US passes law against lynching; evangelicals campaign against it

[exochaft]

I shouldn't have to say this but...

Just because some small sect of "evangelicals" are against this it does NOT mean Christians are against it.
Christians are fundamentally against cold blooded murder, lets not twist any facts.

Yeah, the concept of the news article headlines and the post headline itself is twisted in itself. The groups have an issue with the federal government passing legislation that uses language to indirectly legitimize gender identity politics, which can be abused in the future and wouldn't likely pass at all on its own (think of it like a passive earmark of language). The evangelical have zero issue with lynchings being against the law. This is unfortunately very typical of mainstream media today, as they twist words to make things appear to appear as they are not in reality to push a narrative.

However, this group may have a point as others have noticed: lynching would still get you criminal charges just like any other violent act, so why was the bill necessary to begin with? The purpose could've been to push in gender politics or special treatment based upon identity politics in the bill amongst other political agendas other than saying lynching is a crime.

[Themerlin]

Racist? Race has absolutely nothing to do with lynching, historically worldwide white people have been lynched 10-1 more than any other group, race has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong, if it's wrong for one race it's wrong for all races

Lynching, when taken into US cultural/historical perspective, is indented into your psyche as being an American phenomenon, which is why he mentioned it. It was mainly towards Blacks and heretics and perpetrated by Evangelicals.

Therefore it was racist.

[PACOX]

No they are upset because they are a protected Group which they should not be, sexual preference should never be protected because no one should know anyway, you can't hide your race but you can't hide who you sleep with

How do you hide your sexual preference from an employer or business when it's time to apply for spousal benefits that straight couples take advantage of? Obviously gay couples were being discriminated against in that areas, hence the protected class.

[BananaHandsB]

Its not exactly illegal and not exactly considered murder - that's why there is a need for definition.

What lynching essentially is trial and punishment outside of the court of law. So say a man is accused of raping a woman, the locals get to together to prosecute him. They find him guilty and carry out the sentence.

In the past one could use some bullshit like "well the town collectively got together and deemed the person guilty" the same way a jury can technically decide a case whichever way they want. The other argument was 'well you can't go after all of them'.

Lynching being viewed as straight up murder is fairly new and only in retrospect. Lynching a black man was totally fine as long as their was a 'trial'. A gay couple could get beat out of town if the locals didn't want them there. Lynch mobs could still assemble.

A legal definition is better than leaving it ambiguous and hoping people view nonsense as murder before it actually happens (again).

This isn't really accurate. Lynching was still illegal under many other laws such as murder and conspiracy, and also certain state-specific anti-lynching and laws, and if it was carried out in today's world, the offenders would still be prosecuted without it being a federal hate crime. But it would be a much more fickle, complicated process and the offenders would likely be able to negotiate their way into lighter sentences than are appropriate.

By promoting it to a federal hate crime, it is automatically prosecuted by a federal prosecutors, using federal courts; there are clear sentencing guidelines which can be much harsher, including the death penalty; and it will be a much simpler and clear cut trial process. There are all sorts of other nuisances to making it a federally prosecuted hate crime, but a lawyer could do a better job explaining it.

[PosPosPos]

Yeah, the concept of the news article headlines and the post headline itself is twisted in itself. The groups have an issue with the federal government passing legislation that uses language to indirectly legitimize gender identity politics, which can be abused in the future and wouldn't likely pass at all on its own (think of it like a passive earmark of language). The evangelical have zero issue with lynchings being against the law. This is unfortunately very typical of mainstream media today, as they twist words to make things appear to appear as they are not in reality to push a narrative.

However, this group may have a point as others have noticed: lynching would still get you criminal charges just like any other violent act, so why was the bill necessary to begin with? The purpose could've been to push in gender politics or special treatment based upon identity politics in the bill amongst other political agendas other than saying lynching is a crime.

People have already pointed out that the lynching perpetrators get away scot-free or with just a slap on the wrist, because it was previously classified murder on the state level, and red states love to give these a free pass.

The evangelical have zero issue with lynchings being against the law. This is unfortunately very typical of mainstream media today, as they twist words to make things appear to appear as they are not in reality to push a narrative.

