"Immunity can no longer be given to misguided church teaching's bias and intimidation toward gay and lesbian youth and families."

Sympathetic to your cause but unless you go after every religion at the same time your message will be mistaken as anti-"fill in the blank".

Reframe the issue so that it is stated as a universal humanitarian issue (versus anti-whatever) and I think you have a chance of successfully making your point.

"Is that how we want our hate crime laws to work? Any time we feel we're being singled out because of our race, religion, or sexual orientation, we're victims of a hate crime, even if we're not being singled out because of our race, religion, or orientation? We've moved beyond punishing what is in a person's heart, and moved straight to punishing an assailant for what's in his victim's heart."

Boy you hit the nail on the head with this one. I had not thought of the issue in that way. Absolutely terrifying but that seems to be what has happened. Scary.

This is how hate crime laws will work, regardless of what anyone says the intent is. Hate crime laws are nothing more than a legal wet kiss to politically favored groups, and a means of assigning second-class legal status to politically non-favored groups.

Yep, the Bible endorses slavery, killing witches, stoning children for not obeying their parents as well as being against homosexuality. That's Judeo-Christian ethics. Glad I'm an atheist.

Ravi's lawyers had argued at the trial that the college freshman was not motivated by any hostility toward gays and that his actions were just those of an immature "kid."

This is where the double-standard starts.
What if Tyler had been hooking up with:

• What if he had been having a hookup with a woman?


• a friend's mother?


• the pastor's wife?


• a friend's mother who would lose every dime because of a prenup?


• the hottest girl on campus?


• a daughter that wanted her parents to consider her "pure"?

Then the woman committed suicide when it became "public." Justifying the suicide because of the support structure is not acceptable.

Using the line of his actions were just those of an immature "kid." is rarely acceptable to me. That standpoint is from the viewpoint that at 18 I was a sworn and enlisted member of the United States Air Force. Even before that I had learned that actions have consequences. He is old enough, legally, to sign the contract for his student loan. He can get a credit card he has to pay for. He can go and buy a car. He is even legal to join the military without his parents consent.

If he had the webcam up and running and had proof of theft (or other criminal activity) I would have no problem with him showing it to another person to confirm his suspicions before going to authorities. He did/does have a vested in protecting his property. He did/does not have any right to broadcast his room mate's actions.

The issue is that he showed the videos, without provocation, to others that had no business seeing them.

I don't believe he deserves life imprisonment, but he should have to suffer at least some consequences.

I"m confused. Has anyone ever in this country gotten immunity for committing a crime because they belonged to some church? Or are they arguing that churches shouldn't be able to preach against homosexuality? No one forces people to attend a church (or any church). Gay? Find a church that doesn't preach against that. Single mom? FInd a church where you fit. Free speech and freedom of religion.

What bothers me in this case is nobody commits suicide just because they are embarrassed. There needs to be something else more complicated going on.

The second problem is that just because one event is proximate to another, doesn't mean one caused the other. This is one of the most common mistakes we make.

Is is not possible that the Clementi's suicide was due to him coming out to his parents and them rejecting him? Perhaps his boyfriend dumped him or outed him to his family. Or that it had nothing to with being gay? Perhaps he lost a scholarship. Perhaps he was just plain depressed.

(What Ravi did was despicable, regardless of the sexuality of his roommate. It arguably didn't violate the law, but did violate common decency and respect for others. But to make this a criminal matter was more than a bit absurd.

I'll also predict that Ravi will appeal and will win the appeal, though by a scary small margin and THAT bodes unwell for this country. Once you start convicting people on thought crimes, we are in deep shit.)

Those gay kids can all read the relevant verses in Leviticus for themselves. It's right there in their Bibles, and they'll have to deal with it somehow, with or without the Grace Church of Ridgewood.

I find the trend to blame everyone else for a person's suicide troubling. As heinous as the people who exposed Clementi are, it was he who decided that he couldn't live with who he was. None of them suggested that he end his life -- even in the Bible, the most famous suicide was that of Judas Iscariot, who by the act of betraying Jesus Christ cut himself off permanently from forgiveness. No such guilt is laid upon humans for sins such as homosexuality.

The anti-bullying campaigns are a farce. One teen boy who participated in the "It Gets Better" project (begun by mega-hypocrite Dan Savage, who has been cyber-bullying Rick Santorum for nine years) ended up killing himself anyway because he couldn't stop the harassment. When I was a kid, there was a saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." The whole idea of that idiom was to steel the victim against harassment from others. Now, the message is that others' words can kill you if you can't shut them up.

Don't mistake this for being unsympathetic. My life has been touched by suicide several times. My opinion is that too often, it is a shamelessly selfish act. Emotional or physical pain or anguish that is in most cases temporary in nature are thought to be relieved by removing their main ingredient: life itself. But it doesn't work; killing oneself just multiplies that pain exponentially and shifts it from the sufferer to everyone that cared for him/her. For the rest of the survivors' lives, they'll be tortured by wondering what it was that they could have done to help their loved one hold on until they could turn back from the brink.

