Freedom of speech at Pace University

[Mycroft]

http://chronicle.com/news/article/2761/student-arrested-in-koran-in-toilet-incidents-at-pace-u

July 28, 2007
Student Arrested in Koran-in-Toilet Incidents at Pace U.

A 23-year-old man just a few credits short of a degree from Pace University was arrested on Friday for allegedly desecrating the Koran by throwing copies of the Muslim scripture into toilets at the university’s Manhattan campus last fall, the New York Daily News reported.

The man, Stanislav Shmulevich, was detained after New York police officers found him on a surveillance photograph leaving a room where the holy books are kept. Mr. Shmulevich, a Ukrainian immigrant who works at a European banking firm and who a roommate says took “a break” from his Pace studies, will face hate-crime charges for criminal mischief and aggravated harassment when he is arraigned. —Andrew Mytelka

Wow. Arrested?!!

I have to say anyone who would deliberately desecrate someone else's holy book is a first class jerk, but this is still the United States of America and our constitution gives us the right to be a jerk when it comes to speech issues.

[jsiv]

Well, I have no problem with him being arrested. For theft and vandalism that is. Unless the book was his own, of course.

But hate crimes, I don't know.

[Crossbow]

A better account of the story can be found here.

http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_208213242.html

This is the second time that he has been in this type of trouble and the book he vandalized was a university book, and not his own.

[daredelvis]

http://chronicle.com/news/article/2761/student-arrested-in-koran-in-toilet-incidents-at-pace-u



Wow. Arrested?!!

I have to say anyone who would deliberately desecrate someone else's holy book is a first class jerk, but this is still the United States of America and our constitution gives us the right to be a jerk when it comes to speech issues.

A better account of the story can be found here.

http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_208213242.html

This is the second time that he has been in this type of trouble and the book he vandalized was a university book, and not his own.


Wow. Who would have guessed that the facts of this story do not agree with the OP's slant?!!!

I'm sure Mycroftt just happened across this while cruising The Chronicle of Higher Education's News Blog. Could happen to anyone.

Daredelvis

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I still don't get this free speech stuff. First it protects lap dances and now it protects book burning?

[jsiv]

Well it should protect book flushing, as long as you own the books you're flushing.

The University needs some new regulations that specify what can and cannot be put into their toilets.

[Tony]

This is not a hate crime, trashing the Bible or Koran is protected speech. This is a crime of vandalism and destruction of school property.

[Tony]

I still don't get this free speech stuff. First it protects lap dances and now it protects book burning?

Yep. Why should destroying holy books be illegal?

[Tony]

A better account of the story can be found here.

http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_208213242.html

This is the second time that he has been in this type of trouble and the book he vandalized was a university book, and not his own.

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said. It was unclear if he was a student at the school. A message left at the Shmulevich home was not immediately returned.

Since when are those thought, oops sorry, "hate" crimes?

[Tony]

Wow. Who would have guessed that the facts of this story do not agree with the OP's slant?!!!


How do the facts disagree with the OP?

[Katana]

This is not a hate crime, trashing the Bible or Koran is protected speech. This is a crime of vandalism and destruction of school property.


Agreed.

How do the facts disagree with the OP?


Yes. I'm curious about that, as well.

[brodski]

Yep. Why should destroying holy books be illegal?

carbon emissions.

[parky76]

Careful now. We may soon see protestors demanding that this guy get life in prison or the school will face "jihad".

[Irony]

Wow. Who would have guessed that the facts of this story do not agree with the OP's slant?!!!

I'm sure Mycroftt just happened across this while cruising The Chronicle of Higher Education's News Blog. Could happen to anyone.

Daredelvis

I'm sorry, but story doesn't conflict with the OP at all. The man is still being charged with hate crimes. If he was being charged with theft and vandalism this would be a non-story. However, instead of taking the sane alternative and charging him with the crimes he committed, they decided to effectively charge him with being disrespectful to a religious text. Whether they intended to do this explicitly or not, those charges need to be dismissed to avoid letting this case set a precedent.

[Tony]

carbon emissions.

??? I wasn't aware that wet paper in the toilet emitted carbon.

[mumblethrax]

Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class, so criminal mischief is potentially a hate crime (and the reports that he's been charged with aggravated assault are in error).

Framing this as a free speech issue is questionable, to say the least. Free speech does not entail the right to destroy other people's property (it's not a free speech issue to prosecute someone for spraying a swastika on a synagogue, for example). You can make the argument that hate crime legislation infringes upon free speech, but you'll be going up against a unanimous Supreme Court....

[Tony]

Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class, so criminal mischief is potentially a hate crime (and the reports that he's been charged with aggravated assault are in error).


Every "class" is protected.

Since when is a university a protected class?

[Katana]

Every "class" is protected.

Since when is a university a protected class?


Or, alternatively, which classes aren't protected?

How do we make our distinctions?

[BPSCG]

Or, alternatively, which classes aren't protected?

How do we make our distinctions?I thought the answer to that was perfectly obvious. Protected classes are classes of people we approve of and want to protect. If you're not in a protected class, it's because we don't approve of you.

If you think the concept of special "protected classes" conflicts with the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, you need to get your mind straight.

[Freddy]

Well it should protect book flushing, as long as you own the books you're flushing.

The University needs some new regulations that specify what can and cannot be put into their toilets.


I'd say you'd have to own the toilet as well, as you can mess up the plumbing pretty badly by trying to flush a book. Even if he owned the book, it would have been reasonable to charge him with vandalizing the toilet. Also, when the toilet overflows, the custodians have to clean up the mess. They don't deserve that.

[Freddy]

Every "class" is protected.

Since when is a university a protected class?


Exactly. I don't know what the DA is smoking, but any halfway decent lawyer will get this guy off on the hate crime part. Who was this crime committed against? The entity that owns the Koran and the toilet -- the university. This book did not belong to a Muslim, nor did it belong to "all Muslims" in some nebulous sense. It was university property. The university was the (sole) victim of the crime. Universities are not a protected class under hate crimes statutes. This was a PR move by the DA (and one that will most certainly backfire).

[WildCat]

Well it should protect book flushing, as long as you own the books you're flushing.
Not if you don't own the toilet and plumbing also. I don't think it takes a master plumber to know that a book isn't going to flush easily.

[Art Vandelay]

This is not a hate crime, trashing the Bible or Koran is protected speech.That's just plain silly. Theft is not speech. Since the Koran is speech, and he destroyed it, he is infringing on free speech rights.

However, instead of taking the sane alternative and charging him with the crimes he committed, they decided to effectively charge him with being disrespectful to a religious text.Not disrepectful. Censorsing.

[Tony]

That's just plain silly.


There was no need to preface your post with that sentence, we knew it was silly.

Theft is not speech.

I wasn't talking about theft.

Since the Koran is speech, and he destroyed it, he is infringing on free speech rights.

No he isn't.

Not disrepectful. Censorsing [sic].

Like you said, silly.

[GodMark2]

Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class, so criminal mischief is potentially a hate crime.

Every "class" is protected.

Since when is a university a protected class?

The crime only needs to be "motivated by prejudice against a protected class" to be a hate crime. It does not need to be perpetrated against a member of that class.

If you burn a swastika into a lawn owned by a non-Jew, you are still likely to be doing so to intimidate the local Jewish population. Therefore, you will be charged with a hate crime in addition to the vandalism. Especially if you have a history of such acts.

The university does not need to be a protected class for this crime to possibly be considered a hate crime under New York law.

[drkitten]

The crime only needs to be "motivated by prejudice against a protected class" to be a hate crime. It does not need to be perpetrated against a member of that class.

Exactly. The big question that the perp will have to answer in order to mount an effective defense is "why specifically the Koran"?

Because as is, from the evidence I've seen so far, there's no doubt in my mind that he was motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice, which is all that is necessary for the prosecution to show.

[Mycroft]

Wow. Who would have guessed that the facts of this story do not agree with the OP's slant?!!!

Except they do. Unless you would like to show otherwise.


I'm sure Mycroftt just happened across this while cruising The Chronicle of Higher Education's News Blog. Could happen to anyone.


I purposefully searched for the most neutral and least sensationalist account of the events, which I though would be appropriate for a skeptic's forum. It didn't occur to me that anyone could come up with such a silly reason for objecting to a source as you have.

I still don't get this free speech stuff. First it protects lap dances and now it protects book burning?

I think if the book in question were the Christian Bible, the Book or Mormon or Dianetics that the speech issue of leaving in a toilet for other people to find would be obvious. Free speech does allow us to criticize religion.

Certainly I agree this person is guilty of vandalism, but he should be punished as is appropriate to someone who ruins a perfectly good second-hand book and no more. When I was in college, that punishment would have been to pay for it.

[Mycroft]

Exactly. The big question that the perp will have to answer in order to mount an effective defense is "why specifically the Koran"?

Because as is, from the evidence I've seen so far, there's no doubt in my mind that he was motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice, which is all that is necessary for the prosecution to show.


Until reading some of the responses in this thread I didn't give much credence to the hate crime point of view, but now I think it may be worth some more thought.

Question: If someone is against a religion and speaks out against a religion, isn't that by definition prejudiced against that religion? How could it be possible to reconcile a persons right to speak against a religion with a law that forbids any action motivated by prejudice against a religion?

[The Fool]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26436_Outrage_of_the_Week-_Arrested_for_Desecrating_a_Koran&only

poor old chuck misses out on source credit again.....

[Art Vandelay]

I wasn't talking about theft.Yes, you were. That's what this thread is about. You're being as thick as usual.

I think if the book in question were the Christian Bible, the Book or Mormon or Dianetics that the speech issue of leaving in a toilet for other people to find would be obvious. Free speech does allow us to criticize religion.But not to commit crimes.

