The State of Hate
A recent FBI report shows that blacks are more likely to be targeted for hate crimes than any other group.
I can hear the nashing of teeth and the fodder for the fundigelical fascist rightwingers saying "See, see! Queers aren't as hated as they claim to be! This is a queer-lovin' country!"
A couple of clarifications:
1) There are a lot more blacks than there are gays; hence, there will be a lot more reports of hate crimes against blacks than gays
2) Blacks aren't as easily intimidated into being victims as gays. They're not afraid to start a riot when things don't go their way!
3) There are federal laws to protect blacks against discrimination and hate crimes; therefore, they are encouraged to report crimes against them because there is a far greater likelihood that something can and will be done. Not so for gays.
4) How can a DEAD gay person report a hate crime? And whose voice is left to hear but the perpetrator of the crime that can make up any excuse they want?
Not all crimes against gay people end in death, but many are much more brutal and violent and have increased in their brutality over the years.
Matthew Shepard is the name everyone thinks of, but there have been many since.
Brandon Teena
Sakia Gunn
Elvys Perez
PFC Barry Winchell
Billy Jack Gaither
Scotty Joe Weaver
Roderick George
The last three were all from Alabama, my home state, and now there is a fourth:
Billy Sanford, a 52 year old Jackson, AL man, beaten into a coma with a hammer by 26 year old handyman, Marcus Dewayne Kelley.
Police said that his doctors have given him little chance for survival. Even if he does survive and regain consciousness his is likely to have permanent brain damage and would be unlikely to testify at Kelley's trial.
...
Police said that they would have liked to have charged Kelley with a hate crime, but gays are not covered under the state's hate crime law.
Several days ago, not far from my own home, a very well-known gay man was killed. The killer is still at large and supposedly the motive was robbery, but nothing was taken. How can we know? Will we ever know? Even if there was an anti-gay motive, there's NOTHING we can fucking do about it!!! There's nothing that can put these monsters and haters away for life! They can claim it was panic, robbery, anything as long as it's against a queer.
The dead can't speak, but I can!!
posted by RedStateExile @ 07:43
29 comments
29 Comments:
thank you for speaking Callie! Wonder if there is a petition going somewhere for Alabama to change their laws to include hate crimes against glbt people?
Great post, Callie, I have a friend still in AL who is working diligently to add gays to the hate crimes bill there.
If someone shoots me to steal my wallet, I'm just as dead as if someone shoots you because you're gay. Why should your murderer get a worse punishment then mine?
But that kind of gets to the crux of the point, doesn't it? Why SHOULDN'T my murderer get a worse punishment?
Anyone can be killed because someone hates us. We should all be concerned about laws that can protect us better and make the penalties stiffer.
We can THINK whatever we want, but when we act on it. It should be considered a crime, a VERY bad crime.
Should the men that dragged James Byrd, Jr. behind their truck until his body fell apart get the same murder sentence as an accidental shooting in a robbery?
Now, I'm not sure what the EXACT sentencing for shooting during a robbery would be, but let's say it's 10 years. If we use the philosophy that a murder is a murder, then the killers of James Byrd could be potentially sentenced to only 10 years in jail, and perhaps paroled anywhere from 3-7 depending on good behavior.
That would be fair?
Tonito-
I have a feeling it will be a long time coming. That's why I don't live there anymore. But that fear still follows us everywhere.
Until we, as a society, starts valuing the lives of all people. I'm afraid some will see fit to beat, harass, and kill that which they fear.
I think I might see some humanity deep inside you yet. This seems to be one area we agree on.
Sir, if you didn't think I was sickened and outraged by the horrid death of Mr. Byrd, you're terribly wrong. If you think I sit here and point to say "yeah, well, what about us?" that's not my intention.
I speak to what I know. I would be just as disgusted and thinking the penalty should be just as harsh (whether it be the death penalty or life imprisonment) if someone killed a white, Christian, male just because of who that person was.
When the laws say that someone will be punished to the maximum amount of the law if it is found that their motivation was based on a bias regarding race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, class, religion..., do you not realize that those categories can include YOU as well?
They don't say you'll get a stiffer penalty if you kill a black person than a white person or a gay person than a straight person. We both know that wouldn't be right.
So, unless you just really want to pick my words apart for no reason on this, I have to think we may agree...FINALLY!
What about those who kill for punishment? What punishment should they get?
Man!!! I typed a nice response and I got an error. I don't have time to retype now. I'll have to do it later.
