I just want to say that eventually for conservatives to speak out against such behavior or teach it their children or preach in their churches will become hate crime. the Matthew hate crime law trying to be passed that occurred during the late 90s was dramatic. Focus on the Family got blasted by the leftist that since his stand on the issue against homosexuality, they blamed him for it to the point of trying to criminalize his beliefs or his stand as influencing them to hate or kill homosexuals. the militancy of these people will look to blame conservatives if someone goes off on a homosexual by hurting them, or killing or anything that would harm them. THe conservative would be blamed for saying it is wrong. Dont lie, you are aggressive and will stop free speech when something dramatic happens to the gay person!! I dont agree with violence to them, however I dont agree that it is right and I will teach my children that it is not right!! WIll this be criminalized and my children taken? you say no, I say leave it for a time and things will change and evolve into a criminal act!!!!!!

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

m5k

"I say tax the churches, and get their bible, and twisted beliefs out of my life."

Why do some people walk around with their sexual orientation up on their sleeves and use the might of the government to force it down the throat of everybodyelse?

Just like I think the churches should stay out of government...I think people should keep their sexual orientation out of the government too. No special treatment period.

So tired of hearing Special Rights, the gay community does NOT have the same rights as the straight community. I am a 40 year old gay man, and have been in my life, beaten, stabbed, called names, and raped by these people who claim to be christians. I DO NOT believe in god, church, or the bible. And am sick of how my community is treated. Bush in both elections had signs made that said Gay people have to many rights. I say tax the churches, and get their bible, and twisted beliefs out of my life. Tired of christian hate and ignorance!!!

I escaped the authoritarianism of the Netherlands and now live in the New York but in 2002 things became personal again because some people attempted to isolate and silence me through economic deprivation….using the might of the federal government to make it appear all legal....all these people seem to be speaking on behalf of the so-called, minority, poor, disadvantaged, disenfranchised and oppressed women....but the fact of the matter is that these people exposed themselves to be the hypocrites that they are..... they also decide who gets what and who does not....and only rally behind issues that benefit their political agenda.....exploiting the misery of people, speaking on their behalf only for their personal and political gain.

They have their mouth full about the Christian-conservative-right being wrong on issues….but they remain silent about the leftist-liberal-Christian crimes against humanity.

FreeVoice:
Where are you living where women are jailed for being single mothers? I was a single mother most of my daughter's life. I met and married my husband when she was in her teens. I discovered that I was pregnant several weeks after I broke up with my former boyfriend. After I decided I was going to have the baby and told him I was pregnant, he wanted to get married. I refused. I was not going to marry someone I didn't want just because I was pregnant. I made a conscious decision to become a single mother. In no way was I ever isolated from society because of it. My status as a single mother did not put me under any extra governmental scrutiny or regulation.

As for differences in the sexes, I think for the most part, they're over-emphasized. What can my husband do that I can't? He can produce sperm and pee on a wall. What can I do that he can't? I can grow a child in my uterus, push it out between my thighs, and produce milk to feed it after it's born. I'd say we're even.

As for pay discrepancies, you say you have no problem with men getting paid more. I do. If I am doing the same job, at the same level of skill and experience, then I should be getting the same pay.

I envy no one, and have always worked for my money. At the moment, I am the main wage-earner in our family while my husband finishes his terminal degree. He has no problem with the fact that I make more money than he does. He knows what it took for me to finish college while raising a child and how hard I worked to get the job I have. He admires my strength. Other men I've been involved with couldn't deal with it. One said he wanted a long-term relationship, but I would have to change jobs so that his income would exceed mine. Needless to say, he and I no longer associate.

I beleive that all races, sexes, orientations, religions, etc. are equally deserving of respect. Certain expressions of disrespect, such as rude comments about the sexual habits of single mothers, I can deal with by offering the offender a tube of Chapstick so that his lips will be soft and smooth when he kisses my butt. But when people are physically attacked because of the combination of X and Y chromosomes in their DNA, the color of their skin, or the gender of the person they love, or the name by which they call their deity, that's another story.

“Europe thrived and remained dynamic as long as it stuck to individualism. It has slowly declined ever since Utopian; collectivist ideologies poisoned its bloodstream. In multiculturalism, the individual is reduced to being a member of a “tribe", be that of the black tribe vs. the white tribe, the Catholic tribe vs. the Protestant tribe, or the Muslim tribe vs. all the other tribes. Islam, with its Muslim community or “Ummah” roughly being an enlarged Arab tribe of old, is well suited for this line of thinking.

Some claim that multiculturalism works just fine as long as you keep Islam out of the equation. That’s not the case. One of the reasons why the insanity of using sharia law has been seriously considered in Canada is that Canada was from the outset a weak nation. Canadians have for so long pandered to their French-speaking community that appeasing ethnic minorities has become something of a national habit. This proves the maxim that although being bilingual can be a great advantage for an individual, it is a tragedy for a country.”

This is what I am talking about…..female tribe vs. male tribe…..the left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative. The same political agenda that poisoned the bloodstream of the United States of America….where women are pitted against men at the detriment of women.

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2807&cid=3&sid=105

lepidopteryx:

Yes I was imprisoned by law and kept isolated from society, as a women/mother who was single I had no freedom of choice my life was to be governed by the state whether I liked it or not. Freedom and liberty was only for the so-called educated and feminist. Refusing to adhere to this notion almost cost me my life in a supposedly free and democratic country.

Gender feminists are both male and female who think that patriarchy is demonic. I believe in equality of the sexes…..but I am also facing a reality that there is a difference between the sexes in many ways. Some things a man can do better than I can and I can do some things better than he can……we complement instead of envy each other. I personally have no issues that a man makes more money than I do. I say more power to him....this does not stop me from doing the things that I know that I am good at and learn how he does it.

I am darn sure that our strengths and weaknesses are not the genitals. True equality does not come from idealizing envy. I am a very independent person and don’t view men as my ultimate oppressor. I never gave men the opportunity to abuse and oppress me….I always made my own money and never depended on a man to take care of me. I am an individual and not every female walking the face of the earth as gender feminist categorize people based on their genitals.

Hate crimes legislation is being passed in the United States but since the United States is not an Island it is bound to spill over its borders and it is. What happens here affects the rest of the world as simple as that. I had to come to that conclusion myself. I escaped the horrors of one country thinking things like that don’t happen over here but was I wrong. When a scholar and gender feminist (I was not fully aware of their agenda at that time) in the Netherlands told me that women in the United States were extremists.....I thought she was just saying that because women in the Netherlands were not visibly assertive (while behind the scene the so-called educated/feminist influenced government policies at the detriment of women).

When I made it my priority to pay attention and read on the issue I came to the conclusion that she had a point. Christina Hoff Somers and others have this extremism well documented. You will get a better understanding of what I am talking about when you read the book. One last point…..gender-feminist in the Netherlands advocate the sexual exploitation of girls and young women by older women/lesbians and some of these people brought their perverted thinking to the institutions of higher learning in the United States…..and I am going to leave it at this.

FreeVoice:
I'm afraid I don't quite get your meaning here. "I have been deprived of precious years of my life but I gained wisdom and understanding to know what it was all about. The people who really need healing are the gender feminist who are consumed by hatred of self and go to the extreme to oppress, destroy, kill and steal the joy of others in order to make themselves feel good.....misery loves company.....and by using the might of the government they make it legal and become untouchable."
How were you deprived of years of your life? Were you imprisoned?
What exactly is a "gender feminist?" I know both men and women who beleive in the equality of the sexes.
What exactly is this "it" that "they" make legal? Gender equality? Homosexuality? I seriously doubt that you would wish either of those things to be illegal, so please tell me what your antecedents for these pronouns are.

"in reality you do not get protection if you do not fit the stereotype of the pitiful feeling sorry for yourself, crying racism till kingdom come black woman who claims to be a
feminist/atheist/socialist."
If a co-worker and I have the same job title, same levels of education, expereince, and ability, and he gets paid more for the same work simply because he's male, it is not "feeling sorry for myself" if I demand equal pay for equal work. It is justice. The same goes for discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. If you're willing to put up with such behavior directed toward you and tell yourself that you're stronger than those who seek remediation of the situation, enjoy your martyrdom. But it sounds to me like you're either scared to make waves because you don't want people to think you're a "whiner" or you've just given up.
I talk about incidents in the United States because we're talking about hate crimes legislation being passed by the United States Congress. Exactly what "political agenda of people that is shaping the culture of death and destruction which goes the world over" are you referring to? Who exactly is advcating the death and destruction of straight women (which seems to be your contention).
Thank you for the book recommendation - I'm not familiar with the title or the author, but I'll check it out.
And I had a lovely Mother's Day celebration with my husband, my daughter, and my parents.

lepidopteryx:

“Wow, someone has hurt you really badly, and that sucks. I wish you healing for your pain and your anger. BUt that doesn't change the fact that you are mistaken regarding BGLT issues.”

I am not consumed by anger and hatred but consider myself blessed by the grace of God. In the midst of adversity I maintained my integrity and never compromised my principles and I am healthy and of sound mind. I can tell you that I am correct in my assesment regarding BGLT issues because the information is out there. Seek and you will find....in San Fran & NY the taxpayers pay. In the Netherlands illegal Romenians go on welfare and taxpayers finance their operation.

I have been deprived of precious years of my life but I gained wisdom and understanding to know what it was all about. The people who really need healing are the gender feminist who are consumed by hatred of self and go to the extreme to oppress, destroy, kill and steal the joy of others in order to make themselves feel good.....misery loves company.....and by using the might of the government they make it legal and become untouchable.

“As a black woman, there are laws to protect you from discrimination and harm based on your skin color and your gender.”

This is a great misconception.....in reality you do not get protection if you do not fit the stereotype of the pitiful feeling sorry for yourself, crying racism till kingdom come black woman who claims to be a
feminist/atheist/socialist.

In today’s world some women are more equal than others courtesy of the gender Nazi Gestapo.

You talk about incidents that happen to people in public in the United States because of the ignorance that abounds but I am talking about the political agenda of people that is shaping the culture of death and destruction which goes the world over. What I encountered is not an incident that happened because of one persons wickedness but it comes from a particular mindset not limited to a person and a country……it is a world wide phenomena.

