Unwanted

Pam Spaulding shares the latest from the Traditional Values Coalition -- a pro-hate crime flier made up to look like a "wanted" poster of Jesus Christ.

The TVC doesn't explicitly call itself "pro-hate crime," but the flier expresses their opposition to anti-hate-crime legislation, and to avoid the unwieldy "anti-anti-" prefix, the English language supplies us with the logically apt and more convenient prefix "pro."

The flier says penalizing hate crimes based on sexual orientation "begins to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors and other Christians whose actions are based upon, and reflect, the truths found in the Bible."

Their assumption seems to be, in other words, that Christian pastors are, in the normal course of their work, routinely engaged in violence against people they perceive to be gay. The TVC is run by Lou Sheldon, a self-declared Christian pastor. He may be homophobic, but I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it if he had spent the decades since his ordination routinely assaulting homosexuals.

So what on earth is he talking about?

The anti-anti-, i.e., pro-hate-crime talking point favored by Sheldon and his colleagues on the religious right is the idea that this will somehow lead to pastors being thrown into jail for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. It's a "slippery-slope" argument that has no basis -- and doesn't claim any basis -- in the text of the law itself. Nor does it have any basis in experience: Hate crime laws pertaining to racist motives are already on the books, yet none of the racist CHINO pastors still preaching their "curse of Ham" blasphemies has ever been prosecuted. Bob Jones III is still a free man.

So is Lou Sheldon dumb enough to believe his own slippery silliness, or is he just being dishonest to further his political agenda? Hard to say. But any question that begins with "is Lou Sheldon dumb enough ..." I'm inclined to answer yes.

(Also from over at House Blend: This post from Pam reminded me of this lovely artwork from Rupert Garcia.)

Comments

[Abelardus]

The Curse of Ham? Still? I knew Bob Jones University was markedly backwards in terms of racial equality -- dating rights, &c. -- but that chimera? Damn.

What I'm saying is, it's an excellent piece you've posted, as always; you know how to combine wit and compassion alike to rend asunder the veil of names to show us just how things are.

And by the way, how do you get italics on this thing?

First reply, inshallah.

[Evan]

What it is, is conservatism. Conservatism isn't about logic; it's about some people or groups having more power, money, and/or privelege, and other people having less. That's the whole thing, right there: They think it's impossible to win unless someone else is losing. On any given issue you can name, if there's a side that is for some people having more power, privilege, and money, while others have less... that's the side conservatives are on. Contrariwise, if there's a proposal that everybody should have equal rights--say, for example, that culturally-unpopular minority groups like gays, lesbians and transgendered invidiuals ought to be protected by law from discriminatory violence--why, conservatives instinctively oppose that. It's second-nature; they must maintain a hierarchy of privilege.

I have to admit it bewilders me that so many of them identify this attitude with Jesus.

[Airi]

My eyes are still rolling in my head over the logic of that argument. Could it be any worse?

[X]

to avoid the unwieldy "anti-anti-" prefix, the English language supplies us with the logically apt and more convenient prefix "pro."

Fred, you know that I love you, and that I know you are on the side of the angels here, but... While I want to like this line, it's the same one that conservatives use on the abortion issue. "If you are anti banning abortions, then rather than say you're anti-anti- we will say you are pro-abortions". It's an asinine argument.

I'm assuming (and this is a huge assumption because I don't know any proper fungelicals) that what they're worried about is that a preacher will preach about how evil gays are, then some good ol' christian soldier will go out and do his part shooting a few, and then the preacher will find himself up on charges of incitement.

Which raises a big question: I know some Imams have been charged with that, but has a Christian preacher ever being? (yes, the Imam's in question almost certainly deserved it, but you can't tell me there's never been a Christian one that hasn't either).

[ako]

I'm assuming (and this is a huge assumption because I don't know any proper fungelicals) that what they're worried about is that a preacher will preach about how evil gays are, then some good ol' christian soldier will go out and do his part shooting a few, and then the preacher will find himself up on charges of incitement.

Slim chance, at least in the US. Getting charged with inciting violence requires a lot more than proclaiming so-and-so is immoral, evil, dangrous, vile, despised by God, unworthy of life, etc. It would be hard to get a conviction for anything less than "Go out an kill them!" You can get convictions for less than that, but it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the intended message was actually, "Go out and kill those people!" not merely that killing resulted. It's broader in other common-law countries like the UK and Canada, but in the US, there is no possibility that a preacher, merely by expounding on how horrible he considered homosexuals, would be considered to have incited a hate crime.

