A Petaluma Catholic Church, St. Vincent de Paul, has been vandalized for three consecutive days.

On the news the words "hate crimes" were never applied.

Does anyone doubt that if a mosque or synagogue were attacked on three consecutive days the media wouldn't at least be saying that "hate crime" angle is being investigated?

Come on shelly.

I realized that someone would probably require a link so:

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_165100226.html

(AP) PETALUMA Police are investigating the breaking of some stained glass windows and an arson attempt at the landmark St. Vincent de Paul Church.

Someone punched holes in three windows and threw what appeared to be a Molotov cocktail through a fourth window in the church library Sunday night, said Father Gary Lombardi, St. Vincent's pastor.

Church personnel looking around the library found an unbroken bottle with a wick and containing alcohol inside the library the next morning.

On Monday night, another stained glass window had a hole punched through it, partly destroying an image of Jesus Christ.

The culprit is probably a member.

Does anyone doubt that if a mosque or synagogue were attacked on three consecutive days the media wouldn't at least be saying that "hate crime" angle is being investigated?I agree 100%. Unfortunately, Christians, whites, and males are less protected in the eyes of the law. That's all there is to it. Those percieved to be the majority or in positions of power do not get the same special treatment as those percieved to be in the minority or in the lower rungs of society.

My question is...after two days of attacks, why didn't the police stake the place out on the third day? I mean, if my house was broken into two days in a row, the third day I'd definitely catch the person if they came back again.

It's a hate crime

They don't even have a suspect yet, and there are no messages or implied messages. What, aside from your need to feel victimized, makes you think it's a hate crime? Maybe it's an altar boy who's ass still hurts or something.

If there's a message slamming Catholics or if they catch someone and he rants and raves about how much he hates whites and it was a white church, then you'll get your wish, but until then, you ought to stop trying so hard to find reasons to feel like a victim.

altar boy or not,it's a hate crime-it's directed at an institution,the only intent was destruction-I don't know if it fits the "legal defintion" but it's hate.

altar boy or not,it's a hate crime-it's directed at an institution,the only intent was destruction-I don't know if it fits the "legal defintion" but it's hate.

wiki:


The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797). In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act added disabilities to the above list.


This is against one congregation, not against a religon. If the perp starts targetting other Catholic churches, then it may qualify, but, for now, it looks like someone who's pissed at the congregation for something. That's not necessarily a hate crime. It may be revenge for an injustice or percieved injustice.

It may be revenge for an injustice or percieved injustice.

You think that bigots don't have those kinds of reasons for burning their crosses etc? All the racists here ever talk about is how "whitey has been done wrong" It's ALL revanchist bs.
This is against a group of individuals and they're obviously catholic qed..

This is against a group of individuals and they're obviously catholic qed..

But it's not necessairly because they're Catholic. It could be because they voted someone out of the congregation, or because they were expelled from school, or an infinite number of reasons other than because they are Catholic. There's not any evidence of that yet. If it were three different Catholic churches, I'd be far more prone to agree, but it's one specific congregation, not Catholics in general.

But it's not necessairly because they're Catholic. It could be because they voted someone out of the congregation, or because they were expelled from school, or an infinite number of reasons other than because they are Catholic. There's not any evidence of that yet. If it were three different Catholic churches, I'd be far more prone to agree, but it's one specific congregation, not Catholics in general.

I guess I see some sense in that.

They don't even have a suspect yet, and there are no messages or implied messages. What, aside from your need to feel victimized, makes you think it's a hate crime? Maybe it's an altar boy who's ass still hurts or something.

If there's a message slamming Catholics or if they catch someone and he rants and raves about how much he hates whites and it was a white church, then you'll get your wish, but until then, you ought to stop trying so hard to find reasons to feel like a victim.

No Eric, I am just saying that if this was a mosque or synagogue it would immediately be investigated as a "hate crime".

I think hate crimes are liberal double speak, but at least the leftards should be consistent?

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, Christians, whites, and males are less protected in the eyes of the law. That's all there is to it. Those percieved to be the majority or in positions of power do not get the same special treatment as those percieved to be in the minority or in the lower rungs of society.

If "special treatment" includes a higher rate of imprisonment I might agree.