You should read Who Stole Feminism? How women have betrayed women by Christina Hoff-Sommers to get the picture. If you are concerned and want to make a change you should make an effort. Happy mother’s day….:-))

Freevoice:
Wow, someone has hurt you really badly, and that sucks. I wish you healing for your pain and your anger. BUt that doesn't change the fact that you are mistaken regarding BGLT issues.

For starters, the TS men that I know all paid for their gender reassignment procedures out of their own pockets. They were not covered by insurance. To my knowledge, they are not covered by Medicaid either. Folks who are born in the wrong body and don't have the funds to change that are s-o-l.

A little clarification on waht I meant by identity-based persecution seems to be in order. You don't base your identity on your skin color or your gender or your orienatation, and that's a good thing. You're right - identity is so much more than that. But only a few decades ago, you would not have been able to use certain public restrooms, or water fountains, or even sit at certain lunch counters because someone else DID identify you based solely on the color of your skin. No other aspect of your total person would have mattered to them.
I am white and live in the Deep South. Not long ago, my daughter was dating a black young man. Only a few decades ago, for the two of them to hold hands in public could have resulted in him being lynched because someone identified him based solely on the color of his skin. No other aspect of his total person would have mattered to a lynch mob.
Today, two men or two women holding hands in public are at risk of being physically attacked because someone else identifies them based solely on their attraction to the same sex. No other aspect of their total person matters to the attacker.
A man walking down the street in a dress is at risk of being physically attacked because someone else identifies him based solely on his clothing. No other aspect of his total person matters to the attacker.
A woman who looks "butch" or a man who looks "effeminate" or people with androgynous appearances are at risk of being attacked because someone else identifies them based solely on their appearance and mannerisms. No other aspect of their total person matters to the attacker.
As a black woman, there are laws to protect you from discrimination and harm based on your skin color and your gender. If you choose not to pursue the enforcement of these laws when they are broken, that's your decision. But if you opt to go into a war zone without a bullet-proof vest, it doesn't mean that you can demand that no one else be allowed to have one, calling it special treatment when others seek the protection you refused.

LEPIDOPTERYX

I come from an anything and everything goes ultra liberal culture that is supposedly tolerant but yet not everybody has the same rights.

BGLT are not looking for special rights? They do too and they use the government to get what they want. Here is their contradiction….the government needs to stay out of their bedroom but yet they want government (taxpayers) to pay for their sex change and all other demands…how is that not wanting special treatment? The same way that black people are now looking for special treatment based on skin color and others jumping on the bandwagon to claim special treatment based on their religion or their non-believe in God….don’t you see how nutty this is......and it will never stop because knowing human nature…it is never enough for some. If its not one thing it is another.

BGLT want “The right to protection from identity-based persecution”…..and here is the problem…..the gender lobby in their quest to deconstruct society is pushing the agenda that people their identity is based on their gender and sexuality. I do not subscribe to this notion because myself worth is not defined by my gender, sexual orientation or skin color for that matter. I have been to hell and back as an individual (committee of one) but there is no lobby or law that protects me from this non-sense….and I sure am not the only one…the countless others are suffering in silence but I simply refuse to be oppressed by the counter culture.

I am not dismissing homosexual relationships….I was fortunate to have friendships with gays……I did not get to know them based on their sexual orientation….but simply for who they are as human beings. Special legislation to protect certain groups of people in a free society with many laws on the books is simply demanding special treatment. I am not looking for special treatment because I don’t want the government dictating my private life as simple as that.

Jihadist:

Gays do their thing and use the might of the government but its invisible to the rest of the population.

Freevoice

Right now, if one is a black Muslim lesbian, life must be hell, hell, hell.

Frankly I've never heard of American gays physically bashing anyone, including blacks. Gays are the ones getting bashed verbally and physically, by every homophobes regardless of gender, race, religion and political affiliations.

Regards

My apologies for my misidentification of your gender and orientation.

I don't know what background you come from where straight women are vilified.

As for lesbians hating men, none of the lesbians I know hate men. Infact, the lesbians I know all have straight male friends. They just don't have any desire to have sex with a man.

Among my friends and extended family there are 18 gay men, 12 lesbians, 7 bisexual women, I bisexual man, and 3 female-to-male transsexuals that I can name off the top of my head. These are my relatives, friends from my church, co-workers, my daughter's classmates, etc. - people I interact with on a regular basis. Every one of these people says that they did not choose their orientation. And yet, in some parts of the country - indeed, in some areas of my city, they risk grievous bodily harm if they stroll hand-in-hand down the street with the love of their lives. How is that not persecution?

BGLT people aren't looking for special rights. They want the same rights that everyone else is. The right to marry the person they love and to have that marriage legally recognized as such. The right to protection from identity-based persection.

And please don't dismiss all homosexual relationships as mere lust. Some of the same-sex couples I know have been together for decades. Mere lust doesn't last that long. Love, on the other hand, does.

lepidopteryx,

Please don't take my words out of context....I am a female and mother and attracted to men.......and this is what I said “which SOME of them just took on as a life style and political choice." It didn't come from me but from the horse’s mouth.

I did not choose my sexuality......but according to this gender lobby my sexuality was forced upon me by society which is totally bogus......as a mother I was also a dirty woman....because clean women don't sleep with men. Can you imagine what this non-sense does to ones psyche? I had to constantly defend myself for being female, mother, single, straight and black. Where I come from lesbians are holier than thou other women simply do not exist.

Equating my skin color with the sexual orientation of others to benefit a particular political agenda is insulting my intelligence. Claiming that lesbians are the most oppressed women in society, is also totally out of whack….because those women have a passionate hatred for men. I personally have no issues with people’s sexual orientation because what you do in your bedroom is none of my business…..but I do have an issue when people use their sexuality to gain special treatment or favor….straight women do the same thing using their sexuality as a power tool.

I am straight and it never crossed my mind to sleep with women……but some people clearly make that choice out of lust….and that is beastly instinct….if it feels good to it. As an individual I set boundaries for myself I don’t have to follow all that is en vogue in the cultural landscape. People have the right to do as they please but when they start exploiting the misery of others for their own gain you have a problem……and that is exactly what the gay/lesbian lobby is doing….when it comes to equating their sexual orientation with the skin color of black people…..using the mistreatment of black people gives them leverage to force their will down peoples throat….because it all boils down to power.

Freevoice:
"On the other hand I think that the gay/lesbian lobby is also taking things to the extreme to equate people’s skin color with their sexual orientation which some of them just took on as a life style and political choice is ridiculous."

What makes you think that sexual orientation is a choice? I'm assuming that you are a straight male - please correct me if I am mistaken. If so, did you consciously choose to be attracted to women? Could you will yourself to be attracted to a man? If the answer to either of these questins is "No," then how can you say that orientation is a choice? if you did not choose your own, then why do you assume that anyone with a different orientation from yours must have chosen it?
I am a straight female. I did not choose to be. As puberty set in, I was attracted to men. I could choose to hae sex with a woman, but that would not make me a lesbian, because I am not sexually attracted to women. It would make me a straight woman who had sex with someone to whom I was not attracted. Marrying a woman to whom he is not sexually attracted and having children with her does not make a gay man straight. It makes him a gay man married to a woman to whom he is not attracted, and it makes him a gay father. Orientation is in the attraction, not the action.

"Nobody chooses to be born a certain skin color or ethnicity so putting their sexual orientation on the same level as the denegration of people based on their skin color is worse than calling somebody the N...word or ho."
So gay-bashing is the fault of the bashee? My friend whose face I had to put back together will be interested to learn that he could have avoided that whole nasty incident just by not being gay. Just like Emmett Till could have avoided being lynched just by not being black.

Some Christians take their religion to the extreme just like other people do. They use the word to sooth their own fears and insecurities. On the other hand I think that the gay/lesbian lobby is also taking things to the extreme to equate people’s skin color with their sexual orientation which some of them just took on as a life style and political choice is ridiculous. Nobody chooses to be born a certain skin color or ethnicity so putting their sexual orientation on the same level as the denegration of people based on their skin color is worse than calling somebody the N...word or ho. According to Lesbians they are the most oppressed women in society.....women with children are dirty and non-existent. In the hate crime legislation pregnant women were excluded as a protected group....that tells me that some lives are worth more than others and that violence against people that doesn’t benefit their political agenda does not matter....as simples as that.

Hatred always begets hatred there are no two ways about it.

While I would agree to a point with the foks who say that all crimes are hate crimes (after all, i have never heard of anyone being beaten senseless out of love), not all hate is equal.
I recall several years ago, when I lived a few blocks from a well-known gay bar. One morning about 3:00, there was a knock at my door. Not being accustomed to visitors at that hour, I asked through the door who was there. I heard the voice of a good friend of mine who happened to be a gay man. It's a good thing he had identified himself before I opened the door, or I would not hae recognized the filthy, bloody urine-soaked mass of flesh on my doorstep. He had been jumped in the parking lot of the bar by three guys, beaten, urinated on, and left barely conscious. How he managed to make it to my place, I still don't know, since he had no vehicle. I wanted to take him to an ER, but he refused. The hospital would be required by law to call the police, and he knew all too well the general sentiment of our local gendarmes regarding gay-bashings. As an ex-inlaw of mine in law enforcement put it, "Why should we waste our time every time some little fagg0t (since WaPo does censor some text) gets his as$ kicked? They just need to learn to fight like men instead of girls." My friend knew that I worked in an animal hospital and could provide him with first aid, so he came to me. I took his reeking clothes from him, and, helped him to sponge himself off, and gave him a pair of my sweatpants and a t-shirt to put on. Did I mention that it three guys jumped one who was 5'4" and about 130 lbs? I soaked a pair of eyebrow tweezers, nail scissors, white cotton thread, and a sewing needle in rubbing alcohol, and spent the next couple of hours picking gravel and broken glass out of his face, and trimming ragged edges of cuts and stitching them together. I had a bottle of codeine tablets left over from a recent surgery I had had, and I gave him those to dull the pain.
While the coward who did this to him deliberately picked a victim who was small and alone, they knew that everyone he knew would find out what had happened. As someone else said, it was not merely directed at him, any more than a lynching is directed only at the man on the end of hte rope. It's intended to send a message to an entire group of people - "You could be next." In that sense, hate crime is a form of terrorism, and is different from other crimes, and does need to be dealt with differently.
As for the religious right claiming that hate crime legislation would infringe on their right to practice their religion, I fail to see how. Many Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. They are free to believe that, and they are free to preach that from their pulpits. But they do not have the right to get up in a gay man's face and berate him for his homosexuality, and they are certainly not free to do him violence or to instruct their congregations to do violence for it. One person's right to speak does not in any way obligate another to listen.
The KKK is alive and well here in the south and the benighted idiots still believe that inter-racial marriage is a sin. They have the right to believe that. They have the right to preach it from their pulpits. David Duke can even wear his sheet if he wants to. They do not have the right to accost my black friend and her white husband and harass them, nor do they have the right to burn crosses on their lawn, and they certainly do not have the right to do them violence or to instruct their congregations to do so.
In other words, as long as the practice of your faith does not include violence, then hate crimes legislation won't affect your ability to practice it.