How could it be possible to reconcile a persons right to speak against a religion with a law that forbids any action motivated by prejudice against a religion?Not action. Crime.

[drkitten]

Question: If someone is against a religion and speaks out against a religion, isn't that by definition prejudiced against that religion?

No, not if the person is legitimately biased against the religion based on reason and evidence. But it's hard to see how "reason and evidence" leads one to burn a cross or flush the Koran.

How could it be possible to reconcile a persons right to speak against a religion with a law that forbids any action motivated by prejudice against a religion?

Well, that's one reconciliation; not all actions are based on prejudice. But a stronger one is simply to point out that no such law exists; "Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class." Since simple speech is not a crime, you can speak against anything you like as long as you are otherwise within the law (e.g., if you are holding a rally, you need appropriate content-neutral permits; if you are using a PA system, you need to comply with local volume ordinances; if you are publishing, you need to comply with copyright and libel laws, and so forth.)

[a_unique_person]

Wow. Who would have guessed that the facts of this story do not agree with the OP's slant?!!!

I'm sure Mycroftt just happened across this while cruising The Chronicle of Higher Education's News Blog. Could happen to anyone.

Daredelvis

Might just be because it is the topic of the day at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26459_Pace_University_Mindcrime_Update&only

[Freddy]

The crime only needs to be "motivated by prejudice against a protected class" to be a hate crime. It does not need to be perpetrated against a member of that class.

If you burn a swastika into a lawn owned by a non-Jew, you are still likely to be doing so to intimidate the local Jewish population. Therefore, you will be charged with a hate crime in addition to the vandalism. Especially if you have a history of such acts.

The university does not need to be a protected class for this crime to possibly be considered a hate crime under New York law.



What an awful analogy. Burning a swastika into a lawn is way different from, say, flushing a Torah, which would be analogous to the present case. In burning a swastika into a lawn, you add a dimension of intimidation, which is precisely what the hate crime legislation is intended to address. That dimension simply isn't there when you're merely being grossly disrespectful, which makes it disingenuous to prosecute this case as a hate crime.

If the hate crime law is written so broadly as to incorporate this case, then it's just a terrible law that needs to be rewritten or abolished. This is exactly the type of misapplication that opponents of this type of law warn about.

[Mid]

So just to see if I understand this correctly, any crime if it's committed because of a persons prejudice is a hate crime in New York? Even things like littering, jaywalking etc.?

[Gurdur]

Yep. Why should destroying holy books be illegal?

Indeedy, burn 'em all and let Fahrenheit 451° sort it all out.

</sarcasm>

[Gurdur]

You're being as thick as usual.

Kind of loses its emotive force when you say the same thing to everyone, about everything.

[Tony]

Yes, you were.

No I wasn't. You're lying as usual.

[mumblethrax]

So just to see if I understand this correctly, any crime if it's committed because of a persons prejudice is a hate crime in New York? Even things like littering, jaywalking etc.?
No, only a specific subset of crimes.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is this the college where the students learn to make picante sauce?

[Tony]

No, not if the person is legitimately biased against the religion based on reason and evidence. But it's hard to see how "reason and evidence" leads one to burn a cross or flush the Koran.


Yep. Kind of like how its hard for religious fundamentalists to see how reason and evidence can lead to anything other than belief in their religion.

Well, that's one reconciliation; not all actions are based on prejudice. But a stronger one is simply to point out that no such law exists; "Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class."

Then the law is flawed and needs to be re-written. Under this definition, anything can be construed as a hate crime. The definition of hate crime should remain exclusive to acts of violence and explicit threats of violence.

[Tony]

No, only a specific subset of crimes.

Evidence?

[mumblethrax]

Evidence?
From The Hate Crimes Act of 2000 (http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm):

3. A "specified offense" is an offense defined by any of the following provisions of this chapter: section 120.00 (assault in the third degree); section 120.05 (assault in the second degree); section 120.10 (assault in the first degree); section 120.12 (aggravated assault upon a person less than eleven years old); section 120.13 (menacing in the first degree); section 120.14 (menacing in the second degree); section 120.15 (menacing in the third degree); section 120.20 (reckless endangerment in the second degree); section 120.25 (reckless endangerment in the first degree); subdivision one of section 125.15 (manslaughter in the second degree); subdivision one, two or four of section 125.20 (manslaughter in the first degree); section 125.25 (murder in the second degree); section 120.45 (stalking in the fourth degree); section 120.50 (stalking in the third degree); section 120.55 (stalking in the second degree); section 120.60 (stalking in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.35 (rape in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.50 (sodomy in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.65 (sexual abuse in the first degree); paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 130.67 (aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree); paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 130.70 (aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree); section 135.05 (unlawful imprisonment in the second degree); section 135.10 (unlawful imprisonment in the first degree); section 135.20 (kidnapping in the second degree); section 135.25 (kidnapping in the first degree); section 135.60 (coercion in the second degree); section 135.65 (coercion in the first degree); section 140.10 (criminal trespass in the third degree); section 140.15 (criminal trespass in the second degree); section 140.17 (criminal trespass in the first degree); section 140.20 (burglary in the third degree); section 140.25 (burglary in the second degree); section 140.30 (burglary in the first degree); section 145.00 (criminal mischief in the fourth degree); section 145.05 (criminal mischief in the third degree); section 145.10 (criminal mischief in the second degree); section 145.12 (criminal mischief in the first degree); section 150.05 (arson in the fourth degree); section 150.10 (arson in the third degree); section 150.15 (arson in the second degree); section 150.20 (arson in the first degree); section 155.25 (petit larceny); section 155.30 (grand larceny in the fourth degree); section 155.35 (grand larceny in the third degree); section 155.40 (grand larceny in the second degree); section 155.42 (grand larceny in the first degree); section 160.05 (robbery in the third degree); section 160.10 (robbery in the second degree); section 160.15 (robbery in the first degree); section 240.25 (harassment in the first degree); subdivision one, two or four of section 240.30 (aggravated harassment in the second degree); or any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.

[Beerina]

This is not a hate crime, trashing the Bible or Koran is protected speech. This is a crime of vandalism and destruction of school property.

Yes, but is that what he's charged with?

A 23-year-old man just a few credits short of a degree from Pace University was arrested on Friday for allegedly desecrating the Koran by throwing copies of the Muslim scripture into toilets at the university’s Manhattan campus last fall, the New York Daily News reported.

The man, Stanislav Shmulevich, was detained after New York police officers found him on a surveillance photograph leaving a room where the holy books are kept. Mr. Shmulevich, a Ukrainian immigrant who works at a European banking firm and who a roommate says took “a break” from his Pace studies, will face hate-crime charges for criminal mischief and aggravated harassment when he is arraigned. —Andrew Mytelka

I have no problem with charging people with anything from destruction of public property, to clogging public toilets, to flushing stuff it might be illegal to flush into a public sewer system, to vandalism. I do have a problem with "desecration" and "hate crime" concepts.

Free people reserve the right to do things that, while otherwise legal, nevertheless piss the ever-lovin' almighty hell out of other people.

Free people reserve the right to make merciless, brutal fun of what you are, who you are, what you say, what you think, what you do, and what you believe. Does my speech upset you? Good! That feeling you get is free speech at work, doing precisely what it's supposed to do: affecting you, which is why it's at the pinnacle of importance of rights.

And in no way, shape, or form, would I ever support an anti-desecration law, as that recognizes the validity of a particular religion (or even gods in general) and the government has no business doing that. And if the gods don't exist, it ain't desecration.

[Mid]

No, only a specific subset of crimes.

Thanks :)

[Tony]

Yes, but is that what he's charged with?



I have no problem with charging people with anything from destruction of public property, to clogging public toilets, to flushing stuff it might be illegal to flush into a public sewer system, to vandalism. I do have a problem with "desecration" and "hate crime" concepts.

Free people reserve the right to do things that, while otherwise legal, nevertheless piss the ever-lovin' almighty hell out of other people.

Free people reserve the right to make merciless, brutal fun of what you are, who you are, what you say, what you think, what you do, and what you believe. Does my speech upset you? Good! That feeling you get is free speech at work.

And in no way, shape, or form, would I ever support an anti-desecration law, as that recognizes the validity of a particular religion (or even gods in general) and the government has no business doing that. And if the gods don't exist, it ain't desecration.


I agree. Christians, muslims ect. are not a race. They are merely people who believe in stupid *****. Would someone be charged with a hate crime if they flushed the school's copies of the Commie Manifesto or Mien Kampf? I see no reason why the beliefs of the religious should be protected from offense by the state or why prejudice against said beliefs or ideologies should be a factor in a crime.

[Tony]

From The Hate Crimes Act of 2000 (http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm):

Thanks.

[Art Vandelay]

What an awful analogy. Burning a swastika into a lawn is way different from, say, flushing a Torah, which would be analogous to the present case. In burning a swastika into a lawn, you add a dimension of intimidation, which is precisely what the hate crime legislation is intended to address. That dimension simply isn't there when you're merely being grossly disrespectful, which makes it disingenuous to prosecute this case as a hate crime.An incredibly basic principle of rhetoric is that analogies should be evaluated as to how well they establish the position they are meant to support, not how well they support some made-up strawman. The analogy was presented to support the claim that "The crime only needs to be 'motivated by prejudice against a protected class' to be a hate crime. It does not need to be perpetrated against a member of that class." No claim whatsoever was made as to whether this crime includes a dimension of intimidation, and so your rebuttal is flagrantly fallacious.

Kind of loses its emotive force when you say the same thing to everyone, about everything. I don't say it about everyone. Just peoiple who say things like "free speech means that one has the right to express one's opinion by destroying other people's speech". According to Tony's logic, anyone who challenges a law prohibiting the burning of the flag is opposed to free speech; in passing such a law, Congress is expressing an opinion, and those who challenge the law is censoring Congress.

