| | |
|
|
Should there be "Hate Crimes"?
#642805 - Fri Mar 20 2009 01:25 PM
|
|
|
Should there even be "hate crimes"?
It seems to me that the very concept of "hate crimes" serves only to create a privileged class of citizens and is completely anathema to "equal treatment under the law."
Allow me to employ an example:
Case A) Bill beats Steve severely, sending him to the hospital. This is against an existing law. He's found guilty by a jury who naturally assumes that Bill probably wasn't too fond of Steve when he beat him to a bloody pulp. In fact, they would say that he most certainly hated him, which is why he almost beat him to death. The jury is told to decide his punishment within the limits established under the current penal code. Oh, Bill and Steve are both caucasian.
Case B) Bill beats Julio Vargas severely, sending him to the hospital. This is against an existing law, but Julio is hispanic. There's no problem convincing the jury that Bill hated Julio when he beat him to a bloody pulp. Julio is in that privileged class of citizens, so the jury is told to decide his punishment beyond the limits established under the penal code for, say, caucasians of the case A variety. They can pile on loads of extra punishment because now it's a "hate crime."
This is just one example. When I say a "privileged" class, I mean that it is one way. For example, when Reginald Denny (light skin color) was beaten almost to death during the LA riots for no other reason than he was "white", there was no "hate crime" brought to bear against Damian Williams (individual of darker skin color). In fact, Williams was simply convicted of felony "mayhem" (I wasn't aware that was a crime, so my son had better watch out!)
Crimes are crimes, regardless of the extent to which the victim was liked or disliked, loved or hated. If person A strangles person B, is it somehow better if person A murdered out of some perverted demented "love" of person B? Are hired hit men any nobler because they don't even know their victims, as opposed to "hating" them?
We should do away with "hate" crimes.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hate crimes are a rubber band effect from when killing a black man was basically legal.
It'll pass of its own accord.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thalamasa said:
Hate crimes are a rubber band effect from when killing a black man was basically legal.
It'll pass of its own accord.
If that were the case then "it" would have passed already.
Unfortunately there is too much momentum established keeping certain reverends in business, and you would need an entire phone directory to list all the chicano/latino/hizpano/raza-activist groups in California alone. Of course San Francisco has the same thing for homosexual and trans-gender individuals.
Too many people have too much invested in maintaining the new status quo. It would be easier to have unions just go away. No, I don't think this will go away easily, or anytime soon.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pentagon John said:
Are hired hit men any nobler because they don't even know their victims, as opposed to "hating" them?
Nah, it's because they're professionals, and know a thing or two about efficient killing. You get an untrained hater doing the deed, they make a mess, cause a lot of collateral suffering, and cause extra paperwork and taxpayer dollars because they're sufficiently easy to track down that there's no reasonable excuse not to.
A practiced pro, on the other hand? Quick, clean, and sufficiently unlikely to ever be caught that it's not worth the investment of resources (assuming it's a pro, and not merely a wannabe pro). Better for the victim, better for the taxpayers ('specially if the profession starts being regulated and taxed... now there's an idea. I mean, feh, if you can regulate and tax self-administered carcinogens and neurotoxins, how can you make any kind of honest case against regulating and taxing a much more efficient and humane means to the same end? Not to mention it could be excellent training for counterterrorism operatives, becoming good at tracking individuals, infiltrating their support groups, retiring them from vital service, and extricating yourself to go on another mission. You're not going to get very far toward knocking out a terrorist enclave by running at them screaming "I HATE SUICIDE BOMBERS!", unless you have good evidence for some sort of distant afterlife.
So, yeah, down with haters. Up with professionals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here John, I'll bite - because it's 6 am and I'm bored.
Pentagon John said:
It seems to me that the very concept of "hate crimes" serves only to create a privileged class of citizens and is completely anathema to "equal treatment under the law."
Sa-WIIIIIIIING anda MISS! You're interpreting the constitution to fit your argument. Mind, many millions others before you have done the same. But lets take a look at it, instead of spouting off like Mt.Vesuvius after an all night Baked Bean Binge.
The Equal Protection clause (As part of the 14th Amendment) Can be read in full http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html Here - But I'll copypasta the relevant bits.