What part of "Thou shall not kill" ambiguous? Has it been changed to "Thou shall not kill except to punish?"
The ten commandments seem pretty clear to me - while man wrote the bible inspired by the spirit - God wrote the ten commandments.
But that won't do Ruben Cantu any good.
A decade after Ruben Cantu was executed for capital murder, the only witness to the crime is recanting and his co-defendant says Cantu, then 17, wasn't even with him that night.
I don't accept your premise(s) - but for the sake of this discussion, I'll acknowledge them.
We're infalible - we never truly know who is guilty - I'm reluctant to take something from someone that I can't return should I find out that I erred.
Those who advocate for the death penalty believe that the chance of accidently killing an inocent person is worth the risk of leaving the guilty undeterred and unpunished.
Whether or not the threat of death deters and whether or not it's our place to punish with death are actually two different questions.
In the end, it comes down to values and civility it seems to me.
God has a lot to hold me accountable for - but I figure my stance on this issue will mitigate some of that.
For the record, lovinit.
I've had a religious education from grade school through college. And I spent over 6 months of my life after college in a monastery.
There's not much to do in a monastery other than pray, work, read and reflect :)
And I've read the Bible in a couple of different languages.
I don't recall the ten commandments empowering the children of God to inflict death as punishment.
God can give life - I can't - He's infalible - I'm not. Those are some serious disadvantages.
Wow, I go away for a little while and look at you two!
If lovin' it has got anything right here, it is that we should definitely read more of the Bible than the OT and certainly the 10 Commandments.
How about what Jesus said for starters?
• Matthew 22:36-40 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
• Jn 15:10-12 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
The OT foretold the coming of the Messiah (Jesus) and when He came he fulfilled the Law (the old law of Moses). His coming also rendered the OT obsolete for He gave us a new Commandment to follow...His Commandment.
Maybe that's just too simple and easy for folks to follow, but it works for me. Whatever we do to the "least of these," we do to Jesus also. That should be enough to make anyone decent person stop and second guess their behavior towards others.
BTW, my big thought earlier about the death penalty and such was this (much shorter):
If someone breaks into my house and attempts to kill me or my partner, I have a right to defend us. If I kill that person in the process, I don't think I deserve the death penalty for it.
We can't say murder is murder is murder and all deserve the same punishment.
Would we say that an abused woman in defense of herself and perhaps her children would deserve the death penalty if she kills her abuser in the midst of being abused?
That's not the same as going out and hunting someone down just because you don't like something about them. That's why I have a problem with an across the board standard punishment for anyone who commits a particular crime. Determining circumstances are important, otherwise, there is no point in having a trial.
Couldn't a crime of greed (I'm assuming you mean robbery since you haven't clarified) be based in bias?
Why would we want to take from someone who doesn't have anything? There will be a degree of bias in determining who is robbed and who isn't. In robbery situations wouldn't it be safe to say that the "have not" takes from the "haves" of society. Even carjackers pick out certain cars because of their rims or engine. That's a bias towards a segment of society.
I would think you would appreciate and support "bias motivated" criminal punishment if it meant you and yours would be protected as well. ANY crime can be bias motivated and ANY one can be susceptible to being the target of the bias.
That's why it's important to have bias taken into consideration when determining punishment because we all can be affected by it.
I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.
Oh, and as for the Bible topic, I am only required to follow what Jesus said.
He said to believe and you will be saved.
I believe.
He said to love the Lord your God.
I do.
He said to love your neighbor as yourself.
I do (even those who don't love me back).
The rest was written by (hu)mans and has been re-written over and over and over again. I can't trust that, but my heart tells me that what Jesus said with those three statements is all I need to know.
And I'm not required to give proof. It's called faith.
For God so LOVED the world...
Stop right there and you get the picture.
The Bible is a very politicized document.
Read 'Masks of God' by Joe Campbell, you'll see how 'God' has morphed endlessly.
The only thing you need to do is love people and ACCEPT them - not try to BE God.
The only thing you need to do is love people and ACCEPT them - not try to BE God.
How very true!! I'll have to look up that book. I'm doing research on that topic so if you have any other resources to share let me know.
Thanks!
lovinit
In Romans chapter 13 Paul is addressing the problems raised by a Christian message that declares people subject to God's law above civil law especially vis a vis the Roman laws regarding devotion to various deities.
He has to address how Christians should relate to Roman authority.
13.4 hardly says that God thinks it's OK for the state to kill people in order to punish them - it is a metaphor for the rule of law.