Rich white christian males obey more laws than any minority group combined. :|

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, Christians, whites, and males are less protected in the eyes of the law. That's all there is to it. Those percieved to be the majority or in positions of power do not get the same special treatment as those percieved to be in the minority or in the lower rungs of society.

My question is...after two days of attacks, why didn't the police stake the place out on the third day? I mean, if my house was broken into two days in a row, the third day I'd definitely catch the person if they came back again.

The yids are usually law abiding too arent they? They are also fairly powerful but remain a 'persecuted minority' on account of the holocaust.

I guess I see some sense in that.

I think a lot of people misunderstand what a hate crime is, so they think there's something terribly unfair about it. It's not about "protected" people, it's about a crime intended to intimidate or terrorise a whole people.

Like, if I just really, really HATE you, and I throw a rock at you, that's not a hate crime. If I just really, really HATE white people, and I see you walking down the street, minding your own business, and I throw a rock at you while yelling, "GET OUTTA MAH HOOD U FUKIN PEKAWOOD CRACKA SONABITCH!" That would be a hate crime.

No Eric, I am just saying that if this was a mosque or synagogue it would immediately be investigated as a "hate crime".

I think hate crimes are liberal double speak, but at least the leftards should be consistent?

I searched for vandalism against synagogues, and couldn't find any in America that had been treated as hate crimes that weren't clearly hate crimes. I think you either don't understand what it means, or don't want to understand what it means, so you can feel persecuted. If someone spray paints "i luv cindy 4eva!" on a synegogue, that's not a hate crime. It's just vandalism. If the same person tags a Jewish cemetary like this, it's obviously a hate crime:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg

But you're trying to look at that sort of thing being treated as a hate crime, and someone spraypainting "bob + judy" on a WASP church not being treated as a hate crime, and pretend you're being unfairly discriminated against.

It's bullshit.

Edit:
I found this: (http://www.sweenytod.com/rno/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=777)

"About 300 people of different faiths turned out to clean up a synagogue vandalized with swastikas and Nazi symbols on the eve of the Jewish holiday Purim.

So many people showed up Sunday at BMH-BJ Congregation, where vandalism had been discovered the day before, that people had to stand in line for a turn with a brush and a can of paint thinner.

"This is a place for everyone," said Doug Mix, who is not a member of the congregation. "That is why everyone is here. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims and people who are not religious. We all came out here because America is still America, and we don't tolerate this."


That's a hate crime.

Those percieved to be the majority or in positions of power do not get the same special treatment as those percieved to be in the minority or in the lower rungs of society.

People in positions of power do not get special treatment. Hmmmmm!:rolleyes:

I really dislike the term "hate" crime. Nobody vandalizes buildings as an act of love.

I really dislike the term "hate" crime. Nobody vandalizes buildings as an act of love.

No, they usually do it out of boredom and a need for excitement, or to feel powerful for having destroyed something, or to show off to their buddies.

Using "hate crime" to refer to crimes committed out of hatred for an entire people may not be ideal, but it's effective.

I am just saying that if this was a mosque or synagogue it would immediately be investigated as a "hate crime".

Yes-why assume it wasn't?

Because it hasn't been.

What I am talking about primarily is HOW the MEDIA is treating it.

Because it hasn't been.

What I am talking about primarily is HOW the MEDIA is treating it.

I was backing you up-why assume it wasn't a hate crime?I agree they might have mentioned the possibility...

why assume it wasn't a hate crime


It may have been, but there's no evidence yet that it was. None at all.

'Hate crime' legislation is BS. (in addition to it being terribly biased in the way it's enforced)

But that's a topic for a separate thread.

'Hate crime' legislation is BS. (in addition to it being terribly biased in the way it's enforced)

But that's a topic for a separate thread.

You don't think something like lighting a bunch of burning crosses in black family's yards at night, or painting swastika's and Nazi slogans on synegogues all over town, is any different than petty vandalism? You don't think there's a clearly more insidious aspect to that sort of crime?

'Hate crime' legislation is BS. (in addition to it being terribly biased in the way it's enforced)

But that's a topic for a separate thread.

That is exactly what this thread is about.

