Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Demonizing Christianity or Promulgating an Agenda or...Making a Point?

Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts recently decided that it was O.K. to continue with the production of "The Laramie Project", a supposedly pro-homosexual play that pushes the acceptance of this dangerous sexual orientation.

Regardless of the countless pleas from concerned parents over this R-rated film, the administration at Acton-Boxborough Regional declined to halt the production of the controversial play that is scheduled to start production this upcoming November.
Click HERE to read coverage of the controversy in Acton-Boxborough.

A Brief Background of the play/film:

The 1998 hate-motivated murder of Matthew Shepard gained unusually wide attention for its brutality, along with the dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas, a few months earlier. The pair of hate crimes triggered the passage of hate-crime laws around the country and inspired playwright Moises Kaufman to take members of his Tectonic Theater Project to Laramie, Wyoming, to interview townspeople who were involved in the aftermath of the event with the intent of creating some sort of dramatic essay. "The Laramie Project" was the outcome.

Watch a preview of the HBO film "The Laramie Project" by clicking HERE.

I have not yet seen either the play or the HBO movie, so I can not comment on the contents of "The Laramie Project". What I can comment on is the horror of the Matthew Shepard case as I remember it vividly when it occurred in 1998. Mr. Shepard was left for dead after his brutal beating. The case made me sick and especially sad to think that there are people on this earth who could do such a horrible thing just because someone has a different sexual preference.

I am not for any sort of violence, either verbally or physically, directed towards those who are taking part in alternative sexual behaviors/lifestyles. We all need to pray for these folks and help them get closer to the true way of life that Christ wants them to lead.
We all sin on a daily basis, including myself. We all need to walk a narrow path if we want to enter the kingdom of heaven. We all need to pray for each other and condemn violence and start walking the walk. The walk in which we all were meant to walk.
Let's all come together and follow the Lord and help those who are leading a sinful lifestyle and have not yet asked for God's forgiveness. For it is God's forgiveness that saves us, but it does not give us a license to continue to live in sin.

Peace to you all,

Scia Ciantee

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia, do you plan on watching the movie?

It looks interesting, so I think I will rent it. Hard to render any kind of opinion until I see it.

Rufus

5:35 AM, September 13, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this...but I have to say it.

This was a horrible crime. It was indeed a hate crime. Aren't all crimes hate crimes? We need to stop that fallacy of calling a certain "type" of crime a hate crime. If a person kills or beats another person, chances are they were motivated by hate. It doesn't matter if the person was white, black, gay, straight, a chess player, a computer technician, a news reporter, whatever. It takes a lot of hate of something to cause a person to beat another person that brutally.

There's another side to this story. Were the two guys that beat him straight, christian, anti-gay guys? I don't think that they were. The stories I have heard indicate that one of them may have been bisexual. Chances are that neither of them were Christians, or maybe they were in name, or their parents were Christians, but that doesn't mean that they were.

Then there's the methamphetamine factor that always gets left out of the story when you see it portrayed by homosexual rights activists. The guys that beat Matthew were looking for drugs, and wanted money from Matthew. There may have been a "gay element" to the murder, as I've heard that they pretended to be gay just to get him out of the bar. But they didn't beat him to death just because he was a homosexual.

That's the devastating lie that has been told about Matthew Shepard for so many years. First it grew legs, and then it grew wings, and then it just became a monster that could no longer be controlled.

If you don't believe me, search the web. I found this article about a 20/20 interview, this information on Accuracy in Media, and many more.

Was it a horrible crime? Yes. Was it a hate crime? All crimes are hate crimes, we have to stop kidding ourselves. Who says, "I love you and that's why I'm stealing your wallet!"? Was it motivated by Matthew's sexuality? Inconclusive...one of his attackers knew him, and was a bisexual. Was it because of meth? Matthew was a meth user himself.

Stop the lies, tell the truth, defend ALL americans from crime EQUALLY!

