Vitimization

I am against all hate crime legislation.

 

But that's not what it did.

It just created a different unfair playing field, legalizing the victimization of one group in order to make up for the illegal victimization of the other group.

Idiotic. The fact that so many "reverse discrimination" lawsuits have been won by the plaintiffs tells the tale.

 

Reminder to use discretion when posting, especially about this sensitive topic. Some offensive posts/responses to it have been deleted & will be deleted if it happens again. Thank you.

Lady Eagle
Moderator

 

Agreed.:thumbsup:

 

I am against government discrimination based upon race. Period.

Jim Crow laws, separate gov't facilities based on race: wrong.
Preference offered to blacks, hispanics, or any other minority, based on race: also wrong.

Reasons I feel that way:
1. If "all men are created equal" then our government should reflect that tenet. You can't have it both ways IMO. Men are either equal in government's eyes or they aren't. Affirmative Action means they aren't. So I'm against it.
2. Affirmative action has caused a tort log jam in our system. You have discrimination cases (which could be valid), AA cases, reverse-discrimination cases, AA overturns, new groups who want to use AA to their advantage (lots of this in the southern US, heightening tension between some African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans).
3. AA could make the jump from government-sanctioned quotas based on race (misguided IMO but with good motives often times) to quotas based on other factors (how long before the gay lobby pushes AA legislation?).
4. No one should ever be denied a public service based upon their race (government services, access common to all citizens, education IMO). No one should be denied essential care for that reason (medical care, housing, etc., shouldn't be denied based upon race, IMO). However, in this country, we're coming close in some areas to enacting crimes of thought. This is the basis of hate-crime legislation. As repulsed as I am by racism, and as wrong as it is, and as much as God hates it (Because it mocks God's highest created thing--man in God's image--it is almost blasphemous to be racist)--it is not the job of government to legislate thought, but rather actions.
5. Bureaucracy is not very good at dissolving when it's no longer needed. If you doubt that, look at your phone bill...you're still paying a tax that was "only needed" for the Spanish-American War (turn of the 19th/20th century!). Once quotas are established, government cannot be counted on to undo them.
6. Once any class of people, no matter their pigmentation or ethnicity, have a government-mandated inside track to jobs, benefits, etc. over others, they have a vested interest in keeping said advantage. It becomes difficult to undo the program--and it becomes difficult to objectively evaluate the need for such a program based on the vested interest of so many folks. This is true whether you're talking blacks in Mississippi, Native Americans in New Mexico, or Cubans in Miami.

Now...after that tome...I would like to see God's people front and center be the example of how we are all one race that needs Jesus equally. And unfortunately, in Alabama, many Baptists were part of the problem rather than the solution.

I'm so proud that my church, though they had a bunch-o-bigots a generation ago, is learning how through the power of Christ to be color-blind. We're quickly becoming a bag of mixed nuts for Jesus 'round these parts.:thumbs:

Was AA needed? Well, no doubt...we had to jumpstart the process, especially in the South. But either way...AA should never be a permanent goal, and if it is in place, the powers that be should be planning for a phase out ASAP. AA isn't the long-term answer at all.

 

Brother Curtis, I agree that hate crime legislation is unneeded. All crime is hate crime. At some point during a crime one party "hated" the other party enough to do harm. Doesn't matter what kind of crime was committed againt the victim, hate is still the bottom line.

Making some crimes worse because "hate" was more emphatically expressed is redundant. Punish them all alike and be done.

 

I don't believe in "hate crimes." All crime is due to hate. I don't kill someone 'cause I love them to death.

Hate crimes, IMO, are horrible mis-carriages of justice.

If I murder someone, why should the penalty be enhanced because of my victim's ethnicity? That puts a de facto penalty on other victims, simply because of their ethnicity. That, therefore, gives inherent value to one race over another. This is the textbook definition of "racism."

It also allows for leniency to be offered in "non-hate" situations when it is not deserved. If I kill someone, other than self-defense, I should pay the ultimate price--no matter the ethnicity of the deceased. If you "enhance" a penalty for one crime...it means the other crime receives a lesser sentence. Where's the justice in that?

Hate-crimes are causing two-tiered justice systems. I could beat up a straight man and receive one sentence. I could beat up a gay man and receive a much harsher sentence. Shouldn't those penalties correspond to the crime committed, rather than the sexual preference of the victim?

Also, hate crimes cause the government to legislate thought. It in essence creates a new class of offense: thought crimes. Hate is against God's rules. It is sin. But we in the USA punish actions, not thoughts. It is a basic premise of our system. If you punish and regulate thoughts, get ready for:

• Those crimes and that system to be turned on you.
• Whoever acheives a powerful lobby would be able to cause the rule of law to favor them. Example: there are countries in Europe, and hints of it in Canada, where ministers have been threatened with fines and even jail time for preaching against homosexuality. Why? "Hate crimes."
• Crimes of thought being censored aren't far away from "crimes of speech" and "crimes of assembly." Goodbye, first amendment.

Don't get me wrong. I'm against racism, with a passion. I joined a demonstration against a restaurant in a town I onced lived in. Why? The bigot wouldn't serve a certain race of customer.

But hate crimes...no way. Let's just punish crimes as crimes...with consistent and firm sentencing...and leave it at that.

In conclusion, hate crimes fly in the face of a basic tenet of the Civil Rights Movement--equal protection under the law. Rather, some folks become more protected than others.

And it really doesn't matter who is "protected" right now...those standards could change with changes in who's in power (therefore, so could the protected class du jour). So let's just espouse that we're all equal and dispense justice as such.

 

Lebuick did in post #3

"I guess it depends on what free means? Free to ride in the bac of the bus or to go to the backdoor to be served? Free to be the janitor and not the CEO? Free to not get the job or promotion because of the color of you skin? If you can that free, then I agree... Stop belly aching."


Then you said in post # 5

"Okay, I agree."



The you said in the same post:

"Say for example, a black person is discriminated against, (something that can be proven)".


So because you agree that black people do not get the CEO jobs I ask you to give a real example. However since you cannot back up your claim that it can be proven you make an attempt to turn it back on me:

"On the other hand, can someone please give clear and specific and recent examples of black people being hired over more qualified white people? Names, dates, companies, etc."

You are the one that said it can be proven that a black man will not get the CEO job because he is black. I am saying if this is true please bring an example to the table.

It is alot of Americans who live in this state of victimization not just black people.

No one has made any claims in the manner that you have to require such an example.

 

Enforce the non discrimination statutes already on the books.

Racial discrimination is racial discrimination. It can't be halted by government legalizing more of it.

 

I haven't read this whole thread so I may be out of line, but:

I believe you can't today show where blacks are being prevented from advancement if everything else is equal. Sure there are anomalies, but by define, rare.

 

No mam I do not want to be contrary but what you are saying is not lining up with your post. go back and look at post number #5. Read what you quoted lebuick:

This is what you quoted him on and nothing else. There is nothing in this statement, which is the only statement you quoted, with in the context of "stop complaining".

The context for this quote is a lack of freedom still exists for blacks because they do not get hired for positions like CEO. You agreed with him on this.

This was the basis for my post # 25 when I asked for a real example of this.

In post #30 you asked who is really claiming this? Well in answer to your question and based on the fact that you quoted Lebuick in the context of black people not getting CEO positions and you agreed with it, the answer is you and Lebuick are claiming this. Go back and reread post # 5. It is your words.

So, seeing that you agree with such a statement I am interested in names of these individuals who do not get positions as CEO's because of the color of their skin.

 

Of course you do.

That's because you believe racial discrimination is OK as long as you approve.

I believe it is never OK.