Then again, some of the anti-protecting people from hate crimes types might not know that, and some of the others don't care.

[peasant]

Amazing. You don't seem to care for free speech or freedom of thought, which is the main problem with anti-hate-crime legislation. How do you prosecute someone for thinking "gays are evil" after an assault? What makes it any worse than any other assault? The danger of such legislation is its potential to be used to shut down free and frank debate, and to usher in 1984. It's certainly not cool to vilify people, but it should be valid to point out when their beliefs are false or their behaviour is dangerous and morally wrong. In fact, Fred, you and your commenters frquently engage in exactly the sort of prejudiced, strawman arguments which you ascribe to conservatives.

[X]

@peasant:

For the bazillianth time, nobody here is interested in putting anyone in jail just for thinking objectionable thoughts. See here and here for lengthy discussions that work this through - discussions in which you might be surprised to find several of the regulars argue more or less what you say here (and ultimately losing on it), except for the part about us attributing strawmen (strawpeople?) arguments to conservatives.

I'll tackle that one here. There really is the States (and most places) a loony conservative right who regularly put out arguments that amount from any sane perspective to strawmen, just as there is a loony fringe on the left who say equally ridiculous things. The difference is that right now in the States the loony left is pretty small and marginalized, while the loony right speak every day on Faux news, and from microphones placed out front of the White House. Seriously, even the former republican presidents are coming out and hating on the current batch of nogoodniks. If you think Fred's representation of the right in this post is an unrealistic strawman, then click on the link and look at the actual ad he's talking about. It really is there, exactly as he describes it. I took issue with one of his rhetorical flourishes, but other than that, he's bang on here.

[M Groesbeck]

I think it's revealing that these laws are seen as necessary -- given that even without the bill in question, hate crimes fall under the legal definition of terrorism. Apparently, the unwritten addendum to terrorism laws as written is that "terrorism" is violence aimed at intimidating a community or class of people is terrorism -- unless the class of people in question is non-heterosexuals.

(Of course, the legal definition of "terrorism" isn't followed by U.S. law enforcement -- despite the actual wording of the law, hate crimes are excluded and destruction of corporate property is included. Go figure.)

[mcc]

How do you prosecute someone for thinking "gays are evil" after an assault?

Well, because they committed assault.

[ako]

Two things.

First, as has been discussed to exhaustion, hate crime laws don't even remotely resemble prosecuting someone for thinking "gays are evil," after an assault. Someone who has an objectively determined intent (this legal concept that's been around for centuries), to violently target gays, as expressed before the assault (for instance, "We'll kill you, faggot!"), during the assault, ("Die!" *whap* "Faggot!" *whap* "Die!"), or expressed afterwards in a way that makes it clear the intent was there when the assault happens ("Boy, did we teach those faggots a lesson about holding hands in public!") is a hate crime. The government telepaths are not going to drag you out on the streets, not matter how much vitriolic bitterness you have in your head about the prospect of two men doing it. And expressing hatred for homosexuals after the fact, in a way that doesn't indicate it was the motive of the assault, doesn't make a hate crime. In fact, depending on how it's expressed, it can disprove hate crime charges, ("That guy I just beat up was a homo? Awesome! I wish I'd known so I could have enjoyed it!)

Second, if you want to accuse people here of straw man arguments, it's best to provide some sort of actual example. Otherwise it just looks like a cheap mud-sling.

Incidendally, you remember the "Die! Faggot! Die!" example from two paragraphs ago? There's actually three potential criminal charges there. One would be the assault from beating on a guy, and two would be "thought crimes" based on his expressed intention. The hate crime would hinge on his expressed intent to kill a "faggot" (please don't make us all go over the "no protected categories in hate crime laws" thing again), and the attempted murder charge would hinge on him repeatedly screaming the word, "Die!" Same standard of evidence (whatever the jury considers objective expression of intent), same legal principle (what you were intending to do matters in labeling a crime, not just what you actually do), and yet people don't get all hot and bothered about adding attempted murder to assault charges just because some guy screamed out, "Die! Die!" while he was doing it.

[Angelika]

I'm wondering, if Lou Sheldon actually read the book he was citing. He explicitly names on his flyer Jesus Christ, and the 'associates' Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Funnily though, the four gosples do not mention homosexuality, far less condem it.

[Geds]

I have to agree with X.

