Hate and Hating and Correctness

Tuesday, January 17. 2006

Hate and Hating and Correctness

We have a wave lapping up to shore at Lightstalkers about hate groups. Well, I don't know if it is about hate groups anymore as much as how to react to certain radical groups. The odd thing is that I think it is PC to talk about tolerance and taking action against "hate crimes", but we fall into that age old well about the fine line between our individual freedoms and society or the goverment protecting us from ourselves.

We already have laws against hate crimes -- they are the civil and criminal codes emplaced to protect us from the acts of other and punish those who commit those acts. The idea of Hate Crime laws are redundant. Now, the issue is to FORCE people and societies and communities to ACT against "haters" and enforce those laws.

But here is a real question that popped into my head. Can there be good hate and bad hate? I'm not an ACLU lawyer, but I bet the ACLU would tell you that you only get to have one kind of hate. Jews hating NAZIs are just as guilty as NAZIs hating Jews. Which brings us back to the problem. We shouldn't care if there is a NAZI rally or a Klan rally, but we should care if the Klan burns a cross in someone's yard. Hating someone shouldn't be a crime -- but if you break the law in expressing it -- then you should be held accountable to the law.

What if there exists a community who doesn't enforce certain laws? Should they be FORCED to enforce them? Should there be a standard communities are held to, or should the community decide that for themselves? If everyone mows their lawn in their speedos or bikinis and the one prude in the community wants the public decency law enforced, should they be FORCED to enforce it? Or should the community get to decide based on the majority or the plurality?

Is it ok to hate haters? Or are all haters equally bad? What if we hate something for a good reason?

I'm not sure I have any answers because I'm not sure what I believe on this issue. These feelings to me are very personal and I try not to express anything I feel irresponsibly or in a way that hurts others. But the most sensitive among us are hurt by what seems to be very slight things. Which means sometimes even honest debate is hurtfull.

In Utah, the Mormons (who are offended often by that title) officially sanctioned historians at BYU -- the church owned school of higher indoctrination -- because they wrote in examination of the faith and its history. The rationale, from the church leader(s) was that while historians may make these examinations everyday, those with weaker faith may not be able to stand up to that examination and may leave the faith. Therefore, publish only those things that portray the "religion" in a positive, uplifting light.

So, in the end, some of the historians and critics had to go, even though they may still have been firm believers. In a way, theirs was a hate crime because their writings hurt and harmed (potentially) others in their beliefs...

It is too easy to go down this road.

Mike

Posted by mike allison at 11:36 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

i tend to sympathise..and even agree with your point of view in spite of being in support of the 'throw the nazi out' comment on LS. It makes sense that we should all be able to express ourselves as long as we do it in a lawful and possibly inoffensive manner. But there are too many shades of grey and too much gut instinct to have a black and white answer to the questions you raise.

#1 sid on 2006-01-18 22:40 (Reply)

Absolutely Sid, that's the trap with these topics. It's hard to live in the Open Society and realize that openness allows in threats. But the real work isn't how to shore up the Less Than Open Society, it is how to accept the threat and move on without limiting openess. I think when I finally understood the role of the ACLU, I started to understand how to look at these cases with an eye towards how allowing them protects me. It's hard with certain groups though because we know what the potential is. But I think history shows that the "Nazi Germanies" of history arose because they took advantage not of open societies, but of closed societies or societies that closed as a reaction.

That's my point here, that knee jerk reactions such as the Hate Crime laws that look like they help us, actually play into the hands of the "dark" side.

Just so you know, my first reaction to the original post, as I was reading it was, "how the hell did the Nazi get in here?...." But I thought it was cool that he posted an honest posting even though it kind of disrupted our sunday tea party....

Thanks for your input and opinion.

Mike

#1.1 Mike (Homepage) on 2006-01-19 10:22 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry