Comments

1. KStret says on Nov 5, 2009 @ 07:18 PM:

   I think Dr. Craig has it right here. To say that a criminal serves 30 years in prison for robbing and killing someone but if a criminal kills someone who is a African American transsexual homosexual they get 100 years, blatantly violates equal protection under the law. The results of the criminal activity is the same. Both people are dead. I think a clearer way to put it is, what hate crimes legislation does is criminalize your thoughts.
   What inevitably follows hate crime legislation is hate speech legislation. I find it disturbing that they buried hate speech provisions in this bill. Particularly, the notion that if a crime results from a speech, the person could be prosecuted.
   After the late term abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered, they were attempting to blame Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly was reporting that a woman could literally change her mind after being 8 months pregnant and easily get an abortion. What that could mean is people like O'Reilly could be taken off the air and possibly thrown in jail. The same thing could happen to churches.
   However, looking at the type of people Obama is surrounding himself with, I must say this doesn't surprise me

2. KStret says on Nov 12, 2009 @ 04:36 PM:

   For those of you who think hate crimes or speech isn't anything to worry about.The European Court of Human Rights just banned the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools.There are two issues here
   1. The UN usurps member countries sovereignty. Countries are not allowed to enact and enforce their own laws. The UN is the final authority. The UN becomes the de facto government.
   2. This is where hate crimes and hate speech legislation leads to. There was a Church in Canada that was shut down simply for pointing out the difference between Christianity and other groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses. They would point out why they believe the Jehovah's witnesses are wrong in their biblical doctrine. The church was told they need to teach that all religions are equal. That premise, if uniformly enforced, would destroy Christianity from being taught.

3. Wade A. Tisthammer says on Nov 26, 2009 @ 10:10 PM:

   I was surprised to hear Craig say "isn't a crime, a crime, regardless of what motivates it?" Perhaps so, but motives clearly do matter when it comes to administrating punishment; that is why manslaughter is prosecuted less severely than first degree murder. The argument behind hate crime legislation is that crimes done with hateful malice are more reprehensible and thus deserve greater punishment. On some level this strikes many people as plausible.

   Still, Craig puts forth a thought-provoking hypothetical scenario when comparing the sociopath murderer and the racist murderer. It's more difficult to argue that one is significantly more reprehensible than the other, and therefore it is harder to justify laying down significantly greater punishment on one over the other.

4. Skeptic says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 09:11 AM:

   It constantly amazes me the amount of skepticism that is taken by Christians. His thoughts on gays and the sexual revolution amount to a bizarre conspiracy. However, his thoughts on hate crime I must say I agree with. Murder is murder, no matter who does it.

   HOWEVER....

   Notice if he were to use the same criteria with Christianity he would be deeply disturbed.

   Why is it okay to murder the Canaanites when God orders it in the Bible but not in real life?? (I know he has answered this, but the answer is deeply unsatisfying, and amounts to "if God [insert the president and attribute quote to Nixon] does it, then that's okay")

   It's a genocide when people kill people but when God does it it's okay??

   Do you see how if Craig only applied the same criteria he does to government (or Islam's belief in God from the audio and debates I've heard him speak in) he would say that God is evil and not this loving being he speaks about and worships 24/7?

   It constantly amazes me how skeptical Christians are about karma, magic, UFO's, Big Foot, etc., yet when it comes to their own faith they can't see the outright silliness and bigotry. Murder is murder, no matter who does it.

   (1) If you murder in the name of Jesus, you can get into Heaven. (2) However, if you don't murder and you don't believe in Jesus, you get into Hell. (3) And, if you murder and you don't believe in Jesus, you don't get into Heaven. So 1 is equal to 3, and 2 is definitely better than 1 from a rational human perspective, and certainly Craig agrees that if he were to govern a state, 1 and 3 would be equal. But God says that 1 is okay while 3 isn't? See how if you turned hate crimes agenda towards God, Craig would NOT think it's bizarre? But it still is. If only Craig applied that same thinking to his God, he might begin to question the leader he chooses (God) as much as he does the leader he didn't (the president).

5. robaylesbury says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 01:28 PM:

   Hello Skeptic. Good to see another doubter posting. Stick around; it'll half the amount of virtual rotten fruit that comes my way.

6. robaylesbury says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 01:41 PM:

   I was pondering the notion of criminalizing thoughts?

   Why would Christians be remotely concerned by this? Does God not judge your every THOUGHT, word, and deed anyway?

   Surely this would be just business as usual for you guys?

7. KStret says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 09:57 PM:

   Rob,
   "Does God not judge your every THOUGHT, word, and deed anyway?"
   Yes God does judge thoughts of man but the government should not. If you replace God with the government, the government becomes God. When you have the government deeming what thoughts are permissible and what aren't, you have a government that is out of control. Personally I would be concerned about that, seeing that the deaths toll from giant out of control oppressive governments amounts to almost two hundred million in less than 100 years. But what do I know...

8. Skeptic says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 01:02 AM:

   K Street,

   Do you see that if you follow that logic you must conclude that God is evil?

   You would be concerned with a government that knew your every thought and could accuse you with thought crimes for not kissing the feet of the leader, be it Bush or Obama or whomever, if he imprisoned you indefinitely for not agreeing with him and constantly and sincerely worshiping him?

   The people's lives that have been taken from out of control oppressive governments have been horrible! No one should nor need bow down to their oppression.

   Now that you've held other leaders to that standard, a standard which I agree with, will you hold God to the same standard?

   Will you condemn the God of the Old Testament? Will you refuse to bow down to the God of the New Testament that sends his enemies to an indefinite torture camp for thought crimes?

   If you say that He had morally sufficient reasons, then why not say that the oppressive governments had morally sufficient reasons? If you say that no end can justify such means, then how can you say God might have morally sufficient reasons?

   I would be concerned about a government that is out of control AND a God that is out of control! The government shouldn't be out of control and neither should God! If it's evil when government does it, guess what?, it's evil when God does it! Follow your logic!

   Seriously, I agree with your entire statement!! Just apply your argument to God and you will be a fully rational person!

9. KStret says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 03:41 PM:

   Skeptic,
   "Do you see that if you follow that logic you must conclude that God is evil?"

   That is simply not true. If God killed Adolph Hitler and everyone that was responsible for the Nazi rise to power before they took power, what would you say? You would say Hitler and everyone associated with him didn't do anything, why did God kill him? God is evil.

   By judging God you are putting yourself on his level, which is akin to putting an ant on our level. God knew what Hitler was going to do and you didn't. Also, governments don't have that ability.

   "Now that you've held other leaders to that standard, a standard which I agree with, will you hold God to the same standard?"

   You question presupposes that God and the government are the same they are not. We are flawed. Therefore, any government has to be flawed. God is not. God is like person and government is comprised of many bureaucracies and many people not just one. You can not compare a perfect, omniscient, omnipresent spirit with a government. They are two different things and gives you an invalid comparison. Even if you compare a dictator to God, as I said before, that is like comparing an ant to a person. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is you are conflating God and government.