- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
You shouldn't care if you have conviction in your belief. I have to admit your attitude frightens me in general (I find it sexist and retrograde) and I'm glad the world is trending away from it, though.
Feminism and Figure Skating
- Thread starter Pepe Nero
- Start date
You shouldn't care if you have conviction in your belief. I have to admit your attitude frightens me in general (I find it sexist and retrograde) and I'm glad the world is trending away from it, though.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
The argument at the time was that the young murderers thought that Shepard was hitting on them and therefore deserved to be tortured and murdered because any right thinking male would just want to hang somebody up on a fence and let him die after beating the crap out of them, if they thought he had made a sexual advance to them.
It was used by the murderers at trial, and was called the "gay panic defense." Dobson bought into it, in a discussion of the case on his website.
If you read about the case, it sounds like the murderers' main reason for the murder was robbery, both of Shepard and planning to rob his house as well. But it's hard to know what is really in other people's heads.
When Dobson became more nation-wide in the 2000's, there was some backpedalling on the website. The age for beatings got older and it got harder to find the beating of Siggie the wiener dog, not to mention that it was no longer on the site that it was OK to murder a gay guy if you thought he was hitting on you.
For some years, I carried around pintouts of the relevant pages on the site, but that's several moves ago, and they're gone. Otherwise, I'd scan them and link them.
It was used by the murderers at trial, and was called the "gay panic defense." Dobson bought into it, in a discussion of the case on his website.
If you read about the case, it sounds like the murderers' main reason for the murder was robbery, both of Shepard and planning to rob his house as well. But it's hard to know what is really in other people's heads.
When Dobson became more nation-wide in the 2000's, there was some backpedalling on the website. The age for beatings got older and it got harder to find the beating of Siggie the wiener dog, not to mention that it was no longer on the site that it was OK to murder a gay guy if you thought he was hitting on you.
For some years, I carried around pintouts of the relevant pages on the site, but that's several moves ago, and they're gone. Otherwise, I'd scan them and link them.
Toni, I know that the term "Southern Baptist" now denotes a group joined by certain beliefs and organizational affiliations rather than strictly by geography, but there's something especially delightful in the idea of Southern Baptist congregations in Alaska. I have visions of snow not staying frozen around the perimeter of a Southern Baptist church located in, say, Juneau or Anchorage.
I would hardly call Focus on the Family a good organization overall. Have they done some good things? Yes and I don't dispute that, but IMO it's all window dressing to distract from the other activities they pursue. It allows them to put up a public face of social respectability while behind the scenes pursuing their real agenda. Don't forget that Focus on the Family also is a political organization, but due to tax laws they have had to make strides to ensure that they are publicly and legally separate from those activities. However, the same people who work for the religious side also work for the political side. The political arm of FOTF is the Family Research Council. In fact for a few years in the late 80s and early 90s, the two organizations were legally merged. When tax exempt status for FOTF was challenged, the separated but shared directors. It's like the current set up in in politics with political campaigns and super pacs. Everyone knows they are connected, but they claim complete official separation and no knowledge of the other's activities. So in the end, one group comes out looking clean while the other does all the dirty work. As an example, these groups push ideas that all gays are sexual predators, diseased, party animals, untrustworthy, wealthy, are to blame for the break down of the family etc. all to create the idea that we can't be trusted in mainstream upstanding society.
You don't have to hold up explicit signs like Westboro to be virulently anti-gay.
Also this discussion of Mathew Shepard is veering into a level of revisionism I find disturbing. While the vast majority of people even then acknowledged his death was a crime, there were people who publicly stated their belief that he deserved it. Not all of those people were from Westboro either. But those were not the people who bothered me the most. The ones who are being overlooked in this discussion are the people who acknowledged the crime but implied that either Mathew deserved what he got or brought it on himself. For years the murderers and their lawyers pursued a sickening gay panic defense as their legal strategy, claiming Mathew came on to them and their overreacted and beat him. The implication was that he deserved it or had brought his death on himself. Total BS. 20/20 even ran a poorly done story where they gave voice to some of these ideas. But still there was significant fear that the strategy would succeed in at least reducing the sentence or producing a hung jury if not outright acquittal. That's not surprising because even today that thinking is actively used as a strategy to defend people who murder and assault gays. Until recently, they had a a better than decent chance of succeeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic
BTW, if anyone thinks Shepard's death was a one off occurrence, think again. These crimes happen all the time but rarely get sufficient attention. Here is a sampling.