5:58 AM, September 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Aren't all crimes hate crimes?"

No, they are not. This is a red herring argument, which tries to deflect from the main issue. Crimes can happen for all sorts of reasons. Does a thief have to hate the person they are robbing? Of course not. Aren't most crimes perpetrated on a perceived necessity? People steal because they want or need something they don't have, and it's easier to just take it then earn it. Some killers feel there only way out of a situation is killing who gets in their way. It does not mean these people steal and kill because they necessarily hate their victims.

From what I understand, "hate crime" legislation is designed for those criminals who premeditatedly target an individual because just because they hate them for something they are (gay, black, jewish, christian), not out of some perceived necessity.

"If a person kills or beats another person, chances are they were motivated by hate." Not necessarily. All sorts of emotions can motivate. Anger, lust, and jelousy are also motivaters. Say there is a husband who catches his wife cheating, and he beats the wife to death. Was his main motivator hate? Isn't it more anger? And even if it was hate, it is a very different kind of hate. He may hate his wife for what she has done, but not because of what she is.

"It takes a lot of hate of something to cause a person to beat another person that brutally."
I agree with you there. Which is why we need hate crime legislation.

As far as your assertions on Matthew Shepherd, I've heard them before, and don't buy it. Even if (big if)the main motivation could have been robbery, the brutality of the beating says otherwise. As you said, it takes great hate to beat someone so brutally.

Oh, and please don't tell me you are trying to blame the victim here. What drugs he may, or may not, have taken does not justify his brutal death.

Rufus

11:14 AM, September 13, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I'm not blaming Matthew Shepard for what happened to him - that would be foolishness.

I believe that the whole truth must be told in this case. If there was a motivation to rob Matthew Shepard for drug money, that fact should not be suppressed in the interest of promoting an agenda.

I see it as utter hypocrisy and foolishness to call crimes against one person differently than crimes against another. If someone were to attack me because of my stance on marriage - would that be called a hate crime, or since it's homosexual on straight, it's just a regular crime?

Don't buy into the special treatment. All crimes should be treated equally, whatever the motivation. Let's not create a special class of victims to accomplish personal agendas. And let's not paint everyone with a certain viewpoint with the broad brush of bigot, anti-gay, racist, homophobe, crime-causing, etc.

I'm none of the above, and if you knew me personally, you would understand.

What I hate is what this is doing to society, and to the children that are growing up in that society. I don't hate homosexuals.

11:34 AM, September 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If someone were to attack me because of my stance on marriage - would that be called a hate crime, or since it's homosexual on straight, it's just a regular crime?"

You don't seem to be gettting my point. If you were targeted and beaten to death for simply being a Christian, this would be a hate crime, no matter who does it. If in the heat of an argument someone hits you because you made them angry for your stance on gay marraige, this isn't hate, but anger and is not the same thing. Their anger, and not hate is the motevator.
"All crimes should be treated equally, whatever the motivation." That doesn't make sense. Our laws have different degrees based on motive. Take murder. There are a couple of degrees, as well as manslaughter, 1st degree being the worst. So what you are saying is a man who intricately plots to kill, and the man who inadvertently kills is the same thing. So petty theft and grand larceny are the same thing, and the punishment should be the same?

We have laws not only to punish crime, but to hopefully prevent it. Hate crime laws would help protect people who target groups for simply being who they are. They would protect not only gays, but races and creeds. This would not create "special" victims. The victims are there, no matter what you want to call it. Crimes happen for a reason, and this is targeting one of the reasons specifically.

Rufus

2:03 PM, September 13, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

If in the heat of an argument someone hits you because you made them angry for your stance on gay marraige, this isn't hate, but anger and is not the same thing. Their anger, and not hate is the motevator.

Hate isn't the motivator? Strange...seems like they would hate me for my position on this social issue, and because I believe differently then them, they deem that they are justified in attacking me. Don't kid yourself, if I told someone who is gay and married that I don't agree with their gay marriage, and they hit me, it's a hate crime to the fullest extent.

