blair apologised for it while PM.
#133
“It all makes me deeply uncomfortable – either someone is a victim of crime for the criminal’s personal gain, or because the criminal hates them. Surely this is self-evident, whoever the victim.”
Yep I take that point…it is becoming a tad over the top…
I think this might be the legacy of clever and devious translation of the law as practised by certain attorneys/lawyers…that use the law…or rather the gaps between the law….against the actual spirit of the law!
And that is the real problem…the spirit of the law is secondary to the actual literal interpretation…that’s when it runs into trouble!
Law is a evolving beast…as you are probably aware…case law and precedent is added to year on year…to tighten or close the suspected and apparent holes there on the books.
That murder you mentioned of the ‘Goth’ girl was a sickening example of teenagers being judgemental drunk ignorant and violent…
It happens all to often…My daughter is a teenage ‘Gothic princess’…and she has reported several times of harassment and loud comments from groups of brain dead youths cruising the bus stations and streets…one night she had to hide while I had to pick her up in the car cos she could not get to the bus stop for these retards…and I live in Holland…it is unbelievable…makes me very nervous indeed.
I am not sure that it is a hate crime though…more like a fear of different..the most obvious factor being dress…one does wonder at education at home and school these days!
The thing to remember before you pee us all off.. there are a lot of atheist conservatives out here. – Pete
Pete, we’re well aware you can be an atheist and an idiot and/or selfish scumbag.
How do we determine which motive applies in which case?
That’s what the trial is for. Messy, but like has been mentioned before, it’s the same thing that’s done to determine first-degree murder, second-degree murder, etc.
“Are we really talking about two different crimes? The murder against the individual, and the terrorism against the group?”
It seems to me that killing one person for a reason specific to that person and killing one person for a reason generalized to an entire group of people are two different crimes.
If person A kills person B in an argument and person B was also gay, that’s homicide. If person A kills person B because person was gay and gays need to be forced back into the closet or die, that is, as Carlie said, small-scale terrorism.
This isn’t “special protections” or other such nonsense, it’s a recognition that the motivations and results aren’t the same. Hate is a “right”, as it were. No one’s said otherwise. Terrorizing an entire group based on that hate is of course not.
# 142
“Which Brits is that, then?”
well Knockgoats as you point out the Industrial revolution was based fairly firmly on the financial rewards that were accrued during that time…
But I refer to the establishment as is…
The aristocracy for a start…they might offer the cold hard fact that they enjoy the position or title they do now through accident of birth many years…centuries even… after the fact of their families wealth being established..or added to from slave trade profit.
That is fair enough…they cannot be blamed individually for the sins of the ‘father’…sort of thing…
But I have heard few lament that time…after all why should they?…but the several I have heard offer the catechism…”It was another time and another place where morals were not as prevalent as now”
That is the offering…not much else.
The Church…now there is a black kettle of stinky fish…an institution that controlled the majority of the use and the ownership of slavery in Blighty…even condoning it by quoting bible scripture to paper over the hell they condoned.
The banking system…enough said…not many banks missed the gravy train on that one…
In fact most every institution operating now was financed at some level or other…directly or indirectly through the trade…
But not many either openly admit it or even talk about it as a legacy…nope just not done old chap!
Blair’s apology…might affectively be total nonsense…but recognition of culpability of the British parliamentary process was overdue…but it was not a significant advance I will grant you.
Compared to America there is not quite the same tensions flooding the streets or the government…there is no significant North South divide on the matter….and although racism is apparent at times…it is not usually expressed as violence and hatred…although these days it could be said that the focus of racism has shifted quite remarkably from Africa to Pakistan origins…a tension that has always been there but now magnified by Muslim sensitivity…
Anyway those are my thoughts for what they are!
strangebrew@147,
Yes I don’t dissent from any of that, except the penultimate sentence – anti-Pakistani racism doesn’t depend on Muslim sensitivity. I was (perhaps over-sensitively) objecting to being classed with such scum as aristocrats, bankers and the Church!
Am I an idiot and/or selfish scumbag?
It is perfectly possible for an intelligent, decent and realistic person to believe in low taxation, small government, the free market and individual liberties. Just like it is perfectly possible for an intelligent, decent and realistic person to believe in high taxes, social welfare and regulation. Although there are “wrong” answers to these questions, there’s no self-evident “right” answer. It depends, ultimately, on what outcomes you value – and, in particular, whether you value individual freedom over social equality, or vice versa.