Then the law is flawed and needs to be re-written. Under this definition, anything can be construed as a hate crime. No, seeing as how the law says "Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class", only crimes can be construed as hate crimes, and then only if they're motivated by prejudice against a protected class. Do even bother reading what you quote?

[Tony]

No, seeing as how the law says "Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class", only crimes can be construed as hate crimes, and then only if they're motivated by prejudice against a protected class. Do even bother reading what you quote?

LOL I guess since you have no other point to make, you feel the need to pull one out of your ass to keep from looking like a fool. As should have been apparent from context, when I said "anything" I was speaking about crimes. This is twice in this thread you've been unable to discern what I've been talking about. Is it on purpose, or accidental?

[Tony]

I don't say it about everyone. Just peoiple who say things like "free speech means that one has the right to express one's opinion by destroying other people's speech".


It does. I'm sorry you don't like it, but there it is. Freespeech gives me the right, assuming it's my property, to destroy any dvd, book, cd, poster, post card, stamp, painting, sculpture or drawing.

According to Tony's logic, anyone who challenges a law prohibiting the burning of the flag is opposed to free speech; in passing such a law, Congress is expressing an opinion, and those who challenge the law is censoring Congress.

LOL That's not my logic, that's your gross and perverse misunderstanding of it.

[boooeee]

Is this the college where the students learn to make picante sauce?

Nope. It's where you learn to be an offensive lineman. It's in Orlando somewhere.

[Beerina]

Do "hate crimes" have to be normal crimes first? Or has this philosophical chimera wrapping them already disappeared in less than a decade? I.e. (some legal activity) becomes illegal if you do it because you hate (some group-of-the-month)?

[GodMark2]

Do "hate crimes" have to be normal crimes first? Or has this philosophical chimera wrapping them already disappeared in less than a decade? I.e. (some legal activity) becomes illegal if you do it because you hate (some group-of-the-month)?

Yes, Hate crimes must first be a crime. Then the "hate" motivation for that crime may be investigated. If sufficient evidence is found that the original crime was intended to harm or intimidate a protected class, then the charge of "Hate Crime" can be added to the list. If the original incident is later found to be not a crime (he owned the book and the plumbing) then that is sufecient defense to dismiss the "Hate Crime".

Legal activities can never be considered "Hate Crimes", not matter their motivation.

[GodMark2]

LOL I guess since you have no other point to make, you feel the need to pull one out of your ass to keep from looking like a fool. As should have been apparent from context, when I said "anything" I was speaking about crimes. This is twice in this thread you've been unable to discern what I've been talking about. Is it on purpose, or accidental?

I would guess it's because you used the word "Anything", which in context was clear to mean... "Anything". There was no reason to think you really meant to say "Any Crime", because you could have easily said that to avoid confusion, but chose not to.

[Freddy]

Yes, Hate crimes must first be a crime. Then the "hate" motivation for that crime may be investigated. If sufficient evidence is found that the original crime was intended to harm or intimidate a protected class, then the charge of "Hate Crime" can be added to the list. If the original incident is later found to be not a crime (he owned the book and the plumbing) then that is sufecient defense to dismiss the "Hate Crime".

Legal activities can never be considered "Hate Crimes", not matter their motivation.


"Intended to harm or intimidate" is not the same as "motivated by prejudice." If the former were the standard in NY, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and I wouldn't have a problem with the law. No Muslims were harmed by this guy, nor can mere disrespect of one's holy book reasonably be construed as "intimidation." If you're intimidated by that, then you're too much of a wimp to live in a free country.

[GodMark2]

"Intended to harm or intimidate" is not the same as "motivated by prejudice." If the former were the standard in NY, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and I wouldn't have a problem with the law. No Muslims were harmed by this guy, nor can mere disrespect of one's holy book reasonably be construed as "intimidation." If you're intimidated by that, then you're too much of a wimp to live in a free country.

Would you consider the burning of an empty church, due to prejudice and hatred toward it's members, to be a possible hate crime?

If so, what is the difference between the destruction of a building considered holy by members of a church and the burning of a book considered holy by members of that church.

If not, then what do you consider the necessary level of intimidation for a crime to be a possible Hate Crime?

Note, when I mentioned "harm or intimidation" I was using the Oregon version of Hate Crime law. The New York Law is different, but the central question outlined above remains.

[Tony]

I would guess it's because you used the word "Anything", which in context was clear to mean... "Anything". There was no reason to think you really meant to say "Any Crime", because you could have easily said that to avoid confusion, but chose not to.

So then you admit you also lack the ability to recognize context? I can admit a certain amount laziness on my part, but I shouldn't have to hold your hand.

[Tony]

Would you consider the burning of an empty church, due to prejudice and hatred toward it's members, to be a possible hate crime?


Maybe.

If so, what is the difference between the destruction of a building considered holy by members of a church and the burning of a book considered holy by members of that church.

Bwahahahahahahahaha. What's the difference between burning a building and burning a book? If you don't know, its not likely you'll be able to understand any explanation.

If not, then what do you consider the necessary level of intimidation for a crime to be a possible Hate Crime?

It's a hate crime if it is directly aimed at the humans who hold the beliefs and/or their property as opposed to the beliefs themselves.

[Mycroft]

No, not if the person is legitimately biased against the religion based on reason and evidence.

Surely our government can't be placed in the position of deciding what beliefs are based on reason and evidence and what are not? Everyone believes their prejudices are rational. There is all kinds of literature that purpotes to provide reasons and evidence to support prejudices, all of which is protected.


But it's hard to see how "reason and evidence" leads one to burn a cross or flush the Koran.

Burning a cross is an act of intimidation, which makes it a hate crime.

"Reason and evidence" describe how a rational person comes to form an opinion. The actions you describe are the expression of an opinion, which is different entirely.

For example; It might be "reason and evidence" that brings me to form a strong dislike for companies such as Quixtar, Amway, and other companies that push multi-level marketing schemes. I could give a dry dissertation on how people are misled into thinking that huge riches will be theirs if only they can get motivated enough but really they and their families only collapse into financial ruin, or I could express my opinion much more flamboyantly by holding a press conference where former victims of these companies throw cow-patties at the company logos of these corporations in front of cameras. The irrationality of the second action doesn't in any way take away from it's value as speech.


Well, that's one reconciliation; not all actions are based on prejudice. But a stronger one is simply to point out that no such law exists; "Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class." Since simple speech is not a crime, you can speak against anything you like as long as you are otherwise within the law (e.g., if you are holding a rally, you need appropriate content-neutral permits; if you are using a PA system, you need to comply with local volume ordinances; if you are publishing, you need to comply with copyright and libel laws, and so forth.)

And yet there are certainly avenues of speech that go beyond what is allowed by law. Public protests and demonstrations, for example.

[GodMark2]

So then you admit you also lack the ability to recognize context? I can admit a certain amount laziness on my part, but I shouldn't have to hold your hand.

Context, eh?

Well, that's one reconciliation; not all actions are based on prejudice. But a stronger one is simply to point out that no such law exists; "Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class." Since simple speech is not a crime, you can speak against anything you like as long as you are otherwise within the law (e.g., if you are holding a rally, you need appropriate content-neutral permits; if you are using a PA system, you need to comply with local volume ordinances; if you are publishing, you need to comply with copyright and libel laws, and so forth.)

Then the law is flawed and needs to be re-written. Under this definition, anything can be construed as a hate crime. The definition of hate crime should remain exclusive to acts of violence and explicit threats of violence.

So, DrKitten says "Not anything, only cromes"

You reply "So anything", even including the italics.

Then you claim that, by emphasising 'anything' and ignoring 'crime' you obviously meant 'any crime'

Context.

[Mycroft]

If so, what is the difference between the destruction of a building considered holy by members of a church and the burning of a book considered holy by members of that church.

One huge difference is the value of the property being destroyed.

Another difference is someone is far more likely to be hurt in the destruction of a building.

Do you need more?

[Mycroft]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26436_Outrage_of_the_Week-_Arrested_for_Desecrating_a_Koran&only

poor old chuck misses out on source credit again.....

Might just be because it is the topic of the day at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26459_Pace_University_Mindcrime_Update&only

Okay, one more time:

This is an example of how you guys personalize an argument. In trying to shift the attention away from the topic to speculation about where I might have become aware of this story, you attempt to make this about me and not the story.

Get it?

[GodMark2]

One huge difference is the value of the property being destroyed.

Another difference is someone is far more likely to be hurt in the destruction of a building.

Do you need more?

I specified that the building be empty to avoid the possible "But people could get hurt".

Value of the destroyed is possibly an acceptable difference. So where does the line get drawn? A book? A shelf of books? A warehouse full of books? A car? A high-rise tower?

New York decided "Value doesn't matter, intent matters".

[GodMark2]

And yet there are certainly avenues of speech that go beyond what is allowed by law. Public protests and demonstrations, for example.

Only when they interfere with other peoples right to freely assemble, or obstruct traffic, or otherwise break laws having nothing to do with the message they're sending.

[Tony]

Context, eh?





So, DrKitten says "Not anything, only cromes"

You reply "So anything", even including the italics.

Then you claim that, by emphasising 'anything' and ignoring 'crime' you obviously meant 'any crime'

Context.

Sigh. I guess you do need your hand held.

Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
Well, that's one reconciliation; not all actions are based on prejudice. But a stronger one is simply to point out that no such law exists; "Hate crimes are defined in New York (and in most other jurisdictions) as crimes motivated by prejudice against a protected class." Since simple speech is not a crime, you can speak against anything you like as long as you are otherwise within the law (e.g., if you are holding a rally, you need appropriate content-neutral permits; if you are using a PA system, you need to comply with local volume ordinances; if you are publishing, you need to comply with copyright and libel laws, and so forth.)

Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Then the law is flawed and needs to be re-written. Under this definition, anything can be construed as a hate crime. The definition of hate crime should remain exclusive to acts of violence and explicit threats of violence.

See those darker letters in the section quoted from drkitten? Those are bold. Still with me? Ok. In my post, I was addressing those bold words. Together, those bold words describe the definition of hate crime in New York state. That definition formed the context of crime in the discussion. I was addressing that definition as stated by drkitten. My counter point to drkitten was within the context established by the citation of that definition.

Clear now?

[Tony]

So where does the line get drawn?

The line is drawn with ownership. The christians owned that church, the crime was against their property.

New York decided "Value doesn't matter, intent matters".

And New York is wrong in this case. The person in question didn't intent to intimidate muslims. He committed an act against the university.

[GodMark2]

Sigh. I guess you do need your hand held.

See those darker letters in the section quoted from drkitten? Those are bold. Still with me? Ok. In my post, I was addressing those bold words. Together, those bold words describe the definition of hate crime in New York state. That definition formed the context of crime in the discussion. I was addressing that definition as stated by drkitten. My counter point to drkitten was within the context established by the citation of that definition.

Clear now?

No, this

1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified
offense and either:
(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is
committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part
because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability
or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or
perception is correct, or
(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in
whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding
the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious
practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless
of whether the belief or perception is correct.

Those words describe the definition of hate crime in New York state (http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm).

[Tony]

No, this



Those words describe the definition of hate crime in New York state (http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm).

Yeah, that was posted after my reply to drkitten. How much more dishonest are you going to get?

[GodMark2]

=Tony]The line is drawn with ownership. The christians owned that church, the crime was against their property.

Burning a cross is an act of intimidation, which makes it a hate crime.

Even if I burn my own cross on my own property, while in full view of the predominantly black church across the street is letting the children out of Sunday school while playing "God Bless the KKK"?

Is that a hate crime? Should it be? It's intimidation, but there's no harm to them.

[GodMark2]

Yeah, that was posted after my reply to drkitten. How much more dishonest are you going to get?

Gee, who needs the hand holding now, Tony? Do you need to be told how to search the web for something?

[Tony]

Gee, who needs the hand holding now, Tony? Do you need to be told how to search the web for something?

LOL

I take it your answer is: A lot more dishonest.

[GodMark2]

Yeah, that was posted after my reply to drkitten. How much more dishonest are you going to get?

Yes, but this was posted after the link was provided, which clearly shows that not even this "Any Crime" you claim to be referencing with 'anything' can be considered for Hate Crime status, only certain crimes can, which was the point of the other poster that you then claimed had 'no other point'.

LOL I guess since you have no other point to make, you feel the need to pull one out of your ass to keep from looking like a fool. As should have been apparent from context, when I said "anything" I was speaking about crimes. This is twice in this thread you've been unable to discern what I've been talking about. Is it on purpose, or accidental?

[GodMark2]

LOL

I take it your answer is: A lot more dishonest.

Ah, so me using the same tactics a you = me being dishonest. Good to know.

[Tony]

Even if I burn my own cross on my own property, while in full view of the predominantly black church across the street is letting the children out of Sunday school while playing "God Bless the KKK"?


Yep

Is that a hate crime?

No, because it's not a crime to burn your own cross on your own property. But it is hate, I'll give you that.

Should it be?

No

It's intimidation, but there's no harm to them.

It's also free-speech. The KKK has the right to demonstrate, protest, speak their hate in public ect. That could be seen as intimidation, but it's still free speech. Indeed, any speech against any ideology/religion/race/idea can be seen as intimidation by those against whom the speech is aimed.

[Tony]

Yes, but this was posted after the link was provided, which clearly shows that not even this "Any Crime" you claim to be referencing with 'anything' can be considered for Hate Crime status, only certain crimes can, which was the point of the other poster that you then claimed had 'no other point'.

No it wasn't. My post was post #40, the link was posted on post #42.

[Tony]

Ah, so me using the same tactics a you = me being dishonest. Good to know.

You're a liar.

[GodMark2]

No it wasn't. My post was post #40, the link was posted on post #42.

And the post ridiculing someone for showing you that you still hadn't understood his point was #48.

[Tony]

And the post ridiculing someone for showing you that you still hadn't understood his point was #48.

Keep whining when you're shown to be wrong, its starting to get funny.

[Freddy]

Would you consider the burning of an empty church, due to prejudice and hatred toward it's members, to be a possible hate crime?


Absolutely.


If so, what is the difference between the destruction of a building considered holy by members of a church and the burning of a book considered holy by members of that church.


Please tell me you're not really that obtuse. Besides the painfully obvious (except to you apparently) and very relevant difference in scale between burning a book and burning down a building, the building belongs to the religious organization whereas not all copies of the church's holy book belong to the church.

Burning down the church isn't intimidating because the object desecrated is considered holy. That just makes it disrespectful. It's intimidating because you burned down their [rule8]ing church!

The difference between burning a Koran and burning a mosque is as great as the difference between burning a flag and burning down the U.S. Capitol, or between burning a Bible and burning down St. Patrick's Cathedral. For everyone's benefit, please stop coming up with these comparisons. You really suck at it.


If not, then what do you consider the necessary level of intimidation for a crime to be a possible Hate Crime?

Note, when I mentioned "harm or intimidation" I was using the Oregon version of Hate Crime law. The New York Law is different, but the central question outlined above remains.
Enough to make a reasonable person fear for his safety (while subjective, the "reasonable person" standard is used in cases of alleged sexual harassment, and seems equally appropriate for cases like this).

[Region Rat]

What about this scenario:

I go down to my local Barnes and Nobles and buy a copy of the Koran. I go home and tear the darn thing up, throw it in the toilet, take some pictures of it, (fish the paper out of the toilet before I have to explain to my wife why I'm such an idiot), and post the pictures on the internet, or on a poster in my front yard. I have not vandalized public property and I have not intimidated any bystanders during the act. Am I still guilty of a hate crime?

Or better yet, what if I just say in big bold letters on random forums (which I would do if I knew how):

I just flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet, What'cha goin' to do about it?

[Freddy]

What about this scenario:

I go down to my local Barnes and Nobles and buy a copy of the Koran. I go home and tear the darn thing up, throw it in the toilet, take some pictures of it, (fish the paper out of the toilet before I have to explain to my wife why I'm such an idiot), and post the pictures on the internet, or on a poster in my front yard. I have not vandalized public property and I have not intimidated any bystanders during the act. Am I still guilty of a hate crime?

Or better yet, what if I just say in big bold letters on random forums (which I would do if I knew how):

I just flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet, What'cha goin' to do about it?



I'm intimidated.

[Art Vandelay]

As should have been apparent from context, See, you don't understand how context works. Normally, I say "Given the context, this interpretation is completely unreasonable, and this person wouldn't say such an inane comment, so my interpretation must be wrong". See where the logic breaks down when applied to you?

This is twice in this thread you've been unable to discern what I've been talking about.Perhaps you should derive some conclusion from the fact that you are consistently failing to clearly state your position? Like that you shouldn't rely on other people being psychic?

Is it on purpose, or accidental?I don't know. Are you purposefully saying something completely different from what you mean, or is it an accident?

It does. I'm sorry you don't like it, but there it is. So is there some trick where you're going later claim that you didn't make this bizarre claim?

Freespeech gives me the right, assuming it's my property, to destroy any dvd, book, cd, poster, post card, stamp, painting, sculpture or drawing.Except that you were responding to a statement about destroying someone else's speech, in a thread about destroying property that one doesn't own. So clearly you are COMPLETELY ignoring context, making your complaints that we are not taking context into account when interpreting you posts all the more absurd.

It's as if I were to say "Having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is wrong", and you were to respond "there's nothing wrong with it, assuming that she wants to have sex with you".

Or if, in a thread about theft, you were to say that you weren't talking about theft, and I were to point out that you were, and you were to call me a liar. Oh, wait, that happened. Not much on "context" when it doesn't fit your position, are you?

LOL That's not my logic, that's your gross and perverse misunderstanding of it.What's wrong with it? According to you, any action that expresses a position is "free speech", even if it violate's someone's rights. What's the difference between robbing someone to express the opinion that you don't like them, versus putting them in jail to express that opinion.

"Intended to harm or intimidate" is not the same as "motivated by prejudice." If the former were the standard in NY, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and I wouldn't have a problem with the law. No Muslims were harmed by this guy, nor can mere disrespect of one's holy book reasonably be construed as "intimidation." If you're intimidated by that, then you're too much of a wimp to live in a free country.That's for a jury to decide, not you.

Surely our government can't be placed in the position of deciding what beliefs are based on reason and evidence and what are not?So we should do away with self defense as a defense in criminal trials? Wouldn't want the government trying to figure out whether the defendent's belief that they were in peril was based on reason and evidence.

Everyone believes their prejudices are rational. Not necessarily.

See those darker letters in the section quoted from drkitten? Those are bold. Still with me? Ok. In my post, I was addressing those bold words. Together, those bold words describe the definition of hate crime in New York state. That definition formed the context of crime in the discussion. I was addressing that definition as stated by drkitten. My counter point to drkitten was within the context established by the citation of that definition.So why does only the "crime" part carry over into this "context" thing? Why should we not assume that the whole thing was part of the "context", and when you said "anything", you meant any crime which is motivated by prejudice against a protected class?

[drkitten]

Surely our government can't be placed in the position of deciding what beliefs are based on reason and evidence and what are not?

Quite the contrary, our government not only can be but is in that position and has been since time immemorial.