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6433072
http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Assault-Complaints-Filed-after-Incident-at-Church-130746713.html
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogslgbt/51875407-61/bell-gay-sentenced-couple.html.csp
As for conservative arguments against the expansion of federal hate crimes laws to include gays, those arguments lack merit. Hate crimes laws have existed for race based crimes for decades. Just as with other civil rights laws, they have been gradually expanded to include other groups of people. They are not about creating a special new redundant set of laws to prosecute crimes. They exist to give prosecutors an additional tools to address the motivation behind that crime and are not just restricted to murder. They also cover assault, arson, vandalism, rape, etc. Intent has always been an important principle when pursuing a criminal conviction. There have been and are laws on the books for other crimes (insider trading, money laundering, etc.) that take intent or motivation into account to determine both guilt and severity of punishment. Using motivation to bolster a prosecution is not a newly created result of hate crimes laws to protect gays. Another reason these laws exist is that they provide additional federal resources to local officials when gathering evidence and pursuing prosecution. Murders and other high profile crimes in small towns or remote areas (as was the case with Mathew) can overwhelm local law enforcement. If the crime is particularly horrific, gathering forensic evidence can be difficult or compromised. Even if guilt or the suspects is apparent, remember that a murder conviction on its own is not a guarantee of a long or sufficient prison sentence. However, if a hate crime conviction is sought, a significantly more harsh sentence can be won. (Also remember that the burden of proof for hate crimes sentences is significantly higher than for murder.)
Let's be clear, religious objections to hate crimes laws, or frankly any legal expansion of protections for gays at the local, state or federal level, all center around speech. Religious groups want to protect their right to be able to speak out against behaviors or groups of people with whom they disagree or about whom they find offense or disapproval. It's an age old constitutional argument. What is free speech and are there any limits to it? They have every constitutional and legal right to express their beliefs in private and to some degree in public, but the state does not have to endorse that belief by permitting it in government funded spaces and institutions. That has been acknowledged by the fact that every major piece of legislation written to address expansion of hate crimes to cover gays has included exemptions and protection for religious speech. Also remember that the original federal hate crimes laws, as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, have always covered religion as a protected class. Federal hate crimes laws also protect people on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality and disability along with sexual orientation and religion. Everyone on US soil is protected by federal hate crimes law to one degree or another. If a crime is motivated by hate that person's status as a member of one of those groups, then it's severity in the eyes of the law is elevated. Simple as that. You can dislike a group of people as intensely as you like. Tell people about it if you want to. But if you either act on that had after establishing such a public position or to actively encourage someone else to do so, you have opened the door to potential prosecution for a hate crime.
You don't have to hold up explicit signs like Westboro to be virulently anti-gay.
Also this discussion of Mathew Shepard is veering into a level of revisionism I find disturbing. While the vast majority of people even then acknowledged his death was a crime, there were people who publicly stated their belief that he deserved it. Not all of those people were from Westboro either. But those were not the people who bothered me the most. The ones who are being overlooked in this discussion are the people who acknowledged the crime but implied that either Mathew deserved what he got or brought it on himself. For years the murderers and their lawyers pursued a sickening gay panic defense as their legal strategy, claiming Mathew came on to them and their overreacted and beat him. The implication was that he deserved it or had brought his death on himself. Total BS. 20/20 even ran a poorly done story where they gave voice to some of these ideas. But still there was significant fear that the strategy would succeed in at least reducing the sentence or producing a hung jury if not outright acquittal. That's not surprising because even today that thinking is actively used as a strategy to defend people who murder and assault gays. Until recently, they had a a better than decent chance of succeeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic
BTW, if anyone thinks Shepard's death was a one off occurrence, think again. These crimes happen all the time but rarely get sufficient attention. Here is a sampling.