"All crimes should be treated equally, whatever the motivation." That doesn't make sense. Our laws have different degrees based on motive. Take murder. There are a couple of degrees...

Let me clarify for you. If the crime is white on black, black on white, asian on latino, gay on straight, old on young, young on hold, cat on dog, sausage on human, etc., then there shouldn't be multiple classifications according to "hate laws". Human on sausage, however, would be permissable as it could be deemed to be necessary for survival.

We have laws not only to punish crime, but to hopefully prevent it. Hate crime laws would help protect people who target groups for simply being who they are. They would protect not only gays, but races and creeds. This would not create "special" victims.

You're wrong on this one. Under the proposed "hate crimes" legislation, if a crime is deemed to be a hate crime, then it automatically receives federal funds - and federal services - for prosecution.

The reciprocal attacks, however, don't get this. So if a white man attacks a black man, and it is deemed a "hate crime", then there is more money and resources to punish the white attacker. If the opposite happens - even if it is racially motivated - the funds and resources simply aren't there.

That is discrimination, because it deems one class of citizens to have more rights than another. I don't see any reason why we would destroy a system that establishes equal protection for ALL under the law, do you?

6:07 AM, September 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler, my understanding of "hate crime" legislation is obviously different than mine. I haven't found any evidence to suggest what you are asserting. If a white man is specifically targeted for his race (and no other reason), my understanding is this would be covered by the hate crime laws. If a straight person was targeted for simply being straight, then the law should apply.

Conversely, when was the last time you actually heard of these things happening? Do whites get beaten for simply being white? Do heterosexuals get beaten up for simply being heterosexual? I haven't come across a case. If there are such cases they should be covered by "hate crime" laws.

You seem to be using the "special rights" logic. Since hate crime laws would mostly be used for minorities, you consider it a "special right". In actuality, these laws will cover everyone.

Why do you assume hate crime laws will not cover everyone? I'm interested to see if you can point to something I have yet to find to prove your assertions.

On another note, do you understand that all crimes are not based on hate, and to say all crimes have hate as their sourse is incorrect?

Rufus

7:53 AM, September 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Tyler, my understanding of "hate crime" legislation is obviously different than mine."

Sorry, should have said my understanding is different than yours. That will teach me to proof read better before I post.

Rufus

8:24 AM, September 14, 2007  
Anonymous Mitra said...

The real question I have is what is this post trying to say? People have made a play geared to show that hate is wrong, and that is somehow wrong in and of itself?

See the play, then give opinions.

8:55 AM, September 15, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Rufus, a number of years ago a homosexual man savagely beat to death a Catholic woman who was against gay marriage and gay rights, because of her position on these issues.

It didn't get covered very well in the media.

There was another case in Buffalo involving a white man working for a black boss, and interestingly enough the outcome was reported as a victory in a reverse-racism case, to which I say, "REVERSE?"

You'll have to find the sources, I have Saturday adventures to tend to...

9:48 AM, September 15, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Rufus,

Yes, I plan on renting the movie very soon. It does look interesting and I am especially concerned if Christians are labled as suspects in this film and if the homosexual community are labled the victims.

I will give you my un-biased review of the movie shortly.

3:52 PM, September 15, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Tyler,

The case you are refering to was in Chicago were a homosexual teenager killed a Catholic woman who was trying to persuade him to change his sexual orientation. The woman, Mary Stachowicz, was found strangled and then was placed in a crawl space under a floor. Pretty gruesome stuff.

As was said in the Washington Times on November 26, 2002 by a Peter LaBarbera:

"If a gay man had been murdered for trying to convince someone to be gay, it would be a national news story and be deemed a hate crime. But when a gay man murders a woman who tried to convince him to change, the media spike(s) the story."

The current hate crime legislation wishes to protect a "special class" of people, the homosexual community as well as other races, creeds,ect...yes, I agree Rufus. But, when the homosexual community is engaged in a "revolution" to be accepted under the law, this community can yell "rat" whenever they are bothered by others and therefor be HYPERprotected by law.

Sniff, sniff, sniff...yeah, I smell an agenda too Tyler.

4:27 PM, September 15, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Mitra,

Have you seen the play? If so, what is your take on it?

4:29 PM, September 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler, the case you speak of is not a "hate crime". Although I'm sure there was great malice and hatred in this man's heart to beat a woman so savagely, he did not do so just because she was a Christian. He did it, it seems, because she was constantly in his face about his homosexuality. A "hate crime" occurs when the crime is perpetrated simply because of what one happens to be. If this gay man had staked out a church, and randomly beat a Christian just for being a Christian, then this would have been a hate crime.

This does not condone his actions by any means, it just explains them.

From what I have read on hate crime, it is difficult to prove if the perpetrators and victim have a history. If they know each other, then there probably different reasons for acting than just race, or creed or sexual orientation etc.

Scia, since gay people don't try to convince others to be gay, Mr LaBarbara's scenerio doesn't hold water. I would also hardly call the gay community seeking protection and equality in the law a "revolution". Yes, there will always be some who abuse any law, and "hate crimes" will be no different. There will be gays and lesbians who do yell "rat", and some people will deserve it, others may not. It doesn't mean such laws should not exist. It also doesn't mean those being accused will be prosecuted either. Some could accuse you for being HYPERsensitive, smelling agendas everywhere, whether of not they exist. Don't we all have agendas? Doesn't Christianity have an agenda? Why are agendas a bad thing? Are the only bad agendas created by homosexuals? Do all gays and lesbians have the same agenda? It's too easy to say they do, and too easy to accuse an entire class of people.

On another note, I will be renting the movie, and giving my opinion on it as well. "Unbiased" is very hard to come by these days, but I will do my best, as I'm sure you will too.

Thanks for your time,

Rufus

7:46 AM, September 17, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

aexThe first article I found when I googled Mary Stachowicz's name is from the viewpoint of someone more like...say, Rufus...than either SCIA or myself.

I hope, Rufus, that you will take a moment to read this article, and then come to the conclusion I came to when I read the very first part of your last comment:

If the crime against Mary Stachowicz wasn't a hate crime, then neither was the crime against Matthew Shepard. Either both are hate crimes, or neither are, it can't be any other way.

What about Jesse Dirkhising? Shall we discuss that case, as well? He was a "13 year old boy that was raped, tortured, and strangled by homosexuals", according to Rod Dreher's article.

While you're at it, don't forget to read this article, too.

9:52 AM, September 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler,

The article asserts Mary was attacked for just going to the door of this man and asking him a question. It doesn't give any backstory to these two now does it. It does say they worked together. I remember hearing they also lived in the same house/building. How long had she been trying to convert him? This in no way excuses or endorses his actions, but it explains why it is not a hate crime. He did not target Mary. He did not seek her out because of her religion. He snapped, and what he did was disgusting and dispicable.

Matthew Shepherd, on the other hand, was targeted because he was gay. No other reason. You can make the claim he was targeted for robbery, but he was targeted for being gay none the less.

This is why the two cases are so different.

Because of the lack of attention in any media except right wing/christian news sourses, it's hard to make a determination of why it wasn't picked up by major news sourses. Could it simply be they didn't see a national story? Unfortunately murders happen every day, and not all will make the news. The question is, what is so different about the murder of Matthew Shepherd that caught the media's attention for so long. You could ask the same question about so many other "media circus" murders. The media took it and ran with it. I'd like to believe the media took hold of the Matthew Shepherd case to make a point about homophobia in America, but I don't believe it. Like so many other "media circus" stories, the media went with it because it struck a chord with so many. It was done with Jean Benet, and OJ and those brothers that killed their parents (no I am not comparing these murders, just the coverage of them). It doesn't make the media right, it just shows them for what they are. They're all about the ratings, and the circulation and the sensationalizm. (Wow, I didn't know I could be that cynical)

Bringing up the tragic case of Jesse Dirkhising doesn't lend any creadance to your argument. This was a case of child molestation and murder, not of hate.