I haven't been around much because the Mormon question doesn't really interest me, it just seems like an invitation to badmouth other peoples beliefs...

One more time, there is a big difference between members of the right-wing "Libertarian Party" and those with philosophically libertarian leanings. Paganplace, I continue to suspect we support and oppose many of the same practical solutions. I made the J.S.Mill comment assuming you would know exactly what it meant. You are one of the more thoughtful people who posts here (in general most of the neo-pagans here take a much more Christ-like attitude than many of the so-called Christians) which is why I keep trying to explain myself. OF COURSE it is everyone's responsibility to respect others and to give what assistance you can when you can. One of the reasons I am uncomfortable with increasing government action is that it encourages individual citizens to think they don't have to be personally involved in solving problems because some distant bureaucrat will take care of it.

Terra, I cited J.S.Mill because of his argument that the more the government provides, the less individual citizens become willing to take on. We should know enough to be hurt and offended by hateful speech whether or not it is directed at our own group or at a group we consider strange, and we should each consider it a personal responsibility to refuse to put up with it. Too much of what goes wrong lately is because our thick web of laws makes people think that anything at all is permitted as long as there is no law against it.

As the comments about the Netherlands have pointed out, the downside of a tolerant society is that it becomes harder to socially isolate those whose views should be found abhorrent. I don't have a solution to the problem except that I know the answer is not more conformity.

I guess we really need two general and enforceable laws: Don't be a jerk, and Don't hurt anybody.

Doesn't it say somewhere that we are to receive equal protection under the law. EQUAL protection. I am not saying that laws are currently being enforced equally for all people. But I don't think we need another law to make that happen.

Jihadist

I am still in this threat because it is of interest...:-))

Pim Fortuyn was labeled a right-wing bogeyman to scare people but I am falsifying that notion…the Dutch media and the rest of the establishment smeared a man not because he was a threat to minorities but because he was a threat to the extreme left/social democrat’s a.k.a liberals who dominate the political arena. They decide who gets what and who does not. Liberty and freedom is only for a selected few. The rest of the world bought into the hype and biggest lie in Dutch history and now they all look like fools. The same people who labeled Pim Fortuyn right-wing put Hirsi Ali on the map to bash Islam the religion because she pledged allegiance to the Atheist manifesto and because it makes things easy for them, they don't have to say what they really think. Pim Fortuyn simply exposed their hypocricy that's all...and he left a legacy behind that tells the story in full detail.

FYI: I am not the one who came up with Christo-colonialism…..and as far as Islamo-fascism goes I call it as I see it. I got into this subject not from a scholar’s perspective but from the school of hard knocks my friend. When you know, that you know, that you know, you don’t have to play mind games and be politically correct. History is simply repeating itself and I face that reality.

To me Islamo-fascism is a toxic mix of Marxist thought and religion. Religion on top of religion. A big perverted mess. The Ism’s floating around are put in motion by falsehoods and manipulation and perverted thought and it's better to call the beast by the name before the corrupt word becomes flesh that you can’t handle.

Gaby,

I think you are misunderstanding me. I know the thought police is here but they do not have as much weight over here as they would like to that's why I say America is a free country.

Now comes the big Q who is the thought police in the United States?

The Dutch are not a window to Europe? Do you know that the United States is slowly but surely adapting the Ultra of the Netherlands....according to some thinktanks they are the trendsetters in Europe. Even the Supreme court is picking up on those trends. The extreme-left has formed a transatlantic partnership with their Democrat counterparts in the US and they have been influencing things....you would only know that if you paid attention to those details. I know because I've been upclose!

Freevoice:

I live in the US we as well. And if you for one moment believe that we don't have the same thing that is going on in Europe right here at home at home, you are naive.

WE have the same political correctness police right here and are constantly being told how we must accept and respect everything and everyone for fear of offending. You want to talk thought police?

I respect everyone's right to believe and act as they wish as long as they do not infringe on anyone eleses rights. But I expect that same courtesy afforded to me and my believes.

And no, the Dutch are not a window for Europe. They have always be viewed as ultra-liberal by most other European nations.

And I'm sorry if any of that anger comes off as ill-directed. But I hear a lot of people acting like the people who are *against* civil rights and justice for Americans, and use their religious authority to *sow* fear and hatred are somehow the *victims* when they're criticized for *supporting hate crimes.*

Real ones. Ones like I was trying to recover from when they hastened to tell their followers in a nation traumatized after 9/11 that if they'd only not been 'tolerant' of Pagans and secularists and non-straights, then the attack never would have happened.

So, yeah. It does make me pretty furious.

These people neither need nor deserve defending.

It's to our shame as a nation they weren't repudiated, ridiculed, and then roundly ignored.

I'm not even going to *dignify* the claims of 'Oh, secularists questioned me! I'm such a victim! They won't let me control them! I'm a victim! Don't protect people who harm none and just happen to violate my religious tabooes! They oppress me by not obeying me! They want 'Special Rights' to not be singled out by *me* cause I think my prejudices are right, this time, even if the same things didn't work out to be true about the Irish or the Catholics or the Jews or the blacks! It's got to be right *some* time!'

Yabber, yabber, yabber.

This means you, or Jerry Falwell, is 'oppressed' cause they're worried if more of what people do at their behest was seen as *the hate crimes they are,* then, what... you lose yourself, somehow?

Sounds like a self worth *losing* if you're that dependent upon the feeling that some of the *real* hate crimes I happen to have seen and been subjected to are so *unimportant,* compared to how you felt when 'secular' person didn't bow to your assertions of authority over others...

We're talking about *real* violence and *real* oppression, here, not some Fox News sense that 'Christianity is under 'attack' cause the Wal Mart greeters don't refer to our holiday exclusively!'

Forget about the words. These preachers consider it an 'attack on their religion' if a Pagan claims *not* to be the baby-killing, animal-sacrificing Satanist they make so much money defaming her as. Or a gay person says, 'Umm, no, not like your propaganda says I am, no.'

Then they go talking about some abstract 'loss of freedom' for them if what is *obviously* a frequent motivation for hate crime (against people they marginalize themselves) *is recognized as a hate crime.*

Pardon the vehemence, but this is supposed to be *America.*

Equal protection under the law.
Land of the free. Home of the brave.

I *demand* free.

And I *expect* a little guts.

Don't whine about, 'Oh, the big bad secularists disrespected mah authoritay'.

Not. Your. Authority.

This is about *justice.* Here in the world.

To "ANONYMOUS" who wrote the following and for everyone's further enlightenment, please visit www.WouldJesusDiscriminate.com and read the whole thing...maybe it will plant a few seeds. But first, I can tell you that I will relish in the day that there is more definitive evidence that sexual orientation is biological, which any gay person will tell you, or anybody with half a brain will tell you,...is true. Then where will this argument go? The truth is, it's not the Bible, but the person reading it that has a problem with homosexuality.

ANONYMOUS SAID

Oh really, Jesus never annulled the Old Testament proscriptions against homosexual relations. Part of loving your neighbor is admonishing them to turn away from their sins. You don't have a clue about what Jesus meant when he
said love your neighbor. The very idea of "sexual orientation" is a Marxist construct invented by Harry Hay and other Marxists/postmodernists to sell the phony notion that homosexuality is equivalent to race. It's a behavioral inclination, not an inanimate set of physical or cultural characteristics. Why shouldn't we grant special protections for other behavioral inclinations such as smoking, compulsive gambling, consensual incest, etc.? Why not add smoking orientation, gambling orientation, eating orientation, etc., to the hate crimes law?

The sad thing for religion in America is that as the religious right polarizes the country with their hatred and bigotry, an equal an opposite reaction is occuring: more people are GIVING UP organized religion or giving up on religion altogether. When religion accepts GLBT people for who they are (and I'm not talking about just tolerance but ACCEPTANCE) then religion will be serving it's higher purpose. Gays have ALWAYS been around and always will be, so I've always found it ironic (and sad) that the very churches who rail about the supposedly "immoral" lifestyles of GLBT people, while at the same time marginalizing those individuals, end up helping to contribute to the very problems that their supposed "loving" churches disdain. And...it's no secret that teen suicide is proportionately higher among GLBT youth. Is that what Jesus would want? I don't think so.

Signed: A very happy, never-done-drugs, professional, accepted-by-my-loving-family, GAY MAN. (For you bigots out there, does it make you mad that I'm actually happy?)

Paganplace, as a Catholic I have put up with some hateful comments by protestants, but nothing like the hateful comments I have recieved from the free thinking, open minded, tolerant secularists! My Church and beliefs are ridiculed on this and many more forums by all kinds of compassionate gays, humanists, and liberal "Christians". Some even state how they hope Christians are wiped from the face of the Earth, or that how much better it would be if there were no more Christians left.
There are plenty of nasty comments by people of all or no faiths! You apparently think nastyness only comes from Christians.
BTW, I said I know of nothing from the other Christian leaders mentioned, not that I don't see the problem anyway.

Freevoice:)

You're still in this thread?

By the way, the late Pim Fortuyn was a very right wing fellow.

Ease up on the labellings. Soon I'll be throwing in neo-imperialism to your Christo-colonialism.

Relax my friend, no one can force anything on you unless you let them or you want them yourself.

And I see Islamofascists already winning elections in Muncie,Indiana and putting in place Shariah laws there. And the Islamofascists having gun battles with the Ku Klux Klan who dissented their desire to establish an Islamic caliphate from Europe to North America. Or some bizarre and crazy scenario like that.

Paganplace

Please don't put words in my mouth......secularism got Europe out of Christo-colonialism.....but secularism is becoming exactly what it hates the most....an oppressive religion without GOD, giving aid and comfort to Islamo-fascism.....the truth is out there for those who can tell.

I am not worried about the rest of the world being pissed at the west; I am more worried about the self-hatred that is being imposed on people in the West....stripping them of their sense of self and depriving them of liberty and freedom of conscience. We all ready see that secularist decide that some lives are worth more than others, atheist are calling for an end to faith.....and I wonder what will be next.

Most of the times your enemy is much closer to home.....been there know that.

"secularism opened the door for Islamo-fascism."

Secularism got us out of Christo-colonialism, and the complete violent Charlie Foxtrot that was Europe just prior to the founding of America. Even then, that colonialism is why half the world's inclined to be pissed at the West in the first place.

Now, if you're saying that the only defense against 'Islamofascism' is to abandon our ideals of liberty and freedom of conscience and be more 'Christofascist,' well, you've got some selling to do, cause it doesn't look much different to me, either way.

Here's a hint, in case you missed recent centuries' lessons of history...

*stage-whisper*

Fascists *lie.*

And they have a way of getting people wound up about enemies while being sly about other things.

Gaby,

I forgot to ask in what country do you live in?

Gaby:

"In America people still have the freedom to think for themselves instead of being brainwashed by the all knowing thought police."

Hahahhaahhah!!!!!! That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Which country do you live in?

You will be surpised I live in the United States of America....shining city on the hill.

FYI: I know that the Dutch don't equal Europe but they are the window for one to see what is going on in Europe. Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Spain, France....Britain....secularism opened the door for Islamo-fascism.

America is still a free country believe it or not...

The Guy in the Glass

by Dale Wimbrow, (c) 1934

When you get what you want in your struggle for self,

And the world makes you King for a day,

Then go to the mirror and look at yourself,

And see what that guy has to say.

For it isn't your Father, or Mother, or Wife,

Who judgement upon you must pass.

The feller whose verdict counts most in your life

Is the guy staring back from the glass.

He's the feller to please, never mind all the rest,

For he's with you clear up to the end,

And you've passed your most dangerous, difficult test

If the guy in the glass is your friend.

You may be like Jack Horner and "chisel" a plum,

And think you're a wonderful guy,

But the man in the glass says you're only a bum

If you can't look him straight in the eye.

You can fool the whole world down the pathway of years,

And get pats on the back as you pass,

But your final reward will be heartaches and tears

If you've cheated the guy in the glass.

(Vie: (addressing me) )

"I'm trying to keep my patience with you. I just don't know where you get the idea that I, or anyone with libertarian leanings, is in favor of "using the government" to do anything at all."

Those that use the government to try and exclude some people they don't approve of from the protections of the law do tend to appeal to 'libertarian' arguments (in these cases, ...not when what they want argues for more government interference.) It's still there, and I think it obfuscates the real issues, intentionally or not.

"It should be obvious that I'm not in favor of any government action that encourages people to divide into opposing groups. Perhaps it is the laws that protect one group to the exclusion of others that should be discontinued."

Key question: What laws are these?

Sounds like the constant deceptions that ensuring justice that the majority enjoys by default equates to minorities wanting 'special rights,' but this is simply not the case.

Laws treating hate crimes as having an additional, terroristic element do not *actually* say 'Special rights for minorities.' They say that such crimes based upon race, creed, or sexuality (And they say *any* race, creed , or sexuality, including those of the 'majority,' or otherwise most-socially powerful groups,) have an additional element which is such a crime against society and our liberties themselves that they deserve special attention and additional punishment.

"If you want to argue with me about what I actually said, I'll be glad to engage you. But I'm not going to be your straw man. What I'm talking about is fewer laws and more personal responsibility. Read J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" and then get back to me."

Lucky I'm more patient with your assumptions that I haven't. :)

What I'm talking about is our social contract to *guarantee* liberty for all, not to stop including people in these guarantees when we start getting to unpopular people, or to take away all such guarantees equally, even.

My ideal society would be a social anarchy where we don't *need* laws. Heck, my *religion* is based on an idea of no strict rules, just personal responsibility, good will, and perfection of intent.

Maybe your ideal society is similar. But in the reality of governance, right now, you can't just say, 'It'll be better if we stop making any more laws.'

Let's not forget that the *topic* of this thread is about *manifestly* bigoted religious leaders *using* claims that it abridges their freedom for the government to *not* selectively-protect the population.

If you don't like laws, themselves, well, don't argue against including more people in civil rights protections. Not only is it more just, it's actually simpler this way, if you really think about it.

By the way, the Dutch do not equal Europe. There are a few more counties involved than just Holland.

Freevoice:

"In America people still have the freedom to think for themselves instead of being brainwashed by the all knowing thought police."

Hahahhaahhah!!!!!! That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Which country do you live in?

How can we investigate crimes where the crimes involve the use of words that we cannot speak in public, serious forums? Imagine teaching AIDS/HIV prevention and never using the word "condom." Apparently, hate crimes laws will never be understood by those who are most likely to commit them.

Mam, I apologize. Some times WE ahh do jump the gun like , know Sist?

Ya Ya. Huggy to All Eee! "Shiloh" Is , S H O l O m a Coming NOW!

Vie,

Libertarians? I once told a libertarian he was just a selfish republican. he was...I have no idea about you. He did not want Social Security, or any social net for anyone. He could not get it through his head that the social net was created because it was needed. He did not believe that the young and old starved to death. He figured charity could do it all. He is ignorant. I am not calling him a name...but stating a fact.
Personal respocibility? Its easy when you are secure.

I guess that is what makes people interesting, all the ways they can see things.
Me..I have little patience with folks who are not having to worry about how they are going to pay their bills and feed their children, yet they talk about personal responcibility. When the jobs go south...and there are 5 million more in poverty and the places like Second harvest can not take care of all the folks. Personal responcibility...is code for "Ain't my problem".

Fewer laws? Which ones would you get rid of? The ones that protect others? How about the tax breaks for those making over 200,000.00? After all it is their personal responcibility to pay their taxes...just like the worker makeing 30,000.00 a year.

I don't like libertain views. We would have a country like too many other nations..the haves and left behinds. It's selfish, too many start out without anything, and can with some help, become something.

As far as the hate crime bill...Bush will veto it..He wants to make sure HIS religious bigotry can be preached from the pulpit. The thing is this bill does not stop it. It just makes sure when hate crimes happen to any one that there is money to investigate it.

Why is it the Christians get the right to make sure that their voices are heard in the laws? How would they like to follow the laws that Pagans would promote or Muslims or Hindus? The laws should be secular...without a thought of religion.Liberty and freedom for all...

terra

Paganplace
I'm trying to keep my patience with you. I just don't know where you get the idea that I, or anyone with libertarian leanings, is in favor of "using the government" to do anything at all. It should be obvious that I'm not in favor of any government action that encourages people to divide into opposing groups. Perhaps it is the laws that protect one group to the exclusion of others that should be discontinued.
If you want to argue with me about what I actually said, I'll be glad to engage you. But I'm not going to be your straw man. What I'm talking about is fewer laws and more personal responsibility. Read J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" and then get back to me.

PELEG:

http://www.smiths-bible-dictionary.com/definition/peleg.aspx

JOKTAN:

http://www.smiths-bible-dictionary.com/definition/joktan.aspx

Testimonials Cases [Not Complete or entirely True and in Fact, as witness of the Faith, Wrongly omits the GOOD!]:

Jihadist,

I lived in the Netherlands and I am an exponent of a Dutch colony.....and I know a thing or two about the anti-social behavior of Muslims who want what they want and refuse to be part of Dutch society. The first generation did it nice went over there never took responsibility to become part of society....never learned to speak the language, stood on the sideline and lived of government hand-outs and went to their homelands every year instead of paving the way for their children to become productive members of Dutch society leaving them at the mercy of the streets.

Mosque on top of mosques are being build in the Netherlands while churches are being used to sell drugs. Muslim youth terrorizing whole neighborhoods and see it fit to call people Christian dogs and others monkeys. Other minority youths face challenges in the Netherlands but the Muslims are the ones resorting to violence and they do that in the name of their religion and allah.

The jihadist openly operate in the Netherlands and officials say that their is nothing they can do about it. The media has been bombarding people with the so-called mistreatment of Muslims as a politically correct stance....but as they always do they never report the truth.

Pim Fortuyn challenged the status quo and their multiculturalist apartheid agenda which divides people into the them vs us....it is because of him that the rest of the world now knows about that the Netherlands is not the utopia that the rest of the world think it is.

Muslims are the only minority group in the Netherlands that gets government protection plain and simple.

"Christians support rights for all people, just not special rights. Other than Robertsons nutty comments I'm not aware of any comments by the others that are at all hateful."

If they were directed at you, you might see how pervasive they are... and the resounding silence from 'Good Christians' about them.

Frankly, a lot of 'Good Christians' are pretty inured to what they're expected to be quiescent about, even as they're supposed to be outraged when another religion says the same thing, or trained to freak out about trivialities and imagined 'attacks' when a minimum-wage Wal-Mart greeter isn't forced to impose their religion on people come holidays.

The "Well, I don't see the problem, anyway" argument only says, well, you don't *see* the problem.

Guess who doesn't *want* you to. Those folks mentioned above who seem to be among the only ones in the country who don't want hate crimes protections extended to *all* Americans.

When they say, 'This isn't hate, it's *righteous*,* ...umm, disproportionate concentration on condemning and socially marginalizing people who aren't hurting anyone while a world of greed, strife, and irresponsibility slouches toward a bad circumstance...'

You bet it's hate. If it was all so abstract, they'd be being 'abstract' about *other* things they consider 'sins.'

Roy, every group has nut cases! Trent Lott, Bush, and anti-abortion groups in England are not Christian leaders!
The Pope did speak out against the Iraqi war! When Bush went to him to seek support, Pope Benedict said no! The Catholic Church as well as myself do not condone capital punishment. The bible does give the state the right to wield the sword {capital punishment is biblical}, but Jesus said "be merciful for I am merciful".
Christians support rights for all people, just not special rights. Other than Robertsons nutty comments I'm not aware of any comments by the others that are at all hateful.

BTW, Chavez is not a group and except for the Mormons themselves, they are not considered Christians. They are entirely a different religion thats adopted Mason, some Christian and ancient Egyptian beliefs.

Att: Jihadist et al;

IT, The and the awareness of OURS Great Eclati is so imaginatively catching and is a valid part or musicolomn for Ecatari-On ears via their heuristic nourishment, of the prophesied "NEW-SONG" in FAITH EXCHANGING Int'l for Healing of Nations inO.U.R.S "ONE-HOLY-BOOK for ONE-UNIVERSE & Beyond.

In Eclati We Trust! Ya Ya Praise G-d! : + )/ B-GONE, wgere art though begoneth Brethren Eclati-on Mons.?

May the PHOTONS of the Waemth of Eclat ITSELF never leave ANY OF ya. Ya Ya Praise the Holy Cosmic NO MON!

Well, Vie, I think we may agree on certain values, but possibly disagree on how to go *about* it.

Saying that including more people in hate crimes protections that others currently enjoy is too 'paternalistic,' I think, lacks *perspective.*

Too often, libertarian points of view are too much about *stopping* the government from guaranteeing liberty as the social contract is supposed to demand: asking us to ignore the tyrrany of the mob, the tyrrany of the neo-feudalist element in corporate power... all the things which *disempower* a free society in the name of an idealistic-*sounding* form of 'Might makes right.'

Our democracy is *founded* upon certain *guarantees* of liberty, and governance based upon *common* defense, *general* welfare, and *secured* blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity.

This is not a means to an end. It's not a religion. Certainly not a means of ganging up on minorities by convincing the populace to marginalize some while others profit by it.

The government is meant to guarantee, protect, and *enhance* individual liberties, indeed, to *improve* them, (let's not forget that our founding fathers *wanted* to abolish slavery right off, but, finding they couldn't, left a process by which we could do it later.) ...and to protect us, by prior agreement, from unaccountable powers, be they religious, economic, or political, that might appeal to our worse instincts.

Any pseudo-libertarian ideas that we must allow the masses, or the corporations, or the churches, to use the government to marginalize, oppress, or attack people who are good Americans
...are missing the point of our American liberty.

Hate crimes are worse crimes than random assaults. Because they target and attempt to dispossess entire *groups.* They are worse crimes because they have *more victims.*

It's our job as Americans to say *We the people* say *No.*.'

.....and Jacob Jozevz, sometimes, I think you are really BGone in a new persona here. You both do tend to quote John Lennon's "Imagine". Must be likeminded people eh? :)

Freevoice

The mythical Dutch "tolerance" is actually indifference in their own country and a fiction in their colonized lands. They are not exactly the model of "tolerance" in purging all resistance and opposition of their domination, rule and control in Indonesia.

As for Islamic threat, depends on whom is the threatened and whom is threatening. Did you ask the Dutch Muslims on threats as well?

Paganplace

I think we may agree on more than you think. I'm not defending laws that enshrine favored status for one religion, ethnicity or social group -- they are more harmful than hate crimes statutes could ever be. If you feel, as Mary Ann Glendon has put it, that our laws express the kind of society we want to be, then hate crimes laws should be part of the picture.

What I worry about is that we already have so many and such detailed laws that we may be discouraging citizens from making their own choices and taking responsibility for those choices. It is the paternalism that I find dangerous.

And this has to do with an American hate crimes law *how,* except as an occasion to exhort people to act out of fear?

Frankly it's fundamentalists closer to home I'm worried about, and it makes little difference to me what brand of weapon would be used against me if either won, what spurious religious justification was used, which side of this endless *war* happens to be familiar when it screws us all, or if we give 'domestic' dominionists the same tools that we're supposed to be fearful about 'foreign' ones bringing here.

Liberty is liberty. Not-liberty is not-liberty.

You can't be 'free to be straight' if you're not 'free to be gay.' Oppression hurts everybody. Only difference is how comfortable you find the prison.

Pim Fortuyn was openly gay and catholic but guess what all those people in the Netherlands who claim to speak for minorities and preach this stop the violence against people hogwash are the ones who created the climate for his assassination. This man was attacked and his life was threatened many times but the government did not offer him protection they did not have the means so they said....they all jumped on the bandwagon to condemn him his as a racist, right-wing extremist and anti-immigrant populist and Dutch Hitler.

Today we remember the brutal and senseless killing five years ago of a man who only dared to warn the people of the Islamic threat in their country. All the so-called tolerant among us stood in line to use his sexuality against him calling him an untermensch while they use all the means at their disposal to protect Muslims and their fundamentalism.

So much for stopping violence against ALL people....(sic)

Vie: "There are people -- I am one of them -- who worry that the multiplicity of laws we have in this country are already burdening citizens with unintended consequences. Some of them are Christians and some are secular libertarians."

Actually, I think the blind acceptance of anti-gay legislation that is billed as 'Protecting the Christian right to 'disapprove of homosexuals' by using the engines of state power is what really has unintended consequences.

Or stealthy ones rammed through because people who think every law is a referendum on how Christian they are aren't considering the implications for the role of the judiciary in protecting *all* our rights.

In Virginia and other places, they've passed laws intended to hurt gays, but which actually really mess with contract law itself, and the right of citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances, or to sue or hold corporations accountable if they do you or your family harm.

They're using Christian-based homophobia to stop people from questioning what they're doing to the American system itself.

Largely through deception.

This is a common misconception, sometimes willful, about what hate crimes laws actually *do:*

"1. If a man were to go out and torture and kill another white man, he should be sentenced to the maximum penalty for such a "hate crime".
But if a man kills and tortures a gay man than he will get "extra" punishment because the gay man was special?" --bobster

Actually, for one, this does not offer special protections for only gay people: if for some reason someone tortured and killed a straight person for being straight, then it would be considered just as much a hate crime.

The reason hate crimes are particularly heinous is because, apart from being so *senseless,* (and you could say, premeditated in a way, despite often being somewhat indiscriminate,) is that their purpose is in fact to terrorize *entire communities* of people.

It deprives entire groups of people of their civil rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the most sacred of our American values.

As for the preachers worried about the 'free speech' right to preach hate and not be held accountable when some unbalanced or hateful person takes it as socially-and-divinely-sanctioned, or even commanded, to attack members one minority or another, ...to commit slander and hide behind religion to avoid being questioned or held accountable, ...well, frankly, I think they have no right at all.

Still, that's not what this bill addresses. It's about investigating and prosecuting hate *crimes.*

Hateful preachers won't be going to jail, but maybe what they *don't* want is people looking too hard at the 'fruits' of their teachings.

Anonymous sez: "You don't have a clue about what Jesus meant when he said love your neighbor."

And you do? Do we need you to interpret the words of Jesus for the rest of us? Maybe you could start a religion and collect some money speaking for Jesus. Oh, I'm sorry its already been done. Your ilk who think only they know what Jesus said or meant is representative of the ignorace of organized religions. Your kind thing cherry picking scriptures to support your agenda is real clever and the unthinking masses will buy it.

Bill L. sez: To claim that Christians preach violence against any group or sub-group of people is so dishonest I'll call you a liar if you do! Call me a liar Bill, its true. Robertson said lets assasinate Chavez. A Mormon prophet encouraged young men to beat up homosexuals. There are many more examples.

Senator Trent Lott has openly compared homosexuals with thieves, expressing the fundamental assumption that homosexuality is essentially criminal in nature and deserving of similar treatment.

Christian anti-abortion extremists in Britain have warned the public that there "will be casualties" in the coming war, and that they did not intend to "turn the other cheek.

When President George Bush insists that billions of dollars need to continue flowing to the war effort in Iraq which leads to more American body bags and Iraqi graves, why is there no outcry? Why don't the Christian leaders stand up and challenge those decisions, and passionately assert that Jesus would have sought another way of solving the problems?

Why do Christians support capital punishment when their commandment says "Thou shall not kill"

Why do Christians oppose laws that would protect homosexuals from violence from malcreants fired up by the likes of hateful Christian "pastors" like Swaggart, Dobson, Haggard, Roberson and Falwell? Call me a liar Bill but the truth is that some so called Christians promote and encourage violence against others.

Bobster:

Maybe some of us don't need "special laws" to know that violence like I mention above is wrong. And needs to be punished, regardless of who committs the evil act. Its dangerous when a nation starts to single out a "special group of people to provide special rights too".

"We can't say that the Hate Crimes are a precedent. All communist and fascist societies made use of such laws before we ever did."

The writing is on the wall. People like the author in the United States are pushing these buttons to follow European trends because it is progressive, they will not stop pushing until sh....t hits the fan, a marxist political strategy for those who can tell, but they make a grave mistake to negclect the history of America. It was founded by a freedom loving people and that spirit is still alive and kicking!

"I grew up in Europe, where the state and church are still married. However, the vast majority of Europeans are much more open to secular thinking than mainstream America."

Europeans are much more open to secular thinking indeed...and the government controls the mind of people with hate crimes law.....depriving people of their freedom of speech and freedom of thought with Multicultural hogh-wash and political correct non-sense.....in the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh. God and Christianity are dead but Muslim fanatics get all the support they need to practice their religion from those who deny others the same rights.

Seculars talk a great deal about tolerance but it is a fact that they are the biggest bigots and danger to minorities because they institutionalize hatred with their twisted multicultural tribalist "apartheid" thinking.

In America things may not be perfect but everything is out in the open for everyone to see while Europe is covering up crimes against invidivuals and only protects those who they deem to be worthy of life.

In America people still have the freedom to think for themselves instead of being brainwashed by the all knowing thought police.
And I thank God for that.....yes thank God and the moral principles of Christianity.

God Bless America...

Terra, in Matthews fathers third paragraph he states that the purpose of the trial was to show it was a hate crime. That sounds like going out of their way to me. The prosecutor made no descision without the fathers ok? Is that how you run a trial? Why did the Catholics get involved? Was there some attack on them? IDK!
I don't care why someone kills, rapes, or robs, I want them prosecuted and imprisoned! There have been several cases of homosexuals kidnapping of killing people for whatever reason, but they should be convicted according to their crimes, not because it may have had something to do with their homosexuality.
Terra, Jesus is sad at any at any sin, espeacially the taking of another life! I pray that Matthew is with Jesus now.

For all of you who misunderstand hate, hate is not opposing a lifestyle or certain law! It's not hating your children when you forbid unhealthy behaviors. Hate is not warning someone of danger. Hate is not a judgement of behavior. Hate is stronger than "dislike" {some don't seem to know the difference}
On the other hand, love is not permitting everything just because it may feel good. It is not a sexual thing. It is not just an emotion. Love is a decision, an act of sacrafice of self that another may benifit. Love only provides good and ultimatly comes from almighty God. Love is giving ones life for a friend or stranger.

I do and will stand against this culture of death. I will continue to stand for morals on life issues, but also for morals on other social issues such as taking care of the poor, health care, and education. This country is changimg, but change isn't always good! We're losing our sense of right and wrong!

Christian extremist oppose this bill because spewing hate against gays is good business and good politics for them. Rallying a mindless flock aroung a common enemy has been the method of the hateful since time eternal. It brings money and power to the right wing Christian mega businesses. The bill itself does not threaten their right to spew this godless crap but, because it seeks to protect the existance of gays from harm, these so called Christians, in their rightous might, are opposed to it. Weep for Jesus what people do in his name.

>>Oh really, Jesus never annulled the Old Testament proscriptions against homosexual relations. Part of loving your neighbor is admonishing them to turn away from their sins. You don't have a clue about what Jesus meant when he
said love your neighbor. The very idea of "sexual orientation" is a Marxist construct invented by Harry Hay and other Marxists/postmodernists to sell the phony notion that homosexuality is equivalent to race. It's a behavioral inclination, not an inanimate set of physical or cultural characteristics. Why shouldn't we grant special protections for other behavioral inclinations such as smoking, compulsive gambling, consensual incest, etc.? Why not add smoking orientation, gambling orientation, eating orientation, etc., to the hate crimes law?

>>No Christian I know wants to see homosexuals suffer physical harm, but homosexuals aren't anymore worthy of special protection than any of those other groups.

>>If truth is relative, then what right do homosexuals have to tell me I have to like what they do in the privacy of their own homes? Considering all viewpoints are of equal value, right.

>>What hate crimes legislation does is say that some people's lives are more valuable than others. This is nothing but shear neo-Stalinism that seeks to outlaw people because they disagree with the lifestyle choices and validity of behaviors of a certain group in society. Homosexuals confuse arrogance with love.

>>Calling traditionalists mindless is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black because homosexuals have to follow the dictates of the leaders of the "Gay Rights" cult or face harassment and intimidation. The "Gay Rights" movement is a cult that demands unquestioning allegiance and uses guilt to manipulate people.
At least some people still think for themselves and aren't drawn in by its disgraceful tactics.

>>Additionally, calling someone you disagree with hateful is nothing but an ad hominem logical fallacy. Hater, bigot, homophobe, etc., belong in the same category as heretic, capitalist roader, counterrevolutionary, etc., because they are epithets aimed at banning dissent and abolishing democratic debate.

Christian extremist oppose this bill because spewing hate against gays is good business and good politics for them. Rallying a mindless flock aroung a common enemy has been the method of the hateful since time eternal. It brings money and power to the right wing Christian mega businesses. The bill itself does not threaten their right to spew this godless crap but, because it seeks to protect the existance of gays from harm, these so called Christians, in their rightous might, are opposed to it. Weep for Jesus what people do in his name.

Terra Gazelle
I don't see where Bill or anyone else implied Matthew Shepherd's death was in any way a good thing. I also missed where he expressed hate for anyone.

There are people -- I am one of them -- who worry that the multiplicity of laws we have in this country are already burdening citizens with unintended consequences. Some of them are Christians and some are secular libertarians.
The latter group, the philosophical libertarians, also have a problem with regulating lifestyle issues like smoking, birth control and abortion. They also see little reason that same-sex couples should not have the same rights as everyone else. I call them philosophical libertarians to distinguish them from the political party of that name, with whose views I am unfamiliar.

No one has the right to treat anyone with contempt, let alone harm them or damage their property, just because of who they are. Hate crime laws, at their best, are designed to close a loophole for getting away with real criminal behavior. Their passage could be a good thing if this is all they accomplish, but it is not helpful to vilify those who have genuine concerns about the possible side effects.

Bill,

Matthew Shephard was killed because he was gay. The robbery was was just a side line. Maybe you need to read this...the statement by Matthew's father in court.

Dennis Shepard's Statements to the Court
November 4, 1999
Your honor, members of the Jury, Mr. Rerucha: I would like to begin my
statement by addressing the jury. Ladies and gentlemen, a terrible crime was
committed in Laramie thirteen months ago. Because of that crime, the reputation
of the city of Laramie, the University of Wyoming, and the State of Wyoming
became synonymous with gay bashing, hate crimes, and brutality. While some
of this reputation may be deserved, it was blown out of proportion by our friends
in the media. Yesterday you, the jury, showed the world that Wyoming and the city of Laramie will not tolerate hate crimes. Yes, this was a hate crime, pure and simple, with the added ingredient of robbery. My son Matthew paid a terrible price to open the eyes of all of us who live in Wyoming, the United States, and the world to the unjust and unnecessary fears, discrimination,
and intolerance that members of the gay community face every day.
Yesterday’s decision by you showed true courage and made a statement.
That statement is that Wyoming is the Equality State; that Wyoming will not
tolerate discrimination based on sexual orientation; that violence is not the
solution. Ladies and gentlemen, you have the respect and admiration of
Matthew’s family and friends and of countless strangers around the world.
Be proud of what you have accomplished. You may have prevented another
family from losing a son or daughter.

Your honor, I would also like to thank you for the dignity and grace with which
this trial was conducted. Repeated attempts to distract the court from the true
purpose of this trial failed because of your attentiveness, knowledge, and
willingness to take a stand and make new law in the area of sexual orientation
and the “Gay Panic” defense. By doing so you have emphasized that Matthew
was a human being with all the rights and responsibilities and protections of
any citizen of Wyoming.

Mr. Rerucha took the oath of office as prosecuting attorney to protect the
rights of the citizens of Albany County as mandated by the laws of the state
of Wyoming, regardless of his personal feelings and beliefs. At no time did
Mr. Rerucha make any decision on the outcome of this case without the
permission of Judy and me. It was our decision to take this case to trial, just
as it was our decision to accept the plea bargain today and the earlier plea
bargain of Mr. Henderson. A trial was necessary to show that this was a hate
crime and not just a robbery gone bad. If we had sought a plea bargain earlier,
the facts of this case would not have been known and the question would
always be present that we had something to hide. In addition, this trial
was necessary to help provide some closure to the citizens of Laramie,
Albany County, and the state. I find it intolerable that the priests of the
Catholic Church and the Newman Center would attempt to influence the
jury, the prosecution, and the outcome of this trial by their castigation
and persecution of Mr. Rerucha and his family in his private life, by
their newspaper advertisements, and by their presence in the courtroom.
I find it difficult to believe that they speak for all Catholics. If the leaders of
churches want to comment as private citizens, that is one thing. If they say
that they represent the beliefs of their church, that is another. This country
was founded on separation of church and state. The Catholic Church has
stepped over the line and has become a political group with its own agenda.
If that be the case, treat them as a political group and eliminate their
privileges as a religious organization.

My son Matthew did not look like a winner. After all, he was small for his
age—weighing, at the most, 110 pounds, and standing only 5’2” tall. He was
rather uncoordinated and wore braces from the age of 13 until the day he died.
However, in his all too brief life, he proved that he was a winner. My son—a
gentle, caring soul—proved that he was as tough as, if not tougher than,
anyone I have ever heard of or known. On October 6, 1998, my son tried to show
the world that he could win again. On October 12, 1998, my first-born son—and
my hero—lost. On October 12, my first-born son—and my hero— died
50 days before his 22nd birthday. He died quietly, surrounded by family and
friends, with his mother and brother holding his hand. All that I have left now
are the memories.

It’s hard to put into words how much Matt meant to family and friends and
how much they meant to him. Everyone wanted him to succeed because he tried
so hard. The spark that he provided to people had to be experienced. He simply
made everyone feel better about themselves. Family and friends were his focus.
He knew that he always had their support for anything that he wanted to try.

Matt’s gift was people. He loved being with people, helping people, and making
others feel good. The hope of a better world free of harassment and discrimination
because a person was different kept him motivated. All his life he felt the stabs
of discrimination. Because of that he was sensitive to other people’s feelings.
He was naive to the extent that, regardless of the wrongs people did to him, he
still had faith that they would change and become “nice.” Matt trusted people,
perhaps too much. Violence was not a part of his life until his senior year in
high school. He would walk into a fight and try to break it up. He was the
perfect negotiator. He could get two people talking to each other again as no
one else could.

Matt loved people and he trusted them. He could never understand how one
person could hurt another, physically or verbally. They would hurt him, and
he would give them another chance. This quality of seeing only good gave
him friends around the world. He didn’t see size, race, intelligence, sex, religion,
or the hundred other things that people use to make choices about people. All
he saw was the person. All he wanted was to make another person his friend. All
he wanted was to make another person feel good. All he wanted was to be
accepted as an equal.

What did Matt’s friends think of him? Fifteen of his friends from high school
in Switzerland, as well as his high school adviser, joined hundreds of others at
his memorial services. They left college, fought a blizzard, and came together
one more time to say good-bye to Matt. Men and women coming from different
countries, cultures, and religions thought enough of my son to drop everything
and come to Wyoming—most of them for the first time. That’s why this Wyoming
country boy wanted to major in foreign relations and languages. He wanted
to continue making friends and at the same time help others. He wanted to
make a difference. Did he? You tell me.

I loved my son and, as can be seen throughout this statement, was proud of him. He was not my gay son. He was my son who happened to be gay. He was a good-looking, intelligent, caring person. There were the usual arguments, and at times he was a real pain in the butt. I felt the regrets of a father when he realizes that his son is not a star athlete. But it was replaced with a greater pride when I saw him on the stage. The hours that he spent learning his parts, working behind the scenes, and helping others made me realize that he was actually an excellent athlete—in a more dynamic way—because of the different types of physical and mental conditioning required by actors. To this day I have never figured out how he was able to spend all those hours at the theater, during the school year, and still have good grades.

Because my job involved lots of travel, I never had the same give-and-take with Matt that Judy had. Our relationship at times was strained. But, whenever he had problems we talked. For example, he was unsure about revealing to me that he was gay. He was afraid that I would reject him immediately, so it took him a while to tell me. By that time, his mother and brother had already been told. One day he said that he had something to say. I could see that he was nervous, so I asked him if everything was all right. Matt took a deep breath and told me that he was gay. Then he waited for my reaction. I still remember his surprise when I said, “Yeah? OK, but what’s the point of this conversation?” Then everything was OK. We went back to a father and son who loved each other and respected the beliefs of the other. We were father and son, but we were also friends.

How do I talk about the loss that I feel every time I think about Matt? How can I describe the empty pit in my heart and mind when I think about all the problems that were put in Matt’s way that he overcame? No one can understand the sense of pride and accomplishment that I felt every time he reached the mountain top of another obstacle. No one, including myself, will ever know the frustration and agony that others put him through because he was different. How many people could be given the problems that Matt was presented with and still succeed as he did? How many would continue to smile—at least on the outside—while crying on the inside to keep other people from feeling bad?

I now feel very fortunate that I was able to spend some private time with Matt last summer during my vacation from Saudi Arabia. We sat and talked. I told Matt that he was my hero and that he was the toughest man that I had ever known. When I said that, I bowed down to him out of respect for his ability to continue to smile and keep a positive attitude during all the trials and tribulations that he had gone through. He just laughed. I also told him how proud I was because of what he had accomplished and what he was trying to accomplish. The last thing I said to Matt was that I loved him, and he said he loved me. That was the last private conversation that I ever had with him.

Impact on my life? My life will never be the same. I miss Matt terribly. I think about him all the time—at odd moments when some little thing reminds me of him; when I walk by the refrigerator and see the pictures of him and his brother that we’ve always kept on the door; at special times of the year, like the first day of classes at UW or opening day of sage chicken hunting. I keep wondering almost the same thing that I did when I first saw him in the hospital. What would we have become? How would he have changed his piece of the world to make it better?

Impact on my life? I feel a tremendous sense of guilt. Why wasn’t I there when he needed me most? Why didn’t I spend more time with him? Why didn’t I try to find another type of profession so that I could have been available to spend more time with him as he grew up? What could I have done to be a better father and friend? How do I get an answer to those questions now? The only one who can answer them is Matt. These questions will be with me for the rest of my life. What makes it worse for me is knowing that his mother and brother will have similar unanswered questions.

Impact on my life? In addition to losing my son, I lost my father on November 4, 1998. The stress of the entire affair was too much for him. Dad watched Matt grow up. He taught him how to hunt, fish, camp, ride horses, and love the state of Wyoming. Matt, Logan, dad, and I would spend two to three weeks camping in the mountains at different times of the year—to hunt, to fish, and to goof off. Matt learned to cook over an open fire, tell fishing stories about the one that got away, and to drive a truck from my father. Three weeks before Matt went to the Fireside Bar for the last time, my parents saw Matt in Laramie. In addition, my father tried calling Matt the night that he was beaten but received no answer. He never got over the guilt of not trying earlier. The additional strain of the hospital vigil, being in the hospital room with Matt when he died, the funeral services with all the media attention and the protesters, [and] helping Judy and me clean out Matt’s apartment in Laramie a few days later was too much.

Three weeks after Matt’s death, dad died. Dad told me after the funeral that he never expected to outlive Matt. The stress and the grief were just too much for him. Impact on my life? How can my life ever be the same again? When Matt was little, I used to take showers with him, just to teach him not to be scared of the water. Later, Matt helped me do the same thing with Logan. Anyway, Matt and I would be in the shower spitting mouthfuls of water at each other or at his mother, if he could convince her to come into the bathroom. Then he would laugh and laugh. We would also sing in the showers. I taught him the songs “Row, Row, Row Your Boat”; both “Brother John” and its French version, “FrËre Jacques”; and “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.” Matt would sing loud and clear. Now, that voice is silent, the boat has sunk, Jacques is no longer frËre, and the little star no longer twinkles.

Matt officially died at 12:53 a.m. on Monday, October 12, 1998, in a hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado. He actually died on the outskirts of Laramie tied to a fence that Wednesday before, when you beat him. You, Mr. McKinney, with your friend Mr. Henderson, killed my son.

By the end of the beating, his body was just trying to survive. You left him out there by himself, but he wasn’t alone. There were his lifelong friends with him—friends that he had grown up with. You’re probably wondering who these friends were. First, he had the beautiful night sky with the same stars and moon that we used to look at through a telescope. Then, he had the daylight and the sun to shine on him one more time—one more cool, wonderful autumn day in Wyoming. His last day alive in Wyoming. His last day alive in the state that he always proudly called home. And through it all he was breathing in for the last time the smell of Wyoming sagebrush and the scent of pine trees from the snowy range. He heard the wind—the ever-present Wyoming wind—for the last time. He had one more friend with him. One he grew to know through his time in Sunday school and as an acolyte at St. Mark’s in Casper as well as through his visits to St. Matthew’s in Laramie. He had God. I feel better knowing he wasn’t alone.

Matt became a symbol—some say a martyr, putting a boy-next-door face on hate crimes. That’s fine with me. Matt would be thrilled if his death would help others. On the other hand, your agreement to life without parole has taken yourself out of the spotlight and out of the public eye. It means no drawn-out appeals process, [no] chance of walking away free due to a technicality, and no chance of lighter sentence due to a “merciful” jury. Best of all, you won’t be a symbol. No years of publicity, no chance of communication, no nothing—just a miserable future and a more miserable end. It works for me.

My son was taught to look at all sides of an issue before making a decision or taking a stand. He learned this early when he helped campaign for various political candidates while in grade school and junior high. When he did take a stand, it was based on his best judgment. Such a stand cost him his life when he quietly let it be known that he was gay. He didn’t advertise it, but he didn’t back away from the issue either. For that I’ll always be proud of him. He showed me that he was a lot more courageous than most people, including myself. Matt knew that there were dangers to being gay, but he accepted that and wanted to just get on with his life and his ambition of helping others.

Matt’s beating, hospitalization, and funeral focused worldwide attention on hate. Good is coming out of evil. People have said “Enough is enough.” You screwed up, Mr. McKinney. You made the world realize that a person’s lifestyle is not a reason for discrimination, intolerance, persecution, and violence. This is not the 1920s, 30s, and 40s of Nazi Germany. My son died because of your ignorance and intolerance. I can’t bring him back. But I can do my best to see that this never, ever happens to another person or another family again. As I mentioned earlier, my son has become a symbol—a symbol against hate and people like you; a symbol for encouraging respect for individuality; for appreciating that someone is different; for tolerance. I miss my son, but I’m proud to be able to say that he is my son.

Mr. McKinney, one final comment before I sit, and this is the reason that I
stand before you now. At no time since Matt was found at the fence and taken
to the hospital have Judy and I made any statements about our beliefs
concerning the death penalty. We felt that that would be an undue influence on
any prospective juror. Judy has been quoted by some right-wing groups as
being against the death penalty. It has been stated that Matt was against the
death penalty. Both of these statements are wrong. We have held family
discussions and talked about the death penalty. Matt believed that there were
incidents and crimes that justified the death penalty. For example, he and I
discussed the horrible death of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, Texas. It was his
opinion that the death penalty should be sought and that no expense should
be spared to bring those responsible for this murder to justice. Little did we know that the same response would come about involving Matt. I, too, believe in
the death penalty. I would like nothing better than to see you die, Mr. McKinney.
However, this is the time to begin the healing process. To show mercy to
someone who refused to show any mercy. To use this as the first step in
my own closure about losing Matt. Mr. McKinney, I am not doing this because
of your family. I am definitely not doing this because of the crass and
unwarranted pressures put on by the religious community. If anything, that
hardens my resolve to see you die. Mr. McKinney, I’m going to grant you life,
as hard as that is for me to do, because of Matthew. Every time you celebrate
Christmas, a birthday, or the Fourth of July, remember that Matt isn’t. Every time
that you wake up in that prison cell, remember that you had the opportunity
and the ability to stop your actions that night. Every time that you see your cell
mate, remember that you had a choice, and now you are living that choice.
You robbed me of something very precious, and I will never forgive you for that.
Mr. McKinney, I give you life in the memory of one who no longer lives. May
you have a long life, and may you thank Matthew every day for it.

Your honor, members of the jury, Mr. Rerucha, thank you.
---------

FBI Releases its 2005
Statistics on Hate Crime
Download Printable Document (PDF)

Washington, D.C.—According to statistics released today by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 7,163 criminal incidents involving 8,380 offenses were reported in 2005 as a result of bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability. Hate Crime Statistics, 2005, published by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, includes data from hate crime reports submitted by city, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation.

