Hate Crimes Against LSU Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter ezekielwatching
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Katherine

As Catholics we all respect the rule of law when it does not violate the law of God. A lot of conservatives who are avoiding this because of the hate crime dimensions need to view this as a matter of equal protection. Christian liberties are not being defended by local law enforcement in the same way other groups would have their rights protected. That is why we need to put the pressure on DA Doug Moreau. <ldaa.org/roster/moreau.html>

LSU Reveille Columnist Tobias Danna in his Friday column dealt with this in detail.

"And while they know that they have not been deeply victimized by the vandalism, they recognize it as a hate crime, although many of them are against hate crime legislation in general, not seeing how different motivations could make the same act more hateful in one instance than the other. Still, they all respect the rule of law. Like Paul relying on his Roman citizenship to save his life and further his mission two millennia ago, like Thomas More using his agile mind to repudiate all the charges of treason against him before a kangaroo court sent him to his martyrdom, these students insist the law provides all religious expressions equal protection.
The Students for Life display was cosponsored by the St. Mary and St. Joseph Family Memorial Foundation, an organization whose name and mission are well known to many in this area. Students for Life prayed Rosaries over the display. There was no call to political action during any of the events, so even the supposedly “personally pro-life” Senators John Kerry and Mary Landrieu could have attended without hearing a word of condemnation.

But even if the Editorial Board is right about the event being somewhat political and not purely religious, this does not diminish the hate crime charge. Equal protection requires hate crime prosecution here just as much as it would a crime against homosexuals participating in political protests against the ban on gay marriage. While many people are trying to pass this sound reasoning off as foolishness, Scalia’s words ring prophetic. “God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and he has not been disappointed.”

<lsureveille.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/01/28/41f9da9c2fe24>
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
I don’t suppose the ACLU has offered to do anything to help the Catholics:rolleyes: Fredom of choice as long as it agrees with theirs,freedom of speech as long as it agrees with theirs,notice the perpetrators comments about the hidden meaning of the crosses,sounds like a guilty conscience to me.God Bless

PS.Please keep us updated.
Click to expand...
aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm
Why does the ACLU want to remove crosses from federal cemeteries?
The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU celebrates this freedom to choose the religious symbol of your choice. Read more about the ACLU’s stance on religious freedom.

aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29
Citing ACLU Arguments, State Supreme Court Says Prosecutors Cannot Reject Jurors Who Are "Demonstrative About Their Religion"

NEWARK, NJ-- The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity.

“In this country, people have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination by the government,” said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. “Excluding people from jury pools based on their religious belief or expression violates the principles of freedom found in the Bill of Rights.”

The case concerns the dismissal of two jurors in a criminal case in the New Jersey Superior Court in Essex County. The prosecutor excused the jurors, saying that they were “demonstrative about their religion” and that such persons “tend to favor defendants.”

In a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case, the ACLU of New Jersey argued that such actions violated the Equal Protection and freedom of religion clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, as well as the right to trial by an impartial jury. The ACLU explained that not only should people be free to express themselves about their religion but, in addition, such a basis for jury removal will often lead to discrimination against identifiable religious minorities.

In its opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court cited to the ACLU of New Jersey’s to support its holding that: “Clothing, in those cases, is little more than a proxy for religion.” Indeed, the Court noted that certain religions require outward expressions of faith or encourage missionary service more than others and, if the prosecutor’s actions were permitted to stand, those religious groups would be discriminated against and, therefore, improperly underrepresented in juries.
 
I’m Catholic, I’m pro-life, I’m anti-hatred, but I’m also anti-stupidity, which makes me anti-hate crime. Hate crimes are the manifestation of oversubjectification of law. Hate crime legislation puts a brick on one side of the judicial scale. If you break into a mom-and-pop convenience store and rob it, you’re a burglar. If you break into a convenience store owned by a gay couple, all of a sudden, it’s a hate crime and punishment is double. Did the mom-and-pop store not suffer an act of hatred?

Just punishment is just punishment, and the law should not be telling those who abide by it that one person and their property is more valuable than another and his/her property.

Now, here is an interesting conundrum for me, because I am also pro-justice but anti-hypocrisy. So since the judicial system, in enforcing hate-crime legislation, has made itself hypocritical, what am I to say? This is the problem with the just application of unjust laws. They cannot be empirically enforced. When is vandalism, or violence or murder NOT an act of hatred?

Eventually, people will see what hate crime legislation truly is: It’s a political springboard, a mechanism for politicians to garner more support with their constituents, looks good on the resume.

Yet, in incidents such as this one, Christians and pro-lifers and “religious intolerants” like us keep discovering that there is no such thing as a hateful act against us. Part of me wants to say, “Let em have it, Louisiana! That’s a hate crime! You wrote the law, you have to follow it.” But the side of me that loves justice says “vandalism is vandalism, violence is violence. All crimes are hate, so ‘hate’ crime is redundant.”

