An interesting story from the Pleasanton Weekly:
Abdul Walid Hamid pled not guilty Thursday morning to charges of battery, grand theft, exhibition of a deadly weapon and a possible hate crime.Police arrested the 22-year-old Hayward man Nov. 4 after he reportedly robbed a person and scared others at Stoneridge Shopping Center....
According to reports, Hamid was yelling “Allah is power” and “Islam is great” while holding a pen in a fist over his head and witnesses said he had been shouting anti-Christian comments.
Lt. Mike Elerick of the Pleasanton Police Department said the man was not provoked and didn’t threaten violence, but he committed robbery when he grabbed and broke a crucifix off a person’s neck.
Hamid’s family members, who declined to give their names, say it was all a misunderstanding. Outside the courtroom, they said Hamid was provoked when the customer with the necklace reportedly called him a derogatory name. They said Hamid put his hand on the customer’s shoulder, asking the person not to use that word. When the customer pulled away, the family said Hamid’s hand came into contact with the necklace and it accidentally broke....
I had earlier covered a similar case involving a different combination of religions, though also somewhat less serious conduct, so it seemed to me interesting to note this case as well. A few thoughts about the charges:
1. I oppose hate crime enhancements in this case as I do in other cases. (I think such enhancements are a bad idea, though generally constitutional.) Nonetheless, the facts as described would indeed qualify as a hate crime under California law, since the act was apparently “committed, in whole or in part, because of [the religion] of the victim,” or at least the victim’s “[a]ssociation with a ... group with [such a] perceived characteristic[].” One could argue, I suppose, that the accused didn’t care about the religion of the victim, but only about the religiosity of the symbol that he grabbed; but I would think that when a person is attacked because she is wearing a symbol of a particular religion, that would be treated by the law as tantamount to an attack based on the victim’s religion.
2. Would the accused’s displaying a pen in a fist over one’s head constitute brandishing a deadly weapon? The applicable legal rule seems to be this (paragraph break and emphasis added):
There are, first, those instrumentalities which are weapons in the strict sense of the word, and, second, those instrumentalities which are not weapons in the strict sense of the word, but which may be used as such. The instrumentalities falling in the first class, such as guns, dirks and blackjacks, which are weapons in the strict sense of the word and are ‘dangerous or deadly’ or others in the ordinary use for which they are designed, may be said as a matter of law to be ‘dangerous or deadly weapons.’ This is true as the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such.The instrumentalities falling into the second class, such as ordinary razors, pocket-knives, hatpins, canes, hammers, hatchets and other sharp or heavy objects, which are not weapons in the strict sense of the word and are not ‘dangerous or deadly’ to others in the ordinary use for which they are designed, may not be said as a matter of law to be ‘dangerous or deadly weapons.’ When it appears, however, that an instrumentality other than one falling within the first class is capable of being used in a ‘dangerous or deadly’ manner, and it may be fairly inferred from the evidence that its possessor intended on a particular occasion to use it as a weapon should the circumstances require, we believe that its character as a ‘dangerous or deadly weapon’ may be thus established, at least for the purposes of that occasion.
This definition has been used to conclude that a screwdriver could, under the right circumstances, constitute a deadly weapon, People v. Simons, 42 Cal. App. 4th 1100 (1996), as could a pit bull, People v. Henderson, 76 Cal. App. 4th 453 (1999). A nonprecedential case, In re John A., 2003 WL 2008173 (Cal. Ct. App.), likewise held that a brandished pen could under the right circumstances constitute a deadly weapon, and, though it’s not a binding precedent, it’s probably a fair predictor of how other courts would rule. The key factual question, I take it, would be whether “it may be fairly inferred from the evidence that its possessor intended on a particular occasion to use it as a weapon should the circumstances require.”
3. Battery and grand theft seem to be eminently suitable charges here. (California law defines grand theft to include any theft “[w]hen the property is taken from the person of another.”)
4. UPDATE: A reader asked why this conduct wouldn’t also be robbery, “the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” I thought so, too, but apparently under California case law, “something more is required than just that quantum of force which is necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property”; “the force that is required to make the offense a robbery is such force as is actually sufficient to overcome the victim’s resistance.” The “from the person of another” branch of grand theft is supposed to cover precisely those thefts form the person of another that involve lesser amounts of force. I’m not positive whether ripping off a chain falls on the sufficient force side, but I suspect the prosecutor concluded that it didn’t (or at least that the matter wasn’t clear), and that grand theft from the person of another was a more suitable charge.
dclawyer says:
CA sounds fairly similar to DC in its approach...and in DC, there’s been ADW-shod foot (you had a shoe on your foot when you kicked and assaulted the person), ADW-dust pan, and ADW-toaster, among other things.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:38 pmtheBruce says:
Not sure how this is charged as a theft, and for the same reasons, why it isn’t charged as a robbery, if it is in fact a theft.
Under California law, theft is a specific intent crime. The intent element is satisfied by “either an intent to deprive an owner permanently of his or her property, or to deprive an owner temporarily, but for an unreasonable time...”. I don’t see anything in the news story that supports this intent, and I don’t see how there are unreported facts that would support it, unless the reported facts are somehow incorrect. That ripping a crucifix off someone’s neck manifests an intent to deprive is going to be tough to prove.
Along the same lines, if the prosecutor felt that a theft had taken place, then there’s no question that it was also a robbery. “Every person who takes personal property in the possession of another, against the will and from the person...accomplished by means of force or fear ...is guilty of the crime of robbery.” Granted, robbery requires carrying the property away “for some distance, slight or otherwise,” but that easily gets past a preliminary hearing and in front of the jury.
Not how I would have charged it. Then again, I don’t have the police reports...
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:39 pmKen says:
Prosecutor: Well, judge, a sword is a deadly weapon, right?
Judge: Right . . . .
Prosecutor: And the pen is mightier than the sword, right?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:55 pmchris_t says:
Agree. Grand theft from the person is the better charge.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:57 pmSimply George says:
In Godfather 3 a pen was used to kill.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:04 pmRyan Waxx says:
So, if you are McGuyver, is possessing a battery, a paper clip, a quart of ammonia and a rice krispie treat enough to satisfy a WMD charge?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:10 pmohwilleke says:
Even if one can imagine a non-frivilous basis for bringing charges so severe in such a trivial incident, it is hard to believe that this is a routine approach. Somebody was really stretching to bring these charges.
Misdemeanor simple assault or disorderly conduct, and petty criminal mischief (i.e. damaging property) would seem more typical in this kind of incident.
