I was reading the NY Times today and came across an article (link here) about a man (he's twenty) in Queens who dresses in black, has blue hair and considers himself a Satanist. Apparently he gets a lot of heat in his neighborhood, which is mostly Roman Catholic. These two boys (18, both of them Christians) had been harassing him for a while, calling him "Satan" and "hooker killer", and on Sunday they attacked him with a metal pipe and an ice scraper. He had to be hospitalized because of the attack (12 stiches).

His attorney calls it a hate crime, which I think is appropriate. They beat him because of his religion, and that falls under the definition. But!--get this--the boy's defense attorney says that it was "just a dispute between kids" and that calling it a hate crime is a stretch, because apparently they attacked him for being a goth, not for being Satanist. He said that soon they'll be calling beating up a nerd or preppie a hate crime as well.

And I say: yes, those are hate crimes. The law defines a hate crime as an attack based on the victim's religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity, but what about stereotypes from school?

My opinion is that the definition should be added onto to include all stereotypes, as the attack and attacks like these were not based on a confrontation or simply lashing out: they chose this man because he looked different and had a different religion. This is prejudice and ought to be labelled as a hate crime as much as if they beat him because he was white.

What do you guys think?

I think someone hurting someone else on purpose is wrong, regardless of the labels we attach to ourselves.

Goth/Satanist/Geek so what, still a Person.

Of course; I was just wondering about the legal aspect of it all.

I'm not sure about the US but over here in the UK some bullying cases have indeed been taken to court and tried as criminal ABH crimes. They have also been referred to as hate crimes and in some cases schools have been taken to court for not doing enough to stop bullies. Whereas this is clearly more than bullying I feel that this defense lawyers statement stems from the thinking that bullying is just kids letting off steam. It isn't and can cause permanent damage to the child/adult in question both physically and mentally

These aren't kids though. 18 year olds? They can't be called children.

I called them as such in my post because I felt they were acting as children, and though they won't be punished as minors (their actions were brutal but) their harassment and decision-making were immature.

Besides that, Daedalus, what do you think they ought to be accused of? Is bullying a hate crime?

edit: I scared him away :}

I think a hate crime should be any crime based on hate.

I put this down to a combination of religion, nationality and ignorance (because Satanism is basically atheism). But it would seem to be a hate crime to me, course they'll probably get a slap on the wrist because they're clearly such good little catholics (not a dig at Catholics in general) ho-hum...

Any crime that's comitted because of someone hating what another person, does/is/presents himself to be is a hate crime and should be considered one under the law.

It's situations like bullying and "underage hate crimes" of this nature that lead to such catastrophes such as the Columbine massacre.

This is obviously a hate crime. These arseholes rank alongside the KKK in my eyes. Not really much debate in it.

The bullying of someone for reasons similar to those that surround this case can also be regarded as a hate crime in my opinion, but keep some perspective - Children can't be held to the same level of responsibility as adults (I'm not going to get into the age at which that transition takes place - you know what I'm talking about) and they don't necessarily have to be a hatemongering racist/faithist/homophobe etc to make life miserable for someone because of their differences. Of course, this doesn't mean that bullies are without responsibility, it's just not on the level of actual hate crimes committed by a (supposedly) rational adult.

Sometimes bullying is just about asserting power, and there's not always a reason why a bully targets one person as opposed to another. Sometimes bullies just target everyone. Is that a juvenile equivalent of hate crime?

Hmm. I think, individually, people get to an age when they know that doing these things is wrong. So, they do them anyway? That's wrong. If someone hurts another person because they disagree with their beliefs, clothes, nationality, colour...so many differences people have. There's just so much ignorance in the world, it's hard to see how we're ever going to get rid of it *sigh*
I think it should be handled as a hate crime. If they've been targeting him for a while, it wasn't jsut a minor dispute 'between kids', was it? All this talk of banning violence in games and programs because it 'affects children'. Older kids like that getting away with what they were doing is what's influencing the younger kids, and it's terrible. What if those guys had younger siblings that they instil that kind of attitude in?

A hate crime is worse than a "normal" crime not because it is in itself worse - I doubt the Satanist kid would be feeling any better if they'd beaten him up for another reason - but because it propagates the hate it expresses. It has the wider societal effect of creating a culture of fear for the victims of hate. These men (they're 18, they're not children, they're adults) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

im with commie on this one... (because i would basicly have said what he had said, and if i say what he had said... the board wouldnt be very interesting eh?)

but those men dont sound very christian to me "those who live by the sword die by the sword", "love thy neighbor", "beat your swords into plow shares" ect. deffinatly not very christian....

I think everyone's "with commie". There really isn't much to debate in this at all.

And as for them not sounding very christian, if you go by the logic that christians are defined by complete (or even close) adherance to the bible etc, the number of real christians drops to somewhere relatively near zero.

Damn straight you are! Deviance will not be tolerated!

/me jumps up and down
I disagree! I disagree! I disagree!

Really! I do!

I swear!

........

::looks edgy::

I....well...okay, you caught me. I don't disagree. I completely and totally agree with Commie. I just felt the need to tease!

