SF church vandalized over Prop 8

[ponderingturtle]

I opposed prop 8, too (or would have, had I lived in California), but I don't understand how someone can have a "plague on both your houses" mentality about this. Have pro-prop 8 people been going around vandalizing gay bathhouses or something?

Well there is the whole thing about taking away peoples marriages...

And then the lying to do so...

 

[dudalb]

This is a bad idea for no other reason then descretating houses of worship is DUMB. It makes you and your cause look bad. It is a road to nowhere politically.
ponderingturtle, do you support this action or not?

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is a bad idea for no other reason then descretating houses of worship is DUMB. It makes you and your cause look bad. It is a road to nowhere politically.
ponderingturtle, do you support this action or not?

This action no, but he seemed to not care about lies in the political campaign against this and the rights that were taken away from people. Those are both very odious actions.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I wonder when Prop 8 will be investigated as a hate crime.

Meh that's hypocritical; I wanna take all hate crime laws off the books anyways.

 

[Euromutt]

Meh. This story reads to me like the culprits were simply some regular miscreants who seized on Prop 8 as an excuse. It strikes me that actual gay rights activists wouldn't have waited until two months after the election to strike, and would have picked a more deserving target than one of the most liberal Catholic parishes in the state (instead going after, say, an LDS temple). If my surmise is correct, we might see a synagogue vandalized soon in similar fashion, ostensibly over Israel's actions in Gaza.

We have gone down a strange road when we view someone beating up someone at random just because they're psychotic as being less worse than beating someone up because of their ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation.

You're taking as your unstated, and incorrect, premise that we don't treat those who are considered likely to reoffend as a result of mental illness any differently than we do a regular offender. In fact, those judged criminally insane can be committed and may spend more time confined as a result.

But I see all the usual "arguments" against hate crimes legislation are being trotted out in this thread, all of them (as usual) willfully ignoring the actual point of such legislation, which is that those who injure others because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. are considered likely to reoffend as long as the target group has members. Now, there are perfectly legitimate objections to be made against hate crimes legislation, the foremost being that it is inconsistent with the basic principles of the rule of law to punish people for crimes they might commit at some future date, which is essentially what imposing additional punishment for a "hate crime" does. But then again, we also punish repeat offenders more heavily than first-time offenders (e.g. through "three strikes' laws) because there is basis to believe that if they've committed an offense more than once, they're more likely to do another time.

Be that as it may, I certainly see the rationale behind "investigating an offense as a hate crime" because this is based upon the assumption that the party responsible will continue to offend unless apprehended, and the offender therefore merits a higher priority than a more casual perpetrator of a similar offense.

 

[Skeptic]

But I see all the usual "arguments" against hate crimes legislation are being trotted out in this thread, all of them (as usual) willfully ignoring the actual point of such legislation, which is that those who injure others because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. are considered likely to reoffend as long as the target group has members

As opposed to those who, say, rob people for their money, who are only likely to reoffend as long as money exists.

 

[dudalb]

No one is saying that people who physically attack others because of race ,ethnic background, and/or religion should not have the book thrown for them for their crimes; we just think that laws already on the book cover the offenses. For instance, the church descration is already covered under laws against vandalism. I don't think you need to set up a seperate category because of motive.

 

[Seanette]

No one is saying that people who physically attack others because of race ,ethnic background, and/or religion should not have the book thrown for them for their crimes; we just think that laws already on the book cover the offenses. For instance, the church descration is already covered under laws against vandalism. I don't think you need to set up a seperate category because of motive.

+1, and well said.

 

[Skeptic]

I, for one, see no moral difference between "hate crime" legistlation, which gives heavier punishment to deliberate crimes merely because the motive was racism and not the victim's money, and "Jim Crow" legistlation, which gives lighter punishment to deliberate crimes merely because the motive was racism and not the victim's money.

The only difference is who gets to use the "but he did it because the victim is Black" argument in the trial -- the prosecution, or the defense.

 

[Skeptic]

We have gone down a strange road when we view someone beating up someone at random just because they're psychotic as being less worse than beating someone up because of their ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation.