While just about anything can be a “deadly weapon,” normally, the charge is brought only when the seemingly innocent item (Popular Science discussed a technique used to make origami constructions deadly this month, for example) actually end up causing serious harm. It is hard to believe that a reasonable person would perceive a pen as likely to be used as a deadly weapon, unless it is a James Bond special issue variety.
The trouble with the grand theft and robbery charges is that it is not at all obvious that Hamid has any intent to appropriate the necklace for his own use. Yes, he broke it, but it isn’t clear from the facts that he took it. While the “Pottery Barn” rule of “you break it, you bought it” sums up the living law of torts on this matter, criminal law generally makes a distinction between damaging property and stealing it. In the same vein, when a PETA activist throws paint at your mink coat when you are wearing it, a crime has been committed, but that crime usually isn’t the crime of theft or robbery. Indeed, the PETA example seems to be a pretty good match to the alleged motive in this case.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:14 pmptt says:
The news story indicates that the accused was an employee of a store (or the mall itself). Hopefully the incident was caught on video.
The charges seem overblown to me.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:21 pmSimply George says:
Sorry, it was not a pen, but the victim’s glasses.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:29 pmegd says:
Macgyver never killed anyone, so obviously the answer is no.
There’s also the famous disappearing pencil trick.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:36 pmBama 1L says:
In the newspaper story excerpted above, the police spokesman characterized grabbing and breaking the crucifix as robbery. But apparently what the police and most other jurisdictions call “robbery” is under California law a species of grand theft.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:40 pmJohn says:
In more civilized times, he would have just gotten his ass kicked and the police would have been saved the trouble of arresting him.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:45 pmRichard Aubrey says:
How dangerous is a pen?
If you’re not trained in unarmed combat–where your hands could be pretty deadly–you might find a pen to be a useful supplement.
Picture what amounts to an uppercut to the belly but instead of a fist, you have a pen coming at you.
Won’t kill you, probably. Could injure you severely.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:03 pmJoe says:
Macgyver never killed anyone, so obviously the answer is no.
Is there a WMDs are okay if they don’t kill rule?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:15 pmgasman says:
The whole hate crime thing is just too orwellian, and it creates a new realm of victimhood for people throw themselves into. If my house gets toilet papered on Halloween, and the perp and I happen to have a different race/religion/gender/etc. then depending on the mood of the prosecutor a simple vandalism could be spun into all sorts of nuttiness.
Would it be different if he were making a positive statement (allah is love) while plunging the pen into someone’s jugular, or if here making a clearly hate directed statement (die you christian bastard) with the same act.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:32 pmCJColucci says:
Whenever one of these hate-crime law posts appears, we get comments about how such laws are tools of politically-correct races or religions to oppress decent, God (Christian division)-fearing folk (caucasian division). Nice to see them used on a member of the extremely popular and influential Arab-American Muslim community.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:35 pmSandy MacHoots says:
“Grand theft” for ripping off a necklace in an altercation? That’s ridiculous. So is “robbery.” The fact that our criminal statutes have got to the point where a simple battery without injury can lead to multiple felony counts is outrageous.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:01 pmreadery says:
By talking up definitions, lawyers can turn a minor incident into serious punishment — displaying a pen gets spun into “brandishing a pen in ones fist” which gets lawyered up into “threatening with a deadly weapon” which suddenly becomes a serious felony.
But does society benefit from any of this? When lawyers turn trivial incidents, minor brawls, and mere displays of anger into horrific-sounding things merely pumping them up with air and playing spin games, people start regarding courts like being struck by lightning. One starts feeling sorry for the victims.
Turning to mafioso for protection starts seeming a better alternative. Mafioso are more violent, but more honest about what they do and why they do it, and this means they can be more regular in what one can expect of them. In situations like these, that can make them seem more just.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:07 pmreadery says:
This was a minor brawl and simple battery. Nothing more. Simple misdemeanor. Doesn’t deserve more than an apology and maybe a fine if it’s a first offense. Everything else is messing with our heads and justice run amuck.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:10 pmjstar says:
I thought Grosse Pointe Blank was the obvious pen-as-a-deadly-weapon reference.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:12 pmreadery says:
Southern law books were filled with laws which had the effect of turning otherwise minor crimes into serious ones if they were done by black people. One wonders if ‘hate crime’ legislation can have a similar effect for religious people, at least if inappropriately enforced. If minor crimes become serious ones just because something religious happens to be involved, the net effect might be to harass relgious people, and nothing more.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:18 pmA. Zarkov says:
The Pleasanton Weekly says:
Next step: deport him. There’s no benefit to the country in having him stay around.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:26 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
I suspect the prosecutor is trying to mine popular indignation over Nidal Malik Hasan with these ridiculous charges. I’d almost say the charges are a hate crime in themselves.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:27 pmStasik says:
Once again, another peace-loving member of the Islamic religion has his actions misconstrued by overly sensitive Westerners. Eight years ago they were merely trying to give two symbols of American achievement giant hugs using airplanes...
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:33 pmohwilleke says:
Not just any old lawyers, but prosecutors employed by the state and probably politically appointed, who have absolute immunity for liability for their prosecutorial acts.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:40 pmPhilistine says:
I don’t think any of the counts are felonies (though I’m not sure how the “hate crime” works in California, if that boosts a misdemeanor to a felony). AIUI, the grand theft is a misdemeanor with a 1 year max, the battery has a 6 month max and the brandishing is a misdemeanor (30 day min).
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:07 pmBaseballhead says:
Seriously? We don’t know if the guy is actually guilty of all the charges listed, but we do know that when the incident happened, he was working at his job. If we start deporting everyone who doesn’t speak the language or know the customs here very well, we’d be deporting a dozen million of recent immigrants.
Which, I’m fairly certain, will make some people here pretty happy.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:28 pmJackOfClubs says:
I agree that the hate crime enhancement is a bad idea. The trouble is, it would seem unfair to drop it in this case if it would have been pressed if the situation were reveresed. This makes it very difficult to break the cycle. Those of us who believe that hate crime legislation is improper need to stand up and be willing to potentially bear the brunt of a minor injustice in the service of a greater good. This would be a great opportunity for the person with the crucifix to turn the other cheek and refuse to press for hate crime enhancements. (Query: do victims even have control over this or would pressing any charge at all allow the prosecutor to seek hate crime enhnancements?)
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:31 pmA. Zarkov says:
It’s not a matter of just not speaking the language– he engaged in violence. I use that mall myself. What is the problem with deporting millions of recent immigrants?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:31 pmloki13 says:
Wow.... not just the War Against Christmas(tm), it’s the War Against Religion. And hate crime legislation (nice scare quotes!), which encompasses many things other than religion (like, oh, race!) is really just a back door attempt to get at the Christians... um.... religious people. Because this is just like the Reconstruction-era South.
