What does it mean to me? For one, you don’t damage other people’s property. If something’s public property, you don’t damage it either. The taxpayers happen to have paid for it. I don’t care in the slightest what your political agenda might be, there’s no excuse whatsoever for damaging things that don’t belong to you. No scribbling on walls or furniture, no spray-painting anything, no slashing of anything slashable, no breaking of anything breakable, no walking across cars or private lawns. At least that’s what most two-year-olds get taught by their elders.

Lately, I’ve read a couple of bits of news on vandalism at Jewish cemeteries; several years ago, Catholic cemeteries in this area were vandalized. As for the former, police have noted the damages to be ‘bias crimes’ in most cases. The latter supposedly were carried out by either people that are into trading scrap metal (all crucifixes were torn off the headstones) or people that pray to, uhmm, a misconception of a fallen angel. Either way, it’s respectless behaviour, not only towards property but towards the memory of loved ones those left behind chose to manifest in stone. If you do such damages because of any pseudo-political motivations – in the middle of the night so you won’t get caught – , voicing your ‘opinions’ around a passed-away audience, then I must say, “Congratulations, and welcome to the club of the most pathetic, irreverent, cowardish sickos ever!”

About the author

froylein

17 Comments

  • “s for the former, police have noted the damages to be ‘bias crimes’ in most cases. The latter supposedly were carried out by either people that are into trading scrap metal…”

    HYPOCRITES.

    It just shows the biases way the authorities report so called biased crimes. SO, Catholics don’t get the same protection that Jews have, huh?

    “Biased Crimes” are one step away from thought crime. It’s punishment not for acts but for ones politics.

    A crime is a crime! Like crimes should be treated equally.

    As a Catholic this makes me so angry. I guess my faith makes me less worthy of civil protection than a Jews faith.

  • Even if the people vandalizing the Jewish cemeteries were doing it for scrap metal, the police would have still called them biased crimes.

    That’s the political environment we live in today where some people’s civil rights are more worthy than others.

    God help you if you are a white Christian in America (unless you are rich of course). You will have no group to advocate for you when things go wrong. No organization to stand by your side when you, your rights, or your family is attacked. You are alone!

  • Steve, in general, this is a predominantly Catholic area, so Catholics aren’t a minority here. But I do see a tendency among alleged freethinkers to bash Catholicism (on grounds of it re-presenting a graspable unified hierarchy and body of people as well as laws and customs as opposed to many ‘free churches’ / denominations, many of which would be considered arbitrary and whacky in secular standards). I’ll agree that any crime should be treated equally; I don’t know what really motivated the damages on those Catholic graveyards over here. I just think that any damaging done to anybody else’s property is out of line.

  • Steve, regarding your free speech, on Jewlicious you have none. Since you are Alex (and a bunch of other aliases) and I’ve been clear with you that you are not wanted here after your previous attempts to bring your hatred here, I will once again ask you to leave. The only reason I am leaving these 3 comments up is that Froylein responded to them. However, you are not welcome here, your speech is not welcome here and I will edit or delete your comments if you come back.

  • “If you do such damages because of any pseudo-political motivations – in the middle of the night so you won’t get caught . . .”
    Brings to mind the account of Gideon.

  • One might argue different laws and customs apply in warfare, but indeed, secularly cynical as I am, I’d consider open confrontation way more courageous than anything done in either disguise or under the cover of darkness.

  • I can think of only a few things more contemptible than desecrating a grave site. Anyone caught desecrating a grave, any grave, should be shown no mercy. They should be treated with extreme harshness and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    But I find your opinion that people should be treated more harshly for desecrating Jewish graves and less harshly for desecrating Catholic graves detestable.

    And that you would ban someone from your forum for saying so is shameful.

  • Kate, I don’t think anybody meant to say that the desecration of Jewish graves should be punished harder than that of Catholic graves. Where I live, about 80% to 90% of the population are Catholic, most of the police are Catholic; the local police not investigating a bias crime towards Catholics on account of religious adherence seems rather unlikely to me. The desecration of any grave for whatever reason is detestable.

    As for the censoring of ‘Steve’, I wasn’t aware earlier – what TM brought to my attention – that it was the same hateful commenter that has shown up here on previous accounts, trying to spread hate and to stir controversies by making snarky comments while posing in different roles as they fit the agenda. A follow-up comment by him, which was deleted, qualified as anti-Catholic as well. Please take my word for it, as I’m from a mixed background, I’m anything but likely to fall for the anti-Catholic babble floating the internet just as little likely as I am to condone anti-Semitic speech and activities.

