it’s multiplicative. That’s why you really can’t take action for or against. At least for now.
Unless you write down your thoughts, then it is a crime according to one of the stories posted on here not too long ago.
Why not? It denies the person the ability to practice their chosen religion because they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy.
Church is a private organization. They have the right to refuse membership. That’s the law. You can practice any religion independently, but you can’t infringe on others doing so. So they have a right to excommunicate you from their group. Stop being so pedantic, this train of thought (and the slippery slope argument, or other legalistic arguments founded in absolutes) often are absent any application of common sense.
A group of people forcibly held this guy down on his own property and shaved off his beard which held religious personal significance to him. This is not the same as telling someone they can’t be part of your organization / church.
Is prohibiting polygamy a hate crime against the FLDS followers?
No. There is no prohibition of polygamy. The state will not recognize the marriage legally, but the LDS may have multiple marriages and recognize them as fully ordained from a religious point of view. This is the same for other religions such as Islam as well. If you take this train of thought you could argue banning gay marriage is a hate crime. But you’d be wrong as well.
The problem with all these enlightened outside the box concepts is that they totally ignore the factual definition of a hate crime: As defined by congress.
–Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.–
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
Therefore, since none of these circumstances are currently “criminal offenses” AND motivated by a documented bias against a race, religion, disability, ethinic origin or sexual orientation, they fail to fit the rule. Remember, both must be met. It’s as simple and black and white as that.
That was a very serious response to what I thought was a joke by CFASniper. Far too serious for a Friday at any rate.
Oh, and polygamy should be legal. And I am being serious, seriously.
^^ Then shaving off the beards is not a hate crime, as the shavers are not biased against the religion.
I thought Polygamy has been illegal in the US since mid 19th century
The issue is whether the punishment is proportional to the damage caused. Two things may be objectively the same action, but if they are clearly done for different reasons, the damage and/or fear created is greater.
If someone shaved off my beard forcibly, I’d be annoyed because it will take a while to get it back to that nice beautiful lustre that makes the ladies go so wild, but if it had religious significance, people in my community (if they don’t know what happened) might think I was flouting the religion and start ostracizing me. That is a greater damage, and if the crime was done with the knowledge and intention to cause that effect, then it does make a difference.
If you’ve ever been mugged by someone who just wants your money versus being mugged by someone who not only wants your money but wants to humiliate you because of who you are (race, ethnicity, class, whatever), you know the experience is different and mroe damaging, even if the amount of money lost is the same. I haven’t had a mugging experience in decades, but the few times it’s ever happened are enough to convince me that a crime done specifically targeting a particular group is indeed worse than the same crime without it.
How one proves a hate crime legally is a different (albeit very relevant) issue. Just because we can’t quite tell the exact dividing line where an ordinary crime becomes a hate crime doesn’t mean there isn’t one, and the legal definitions presumably have to send a clear signal about what one needs to do to cross that line so that people know how not to cross it. Sure it seems odd to ask someone to be polite while assaulting you, but in terms of the damage caused and the after-effects, it actually does make a difference.
That said, I’m sure that Canadian assaulters are very polite indeed. “Excuse me, sir, if I may: please hand over your wallet and any personal effects of any value. You may retrieve your documents over there on the left hand side of the street after the operation. Necessitez-vous une translation en Français, apres que nous allons comencer?”
I never argued it was. I said it’s murky, in fact I believe I originally said it was not. If I were to guess, I’d say that will be the defenses’s line of reasoning, and the prosecution will likely try to develop some form of argument that their beliefs represented their own relgion or religious views or something. I’m not sure, it’s tenuous. Anyhow, what I was arguing is that the competing examples presented earlier were not even really comparable to what had happened in that they weren’t even criminal offenses to start with.
If the Asian frat steals the African American frat’s dance moves, is that a hate crime?
^ Stealing the moves is not a hate crime, but attempting to execute them is.
I enjoyed that!
My understanding is that it isn’t legally recognized. Being legally married to more than one person is not allowed, however, I was under the impression that religious marriages (not legally recognized) were okay.
stealing or executing?
Does anyone really want to punish criminals based on the amount of emotional damage they do? Isn’t that what civil court is for?
I think the distinction betwen premeditated murder and wrongful death (which is generally the result of an accident or negligence) is a relevant analogy. Do you think that - just because someone is dead at the end in both cases - there is no difference between what the punishment/sentence/consequence should be for intentionally killing someone versus accidentally killing them?
Is there no relevant difference between torturing someone to death for an hour or so versus capping them quickly, execution style? After all, the end result is just a dead person.
Is there no real difference between raping someone in front of their family members who are forced to watch, versus doing it quietly in some hidden area? Both are detestible, but are they really deserving of exactly the same retribution, no more, no less than the other?
People don’t accidentally mug others, or accidentally shave off a beard. The varying degrees of murder are well defined.
As to your other points, first degree murder is first degree murder no matter how long you take to commit it. Either way you’re getting life or the chair. As for lesser crimes that’s why the judge has sentencing guidelines. For particularly heinous crimes he/she can put the criminal away longer.
My wife accidentally shoplifted the other day. She took some toothpaste which she thought were samples. When I saw them at home, I was like “what did you do??”.