/spam

Um... forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't all crimes hate crimes? Having hate crimes further propogates racism and other such badities. I'm not condoning this by any sort and I believe these men should be prosecuted, but I think that the whole hate crime thing shouldn't come into effect. If I hit a guy with my fist, I could have been angry or I could just have loathed him, but I should be prosecuted for my action, not the motives behind it. As much as I hate to say it, I don't think the government should even legislate morality such as this.

I think that offences that fall under 'hate crimes' came about as a way to say, for example, hitting some one is bad, but hitting some one because of their sexuality/ race/ religion is worse, therefore the punnishment will reflect this.

I'm not 100% on this mind.

I really should know more. hmm

No, not all crimes are hate crimes. Almost any crime that isn't violent (save a few) can't be regarded as a hate crime because there's no specific individual who is targeted by the criminal. Take most kinds of theft for example. It's pretty rare for a theif to know the individual they're stealing from, and stealing someone's car as a means of getting at someone is not that common. More often than not in the case of a hate crime, said car would be smashed up instead.

I don't agree that the existance of hate crimes makes whatever-ism any worse. If there was no such crime, a racist who beat up someone of a different race would simply be prosecuted for GBH. The motive (a bad thing in itself) wouldn't come into it. Any punishment could only reflect the physical abuse and the criminal (assuming their sentence worked as intended) would return into society as someone less willing to beat people up, but they'd still be a racist.

To fix a problem you need to acknowledge and identify it. Ignoring hate crimes will only make them disappear from statistics, but they'll continue to be a very real problem, and so will the attitudes that cause them.

Motives, Mike, are what make people commit crimes. While some motives can be justified, racism can not. If you punish/rehabilitate someone for being a racist, hopefully they will cease to be a racist and cease to beat people up. Also, if you ignore motives in the legal system completely, there becomes no difference between whacking someone over the head with a spade out of pure malice and whacking someone over the head with a spade because they were about to kill you.

It really depends on which part of the bible you're referring to. Leviticus, anyone? The Old Testement is very violent and those who follow it closely (animal slaughter, killing disobediant children) would probably wind up in jail alongside hate-crime-committers.

What I find interesting is that one of the things the Christian men (it feels odd calling them that, because in my opinion men don't childishly call older men names) called this Satanist is "baby sacrificer". Of course, the current Roman Catholic Church does not support or encourage this sort of thing, but ritualistic slaughter was something the Bible instructed people to do to honor their God.

Really, Satanism is not that different from early religions (pre-Jesus judaism, islam and hinuism) in it's rituals and practice.

Yes, but as Christians, the part of the Bible they focus on is the New Testament. I know the Old Testament is important still, but does one really call themself a Christian without listening to anything Christ said?

I haven't actually read the article, as I don't really want to subscribe, but I was wondering just what the Satanist did back. One of the things LaVey taught was not to turn the other cheek, and that if someone insults you, then you insult them back, similar to the 'eye for an eye' proverb in the Bible.

Edit: Oh, and add me to the Commielist

Edit:I'm sure there was another similar sentiment, but I can't seem to find it. This is all assuming the man was a 'modern' Satanist.

I'm with PWM. I hate any kind of judicial argument on motives for violent crimes. "Hate" crimes is just an excuse to further punish those who hold extrememly unpopular views. Punish it as an assault and that's it. I don't care why they did it (unless there was a good legal reason, self-defense or the like).

Also, I want to know what the Satanist did. Most people who openly call themselves Satanists (not Luciferian) tend to insult the beliefs of those around them as idiotic (this is from personal experience). I had one whiny little Satanist tell me the 'dark lord' was coming to get me and then he would rape my sister and such. I didn't beat him but I did scare him to death. I want to know what the provocation was. But if it's determined that it was completely unjustifiable I want the punishment for assault used.

I think it should be considered a hate crime because they attacked him because of the religion he practiced. People are so afraid of things they don't know.

Actually it wasnt ritualistic slaughter, you didnt sacrafice 10 cows on a day just to honor god. you sacrafice a cow because you did somthing wrong and because your sacraficing the cow, you can't eat the cow. therefore its costing you alot to burn that cow on an alter. therefore you are attoning for your sins. when christ was crucifide he died for our sins, and there for no more sacrafice was needed.




Where in the heck is that in the bible?


p.s. stop making fun of me man, im burnt out from collage. i already have 3 papers due tuesday.

Dueteronomy 18:21 This site illustrates it well

But that was written well over 2000 years ago, and times change.

Catholicism was supposed to be about love and forgiveness last time I checked. These men don't seem to be good Christians to me

Again, I wasn't condoning and the general church won't condone it either. People will disapprove of the lifestyle (which I do too because of the simple fact that every "Satanist" I've ever met a - knows nothing about it and can't defend it and b- hates me for my Christianity, ridicules me, and expects complete and utter tolerance and acceptance for their beliefs when they insult mine. Screw them. For the record, though I will support the right to have it their ideas, but they should damn well respect mine.) Of course there will be hard core fanatics of everything that will hate and agree, even praise, the actions of the boys, but they are the vocal ones in a very small minority.