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6433072
http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Assault-Complaints-Filed-after-Incident-at-Church-130746713.html
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogslgbt/51875407-61/bell-gay-sentenced-couple.html.csp
As for conservative arguments against the expansion of federal hate crimes laws to include gays, those arguments lack merit. Hate crimes laws have existed for race based crimes for decades. Just as with other civil rights laws, they have been gradually expanded to include other groups of people. They are not about creating a special new redundant set of laws to prosecute crimes. They exist to give prosecutors an additional tools to address the motivation behind that crime and are not just restricted to murder. They also cover assault, arson, vandalism, rape, etc. Intent has always been an important principle when pursuing a criminal conviction. There have been and are laws on the books for other crimes (insider trading, money laundering, etc.) that take intent or motivation into account to determine both guilt and severity of punishment. Using motivation to bolster a prosecution is not a newly created result of hate crimes laws to protect gays. Another reason these laws exist is that they provide additional federal resources to local officials when gathering evidence and pursuing prosecution. Murders and other high profile crimes in small towns or remote areas (as was the case with Mathew) can overwhelm local law enforcement. If the crime is particularly horrific, gathering forensic evidence can be difficult or compromised. Even if guilt or the suspects is apparent, remember that a murder conviction on its own is not a guarantee of a long or sufficient prison sentence. However, if a hate crime conviction is sought, a significantly more harsh sentence can be won. (Also remember that the burden of proof for hate crimes sentences is significantly higher than for murder.)
Let's be clear, religious objections to hate crimes laws, or frankly any legal expansion of protections for gays at the local, state or federal level, all center around speech. Religious groups want to protect their right to be able to speak out against behaviors or groups of people with whom they disagree or about whom they find offense or disapproval. It's an age old constitutional argument. What is free speech and are there any limits to it? They have every constitutional and legal right to express their beliefs in private and to some degree in public, but the state does not have to endorse that belief by permitting it in government funded spaces and institutions. That has been acknowledged by the fact that every major piece of legislation written to address expansion of hate crimes to cover gays has included exemptions and protection for religious speech. Also remember that the original federal hate crimes laws, as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, have always covered religion as a protected class. Federal hate crimes laws also protect people on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality and disability along with sexual orientation and religion. Everyone on US soil is protected by federal hate crimes law to one degree or another. If a crime is motivated by hate that person's status as a member of one of those groups, then it's severity in the eyes of the law is elevated. Simple as that. You can dislike a group of people as intensely as you like. Tell people about it if you want to. But if you either act on that had after establishing such a public position or to actively encourage someone else to do so, you have opened the door to potential prosecution for a hate crime.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Well, actually, the history of Southern Baptist isn't all that rosey. They left the Baptist denomination around the time of the 1860s due to - you guessed it - civil rights. It was SOUTHERN Baptists that were SLAVE owners that didn't like the Northern Baptists stance on abolishing slavery. Thankfully now all it means is a more conservative Christianity - and no we don't preach race hate. We also don't preach kill the gays, either, nor do we condone act of violence against anyone - ok I'll give you war, but it's not something we actually push for, some churches yes, but as a whole.
Again I don't recall ever hearing a sermon or other such nonsense about how any of those that suffered from the hate crimes deserved it. I don't remember the "gay panic" defense either. If Dobson bought into it, I wouldn't surprise me (again the guy is threatened by Spongebob... I think SB is stupid and not worth anyone's time, but I don't think it teaches someone to be something any more than PePe LePew taught kids how to kidnap, bind and try to rape). I just don't recall him ever saying that they deserved to die.
My pastor growing up was on the board at the Southern Baptist Convention - and now teaches as one of their Seminary/Colleges. I never heard him suggest anything that what jcoates is suggesting. If anything it gave him an opportunity to preach about both extremes of sin.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
That was what I meant. There are many ways to discipline children. Controlled spanking one or two times on butt is one of them. I am completely against using any sort of things other than bear hand. The purpose is discipline. Nothing else. It is unfortunately being confused with abuse by many which is a totally different thing.
I find the image of Dr. Dobson under Doris' portrait was quite unbelievable. How can such a child abuser and a hater be so popular and crowned as Billy Graham's successor?!
I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the Matthew Shepard case and do not know much about Dr. Dobson either, except his book "Bringing Up Boys". I've just learned something about these two through this thread. I own this book and quite like it. Though I won't necessarily agree with everything he said in it. For example, I'd never go as far as homeschooling. There are many disadvantages of homeschooling. But there are many wisdoms in the book. I'd recommend it to anyone who has boys.