Not a good example, since psychotics are less responsible for their actions due to their mental illness, and therefore they're less morally blamesworthy than regular criminals.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I, for one, see no moral difference between "hate crime" legistlation, which gives heavier punishment to deliberate crimes merely because the motive was racism and not the victim's money, and "Jim Crow" legistlation, which gives lighter punishment to deliberate crimes merely because the motive was racism and not the victim's money.

The only difference is who gets to use the "but he did it because the victim is Black" argument in the trial -- the prosecution, or the defense.

Since you still use straw for your definition of a hate crime, I think it would be best to put moralizing off until later.

(Don't think this belongs in this thread)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not a good example, since psychotics are less responsible for their actions due to their mental illness, and therefore they're less morally blamesworthy than regular criminals.

And our laws are based on morals, eh?

 

[Skeptic]

Besides, another problem is that pretty soon evrerybody will be a member of some "victim" group, which would make the whole hate/non-hate crime distinction superflous...

 

[ShowerComic]

However, Most Holy Redeemer is widely known as a gay-friendly parish that in years past has sent contingents to march in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade. A majority of parishioners opposed Prop. 8, church officials have said.

Damn that was the church for fake Catholics, now I who are the "real" Catholics.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

I've spoken out here before concerning religious intolerance at the hands of many prop 8 opponents (especially the crap the LDS have been taking from the bozos in our camp), yet this time I'm skeptical about this crime being perpetrated by prop 8 opponents.

I live in San Francisco, I frequent the Castro, AND my boyfriend is a parishioner of Most Holy Redeemer. This parish is very well known in SF (especially in the Castro district) as being a haven for gay Catholics. This church served as one of the first AIDS hospices during the 80's, marches in the annual Gay Pride Parade, and is constantly threatened with being closed down by the SF Archdiocese for not keeping to the official, Vatican articulated teaching concerning sexual orientation.

Seriously folks, it's common knowledge here in SF that this specific church is our ally. I don't see any San Franciscan vandalizing this church EXCEPT for possibly prop 8 proponents (looking to create scandal) or even other Catholics (looking to terrorize other Catholics into conformity).

 

[COLONEL]

I've spoken out here before concerning religious intolerance at the hands of many prop 8 opponents (especially the crap the LDS have been taking from the bozos in our camp), yet this time I'm skeptical about this crime being perpetrated by prop 8 opponents.

I live in San Francisco, I frequent the Castro, AND my boyfriend is a parishioner of Most Holy Redeemer. This parish is very well known in SF (especially in the Castro district) as being a haven for gay Catholics. This church served as one of the first AIDS hospices during the 80's, marches in the annual Gay Pride Parade, and is constantly threatened with being closed down by the SF Archdiocese for not keeping to the official, Vatican articulated teaching concerning sexual orientation.

Seriously folks, it's common knowledge here in SF that this specific church is our ally. I don't see any San Franciscan vandalizing this church EXCEPT for possibly prop 8 proponents (looking to create scandal) or even other Catholics (looking to terrorize other Catholics into conformity).

I have to agree with the Vatican . How can you say your a good Catholic and then go against it's teachings ? You are either a Catholic and believe in the church or you are not there is no inbetween .

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

I have to agree with the Vatican . How can you say your a good Catholic and then go against it's teachings ? You are either a Catholic and believe in the church or you are not there is no inbetween .

For many Catholics, being Catholic is not necessarily about toeing some party line of the Vatican.

I fail to see any utility in being a part of an organization that doesn't look kindly to a demographic to which one belongs (and to a similar extent I'm just as surprised by pre-1978 Black members of the LDS church), nonetheless for many, a reconciliation of the name with the dissent is possible because they see a dissociation between the label and the conformity expected by *some* within that community.

Also, from what I understand, the concept of 'the church' in Catholicism takes two forms. The first is the collective body of believers and the second is the official hierarchy (i.e. the Vatican). One could conceivably disagree with the latter on a certain issue (in this case gay marriage) yet hold all others in common and thus still retain the label of the former.

Mind you, I'm not Catholic and all this has only been what my BF and other gay Catholics have told me.