The 14th Amendment Said...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems pretty simple and straightforward, eh? No laws can be made that deny a citizen his right to life, liberty or property - without Due Process anyway - Nor may they deny anyone Equal Protection of the law.
In short, the clause essentially guarantees that the Law may not DISCRIMINATE against a person for any reason. However, Hate Crime laws do not discriminate against White folks. Such have just as much right under similar circumstances to bring charges. The effect of these charges is Irrelevant in comparison. That is as much determined by Juries, Judges and state-guidelines for the Broken Laws in question.
Now, to answer your question.
Yes, we do need the term 'Hate Crime' as a motivational definition.
The reason why is very, very simple - Because it allows the law to account for a broader range of motivation for a crime, which permits law-enforcement to more agile understand the Villains and bring them to justice. Which I think is no bad thing, due to the fact that it ensures that both prosecutors and police have more ways of understanding the criminal mind, and thus more ways to counter it.
In so doing, it does not discriminate in any manner towards and specific racial or social creed - Except, of course, for those who have crimes committed against them due to sexual orientation and disabilities. Therefore, You are no less equal to anyone the law applies to...Provided you have a hate crime committed against you, and it can be proven - As is the way our courts of law work.
Rich White Businessmen and Stock Traders wanted Deregulation of financial markets - So they got together, and spent lots of money in order to Lobby for those laws, and got them passed.
The Fundamentalists want to force their religious views on the rest of us because they 'Know better', so they took over a major political party through their control of large voting blocs, and forced through Blue Laws and Moral Nanny-State laws.
And the Latino, Black, Cuban, American Indian, Indian, etc groups want more favorable hiring conditions for their people and protection for them under the law from abusive managers or racial prejudices, so they group up together in - To Quoth You, John - chicano/latino/hizpano/raza-activist groups - In order to achieve those goals through Voting Drives and Fund raising.
That's -American Politics!-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rames Orcist Jayner said:
Yes, we do need the term 'Terrorist' as a motivational definition.
The reason why is very, very simple - Because it allows the law to account for a broader range of motivation for a crime, which permits law-enforcement to more agile understand the Villains and bring them to justice. Which I think is no bad thing, due to the fact that it ensures that both prosecutors and police have more ways of understanding the criminal mind, and thus more ways to counter it.
In so doing, it does not discriminate in any manner towards and specific racial or social creed - Except, of course, for those who have crimes committed against them due to agendas of terror. Therefore, You are no less equal to anyone the law applies to...Provided you have an act of terrorism committed against you, and it can be proven - As is the way our courts of law work.
"And it can be proven"? When was the last time you saw any serious requirement that proof be supplied for such a case? All that needs to happen is someone shouting "Terrorism! terrorism! Nine Eleven!" and four-fifths of the population are conditioned to cower in fear and deliver a 'guilty' verdict... quite possibly well out of line with the magnitude of the crime actually committed.
And of course anti-terrorism laws don't discriminate in any manner toward any specific racial or social creed, as long as your racial or social creed doesn't bear a resemblance toward anything middle-eastern and doesn't have any vaguely anarchist sentiments.
...wait, what? Argh, you mnimo and your multiple realities! Well screw it, I don't have time to write the same post with nothing changed but a few words here and there. The objection is the same. Dear reader, please just swap out "terrorism" for "hate crime" wherever you run into it, and make similar tweaks for things like altering "middle-eastern" for "western european". Either way, the law may be written in a way that's supposed to be blind to those differences, but the implementation of the law seems to have be able to discriminate in ways no blind law should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Atheos&Goliath said:
Either way, the law may be written in a way that's supposed to be blind to those differences, but the implementation of the law seems to have be able to discriminate in ways no blind law should.
This is true, and the concept of "hate crimes" is a legitimized way to officially implement the law inequally.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Orcist Rayner said:
The 14th Amendment Said...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems pretty simple and straightforward, eh? No laws can be made that deny a citizen his right to life, liberty or property - without Due Process anyway - Nor may they deny anyone Equal Protection of the law.
Yes. Straightforward. This is why the concept of hate crimes should be declared unconstitutional. Please refer to my preceding post/response to David Atheos.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pentagon John said:
This is true, and the concept of "hate crimes" is a legitimized way to officially implement the law inequally.