By contrast, any intelligent person who examines the issue will find it easy to conclude that, say, creationism, faith healing or homeopathy are a load of bullshit – meaning that people who advocate those things are either idiots, wingnuts or con artists, and should be dismissed and ignored.
Will you not concede that there is a difference between believing in non-evidence-based woo, and believing in a political ideology with which you don’t personally agree?
The hate crimes bill does more then just go “OMG, you called him a fag!/nigger!/spic!” First of all, it adds perceived sexual orientation and gender identity to a list of other minorities that are already protected, which does include harsher punishments. Why, you ask? Isn’t all crime hate crime?
Well, no. Violence against someone motivated by hate and prejudice is more lethal and more harmful then your average crack addict mugging. Now, when we get into murders, you might have a point, but I doubt Matthew Shepard would have been killed like he was, if he wasn’t gay. We also have degrees of murder, that carry different punishments.
The hate crimes bill also allows the federal government more powers to investigate, but that’s already been discussed.
Finally, the bill ads transgender to a list of motivations that the FBI tracks. Without the bill, they’ve done nothing.
It has been explained and shown to you with evidence here hundreds if not thousands of times that your political ideas when taken from the realm of abstract purity and put in practice (often through terror and oppression) do not have the effects you claim for them, and that you are ignoring key aspects of the problems you claim to be addressing. This knowledge is drawn from historical, anthropological, and sociological study. You’ve acknowledged this, and your broader ignorance on any number of substantive issues, many times here, and yet you continue to espouse these notions with little or no regard for the sociopolitical realities. So your political religion is essentially non-evidence-based woo; there’s no meaningful distinction there.
Am I an idiot and/or selfish scumbag? – Walton
Well, Walton, a bit of both. You demonstrated your idiocy quite conclusively by taking Viscount Monckhausen seriously; and some of your views (e.g. on the right of hoarders to starve people to death for profit) are downright evil. However, I’ll admit I was intending to annoy Pete, and get a rise out of you, rather than being absolutely literal. Some conservatives just haven’t thought things through.
It depends, ultimately, on what outcomes you value – and, in particular, whether you value individual freedom over social equality, or vice versa.
No it doesn’t. This is your mischaracterisation of the issue. Maximising individual freedom for all depends on a high degree of social equality. Also, many conservatives don’t value individual freedom: they believe in “traditional” hierarchies and constraints. I know you want to redefine the word, but it doesn’t belong to you and your fellow “libertarians”.
That’s an interesting point, actually, and something to which I’ve been giving an increasing amount of thought yesterday. One of the holes, IMO, in much orthodox libertarian (and particularly Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist) thinking is this: they act as if state coercion, backed by penal sanctions, were the only type of coercion, and therefore assume that removing the state will eliminate coercion.
In fact, of course, most of the coercion exerted on an average person during his or her life is not government coercion; it’s social coercion. Relatively few of the accepted norms that govern our lives are actually enshrined in law. Rather, most of them are imposed on us by social convention; people who don’t comply will not face any direct physical force, but will face social ostracism, unemployment and poverty. The average person spends his or her whole life being told to follow various rules: by parents, schools, employers, religious authorities, and peers.
So I would admit that there are times when state coercion may, in fact (and apparently paradoxically) be necessary to facilitate individual freedom. For example, I would contend that the state should, in certain circumstances, step in to protect children’s autonomy against domineering parents; because children are not the property of their parents, and have the right to reject their parents’ choices and find their own path in life.
Apologies if this doesn’t make much sense – it’s really a half-digested thought which I haven’t previously articulated, so I doubt I’m explaining it very coherently.
Walton, that does make sense. Indeed, it gives me hope for you. Now, if you can get to the point where you also recognise economic coercion, you’ll be well on the way to escaping your ideological fetters!
Further to #154,
Of course, many conservatives are fine with state coercion as well – so long as it’s exercised against women, gays, the lower orders, etc.
Ugh. Wow… people really find it that hard to get what makes hate crimes especially bad? From my own experience, I have gone to Lubbock, TX twice to give talks at TX Tech. On my first visit I was speaking to one of the faculty and she told me how a year before two students in her class ended up in the hospital because they were assaulted when they held hands in a public theater. (Oddly enough they were actually straight women, but they did that for a gender studies course project. They were assigned to do one gender atypical behavior in public and write about people’s reaction.)