You don't think something like lighting a bunch of burning crosses in black family's yards at night, or painting swastika's and Nazi slogans on synegogues all over town, is any different than petty vandalism? You don't think there's a clearly more insidious aspect to that sort of crime?

But you don't think desecrating the image of Christ on the Cross is even slightly offensive right?

Put him in a bottle of urine, and then make taxpayers subsidize that shit?

But you don't think desecrating the image of Christ on the Cross is even slightly offensive right?

Put him in a bottle of urine, and then make taxpayers subsidize that shit?

Who said anything about "offensive"? You don't have the right to not be offended.

What the hell does that have to do with hate crimes?

NO. People don't have the right to not be offended.

Put a Koran smeared with shit into the Met and see if it is described as a hate crime,

or merely insenstive?

NO. People don't have the right to not be offended.

Put a Koran smeared with shit into the Met and see if it is described as a hate crime,

or merely insenstive?

Has it been? Or are you making things up, then getting pissed off about the things you just made up?

Because it hasn't been.

What I am talking about primarily is HOW the MEDIA is treating it.

I agree with you. If the vandalism had been done on a synagogue, it would have been splashed all over the newspapers and evening news as a hate crime. After all, certain Jewish special interest groups need to fan the flames of racism and bigotry in order to keep all the $$ rolling into their coffers. Goes to show what can be accomplished when you own the media.

Fenian has a point here,an attack on an institution such as the Catholic church
or a gay rights establishment or planned parenthood or anything similar MIGHT be motivated ny the narrower concerns you enumerated but at least ought to be suspect...

Anything might be. Should we assume that Scooter Libby leaked classified information on Plame because he hates women?

Hate Crime: "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals"

Defendant(s) are a necessary part of the equation

This could be a garden variety delinquent or some other breed of whack job ... but I cant see how it could be defined as a hate-crime without a defendant

THE point is, java and boo,

is that had this happened anywhere else, it would have been described by the media, minimally, as a POSSIBLE hate crime.

That they didn't describe it thusly is indicative that "hate crime" is merely a political tool of the left to tear down traditional institutions and to increase the feelings of white guilt.

Look if they found the vanadlers. It is probally either 1. A member of the church. 2. A hardcore christians son/daughter doing it. Becuase that is what haspperns to people that are cooped up believing all that nonsense all the time!

Wow. Your command of the English language is very poor.

That they didn't describe it thusly is indicative that "hate crime" is merely a political tool of the left to tear down traditional institutions and to increase the feelings of white guilt.

No it wouldn't have been.

http://www.themilpitaspost.com/local/ci_3942075

Milpitas Police Department is classifying the crimes at Masjid Dar Al-Salaam at 90 Dempsey Road as vandalism and burglary


Can you show me some examples of people being prosecuted for hate crimes when there wasn't an obvious reason? For example, a synagogue (http://www.nj.com/news/bridgeton/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1150537223285400.xml&coll=10) vandalism was originally treated as a hate crime, because Nazi slogans and swastikas were spraypainted all over the place.

Is the problem that you really just don't understand what the basis of a hate crime is?



That they didn't describe it thusly is indicative that "hate crime" is merely a political tool of the left to tear down traditional institutions and to increase the feelings of white guilt.

Paranoia (http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/P0063200.html). A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution

Keep defending the hypothesis.

We are on to your ilk.

Keep defending the hypothesis.


In other words, you have no answer. Just insist that it would have been, because you can just feel it in your bones. No evidence. No case history. No rational explanation. Just a really, really, really strong feeling that you're being persecuted, though you can't say why.


We are on to your ilk.

Get off my ilk. It was just steam cleaned and I don't want your dirty shoes on it.

....'Hate crime' legislation is BS. (in addition to it being terribly biased in the way it's enforced)

But that's a topic for a separate thread.

X

In other words, you have no answer.

Answer to what? ONe of your stupid loaded questions?


Just insist that it would have been, because you can just feel it in your bones.

INtuition is sometimes good to follow.


No evidence.

What? What?

You want evidence?

Need I remind you that you are one of the people saying that "bush lied because I said he lied" ?.

No case history. No rational explanation.

Uhhhh no. That is how you defend your assertions that we were lied into the Iraqi War.