That's more or less the job of the court system.

For example, the "rational person" test is rife in the legal literature. If "a rational person" would believe that you were being threatened by me, then you can injure or even kill me in self-defense. If "a rational person" would draw an injurious inference from something I wrote, it is defamatory.

Everyone believes their prejudices are rational.

Yes. And the court is perfectly capable of determining that those people are wrong.

There is all kinds of literature that purpotes to provide reasons and evidence to support prejudices, all of which is protected.

Nope. Not all "literature" is protected, nor is all speech.

[GodMark2]

Please tell me you're not really that obtuse. Besides the painfully obvious (except to you apparently) and very relevant difference in scale between burning a book and burning down a building, the building belongs to the religious organization whereas not all copies of the church's holy book belong to the church.
If the ownership of the bible is what determines the crime, make the bible owned by the church. Now is it a hate crime?

Burning down the church isn't intimidating because the object desecrated is considered holy. That just makes it disrespectful. It's intimidating because you burned down their [rule8]ing church!

The difference between burning a Koran and burning a mosque is as great as the difference between burning a flag and burning down the U.S. Capitol, or between burning a Bible and burning down St. Patrick's Cathedral.
So, if the only difference is one of scale, where does that line get drawn? Is it a sharp, hard line, or a graded, fuzzy one? Are you arguing against the existence of the line, or where and how the state of New York has decided to draw it?

For everyone's benefit, please stop coming up with these comparisons. You really suck at it.
And yet, the point I was getting at was made very clear, once someone actually answered the question.

Enough to make a reasonable person fear for his safety (while subjective, the "reasonable person" standard is used in cases of alleged sexual harassment, and seems equally appropriate for cases like this).

"Reasonable Person" is a fuzzy standard. When fuzzy standards are applied, most courts also use fuzzy guidelines for punishment. How bad was it? If all there was, was a simple, private flushing, the incident in question (flushing a book) could end up with no punishment at all. Or, if we only have partial facts (as always seem to be the case in cases such as this), could there be more to it? Was the book flushed while screaming obscenities and promising death to all 'ragheads' with a crowd gathered nearby? Would that change the severity of the hate, intimidation, and crime?

[Freddy]

If the ownership of the bible is what determines the crime, make the bible owned by the church. Now is it a hate crime?


No. Now it's theft. Desecrating a book does not rise to the level of intimidation unless there are other circumstances involved. For instance, if you shoot a hole in a Bible and leave it at the doorstep of a church, that's an attempt at intimidation. If you steal a Bible and destroy it, that's just theft and destruction of property.

Ownership of the Bible is irrelevant when considering whether an act counts as intimidation. If you don't own the Bible you destroy, that makes it a crime. It doesn't (or at least it shouldn't) make it a hate crime, since the act of destroying a book is not intimidating, except in extreme circumstances, such as the situation I described in the previous paragraph. But even in that case it isn't the destruction of the Bible, but a combination of the manner in which it was damaged (with a gun) and where it was left (on a church doorstep) that make it intimidating.


So, if the only difference is one of scale, where does that line get drawn? Is it a sharp, hard line, or a graded, fuzzy one? Are you arguing against the existence of the line, or where and how the state of New York has decided to draw it?


The only difference? That's like saying the only difference between a gentle breeze and a tornado is one of scale. Technically true, but the difference in scale is so massive that the two are really nothing alike.


And yet, the point I was getting at was made very clear, once someone actually answered the question.


The point you were getting at is indeed clear, but that doesn't make it a good point.


"Reasonable Person" is a fuzzy standard. When fuzzy standards are applied, most courts also use fuzzy guidelines for punishment. How bad was it? If all there was, was a simple, private flushing, the incident in question (flushing a book) could end up with no punishment at all. Or, if we only have partial facts (as always seem to be the case in cases such as this), could there be more to it? Was the book flushed while screaming obscenities and promising death to all 'ragheads' with a crowd gathered nearby? Would that change the severity of the hate, intimidation, and crime?


Of course it's a fuzzy standard. I said as much. With hate crime laws, you cannot avoid "fuzziness." It's inherently subjective. The only solution to the "fuzziness" problem is not to have hate crime laws at all. I'd be fine with that. I also don't mind hate crime laws as long as their scope is sufficiently narrow. Free speech should be limited no more than is absolutely necessary for public safety. The Oregon statute you quoted earlier seems much more reasonable than New York's version, which seems like it was slapped together with little thought.

The reasonable person standard is also a fuzzy standard to use in sexual harassment cases. But we use it in those cases, and it works reasonably well. If you claim you were intimidated by someone flushing a Koran in a public restroom, you should have to convince a jury that your reaction is reasonable, or the prosecutor should have to convince the jury that fear for one's safety is a reasonable reaction. Good luck with that. But in real cases of intimidation, such as burning a swastika into someone's lawn, there would be no problem meeting that standard.

[Crossbow]

Okay, one more time:

This is an example of how you guys personalize an argument. In trying to shift the attention away from the topic to speculation about where I might have become aware of this story, you attempt to make this about me and not the story.

Get it?

If you would stop making a fool of yourself, then I expect that more people would stop treating you as such.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nope. It's where you learn to be an offensive lineman. It's in Orlando somewhere.

Woo-Hoo!! The Big O! Places for my local 11 (Rams).

[Mycroft]

If you would stop making a fool of yourself, then I expect that more people would stop treating you as such.

Publicly disagreeing with you is not making a fool of myself, but thanks for playing. :)

[Mycroft]

Quite the contrary, our government not only can be but is in that position and has been since time immemorial.

That's more or less the job of the court system.

For example, the "rational person" test is rife in the legal literature. If "a rational person" would believe that you were being threatened by me, then you can injure or even kill me in self-defense. If "a rational person" would draw an injurious inference from something I wrote, it is defamatory.

Okay, so the principle applies in a criminal trial to determine self-defense. Has it ever been applied to determine that speech is not protected?


Nope. Not all "literature" is protected, nor is all speech.

My understanding is that the line is drawn at inciting violence, isn't that true? Meaning that I could say whatever I want about Jews, Mexicans, Mormons, Scientologists or whatever, no matter how irrational or untrue, but unless I actually incite violence against these groups my speech is protected.

No?

[drkitten]

Okay, so the principle applies in a criminal trial to determine self-defense. Has it ever been applied to determine that speech is not protected?

Er, yes. I gave you an example in the post you cited -- if a "reasonable person" would consider a spoken statement to be injurious, it is defamatory (and if it's false as well, then it's slander).

Similarly, if a "reasonable person" -- in some jurisdictions, specifically "a reasonable woman" -- would consider a speech act to be inappropriate, then it's sexual harassment. This, at least in theory, keeps psychotic drama queens from being able to claim sexual harassment whenever someone in the lunch room asks them to pass the sugar.



My understanding is that the line is drawn at inciting violence, isn't that true?

Not in the slightest; that's a line, but hardly the line.


Meaning that I could say whatever I want about Jews, Mexicans, Mormons, Scientologists or whatever, no matter how irrational or untrue, but unless I actually incite violence against these groups my speech is protected.

No?

Nope. In particular, if what you say is untrue, you are setting yourself up for a slander/libel suit. (Under US law, it is difficult to slander a group. However, it's easy to slander a particular person as part of a group. In most of the rest of the world, you can slander groups and any affected person has standing to sue as an individual.)

[Crossbow]

Publicly disagreeing with you is not making a fool of myself, but thanks for playing. :)

You are most welcome!

And speaking of playing,

Perhaps one day when you are actually able to determine when two different subjects are being discussed in the same thread then you will be able to play that famous "Sesame Street" game that has been successfully played by so many pre-school children for so many years now that is called One of these things does not look like the other. Which one of these things does not look like the other?

But until such time when, if ever, you are able to independently make such determinations, then I (and at least a few others here at JREF) expect that you will continue to make a fool of yourself in the meantime.

We expect that you will adhere to your membership agreement and keep it civil. This goes for everyone.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The line is drawn with ownership. The christians owned that church, the crime was against their property.

So if the christians didn't own it, but were allowed to use it by the owner, then it wouldn't be a hate crime?

Lets say the University built a church on its ground, which it owned and which was used by Christian groups as a place of worship (don't know if that would be possible in the US but certainly is in the UK). Burning down that church wouldn't be a hate crime, but burning the one down the street owned by its worshippers would be?

Ownership feels like the wrong place to draw the line.

[Mycroft]

Er, yes. I gave you an example in the post you cited -- if a "reasonable person" would consider a spoken statement to be injurious, it is defamatory (and if it's false as well, then it's slander).

Similarly, if a "reasonable person" -- in some jurisdictions, specifically "a reasonable woman" -- would consider a speech act to be inappropriate, then it's sexual harassment. This, at least in theory, keeps psychotic drama queens from being able to claim sexual harassment whenever someone in the lunch room asks them to pass the sugar.

If someone were "legitimately biased" against a religion based on "reason and evidence" and decided to make a public demonstration of that bias by rounding up a couple hundred crucifixes and placing them in all the urinals of a college campus, how could the courts be expected to distinguish between that person and some conspiracy theorist kook who did the same thing motivated by a paranoid belief that the Catholic Church was just evil and a tool of Satan?

Is it just up to a jury? Is rational the subject of a popular vote of 12 random people?

[Tony]

See, you don't understand how context works. Normally, I say "Given the context, this interpretation is completely unreasonable, and this person wouldn't say such an inane comment, so my interpretation must be wrong". See where the logic breaks down when applied to you?

Perhaps you should derive some conclusion from the fact that you are consistently failing to clearly state your position? Like that you shouldn't rely on other people being psychic?

I don't know. Are you purposefully saying something completely different from what you mean, or is it an accident?