STE-RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE TWO!
You are accusing a law of being biased, whereas your examples clearly show that it is not the law itself which was biased, but the Judge or Juries involved in the court cases - Which will happen in any court case where a good defense lawyer is involved, or a judge has an Opinion on the matter.
The law itself is equal in it's protections and provisions. The fact that the PERCEPTION of the law is NOT equal is irrelevant as far as our court system is concerned. The eyes of the law do not care about the race, creed, or religion of the individual.
But rather their MOTIVE For their crime, which has absolutely NOTHING TO DO With their race, creed or religion of the criminal, but -sometimes- the race, creed and religion of the Victim which contributed to the crime's purpose and intent.
Try again, John.
The law is Indeed blind. It is Juries who are not blind, but absorbant of the facts and evidence presented to them at trial.. If you don't like our court system, come up with something better instead of biatching about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Atheos&Goliath said:
"And it can be proven"? When was the last time you saw any serious requirement that proof be supplied for such a case? All that needs to happen is someone shouting "Terrorism! terrorism! Nine Eleven!" and four-fifths of the population are conditioned to cower in fear and deliver a 'guilty' verdict... quite possibly well out of line with the magnitude of the crime actually committed.
And of course anti-terrorism laws don't discriminate in any manner toward any specific racial or social creed, as long as your racial or social creed doesn't bear a resemblance toward anything middle-eastern and doesn't have any vaguely anarchist sentiments.
...wait, what? Argh, you mnimo and your multiple realities! Well screw it, I don't have time to write the same post with nothing changed but a few words here and there. The objection is the same. Dear reader, please just swap out "terrorism" for "hate crime" wherever you run into it, and make similar tweaks for things like altering "middle-eastern" for "western european". Either way, the law may be written in a way that's supposed to be blind to those differences, but the implementation of the law seems to have be able to discriminate in ways no blind law should.
HA HA HA!
Oh, wow.
Seriously man. Terrorists? That's the BEST You could come up with?
4/10, and only because of the use of Mnimo.
/Lets not forget who wrote, proposed, and passed those Terr'ist laws now.
//Fark has invaded my braaaain
///You're obviously not being serious, why should I be?
////Slashies Forever!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of hate crimes legislation, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993). However, the court only looked at the First Amendment arguments in that case. The Fourteenth Amendment arguments were not properly preserved by the defense and could not be raised before the appellate courts.
Had the equal protection arguments been brought before the court, it seems likely that hate crimes legislation would pass strict scrutiny, the standard applied by the court in determining if a race-based statute is constitutional. The court had previously overturned Hate Crimes Legislation in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) for not being narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means of achieving the state's goal. In Mitchell, the court found unanimously that the statue had been narrowly tailored and was the least restrictive means of achieving the state's goal, meeting two of the three requirements to meet strict scrutiny. Based upon previous decisions regarding race, it is very likely the court would find that hate crimes legislation are a compelling governmental interest, which is the third requirement for a statute to pass strict scrutiny. Therefore, the court would most likely find in favor of hate crimes legislation even when the issue of the equal protection clause was raised.
As an aside however, as long as the attackers are being punished for their actions, should we really be punishing them for their thoughts at the time as well? It may be a slippery slope to thought-crime but mens rea is taken into account in all crimes, with criminal intent being a necessary component in showing culpability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of hate crimes legislation, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993). However, the court only looked at the First Amendment arguments in that case. The Fourteenth Amendment arguments were not properly preserved by the defense and could not be raised before the appellate courts.
I think I'm missing a little context... would it be easy for you to explain what were "the First Amendment arguments in that case", what were "The Fourteenth Amendment arguments", what's meant by an argument being "not properly preserved by a party", why the lack of preservatives makes an argument un-raisable before appellate courts, and what the consequence of being unraisable before an appellate court is? I'm assuming that those are all well-defined terms in the legal profession that I'm just not familiar with, and hoping they're straightforward to explain, but consider this a low-priority request if they're not quick to type out.
In Mitchell, the court found unanimously that the statue had been narrowly tailored and was the least restrictive means of achieving the state's goal, meeting two of the three requirements to meet strict scrutiny.