And speaking up in blog forums about the pernicious influence is just like facing down Bull Connor.
Go figure. There’s all sorts of reasons to question the policy rationale behind hate crime enhancements from a First Amendment perspective (although I agree with the good Professor that they are Constitutional). But the paranoid histrionics it elicits is beyond bizarre.
Because being a (white) Christian in America today is exactly like being a black person in the south before the Civil Rights movement. Cue up the holocaust comparisons soon.... First they came for my holidays, and I said nothing...
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:32 pmDavid McCourt says:
The news story says: “His family also said that he’s only been in the country a few months and is still learning the language and the laws.”
In that case he must be relieved to learn that he will not be facing amputation of his hand.
The saddest thing about this story is that here we have a grown man, just arrived in this country — who has barely taken of his coat and hat, so to speak — and he has so little respect for the customs and practices of his hosts that we find him publicly screaming denunciations of their religion while assaulting one of them. Try that the next time you find yourself in Mr. Hamid’s homeland. Baseballhead says it’s all of matter of Mr. Hamid not knowing the customs here all that well. Rubbish. Any fool knows you don’t go to another country and do what he did.
The story says he did not cooperate in his arrest, and had to be physically restrained. Why would we wish to have this visitor to our shores — no skills, no sense, and definitely no charm — remain here? It’s not like we have some shortage of people here to man the kiosks. We should do what one does if a guest starts breaking up the crockery — politely but firmly show him the door.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:44 pmDisintelligentsia says:
Victims do not have control over whether charges are brought or not. When a person commits a crime, the public at large is deemed to be a victim because the perp violated societal rules. The prosecutor then does not represent the victim, but the public. Hence the title on criminal cases — The People of the State of California v. John Doe.
However, that’s not to say that the prosecutor has to turn a deaf ear to the victim — that’s called prosecutorial discretion. Whether a prosecutor is overzealous in stacking charges and looks out for their career depends largely on the directions he or she gets from the top. Our district attorney’s office in Riverside, CA takes stacking of charges to the extreme. They rarely exercise discretion but tend to ramp up as many charges as they can and see what sticks. It’s rather disgusting.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:54 pmJames Fulford says:
Eugene, you write “I had earlier covered a similar case involving a different pair of religions.“Isn’t the earlier case you linked to to the same “pair of religions,” Christian vs. Muslim, but with a different religion as the aggressor? [Whoops, fixed, thanks! –EV]
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:16 pmfwb says:
Can you provide justification of the constitutionality of “hate crimes” legislation with respect to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?
How does separating out groups fall within the narrow confines of equal protection to all persons?
At the federal level, the people’s contract with each other, otherwise known as the Constitution, means that all legitimate government actions must affect each and every member of society equally. Any action that is unequal is not legitimate.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:24 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
As an Athiest Activist, I wonder had the religions of those involved been reversed, if anyone would have been arrested, much less charged.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:48 pmStasik says:
Why?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:02 pmloki13 says:
This shows a complete misunderstanding of the EPC. All government action, in some way, discriminates. Think about getting a driver’s license.
There are issues with invidious discrimination, or with the government singling groups out, but that’s a seperate issue. But groups aren’t being singled out by this legislation; the question isn’t the identity of the person, but the motive behind the attack. For example, someone who hates black people and whose primary motivation behind is killing is anti-black animus would be subject to the enhancement, even if the perp was black (cue up Dave Chapelle skit). In fact, in that instance you could argue that your precious 14th Am. empowers the Congress to pass this legislation.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:07 pmA. Zarkov says:
I going over to the Pleasanton mall right now and ask people what happened.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:18 pmEvilDave says:
In England mass immigration was used as a tool to gain/maintain political power.
Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed.
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
And, of course, remember if you disagree with such migration then “you are a racist!!!”
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:25 pmRandom Nuclear Strikes » They’re Coming Out of the Woodwork, Now says:
[...] The Stoneridge Mall where this took place is just a few miles away from my house. Abdul Walid Hamid pled not guilty Thursday morning to charges of battery, grand theft, exhibition of... [...]
PeteP says:
Clearly impossible. Everyone knows Islam is the Religion of Peace, and no muslim ever did anything wrong.
The koran says so.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:39 pmMatt says:
Don’t worry guys, I’m sure it was just PTSD. No Islamist motive at all.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:45 pmSandy MacHoots says:
I don’t know enough about criminal law to put the California statutes together, but this site says that theft of something taken from the person is a felony. It’s still ludicrous.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:49 pmMalvolio says:
Does this sarcasm actually accomplish anything? Does anyone who was feel put upon, or who is just sympathetic with someone else who did, feel less so because he was mocked on the Internet?
I’m very skeptical. I’m even skeptical that people who do this kind of mocking believe they are helping in any way; I think that they know that they’re just being mean.
To address the underlying substance: yes, it is certainly possible to exaggerate the degree to which “reverse discrimination” affects non-minorities. I’ll go further: it does get exaggerated, often (although not to a degree that justifies Loki’s hyperbole).
The contrary position, however, is much worse: the idea that a non-minority person should just sit still for an injustice because some other person at some other place and time also suffered is nonsense. It’s worst than nonsense: it’s a deliberate inversion of logic.
Discrimination against whites (for example) is made morally worse, not better, by the history of slavery. It discards the only good that came of slavery: the object lesson it presented the evils of racism; and it retroactively justifies one of the main arguments of the anti-abolitionists, that if the White Race wasn’t on top, the Black Race necessarily would be. A similar argument could be sketched against any of the popular reverse-bigotries.
Am I breaking a butterfly on wheel here? Could I just say, “Bigotry is bad, m’kay”? Jeez, I hope so.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:07 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Anyone who says being a white christian in the US is like being a black in the south is BOTH a PROGRAMMED RELIGOOUS ROBOT and is far TOO STUPID to waste in time in educating!
As a FORMER Christian I say:
It seems to me, had the Bigot Christian kept his stupid mouth shut about the Moslems religion, there would have been NO problem in the first place.
I get so pissed at HYPOCRITICAL Christians who keep yelling about the Moslem religion when the Christian religion IS one of the MOST BLOODY religions in the history of the world! Both history and current events PROVE many Christians are murdering scum!
IF these Christians would actually read the Bible, they’d find their (incompetent)
little god not only KILLS many Hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS of INNOCENT people, this cretin also orders it’s followers to KILL and KILL and KILL some more.
These Christians who bitch about the Moslems should do a google search for
Christian Hate Groups
and
Christian Terrorists
And they should read the information in the EVIL BIBLE website.
http://www.evilbible.com/
——————-
I was arguing with a very Christian man about allowing the burning of a mere symbol of freedom (our Flag) which should be legal as the actual practice of freedom (burning the flag) is much more important than the existence of one of millions of mere symbols is,
As he thought burning the flag should be illegal, I told him he was being illogical.
So he said the following to me.
“If someone
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:34 pmMalvolio says:
You mean, besides the abstract moral injustice? Well, the enormous, probably fatal, blow to the economy could also be a black mark against the proposal.
I’m guessing that “Zarkov” is an Iroquois Indian name, but the rest of us will just have to hope that “recent” is narrowly construed.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:35 pmDavid McCourt says:
Can we deport people like Neil C. Reinhardt, who think that resorting to all caps somehow makes their argument irrestible? And who keep referring to nuanced sources like some website called “EVIL BIBLE” (no doubt it’s all in the caps). And who keep reposting the same incomprehensible fragment of a quote, over and over and over. . . .
No? Pity.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:46 pmFub says:
I think Zarkov emigrated to Mongo a few years before WWII.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:54 pmloki13 says:
Well, yes! Of course. I wouldn’t disagree with that. M’kay?
But that wasn’t what I was referring to. I was referring to the Machinery of Outrage(tm) that somehow seems to find an equivalence between slavery and being a Christian. Or that believes being a white male is, doggone, the hardest thing in America because the PC police are discriminatin’ left(ist) and right against ‘em!
So yes, on an individual level (or, heck, when it occurs, on a systemic level) all invidious disciminiation is bad. But these pathetic attempts at equivalency deserve nothing more than scorn and mockery.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:23 pmTCO says:
Assualt (gesture with the pen), battery (the touching or at least the pressure on the neck from breaking the chain), theft, disorderly conduct.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:24 pmSandy MacHoots says:
I’d like to see a cite to someone who’s actually said “the hardest thing in America” is to be a white male. Or that being a modern American Christian is “equivalent to” being a slave in the antebellum South. I’ve never understood the attraction of setting up straw men to knock them down, but it sure seems to be popular.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:10 pmA. Zarkov says:
Hamid is a guest in the United States, and through his actions he has worn out his welcome– what kind of abstract moral injustice is involved here? Do you think his employer will have trouble replacing him in a state with 17% unemployment?
As for a “fatal blow” to the US economy, your will have to back that up with some kind of evidence. The virtually shut off immigration from 1925–1965 and we seemed to have survived that ok. The economy was alive and well in 1965.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:55 pmA. Zarkov says:
Mongo and Earth do have similarities. Both suffer from a narcissistic ruler who each yearn to be emperor of the universe.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:56 pmegd says:
Did you read the other link in the OP. It seems directly on point.
That’s the problem with Atheist activists, too often it’s about demonizing Christians than actually being an activist for Atheism.
Maybe you should rail against the actual aggressor in this case, rather than turning it into an argument against Christianity.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:08 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
[Comment deleted for gratuitous name-calling. Folks, feel free to post about substantive matters, though the ALL CAPS isn’t the best way to win friends and influence people. Feel free to disagree with people. But calling fellow commenters “TOO STUPID” or “PUNKS” or “RETARDS” and saying “So go shove a sharp pointed cactus up you naked butt and rotate on it until it protrudes from your BIGOTED mouths!” goes rather beyond the line that I’ve tried to draw on our site. –EV]
Quote
November 14, 2009, 12:01 amAlan K. Henderson says:
Is hate crime worse than non-hate crime? I have my doubts. It’s just as evil to kill a guy for his wallet as it is to kill him for belonging to a different class (race, religion, economic status).
The perceived need for hate crime classification is already met indirectly: taking extenuating circumstances into account. I suspect that often the issue of hate can be ignored. What made the James Byrd murder so horrifying is that those guys killed him for fun.
The Byrd murder, attacks such as that on Reginald Denny, and certain acts of vandalism fall under a certain category of crimes that meet two criteria. First, the victim (or victim’s property) is attacked by someone he/she is not even paying attention to, much less provoking. Second, the attacker stands to gain nothing other than pure satisfaction — no wallet or job promotion or girlfriend. I suspect that a lot of “hate crimes” fit this bill. The issue of hate can be ignored entirely, instead focusing on the unprovoked nature of the crime and the lack of tangible gain for the attacker beyond scoring some jollies.
I never ever ever want to see the word “hate” addressed in any law. A lot of the yahoos who can’t tell hate from mere criticism happen to be elected.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 12:20 amNeil C. Reinhardt says:
EDG
The cause in this case WAS the Christian who could not keep his stupid mouth closed.
To prove my point, see how Christians
here have reacted to my telling them the TRUTH about the Bible.
HAD he not said anything negative about the other guys religon, it would not have happened.
You Christians should be asking yourselves why MILLIONS & MILLIONS of FORMER American Christians are NOW American Atheists.
Since I doubt you know, I’ll tell you.
It is called
INCREASED KNOWLDGE!
Last Children, I’ve probably forgotten more about the Christian religion than you will ever learn! And IF I have not, both Dan Barker and John Loftus
most certainly have!
Quote
November 14, 2009, 12:21 amNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Dan Barker.
Is now Co-president, Freedom From Religion Foundation. Minister Turned Atheist. Dan became a teenage evangelist at age 15. ...
http://www.ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php
John Joseph Loftus (February 12, 1950, Boston, Mass.) is an American author, former US government prosecutor & former Army intelligence officer.- Author — Radio talk show host — Social critic
Debunking Christianity: My Conversion & Deconversion Story
By John W. Loftus at 2/19/2006. In my book
Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains
http://www.john-loftus.com/
Quote
November 14, 2009, 1:25 amBaseballhead says:
He’s a guest? If you stipulate that he entered the country illegally, then he’s not a guest, but a resident. If he broke a law, then he ought to be subject to the same penalties any resident of the U.S.A. would be subject to, and nothing more, your xenophobia notwithstanding.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 2:48 amRicardo says:
I’m not an attorney, let alone an immigration attorney, but it’s not clear that any of these offenses would qualify this guy for deportation. One needs to commit either an aggravated felony or a crime of “moral turpitude” to be deported. According to this he probably would not qualify. Maybe a hate crime conviction would be enough to deport, though.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 4:24 amKyDave says:
You made me laugh my milk out of my nose!!!
Quote
November 14, 2009, 5:35 amKyDave says:
So... If I kill somebody — but it’s not because of some group animus — is it a ‘love crime’?
Quote
November 14, 2009, 5:42 amKyDave says:
I like the big strawmen... they make a bigger fire when someone intellegently responds to destroy them. Somebody like... you!
Quote
November 14, 2009, 5:51 amblue carbuncle says:
The guy should have had the shit beat outta him, not for being a muslim, for being an asshole. I cannot stand freaking religious nuts: you do what works for you and I’ll do what works for me. If this were the 1800s and I yelled “Ireland forever” in the midst of a bunch of Irish need not apply signs they would have beat me without mercy just for being Irish. I’m sure everyone just stood around ashamed of their white guilt that a bunch of PC thugs have been shoving on them for the past two decades. Just get the guy some pills and then explain why he needs to get a permit for these things lol.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 6:47 amTina Trent says:
OhwillieK:
“Even if one can imagine a non-frivilous basis for bringing charges so severe in such a trivial incident, it is hard to believe that this is a routine approach.”
Not true. Take a close look at the Federal Hate Crimes Reporting Act and at their annual reports. They report cases as “incidents,” not crimes, and the vast majority of these are intimidation or simple assault — in other words, the highly vaunted hate crime statistics are not even necessarily events that will ever be tested for accuracy.
They are a list of police reports, unconfirmed but forever recorded as proof of our nation’s corrosive hatreds.
And when you take an even closer look, you will find that the reports cluster heavily in certain jurisdictions, particularly the minor events that make up the bulk of the incidents. You won’t find these incidents in the newspaper — or the courtroom. Activist pressure on police, the presence of organizations soliciting incident reports from the community, and activism within certain police forces all seem to create an environment in which numerous minor “hate crime incidents” get formalized in police reports and make their way into the federal numbers.
The more serious charges, once made, also remain on the record as hate crimes even when further investigation suggests fraud or the capture of a suspect eliminates the hate crime element. For example, in Sarasota, there was an alleged anti-Islamic arson. While I don’t have the most recent information about the investigation, it sounded like a suspicious claim at the time, and I have no doubt that the media would have continued to headline the crime, instead of lapsing into silence, if the hate crime charge had been actually confirmed by the investigation. Nonetheless, it remains on the books as a serious incident of hate crime in Florida — and also one of the few serious incidents of “backlash” the attorney general is so fond of summoning these days.
The hate crimes movement has three intertwined purposes: to create a body of statistics that paints a particular ideological picture of America; to offset the realities of street crime with a body of “highly significant” crimes perpetrated largely by white males, and to legitimate the budget and relevance of the hate crimes industry, including its education and training branches, which saturate the schools.
Actually deterring offenders (let alone punishing them) is not particularly high on the list — why should it be?
Quote
November 14, 2009, 7:35 amPorkchop says:
David McCourt:
It seems Mr. Reinhardt has quite a reputation for those sorts of postings:
Don’t feed the troll.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 7:37 amA. Zarkov says:
If he entered the country illegally or overstayed his visa, then he should be deported on that alone. If he’s a legal resident then he’s a guest until he becomes a citizen. If he’s broken laws as guest then he should be deported as undesirable. Why would the US be obligated to allow him to remain? If we adopt a policy of deporting aliens who commit criminal acts, it sends a message we won’t tolerate alien criminal behavior. I don’t understand your opposition to deporting undesirables. What’s the point of keeping such people?
Quote
November 14, 2009, 8:10 amObbop says:
“He stuck it in his eye......man”
Quote
November 14, 2009, 9:01 amASlyJD says:
Porkchop,
Thanks for the PSA!
Quote
November 14, 2009, 10:24 amJoeOvercoat says:
What absurdity: a scuffle in the mall over religion leads to multiple felony counts. To anyone trying to justify such serious charges, I suggest a long periond of introspection...i.e. you need to check yourself for a hidden agenda, because you most certainly have one.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 10:38 amSenatorX says:
Wow Porkchop that’s quite a site about Neil. I think he just raised troll bar for me.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 10:49 amKermit says:
It occurs to me... the Arab culture and perhaps other Near Eastern Cultures have a much closer personal space than Western European-derived cultures. As a middle class, middle age, US white guy I am not comfortable standing 12″ from a stranger in an ab open area. People from some cultures are. Perhaps the civilized response to an insult where he comes from is getting close and putting his hand on the stranger’s shoulder. (Does anyone know?)If so, the response from a hostile US stranger wold probably be to shove him back, and now we have charges of assault... I’d sure like to see a video.
Upthread someone commented that he isn’t being very polite in his home country. Perhaps not, but was he being polite in his mind? And was he holding the pen out of the way, or threatening with it? Even if you saw it, you could easily mistake one for the other.
If I struggled briefly with somebody, I can imagine a button popping off a shirt. Does that mean it was stolen? Videos are so much better than eye witnesses, I think.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 11:22 amChris_t says:
I should add I think there’s PC for such a charge; I doubt he’ll be convicted of it, for the reasons suggested in this thread.
I’d offer a couple of misdemeanors and call it good.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 11:42 amJoe T. Guest says:
The real question is how long it too CAIR to file a civil rights claim on his behalf. I would set the over-under at three days.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 11:58 amDavid McCourt says:
Baseball head says: “If he broke a law, then he ought to be subject to the same penalties any resident of the U.S.A. would be subject to, and nothing more....”
Thankfully, that is not the law, here, or in any other sane country.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 2:22 pmRyan Waxx says:
Somehow, I don’t think you are going to be personally bearing the brunt of this incident for the greater good. So apparently you mean that you want others to be bearing the brunting etc.
The problem here is that unless a large amount of people agree that a law is bad, it’s probably not going away anytime soon. So yes, let the law be applied equally to all people, that its idiocy becomes apparent... and let the official permanent-victim groups that pushed this abomination be the first to feel its effects, because otherwise they’ll just prevent it from being repealed.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 2:33 pmRyan Waxx says:
You have some self-education to do. Read the other comments, one of which debunks your statement.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 2:36 pmMartha says:
Porkchop: I was very interested in that site. It looked like potentially a useful place for researching trolls. The NCR info seemed pretty thorough on quick skim. Unfortunately, the site also pushes faulty info about thimerosal. Guess you can’t have reliable everything.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 5:43 pmbullsballs says:
WOW! So many comments from such a lack of facts! And a lot of bigotry, too!
Hamid touched the customer, that alone is battery.
He broke a necklace. Robbery? Felony theft? It is repairable, or replaceable.
That sounds like adding charges and seeing what may stick.
Hamid claimed the customer said something derogatory, hard to back up without very good witnesses not related to ether participant.
I doubt the customer said “Merry Christmas”, more like terrorist, or camel jockey or any other racial slur common today. But again, hard to prove without good witnesses stepping forward and reporting the facts, but it is just a terrorist, camel jockey, sand ***** being charged, right?
Lt.Mike Elerick said it was NOT provoked and NOT threatening??? There seems to be something HE may know that isn’t in the article? Or didn’t he understand the report from Hamid’s side of the story?