As of Dr. Dobson's position on the murderer of Shepard which I've known the first time here, I doubt that people who hated him have correctly stated his position which I still don't know. I think, from the outsider's view, Mathman's explanation has more creditability to me. If you ask me about this murder case, I'd agree that murderer should be punished no matter what.
jcoates post on parenting frightens me. And I suspect that you are thinking like jcoates. So we are even.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
And this would be why? Why do the killers of Matthew Shepard deserve a bigger punishment than, say, the killers of a woman in my church who was bludgeoned to death in her apartment by a stranger? Or to put it differently, why is the life of a (murdered) gay white man worth more than the life of a (murdered) straight white man?jcoates said:
I can't speak for James Dobson, but the Roman Catholic Church affirms "the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and ... the right of every [emphasis added] human being to have this good respected to the highest degree." (This principle would, of course, bring us back to abortion and the feminism debate....)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...f_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
Exactly!!! Everything involved with gay people seemed to be elevated and highlighted. Why are gay people more important than straight people?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
Well, Bluebonnet, if it makes you feel better, I could just as well have asked, Why would an attack on a Chinese delivery guy (where the attackers say, Let's get the chink) deserve a heavier punishment than an attack on a white male professor walking home from the train station at night (something I worry about as my husband gets older)? It's not just about gay people... it's about anyone who can claim to be a victim of bias, i.e., everyone except white men, when you come right down to it.
ETA: OK, let me correct the analogy as even white men could hypothetically claim anti-white bias:
Say the attack on the Chinese delivery guy and the attack on the white male professor are both robberies and both result in similar injuries. Why would the attackers who express ethnic bias be sentenced differently?
And BTW, please excuse the word "chink" - I was trying to illustrate bias and this news story from the other day was in my mind - unbelievable. http://news.yahoo.com/papa-johns-employee-calls-woman-lady-chinky-eyes-202319471--abc-news.html
ETA: OK, let me correct the analogy as even white men could hypothetically claim anti-white bias:
Say the attack on the Chinese delivery guy and the attack on the white male professor are both robberies and both result in similar injuries. Why would the attackers who express ethnic bias be sentenced differently?
And BTW, please excuse the word "chink" - I was trying to illustrate bias and this news story from the other day was in my mind - unbelievable. http://news.yahoo.com/papa-johns-employee-calls-woman-lady-chinky-eyes-202319471--abc-news.html
Last edited:
Did you actually read what I wrote? Good lord you are so quick to either claim conservative victimhood at the hands of the liberal establishment or to dismiss my position out of hand that you completely ended up ignoring the point. Hate crimes have been a part of federal law since 1964. People have been protected on the basis of their race, color, religion or national origin since the beginning. Why must an Japanese-American or an immigrant from Bulgaria or a Catholic nun be more protected under the law than a woman, a gay man, etc? Once people realized the law had holes in it, efforts were mad to expand it to be more inclusive. Unfortunately, that took a very long time to accomplish. That's the funny thing about this conservative position against hate crimes laws. Religious conservatives have always been protected against discrimination under the the Civil Rights Act more broadly and against violence under hate crimes laws more specifically since they first went on the books. Gays and even women were excluded as protected classes against violent crime for decades afterward. Specific protections against violence for women only came into effect in 1994 around the same time that the law's penalties were strengthened for everyone. Gays were only added 2.5 years ago and that only succeeded because James Byrd's name and additional race based protections were added to the bill.
Why pursue hate crimes penalties at all? Why not just pursue the standard crime laws already in the books? If that's the case, then lets go even further. Why do we have laws against domestic terrorism? Why not just charge a potential bomber with conspiracy or with buying illegal substances for parts? Those are crimes too. They would still go to jail. What makes blowing up a bus worse than murdering a someone as part of a carjacking? You can reduce any elevated criminal penalty to this sort of speculative thinking. The answer is that a hate crime or a terrorist act is not just about causing harm to an individual or group or seeking personal gain. They are about sending a message to the wider world. Spraying hate speech on someone's house is the most obvious example of such an action. The manner in which Mathew was murdered and put on display is another. Having specific penalties to address these situations rather than relying on generic ones sends a counter message that such actions and the motivation behind them will no longer be tolerated.
In addition, while I am very sorry for the death of your fellow church member and am unfamiliar with the circumstances. No one deserves to meet the kind of end. Typically most jurisdictions have been slow to pursue hate crimes prosecutions because of the higher burden of proof and drain on resources. There are also local legal issues to take into account. Not every state has comprehensive hate crimes laws and the federal law does not kick in for some local crimes. In addition, sometimes local leaders simply do not wish to involve the feds because they wish to remain independent of federal standards or what they view as interference. I do not know the motive for her murder, but motive not just method or result is the sticking point for elevating a prosecution to the level of a hate crime case. If a priest is killed because of his faith and the crime scene evidence points to that fact, then that is is a hate crime. If a straight white man is killed by someone motivated by hatred for straight people or white people, that is a hate crime. The trick is to be able to prove that fact as the motive.