Now I'm all curious... what was the state's goal? That might be a useful data point in this discussion.
As an aside however, as long as the attackers are being punished for their actions, should we really be punishing them for their thoughts at the time as well? It may be a slippery slope to thought-crime but mens rea is taken into account in all crimes, with criminal intent being a necessary component in showing culpability.
"Criminal intent" just reads as "intent to commit an illegal act", though, and not "intent to commit an illegal act in the name of Yahweh" or "intent to commit an illegal act in the name of racial purification" or "intent to commit an illegal act because you think it is ok when applied to a subhuman", right? I'm under the impression that it's a matter of "Did you mean to do what you did" rather than "Did you do what you did because _______", and I find the latter a lot more disturbingly thought-policing than the former.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The facts were these. Todd Mitchell, an African-American man in Kenosha, Wisconsin directed a group of other African-American men to attack white men with the phrase, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" The group found Gregory Reddick, a fourteen-year-old white male and Mitchell directed the group to attack Reddick with the phrase, "You all want to **** somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him."
Reddick, although badly beaten, survived the attack Mitchell was convicted of aggravated assault, a crime that normally results in a two-year prison sentence. However, due to Mitchell choosing to attack Reddick based upon race, Mitchell was given a sentence of seven years in prison.
The first amendment issue was this: As the hate crime statute was based on punishing what the legislature deemed offensive though, the defense argued that statute violated the first amendment. However, the court found that the statute in this case was directed towards conduct that was not expressive as such, but was instead directed at violence in particular, resolving the first amendment issue.
The fourteenth amendment issue was this: As the statute makes a distinction based upon race, the defense argued that it violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Although the court did not discuss the fourteenth amendment issue due to it not being preserved by the defense at trial, it is likely the court would find that the statute meets strict scrutiny, for the reasons mentioned in my earlier post.
The issue was not preserved because the issue was not brought up on the record before the case went in to appeal. Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court are only allowed to rule on issues that have been brought up on the record of the trial court. As the defense did not bring up the issue until the appeal, the issue could not be ruled on by the higher courts.
Jack Dawkins said:In Mitchell, the court found unanimously that the statue had been narrowly tailored and was the least restrictive means of achieving the state's goal, meeting two of the three requirements to meet strict scrutiny.
David Atheos&Goliath said:Now I'm all curious... what was the state's goal? That might be a useful data point in this discussion.
The Supreme Court stated that Wisconsin was within its rights to offer sentence enhancement in bias-motivated crime because it had a compelling interest in preventing the negative secondary effects of such crimes. Among these secondary effects mentioned were the increased likelihood of a bias-motivated crime to provoke retaliation, to inflict greater emotional distress on the victim, and to incite community unrest. The Court explained that these secondary effects were more than adequate reason for such a sentencing enhancement, especially if, as stated above, the law was not explicitly targeting beliefs or statements.
Jack Dawkins said:As an aside however, as long as the attackers are being punished for their actions, should we really be punishing them for their thoughts at the time as well? It may be a slippery slope to thought-crime but mens rea is taken into account in all crimes, with criminal intent being a necessary component in showing culpability.
David Atheos&Goliath said:"Criminal intent" just reads as "intent to commit an illegal act", though, and not "intent to commit an illegal act in the name of Yahweh" or "intent to commit an illegal act in the name of racial purification" or "intent to commit an illegal act because you think it is ok when applied to a subhuman", right? I'm under the impression that it's a matter of "Did you mean to do what you did" rather than "Did you do what you did because _______", and I find the latter a lot more disturbingly thought-policing than the former.
While motive rarely is a part of the element of a crime, it does in murder. In both New York and Pennsylvania, the different between first degree murder and second degree murder is motive. Motive goes beyond simply intent to commit the act.
The severity of the punishment being based on what the individual is thinking is not limited to hate crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to argue that the whole of American law is so hopelessly convoluted there's little to no chance that it is ever fair or equal. What's one more horrendous miscarriage of justice among all the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
While motive rarely is a part of the element of a crime, it does in murder. In both New York and Pennsylvania, the different between first degree murder and second degree murder is motive. Motive goes beyond simply intent to commit the act.