As to the raised hand with a pen, did Hamid need to write up a tab, or any other paperwork as part of his job? Did he just happen to raise his hand with the pen, in indignation and emphasis? Were his words in defense of his religion?
I hope Hamid gets a good defense attorney!
As to a pen being a deadly weapon, yes, it can be. As can anything causing a death from use as a weapon. Your own fingers, hands, fists, elbows, knees, feet, head, whatever, can injure and kill another person, so yes, they are weapons too.
Allāhu Akbar, الله أكبر, and God be with you all.
I was born in this country, I have lived here 52 years so far. I have been called many nasty things. I have even been called a Mexican by a Phoenix, AZ cop. I am 1/4 Dutch, 1/4 German, some English, French and Native American too, Caucasian is the term most would use to say my race, but it gets confusing to some I guess. But I have learned not to let ignorant people goad me into reacting to their ignorance, something a recent immigrant like Hamid might not have learned to do yet! But, seeing Hamid may be a Muslim, Islamic, person, and HE is directly responsible for the World Trade Center, it is OK to razz him about it... Makes me proud to be a Christian at times! Brings a tear to the eye, too! **sniff**
Quote
November 14, 2009, 6:42 pmMalvolio says:
Yeah, I think we’d be better off without that guy personally. Your original post seemed to support deporting “a dozen million of recent immigrants”.
Are you kidding me? That period contains the worst economic contraction in human history. The immigration restrictions didn’t cause the contraction, but there’s no particular reason to believe they helped.
I’ve been working in high-tech in Northern California for 15 years — I’ve never worked for a single company that could have survived without (highly paid, highly trained) immigrants — companies like Intel (CEO from Hungary), PayPal (CEO from Israel, CTO from the Ukraine), eBay (founder born in France of Iranian immigrants). What kind of shape the US, not to say the whole world, be without those kinds of immigrants, I shudder to think.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 6:45 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Well Porkchop ‘et al’
Great Minds Discuss Ideas
Average Minds Discuss Events
SMALL minds (like yours) Discuss People
It seems you used your massive brain power to take my full name and do a goggle search. I’ll guess it took all of your intellectual abilities to complete such a massive undertaking & really challenged your intellectual abilities to do so.
You see, the difference be between most of you and I, is I HAVE the Honesty, Intestinal Fortitude and the Integrity to use my real full name. This while the rest of you cowards hide behind your computers and make comments about others.
In about 1964 I was given a nickname by one of my co-workers at the electronics division of NCR. It was “Nasty Neil”
When I asked John Shenski why he chose such a nick name for me, he replied it was because I WAS ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH and as most really do NOT like reading, or hearing truth, he thought it was an appropreate nick name for me.
Among those who know me well, I have a many year reputation for being one of the most honest and truthful people they have EVER met!
Yes, I have an real anger management problem which is vastly intensified when I am responding to fools like those in this thread who bitch at me because I post the truth about what THEIR Bible says about THEIR “god”.
Their make-believe god is only one god out of over 25,000 named gods. None of which have any real proof of existence!
And the ONLY reason MOST “believe” is because they were PROGRAMMED by their parents to do so. IF religious people had a clue, they would realize the ONLY reason they are the religion they are is because of who raised them.
And yes, there is a website about me which contains things I have ACTUALLY said as well as many things taken totally out of context, which are misrepresented. This website both misinforms and LIES about me.
It says I’ve done things I never did & tells lies about my drinking alcohol. It makes it sound like I was recently drinking on the beach when my last drink with any alcohol in it was August 20, 1983.
As the PUNK who said I was drinking on the beach was NOT was even born for many years until after I HAD QUIT drinking, this certainly makes him a LIAR!!
While I do not know what caused him to lie, I will guess it was probably due to my saying anyone who did not know the Iraq War is fully justified is EITHER too lazy to get the facts OR are just TOO STUPID to be able to comprehend what the facts mean or BOTH!) This statement of FACT tends to piss off Obots, the anti-war loons & the Clueless Clods of the Loony Left.
And children, I had not had an alcoholic drink for about a seven months BEFORE Professor EUGENE VOLOKH and I started working together at Ordain in 1984.
Even though the piss ant who started the website on me now denies it, he did so as after he read one of my posts on the Iraq War. He emailed me and had the gall to tell me I could NOT be an “Atheist” & Support the Iraq War. So I informed him his comments to me were totally STUPID. And the ONLY thing ALL Atheists have in common is their lack of belief in one, or more gods.
I can only guess he did not like being told the truth and so he started the website.
Are any of you so STUPID you think I would use my full name if I really cared what IDIOTS and LIARS say about me?
As those who disgree with me can NOT BEST ME using Knowledge, Facts and/or Logic, they attack me. Thus proving what Little Minded Retards they are!
I tell the truth and I present facts. IF some pin heads do not like it, TOUGH!
Neil C. Reinhardt
Quote
November 14, 2009, 7:05 pmjcm says:
Im apologize for been out of the subject but this is also first amendment issue
Quote
November 14, 2009, 7:18 pmreadery says:
In this case the arrestee is a Moslim, not a Christian. And the incident suggests what I think could a real problem: the use of hate crimes legislation to target members of minorities. Think George Orwell.
One could certainly imagine the police in the South vigorously enforcing such legislation by arresting the black people (and only the black people) if some civil rights event resulted in an altercation. The altercation was racially motivated, was it not? Ergo, it’s a felony hate crime. What the arrestee did here was no civil rights march — I’m not defending his conduct or saying it was legal or proper — but nonethless the police and prosecutor response seems an overreaction.
This issue here is not hate crimes legislation enforced in a way that’s limited to its core purpose. It’s legislation stretched and overlawyered, which can be dangerous no matter what kind of legislation it is. Unfortunately, it can be used by the police to harass minorities in a way that’s the direct opposite of its intended purpose.
Would the police and prosecutor have done the same thing here if the religions were reversed?
Quote
November 14, 2009, 8:50 pmBill Stewart in Silicon Valley says:
This appears to be rather the opposite — it’s more like a black foreigner visiting the antebellum south, and not knowing that when somebody insults him he’s supposed to say “yes, Massa”, not challenge the cad to a duel the way white folks might have. If there’s hate involved, it was started by the person he attacked. Doesn’t make his behaviour right, and I’ll leave it to the lawyers to decide whether it should be called battery or just disturbing the peace.
And yeah, there’s discrimination against Christians and occasionally white people in the US, but that’s not what was happening here.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 9:08 pmreadery says:
Yep, that’s pretty much the scenario I had in mind. And this case may possibly be that scenario, translating race into religion.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 10:59 pmDavid McCourt says:
EV,
Isn’t it about time to ban this Reinhardt person?