Being anti-anti- is far from the same thing as being pro-. Just because some people might use it that way doesn't mean that it's right to use it for your own arguments.

I, for one, am not particularly in favor of hate crime laws, but mostly for the fact that they're hopelessly complicated, as ako has kindly illustrated above. I believe that proper investigation of intent and motive (which I REALLY don't want to get in to again. That was traumatic) within the context of the legal system should get to the heart of the issue, anyway. If we know Person A is a noted homophobe who preaches the killing of homosexuals and all of the sudden Person A is found with a smoking gun and a bullet from said gun was inserted forcibly in to Person B, a homosexual, that should probably clear up the old intent and motive issue pretty easily. Do we really need additional hate crime legislation?

The thing is, I've been getting Lou Sheldon's emails for years on my Hotmail account. He's none too bright. But just because he's not bright doesn't mean it's not possible for him to have legitimate reasons to dislike or even fear hate crime legislation.

I have never committed a hate crime, nor will I in the forseeable future. Even so, I can't say I support hate crime legislation, but mostly because I think that it's an unnecessary and complicated addendum to the current criminal justice system. According to Fred's analysis, that means that I support hate crime. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Frankly, I'm a little offended.

[85% Duane]

Waah.

[grenadine]

i have to throw in with X et al. Anti+anti may equal pro mathematically, but not in the real world. i guess the better equation might be anti+anti=ambivalent.

[Andrew Wade]

I believe that proper investigation of intent and motive (which I REALLY don't want to get in to again. That was traumatic) within the context of the legal system should get to the heart of the issue, anyway.

Should, but doesn't. Personally, I think the name is a misnomer, and the laws should be termed (anti-)terrorism laws, which is, after all, what they are. But that has the problem that these crimes tend not to be recognized as terrorism.

As for complicated; what you need there is professional writers to write the laws. I've noticed that our laws up here in Canada tend to be among the most easy to parse, and they're not necessarily simple. Politicians are not necessarily even literate, and can easily turn simple concepts into barely comprehensible word salad.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I have found that most people who reflexively oppose hate crime legislation don't understand what it does. They often do not understand that it requires an underlying offense that would be a crime by itself. Hate crime laws increase penalties, so you'd think the "law and order" crowd would support them. Yet, not so much.

I think it is this lack of understanding that the TVC is exploiting (and furthering) for its own selfish purposes.

[Geds]

Andrew:

You bring up a valid point. On some levels I am an idealist and I'm well aware of the fact that there is a "should," but that reality very rarely lives up to what should happen.

This, too, is one of the areas in which I question the efficacy of hate crime laws, though. If they go in to effect, the idea, I assume, is that the prosecutor and defens attorney should look in to all of the details of the situation and decide whether it was a hate crime/crime of passion/self-defense, etc. Somehow I doubt that will happen and either the hate crimes will be used too often or not at all.

I'll never buy the "thought crimes" argument, and Rusty Shackleford (if that is your real name. And if it is, will you be my new best friend? I could use more crazy conspiracy theorist/exterminators in my life) makes the exact point that is often missed/covered up. But if we still can't always get motive and intent right (or even charge the right person for the right crime), hate crime laws are more likely to be misused. Lou Sheldon might want you to think they'll be deliberately misused. I think they'll be accidentally misused. But I don't like either possibility.

And, yeah, I threw in that last paragraph as an excuse to type "Rusty Shackleford..."

[Rusty Shackleford]

Geds, it's true that hate crime laws require additional examination of intent, and that such examination could in some cases lead to poor outcomes. But that's true with any determination of intent. In the interest of avoiding bad outcomes, we shouldn't sell short the abilities of prosecutors, judges and juries to determine intent. They do it all day every day for any crime that has a mens rea requirement.

The desirability of hate crimes laws is certainly open to debate on the laws' actual merits. I don't feel very strongly one way or the other. I just hate it when people/groups like the TVC are so blatantly and deliberately misleading, especially in furtherance of their ridiculous persecution complex.

- Dale Grib... I mean, Rusty Shackleford

[Jeff Weskamp]

I've heard about the "Curse of Ham' heresy. I'm wonder how much the need to justify slavery had to do with the belief that Noah's three sons produced the three groups of humanity*: Japheth produced the Europeans, Shem the Jews and Middle Easterners, and Ham the Africans.

