Defacing a church or synagogue is considered a hate crime. Should this be?
A billboard near Sacramento promoting atheism was vandalized by someone depicting atheists as lost, one of the billboard’s sponsor said.
The billboard — one of several posted in the Sacramento area — originally read: “Are you good without God? Millions are.” Someone spray-painted the words “also lost?” beneath “millions are,” CBS13 reported Tuesday.
Rachael Harrington of the Sacramento Area Coalition of Reason — which paid to have the billboards put up — said the ads are intended to let atheists and agnostics know they are not alone, the TV station said.
“This shows loud and clear just how necessary our message is, because prejudice against people who don’t believe in a god remains very real in America,” Harrington said.
I think the the 3 major religions are a hate crime.
No. It should be declared vandalism and a sin.
Shoe now on the other foot, not so comfortable a fit.
It is very apparent that BOTH sides are no different in reality. Humanz iz humanz.
This will never end until the human race does.
Cursor_
Hate crime designations are idiotic to begin with. It’s vandalism plain and simple, whether it’s a an atheists billboard, or church/temple/synagogue/whatever.
But let’s play with the premise. If you’re using the hate crime tag because of the religious persecution basis, then no, no hate crime here, because LACK of a belief in deity(which is what atheism is) is not a freaking religion!
The short answer: no (-and see #1)
Being charged twice for a crime, -once for the “normal” crime and then again for the state of you emotional bias uring said crime, is idiotic and i would imagine, unconstitutional??
I find it most humourous that the party that claims to be colourblind” takes every opportunity to make sure all your actions are viewed through a prism of race, colour, ethnicity, religion, orientation, -whatever, in order to add extra punishment (or gains) depending on the situation.
-Next stop: Straight up “emotional crime” (ie thought crimes ala Minority Report)
anyway…
-s
It’s plain old vandalism. It’s pretty tough to have a hate crime for a group that can only be defined as not belonging to group.
perhaps she’s a witch or some other mythological monster the church cooked up.
yep definitely hate crime, underling views is pure hate.
agreed harold
As an atheist I’d say yes, because the sorts of people who attack atheists are really awful hating religious people.
Those who merely make fun of us atheists are usually harmless.
So it depends on HOW the billboard was defaced. If it was hateful, it was a hate crime. If it was joking, it wasn’t.
daves olo said “perhaps she’s a witch or some other mythological monster the church cooked up.”
She turned me into a newt!
Since the whole concept of “hate crime” is just more bogus political correctness, the question doesn’t even make sense.
The article made no mention of a Hate Crime.
Leave it to the crazed Uncle Dave to dream up that ludicrous idea.
Where is Uncle Dave’s outrage with taggers (graffiti)?
Oh, yeah… that’s right. The taggers who vandalize public buildings are simply exercising their Freedom of Speech.
Just one more example of Uncle Dave’s hypocritical postings.
#11: Hypocritical? I can’t stand taggers and think they are criminals. Guess you’re wrong about me again.
#4 “no hate crime here, because LACK of a belief in deity(which is what atheism is) is not a freaking religion!”
Doesn’t particularly matter – it doesn’t have to be aimed against a religion to be considered a hate crime.
#6 “It’s pretty tough to have a hate crime for a group that can only be defined as not belonging to group.”
How is “non-believers” not a group?
That vandal thinks atheists are “lost”: well, “lost” is a debatable concept. You might think you aren’t “lost” i.e. you know where you are and where you’re going, but just saying something don’t make it so …
Crimes are crimes, regardless of the motives. Thinking that someone deserves more punishment because of what they were thinking during the crime is insane. Nice job thought police. I bet you still think the Duke Lacrosse players are guilty.
Zeus, Isis, Ra, Odin, Jesus, Vishnu, and Jehovah (whichever is obviously “real” to you) is surely mad at these non-believers. ROTFLMAO
Silly Aunt Dave! There you go again confusing things like you typically do.
When is a billboard the same as a Church or Synagogue?
You are comparing apples to oranges.
In this case it’s just plain ol’ vandalism is a crime. Those who did this should be found and punished. And the message spray painted isn’t one of hate. It’s not comparable to spray painting a swastika on a synagogue or spray painting “GET OUT NI**ER” on a black church. But of course, this distinction is lost upon you as it appears from your entry.
I think being religious is lost. Why are there so many religions, often many of them 99.99999% the same thing.. yet proclaim themselves as the “true” religion.
That pompous statement made by most religions, by it self, makes me think they are the ones who are lost and grasping at straws.
At least where I live, tagging is vandalism and is a misdemeanor. If the taggers get caught and turned in, they get fined. They also have to clean up their mess (as in Alice’s Restaurant), and maybe someone else’s mess. It doesn’t really matter what the subject of the tag was.
#13
Statistically, sure it’s a group in that sense, but as an organized “official” group, that’s a stretch. Just because there are atheist organizations, doesn’t mean every atheist is a member of any said organization (I’m not part of any organization, speaking as a self identified atheist). But if you call your self a Christian (pick your denomination) or Muslim or PRACTICING (as opposed to cultural)Jew, you are part of an official group outside of statistical analysis, whether you attend services or not.
True believers love to hate atheists, but without us, who’s going to take care of your puppy or kitty after the Rapture?
Put the paint can down and slowly step away from the billboard.
I don’t think vandalizing a roadside advertisement for a religious organization is a hate crime, is it? There’s a difference between defacing a billboard and defacing a church or synagogue.
Personally I support all defacement of ads even if I don’t agree with the sentiment behind the particular defacement.
The basis for most people thinking here is:
Logically yes, it should be a hate crime. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Emotionally, no it’s not.
No. Crime inspired by hate? Possibly.
Hatred is an emotion, not a (legitimate) crime.
Yes, the crime came from hatred. No, crimes should not be considered worse because of the REASON for the crime. They are always evil and the perp should be punished.
#4
Your logic flawed. A hate crime is designated as such because one party commits a crime because of hatred towards the victim. That hatred can be rooted in religious beliefs, of the perpetrator, or in a host of other personal beliefs of the perpetrator. Notice that the beliefs or lack thereof of the target is entirely irrelevant. Thus, yes, you can have hate crimes against atheists because there are people willing to commit crime against atheists purely based on their hatred of them.
This act clearly qualifies as a hate crime. If the billboard was one promoting Jews or a Jewish organization and someone painted a swastika on it, that counts as a hate crime not because of the Jews but because of the motivations of the people doing the painting.
If society says an offense is more wicked because it is directed against a belief system or personal characteristic this IS a hate crime. If this is not treated as such it means some beliefs are worth more than others.
Those whacky xtians!
http://tinyurl.com/ygtc8ro
As an atheist? I’d be a bit embarrassed if other atheists weren’t a little tougher than this.
No. Save the ‘hate crimes’ for actual hate crimes. Being made fun of? Who frakkin’ CARES?
Sheesh.
There is a huge difference between defacing an impersonal sign and putting threatening messages where people gather.
But, all things being equal (defacing an atheist sign versus defacing a religious sign) it’s the same.
THAT being said, hate-crime laws should be reserved for violence and threats of violence.
There is a real danger in trivialising hate crime laws.
The reason for hate crime laws is because hate criminals are a greater threat to society than your average oppotunistic criminal.
Terrorists, hit men, and other organised criminals are also in this special category of being a menace to civil society.