The article claims that he didn't actually do anything--he says that he "hates Christianity, Judaisim, and Islam" but that he doesn't try and get people to change thier opinions. His mom also was quotes saying that he never caused any trouble about his beliefs.

I'm not sure, but I believe this is part of what makes this a hate crime. If he were out on the street telling people that Satan is the only way, and that Jesus sucks; if a Christian got in a fight with him following that, than that would be construed as assualt. As he {allegedly} didn't do any of those things, that they simply attacked him because he was different in his religious views, than it ought to be labelled as a hate crime.

I'm curious as to whether the way he dressed could be considered provocation (not a word?). I know sometimes when I'm around my fundie cousins I like to poke the bear a little and wear my darwin-fish pin. I know that they will comment on it, and I enjoy discussing evolution with them. Was he doing the same by wearing black nail polish and "goth clothes" while working at a bagel store in an uptight Queens community?

I dress to express myself, and I'm sure he was doing the same. But I don't wear the same clothes for visiting my grandmother as I do for school.

I'm not saying that he was asking for it, or anything like that, but I wonder if perhaps
he enjoys the comments that get made about his clothing and dresses as much to incite tham as for himself.




Long hours spent discussing the trickier parts of the bible with aforementioned fundie cousins gleaned me that knowledge, as well as the monetary worth of females measured in goats. Not sure where that one is, but it's in there.

Ack. If they beat him up for 'being goth' I have to wonder what they'd do when I wore all black to church.

More seriously, I'm all for hate crimes getting slammed to the fullest extent. I don't see the difference (hate wise) between targeting someone because of race, religion or sexuality. Then again, I'd also love to see rapists and child abusers be put away for long, long periods of time too. I'm not sure hate crimes are worse than those, but hey.. at least one might get dealt with appropriately.

Provocation? Probably. I'm guessing its his attitude or commentary, more than just clothes that prompted it though. I've heard of goth's getting harassed, but never at that level of violence. This being in my small, fairly christian town. Who knows though. People are often stupid.

Like I said in the other topic, religion isn't the reason people hate. Its just the reason that some people inclined to hate use as an excuse.

I don't think the Leviticus verse is /quite/ that simple. Children were extremely prized in Bible times. Women without children were shamed, their husbands pity and carrying on the family name was extremely important. Dozens of Bible stories emphasize this. I doubt the Israelites ignored all that, took on the gossip and shame and randomly said 'hey! My boy scowled me. I'll kill him if he doesn't apologize'. The law was spoken to all the Israelites, so any child involved would know said law, before he ever answered his/her parents. It does still seem harsh and unfair to me, but then so does sacrificing children to Baal and lots of Bible time things. It also doesn't seemed to be used often at all, if you note the Israelites frequently frays into idoltry and more. If they used that rule all the time, a lot of generations would have been dead instead of idol worshipping.

Alright, I want to say this again. I don't condone what happened.

However, I will say that there is a high probability that the "Satanist" said something extremely offensive and rude to the guys first. Every encounter I've had with "Satanists" have yielded tauntings, ridiculing, or something else like that and there are many times where I've been tempted to beat the Hell out of them not because of their beliefs but because they were generally bad human beings. Understandable. However, I have control of my emotions and these guys should too.

Though it's just as likely these guys were jocks looking for a quick violent fix. I don't know. I wasn't there.

First off - I do not condone hatred, racism, sexism, or any other bigotry, but, if I am to be consistent with my morals, and tolerance of all ideas is one of those morals, then I must tolerate them. The actions that are caused by them should be punished, however, I hear a lot of people who claim to be tolerant, but are really only tolerant of tolerant people. In short - Intolerance must be tolerated, the actions of intolerance must not.

I'm not so sure I agree with you Dave. Tolerance has to work both ways. I'm very tolerant of people's beliefs, practices etc provided they are tolerant themselves.

I'm not tolerant of intolerance because that would be in effect condoning bigotism (in all its forms), hate crimes, religous extremism etc.

So, it is okay to be intolerant, so long as it is towards people who are intolerant? I don't agree, and I don't think that tolerating is condoning. I tolerate a screaming baby on the bus, I don't condone it.

I'm not intolerant of intolerant people, I'm intolerant of intolerant attitudes in people. There is a difference.

There will always be things we have to be intolerant of. If people are actively hurting people or preaching it, tolerance obviously needs to go out the window. (NAMBLA for example, just ew) The nazi's sound a bit extreme for an example, until you think about the all the time before the war started and everything was building. It didn't start with the camps, but preaching hate. While most stories obviously don't end up like that, tolerance has its limits. We can't be tolerant of everything and protect the people that need protecting. Maybe the result more than the belief proves the point sometimes? With racism being an obvious exception.

Its also a little bit of a sore subject for me after the election. I watched people on both sides being stupidly intolerant a good share of the time. Liking or agreeing with some of Bush's moral stances made one a bigoted idiot usually and liking Kerry made one a left wing whatever. It was stupid, insulting to my faith and in the end, fixed nothing. Not implying you were saying that Daedelus, I've just heard it applied to my faith enough times to be wary of the word.