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.
>> harold said, on February 20th, 2010 at 6:02 am
>> I think the the 3 major religions are a hate crime.
You, sir, are a bigot.
Since Atheists have no churches, this could be the closets thing to. Yes. I think this act is a hate crime.
No one can hate as fiercely as a true believer in some organized religion. Don’t believe me? Read history.
Speaking as one who has had his house invaded by armed Mormons and been mugged by Hare Krishnas, take it from me, we agnostics are living on the edge of darkness.
Also Lost? That’s a hate crime!? Sheeit, then my whole fracking existence is a hate crime.
If you’re gonna get philosophical on a billboard, I’d say it’s rational to expect a reaction.
Well if they believe atheists are lost, and need to embrace god to enter heaven, then this can’t be a hate crime, as they are only trying to help them.
As for vandalism, Uncle Dave has previously endorsed graffiti of houses, because the vandals could never afford such houses.
#26 Thomas
So you think it makes sense to amend charges based on motive?(in this case, possibly hate, but come on, it’s a freaking billboard and what was tagged, isn’t even a threat!)
So following this stupid hate crime logic, one 1st degree murder charge is different if the motive is for , say, money, but if the motive was revenge/jealousy, the exact same charge should be dealt with differently? To paraphrase a quote. “The crime’s the thing.”. Sure the motive and context come into play, but in the end, it’s whatever crime is committed. Deal with that. Hate crime amendments are just PC self soothing to make society feel like we’re doing something about moronic bigots, when there is is plenty of teeth already in law, if judges would just apply said teeth.
There’s all these pigeonholes…
Belief in one or more deities is a religious decision.
Nonbelief in any deity (atheism) is also a religious decision.
Finally, ignoring the religious issue because you don’t know and don’t care defines you as agnostic, so that’s really a religious decision as well, even if you didn’t want to align yourself with any belief.
The statements on the billboard are just paint.
#40 Floyd
If you follow your argument then being an agnostic is not a possible. Sorry it’s a crappy argument which assumes God exists. It’s just a derivative of Pascal’s argument. Which is a derivative of Al-Juwayni’s argument. But now I’m being derivative.
Me bad. I should have said Pascal’s wager. Now I’m being repetitive. Again.
How could anyone hate atheists?
#39 Mikey Twit, treating hate crimes differently from their non-hate counterpart is actually another manifestation of a long-held principle in law, especially with murder cases. “State of mind” can play a crucial role in the sentence that can be enforced for killing another human being. Killing your wife’s lover when you find them in bed earns significantly lighter punishment than what a convicted serial killer would receive for killing that same human being. Aggravating circumstances can even make the difference between life and death in states that allow the death penalty.
If premeditation can be the basis for a much harsher penalty, I see no logical basis why lawmakers cannot make a similar distinction with hatred toward a specific minority group. Extra punishment has historically been given for a particular state of mind during the crime, and hate crimes don’t seem to fall outside that established boundary.
#43 Jess Hurchist said “How could anyone hate atheists?”
Atheists aren’t part of the tribe. Religion is one of those old instincts that evolved to hold groups of humans together to improve their survival. It’s no different than teenagers who follow bands and are dressed alike.
“Hate Speech” will be politically contorted around to stop Christians from sharing the gospel. That’s the point of it.
Buddhists are also ATHEISTS and they would say that bliss is only possible through their four-fold way and eight-fold way.
Shamans don’t have a god and they appease the spirits to make life comfortable.
What do the Atheists behind the sign believe in? Marx & Engels? L. Ron Hubbard? Spiritism?
#46: Atheists and agnostics believe in reality.
#46 Floyd
You’re reaching again dude. I was in Seattle last weekend and stopped by Pike Place Market and saw the original Starbucks location. Walked around and saw the old wooden counter and such. Kind of cool.