THE point is, java and boo,

is that had this happened anywhere else, it would have been described by the media, minimally, as a POSSIBLE hate crime.

That they didn't describe it thusly is indicative that "hate crime" is merely a political tool of the left to tear down traditional institutions and to increase the feelings of white guilt.

traditional institutions like THIS (http://www.kkk.bz/) ?

My Eyes! :eek3:

*scrubs eyeballs with lye*

Had this been a mosque it would have been called a hate crime by the media.

Had this been a mosque it would have been called a hate crime by the media.

I already showed you a case of a mosque being vandalized and it wasn't called a hate crime. You just ignored it, because you don't like that data, and keep insisting this, with no evdince to support this insane conclusion.

I already showed you a case of a mosque being vandalized and it wasn't called a hate crime. You just ignored it, because you don't like that data, and keep insisting this, with no evdince to support this insane conclusion.

That is not what you showed.

You just like to claim things that you want to believe have been proven and then say "how can you dispute the fact of my assinine assertions?"

That is not what you showed.

You just like to claim things that you want to believe have been proven and then say "how can you dispute the fact of my assinine assertions?"

That's exactly what I showed, and you're running away from it. Do you, or do you not, have any basis outside of paranoia for your belief that it would have been treated as a hate crime had it been against a mosque?

I showed a mosque that was vandalized and not treated as a hate crime. Now, can you show me one that was, when there isn't clear evidence that it was?

My guess is that you can't.

You can't just say something is fact and it IS indeed fact.

I think that this is symptomatic of the failure of the schools to do anything other than to inculcate people in leftist's doctrine.

Well, then show us some evidence of your "fact" that this would have been treated as a hate crime if had been against muslims or jews.

Or are you just blustering again?

I did.

It is in this post.

The media are "mystified" why anyone would do this.

Well, then show us some evidence of your "fact" that this would have been treated as a hate crime if had been against muslims or jews.


So are you admitting that you just claim something to be fact?

You might be making progress.



btw I didn't say that "if had been against muslim or jews".

I said had it been a synagogue or a mosque.

I did.

It is in this post.

The media are "mystified" why anyone would do this.

Well, I guess you've given up, then.


btw I didn't say that "if had been against muslim or jews".

I said had it been a synagogue or a mosque.

:rolleyes:

Nope. Had this been a mosque that was attacked for three straight nights in the city of Petaluma, in California, in the USA I will venture to say that it would be on CNN and it would be called America's krystalnacht.

Nope. Had this been a mosque that was attacked for three straight nights in the city of Petaluma, in California, in the USA I will venture to say that it would be on CNN and it would be called America's krystalnacht.

But you have no basis for saying that. Or at least you can't seem to show any.

Can you actually deny an anti Christian bias in the media? News organizations can't even be bothered to report on what's happening in the Church-there's a religious under current to a lot of the politics in this country-but their "objective reporting" precludes any mention of it.Even Dean's declaration to try to appeal to the "Bible belt" was almost without exception delivered with a smirk..

News organizations can't even be bothered to report on what's happening in the Church-there's a religious under current to a lot of the politics in this country-but their "objective reporting" precludes any mention of it

What do you mean? Do you mean on this policy or that policy of this denomination or that denomination? Would anyone want that? Do you get the same detailed theological information about what's going on in the neighborhood mosque or synagogue or temple?

What kind of information do you think is really relevant to the country that isn't being reported on?

Religion is as powerful a motivating factor as race in elections-the religious differences between the Shiites and Sunni's aren't ever discussed. The diiferences between the "PC" muslim who doesnt seek the death of the western civilization and his al Qaeda counterpart arent discussed-when a new pope is elected they just show the smoke-you dont think religion makes a difference,do you? Perhaps the media is to blame...

the religious differences between the Shiites and Sunni's aren't ever discussed.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/23/transcript.fri/index.html