What happened in the wake of the Matthew Shephard murder and coverage is a good thing however. It did bring to light the need for protections in the law based on sexual orientation. Before this, how many gay bashings were left uncovered by the media? How many deaths could have been prevented? God only knows.

Rufus

11:18 AM, September 17, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Rufus, your statements seem to show that you have an obvious bias that would be well served by hate crimes legislation - and I can't agree with legislation that serves a bias that favors one group as more deserving than another group.

The fact that you dismiss both cases I have presented as something other than horrific hate crimes shows me that you and I cannot have this argument on an intellectual level. Perhaps I could appeal to your emotion, but I don't even know if I could do that.

A 59 year old lady beaten, strangled, suffocated, and raped...

A 13 year old boy repeatedly molested, beaten, and raped...

There are more incidents like this. Hatred isn't a one way street from the straight to the homosexual, it goes the other way, too.

Believe me, I have experienced it over and over again at Know Thy Neighbor, when I wrote to my local paper, here, on my own blog, on blogs elsewhere, and in downtown Boston at events in the city.

There is a massive swell of hatred by homosexuals towards those who will not bow to their every desire, up to and including teaching school children that gay vs. straight is basically the same as chocolate vs. vanilla.

If you wish to converse on another topic, I would be more than happy, but as for this one, I feel that we have finally reached an impasse.

11:45 AM, September 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler,

Do not even start with insulting my inteligence level. I have not done so too you.

I have not dismissed the cases you have mentioned. How dare you insinuate otherwise. I take both cases very seriously, I only tried to show you why they are not hate crimes. I also tried to give you another point of view as to why they were not covered in the media.

You are not comprehending what I have already tried to tell you. I have seen hate first hand. I have seen the results of gay bashing up close and personal. I have seen hate for hatred's sake. It's very ugly.

The hatred you feel from those you oppose is not from something you are, but of what you have said and done. There is a difference. Incidentally, I will not blog at KnowThyNeighbor because of the hateful rhetoric and name calling from both sides. There is little discussion there anymore, and nothing to gain by interacting with anyone there.

You seem to be doing what you accuse others of doing. "There is a massive swell of hatred by CHRISTIANS towards those who will not bow to their every desire, up to and including teaching school children that CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY WAY." Do I believe this, no, but I don't believe your assertions of gay people trying to take over the world.

I come here not to antogonize, but to provide a different point of view, and maybe learn as well as teach. I try to keep an open mind, it's too bad you cannot do the same.

Rufus

12:54 PM, September 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The fact that you dismiss both cases I have presented as something other than horrific hate crimes shows me that you and I cannot have this argument on an intellectual level. Perhaps I could appeal to your emotion, but I don't even know if I could do that.

A 59 year old lady beaten, strangled, suffocated, and raped...

A 13 year old boy repeatedly molested, beaten, and raped...”

Tyler, I believe you are entirely missing Rufus’s point. He agrees that these crimes were hateful but not motivated by hatred. The 59 year old woman did not deserve what she got, but she was in a way asking for it. Would you go to a homosexual and yell in his face that he must repent or go to hell? Would you be surprised if he punched you in the nose? I wouldn’t be surprised. The homosexual she was confronting didn’t choose her; she chose him.

The case of the 13 year old boy is disgusting. However the men chose him not because of hate but because of some sick desire. Maybe they hated 13 year olds? I doubt it.

