Burning Churches Is Never Cool

Sarah Palin’s church burns ‘suspiciously’
Palin was the first to connect her political opponents to the burning of her church, because as we all know, liberals are always burning churches in their crazed fury. However, if the case is that someone who hates Palin set that fire they should be prosecuted to the the fullest extent of the law and roundly condemned by everyone. Burning African-American churches is a particularly shameful tradition handed down by white racists for generations that persists to this very day. The idea of Sarah Palin being able to co-opt this for her political narrative is simply disgusting, and should it turn out that there was a left wing terrorist at the bottom of this, they did her more good than they could ever imagined.  

Beating someone to death is a ‘hate crime’
No, really, it is. How is being beaten to death by strangers made ‘worse’ by the assailants calling the victim names? If they had remained utterly silent while beating him to death would it not have been murder? There is something terribly Orwellian about the idea of prosecuting someone for their thoughts rather than their actions. Is beating someone to death because they’re gay (or hispanic, or whatever) worse than beating someone to death for any other reason?

Jesse Jackson wants his name back for some reason. Apparently he wants his kids to be able to Google his name in five years and not find anything to be ashamed of. Then why did he become a politician?

An account of Gargunza’s ineffable bastardy.

3 Responses to “Burning Churches Is Never Cool”

  1. We have always prosecuted people for their thoughts. The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent. The legal concept is called mens rea or “guilty mind” So, it makes legal sense that murder and a hate crime might be different. Is killing someone simply because they are gay worse than killing someone for any other reason? Yes. While it makes little difference to the deceased, it makes a difference to society.

  2. Predictably, you made the most cogent and coherent argument I’ve ever heard in support of this issue. I just have reservations about the idea of Thoughtcrime. I remain unconvinced but you have given me food for thought.
    Gotta run.

  3. Coherent and cogent? Nah, I just have a bad habit of paying attention in class and being able to pull stuff out of something that rhymes with it. I learned about Mens rea in law school. I too have reservations about “thoughtcrime” but in cases of hate crime, we are not prosecuting people for their thoughts. You can think I’m a lefty-commie-pinko etc. all you want and not go to jail for it. But, when you beat me for being one, you should be prosecuted more harshly than you would for simply beating me because I insulted you. Another legal concept is the idea of aggravating factors and mediating factors. Aggravating factors argue for harsher punishment i.e death penalty or life in prison, Mediating factors argue for more lenient punishment. Hate-crime is simply an inelegant way of naming an aggravating factor. It is critical to our society to very harshly punish people for ‘hate-crime’ Convinced yet?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: