-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
When advocacy becomes a hate crime ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
That's messed up.
tomspug
Absorbant
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Draka
Wonder Woman
Before anyone jumps on me for this, I'm NOT saying that these things are ok or excusable in any way. I just want to make a point that these things are being considered hate crimes and the irony there is that I'm sure there are very many gays and friends of gays out there who could easily consider the passing of prop 8 as a hate crime in and of itself. Again, not excusing or anything, just pointing out a thought that occured to me.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Very true.
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
That Book of Mormon went up in flames just like the marriage licenses that are being revoked because of the passing of proposition 8...
But two wrongs do not make a right, as I was told as a child. Shame on the men that lit that Book of Mormon ablaze. And shame on the men and women that voted yes on proposition 8.
But two wrongs do not make a right, as I was told as a child. Shame on the men that lit that Book of Mormon ablaze. And shame on the men and women that voted yes on proposition 8.
Last edited:
No*s
Captain Obvious
It is morally repugnant to every burn a group's sacred book.
We should not, however, look to classify the exercise of speech as a "hate crime". Nobody was hurt. No buildings were damaged. Nothing was stolen. It was repugnant, yes, but freedom of speech has to extend to even repugnant actions. If we do not, then we do not believe in it where the rubber hits the road.
We should not, however, look to classify the exercise of speech as a "hate crime". Nobody was hurt. No buildings were damaged. Nothing was stolen. It was repugnant, yes, but freedom of speech has to extend to even repugnant actions. If we do not, then we do not believe in it where the rubber hits the road.
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
Yes, more people were emotionally hurt in having their lives torn apart by the passing of the proposition then were hurt by the burning of a book. It was wrong and should be condemned, although nobody was directly hurt by the burning of this book. Unless, of course, the book was stolen and then burnt as an offering to the God of tolerance and understanding. In that case, we have a thief and somebody who is offering up a gift to a God that doesn't seem to exist in most people's minds...
And now the process of justification begins ... 
And then there's ...Oh, well, as long as they're not burning the Bible on the steps of some Orthodox Church, or the Torah on the steps of some Orthodox Synagogue, or the Quran on the steps of some Mosque, I guess it's more or less OK. And why should we concern ourselves with a few acts of terror so long as they're directed against a group so easy to demonize? After all, as No*s reminds us: "Nobody was hurt. No buildings were damaged. Nothing was stolen."
(And if I sit back a say nothing, what moral authority do I have to protest when someone spray-paints a swastika on my temple's door?)
No*s
Captain Obvious
Jay, do you have any reason to believe that I would say it any differently if it was an Orthodox Church? I would speak vocally against the act, but I would not call it a hate crime. A hate crime requires as a prerequisite that the government has the right to legislate what happens in people's hearts. If I were to believe that, why should I not take up the banner for theocracy? I do not support one. why would I support the other?
I'd rather do it with my words, and that is not the same as doing nothing. I will not sit by if someone spray-painted "a swastika on your temple's door", but I would work, not by classifying it as a hate crime, but by working to ostracize the perpetrators. Call the perpetrators sick, call them perverted, call for society to ostracize them; do not classify it as something that the government can prosecute unless it is an action that can be prosecutable regardless of the motive behind it (in the case of the swastika, vandalism and quite probably, some form of libel).
Just as you feel strongly about hate crimes, I feel strongly about any law that legislates the conscience. If I didn't resist that, then what moral authority would I have when my conscience is legislated? I have to support it even for the dredges of society or be a hypocrite.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Wow, I can't believe that. That's awful.
I suggest we do both. I also suggest that there is something deeply disturbing when the initial response to these acts targeting the Mormons is not, as Mr. Spinkles writes, ...
Wow, I can't believe that. That's awful.
but, rather ...Yes, but ...
So, No*s, what is the Orthodox Christian position on same sex marriage and where is your church?
Parenthetically, the OED defines crime as, among other things, ...
More generally: An evil or injurious act; an offence, a sin; esp. of a grave character.
Please don't derail this thread into one about hate crime legislation. If you prefer, where I use the phrase "hate crime" substitute "hate act" with my permission and apologies ...
No*s
Captain Obvious
Yes, you're right, and in that sense I have absolutely no objection. I shouldn't have gone off here about that but should have created another thread. Sorry for that.
It would be a good thread!