Hahaha, stupid religious conservatives | INFJ Forum

Hahaha, stupid religious conservatives

Discussion in 'News and Politics' started by Shai Gar, Oct 18, 2009.

Share This Page

Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 3 users.
More threads by Shai Gar
  1. Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/1...el-would-be-against-the-law-and-other-hate-c/

    Preaching the Gospel Would be Against the Law! (And Other Hate Crimes Myths)

    With a Senate vote expected soon to expand federal hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation, religious conservatives are ramping up the rhetoric against the bill, which passed the House last week. Their anxiety is understandable. Democrats are behind the legislation, and at this month's gala for the Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay rights lobby, President Obama renewed his pledge to sign the bill.

    In an effort to guarantee passage, Democratic leaders have attached the bill to a defense appropriations measure, which angers many Republicans who have been able to thwart the legislation in every Congress since 2001, when the bill was first introduced. (The bill is named after Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old man beaten to death in Wyoming in October 1998 because he was gay, and James Byrd, a black man dragged to his death behind a pickup truck by a gang of white men in Texas a few months before Shepard's 1998 killing.)

    Now, however, Republicans who vote to renew funding for the military will face the unpalatable prospect of having voted to broaden the scope of the current hate crimes law to include attacks targeting homosexuals and transgendered people. The bill also covers people with disabilities, though -- no surprise -- it is the inclusion of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) category that is setting conservative teeth on edge.

    The talking points being circulated among conservatives and repeated like video loops on talk shows are few but they are powerful -- and they are delivered with conviction:

    Pastors would be hounded out of their pulpits or even rounded up because a hate crimes law would "criminalize" speech and particularly sermons that quote scripture saying homosexuality is a sin. The law would also "create" new rights for homosexuals and grant them "special protections" not accorded other Americans. And what the heck is a "hate crime," anyway? All crimes are hate crimes!

    The charges sound convincing, but they quickly collapse on closer inspection.

    Myth No. 1: Religious persecution is around the corner.

    In June, 60 religious conservatives sent a letter asking senators to filibuster the bill, which they said "would criminalize preaching the Gospel and put preachers in the cross-hairs." The letter was signed by the likes of James Dobson of Focus On The Family, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America. Many Republicans, including Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, agreed with them.

    After the House passed the bill on Oct. 8, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council renewed the charges, saying the legislation is an Orwellian "thought-crimes bill" that would give "special rights" to homosexuals. Rep. John Kline of Minnesota echoed that, saying that "any pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi or imam who gives a sermon out of their moral traditions about sexual practices could be found guilty of a federal crime."

    But the bill in fact expressly prohibits any such thing, and at several points reaffirms all First Amendment and other constitutional protections on free speech and religious freedom. Among other things it says:
    "Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by this division, be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, or association..."
    [The full text of the bill can be found here, near the bottom of the National Defense Authorization Act.]

    Every earlier draft of this bill had some version of this language, though when the measure went to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out wording differences between the two, the conferees added a condition. It said nothing in the law would impinge on religious freedom unless prosecutors can demonstrate that the speech was "intended to: (A) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or (B) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."

    The "conditional" language set off more alarm bells for conservatives, but the additions were in reality designed to reinforce the point that a hate crimes bill deals with crime, not speech. It is about acts that have been committed or are about to be committed. As the folks at FactCheck.org wrote: "Speaking disapprovingly of homosexuals from the pulpit would be one thing; encouraging one's congregation to form a lynching posse Saturday at 4 p.m. at the water tower is quite another."

    Moreover, the Constitution has never provided a blanket protection on speech. FactCheck also cited the 1919 case of Schenck v. United States, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that free speech doesn't mean you can "falsely shout fire in a theater" and thereby cause a stampede. As Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger."

    PolitiFact.com's "Truth-O-Meter" also judged the accusations of threats to free speech and religious protections as "false."

    Myth No. 2: All crimes are hate crimes, so why create have a hate-crime law?