Fact Check: Shiites and Sunnis

DE LA CRUZ: You just heard the terms "Shiites" and "Sunnis." We told you yesterday that these are two different Muslim religious sects, or groups. But what differences distinguish them from each other? Octavia Nasr has the answer in this "Fact Check."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCTAVIA NASR, CNN REPORTER: About one in every five people on the planet consider themselves Muslim; that's about 1.2 billion. But there are many divisions in the Muslim community--the largest being between Shiites and Sunnis. The majority of the world's Muslim population follows the Sunni branch--only about 15 percent follow the Shiite branch. But in some countries, the concentration of Shiites is larger. These nations are Bahrain, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Iran and Iraq. Shiites historically believe that religious authority has been handed down from the Prophet Muhammad through bloodlines. When you hear the terms "Imam" and "Ayatollah," these refer to Shiite religious leaders. Sunnis attach much less importance to their leaders, and much more importance on Muslim traditions. There can be extremists in both branches of Islam. But Sunni extremists, like Osama bin Laden, have focused predominantly on the corruption of the religion, and specifically the negative influence of western culture. In Iraq, both Shiite and Sunni insurgent groups have carried out attacks against coalition forces, but most Shiite groups have dropped violent opposition to pursue political activism. As the majority, Shiites have been successful in dominating the leadership of Iraq's new government. Needless to say, many Sunni insurgent groups have not been satisfied by the results of these democratic elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)


They're covering the news, not teaching world history. That's more than enough historical background. People should persue educational material on their own. If people weren't so lazy, they would know this stuff on theri own, and not expect it to jump out atthem from the TV.


The diiferences between the "PC" muslim who doesnt seek the death of the western civilization and his al Qaeda counterpart arent discussed


http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/18/mattson.cnna/

MATTSON: I think that not many Muslims, only a small number of Muslims throughout the world would support Osama bin Laden's tactics. A larger number share the grievances that he has voiced, but they would share those grievances if they were voiced by any person. One of the reasons why some poor and marginalized people in the Muslim world have turned to Osama bin Laden as a spokesperson for their grievances, is because they feel that no one else, including their own leaders, has spoken for them.

[ . . . ]

MATTSON: Islam allows force to be used by legitimate authorities, to protect people, and to protect Muslim states, just as all nation states in the world permit themselves to use force to protect their security and interests. Again, the problem of individual Muslims taking up arms, becoming vigilantes, in a way, is related to their frustration with the lack of leadership on the part of their own government.

[ . . . ]

CHAT PARTICIPANT: What can you tell us about the Wahhabi sect of Islam? Is it true that this is an extremely right wing sect founded and funded by the Saudi royal family, and led by Osama bin Ladin? What is the purpose of the Wahhabi?

MATTSON: No it's not true to characterized 'Wahhabism' that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation. Because the Wahhabi scholars became intergreated into the Saudi state, there has been some difficulty keeping that particular interpretation of religion from being enforced too broadly on the population as a whole. However, the Saudi scholars who are Wahhabi have denounced terrorism and denounced in particular the acts of September 11. Those statements are available publicly.

This quesiton has arisen because last week there were a number of newspaper reports that were dealing with this. They raised the issue of the role of Saudi Arabia and the ideaology there. Frankly, I think in a way it was a reaction to the attempts of many people to look for the roots of terrorism in misguided foreign policy. It's not helpful, I believe, to create another broad category that that becomes the scape goat for terrorism.



when a new pope is elected they just show the smoke


JPII:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/pope/bio/early/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/pope/bio/priesthood/
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/pope/stories/related/index.html

Ratzinger:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/24/pope.inaugural/
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/19/pzn.01.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/19/ratzinger.profile/index.html

From a quick search. There was a ton of coverage on these guys. How much do you want? We can't dedicate the entire news paper to the Catholic Church.


you dont think religion makes a difference,do you?


I think it makes too much of a difference, because it's exploited by politicians to manipulate people.

They're covering the news, not teaching world history. That's more than enough historical background. People should persue educational material on their own. If people weren't so lazy, they would know this stuff on theri own, and not expect it to jump out atthem from the TV.

They show the cowboy stuff-the visuals are important-the media has no responsibility to educate the masses? I agree there is a line but regardless of your examples (and they're not bad) still there is little attempt to show people the dynamics involved because reporters dont ususally understand them-you got a lot of dry biographical stuff there-I'm not pursuing this though, it's way off topic-current events is part of history-I'll never agree with you