2007-05-03 05:45:46 · 12 answers · asked by St. Tom Cruise 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Since in that last few questions on this topic, most of you said that these kinds of laws weren't needed.
2007-05-03 05:49:31 · update #1
Wow, look at the hypocrisy and hate flow!
2007-05-03 05:52:49 · update #2
Wootzie that was a parody not a real news story:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/27/fox-parody/
Stop believing everything you watch on Fox and you'll be embarrassed less.
2007-05-03 05:56:55 · update #3
Ruth, you're an idiot.
2007-05-03 05:59:14 · update #4
It certainly would be nice if the US taxed religions...there's a lot of revenue the US losses on supporting organized fantasies.
2007-05-03 05:50:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Before it happens, I think politicians should be prosecuted for hate crimes when they engage in pork spending. If elementary students can't eat a ham sandwich in front of Muslim students, then why not?
Seriously, the problem with any hate crimes legislation whatsoever is that it punishes thought, rather than behavior. If we begin adding non-violent behavior to the list of what constitutes "hate crimes," then after a while, we are punishing thoughts and non-violent actions, which could lead to some very troubling outcomes.
2007-05-03 05:53:55 · answer #2 · answered by Whootziedude 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No way. Other peoples religions should be protected. If everyone practiced the same religion, there wouldn't be any issues. But since that is unrealistic, the hate crime laws should protect religion.
2007-05-03 05:53:49 · answer #3 · answered by Liberal City 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No hate crime laws should be 'expired'. Also, why should religion be removed as a protected class? You don't want the enhancement when you assault Christians?
2007-05-03 05:50:31 · answer #4 · answered by nom de paix 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Any violence against anyone because of the things I list below should be considered hate crimes and punnished as such. Age, gender, weight, color, national origin, race, sexual orientation, or religion.
2007-05-03 06:35:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hate crime is not the same thing as freedom of religion and speech.
We already have mitigating factors to increase sentencing with evidence of premeditation to differentiate from "crimes of passion."
Stop trying to make some life more valuable than other life. It all has value.
2007-05-03 05:55:33 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
All hate-crime laws should be repealed, but, freedom of religion and separation of church and state need to be continued, and that requires treating religion somewhat differently from race, or other affiliations.
2007-05-03 05:49:08 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Truthfully no but isn't B's contortion interesting. Talk about hypocrisy.
2007-05-03 05:50:59 · answer #8 · answered by St. Tom Cruise 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fine with me. The entire concept of "Hate Crimes" is flawed as far as I am concerned.
2007-05-03 06:13:32 · answer #9 · answered by Rick N 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure - at the same time as all the minor constituencies of the Democrat Party are removed as protected classes. That's FAIR, isn't it? And we KNOW that FAIRness is oh-so very, very important to the denizens of the Democrat Party. Let me know, ok?
2007-05-03 05:50:16 · answer #10 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