Prosecutors, as elected officials, sometimes tend to care a great deal about racking up strong winning percentages more than achieving the strongest outcome. Hate crimes cases are hard to win, therefore that have been many instances where prosecutors have chosen not to pursue them and to just go for murder, manslaughter or plea deal instead. That way they can guarantee their stay in office and more importantly their funding for their department.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
It's always such a pleasure to have discussions with you, jcoates. Peering past your rudeness, I see you've actually answered my question. You seem to be a lawyer, advocate, or perhaps paralegal. I'm not, so I'm pretty one-armed in this debate. However, I don't see why, if there are "holes" in the law, the solution is to create new classes of victims rather than to prosecute existing laws more consistently and justly. I'll take your word for it that hate crimes are hard to prosecute and presumably rare, but where I live (near NYC) one hears about them on a daily basis - it is a pervasive notion that sends more than one message... that victimhood based on group identity is a route to power. It can get pretty poisonous, IMO.
And now I'm going to bed, and tomorrow I am painting my kitchen. Carry on.
And now I'm going to bed, and tomorrow I am painting my kitchen. Carry on.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
I don't think it has anything to do with whose life is more important. It is all about motive--hatred toward a minority group. The justification for a harsher punishment concerns its societal harm, which includes (1) the distress and fear planted in other members of that group, and (2) damage to the perceived relation between the minority group and other members of the society. And there is a social cost: riot, protest, more crimes as a result of anti-social behavior from members of the minority group (i.e., Hatred generates hatred or retaliations. Such retaliations can target the society as a whole), social withdrawal as a result of fear (hence lowered productivity).......
Good point skatinginbc. For decades, women under-reported violent crimes committed against them for fear of being labeled negatively, ostracized y family, friends, neighbors, losing their jobs or incurring additional violence. Giving them a defined legal set of protections allowed them the added level of security to feel safer with coming forward. It may seem like such crimes increased, but in fact the rise was in reporting and prosecution rather than actual crimes themselves. As a result women and the future generations of young girls behind them have felt more a part of the the wider social franchise. On the other hand, young men who grow up in a world where women are given more explicit value under the law are more likely to reconsider how they treat and associate with women. The the same is true of the impact of hate crimes laws on reducing chances of rioting based on religion or race. If a group feels like that at least have a chance of a fair shake under the law, then they are more likely to pursue remedies to their problems under those same laws rather than taking matters into their own hands.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
jcoates, thanks for the explanation. I'd like more details of the nuts and bolts, if one is possible (i.e. why it is difficult to prove hate, or for that matter any motivation)>
I would think, certainly, a white man could be a victim of a hate crime. Even a prosecutor who wants to protect his winning percentages ought to add that to a charge, if a white man were robbed, beaten, and "Catholicks suk" or "Get Whitie" was branded on him, I would think? Especially if it were discovered that the perp was a member of the KKK (which used to be antiCatholic) or one of the old 60's style black power groups?
But lacking some graffitti drawn by the perp, or reports that he had yelled, "Get Whitie" or "Get the Papist", or reports that he was a member of a group that hates whites or Catholics (and yes, they exist), I can see it would be hard to prosecute for a hate crime. However, that's also true of crimes against gay people. It isn't the crime against the gay person, it's that the perps expressed in a way that can be proved, that their motivation for the crime, in part, was hate for a particular group. If a gay man is robbed, it is not a hate crime. However, if during the robbery, prior to the beating, one of the perps yells, "Let's Smear the Queer" or "Let's kill the ***," then there's something to go with for hate crimes.
It's clear that felons should be careful about their language then. A PC felon will get a shorter sentence. Somehow, my silly brain is imagining an older crook advising a younger prior to a crime, "Johnny you got to clean up your language. For God's sakes, don't use any curse words or religious slurs. Rob people politely. You can't call people ***** or *** or Jew just for the fun of it. People remember it and you, and you'll get a longer sentence if we're caught."
I would think, certainly, a white man could be a victim of a hate crime. Even a prosecutor who wants to protect his winning percentages ought to add that to a charge, if a white man were robbed, beaten, and "Catholicks suk" or "Get Whitie" was branded on him, I would think? Especially if it were discovered that the perp was a member of the KKK (which used to be antiCatholic) or one of the old 60's style black power groups?