So is there some trick where you're going later claim that you didn't make this bizarre claim?

Except that you were responding to a statement about destroying someone else's speech, in a thread about destroying property that one doesn't own. So clearly you are COMPLETELY ignoring context, making your complaints that we are not taking context into account when interpreting you posts all the more absurd.

It's as if I were to say "Having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is wrong", and you were to respond "there's nothing wrong with it, assuming that she wants to have sex with you".

Or if, in a thread about theft, you were to say that you weren't talking about theft, and I were to point out that you were, and you were to call me a liar. Oh, wait, that happened. Not much on "context" when it doesn't fit your position, are you?

What's wrong with it? According to you, any action that expresses a position is "free speech", even if it violate's someone's rights. What's the difference between robbing someone to express the opinion that you don't like them, versus putting them in jail to express that opinion.

That's for a jury to decide, not you.

So we should do away with self defense as a defense in criminal trials? Wouldn't want the government trying to figure out whether the defendent's belief that they were in peril was based on reason and evidence.

Not necessarily.

So why does only the "crime" part carry over into this "context" thing? Why should we not assume that the whole thing was part of the "context", and when you said "anything", you meant any crime which is motivated by prejudice against a protected class?

Dude, just STFU. I tire of trying to hold your hand and explain away your ignorance. If you can't comprehend like an adult, you don't deserve to be in a conversation with adults. Come back when you've started puberty.

[Tony]

So if the christians didn't own it, but were allowed to use it by the owner, then it wouldn't be a hate crime?

Lets say the University built a church on its ground, which it owned and which was used by Christian groups as a place of worship (don't know if that would be possible in the US but certainly is in the UK). Burning down that church wouldn't be a hate crime, but burning the one down the street owned by its worshippers would be?

Ownership feels like the wrong place to draw the line.

Ownership plays a part, but I was bit too hasty in making that post. As I said, ownership plays a part, but it isn't everything. I think Freddy made a good point with this post:

Enough to make a reasonable person fear for his safety (while subjective, the "reasonable person" standard is used in cases of alleged sexual harassment, and seems equally appropriate for cases like this).

[Katana]

Guess this requires repeating:


We expect that you will adhere to your membership agreement and keep it civil. This goes for everyone.

[drkitten]

If someone were "legitimately biased" against a religion based on "reason and evidence" and decided to make a public demonstration of that bias by rounding up a couple hundred crucifixes and placing them in all the urinals of a college campus, how could the courts be expected to distinguish between that person and some conspiracy theorist kook who did the same thing motivated by a paranoid belief that the Catholic Church was just evil and a tool of Satan?

On the basis of the evidence presented.


Is it just up to a jury? Is rational the subject of a popular vote of 12 random people?

Ultimately, yes. That's how the jury system works in the USA. Any question of "fact" -- including questions like "is this person insane" -- is ultimately decided by the jury. Any question of "law" is ultimately decided by the judge.

[Art Vandelay]

[annoying pedantry]Unless it's a bench trial[/annoying pedantry]

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Ownership plays a part, but I was bit too hasty in making that post. As I said, ownership plays a part, but it isn't everything. I think Freddy made a good point with this post:

The reasonable person test does indeed seem like a good basis.

[frank462]

-- snip
I have no problem with charging people with anything from destruction of public property, to clogging public toilets, to flushing stuff it might be illegal to flush into a public sewer system, to vandalism. I do have a problem with "desecration" and "hate crime" concepts.

Free people reserve the right to do things that, while otherwise legal, nevertheless piss the ever-lovin' almighty hell out of other people.

Free people reserve the right to make merciless, brutal fun of what you are, who you are, what you say, what you think, what you do, and what you believe. Does my speech upset you? Good! That feeling you get is free speech at work, doing precisely what it's supposed to do: affecting you, which is why it's at the pinnacle of importance of rights.

And in no way, shape, or form, would I ever support an anti-desecration law, as that recognizes the validity of a particular religion (or even gods in general) and the government has no business doing that. And if the gods don't exist, it ain't desecration.


I have arrived late to this discussion but I would like to say that I agree with everything Beerina says in the above quote.

[Elind]

Until reading some of the responses in this thread I didn't give much credence to the hate crime point of view, but now I think it may be worth some more thought.

Question: If someone is against a religion and speaks out against a religion, isn't that by definition prejudiced against that religion? How could it be possible to reconcile a persons right to speak against a religion with a law that forbids any action motivated by prejudice against a religion?

Hi Mycroft. I've been on a sabbatical and this seems a good a place to start as any, given all the new names around.

I'm not clear why you now think it's worth more thought.

Your question should be answer enough. Any crime on the books can be aggravated by calling it a hate crime, but hating alone is not a crime. If this had been a valuable Koran stolen from a mosque and owned by devout muslims I might be inclined to agree that the theft and vandalism could have hate added to it; but if we allow anyone to claim intellectual ownership of anything in print (or simple existence for that matter) without direct ownership of the object in question, then we would be allowing any and all to state their own laws about what may be said or done.

Muslims of course want the exclusive right to do just that, witness cartoons and the like, but so do other wacky "religions" like scientology, claiming nobody is allowed to read their science fiction without their approval, and payment to them.

The loophole here seems to be that this dumb kid wasn't smart enough to buy his own koran to flush. Would we really be reading about this if they didn't have the technicality that it was the library's book?

Has anyone ever been charged with a hate crime (in the US) for crapping on a bible (their own)? Could they be?

[Mycroft]

Hi Mycroft. I've been on a sabbatical and this seems a good a place to start as any, given all the new names around.

I'm not clear why you now think it's worth more thought.

Welcome back!

I didn’t say I was convinced, and I’m not. I only said I felt it was worth more thought, and I still do.


Your question should be answer enough. Any crime on the books can be aggravated by calling it a hate crime, but hating alone is not a crime. If this had been a valuable Koran stolen from a mosque and owned by devout muslims I might be inclined to agree that the theft and vandalism could have hate added to it; but if we allow anyone to claim intellectual ownership of anything in print (or simple existence for that matter) without direct ownership of the object in question, then we would be allowing any and all to state their own laws about what may be said or done.

I honestly think if we were talking about a bible stolen from the school library and dumped in a urinal, there would be no issue. That for me is the real crux of the matter. A democratic society has to treat everyone the same, and that means equal protections and equal respect/disrespect.


Muslims of course want the exclusive right to do just that, witness cartoons and the like, but so do other wacky "religions" like scientology, claiming nobody is allowed to read their science fiction without their approval, and payment to them.

Many Muslims. I think that’s an important distinction. Islam is not a single monolithic entity where everyone thinks the same.

Ultimately, I think, extremists and irrational Islamic figures will have to give way to more moderate and rational Muslims. That process will only be slowed if we lump them all together.


The loophole here seems to be that this dumb kid wasn't smart enough to buy his own koran to flush. Would we really be reading about this if they didn't have the technicality that it was the library's book?

I dunno. Maybe. A lot of people in this thread fixate on the “vandalism” aspect of the crime, but if you think about it, it has nothing to do with the “hate crime” part.


Has anyone ever been charged with a hate crime (in the US) for crapping on a bible (their own)? Could they be?

And that’s a good question. Is there any legal principle that could call this a hate crime but still allow Maplethorpe’s “piss Christ”?

[Elind]

Welcome back!

Many Muslims. I think that’s an important distinction. Islam is not a single monolithic entity where everyone thinks the same.

Ultimately, I think, extremists and irrational Islamic figures will have to give way to more moderate and rational Muslims. That process will only be slowed if we lump them all together.



Thanks. Feels like home already, but who knows what's lurking under the bed:boggled:

Only place we disagree is above. Everyone doesn't think the same of course, and some are more "islamic" than others, but unfortunately they all reference the same book and that book makes no allowances for concessions. Some may choose not to think about some of the nastier parts (kill the infidels and so on) which are probably in the majority of the rules, but I'll bet you a bundle that not even the most moderate will be willing to actually refute the garbage (from my perspective) parts. When push comes to shove, a muslim is not a muslim without accepting it all, hook line and sinker, and that will never "reform".

I'm reading a book now called "Under the Banner of Heaven" about the Mormon history, and deviations. The similarities with Islam and Muhammad are amazing, but there is one big difference in that "god" has allowed the mormons to revise the rules from time to time, on his instruction of course (so much for infallible planning:rolleyes:). That doesn't apply to Islam.

[Darth Rotor]

No, not if the person is legitimately biased against the religion based on reason and evidence. But it's hard to see how "reason and evidence" leads one to burn a cross or flush the Koran.
It dawned on me that had he first wiped his arse on the Koran, flushing it would be a good idea, but I did not see where that precursor action was reported.

That act might have been a sordid crime, or a result of the roll not being available in the stall, but I bet the under on the latter. :p
Since simple speech is not a crime, you can speak against anything you like as long as you are otherwise within the law (e.g., if you are holding a rally, you need appropriate content-neutral permits; if you are using a PA system, you need to comply with local volume ordinances; if you are publishing, you need to comply with copyright and libel laws, and so forth.)
Nicely said, per your usual high standard. :)

As to "hate crimes" I find them identical enough to thought crimes that I don't believe the various acta are a good idea. Since they have to be crimes to start with, burning a church being a fine example as arson, the motive is part of what the cops investigate in providing the DA the evidentiary trail for achieving a conviction. If hate is an element, I'd suggest it be used as an argument during sentencing, or to counter a "it's a first offense" defense for a light sentence rather than create another body of law over what are already crimes.

@ Beeps: were you joking about the 14th amendment?

DR

[Elind]

If hate is an element, I'd suggest it be used as an argument during sentencing, or to counter a "it's a first offense" defense for a light sentence rather than create another body of law over what are already crimes.