The severity of the punishment being based on what the individual is thinking is not limited to hate crimes.
I'm all for establishing motive, as in intent, so as to determine the extent to which any given crime might have been an accident or was the goal, and that can be used in determining severity of sentence.
However I am completely against what I perceive as an end run around the penal code by trying to determine the extent to which someone "hated" someone when a crime is committed.
For example, a hit man goes out with the intent to assassinate someone he doesn't know and has no reason to hate. All that matters is that he completely intended to kill his victim and that should warrant whatever the maximum punishment. It would be a travesty of justice to imply that there would be an even harsher punishment for said hit man "if only we could have proven it was a hate crime" but since he didn't hate his victim, we are limited to this lesser punishment.
On the other hand, if a KKK neo-nazi skinhead racist bigot trailer-trash breaks into a black man's house with the full intent to steal a stereo, and slips while on the second floor, accidentally knocking a heavy object down onto the head of the homeowner on the first floor, accidentally killing the black man he truly hated hated hated hated hated and hated some more...it would be a travesty of justice to punish beyond (OK Jack, what's the typical charge for an accidental death in such a case?) and perhaps burglary, etc..i.e. I don't think hate should be a factor even if it's a lot lot lot lot lot of hate.
All that should matter is the intent, not degree of hate or religious devotion or elation or swelling of the left toe.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
While motive rarely is a part of the element of a crime, it does in murder. In both New York and Pennsylvania, the different between first degree murder and second degree murder is motive. Motive goes beyond simply intent to commit the act.
The severity of the punishment being based on what the individual is thinking is not limited to hate crimes.
Wow. Was that poorly written. I have to apologize for that. I wrote that after pulling an all-nighter and I was apparently more tired than I had thought I was. Hopefully, the ideas behind that poorly written statement were still communicated.
Pentagon John said:
I'm all for establishing motive, as in intent, so as to determine the extent to which any given crime might have been an accident or was the goal, and that can be used in determining severity of sentence.
However I am completely against what I perceive as an end run around the penal code by trying to determine the extent to which someone "hated" someone when a crime is committed.
For example, a hit man goes out with the intent to assassinate someone he doesn't know and has no reason to hate. All that matters is that he completely intended to kill his victim and that should warrant whatever the maximum punishment. It would be a travesty of justice to imply that there would be an even harsher punishment for said hit man "if only we could have proven it was a hate crime" but since he didn't hate his victim, we are limited to this lesser punishment.
On the other hand, if a KKK neo-nazi skinhead racist bigot trailer-trash breaks into a black man's house with the full intent to steal a stereo, and slips while on the second floor, accidentally knocking a heavy object down onto the head of the homeowner on the first floor, accidentally killing the black man he truly hated hated hated hated hated and hated some more...it would be a travesty of justice to punish beyond (OK Jack, what's the typical charge for an accidental death in such a case?) and perhaps burglary, etc..i.e. I don't think hate should be a factor even if it's a lot lot lot lot lot of hate.
All that should matter is the intent, not degree of hate or religious devotion or elation or swelling of the left toe.
Both defendants in that case would be charged with First Degree Murder. The elements of first and second degree murder are the same except that first degree murder must include "malice aforethought" (The specifics vary between jurisdictions so this is a generalization) or what the Model Penal Code refers to as "special circumstances."
The assassin would meet first degree murder by meeting the model penal code's special circumstances because of his being a murderer for hire.
The klansman would meet first degree murder because of the felony murder rule. Because the murder occurred during the commission of a felony, the defendant will be charged with first degree murder. In the case you laid out, the fact that the death of the victim was motivated by race isn't what will lead to first degree murder, the fact that the death happened in the commission of a felony will lead to first degree murder.
I need to do a bit more research on the topic to go into more details. I don't specialize in criminal law so I can only go into broad strokes when discussing crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thalamasa said:
Hate crimes are a rubber band effect from when killing a black man was basically legal.
It'll pass of its own accord.
This statement becomes erronous by the fact that hate crimes have existed before the US of A, and therefore before the exploitation of Africans by citizens of the aforementioned country.
So calling it a 'rubber band effect' is the same as calling the sinking of the Titanic an inconsequental mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adremelech said:
This statement becomes erronous by the fact that hate crimes have existed before the US of A, and therefore ....