It is more important to be opposed to hate-crime legislation than to jump at the opportunity to benefit from the law. Like I said, it is oversubjectification of the law. Look what’s happening in Canada now. Clergy can be prosecuted for anti-homosexual-sex sermons. That can be considered hate speech. Is that not the road we’re on? This act at LSU is deplorable, and justice probably will not be done. Why? Because hate crime legislation is essentially legalized persecution, and unless the powers who decide say that the crime is a hate crime, justice will not be done.

When fewer and fewer acts of violence are committed against the groups who benefit from hate crimes, will the laws just fade away and people say, “well, they did their job”? No! They’ll push for stricter laws, saying that acts of hatred are perpetuated in speech, and bigotry spews from the mouths of “zealots” and “religious intolerants.” And stricter legislation will pass. Justice is supposed to be blind! But hate crime laws say, “look at who the person is, then mete out justice and punishment.” Mark my words, hate crime laws are the road to persecution in a free and democratic society.

They are the vehicle to true hatred.
 
Joe Kelley:
I was interested in another contradiction in John Philip Morlier’s defense of his actions defacing the crosses.

First he says:* I engaged in what I believe to be an act of free speech. The crosses were planted in an effort to join a debate, conversation*.

But later says: The crosses are not an invitation to engage in a give and take debate on the issue, rather the issue is evasively hidden behind the most powerful symbol in our community.

Now were they or were they not an effort to join in debate??
Click to expand...
You are correct of course. Morlier has taken a page from the John Kerry book - he wants to be on both sides of the issue at the same time.
Newman60
 
40.png
sweetchuck:
I’m Catholic, I’m pro-life, I’m anti-hatred, but I’m also anti-stupidity, which makes me anti-hate crime. Hate crimes are the manifestation of oversubjectification of law. Hate crime legislation puts a brick on one side of the judicial scale. If you break into a mom-and-pop convenience store and rob it, you’re a burglar. If you break into a convenience store owned by a gay couple, all of a sudden, it’s a hate crime and punishment is double. Did the mom-and-pop store not suffer an act of hatred?

Just punishment is just punishment, and the law should not be telling those who abide by it that one person and their property is more valuable than another and his/her property.

Now, here is an interesting conundrum for me, because I am also pro-justice but anti-hypocrisy. So since the judicial system, in enforcing hate-crime legislation, has made itself hypocritical, what am I to say? This is the problem with the just application of unjust laws. They cannot be empirically enforced. When is vandalism, or violence or murder NOT an act of hatred?

Eventually, people will see what hate crime legislation truly is: It’s a political springboard, a mechanism for politicians to garner more support with their constituents, looks good on the resume.

Yet, in incidents such as this one, Christians and pro-lifers and “religious intolerants” like us keep discovering that there is no such thing as a hateful act against us. Part of me wants to say, “Let em have it, Louisiana! That’s a hate crime! You wrote the law, you have to follow it.” But the side of me that loves justice says “vandalism is vandalism, violence is violence. All crimes are hate, so ‘hate’ crime is redundant.”

It is more important to be opposed to hate-crime legislation than to jump at the opportunity to benefit from the law. Like I said, it is oversubjectification of the law. Look what’s happening in Canada now. Clergy can be prosecuted for anti-homosexual-sex sermons. That can be considered hate speech. Is that not the road we’re on? This act at LSU is deplorable, and justice probably will not be done. Why? Because hate crime legislation is essentially legalized persecution, and unless the powers who decide say that the crime is a hate crime, justice will not be done.

When fewer and fewer acts of violence are committed against the groups who benefit from hate crimes, will the laws just fade away and people say, “well, they did their job”? No! They’ll push for stricter laws, saying that acts of hatred are perpetuated in speech, and bigotry spews from the mouths of “zealots” and “religious intolerants.” And stricter legislation will pass. Justice is supposed to be blind! But hate crime laws say, “look at who the person is, then mete out justice and punishment.” Mark my words, hate crime laws are the road to persecution in a free and democratic society.

They are the vehicle to true hatred.
Click to expand...
I believe we must prosecute these already defined “hate crimes”. If we don’t make this a double edged sword then we will be headed for something like they have in Canada. We must hoist them on their own petard. This is how the law is and this is how it should be enforced. This is also how we can continue to show that the ACLU is just a bunch of liberal hypocrites.
Speak out and fight back. Over 40,000,000 murdered innocents cry out for justice. That is the real issue at stake here. Not some nicety about whether to enforce the law as written. Sue them. Prosecute them. Make them think twice about trying to make murder for profit sound like some kind of reasonable choice.
Newman60
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top