Afterwards the professor was told she wasn’t allowed to assign that task again. I also while there with my partner made a concious effort not to ‘look gay’ in public outside of the university campus.
So the thugs who assaulted her students had the desired effect from their hate crime (which is what made it so.)
That said, I just can’t support legislation that addresses hate crimes in a way that does nothing to actually prevent them. Punishing perpetrators disproportionately will at best have no deterrent effect and at worse have the opposite effect (a little of which you are seeing here even among folks who are theoretically progressive, yet unaware of their own privilege.)
Well, that all depends what one means by “conservative”. There’s a great deal of difficulty in defining the term, since it differs so wildly between different countries, eras and cultural contexts; the best definition that can be offered is that conservatives are those who support “the established order” in a given country, but this, too, is unhelpfully vague.
In the eighteenth century, the “conservatives” were those who supported absolute monarchy, aristocratic hereditary rule and trade protectionism; those who wanted civil liberties and free trade, like myself, were described as “liberals”. Conversely, in the context of late Soviet history, I’ve heard those who wanted a return to doctrinaire Stalinism referred to as “conservatives”.
For this reason, we in the British Conservative Party can’t agree among ourselves about what “conservatism” is; we have Thatcherites, liberal/modernisers and “One Nation” Tories (not to mention a few unreconstructed reactionary wingnuts who think it was a mistake to give women the vote).
Myself, I’m not really a “conservative” in any truly meaningful sense. I don’t believe in preserving the traditional established order merely because it is established; indeed, I think many parts of the established order are thoroughly stupid and ought to be abolished. (For instance, I rather shocked my peers recently by calling for the disestablishment of the Anglican Church.) Rather, I’m in the Conservative Party because its prevailing views on economic matters tend to coincide more-or-less with mine.
Oh, I wouldn’t deny that the kind of social coercion to which I referred above has a strong economic element – those who don’t comply with accepted norms of social behaviour may face discrimination in employment, and consequent poverty.
The difficulty is, though, that it is not acceptable to remedy this by coercing private employers into giving jobs to persons who they do not wish to employ. The employers, like the employees, have a right to autonomy. Hence why I object to employment discrimination laws – not because I deny that employment discrimination exists (indeed, in some countries it is demonstrably an endemic problem) but rather because it rests on a negation of individual autonomy and the voluntary character of contractual relationships.
Walton@157,
Exactly my point. The one thing all those mentioned have in common, except (in theory) the Stalinists, is opposition – or at least indifference – to socio-economic equality; this is the defining characteristic of the right.
Look, you stupid oaf, that’s not what’s going on here. the hate crime legislation does only two things:
1) It gives a longer sentence for criminal acts whose purpose is to terrorize a group, be they white, black, latino, asian, gay, straight, male, female, disabled, christian, muslim, jewish, atheist, etc (not an exhaustive list, but you get the picture). White Straight Males do, in fact, have a Race (White), a Gender (Male), and a Sexual Orientation (Straight). It’s a product of our privilege that we get to pretend we don’t have these categories.
2) It makes it easier for the DOJ to get involved when Sherriff Jim Bob Joe Good Ol’ Boy refuses to arrest/prosecute the local hoodlums for lynching one of “the scary people”.
Any talk about hate crimes legislation protecting black/latino/homosexual/etc people from criminal acts of terror is only because there are relatively fewer hate crimes against white straight males than other categories.
The same way in which we determine between manslaughter and first degree murder.
Case A – Overheard as the assault happened: “I’m gonna kick your ass!”
Case B – Overheard as the assault happened: “All you stupid [racial/gender/homobigoted epithet] better shut up and know your place, you stupied [epithet], or we’ll keep at it until you’ve learned your place!”
Perfect example of why religion is useless in advancing the human race. Almost all religions have the hidden assumption that God is on their side and against everyone else. Remember the abusrdity of Bush saying over and over that God was on the U.S. side and Muslim terrorists saying over and over that God was on their side? It was not that long ago…. in the happy Dobson days.
That’s a question of intention, not of motive. Both in law and in philosophy, they’re two different things.