*Of course, these were the only groups of humans known in the ancient biblicists (basically Europe, Africa, and Middle East/Western Asia). How do folks who subscribe to this theory today explain the geneology of Asians, Native Americans, Polynesians, and Australians. (Of course, recent genetic analysis points to Africa being the source of all the human subgroups, but then again, geneticists are part of the Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy).

[Abelardus]

Mr. Weskamp,

I've read in one or two places that, for those who still hold to the "Sons of Noah" theory, East Asians classify as Hamites -- don't ask me how. It had something to do with their how each "branch" fashions its deities. You might google it. Just thought I'd mention it.

[Jeff]

You can get convictions for less than that, but it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the intended message was actually, "Go out and kill those people!" not merely that killing resulted.

The a**hole from Operation Rescue who posted pictures of doctors in rifle cross-hairs, along with their names and address, was indicted when some of said doctors were shot to death, but I don't think he was convicted.

Anti+anti may equal pro mathematically, but not in the real world. i guess the better equation might be anti+anti=ambivalent.

I think the closer example is the literary "not in/un-" formation: "She was not inhospitable. He was not unhandsome." "She" is hospitable, but only slightly. "He" isn't ugly, but no great looker. Someone who is anti-anti isn't exactly "pro", but they are more pro than con.

[Reverend Ref]

I was looking at the TVC Wanted poster:

KNOWN ASSOCIATES: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

I was always under the impression that "associates" were those who actually hung around with you. As in, "my diocesan clergy associates," or "my former business associates," or even the Wal Mart "Sales Associates."

Putting as gracious a spin on that as possible, only Matthew and John could be considered associates. In reality, though, it's unlikely that any of the four evangelists were actually "associates".

Why gripe about this? Because details matter.

[Bugmaster]

Yeah. I'm anti-hate, but I'm also anti-hate-crime laws, because I think they create more problems than they solve. I'm not with you, but that doesn't automatically make me against you.

[Dean Booth]

About the "curse of Ham" -- it occurred to me the other day that a reason some fundies reject evolution may be not only that they don't believe humans could have descended from "apes," but they object to the idea of all whites having descended from dark-skinned humans.

Also, Geds, I am suspicious of any argument against a law based on the fact that it is "unnecessary." I understand your point was more complicated than that, but it seems to me that over the years many civil rights laws have been criticized as being in some way redundant.

[ako]

The a**hole from Operation Rescue who posted pictures of doctors in rifle cross-hairs, along with their names and address, was indicted when some of said doctors were shot to death, but I don't think he was convicted.

Exactly. It's a lot easier to get an indictment than a conviction, and putting up wanted posters with names, addresses, and pictures of the targets in crosshairs isn't a solid case for inciting people to violence, as long as it doesn't feature "Go kill these people," and you don't know for a fact how your audience reacts (fuzzy territory, but had he started handing out these posters to an angry mob who were muttering, "Somebody should show those doctors a thing or two about killing," he likely would have been convicted. It's extremely difficult to argue that published material legally constitutes inciting people to violence, though.)

[sophia8]

Getting back to the poster: "Wanted for violation of the proposed Hate Crimes Law in his teachings and in his book The Bible"
Ummmm.... Jesus wrote the Bible? All of it?

[interloper]

Ummmm.... Jesus wrote the Bible? All of it?

Since Jesus is the Logos, the divine Word by which the entire world was created, it stands to reason that He could be considered the author of every word in the Bible as well.

Seriously, I've heard this used by a fundie to respond to the point that Jesus Himself never said anything about homosexuality, in a public debate about anti-discrimination laws.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

The problem with Fred's "anti-anti = pro" point is that it conflates "hate crime" with "hate crime legislation.

Things may be clearer if we use order-of-operation parentheses in our description of the TVC's stance:

anti (anti-(hate-crime) legislation)

"hate" describes "crime"; "anti-" modifies "hate-crime" to describe the purpose of the legislation; the TVC is opposed, therefore "anti-" to, the legislation.

Being opposed to hate-crime legislation is not the same as being in favor of hate crimes. It's kind of like the way being opposed to the War on Terror is not the same as being in favor of terrorism.

I think most people who oppose hate-crime legislation are incorrect in their stance, and are insufficiently appreciative of the community-terrorizing effect of hate crimes, but I think it's disingenuous to say they're in favor of hate crimes.

Now, I'm this close to being convinced that the TVC are in favor of hate crimes, understand; I very much doubt that they oppose people terrorizing gays and lesbians; but there's better support for this accusation than the simple fact of their opposition to hate-crime legislation, which is not in itself proof of hating homosexuals.