Finally: One of the reasons social conservatives such as myself are perceived as cold and uncaring is because we object to legal devices like "hate crime" legislation for exactly the reasons that Mystal (whom I've heard of for the first time, and don't know if he's conservative or not) has perfectly laid out. What was a beta version of Orwellian "thoughtcrime" has now morphed into "HowIFeelAboutWhatIThinkYouThoughtCrime."

> Going to church and hearing that you are
> horribly and wrong for being gay, and that
> god hates you and won't love you --

If the kids heard that in Starbucks, would you be against coffee? Churches may buttress this evil, but I doubt it's the source.

"Gay kids wouldn't feel bad if they were around atheists like me..."

When you're different, and you know you're different, that can cause you a great deal of torment when you're a teenager trying to fit in. Even if you have a nice Aunt Amy who's glad to accept you as you are.

Gay people have always been vulnerable to the primal impulse to attack anyone who doesn't fit neatly into the tribe. As I've mentioned before on this blog, all Communist regimes, without exception, were murderously anti-gay. They definitely outdid the Church in this regard in the 20th century. No religious justification was needed for their tribal hatred.

Also, I have yet to see any hard evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence & speculation) that Clementi killed himself because he was gay.

Don't mistake this for being unsympathetic. My life has been touched by suicide several times. My opinion is that too often, it is a shamelessly selfish act. Emotional or physical pain or anguish that is in most cases temporary in nature are thought to be relieved by removing their main ingredient: life itself. But it doesn't work; killing oneself just multiplies that pain exponentially and shifts it from the sufferer to everyone that cared for him/her. For the rest of the survivors' lives, they'll be tortured by wondering what it was that they could have done to help their loved one hold on until they could turn back from the brink.

Posted by: L.N. Smithee at March 17, 2012 10:46 AM

I doubt most survivors feel tortured when the one who committed suicide was old and in great physical pain/discomfort. I.e., when the survivors KNEW it was going to happen.

Post hoc, ergo proper hoc?

Apparently, there is no explaining suicides who aren't gay.

No one forces people to attend a church (or any church).

Parents do all the time

I read an article this morning in which Dharun Ravi's parents were interviewed. They stated that they didn't go with the no-jail-time plea agreement because they thought their son was not biased and that they did not raise him to hate. (I thought that he didn't take the plea deal because he risked being deported because he was not a US citizen).

I know it's a pet peeve of mine - but I can't stand parents who have this attitude that their children can do no wrong. Yeah, maybe Dharun isn't biased. But, IMO, someone who sets up a webcam to secretly broadcast someone's private sexual encounter is, in a nutshell, a MAJOR ASSHOLE.

Clementi certainly did not commit suicide because he was gay. But he probably did commit suicide because he quite reasonably believed that he would be subjected to this kind of privacy violation and embarrassment over and over again, and there was nothing he could legally do about it.

Those who want to change the law so that that would be true are as bad as Ravi, who deserves what he got even if he got it for the wrong reason.

Clementi certainly did not commit suicide because he was gay. But he probably did commit suicide because he quite reasonably believed that he would be subjected to this kind of privacy violation and embarrassment over and over again, and there was nothing he could legally do about it.

He could have done any number of things. He could have come out. He could have gone home, changed schools, or just kicked his roommates ass. He could have just blown it off (heh). And I'm not entirely sure that he had no legal options. I don't know which law it would be, but in a land where one can commit three felonies a day without even knowing it (prior bood reference), I'd find it hard to believe that broadcasting someone's bedroom behavior wouldn't violate some law or another.

I really don't want to comment on how disgusting the WaPo (a liberal rag along with the NY Times) is for trying to use this case as another reason to trash religion.

"I think Ravi was doing what lots of kids do -- unthinkingly letting the capabilities of technology drive his behavior."

Perhaps, but, he also, in one of his tweets, said something along the lines of "OMG, it's a DUDE." (a tweet which was printed in the Newark Star-Ledger when this case first broke; but for some reason I cannot find online anywhere now)

As a gay man, I can tell you that the "hate" from churches doesn't bother me as much as the "snickers" from those who call themselves open-minded liberals. For, they are neither.

Also, for those of you who say that Clementi could have done something else - he tried! He asked to be assigned another room/roommate and the school turned him down. How's THAT for support from those who call themselves liberal!? I can only imagine the torment going through that young man's mind when he turned for help and was denied it!

I also feel for Ravi and his parents, here was a young man who, instead of enjoying his "college days," screwed up big time and will have to live with that the rest of his life - perhaps, living with his guilt (if he has any) will be the right punishment for him. But, I think prison time will be justice for Tyler.