In the law of England and Wales (where we don’t have degrees of murder) the distinction between murder and manslaughter is this: To commit a murder, the defendant must have intended to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm on the victim. Note that this refers solely to the defendant’s intended outcome. Why he intended to do it has no bearing on the question. It doesn’t matter whether he wanted the victim’s money, or whether the victim slept with his wife, or whether he just didn’t like the victim, or whether he believed the fairies were telling him to do it (though in the latter case he could possibly enter a plea of insanity).
Traditionally, criminal law is concerned with intentions but explicitly not with motives – for good reason. The law says “These are the things you may not do; if you do them intentionally (or recklessly or negligently, in the case of some crimes), you will suffer penal sanctions.” If you are aware of what you are doing and go ahead and do it anyway, then you are criminally liable no matter what your motivations were; otherwise, you could escape a murder conviction by claiming that you thought it right to murder someone.
“Hate crime” is a dangerous and wrong concept, therefore, because it penalises motives, not wilful actions. It is saying that it is not just the physical act committed, but one’s thoughts and desires, which deserve punishment. This is wrong – because, essentially, it creates a kind of thoughtcrime.
Racism and homophobia in themselves are not, and should never be, illegal. Because once the state arrogates to itself the power to penalise people’s thoughts and opinions, then how do we make it stop? In a free society, I am entitled to think whatever I wish, and to have whatever motivation I wish for my actions – no matter what the majority thinks of my ideas.
In terms of the hate crimes legislation, I always wondered if you could look at it another way. Is that is there a mitigating factor for the assault/murder? For example “the guy at the bar groped my balls so I punched him out.” Well you shouldn’t have punched him out under the law, but we won’t sentence you harshly because he did start it. Versus, “we were at the bar he mentioned he was gay so I punched him out.” Mentioning he is gay is not a mitigating factor in the assault so he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the assault law.
Some of the points may change my opinion in that it isn’t hate crime law but rather petty domestic terrorism legislation. However much hate crime I feel is moving up close to the line of thought crime legislation.
Any thoughts on that?
Watchman and DaveL
I fully acknowledge that there are plenty of Christian fundamentalist nuts out there. I would even say that to be a religious fundamentalist in the full sense of the term requires, by definition, one to be a fair ways to crazy. The Republicans were destroyed in November for all the right reasons. Christian fundamentalists fully deserve to be in the mess they are in; they brought it on themselves. That being said I do see a potential danger here. What happens if for the next few years Christian fundamentalists decide to sit around and pray instead of helping us by being their own worst enemies like usual? People will see on the one hand Christians who are not hurting anyone or directly preaching any hate and on the other hand they will see people like Helioprogenus gleefully talking about setting Christians on fire. This risks turning the conversation against us. We need to remind people that it is the Christians who can’t wait to see their opponents burning in hell. People like Helioprogenus do not help.
I am sorry if I did not make myself clearer on the matter in my earlier comment.
Raven
I am not a Christofascist. In fact I am no more a Christian than you are, I suspect. Unless you are in the closet about something. You know the old line about homophobia. I would describe my religion as Orthodox Jew in deed and intellectual terrorist in thought.
So why not make the protected group(s) ANY group? Small-scale terrorism can be perpetrated on white hetero males, too. If the motive for the crime is to send a message to the group of which the intended victim is apparently a member, then any and all groups should be protected — not by explicitly protecting every possible group, but by intentionally NOT giving “special” protection to any specific group at all, thereby generalizing and maximizing the scope of protection. This approach has the added benefit of pulling the rug out from under the “special privilege” argument against hate crime legislation.
Walton:
Of course I agree there’s a difference, because I made the same point myself, but I believe what the commenter meant was that the ways in which we determine motive and intent are the same – and I agree.
Consider this, if you will. I think what I missed at the time, and what you’re missing now, is that the hate crime concept incorporates one aspect of the motive and makes it part of the intention. The intention is to injure or kill the target, AND to terrorize the group to which the target belongs. The motive is hatred towards the group.
Consider this, also: There’s a qualitative difference in message between putting up a sign on your own property that reads “I hate atheists,” as opposed to a sign that says, “I’m going to kill all atheists.” Even in the second case, no individual has been threatened. But in either case, has a crime been committed? If so, why?
I, too, worry about the Thoughtcrime aspect of all this, but if we treat the terror aspect as part of the intention, as an intent to terrorize, rather that as strictly an aspect of the motive, it could work. It’s legal to hate, but not to terrorize.
