View Full Version : Ten Churches Burned - Hate Crime?
Beth Larpenter-Shurbutt
12th February 2006, 09:39 PM (21:39)
The latest count of churches, in Alabama, that have been burned is ten. They've all be Baptist churches but don't seem to be racially motivated based on the fact that half belong to white congregations and the other half black.
Why wouldn't "Church Burning" be classified as a "hate" crime?
Beth
Gina Stevenson
12th February 2006, 09:47 PM (21:47)
Why wouldn't "Church Burning" be classified as a "hate" crime?
Beth
You'd think it would be. What we've been wondering up here in MI is about someone having it in for churches, while they're not burning them. Wondering if, rather than it being unrelated incidents, if they might all/most be related, because a couple of dozen churches around these parts have been broken into in the last couple of months or so (edit: not just looking for $$$, they've messed things up a bit, too).
Joel Merrill
13th February 2006, 03:32 AM (03:32)
The latest count of churches, in Alabama, that have been burned is ten. They've all be Baptist churches but don't seem to be racially motivated based on the fact that half belong to white congregations and the other half black.
Why wouldn't "Church Burning" be classified as a "hate" crime?
Beth
It would be if it were some other religion than Christian. Much of the world and this country hate Christians but it if for Christ's sake. The Muslims for instance seem to be looking for something to get up set about. Sadly, the news media is more than happy to stir things up. As Christians, we are told to turn the other cheek. This doesn't mean that law enforcement shouldn't hunt down who ever is burning these churches and punish them according to the law, but we shouldn't make an extra big deal over it.
That's my opinion anyway, Joel
Belinda Y. Edwards
13th February 2006, 08:39 AM (08:39)
i agree with you, Beth. Church has taken such a back seat to being the center of community concesiveness, that its value and importance aren't being protected like it use to. Muslins? i am shocked each time i go south at how many muslins are in the area. The Bible Belt will soon not be the Bible belt - if ones don't rise to protect what has historically been an axis in that area. It seems that there is also a rise to other lifestyle choices that go against traditional Christian values that are a part of the Bible Belt. As for it being all Baptist Churches, Baptist is the number one protestant denomination of the south. This doesn't surprise me. You don't see many *large* Nazarene church down south - but Baptist will knock your socks off.
Billy Cox
13th February 2006, 10:36 AM (10:36)
It would be if it were some other religion than Christian. Much of the world and this country hate Christians but it if for Christ's sake.
In some of the news coverage about the Mohammed cartoons, Muslim 'leaders' were saying that if cartoons were making fun of some other religion, it would be unacceptable and the newspaper would be apologizing.
Apparently, fundamentalist Muslims feel just as persecuted as fundamentalist Christians.
Belinda Y. Edwards
13th February 2006, 10:37 AM (10:37)
In some of the news coverage about the Mohammed cartoons, Muslim 'leaders' were saying that if cartoons were making fun of some other religion, it would be unacceptable and the newspaper would be apologizing.
Apparently, fundamentalist Muslims feel just as persecuted as fundamentalist Christians.
AND- i believe that many times they are correct in their feelings.
Dave McClung
13th February 2006, 12:33 PM (12:33)
I have always had trouble with the "hate" crime idea. Is it worse to burn down a church because I hate the people who attend there than to burn down a church "just for fun?" Either way, the church is burned down.
It seems to me that a crime should be rated on the amount of harm done rather than on the reason for which it was done.
A person killed through neglect is just as dead as one killed through hate.
Dave
Hans Deventer
13th February 2006, 12:51 PM (12:51)
It seems to me that a crime should be rated on the amount of harm done rather than on the reason for which it was done.
A person killed through neglect is just as dead as one killed through hate.
The Scriptures disagree, Dave. See for instance Numbers 35.
NU 35:16 " `If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 17 Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 18 Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies 21 or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
NU 35:22 " `But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally 23 or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, 24 the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. 25 The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil.
Dave McClung
13th February 2006, 02:59 PM (14:59)
Obviously, I think there should be a difference between an intentional act and one done by accident. But, if an act is intentional, I don't think the penalty should be worse for a "hateful crime" than for one done for the fun of it.
The distinction made in the Old Testament was between intentional and unintentional.
Dave
Joel Merrill
13th February 2006, 04:19 PM (16:19)
In some of the news coverage about the Mohamed cartoons, Muslim 'leaders' were saying that if cartoons were making fun of some other religion, it would be unacceptable and the newspaper would be apologizing.
Apparently, fundamentalist Muslims feel just as persecuted as fundamentalist Christians.
If someone drew a cartoon insulting Jesus we would be very upset and probably write some editors and form a boycott but we would not kill people, riot in the streets and burn embassies over it. Remember the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ." What would have happened if a movie like that were made about Mohamed?
I think you are all misunderstanding what I was trying to say. I'm not good at expressing myself sometimes. I'll try again. My main point was that in the US, the news media and much of the government and more and more of the public view Christians as radicals. They have more respect for gays than they do for Christians. There is more outrage over the violation of a minorities rights than the right of a Christian. Minorities have more rights than the majority. By the way, Muslims have more rights to worship here than Christians do in most Muslim countries.
My second point and a much lesser point, was that I feel that we should not make a big deal over church burning. If it is a hate crime, that is what the person wants. I did say that law enforcement should still find and punish this person, but we as Christians should love our enemies. We should endure persecution. I could come up with lots of scripture but I don't want to get into an argument with anyone. This is just the way I feel and if you disagree with me that is your choice. I just wanted to try and make sure you understood me.
Joel
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.