Bacon in a Park is a ‘Hate Crime’ but Not a Crucifix in Urine

[Inthemiddle]

Does anyone have any idea what a "hate crime" is? Seems not. *shakes head*

aren't all crimes based in hate.....?

No. How much hate is there in speeding? Littering? Public indecency?

 

[pinqy]

what i want to know is why liberals are allowing a RELIGIOUS prayer meeting in a public city GOVERNMENT park......

.....isn't that mixing CHURCH AND STATE......

Nope. Groups are free to use public parks as long as the rules and regulations neither favor nor disfavor religion. For example, back in 2004 a state park in Stafford County Virginia tried banning Christian Baptisms but was forced to allow them under threat of lawsuit by the ACLU Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks | American Civil Liberties Union

there's no problem with separation. Now, a permanent display showing support of some religion would be...but allowing groups to conduct their own ceremonies? Not a separation issue.

 

[Newby]

The bacon was placed at a gathering of Muslims as a deliberate attempt to disrupt their meeting.
"Urine Christ" was a work of art that, while in horrible taste was in general exhibition and not specifically directed at a group. Now if it was placed at a church or Christian gathering, etc, then it would be a hate incident.

Bullshit.

 

[g5000]

Should we make a law that bans artists from using the cross?

Not at all.. but someone saying that it is not directed at someone when making 'art' like that, is doing nothing more than trying to fool themselves or others

I am not one that subscribes to the concept of 'hate crime'... can the reasoning go to motive? Yes... But to think that battery is different because of the motive of 'hate' is ridiculous... Murder 1 is murder 1, battery is battery, assault is assault, etc...

Murder 1 is murder in the first degree. Degrees are determined by the intent of the killer. Murder 1 is dependent on what the killer was thinking.

.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I suppose this would be a hate crime in Pittsburg, but not in Baltimore. *evil smiles*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3YPudFC7cQ]Ravens fans burning a "Terrible Towel!" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

Does anyone have any idea what a "hate crime" is? Seems not. *shakes head*

Well, a crime has to be committed before anything is a "hate crime".

What crime was committed here?

 

[DiamondDave]

What??.. it wasn't a kindness crime??? Or a caring crime??

 

[g5000]

It was littering, at worst.

If waving bacon at a Muslim is a hate crime, then so is waving a Nazi flag at a Jew. And the Supreme Court has already determined that waving Nazi flags at Jews is not a crime.

.

 

[beretta304]

Should we make a law that bans artists from using the cross?

Nope just public funding.

You can grasp the concept of 16 trillion in debt cant you.............

Public funding?


Also, like I said eariler, I dont agree with the concept of hate crimes, however I also don't think you can compare what an artist does to illicit feeling and what some jackass does to piss off a group of people.

Some would say that he has just as much right to be in the park, with bacon in hand as they do.... to be there doing whatever it is they wanted to do.

The park is a public place.

As to the crucifix, the so called artist knew exactly the reaction he or she hoped to get. It could be seen as hate under the guise of art, no?

I honestly see no redeeming value in calling it art.

Let's say I secretly hated Jews. If I put a yarmulke in a jar and shit on it and say it's art isn't the message still one of hatred. A loving person would never think to do such a thing.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Does anyone have any idea what a "hate crime" is? Seems not. *shakes head*

Well, a crime has to be committed before anything is a "hate crime".

What crime was committed here?

Exactly my point. The article doesn't call it a hate crime. They call it a "bias incident." An investigation has to reveal a crime being committed in the first place. It's possible, I suppose, that one could argue that it was littering. But we would still require evidence that the act was deliberately done for the sake of harassing or harming a person or group for discriminatory purposes before "hate crime" could be applied here.

 

[AmyNation]

Nope just public funding.

You can grasp the concept of 16 trillion in debt cant you.............

Public funding?


Also, like I said eariler, I dont agree with the concept of hate crimes, however I also don't think you can compare what an artist does to illicit feeling and what some jackass does to piss off a group of people.

Some would say that he has just as much right to be in the park, with bacon in hand as they do.... to be there doing whatever it is they wanted to do.

The park is a public place.

As to the crucifix, the so called artist knew exactly the reaction he or she hoped to get. It could be seen as hate under the guise of art, no?

I honestly see no redeeming value in calling it art.

Let's say I secretly hated Jews. If I put a yarmulke in a jar and shit on it and say it's art isn't the message still one of hatred. A loving person would never think to do such a thing.

I agree, bacon person had as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

If you were an artist, and did that, called it art and put it on display, then yes it's art. Art doesn't have to be a message of love.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Nope just public funding.

You can grasp the concept of 16 trillion in debt cant you.............

Public funding?


Also, like I said eariler, I dont agree with the concept of hate crimes, however I also don't think you can compare what an artist does to illicit feeling and what some jackass does to piss off a group of people.

Some would say that he has just as much right to be in the park, with bacon in hand as they do.... to be there doing whatever it is they wanted to do.

The park is a public place.

As to the crucifix, the so called artist knew exactly the reaction he or she hoped to get. It could be seen as hate under the guise of art, no?

I honestly see no redeeming value in calling it art.