Anyway, it wouldn’t make sense for me to now say “I believe in the original Starbucks location” anymore than to say “I believe in reality”. If you get into a car accident and it’s your fault don’t try to avoid responsibility by saying “I don’t believe in reality”. The judge might not buy it.
#47,#48 You’re both wrong.
The answer is…
Atheists believe in reality, and Agnostics believe in dodging the question 😉
Gary l’infidèle dangereux,
As usual you are wise. I acknowledge the Buddha within.
qb, let’s wait a few more months before we “acknowledge the Buddha within.” Tiger woods has done the inner Buddha no public relations favors lately 😉
God hates shrimp.
#6–qb==you say: “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.” /// Fallacious. Every mother loving one of us is a “member” of many different groups. By definition, if one is not a member of ONE group, unavoidably, that person is a member of the group that is not a member of that one group.
I find high irony in the fact that the Billboard in 10 foot extremes is an expression of thought inviting a conversation—-and so is the response, and a good one at that.
This leads to the “crime” being not a hate crime, but a thought crime. Imagine “thinking” when we should all just be following.
Like every other good idea, it starts off correctly, (such as killing gays or blacks or red haired people) ==you all can actually see “more than one crime there” can’t you?
There is a hate crime here only if thinking is another crime against humanity (hard to fathom) or a crime against society (hard to avoid).
bobbo,
Fallacious? That’s the naughtiest thing I’ve heard all day.
If it was a threatening message, I could consider it hate crime. But “also lost?” Naw, that’s just plain stupid vandalism.
I’ve never understood why “non-believers” need to advertise. I mean, isn’t it one of the tenets of non-belief to avoid proselytism? If not, then I’m sorry, you’re religious in the sense that you’re trying to sell others your belief system – you’re evangelizing. I get annoyed by most evangelizers, and I used to buy Macs! Besides, there are two types of non-belief; those that don’t know, and those that actively deny. It’s the deniers that would post signs and then get upset that they’re defaced. The “don’t knows” are the honest ones.
Floyd and qb==it comes up here often enough but never has made sense to me. What is the advantage of calling atheism as religion?
If a religious person uses that argument (and wins?) what have the posited: your position is no different than mine? Just the OPPOSITE of what the religious person should want==so what is the appeal. That feel good attavistic school yard response: Oh yea, well so are you!! Quite Childish!!!! But thats religion for you.
But on to shell fish. Nice link but WHY does god hate shellfish? I could see a food based religion commanding Thou shall not eat that which has turned green and stinks of old footwear, but how does nice sweet fresh shell fish deserve this judgment? Anyone have the history on this===or is this like the Jews where it is just an arbitrary rule to see if we will follow?
I’ll go along with #2 and #3. Vandalism is a crime, a sin, and a common human behavior.
I don’t know. Do fallacious and fellatio diverge from the same root?
Root? root, root.
Root vegetables.
Succotash.
#56–gilder==do you think “all” non-believers need to advertise? Do those who do “need to” or just have chosen on one occasion to do so. Compare and contrast a few billboards verses a church built on every intersections, tax exemption, and quite silly dogma being forced thru schools onto other believing kiddies.
And so forth, — really a nice demon stration of one bad thought/structure leading to another. Must be a Palin supporter?
#58–do-ill. Agreeing with sarcasm and stupidity huh? Hee, hee.
#52 qb, if thou dippest those abominations in Holy Butter, they wilt be cleansed and thou canst eat them in all righteousness.
#57 — What is the advantage of calling atheism as religion?
Good question. If atheism is declared a religion in the eyes of the government, then athiest can create non-profit tax exempt organizations. There could be non-prayers in schools. Money could be made with In No god We Trust. Atheistic quotes could be placed in court rooms. Politicians could be required to swear upon some non-god believing book. A several national holidays could be declared. People on bikes could spread the good word of not believing in a god. People standing at interesections could hold up signs saying No God Loves You.
Could be a very interesting situation. Atheist could rewrite history by taking out the word god in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constitution.