Yeah, they only refuse to issue penalties for crimes they feel are justified against minorities.

What a quaint defense.

This isn't really accurate. Lynching was still illegal under many other laws such as murder and conspiracy, and also certain state-specific anti-lynching and laws, and if it was carried out in today's world, the offenders would still be prosecuted without it being a federal hate crime. But it would be a much more fickle, complicated process and the offenders would likely be able to negotiate their way into lighter sentences than are appropriate.

By promoting it to a federal hate crime, it is automatically prosecuted by a federal prosecutors, using federal courts; there are clear sentencing guidelines which can be much harsher, including the death penalty; and it will be a much simpler and clear cut trial process. There are all sorts of other nuisances to making it a federally prosecuted hate crime, but a lawyer could do a better job explaining it.

....you quoted someone who basically agreed with you. Misquote?

[PACOX]

-citation needed-

Based on the US, people of color get lynched much more than whites.

The fact that you have to point that out to someone is just bad. Especially on the Internet. It's fairly recent history.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

No they are upset because they are a protected Group which they should not be, sexual preference should never be protected because no one should know anyway, you can't hide your race but you can't hide who you sleep with

I’m gonna assume you ment to say you can hide who you sleep with. In that case how do you expect a gay married couple to do that? Never show any signs of affection in public? Pretend to be straight when with each other?

[The Stormbringer]

I’m gonna assume you ment to say you can hide who you sleep with. In that case how do you expect a gay married couple to do that? Never show any signs of affection in public? Pretend to be straight when with each other?

Ideally, what people do in the privacy of their own home is their own business and no one should give a fuck. Realistically, private life connects to public life and it's not something that can be covered up. We might not know specifically what a couple does in private, but we know they're a couple.

So yeah, it's important we protect this sort of thing. Your sexuality, orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, nationality, WHATEVER is something that should be covered.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's the usual leftist strategy of trying to paint opponents with the worst labels they can in order to discredit them.

Now don't get me wrong, evangelicals are still assholes for wanting to fuck with LGBT people. Full stop. There's no excuse for their nonsense.

BUT they're also not out there trying to promote lynchings.

What argument can any one really make in defence of this? There pretty clearly saying there fine with lyching as long as it’s the gays.

[pathora44]

I’m gonna assume you ment to say you can hide who you sleep with. In that case how do you expect a gay married couple to do that? Never show any signs of affection in public? Pretend to be straight when with each other?

Well obviously the dirty sinful gays don't deserve rights because those are only for good wholesome white straight Christian men. God only intended rights for white straight Christian men. So all those dirty sinful gays better go hide in their closets because if they don't those white straight Christian men are going to go out in their holy white robes and hoods and bring on the Lord's work. Unless those evil liberal satanic politicians try to stop it./s

Seriously fuck this group with a dildo covered in rusty nails right up their asses. Using God and the bible as a cover for their hatred and bigotry. Arguing against a law because it gives rights to LGBTQ people of our country. How many of those so called "good holy people" aren't beating their wives, fucking mistresses on the side, or getting their dick sucked in the male restroom glory hole by a man. Bunch of hypocritical homophobic bastards.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Hell, assholes will even just go around assuming certain people are gay anyway.

The number of times I've had people say, "huehuehue, wuddryu, gay or sumpin?" just because I declined to discuss sexual activities or preferences at work is pretty sad.

This is also quite true.

[Endus]

Ehhhhhh...

Their big beef is the fear that LGBT people will become (more) recognized legally and be a full protected class. They would most likely oppose any law like this, whether it was about lynchings, flipping someone the bird, or shooting people into the sun.

They're assholes, but the claim that they're "supporting lynchings" seems nonsensical.

And to repeat; that argument implicitly states that those making that claim are either A> bald-faced malicious liars, or B> grossly incompetent and completely ignorant as to the US Code of law that's being discussed, both the bill in question and the existing law codes.

And frankly, I find B> way less likely.

This bill does nothing to add LGBT considerations to the law. The language used with regards to LGBT individuals is copy-and-pasted from existing law.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they're saying "Don't make those gays a legally recognized class, and this starts down that road."