    First, not all crimes are hate crimes. White-collar crooks often rob people they don't know enough to dislike. Even muggers on the street don't necessarily have a personal animus against the person they are assaulting; they just want the cash. Moreover, the law is full of degrees of criminality. Premeditated murder is not viewed in the same way as a crime of passion, just as rape is treated as an especially heinous type of physical attack that is meant to degrade a victim, and so is deserving of appropriate penalties.

    Similarly, hate crimes that target people for who they are tend to be more violent than simple crimes of opportunity, like a robbery. The FBI counted more than 7,600 hate crimes in 2007 (the 2008 data will be released later this month) against a range of groups. Yet while assaults against homosexuals accounted for about 17 percent of all hate crimes (an increase of 5.5 percent, from 1,195 in 2006 to 1,265 in 2007) five of the nine hate crime killings were against LGBT victims. In addition, while less than a third of all hate crimes (31 percent) were violent assaults, nearly half of all crimes motivated by sexual orientation (47 percent) were violent crimes.

    These figures demonstrate not only a high degree of anger toward homosexuals, but they also give an idea of the damage these attacks can inflict on an entire community. Just as a serial rapist on the loose sows fear among all women (and their families) and curbs their freedom, so too a hate crime "is meant to terrorize a community, not solely to victimize an individual," as Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, put it.

    If blacks or Jews or Latinos or Christians -- or gays and lesbians -- cannot live in a neighborhood or walk the streets without fear of attack, then that climate of fear inhibits the free and full functioning of individuals and society. Laws not only make penalties to inflict on perpetrators who violate societal norms, they also make a statement about what a society values.

    Finally, hate crimes are often connected to hate groups, such as the kind of white supremacist organizations and other right-wing extremists that are re-emerging in today's down economy. Local law enforcement officials cannot fight such interstate crimes without federal assistance.

    Myth No. 3: Hate-crime protection for gays creates "new rights" that privilege them above others.

    Nothing inflames public opinion more than the idea that someone, somewhere, is getting something everyone else is not. Hence the power of the argument that the new hate crimes bill would grant special privileges.

    The problem with this accusation is that this bill actually expands existing hate crimes protections that have been in place since 1969. Those laws already provide protection for acts committed on the basis of the victim's race, color, religion or national origin. By including LGBT people, as well as people with disabilities, the new law would simply provide the same protections that others, including some of the very believers who are objecting to the bill, have enjoyed for 40 years.

    And there is evidence that homosexuals are as much at risk as other groups. According to a June 2007 report by the Williams Institute (in a pdf format), on average, 13 in 100,000 homosexuals and bisexuals report being victimized, compared with 8 in 100,000 African-Americans, 12 in 100,000 Muslims and 15 in 100,000 Jews.

    A spokesperson for House Republican leader John Boehner, who opposes the current hate crimes bill, told CBS News this month that Boehner supports the existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) because they are "based on immutable characteristics."

    That argument has two problems: One is that science indicates homosexuality is not a choice but is largely innate. Besides, if that's the "lifestyle" one chooses, should it not be protected from assault? A second problem is Boehner's apparent belief that religion is also innate, rather than something that can be changed. Indeed, surveys show that about half of all Americans do change their religious "orientation" or label at some point during their lives. That is hardly "immutable."

    Myth No. 4: The hate crimes bill would protect pedophiles -- and worse.

    One of the more objectionable objections is that, as one viral e-mail has it, the hate crimes bill will give "legally protected status to 30 sexual orientations, including incest."

    A subsequent alert sent out by the Traditional Values Coalition (and picked up by politicians like Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas) listed some of the other supposedly protected sexual behaviors as exhibitionism and pedophilia.

    "As a result," the Traditional Values Coalition charges, "if a parent assaults a pedophile for molesting a child, the parent can be convicted of a hate crime and receive an enhanced sentence." The TVC says the 30 behaviors are all listed in the American Psychiatric Association's standard reference work, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV).

    As FactCheck.org puts it, "This is pure bunk." The DSM-IV explicitly states that sexual orientation "refers to erotic attraction to males, females or both." Pedophilia and incest and other criminal behaviors are not listed as "sexual orientations" and homosexuality is not listed as a sexual disorder.