Which is exactly what I said, or attempted to say, earlier. Unfortunately the Muslim community seems to pretty much want the latter; meaning Sharia law applied to everyone when it comes to anything related to Islam that they don't like. Not all riot, but I bet all would like to see it so.

[drkitten]

And that’s a good question. Is there any legal principle that could call this a hate crime but still allow Maplethorpe’s “piss Christ”?

"Intention to intimidate" would probably do it. That's distinct, legally, from "intention to piss off." Assuming, of course, that the Bible-crapper actually did have the "intention to intimidate" that defines the prototypical hate crime people have been discussing here.

[Elind]

"Intention to intimidate" would probably do it. That's distinct, legally, from "intention to piss off." Assuming, of course, that the Bible-crapper actually did have the "intention to intimidate" that defines the prototypical hate crime people have been discussing here.

Intimidate:
1.to make timid; fill with fear. 2.to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc. 3.to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear:
How does intimidate fit into this context being discussed, which is essentially just showing disrespect? Disrespect can be called hate and a crime?

[drkitten]

Intimidate:
1.to make timid; fill with fear. 2.to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc. 3.to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear:
How does intimidate fit into this context being discussed, which is essentially just showing disrespect? Disrespect can be called hate and a crime?

Which part of Assuming, of course, that the Bible-crapper actually did have the "intention to intimidate" exceeded your reading comprehension level, lackwit?

The context discussed is a hypothetical person who flushes a Bible and thereby commits a hate crime. By assumption, he is therefore doing it with intention to intimidate, or it wouldn't be a hate crime in the first place.

[drkitten]

As to "hate crimes" I find them identical enough to thought crimes that I don't believe the various acta are a good idea. Since they have to be crimes to start with, burning a church being a fine example as arson, the motive is part of what the cops investigate in providing the DA the evidentiary trail for achieving a conviction. If hate is an element, I'd suggest it be used as an argument during sentencing, or to counter a "it's a first offense" defense for a light sentence rather than create another body of law over what are already crimes.


The big advantage of hate crime legislation is that it allows sentencing that is disproportionate to the underlying act if done in a non-hateful manner. As an example, suppose that I dumped a half-ton of garbage on the steps of the local synogogue. As we are well aware (from Alice's Restaurant), the penalty for that is $50 and you have to pick up the garbage. But as part of a concerted, anti-Semitic effort ("let's go show everyone that that synogogue is where we keep the garbage!") the effect on the community and the social fabric is much worse than $50; "racial intimidation" or the equivalent is often, if not typically a felony.

Similarly, having a fire on my own property without a proper permit is often a misdemeanor. Burning a cross on my own property in an attempt to scare the Black-Jewish couple next door does more damage to the community than a simple leaf-burning, and should be punished as such.

[drkitten]

When push comes to shove, a muslim is not a muslim without accepting it all, hook line and sinker, and that will never "reform".


Not only is this philosophically wrong, but it's empirically wrong as well.

You're making the mistake of thinking that muslims uniformly believe the part of the book that tells them they have to believe everything else in the book. GIven that Christians don't do that -- why should muslims?

[Darth Rotor]

Not only is this philosophically wrong, but it's empirically wrong as well.
At least it achieves the status of wrong. ;)
You're making the mistake of thinking that muslims uniformly believe the part of the book that tells them they have to believe everything else in the book. Given that Christians don't do that -- why should muslims?
The typical Imam would probably argue that the Muslims should indeed belive both the admonition "to believe in the truth of Al Quran," and thus to submit, as well as "believe everything else." From the Imam's point of view, Muslims "should" indeed, but (as you note more concisely) we run into the delta between desired behaviors (theory) versus the actual tendency of people to do it their own way, more or less, (practice). This delta finds a lot of "should" being forwarded to an Ivory Tower, an Ivory Minaret, or an Ivory Tabernacle somewhere. It is well that it does, since all of this forwarded mail turns into a job justification for said Imam (or generic cleric or philosopher) and grist for the mill for even lay absolutists and philosophers.

I can't see much down side. It keeps people busy telling each other what to do, and how to do it.

Wait a minute, that's looking like an all downside proposition. :p

DR

[Darth Rotor]

The big advantage of hate crime legislation is that it allows sentencing that is disproportionate to the underlying act if done in a non-hateful manner. As an example, suppose that I dumped a half-ton of garbage on the steps of the local synogogue. As we are well aware (from Alice's Restaurant), the penalty for that is $50 and you have to pick up the garbage. But as part of a concerted, anti-Semitic effort ("let's go show everyone that that synogogue is where we keep the garbage!") the effect on the community and the social fabric is much worse than $50; "racial intimidation" or the equivalent is often, if not typically a felony.
Hmmm, as Guthrie's story is written circa 1970 dollars, I'll offer that the charge for littering is up to $500-1000 in current value dollars, but the point is taken. The DA would of course need to show that the dumping, to be other than littering, was indeed part of an anti Semitic effort.

Similarly, having a fire on my own property without a proper permit is often a misdemeanor. Burning a cross on my own property in an attempt to scare the Black-Jewish couple next door does more damage to the community than a simple leaf-burning, and should be punished as such.
I wasn't aware that folks burned crosses on their own lawns in that method of expressing disagreement (with hate for seasoning). Is there, on record, any known incident where a cross burning took place other than on the property of the target of disdain?

DR

[drkitten]

At least it achieves the status of wrong. ;)

And indeed that's an accomplishment compared to some postings in this particular sub-forum.


The typical Imam would probably argue that the Muslims should indeed belive both the admonition "to believe in the truth of Al Quran," and thus to submit, as well as "believe everything else." From the Imam's point of view, Muslims "should" indeed, but (as you note more concisely) we run into the delta between desired behaviors (theory) versus the actual tendency of people to do it their own way, more or less, (practice).

I'm not sure that this "typical Imam" is any more realistic than the "typical Catholic priest"; Catholicism is if anything even bigger into the rule-following aspect of organized religion (although many of the rules come from the Magisterium, not from the Book), but "cafeteria Catholicism" is sufficiently widespread to be in the lexicon and spreads to the clergy itself.

Some imams are indeed into following every dotted-i and crossed-t (or the Arabic script equivalent) of the Koran. Many others are not, and are expressly revisionist. The traditionalist/fundamentalist imams of course instruct their flocks (and seminary students, and children, and so forth) about the importance of fundamentalist Islam; the reformist and liberals teach the opposite.

Here's an example (http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9466854) of the debate in action:


To sample the range of opinion, meet two clerics from opposite ends of this spectrum. Hojatoleslam Fazel Maybodi teaches at Qom's Mofid University, a traditionally liberal seminary. A jolly, grey-bearded cleric proud of his smattering of English phrases, he explains at once that although Qom is not a place for political decision-making—that is the job of the government—“theoretical” debate about Islam's relationship with politics takes place freely. On velayat-e faqih he says that the views of the most senior ayatollahs are not uniform. For example, Ayatollah Sistani, a revered cleric based in Iraq but also widely admired in Iran, has approved Iraq's post-Saddam constitution. This gives ultimate authority to elected politicians rather than clerics. “I don't believe that all political ideas should come from within Islam,” says Hojatoleslam Maybodi. “Politics is an experimental, man-made activity and Islam should respect it.”

In Qom, unlike many parts of Iran, all the women wear full black chadors; around the town billboards with anti-Semitic motifs still advertise the recent exhibition of cartoons poking fun at the Holocaust. But liberal clerics like Hojatoleslam Maybodi are happy to dissent from the party line. He says it was “not correct at all” for Iran to have raised this issue: the genocide of the Jews was an ugly phenomenon and the number murdered was for historians to determine. As to whether Iran could ever accept the right of Israel to exist, Hojatoleslam Maybodi says the two countries could well make peace provided the Israelis and Palestinians reached an agreement. Both sides have their extremists, he admits, but “what's the problem with Muslims living next to Jews?”

The spirit of ijtihad—the idea that Islamic law can and should be reinterpreted to match the circumstances of the day—is strong in Shia Islam. Hojatoleslam Maybodi says bluntly that sharia law discriminates against women and should therefore change. He argues that the unequal treatment of women (such as their smaller claims on blood money or inheritance) stems from a time before women were economically active. As for the crackdown on “bad hijab”, Hojatoleslam Maybodi expresses a view often voiced by Iran's clerics. When the state uses coercion in the name of religion, it is in danger of turning the people away from Islam.

Ijtihad is actually a very important idea in the history of Islam and flies directly in the face of claims that the only Muslims are the fundamentalist conservatives. It was much more important several centuries ago, and has in some parts of the world fallen out of fashion; certainly fundamentalist Islam appears to be on the rise today. But fashions change (as they always do) and pendulums swing in two directions.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not sure that this "typical Imam" is any more realistic than the "typical Catholic priest";
Fair enough.
Here's an example (http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9466854) of the debate in action:
Great link, thanks.
Ijtihad is actually a very important idea in the history of Islam and flies directly in the face of claims that the only Muslims are the fundamentalist conservatives. It was much more important several centuries ago, and has in some parts of the world fallen out of fashion; certainly fundamentalist Islam appears to be on the rise today. But fashions change (as they always do) and pendulums swing in two directions.
The much lamented lack of a Reformation/Rennaisance/Enlightenment in the Muslim world (Bernard Lewis among others) seems to be the current state of play. Ataturk's model, and the Ba'athist progressives elsewhere, seem to have run into the pendulum swinging the other way, with the Islamic Republic's leadership a leading force in the Reactionary side, or those seeking to return to a sort of ancien regime. Given the centuries long battle between the ancien regime of Europe tand progressive modes of thought, the battle that has led us to the current state of play in the West, it should not be too surprising to see the Islamic World in the process of a similar conflict. We are involved due to being globally involved in general, with oil as a driving issue, and population movements a close second. A key difference seems to me to be the reactionaries having at their disposal modern methods of population control/force. How to empower the moderates and modernists is a problem for both "the Islamic World" and "the West," since extremists tend to have the energy and drive to make changes. When the society is still closed enough to kill homosexuals as a matter of law, see Iran, the moderates and progressives have a much harder time than their counterparts in "The West." They also have a larger risk of failing.