Following on from (98#)
Come to think of it, as with witchcraft there’s also often a sacrifical offering. “God if you do this … I’ll never do … again.”
All the talk about the merits of the hate-crimes bill has distracted us from the real point: James Dobson is a perverted fuck. He makes me wish there were such a thing as hell so he could suffer there forever and ever. He is truly one of the most despicable assholes alive.
Maybe I’m a pessimist, but this gives me cause for alarm. As Christians start to feel more marginalized and powerless, the more desperate among them will resort to far worse forms of pursuasion.
“James Dobson is a perverted fuck. He makes me wish there were such a thing as hell so he could suffer there forever and ever. ”
I think my fantasy would be an afterlife of a subjective week as a part of brain death. You know you are dead an will go off into oblivion and have a little time to reflect. For the Atheist is would be “well I could have done this better, but all in all I lived well and had fun.” For the Christian “what do you mean I wasted my life waahh!”
This is not a helpless surrender to us, their godless liberal overlords. This is reinforcing the religious right’s military-industrial-persecution complex.
It’s hilarious that atheists are talking about hate crimes. Isn’t hate just a chemical reaction? And where does your definition hate even come from? “Whatevever adversely affects the tribe”….?
I think you guys are a little bit off on how you’re viewing hate crimes. First of all, there isn’t a list of minorities that it’s a crime to do things against.
From the Matthew Shepard act:
“Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person . . .”
What the bill is actually talking about is that if you commit a crime because you don’t like the basic nature of someone, and it can be proven that that crime was motivated by that type of hatred, it will be considered a hate crime and the punishment will be harsher. So, yes, straight white men can have hate crimes against them. This also means that the prosecution has to prove that you acted maliciously and with a motivation from hatred based on actual or perceived race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc.
No, this isn’t delving into the world of “thought crime,” thank you James and Walton.
Dr. P (#89)
You’re very welcome, sir! I do try my best.
Heaventree (#168): well put! And may the fleas of a thousand rabid camels infest the shorts of the scoundrel who first hijacked this thread to whine about ‘crimethink’ instead of celebrating the Dobsonian shortfall.
The MadPanda, FCD
You mean, like the utter stupidity of an unthinking drive-by troll?
No. It’s more complicated than that.
I have to ask: What is the implication of your comment? Do you even know? Do you realize that you’re implying that hate is divinely inspired, and can only come from God or some similarly ineffable, external agent?
If prosecuting hate crimes is “thoughtcrime”, then murder is thoughtcrime also.
Orwell is spinning in his grave over you petulant little hate-spewers. It was people like you that he was writing about, you realize.
The self-righteousness around here is STUNNING.
Boy are you guys in for a shock.
Sad, really.
Walton said:
“”Hate crime” is a dangerous and wrong concept, therefore, because it penalises motives, not wilful actions. It is saying that it is not just the physical act committed, but one’s thoughts and desires, which deserve punishment. This is wrong – because, essentially, it creates a kind of thoughtcrime.”
Out of curiosity, Walton, how would you expect a successful prosecution of a hate crime in the absence of actions?
If an individual was utterly free of bigotry, but acted to terrorize a specific segment of the population, they are guilty of a hate crime, even if they don’t actually hate anyone at all. Conversely, if someone hates all gay people, and thinks they all should die, but never harms anyone, they are *not* guilty of a hate crime.
In other words, the law doesn’t care what you think, it cares about the effects your actions are likely to have on a given section of the populace. That’s the point of this legislation. Not to stop hate (which, as you correctly note, is a right), but to stop terrorism, which is not.
Most of us agree that James Dobson is a wingnut. It’s much more interesting to discuss something on which we disagree amongst ourselves.
ckitching(@53) made a highly relevant point which I haven’t seen anyone else follow up on:
I concur. This is why dosh-more-dosh’s call to more aggressive preying tends to annoy me. The mindless are going to claim credit (for what they think is good) and deny any responsiblity at all (for what they think is bad) no matter what actually happens, despite any evidence-based cause-result connections, and irrespective of any consequences. We’ve seen these fecking leechs do this lying et al. again and again and again for thousands of years.
Gotta agree with #177. You guys are too much sometimes.
That said, yay for Dobson’s failure
Aside from showing that you (PZ Myers) are an insufferable ass and a moron, is there a point to this blog?
No, that’s it. Very astute, Jack!