    Those are the facts, but they don't mean there aren't reasons for opposing the new hate crimes bill.

    Social conservatives can argue, for example, that the bill is another step down the slippery slope to gay marriage. And some opponents, even in the gay community, worry that expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation with foster a "culture of victimization" around homosexuals.

    Andrew Sullivan, for example, is an openly gay and widely read political conservative who opposes the bill.

    "I'm against hate crime laws -- every single one of them. I also understand and respect the argument for them, even as I strongly disagree," Sullivan recently wrote at his popular blog, The Daily Dish. Sullivan went on to denounce the GOP opposition to the bill as based on "bigotry -- and it's coming from the very top."

    At the end of the day, of course, many will see conservative opposition to the hate crimes bill as politics-as-usual.

    But assumptions that Republicans are acting in their own best interest -- throwing another bone to their hungry base -- may be the final myth about the hate crimes bill.

    A May 2007 Gallup survey showed that Americans overwhelmingly favor (78-18 percent) hate crimes laws for acts "committed on the basis of the victim's race, color, religion or national origin." The positive ratio drops somewhat, to 68-27 percent, when respondents were asked whether sexual orientation and gender identity should be included.

    But support for such an expansion of hate crimes laws was still 60 percent among Republicans and 64 percent among weekly church attenders.

    Go figure.
     
  2. Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    It comes down to the fear that anti discrimination legislation will lead to same sex marriage in the country, at which point you have to understand where the Conservative right gets its concerns.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MarriageDebate/ConsequencesMD.cfm
    http://www.familyfacts.org/topten.cfm

    When you see religion as inseparable to family stability and structure, and when you see same sex marriage as a threat to that finding, then you feel quite justified in arguing that the homosexual agenda is out to destroy religious liberties and the family.
     
    #2 Satya, Oct 18, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2009
  3. OP
    Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    As long as their religion doesn't allow it, why should it matter? "No marriage is valid unless blessed in the eyes of god" anyway...
     
  4. transcendentalethos

    transcendentalethos Community Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Threads:
    4
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    All of this just makes me.... *yawn* :D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    It goes like this.

    A healthy society is made up of strong families.
    Strong families are based on strong marriages.
    Marriage is based on spirituality and thus is undermined by same sex marriage.
    Anti discrimination legislation is a path to same sex marriage.
    Therefore, anti discrimination legislation is bad because it leads to same sex marriage.
    Same sex marriage would undermine traditional marriage.
    Without strong marriage the family would slowly fall apart.
    Without strong families, society would crumble into oblivion.

    Findings like these support tend to support their arguments...

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/76145_1.pdf

    Although, what they kinda forget to mention is two certain liberalizations that occurred in the 60s and 70s...

    -No fault divorce
    -Influx of women leaving home to work

    ...that might have considerably more to do with the decline of family structure that same sex marriage ever could.
     
  6. Julia

    Julia Community Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Threads:
    24
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    infj
    It shouldn't surprise me, but congress is a profoundly unethical institution. Of course a crime committed against homosexuals out of hate is a hate crime. Even a religious conservative should see that. Even Jesus stopped hate crimes when people were trying to stone a woman for adultery. You would think that there would be some cognitive dissonance for people who call themselves Christians, but are the opposite of Christ.
     
  7. OP
    Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    That's because they've no idea what christianity is.

    They are the mob that demanded the release of Barabbas.
     
  8. VH

    VH Variable Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Threads:
    252
    Messages:
    4,830
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    851
    Trophy Points:
    657
    MBTI:
    NFJedi
    Enneagram:
    268 sx/so
    I've always thought hate crime legislation was just retarded.

    Crime is crime.

    Crime is not more of a crime because of the motivation.

    The problem here is not that the people who are pushing for hate crime legislation want more punishment for people who commit crime based on hate. They want less punishment for people who don't, and by distinguishing these factors can create a system to lessen punishments for the same crimes, so long as they are deemed somehow more appropriate or forgivable.

    Poppycock.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. arbygil

    arbygil Passing through

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Threads:
    382
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Trophy Points:
    881
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    9w1
    Shai, we're kinda polar opposites religion-wise, but I 100% agree with your quote right there. Gave me pause.