[Done. –EV]
Quote
November 15, 2009, 12:01 amTina Trent says:
Neil: Of course crime creates fear. People living in areas where street crime is prevalent live in fear, reasonable fear, all of the time. Women living alone live in fear, reasonable fear. But the hate crimes activists insist — and this is an ugliness, parading as a justice theme — that only the fears they choose to codify matter or exist.
Then they work hard to keep the most prevalent types of reasonable fear out of the hate crimes statutes, so their numbers don’t get overwhelmed and the message they wish to convey doesn’t get challenged.
Your “Henderson” example actually underscores the absurdity of these laws. Nobody is running around trying to kill everyone with the same last name. But thousands of sexual predators prey on women — women have to be especially careful doing everything from going jogging to walking to their cars after work — and the righteous activists of the hate crimes movement have used every trick in the book to keep women excluded as victims of hate, because counting them would overwhelm their statistics.
Of course, they’re absolutely right that counting women targeted for being female would “overwhelm” and “distract” prosecutors from the extremely rare and minor incidents they wish to highlight. So what? Isn’t the point “opposing hatred in all its manifestations”? If hate crime laws were what they purport to be, they would be unenforceable, and nobody would want to enforce them anyway.
The most deadly manifestation of violence in this country is minority-male on minority male, by a long shot. That’s where the most reasonable fear lies — for mothers wondering if their children will get home safely from school, for example. But these activists wish us to look elsewhere. It smacks of denial, among other things.
Another point I haven’t seen discussed: as Eric Holder plans to prosecute some of the 9/11 terrorists in federal court, will he charge them with hate crimes? That would certainly change the picture of hate in America — acknowledging that the most prevalent form of hatred that exists, by a power of, what — 600 — is hatred of Americans? It would alter the statistics — dwarf the statistics. Wouldn’t that necessitate changing what they teach kids in schools about bias crime?
This is the last thing Holder would allow. And that tells you everything you need to know about the real import of these laws.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 4:38 amA. Zarkov says:
Many immigrants went back to Europe during the Great Depression in the US. The period from 1945 to 1965 had tremendous economic expansion without massive immigration.
I doubt that, but it’s irrelevant to the question under discussion. The great bulk of the million legal immigrants are low-skilled, poorly educated migrants from the Third World. Cherry picking a few exceptions from Europe and Asia who work in Silicon Valley proves nothing about the bulk of the current immigrants as they are unrepresentative. The 500,000 illegal immigrants are an even bigger problem as they pay no income tax or engage in identity theft. They are a dead weight drag on the economy. While they provide a source of cheap labor, the cost of providing benefits exceeds their economic contribution. Currently we have 10.2% unemployment in the US and 17% in California. Does it make sense to have mass immigration when Americans are out of work?
Quote
November 15, 2009, 5:44 amA. Zarkov says:
Telling the truth is not the issue. Writing things like “GO SHOVE A SHARP POINTED CACTUS UP WHERE THE SUN DON’T SHINE!,” or “What Retards!” is. You are lowering the tone of the discourse here by coming across as a crank. Cranks make lots of true, excessively detailed, and self-righteous statements that don’t contribute to the discussion. That’s what you are doing and people don’t like it. Please be advised that I have no intention of getting into a flame war with you, so don’t expect any replies from me as I will ignore them unless you radically change your tone and act like an adult.
[Note: I’ve deleted some of the comments from Neil Reinhardt to which some of these comments are responding; sorry if this makes the responses harder to grasp. –EV]
Quote
November 15, 2009, 5:54 ambullsballs says:
Neil C. Reinhardt = TROLL... Truth!
That being said, wouldn’t most crimes be hate crimes?
A poor person hates a rich person for having more than the poor person can achieve.
The black person perceives inequality, as he is constantly told he is being discriminated against, and so he strikes out against whites.
An immigrant feels peoples disdain of his nationality, and tries to express his feelings, but gets arrested as people misinterpret his actions...
Hate fosters fear, and fear drives people to react unexpectedly. Then law enforcement and the judicial have to deal with the results, and the hysteria from uninvolved people reacting in fear to the situation.
What makes it worse, our society has fostered those fears through media, and the educational sector spreads it to the youth, and they react, sometimes violently to it all.
So, instead of stopping the hate and violence, it is perpetuated.
All of which leads to expanded police powers and incarceration of the perpetrators. And that adds up to higher taxes to support the governmental agencies that are created to deal with the fears.
Better to educate than try to eradicate, but there is more visibility in the prosecution than educating of the population...
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:16 amRichard Aubrey says:
Eric Holder is alleged to have defined hate crime as something done to a protected minority.
If this is true–and the speech and actions of others make it look as if they believe it–then this crime is not a hate crime in Holder’s view.
It also means that the white male is, in fact, a non-protected minority, by design.
Why a white male should be ridiculed for pointing this out is...completely tactically understandable from the viewpoint of the left.
There is always the possibility that, the machine being built (media knee-jerk to an accusation, automatic juror sympathy, prosecutorial inertia–the momentum kind–and a popular residual resentment), the levers of the machine may be grasped by those whom the promoters of hate crime legislation never dreamed would have the power.
They won’t have much standing to complain.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:30 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Alleged Religion-Based Attack in California -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Guias Local, PostRank – Law. PostRank – Law said: Alleged Religion-Based Attack in California http://bit.ly/3tnpGQ #postrank #law [...]
Neil C. Reinhardt says:
Karokv
1. IF you will read the entire thread, you will see it was AFTER I reported the TRUTH about many Christians was when the negative comments about me started. Like this McCourt, who must be a “Programmed Religious Robot Christian” wants to ‘Deport Me’.
Deport me for telling the truth?
After I have served my country for over
six years in the National Guard and/or the Active Army reserves as well as serving for over three years in the Regular Army mostly as a paratrooper in the 101st Airborne. to have some clown who I’ll bet never served a day in our military and who probably does everything he can to not even serve on juries, thinks he as the right to deport me, highly pisses me off.
2. Act like an adult? By whose rules?
Did some all powerful force I do not know about lay out some rules on how to adults act?
I do the things REAL adults do.
I am very truthful and very honest, I have, MANY times in the past, put my both physical well being and my life on the line for others. (In fact, I just, at age 74, did it again a few weeks ago.)
I have, either all by myself, or helping others, broken up many fights. I have stopped crimes in progress.
While living and/or being stationed in south during the late 1950’s & early 1960’s, I could have been badly injured and/or killed for my actions in support of Black Civil Rights.
I have worked on political campaigns and to get Pattie Hurst released from jail where she should have never been in the first damn place. I was a member of NOW and was mostly responsible for getting women promoted into management positions.