Let's say I secretly hated Jews. If I put a yarmulke in a jar and shit on it and say it's art isn't the message still one of hatred. A loving person would never think to do such a thing.

Do you own the yarmulke?

 

[Si modo]

Does anyone have any idea what a "hate crime" is? Seems not. *shakes head*

Well, a crime has to be committed before anything is a "hate crime".

What crime was committed here?

Exactly my point. The article doesn't call it a hate crime. They call it a "bias incident." An investigation has to reveal a crime being committed in the first place. It's possible, I suppose, that one could argue that it was littering. But we would still require evidence that the act was deliberately done for the sake of harassing or harming a person or group for discriminatory purposes before "hate crime" could be applied here.

One more time: What crime was committed here?

 

[Katzndogz]

The purpose of putting the bacon in the park was to feed the animals. To expand the definition of a hate crime to include all acts which might possibly have a peripheral objection to a religious group would have absurd implications.

If feeding animals in the park is a hate crime, then has someone who gets a pet dog committed a hate crime if their neighbors are muslim and the dog owner knows that muslims have religious prohibitions against dogs? Suppose I have muslim neighbors and instead of a dog, I get a pot bellied pig. Is that a hate crime? Suppose every time I saw those muslims outside I started kissing my dog or my pig. Is tht a hate crime? Even if I showered my pet with lavish affection KNOWING the religious prohibition and intending to piss them off. Is it a hate crime?

 

[beretta304]

Public funding?


Also, like I said eariler, I dont agree with the concept of hate crimes, however I also don't think you can compare what an artist does to illicit feeling and what some jackass does to piss off a group of people.

Some would say that he has just as much right to be in the park, with bacon in hand as they do.... to be there doing whatever it is they wanted to do.

The park is a public place.

As to the crucifix, the so called artist knew exactly the reaction he or she hoped to get. It could be seen as hate under the guise of art, no?

I honestly see no redeeming value in calling it art.

Let's say I secretly hated Jews. If I put a yarmulke in a jar and shit on it and say it's art isn't the message still one of hatred. A loving person would never think to do such a thing.

I agree, bacon person had as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

If you were an artist, and did that, called it art and put it on display, then yes it's art. Art doesn't have to be a message of love.

Isn't it hatred from the perspective of a Jew viewing it. I guess how it gets defined as art in the first place makes the difference.

I'm no Holy-Roller but I don't see how putting a crucifix in urine as being any form of art. It doesn't take skill to do that.

 

[beretta304]

The purpose of putting the bacon in the park was to feed the animals. To expand the definition of a hate crime to include all acts which might possibly have a peripheral objection to a religious group would have absurd implications.

If feeding animals in the park is a hate crime, then has someone who gets a pet dog committed a hate crime if their neighbors are muslim and the dog owner knows that muslims have religious prohibitions against dogs? Suppose I have muslim neighbors and instead of a dog, I get a pot bellied pig. Is that a hate crime? Suppose every time I saw those muslims outside I started kissing my dog or my pig. Is tht a hate crime? Even if I showered my pet with lavish affection KNOWING the religious prohibition and intending to piss them off. Is it a hate crime?

It all boils down to too much pandering for the sake of political correctness. Religion and public parks don't mix to begin with.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is how creeping sharia creeps. It isn't enough that muslims obey religious laws, everyone must obey their religious laws too.

 

[AmyNation]

Some would say that he has just as much right to be in the park, with bacon in hand as they do.... to be there doing whatever it is they wanted to do.

The park is a public place.

As to the crucifix, the so called artist knew exactly the reaction he or she hoped to get. It could be seen as hate under the guise of art, no?

I honestly see no redeeming value in calling it art.

Let's say I secretly hated Jews. If I put a yarmulke in a jar and shit on it and say it's art isn't the message still one of hatred. A loving person would never think to do such a thing.

I agree, bacon person had as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

If you were an artist, and did that, called it art and put it on display, then yes it's art. Art doesn't have to be a message of love.

Isn't it hatred from the perspective of a Jew viewing it. I guess how it gets defined as art in the first place makes the difference.

I'm no Holy-Roller but I don't see how putting a crucifix in urine as being any form of art. It doesn't take skill to do that.

*shrug* when I go to museums, some art leaves me in awe, some leaves me confused. How much skill does it take to paint a dot?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

what i want to know is why liberals are allowing a RELIGIOUS prayer meeting in a public city GOVERNMENT park......

.....isn't that mixing CHURCH AND STATE......

Nope. Groups are free to use public parks as long as the rules and regulations neither favor nor disfavor religion. For example, back in 2004 a state park in Stafford County Virginia tried banning Christian Baptisms but was forced to allow them under threat of lawsuit by the ACLU Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks | American Civil Liberties Union

there's no problem with separation. Now, a permanent display showing support of some religion would be...but allowing groups to conduct their own ceremonies? Not a separation issue.

then there shouldn't be a problem with Christians saying prayers in the schools and having their own ceremonies and parties like around Christmas....

 

[beretta304]

This is how creeping sharia creeps. It isn't enough that muslims obey religious laws, everyone must obey their religious laws too.

That's the irony. The ones who defend their right to invoke sharia law are the first ones who will be the victims of it if it ever takes root.