  • Dear “Kate,” Alex/Steve/Gus/et al is banned for a number of instances of posting hateful crap on our site, not just this one time. In this instance, I suspect you are him as well because you two seem to be the only two people who think this post indicated an opinion that “people should be treated more harshly for desecrating Jewish graves and less harshly for desecrating Catholic graves.”

    The post didn’t indicate this, the comments didn’t and the only people who indicated this were you and Steve/Alex/etc. It’s called “trolling” and in this case, it’s kinda hateful trolling. Go somewhere else, you’re not wanted here.

  • “It sounded from the post that you were saying that the desecration of the Jewish graves were labeled as “bias crime” so that if the perpetrator were ever caught that would be added on to the sentence whereas the desecration of the Catholic graves were not labeled as such so if the perpetrator was caught the crime of “biased crime” would not be tacked on to the sentence.”

    Shouldn’t the perpetrator be treated with equal harshness in both cases?

    Is that such a wrong question to ask?

  • Yeah, I couldn’t quite tell whether Kate’s reading of the post was correct…. Proving again that Otis Redding had the last word on respect.

  • This is a classic case of the troll bringing up the red herring as if it were legitimate.

    No Kate, he (you) didn’t “ask a question.” He (you) screamed “HYPOCRITES,” then suggested that Jews get better protection than Catholics, added that some people are treated better than others and then proceeded to bemoan the terrible fate of White Christians and how they don’t get respect.

    It’s called trolling and the intentions are obvious.

    The inquiry about whether the perpetrator should be treated with equal harshness was already answered in the original post with “Either way, it’s respectless behaviour, not only towards property but towards the memory of loved ones those left behind chose to manifest in stone. If you do such damages because of any pseudo-political motivations – in the middle of the night so you won’t get caught – , voicing your ‘opinions’ around a passed-away audience, then I must say, “Congratulations, and welcome to the club of the most pathetic, irreverent, cowardish sickos ever!”

    You see? No mention of a difference between the crimes. There is no suggestiont that Jews deserve or should get superior treatment. In fact, the poster does the opposite and equates the crimes against Jewish and non-Jewish gravesites as inexcusable.

    Of course, he (you), didn’t care about this at all. He (you) wanted to tell the world how the Jews have it good and get special protections while poor old WHITE Christians are left to be treated like dirt. Yup, American prisons are filled with White Christians aren’t they? And American police stations are rife with reports of hate crimes against Christians because it’s so common to see cross bashers or crosses being equated to swastikas in grafitti.

    I’m asking you nicely, again, to leave.

  • It is my understanding that no hate crimes charges were filed against the minors responsible for the recent Jewish cemetery desecration.

    Steve writes:

    “God help you if you are a white Christian in America (unless you are rich of course). You will have no group to advocate for you when things go wrong. No organization to stand by your side when you, your rights, or your family is attacked. You are alone!”

    Please. The religious right has funded many legal defense organizations. Don’t get me wrong, I support everyone’s right to organize and fight for their rights, but to claim that there are no groups in the U.S. supporting conservative white Christians is simply false. The Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Coalition are both well known. But there are plenty of others such as the American Center for Law and Justice, the liberty Council, the Life Legal Defense Foundation, etc.

    I do not support hate crime legislation. Jonathan Rauch is more elegant than me:

    In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected
    Harper’s Magazine, May 1995

    “THE WAR on prejudice is now, in all likelihood, the most uncontroversial social movement in America. Opposition to “hate speech,” formerly identified with the liberal left, has become a bipartisan piety. In the past year, groups and factions that agree on nothing else have agreed that the public expression of any and all prejudices must be forbidden.

    On the left, protesters and editorialists have insisted that Francis L. Lawrence resign as president of Rutgers University for describing blacks as “a disadvantaged population that doesn’t have that genetic, hereditary background to have a higher average.”

    On the other side of the ideological divide, Ralph Reed, the executive director of the Christian Coalition, responded to criticism of the religious right by calling a press conference to denounce a supposed outbreak of “namecalling, scapegoating, and religious bigotry.”

    Craig Rogers, an evangelical Christian student at California State University, recently filed a $2.5 million sexual-harassment suit against a lesbian professor of psychology, claiming that anti-male bias in one of her lectures violated campus rules and left him feeling “raped and trapped.””

  • WEVS1 writes: “I do not support hate crime legislation,” and then quotes from an article: “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected.”
    hmmm…So if someone repeatedly posted comments on your favorite web site calling for “death to all who don’t support hate crimes legislation” would that sit well with you? What if you were exposed to these comments day after day, year after year? What if these sentiments were directed at your ancestors, going back countless generations? How thick is your skin, WEVS1?

Leave a Comment