I don’t know if the Mathew Sheppard case was motivated by hate, but it appears to be. I won’t be watching the movie as I already know about the case. It seems counter-productive to aggravate old wounds. As for if this is about demonizing Christianity; Christians do enough of that by themselves, they don’t need anyone’s help with that.

Ken Weaver

9:28 PM, September 17, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Rufus, my intent was not to insult your intelligence, it was merely to point out that an argument about hate motivated crimes, when there are three crimes that we are discussing, cannot take place at that level (intellectual) if you fail to see hatred as the motivating factor behind two of those three crimes. It was the level of the discussion I was referring to, and not your level of understanding.

I understand that you are trying to get me to see things differently, but I believe that I'm already seeing these things pretty clearly! Out of their hatred for ... whatever ... people killed others that were not like them. You can say that this woman harassed this man, and I can't say that she didn't. I could say that Matthew Shepard was the victim of a crime that was for drug money, and you can say that it wasn't. None of that really matters to the discussion at hand.

Hate crime legislation, in my opinion, is bad for America, because it makes certain people as victims of hate crimes almost always, and other people victims of hate crimes almost never, based on a criteria that may have very litle (or very much) to do with the crime.

In other words, if a black man is attacked by a white man, the automatic assumption is that it is a hate crime. Vice versa, not so much. If a homosexual is attacked by anyone, the automatic assumption is that it is a hate crime. Vice versa, virtually nil.

Do you agree, or disagree, with my statements above? I did not mean to insult your intelligence, and I do apologize for coming across that way.

4:37 AM, September 18, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler you are wrong. Before the prosecuting attorney can bring in hate crime he must have motive. If he doesn’t have that motive known he is unable to do so. Also, if a black man is attacked and robbed by a white man it is unlikely hate had anything to do with the crime. In hate based motives the attacker chooses the victim, the 59 year old woman was the chooser and the victim. She would likely still be alive today if she had minded her own business. The 13 year old wasn’t chosen because of hate, he was chosen for other reasons, not the least of which was probably being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Mathew Sheppard seemed to have been chosen because of his sexual tendencies. Since I don’t know the attackers or Mathew Sheppard I must get my information elsewhere. Is it possible his attack had nothing to do with hate? Yes. But with the attackers taking time to take him into a deserted area and tying him up and beating him it looks like hate motivated rage. The other 2 cases don’t look the same.

Ken Weaver

6:49 AM, September 18, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Matthew Shepard seemsto have been chosen because of his sexual tendencies, but that may not be the case. One of these two guys that beat him severely was a bisexual, and they were looking for money for meth.

Calling it a hate crime against homosexuals, and failing to recognize that other hate crimes take place, is like Jesse Jackson saying that blacks can't be guilty of racism.

They are guilty of racism, as we all are or have been at some point in our lives. Face it - when people are different, it's hard for us to understand. The only person I can fully understand is the one on the inside of my eyeballs. Everyone else I can only view subjective to my own thoughts and yes, prejudices.

11:29 AM, September 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Calling it a hate crime against homosexuals, and failing to recognize that other hate crimes take place, is like Jesse Jackson saying that blacks can't be guilty of racism." How is recognizing hate crimes against gays negating other hate crimes? Hate crime laws have existed for a while, just not ones covering sexual orientation. Should we have those laws revolked because there MAY be a measure of unfairness in your opinion?

"if a black man is attacked by a white man, the automatic assumption is that it is a hate crime. Vice versa, not so much."
I do understand what you are getting at. I don't believe in "automatic assumptions", but there will always be those who claim attacks of white on black is a hate crime. There is a history in our society of crimes on blacks simply because they are black. There is no little in our history (if any)of whites being persecuted for simply being white. Does this mean it can't happen, of course not. It may just be harder to prove. The law (police), on the other hand, need the proof, and they need to discern if hate crime charges apply, no matter who the victim and perpetrator are.
"If a homosexual is attacked by anyone, the automatic assumption is that it is a hate crime. Vice versa, virtually nil." When was the last time you heard of a strait person being attacked by a gay person because of their sexual orientation? Like racism, there is a history of violence against gays and lesbians simply because they are gays and lesbians. Does this mean your "vice versa" couldn't happen? No, it's just more unlikely. In any event, hate crime laws should cover both scenerios. "Sexual Orientation" does cover heterosexuals I believe. Therefore they would be covered under the law.