    I think, more so, that Christians are less likely to read the Bible and do what it says - or they don't want to pray for those they don't understand (or like). They'd rather listen to conservative commentators on TV (not even religious ones, for that matter) and do what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or others say. Such Christians are following them over what the the Bible says, and it's eerily similar to 1950s/early 1960s ideals. A lot still think the past was better and they want to bring the past back.

    Which wasn't true, for many of us.

    Sadly, there aren't many who go to the source. They prefer "microwave Christianity" over "trench warfare Christianity."

    No one wants to dig deep into the Bible and get dirty.

    Anyway. That's a rant for another day.
     
  10. midnightmelody

    midnightmelody nagging for truth

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Threads:
    13
    Messages:
    1,507
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    infj
    viva blind submission har har har
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. NaeturVindur

    NaeturVindur Cuddlemaster
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Threads:
    86
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    641
    MBTI:
    iNfj
    Enneagram:
    9w1
    bahʔahʔahʔahʔahʔahʔahʔahʔahʔahʔahʔah

    sheeple...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. Kavalan

    Kavalan Has risen

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Threads:
    41
    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    637
    MBTI:
    ISTJ
    Enneagram:
    1W9
    This seems to be picking up and I've been getting a lot of flack from my old town as I've called out such conservative commentators. Separate thread in the works one that one.

    I absolutely agree. I wasn't raised in a strict religious family but rather offered anything I wished there was a period in high school where I read the Bible and the Qur'an just to see what the fuss was all about. I still don't consider myself drawn to any religion but I at least found where the principles seemed to come from. (don't ask me now I only did one read through of both and I don't remember particulars)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. OP
    Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    Proof?
     
  14. muir

    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Threads:
    39
    Messages:
    11,092
    Likes Received:
    1,244
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Marriage is a legal contract, no more, no less. Any other interpretation given to it is purely in the mind of the interpreter.

    Marriage belongs to society and not to any religious sect.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Blind Bandit likes this.
  15. just me

    just me GONE

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Threads:
    220
    Messages:
    12,403
    Featured Threads:
    19
    Likes Received:
    7,493
    Trophy Points:
    1,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    not here
    MBTI:
    infj
    Enneagram:
    6w5
    A-hem......

    I'll give you "most people" but not "no one".
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #15 just me, Oct 20, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2009
  16. Blind Bandit

    Blind Bandit Blind Man Being Lead to Nowhere
    Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Threads:
    132
    Messages:
    3,886
    Featured Threads:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    792
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Its about damn time. I hope we get a religious variant passed too. Or at least that hate speech on the bases of region is not free speech.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #16 Blind Bandit, Oct 20, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2009
  17. just me

    just me GONE

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Threads:
    220
    Messages:
    12,403
    Featured Threads:
    19
    Likes Received:
    7,493
    Trophy Points:
    1,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    not here
    MBTI:
    infj
    Enneagram:
    6w5
    I see as part of the main issue here the fact the Demos placed this most likely in the only place it has a chance for it to pass.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  18. arbygil

    arbygil Passing through

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Threads:
    382
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Trophy Points:
    881
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    9w1
    You're right, I apologize; "few" would be far more accurate.

    Heh. Who knew the following commercial quote could come in handy - "Many will enter; few will win."
     
    IndigoSensor likes this.
  19. OP
    Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    TWO MEN ENTER!
    ONE MAN LEAVES!
     
  20. NaeturVindur

    NaeturVindur Cuddlemaster
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Threads:
    86
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    641
    MBTI:
    iNfj
    Enneagram:
    9w1
    1st, because I must:
    2nd, I thoroughly disagree. For one, that kind of idea is part of the "slippery slope" that conservatives are so afraid of. Also, freedom pf speech should never be censored, even the most hateful kind. Everybody has the right to state their opinion, and if their opinion is based off a book write 2-3 thousand years ago (depending on which portion they chose to use), so be it. However, all religious arguments should be banned from legal discussions.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
Loading...

Share This Page