Self-proclaimed atheist charged in slayings of North Carolina Muslim students

[DGuller]

The logic behind hate crimes is that the crime victimizes people not directly at the receiving end of the crime.  If you lynch a black man in the South, you're not just murdering the black man, you're also terrorizing the black people still alive.

[garbon]

That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane.  Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.

Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.

Dunno, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with people believing in the fantasies of their choice, as long as they don't force their fantasies upon others.

All people who are anti-religious may well be atheists. BUT

Not all atheists are anti-religious.

Yep. There's a difference between the whole 'new atheism' and many, many other varieties.

It seems a little bit suspect to say that the suspect's atheism is irrelevant while not saying anything about whether the victims' religion is really relevant.

edit: or what Seed's article speaks about.

[frunk]

I'm always a little grey on the whole hate crime thing but I would say that yes if an offender acted because they wanted to strike fear into the hearts of the group they hate (terrorism) that such should be dealt with more harshly.

I'd agree to the extent that the possibility of repeat offenses can be a factor.  So an unrepentant, multiple offense terrorist should be treated more harshly when dropping an M-80 in a toilet than a high schooler.  I don't think it should require specific legislation for the cases of "hate crimes" or "terrorism" though.

[Valmy]

Despite the release of these facts, and probative evidence that the executions were likely a hate crime, national media outlets remained silent. History affirms that a reversal of racial and religious identities - an Arab and Muslim culprit and white victims - would have spurred immediate media attention, on a national and global scale. However, given that Barakat and the Abu-Salha sisters were Arab and Muslim, the media lagged to cover the story.

Does history actually affirm this?  I cannot recall a story where Arab Muslims killed white victims in the US.  I mean yes there is 9/11 but if this crazy white dude had killed thousands of Muslims in downtown Manhattan that probably would have been a big deal. 

[The Brain]

The logic behind hate crimes is that the crime victimizes people not directly at the receiving end of the crime.  If you lynch a black man in the South, you're not just murdering the black man, you're also terrorizing the black people still alive.

If you murder a white girl all America is terrorized.

[Eddie Teach]

Man, it's getting tiresome having people claim victimhood because some crime didn't become a big enough media frenzy.

[Valmy]

The logic behind hate crimes is that the crime victimizes people not directly at the receiving end of the crime.  If you lynch a black man in the South, you're not just murdering the black man, you're also terrorizing the black people still alive.

I understand the logic, I was just saying that is the reason the defense is rushing to assure us this nutcase murdered these people because of a parking space.

[Berkut]

Opinion
Why Muslim lives don't matter
blahblahblah

[jimmy olsen]

Their religion mattered most for US media outlets as well, who lagged to cover the story.

CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC finally released stories of the murders Wednesday morning: More than 12 hours after the three young adults' lives were taken leaving Muslims to wonder: If the victims were white and non-Muslims, and the culprit Muslim, would mainstream media outlets be so slow to respond and report?

No. Muslims lives only matter when they're villains. Not victims. This is reaffirmed by news story after news story, and distorted accounts that tab "parking disputes" instead of hate as the primary motives of murder.     

It was a major story on the evening news the very next day. What more can anyone ask for?

[Valmy]

Man, it's getting tiresome having people claim victimhood because some crime didn't become a big enough media frenzy.

Especially when they make claims with no evidence, not even an anecdotal counter-example that makes sense.  I mean Charlie Hebdo?  That is not even the same country and it involved many more people.  It is an appeal to the prejudices of the readers that of course we are all racists and want all Muslims to die because...take my word for it that is just how it is.  Because.

I mean at least have something like 'remember that time an Arab American killed a few white devils and the media made it circus?'  Of course there has never been such a story.

[grumbler]

Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.

I think the distinction is meaningful.  Deists, for instance, are anti-religious but not atheists. 

[frunk]

The logic behind hate crimes is that the crime victimizes people not directly at the receiving end of the crime.  If you lynch a black man in the South, you're not just murdering the black man, you're also terrorizing the black people still alive.

The best way to do that is to prosecute the criminals.  Lynching was effective at terrorizing because the crime went unpunished and was to some extent condoned.

[jimmy olsen]

That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane.  Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.

Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.

The Greeks didn't worship the Gods because they loved them, but because they were dicks who'd make their lives a living hell if they didn't. Does that count as anti-religious non-atheists? 

[CountDeMoney]

Deists, for instance, are anti-religious but not atheists.

Lucky for America that's not what the Founding Fathers believed!

[garbon]

Man, it's getting tiresome having people claim victimhood because some crime didn't become a big enough media frenzy.

Especially when they make claims with no evidence, not even an anecdotal counter-example that makes sense.  I mean Charlie Hebdo?  That is not even the same country and it involved many more people.  It is an appeal to the prejudices of the readers that of course we are all racists and want all Muslims to die because...take my word for it that is just how it is.  Because.

I mean at least have something like 'remember that time an Arab American killed a few white devils and the media made it circus?'  Of course there has never been such a story.

I don't think that is at all what the article is trying to say.

Besides, I can remember a rather recent time when there were a few muslims who killed a few white people and the media made it a circus. Why I even seem to recall an entire city shutting down during the manhunt.