Like I said, I do understand what you are trying to get at, but it doesn't negate the need/want of hate crime laws in our country. Hate crimes are specific crimes perpetrated by an irrational hate of someone (or group) for simply being who they are. Assumptions are made, sometimes unwarrented, because a victim belongs to a certain group. It is up to the investigators to sort it out, and decide if the crime in question was in fact a hate crime.

"Matthew Shepard seems to have been chosen because of his sexual tendencies, but that may not be the case." I find it fruitless to argue with you over this case. From what I have read, it was a hate crime. You disagree. Let's leave it at that. However, whether or not you think this is a hate crime, doesn't mean hate crimes based on sexual orientation don't exist. They do, and don't try to tell me otherwise. I've seen it. Matthew Shepherd was just the last straw, the rallying cry to say people have had enough of senseless crimes against those who happen to be gay.

Oh, and thank you for your apology Tyler. Accepted and apprecaited.

Rufus

11:30 AM, September 24, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

13 Year Old White Boy Beaten by Black Kids

Racism exists on both sides of any fence.

I can just about guarantee you, Rufus, that if I went to Boston's gay pride festival with my wife and we started making out in front of the thousands of homosexuals there, someone would start yelling "Breeders!" and it would spread...because I know that it's happened to other heterosexual couples in homosexual strongholds.

Is this not hate crime?

11:53 AM, September 24, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Breeders?

Lesbians attack?

It's pointless to pretend that it doesn't exist in some form, so what do we do about it? Can it be covered under hate crime legislation?

As a side note, I am in Boxborough all this week...just down the street from the high school...but I am not here to protest or to discuss the Laramie Project.

12:08 PM, September 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler, I've already said that it doesn't matter who the victim and who the criminal are, if someone is attacked for no other reason except their race, religion, or sexual orientation, this would be a hate crime. The police, DA etc would be the ones to decide if hate crime charges should be brought up based on the circumstances.

The case of the 13 year old does sound like it could be a hate crime.

Calling straight people "breeders" may be offensive to some, but is it hate? Is using the word "breeders" an incite to violence? These questions would have to be answered. Even the police chief in the article says it's not a hate crime. I'm straight and I think it's kinda funny. I guess it would depend on the malice intended, and who started the name calling. I don't know any gay people who think it's ok to be called a "faggot".

In any event, if you and your wife started to make out at gay pride, most probably wouldn't think much of it. If that was all you were doing. You may get a stray comment or two, but it's doubtful you would be accosted by the crowd. If two gay men started making out in Fenway park, not only would they called a few names, but there could possibly be a very real danger of harm.

The old addage applies, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me." It's the stick and stones (and 2x4s) that I'm concerned about.

Rufus

1:54 PM, September 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here’s why I believe that the Mathew Sheppard case was not about theft, and you can ask any police officer and he’ll back me up. Thieves want to get the money or the stuff their stealing and get away as fast as they can. If they must kill to prevent their identities from being released they will do it and then get away as fast as they can. Thieves don’t stick around to torture their victims, and they definitely don’t leave that victim alive to die a slow death when their freedom is on the line. Generally only people motivated by hate have the hubris to leave their victim to die slowly and then die in a hospital. Certainly a thief would not leave his severely beaten victim tied to a fence where someone might pass by and get the victim help in time to save his life.

Ken Weaver

9:30 PM, September 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken,

Thank you, my thinking exactly, and what I tried to explain to Tyler earlier.

Rufus

10:36 AM, September 25, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com