DR

[Elind]

Which part of Assuming, of course, that the Bible-crapper actually did have the "intention to intimidate" exceeded your reading comprehension level, lackwit?

The context discussed is a hypothetical person who flushes a Bible and thereby commits a hate crime. By assumption, he is therefore doing it with intention to intimidate, or it wouldn't be a hate crime in the first place.

Your lack of manners doesn't help enhance your logic Kitty.

I can pick my nose with the "intention" of intimidating someone, however obviously anyone who thinks that is intimidating doesn't have a lackwit's understanding of language, since the only actual intent achieved is disrespect.

You seem to pick words that you like to use to illustrate your concept, regardless of whether they are applicable to the issue.

[Elind]

Not only is this philosophically wrong, but it's empirically wrong as well.

You're making the mistake of thinking that muslims uniformly believe the part of the book that tells them they have to believe everything else in the book. GIven that Christians don't do that -- why should muslims?

Philosophically?? How is that relevant.

Your last sentence shows how little you understand.

Even within "Christians" there are those who would say you are going to hell for that opinion. You know, the Old Testament literalists, and what makes you think Muslims think they should do what Christians do?

Christianity had what is usually called the reformation where, among other things, it was conceded in principle that the bible was not to be taken literally in all regards. Islam has no such concept regarding the Koran, except to the extent that many things can be read in one way or another LITERALLY, meaning that there will be different LITERAL interpretations of the koran by different self proclaimed wise men. They do not read it as a text from a different time where parts can be rejected as inapplicable today, or interpreted purely symbolically.

[Elind]

At least it achieves the status of wrong. ;)



So let's be empirical then.

Have you ever heard of a Muslim spokesperson actually refuting the calls for violence AS WRITTEN in the koran? What you hear them doing, in English to non Muslim audiences, is quote the other few "Religion of Peace" tracts that they can find, or ones they have made up; but refute anything at all in the koran - never.

[Elind]

And indeed that's an accomplishment compared to some postings in this particular sub-forum.


Your style of debate is becoming tiresome already after a few exchanges where I not attacked the person. I simply happen to believe that you cherry pick your examples, in complete opposition to what we see every day from the Islam in the streets, wherever.

Obviously your moderate examples (if not made for "our" benefit) in Qom have little relevance to reality given the utterances their puppet president makes, and any number of other examples.

A better source might be the people at CAIR, who do speak the language, but are really just ambulance chasers looking hard for people to sue. They cannot condemn terrorists like Hamas, and certainly cannot condemn the koran in any part.

When you talk of loose concepts like "interpreting islam in light of present conditions", that cannot be done without "REJECTING" the most violent, dare I say vile, parts of the koran.

I ask you to show examples, one, where such people say that such and such sura is not valid, period.

[Darth Rotor]

So let's be empirical then.

Have you ever heard of a Muslim spokesperson actually refuting the calls for violence AS WRITTEN in the koran? What you hear them doing, in English to non Muslim audiences, is quote the other few "Religion of Peace" tracts that they can find, or ones they have made up; but refute anything at all in the koran - never.
"Have you ever heard?"

Are we using CT argument here? Since I do not have in my short term memory a catalogue of every utterance of every Muslim spokesperson made, I can't find a way to answer that question.

I have heard and read any number of articles by Western Muslims that reject the interpretation of how Jihad is to be used as one lives a good Muslim life, but that is neither here nor there.

My exposure to the internal debate between Muslim scholars is limited.

I'll leave it at that. For you to assert, without a substantial sampling of that debate as a reference, that such opinion is not, or is never, expressed, strikes me as your having "assumed facts not in evidence."

I find that Christians vary widely in how doctrinaire they are, and I have every reason to believe that Muslims behave with a similar variability. The schisms between the Sunnah and Shia are ample evidence of that. Since the news reaching us focuses on "if it bleeds it leads" formats, I think our impression in The West of how people live their lives as Muslims falls victim to Will Rogers observation that "I only know what I read in the papers."

FWIW, I find the whole "religion of peace" sound byte rather empty, given how Islam was spread for its first two centuries as compared to how Christian practice spread (via conquest rather than as underdogs versus pagan Rome.) Islam, like Christianity, morphed as it met and fused with other cultures (the Persian Islamic practices being at odds with some of the less civilized Arabic/nomadic strains) so its practice today appears uneven. I'll offer Turkey, a Muslim nation (mostly populated by Muslims) with strong secular practices as an example of how Islam in theory and Islam in practice vary: just as Christianity does, much to the Pope's chagrin. :p

DR

[drkitten]

Even within "Christians" there are those who would say you are going to hell for that opinion. You know, the Old Testament literalists,

Yes, I know. I also know that Old Testament literalists are a very small, if vocal and politiclaly influential, group that is far out of the mainstream of "Christianity."


Christianity had what is usually called the reformation where, among other things, it was conceded in principle that the bible was not to be taken literally in all regards. Islam has no such concept regarding the Koran,

Er, wrong. Actually, the Muslims had their reformation well before the Christians had theirs; that's where the word (and concept) of itjihad originated. From about the 7th to 13th century CE (the so-called "Golden Age" of Islam), the statement that the Koran should be taken literally in all regards was regarded by almost all of the Islamic world as lunacy of the highest order.

Of course, in the 20th century, ijtihad has fallen out of fashion in the Middle East, in part due to the political support (by the various conservative royal families trying to hang on to their position) for more conservative and fundamentalist sects like Wahaddiism. In the big picture, that's no more representative of world Islam than the rise of American fundmentalism and evangelical born-again-ism is representative of world Christianity.

They do not read it as a text from a different time where parts can be rejected as inapplicable today, or interpreted purely symbolically.

That statement is absolutely false and shows a complete ignorance of Islamic history and culture.

[Elind]

"Have you ever heard?"

Are we using CT argument here? Since I do not have in my short term memory a catalogue of every utterance of every Muslim spokesperson made, I can't find a way to answer that question.


I take your points as valid at face value, but we wouldn't be having this debate if it wasn't for facts, daily expressed, that we all know have put Islam under our spotlight. I don't have a better memory than you I suspect, but I'm pretty sure I would have remembered if I had heard a critique of the koran by a prominent muslim, as opposed to an excuse for supposed misinterpretation of it. I have however read plenty of analysis of phrases of hate or violence in the koran, and I think some are here on the forum, somewhere although I don't mean to drag us into that now.

My feeling, and I base it partly on having lived for some 10 years in Muslim countries, is that while there are plenty of decent muslims everywhere, if you put them in a room with an Imam whose job it is to dictate what the koran says they should do, then they will all lose the arguments, because none will oppose an unambiguous literal interpretation of the koran, and there are plenty of nasty unambiguous ones there.

The fact is that there are decent muslims in spite of the koran, not because of it, and they lead their lives as decent people by ignoring, not rejecting, much of Islamic teachings. I think there is a big difference.

[Elind]

Er, wrong. Actually, the Muslims had their reformation well before the Christians had theirs; that's where the word (and concept) of itjihad originated. From about the 7th to 13th century CE (the so-called "Golden Age" of Islam), the statement that the Koran should be taken literally in all regards was regarded by almost all of the Islamic world as lunacy of the highest order.

No doubt these things go in cycles, but in what you call the "golden age" they were in a position of great strength and self confidence and could well afford to be kind to second class infidels as long as they behaved properly. To some extent though this kind of example sounds like the old M. Mead stuff about the Noble Savage, or glorious quotes from American Indian Chiefs who never existed. Isn't it however, true or exaggerated, irrelevant today? If you mean it proves that they are capable of "reform" I disagree because it is fundamentally an issue of power and control. There is no way the powers that be in Islam are going to give up power by becoming more more liberal. That isn't how politics or religions work. Even the Pope is harking back to the good old days as we speak, not to mention churning out saints to worship like a factory producing plastic idols.


That statement is absolutely false and shows a complete ignorance of Islamic history and culture.I admit that I have this impression in part from prominent opponets or ex muslims. Hirshi might be one, who I suspect knows more than all of us. Another category, but certainly an extraordinarily well-read one would be Hitchens. The bottom line however is that whatever individual example of supposed "optimism" that we can find are absolutely swamped by the contrary kind, and while as an optimist in humanity, I don't expect to see any such change that you hope for in my lifetime, or my children's, without major negative upheavals of one kind or another. How about oil dropping to $10/barrel?:covereyes

[drkitten]

No doubt these things go in cycles, but in what you call the "golden age" they were in a position of great strength and self confidence and could well afford to be kind to second class infidels as long as they behaved properly. To some extent though this kind of example sounds like the old M. Mead stuff about the Noble Savage, or glorious quotes from American Indian Chiefs who never existed. Isn't it however, true or exaggerated, irrelevant today? If you mean it proves that they are capable of "reform" I disagree because it is fundamentally an issue of power and control. There is no way the powers that be in Islam are going to give up power by becoming more more liberal.

Funny how you can't seem to maintain a coherent thought from the beginning of one paragraph to the end. Of course things go in cycles, with Islam as well as any other major religion -- or organization, for that matter. The "Golden Age" is well-documented; for example, most of the Greek texts upon which the Rennaissance relied were stored in Islamic during Europe's "Dark" and "Middle" "Ages," and most of the scholars rediscovering historical manuscripts did so via translations-through-the-Arabic. If you don't like the name "Gold