Which is also pretty shitty, like I said.

If this bill "makes gays a recognized class", then gays are already a recognized class and the bill changes nothing.

Like I said; they're either liars or grossly ignorant about the basic functions of their job.

[Shalcker]

I mean, I linked the bill directly from Congress' site, above.

It's crystal clear it isn't tied to any other bill; it's very short and to the point and stands all by itself. Shalcker's just making shit up, really. I'd say you've gotta wonder why, but I think that's already understood.

That was implied in message to which i was responded; i pre-faced my explanation with "if", and never actually claimed it is indeed piggy-backed (because i haven't done research on that part).

The language of opposition seems to be that they view anti-lynching bill as some kind of "backdoor" to it; perhaps you could also explain how their reasoning works?

[roboscorcher]

We need to make lynching unborn fetuses illegal and a hate crime!

Why? They're not humans yet, they don't have rights. Should it be illegal to throw out crusty socks? Is that mass murder?

[triplesdsu]

You realize that link is only talking about federal prisons, right? Drug possession wouldn't get tried federally; it's almost all trafficking because trafficking crosses state lines and that cranks it up to a federal case.

Yes. We're talking about a federal statute here. That means they go to federal prison. Thus increasing the people incarcerated therein. Im not going to talk about all individual 50 states, taht will take forever. Though i work in CA, which has one of the higher prison populations and drug possession is already a misdeamenor here so you cant go to prison for "personal use".

[Endus]

That was implied in message to which i was responded; i pre-faced my explanation with "if", and never actually claimed it is indeed piggy-backed (because i haven't done research on that part).

Y'know, admitting that you posted without bothering to check your facts is just an admission of your deliberate bad faith.

You made up a bullshit argument that wasn't based on reality, and presented it as fact. And are now quibbling that you said "if" so it shouldn't be treated as an attempt to mislead people.

The language of opposition seems to be that they view anti-lynching bill as some kind of "backdoor" to it; perhaps you could also explain how their reasoning works?

Easy.

They're either lying shitbirds, or they don't know what current US law is and can't be arsed to check before opening their big, stupid mouths and jamming their bigoted feet right in up to the knee.

That's how their "reasoning" works.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. We're talking about a federal statute here. That means they go to federal prison. Thus increasing the people incarcerated therein. Im not going to talk about all individual 50 states, taht will take forever. Though i work in CA, which has one of the higher prison populations and drug possession is already a misdeamenor here so you cant go to prison for "personal use".

I made a comment about prison populations and arrests for drug possession.
You posted a link about federal prison populations, moving the goalposts.
I moved them back, and pointed out that you moved them.
You have now, here, pointed to a completely unrelated statute, as if that changes anything.

When you're interested in an honest discussion, get back to me. I'm not playing these stupid games with you any more.

[Spiffums]

It's murder, why do you need a new law.

You can get the death penalty for lynching someone, or shooting someone, or running over someone in your car.

It's one of those pandering to the radicals in the black community. When was the last time someone was lynched?

- - - Updated - - -

I guess Congress is afraid they might be the ones "swinging from the lamp posts".

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's one of those pandering to the radicals in the black community. When was the last time someone was lynched?

- - - Updated - - -

I guess Congress is afraid they might be the ones "swinging from the lamp posts".

This doesn’t even make sense.

[Amnaught]

It's murder, why do you need a new law.

You can get the death penalty for lynching someone, or shooting someone, or running over someone in your car.

Crime is already illegal. Committing a crime because of pointless discrimination is a worse crime. Like the reason you kill people is already taken into account, but "racist fuck" and "homophobic fuck" needs to be in there too, specifically so multiple offenders wont get off easily if they try to say it's under different circumstances. Hate lynching and other hate lynching are different than revenge or self-defense or random killing. The guy who punched a stranger because he kicked a puppy should get a lesser punishment than the guy who did it because the stranger was black.

[araine]

It's murder, why do you need a new law.

You can get the death penalty for lynching someone, or shooting someone, or running over someone in your car.

Hate driven murder should be punished very hard. and in the cases where the victim survives the attack it needs to be viewed as a much worse crime than a regular beating up of a person.