> As somebody who was terribly bullied for being
> Jewish and for being odd as a child

Amy, a lot of people are bullied for many things, but you have this idea that religion is the source of all evil in precisely the manner you'd find objectionable were it to happen to you. You're daring these people to mock your sexuality as a product of your atheism... Not so that you can engage their understanding at a more productive level, but just so you can get into the all-time mother round of "Oh yeah?/Yeah! Oh yeah?/Yeah! Oh yeah?" etc.

Who needs it? People who don't believe in God pester gays too. You're trying too hard to apply your dessert topping as a floor wax.

No one is convinced to surrender their belief in God by the example of condescending, threatening peckerheads.

The bible damns gluttony too-far more often than homosexuality, actually. Are fat people getting ready to off themselves because of it? I doubt it. This was a parenting fail at most. No one else had much to do with it.

Amy, if it wasn't being jewish it would have been your red hair or your last name (seriously-kids mocked me because my last named started with the same letter as stew. Kids are damn imaginative!). There are people in this world that can only live with themselves by making others miserable. The people who fall into their radar can only get off it by force. What churches say is really immaterial. Unless, of course, a church is advocating killing gays. A few do, but not nearly even .001%. Less than you'd find in random chatrooms online, I imagine.

Gay kids wouldn't feel bad if they were around atheists like me, as I am unconcerned about who anyone wants to have sex with, providing they are consenting (and adults -- unless it's two teens making out with each other).

Not necessarily. Some people are miserable, period, whether they're gay or straight. I also have no doubt that some atheists are anti-gay for their own reasons.

> This was a parenting fail at most. No one else
> had much to do with it.

Well, better parents might have helped. But this church didn't distinguish itself with Christian compassion.

Bullying is one of those topics where it's fun not to be a parent. Every kid needs to make sense of the madness and cruelty of peers for their own lifetime, but you can't let your kid get pummeled, either.

(Those for some reason I always assumed Ridgewood was a pretty liberally-minded place.)

>> but you have this idea that religion is the source of all evil

Religion poisons everything.

>>Churches don't say god hates gluttons and they're going to hell.

I guess you've never heard of the Seven Deadly Sins?

> Religion poisons everything.
>
> Posted by: assholio

My copy's autographed, but we thank you for your bracingly original explication.

Weren't you thrown out of here several months ago? Something about a rectal obsession...

Amy if you think there aren't plenty of parents out there who make their distain known to their fat kids, you are mistaken. Kick them out-maybe not. Hate them and make their life hell? You bet.

And plenty of churches preach against gluttony. Esp Catholic churches-see the 7 deadly sins above.

I am sure this has been suggested before; however, let me pose it again for the sake of argument (let’s leave out the suicide and religious parts and simply address the invasion of privacy). What if it had been two male roommates but in this case it was one recording the other having relations with a female (pick any of the following reasons: maybe he wanted to show it to friends, maybe he did not like/approve of the girl and wanted to ‘shame’ her, maybe he was into the voyeur thing, maybe he was just a dick, etc.). If said video was shown I have no doubt that, at the very least, he would have been kicked out of school. Moreover, and please correct me if I am wrong since legal is not my strong suit, this would truly constitute a ‘wire-tapping’ law violation since it is regarding people with a reasonable expectation of privacy who have had it invaded. Not a felony-grade item but at least a large size misdemeanor. Definitely shows where hate-crime laws let us lose all sense of proportionality. As for the suicide, we have all seen otherwise well (or at least adequately) adjusted people snap for many reasons, with unexpected results:

http://news.yahoo.com/money-career-woes-plagued-afghan-killings-suspect-231533481.html

You can say if you don’t like someone--anyone--it can be called a case of ‘bias and intimidation’. Not an excuse for inexcusable behavior, just an observation. Add in a suicide (of said male or female in the above example) and I wonder what the legal ramifications would be? Unfortunately, it is a church’s right to preach what they will in the marketplace of ideas (or in this case, the marketplace of souls). Conversely, any church that preaches such intolerance should not be surprised when they are severely called out on it. Moreover, this might become the nucleus for the next wave of reformation to sweep through our religious systems when their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status (at least for private schools) is threatened. A little blast from the past regarding African Americans, the Mormon Church and the ‘tax question’:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_blacksandthepriesthood.html

Crid, Amy can check IP addresses to make sure BOTU's not signing back on with an alias. Unless BOTU bought another computer or managed to change his own IP address, it is doubtful that Assholio is actually him.

I don't think he needs to be in jail. He's a jerk, but I don't think he's a threat to himself or others.

I also don't think we need him in this country.

Deportation with a re-entry ban seems like a reasonable punishment in this case.

If I had a roommate who was having sex in the room he was sharing with me, I would throw him out of the room. You want to have sex, go get your own room or book a hotel.

You didn't do the sock on the door thing?

I never even locked the door of my room and rarely even closed it....it was open most of the time with people coming and going whenever they wanted. And I never had sex when I was in college.