In fact, the state is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God's prior claim to the believers' moral decision
that's made clear in the subsequent verses.
The Romans used:
* beheading,
* flogging till death,
* hanging, drowning, and
* crucifixion,
to inflict captial punishment. They did not use the sword. In fact, the Romans usually only intervened for high crimes like treason.
Swords were used to arrest, not to execute.
Metonymy is a figure of speech in which the writer refers to something or someone by naming one of its attributes.
For example - "We await word from the crown" - meaning we await word from the king. Or
"Don't let the suits screw it up." - meaning don't let management mess things up. Or
"I have 200 head" - meaning I have 200 head of cattle. Or
"The pen is mightier than the sword" - meaning words are more powerful than armies.
As I said originally, 13.4 is a metaphor (figure of speech) for the rule of law. It does indicate that God calls us to kill for justice - let alone punishment.
You might want to read the story of Cain and Able if the 10 commandments aren't clear to you.
If you care to learn more of about figures of speech (which were first catologed by the Romans and Greeks by the way) check out this site
I expected you to make the argument that just like an individual is called to defend his or her life by killing if necessary,
the state is called to defend itself from extinction by killing if necessary.
When the rule of law is threatened or a break down in civil order is threatened, the state has an obligation to defend itself.
The axe was the chosen implement for beheading, a wooden block, often shaped to accept the neck, was required.
[Daniel 7:22] Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshiped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years. ...
lovin it,
I guess you missed the part about me living by faith earlier.
Fine, if we are going to follow every single word in the Bible, then no more playing football, BBQ pork ribs, no more one woman/one man marriages because you'll have to marry your brother's wife when he dies, and don't get too attached to your kids because you may have to sacrifice them on an altar or stone them for some sin.
I could go on, but I'm really bored with this now.
Faith...just have a little faith, 'kay?
And I was responding to what you said to me.
Hey, you pick out what suits you and ignore the rest, but don't get testy with other people do the same.
Funny thing that Bible is, how it can be used for both good and bad purposes, depending on a person's intent.
Exodus 23:7 is also pretty clear: Though shalt not execute the innocent.
It says nothing about "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "clear and convincing evidence".
That edict is stated other places but it's stated most clearly there. Absolute certainty is the minimum threshold requirement for the biblical death penalty.
Are you infallible?
With a literal, out of context reading of the Bible it's easy to interpret that God has given man license to bring HIS justice and He has not.
It's simply not supported by the text - God is infallible, he has infinite mercy and infinite wrath and the two balance each other.
We can't restore live and balance out death.
Since 1976, 87% of executions in the United States have taken place in the Bible Belt.
I don't think God is amused.
the state has the right to kill when necessary.
When necessary just like a human being - to prevent against imminent death.
In other words - Thou shall not murder. which is the Hebrew interpretation.
The same applies to the state. If the rule of law is not threatened or break down in civil order is not threatened, there is no imminent threat of the state's extinction.
See:
Romans 5:15-6:14,
I Corinthians 2:7-10,
Then read
I Corinthians 1:18-31, 15:21-28,
Colossians 2:12-15.
The power of evil which holds sway by its ability to impose death on us is defeated by Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
For Jesus to defeat evil he must not imitate evil's power.
We are called to resist and defeat evil by means that do not imitate evil’s power.
That's interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New.
Using current events, we can't defeat terrorism by acting like terrorists or they have won no matter which of dies last.
Well, Dorsano, he was just laying-in-wait for this one because of course EVERYONE can't wait to get pregnant or knock someone up so they can run out and have an abortion. YIPPEE, abortions are just SOOOO much fun!!!
Love the selective word choice too.
Do you believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal, or do you condone the murder of preborn innocents as a private choice?
Answer this question for me and maybe I can answer you.
When does a fertizlied egg acquire a soul?
Dorsano - Your argument against the death penalty sounds well thought out and reasonable, whether or not I agree with it.
To be honest - I never thought deeply about the death penalty. I was never "against" it - especially when a cop is killed, an act of treason is committed, an act of "terrorism" - or the death penalties handed down during the Nuremburg trials.
I always valued the life of an inocent person above most requirements to "punish" - I know that.
Something you said in one of your early comments prompted me to think about it. I'm not sure what.
It must have been time for me to think about it. I'm glad Callie indulged me and allowed me to think out loud on one of her comment threads.
And I appreciate your taking the time to discuss it.
Post a Comment
<< Home