Thalamasa's point was that the act of identifying and labeling certain crimes as hate crimes was a rubberband effect...not the crimes themselves.
Adremelech said:
before the exploitation of Africans by citizens of the aforementioned country.
...well even before Portugal did so (the first to set up African slave markets). Koreans developed their society upon slavery during the Chosŏn dynasty. They had a slave class, both private and government slaves, with roughly one-third of their population being slaves...and even *THEY* weren't the first...so naturally Thalamasa wouldn't be implying that the USA somehow invented human exploitation and hate crimes.
Adremelech said:
So calling it a 'rubber band effect' is the same as calling the sinking of the Titanic an inconsequental mistake.
Is it just me, or is this a completely incongruent (non)analogy?
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seeing as people have been accused of and persecuted for hate crimes long before the US existed, then no, it's still not a rubber band effect of Thalamasa's above example. Thus calling it as such indicates a lack of deeper thought on the subject, just as calling the sinking of the Titanic a minor mistake indicates a lack of attention to the issues involved in said incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adremelech, you seem to know something the rest of us don't. You wrote that people have been charged and tried for committing hate crimes since the 18th Century. Who where these people, where was it and when?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
Adremelech, you seem to know something the rest of us don't. You wrote that people have been charged and tried for committing hate crimes since the 18th Century. Who where these people, where was it and when?
Both holy crusades.
The Romans persecution of the Christians.
The Ottoman empires mass genocide of Armenians.
Native Americans killing European explorers when they first came to this continent, and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
Adremelech, you seem to know something the rest of us don't. You wrote that people have been charged and tried for committing hate crimes since the 18th Century. Who where these people, where was it and when?
Adremelech said:
Both holy crusades.
The Romans persecution of the Christians.
The Ottoman empires mass genocide of Armenians.
Native Americans killing European explorers when they first came to this continent, and vice versa.
Those are all examples of people committing hate crimes, not being charged and tried for crimes that were committed due to race.
Also, there were about a dozen of the crusades, weren't there?
Also, did the Native Americans actually attack the European explorers before the European's attacked the Native Americans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
Also, there were about a dozen of the crusades, weren't there?
Only the crusade in 1095 and another in 1202 were enacted directly by the current pope and could be considered a 'holy' crusade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
Also, there were about a dozen of the crusades, weren't there?
Adremelech said:
Only the crusade in 1095 and another in 1202 were enacted directly by the current pope and could be considered a 'holy' crusade.
The Second Crusade (1147–1149) was initiated by Pope Eugene III, who was Pope at the time. Pope Gregory VIII initiated the Third Crusade (1187–1192) with his papal bull Audita tremendi immediately following his election to Pope. The Fifth Crusade (1217–1221) was organized by both by Pope Innocent III, who has initiated the Fourth Crusade (1199–1204), and by Pope Honorius III following Pope Innocent III's death. The Sixth Crusade (1228–1229) was initiated because of Pope Gregory IX's insistence that Emperor Frederick II go on crusade. The rest of the crusade's were the result of the European leadership but more than just two crusades were the result of papal authority.
But back to the matter at hand. If the crusades are at all related to hate crimes, they are examples of people committing hate crimes, not being charged and tried for crimes that were committed due to race. So how is Thalamasa's insistence that hate crimes legislation is a rubber band effect "calling the sinking of the Titanic a minor mistake indicates a lack of attention to the issues involved in said incident" as you put it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Dawkins said:
But back to the matter at hand. If the crusades are at all related to hate crimes, they are examples of people committing hate crimes, not being charged and tried for crimes that were committed due to race. So how is Thalamasa's insistence that hate crimes legislation is a rubber band effect "calling the sinking of the Titanic a minor mistake indicates a lack of attention to the issues involved in said incident" as you put it?
Wait! I know. I wasn't there at the time, but perhaps the various Popes declared "being non-xian" equal to "hating xians" and summarily ruled all non-xianity abroad as a "hate crime" and set out to enforce the new "law."
OK, I'm on board with that.
Therefore...Thalamasa, what were you thinking?
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
| | |
Reply Main
New Thread
Flat
Threaded
Edit
Quote