Hate Crime Statistics, 2005, includes the following information:

An analysis of the 7,160 single-bias incidents by bias motivation revealed that 54.7 percent were motivated by a racial bias, 17.1 percent were triggered by a religious bias, 14.2 percent were motivated by a sexual-orientation bias, and 13.2 percent of the incidents were motivated by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Nearly 1 percent (0.7) involved bias against a disability.
There were 5,190 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons in 2005. Intimidations accounted for 48.9 percent, simple assaults for 30.2 percent, and aggravated assaults for 20.5 percent. Six murders as well as 3 forcible rapes were reported as hate crimes.
Of the 3,109 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property, 53.6 percent were directed at individuals, 9.8 percent were against businesses or financial institutions, 8.9 percent were against government, and 6.8 percent were against religious organizations. The remaining 20.9 percent were directed at other, multiple, or unknown victim types. Damage/destruction/vandalism was the most frequently reported crime against property, accounting for 81.3 percent of the total.
Of the 6,804 known offenders reported in 2005, 60.5 percent were white, and 19.9 percent were black. The race was unknown for 12.3 percent, and other races accounted for the remaining known offenders.
The majority (30.0 percent) of hate crime incidents in 2005 occurred in or near residences or homes; followed by 18.3 percent on highways, roads, alleys, or streets; 13.5 percent at colleges or schools; 6.6 percent in parking lots or garages; and 4.3 percent at churches, synagogues, or temples. The remaining 27.3 percent of hate crime incidents occurred at other specified locations, multiple locations, or other/unknown locations.
---
This is one father who lost a son because of hate...so what good did this gay man death do? Is your god happier? Was this young man such an abomination? Is hate really a family value, or valued by your god? Is that what jesus would do?

and Bill...any kind of hate is evil. Whether it comes from a skin head...or a pastor that preaches it from the pulpit.

terra

Good night, JJ! I live on the West Coast!

"Republicans and Democrats alike understand the purpose of the legislation is to aid law enforcement in the prosecution of hate-based crime. To quote Republican Senator Gordon Smith, "Unless they [the religiously based right-wing opponents of the bill] believe part of their religion is the practice of violence against others, they should not be affected by this bill."
Well, it does come down to that then doesn’t? When the rest of the country is moving away from hate-based, wedge politics, these self-appointed “Christian” leaders are going the other way. Americans will tolerate a wide variety of opinions in speech, but we are overwhelmingly in favor of drawing the line at hate-based violence."

Oh, please, what rest of the country? America is full of right wing Christian bigots, more so than any other country I know of.

I grew up in Europe, where the state and church are still married. However, the vast majority of Europeans are much more open to secular thinking than mainstream America.

We still live by old puritan laws. Segreagation is alive and well, and anything non-Christian is viewed with some form of disdain to outright hatred depending on who you ask.

That, however, is universal between whites, blacks, gays, heterosexuals, etc. Because the almighty bible rules and God forgive that the Prez or the Supreme Court or Congress would ever forsake to swear on the Bible for the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" so help them God.

Schools can't teach Christian values, yet in every address to the nation the Presidents declare at the end " God bless America", the Supreme Court starts their days with prayers to that almighty Christian God. Every time Congress is in session something God-like is said.

Something stinks in America and IT is not pleased. Nor am I!!!

JJ. I searched but can't find your addy any more

Bill L.

"I also have been verbally abused for my faith in Jesus {even fired as a youth because I was a Christian}, and am harrassed by co-workers because I won't talk about or look at pornagraphy."

Which planet to you work on? It is against the law to fire you for your faith.

Your co-workers show and talk about porn?

Matthew Shepard was killed because he couldn't fit into his Wyoming (speak backward)community. (OK, that was mean! Wyo is a beatiful state just below the border where it live. However, it is not broke back mountain.)

There are people in these United States that want to make sure that all is well and heterosexual and christian and patriotic and mom and apple pie whole.

Those are the people that missed the boat. (Noah's Arc?)

Thank God that my photons are intact and I don't need the sideshow.

Terra, wow... You talk about equality and rights, then go on about Christians and white men? One day we'll be rid of all them? The haters {read Christians} in congress will die out? Talk about hate!!!!

Matthew Shepard wasn't killed for being gay, he was robbed. Those two who did it were not Christians! They were predators looking for an easy target. They should have recieved the toughest punishment possible regardless of who or what Matthew was!
I'm not sure what your point about terrorists and lost liberty was unless it's political. Especially since it was "poor white men" who mostly voted for both homeland security and hate crime laws. BTW it was also mostly white men that fought and died in the civil war that freed blacks, also the same that gave women the right to vote. Oh yeah, it's white men that are the majority in the gay community here in America.
And when they are homeless and hungry its probably a Christian charity that feeds and shelters them.

I am sorry you were verbally abused for your religion! It's your right to worship as you please. I also have been verbally abused for my faith in Jesus {even fired as a youth because I was a Christian}, and am harrassed by co-workers because I won't talk about or look at pornagraphy. They don't hate me, just like to try and get a reaction out of me by telling crude jokes and using the lords name in vain.

Hate crimes?

Tell me which crime is not hateful?

Political correctness aside, all crime is a crime of hate!

If people would learn to respect not only those who are different but also themselves, maybe hate crime wouldn't exist.

Personally, I still struggle with many preconceived notions about certain cultures.

Is it because I personally was affected by them or because I was taught either by my parents, ,u teachers, my environment, or the general media that they are not to be liked or trusted?

I fear a little of all of the above.

Sad when you really think about it!

We are all on this planet together and we need harmony. Without it we will be doomed.

CRASH?

Uh-Oh, Jacob, you are tattling!!! Not nice, my Eclati--on!

My home puter crashed, just restored a little. Hate this!!!!

But photons, better today than yesterday, so was able to accomplish recovery a little.

Still waiting to hear why Theriault?

Don't have hotmail account and don't want to give my real e-mail on this forum. Never know those nuts out there.

Tell me tue!

I seem to think all crimes are hate crimes. After all I would hard pressed to assign any other attribute to those who commit violence against another person. Besides this reeks of "1984" and Thought Police"

A good balanced article on this subject is at the URL below. Ms. Thistlewaite seems to have an axe to grind as her thoughts are very one sided.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705050549may05,1,2440888.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

I am thanking my Gods I am not a Christian, or any of the ugly nastiness that wants free speach to hate others. Where is the love of jesus everyone spouts? You will talk about equal rights as far as gays not getting any, and accuse them of wanting special rights when they want what everyone else has.

I would like to ask a question of those fine Christians and the poor white men that is so abused...

Why was it that we went to war and hundreds of thosands are being killed, tortured and imprisoned because 3000 Americans were killed? because it is terrorism... for five years we have heard, "fight them there so we don't fight them here". We have lost liberty because of it...those 19 men killed three thosand and put millions in fear.

That is what happened when Mathew Shephard was beaten and hung on the fence to die. One man killed...and millions live in fear.

You white men out there...someone kill you No one else is going to fear, except if it in their neighborhood. It will not phase a man in the next state or the next town. That is why that gays should be protected...they are killed to send a lesson...Hate gays...kill gays, its ok, after all the preacher and the bible say they are an abomination...so beat them...teach them a lesson.

I watched the vote on the hate crime bill. I could not believe that Americans would vote against protecting people. I was in tears...I went down on my knees to my Gods that it would be passed. As some one that has been verbally abused because of my religion...and having a gay man as a friend who has lived a life of digging down and finding strength and honor in a place where he can be beaten and killed...Not for any action, but for a perception. It is shameful.

You know they argued against lynching laws for the same reason...as the haters held up the bible..and walked out of the senate...freedom to discriminate, freedom to segregate, freedom to hate. Shame on you! So you are so afraid of democracy that you want some players shackled? Well you won't win. The voteing act split the Democratic party...those who were against the voteing act went over to the southern rebuplicans...and that is why they again caused problems and slow downs when it came up for being renewed.

One day we will get rid of those who are like phelps...who will hold up a bible thinking he is giving his hate a sponsor...the haters in congress will be voted out or eventually die out..then may be America can mean the same thing to all its citizens.

terra

I disagree with the Hate Crime Laws for several reasons.

1. If a man were to go out and torture and kill another white man, he should be sentenced to the maximum penalty for such a "hate crime".
But if a man kills and tortures a gay man than he will get "extra" punishment because the gay man was special?

All beatings, rape, physical abuse, murder, torture of any child, adult, regardless of their color, sex, religion, or whatever is a "hate crime". Its called equality. One set of laws for all citizens. All the laws in the world are useless unless they are actually enforced though.

Or better yet why don't we impose "race laws" like Hitler did. They were no different than these so called hate crimes.
Under Hitlers race laws other favored races could take advantage of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, religious people, russians, etc..

Maybe some of us don't need "special laws" to know that violence like I mention above is wrong. And needs to be punished, regardless of who committs the evil act. Its dangerous when a nation starts to single out a "special group of people to provide special rights too".

We can't say that the Hate Crimes are a precedent. All communist and fascist societies made use of such laws before we ever did.

Jacob, don't post as ANON...I know when you are around!

There are already many laws on the books to prosecute all crimes. What happens when a street corner preacher or a priest,rabbi, preacher teaches the bible/Torah fervently in church or on T.V. about homosexuality being an abomination? Convict them for stirring up hate? Look at Sweden or Canada.
To claim that Christians preach violence against any group or sub-group of people is so dishonest I'll call you a liar if you do!
To push these "hate crime" laws is to have an adgenda to silence your opposition. Give some lawyers five minutes with a law and they'll twist it to mean anything. Look at the Supreme Court! The constitution is interpreted differently depending on which political party appointed the Justices. New rights are being "discovered" every year.
Christians stand against homosexuality being a special category as much as we stand against pedophilia or beastiality having their own!

"Sticks and stones, break me bone, by names will never hurt me! Niether Psychological nor physical?

((((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock M., ROMNEY, For Prez. Ya Ya Monsa Monso *

Hate crimes law will not stop people from hating eachother because it is in hearts and minds of people. Conservative Christians oppose this bill because it is geared towards depriving them of their freedom of speech. They know the game that is being played with minority rights law at the expense of the individual and majority. It is amazing to always see woman leading the charge on these bogus protecting people from violence issues. Violence is committed against women by women and their extreme gender agenda but you don't hear people crying wolf about that. Singling out Christian conservatives is only exposing the bias against them.

This bill shows once more how people selfishly use government to further their own personal political agenda. The U.S. government is not a babysitter. America is a free country with a constitution that protects the rights of the individual...but this bill is legislation to give special protected status to some people at the expense of others....and that is a bloody shame!