But lacking some graffitti drawn by the perp, or reports that he had yelled, "Get Whitie" or "Get the Papist", or reports that he was a member of a group that hates whites or Catholics (and yes, they exist), I can see it would be hard to prosecute for a hate crime. However, that's also true of crimes against gay people. It isn't the crime against the gay person, it's that the perps expressed in a way that can be proved, that their motivation for the crime, in part, was hate for a particular group. If a gay man is robbed, it is not a hate crime. However, if during the robbery, prior to the beating, one of the perps yells, "Let's Smear the Queer" or "Let's kill the ***," then there's something to go with for hate crimes.
It's clear that felons should be careful about their language then. A PC felon will get a shorter sentence. Somehow, my silly brain is imagining an older crook advising a younger prior to a crime, "Johnny you got to clean up your language. For God's sakes, don't use any curse words or religious slurs. Rob people politely. You can't call people ***** or *** or Jew just for the fun of it. People remember it and you, and you'll get a longer sentence if we're caught."
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
Sure. Which means the term itself "hate crime" can be easily manipulated. That's why I don't really believe in it.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
This turn in the last a few of pages of this thread is truly scary and frightening to me.
How did talking about feminism, which was merely as the way to kill the spare time in endless waiting for the next skating event coming up, turn into murder, crime, and hate crime?! Yes, I was the one who brought up Dr. Dobson. Merely using one of his books on education about young children which was the only book and all I've known about him. I have no habit of searching and studying the author's background and political positions in order to determine whether I like his book or not. Then it turned all on Dobson and his political positions which are totally unrelated to mine and my original meaning, and then the murder, the crime, the hate crime law... What's next? Somehow the conservatives have been linked to the extremes. Should there be added a specific group of people called conservatives into hate crime law? It is really scary. I'm out of here.
How did talking about feminism, which was merely as the way to kill the spare time in endless waiting for the next skating event coming up, turn into murder, crime, and hate crime?! Yes, I was the one who brought up Dr. Dobson. Merely using one of his books on education about young children which was the only book and all I've known about him. I have no habit of searching and studying the author's background and political positions in order to determine whether I like his book or not. Then it turned all on Dobson and his political positions which are totally unrelated to mine and my original meaning, and then the murder, the crime, the hate crime law... What's next? Somehow the conservatives have been linked to the extremes. Should there be added a specific group of people called conservatives into hate crime law? It is really scary. I'm out of here.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
It's tricky. A democracy must do two things: provide for rule of the majority and vigorously protect the rights of minorities. The situation is not symmetric. The powerful majority does not require special protections, but vulnerable minorities do.
I have never heard a preacher get up in the pulpit and say, "God hates all straight people, and so should you."
I have never seen a web site that proclaims, "The nefarious Gentiles have confiscated all the world's wealth and deserve to be put to death."
People do not shout at white Americans, "Go back to Western Europe where you belong!"
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
About the Chinese delivery guy, there was a very famous case here in Detroit in the 1990s. Japanese auto companies had been out-competing American auto companies, and lots of Detroit auto workers had lost their jobs as a result. So there was a young Chinese man who was at a local bar celebrating his upcoming marriage. A couple of out-of-work auto workers followed him into the alley and beat him to death with a baseball bat.
When the case came to court their defense was, "We thought he was Japanese."
They got off with probation and a fine.
And apropos of nothing in particular, but about college professors: At the university where I work, there are about fifty professors in the mathematics department. In the 1980s, we had one female mathematician and 49 males. This percentage (2%) was below the national average, so in those days when affirmative action was in vogue, we were under pressure from the federal government to hire more women.
The next year someone retired and we hired a female mathematician to take his place. Now, at 4%, we were above the national average, and everything was fine.
(In 2012 we still have the same number -- 2.)
I remember that case, Mathman. It was chilling indeed.
Bluebonnet, I don't think there's anything frightening here. These are the same people who talk together about whether Lysacek or Plushenko should have won at Vancouver. They're parents and grandparents and teachers and community members. Where else can all of us get the opportunity to talk honestly to people who not only believe different things but live different lives? All these disparate folk are what our populace is made of, and it's a pretty good gig. You don't have to agree with any of it, but the chance to hear it is beneficial for both sides.
Bluebonnet, I don't think there's anything frightening here. These are the same people who talk together about whether Lysacek or Plushenko should have won at Vancouver. They're parents and grandparents and teachers and community members. Where else can all of us get the opportunity to talk honestly to people who not only believe different things but live different lives? All these disparate folk are what our populace is made of, and it's a pretty good gig. You don't have to agree with any of it, but the chance to hear it is beneficial for both sides.
Similar threads