I have gladly served on juries and even volunteered to serve on others. I gave blood until cancer caused me to have to stop. I give what I can to charites and to individuals, I’ve led charity drives in a large company. I have always helped others and still go out of my way to do so. I’ve saved more than a few lives.
And some ding-a-ling who most probably does not even come close to matching me in my service to others wants to deport me?
The odds are very high, NOT ONE of my detractors have even come close to doing as much as I have to make the world a better place.
Hey McDUMB. HERE IS SOME MORE TRUTH FOR YOU!
Those who have more than a superficial knowledge of U.S. history know, the United States of America was:
A. NOT founded BY Christians,
B. Not only were the Majority of our Founding Fathers NOT Christians, neither were MOST of those living in the colonies
C. The U.S. was NOT founded on some “Christian Principals”
And the DECENT principals the Christians clam as theri own had been around and in use for thousands of years before the Christian religion was started. (By some camel jockeys running around the deserts of the Middle East over 2,000 years ago.)
Who says the above about the founding of the U.S. is true? Why it is a Christian Minister, Historian and Researcher!
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
In 1796, while George Washington was President. the United States Congress began the process of writing a treaty with Tripoli. Then in 1797, this treaty was unanimously ratified by Congress and signed into law by President John Adams. Among other things, this treaty stated:
“The United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.”
AND,
“The United States of America is no more a Christian state than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan state.”
I have not said a single thing about Christian, or any other religion which is NOT 100% true. (And I DEFY anyone to prove it was) Only most people do not like hearing the truth no matter the subject.
IF ALL Christians are supposedly so nice, why do they say things like these leaders of the Christian religion have”?
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm
http://www.weirdcrap.com/recreational/chrsquot.htm
IF ALL Christians are supposedly so informed, intelligent and logical, why are some so stupid as to say: (among many other things) Homosexuals are not born, Evolution is not a fact and the use of stem cells is wrong?
IF ALL Christians are supposedly so great, then why are MOST American Atheists SO AFRAID of what Christians will do to them, they will NOT make it public knowledge they are Atheists???
In fact, some Atheists are SO AFRAID how badly their OWN FAMILIES and FRIENDS will treat them IF they tell them the truth about what they really believe, they do not do so.
And FYI. Christians are:
A, As late as 2006, sill conducting WITCH TRIALS!
B. Beating and/or Killing Atheists ONLY because they are Atheists!
C. LEAVING the Christian religion in droves!
Poor Mouse Balls is so clueless he not know what a troll is, he must be too lazy to even look it up.
————-
Only the very ignorant & illogical say ALL crimes are Hate Crimes!
(Then, MOUSE BALLS has already most certainly proved his lack of knowledge and his ability to use logic.)
Saying ALL, or even most crimes are “Hate Crimes” IS TOTALLY STUPID!
A. Do bank robbers HATE the Bank and/or the bank employees?
B. Do those who commit massive fraud
HATE ALL those they are defrauding?
C. Do most who steal cars HATE the cars owners?
E. Do those who stick up mom and pop stores, or even 7–11’s hate the owners?
I could go on and on with such examples only it would be a waste of time with those who care less about Logic & Facts!
I was mugged by four black guys who only took my money. Had they HATED me, they would have really hurt me.
Those who say all, or most crimes are hate crimes only prove how out of touch they are.
Hey Mouse Balls, try something new for you, it is called THINKING!
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:47 pmStasik says:
It’s absurd to think a Muslim would ever do anything not involving rainbows and bunny rabbits.
Would you like a baby wipe for all that sand in your vagina?
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:26 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Malvolio,
Methinks you are in error.
A. Zarkov: SAID: “They virtually shut off immigration from 1925 to 1965 and we seemed to have survived that ok. The economy was alive and well in
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:50 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
So McCourt,
Got any VALID reasons WHY it is not YOU who should be deported for your advocating the deportment of others and for your support of the UN-American, Anti-Freedom concept of censorship?
Here is some more factual TRUTH on the Christian religion.
THE CRUSADES where the first people the killed were other Christians who happened to be living south of where most Christians were. Don’t check first, nope, just kill every man, women and child.
THE INQUISITION were MOST of those tortured & murdered were Women and Children.
WITCH TRIALS were MOST killed were women.
——–
And as I said before, Christians are still conducting Witch Trials as proven by the 2006 case in Oklahoma were an Atheist family was on trial. A trial where the cops and other Christians, LIED & LIED some more!
FYI Many Atheist website’s have HATE mail from Christians. And their hate mail makes anything I have said Pale by comparison. Of course, nearly all of these Christians are Cowards as they do not include their names.
———-
Then there was war after war where some Christians (Both Catholics and Non-Catholics) were torturing & killing each other. Fairly recently in Ireland, some Christians conducted TERRORIST attacks on other Christians
Why did the Christian Serbs (Greek Orthodox) love KILLING the Catholics in Croatia and Bosnia? It was because during WWII, the Catholic put in charge of the Nazi controlled areas by another Catholic (Hitler) decreed all of the Greek Orthodox HAD TO convert to Catholicism OR DIE!
Hundreds of thousands REFUSED to convert & they were Killed. So the Serbs were just doing some Pay Back!
Of course, the Serbs were also dong some pay back on Moslems as some Moslems fought FOR the Nazi’s during WWII.
(And there are now Nazi Moslems who are still causing freedom loving people problems.)
Do I support ALL, or even most, Moslems?
NO, they are much, much scarier than are MOST present day Christians!
It IS, as their published plans prove, their full intent to TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE PLANET & establish a World Wide Caliphate. IF they accomplish this, we will be living under a Taliban form of rule and be governed by Sharia Law!
And FYI, they are in year twenty of their one hundred year plan and, THEY ARE ON SCHEDULE!
This one of the reasons many informed Atheists voted FOR McCain and Palin!
As many UN-informed Christians seem to think their religion is one of peace. I’ve included the following about what is IN the BIBLE for their edification.
———–
Kill Followers of Other Religions.
Deuteronomy 13:7–12
————-
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:25 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:34 pmKyDave says:
Whose speech? Hamid’s for yelling, ok — mebe I’ll buy that. But then, “they said Hamid was provoked when the customer with the necklace reportedly called him a derogatory name.” Soooo... doesn’t free speech also extend to the customer that Hamid assaulted?
IF Hamid’s free speech is the issue, his speech ended when “Hamid put his hand on the customer’s shoulder”.
A wise man once explained to me that, “Your rights end where mine begin.” And therin lies the wisdom to resolve most, if not all, conflicts, IMHO.
The customer has the right to name-call whomever he wishes. Hamid has the right to be offended.... and walk away.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 1:14 pm