Senator Jim DeMint
340 Russell Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Senator DeMint:

This regards your repeated remarks that gay people should not be allowed to teach school. I object to them because that kind of discrimination against a minority violates the Pledge of Allegiance’s promise of liberty and justice for all.

I hereby challenge you to face me on national television and explain why I shouldn’t be allowed to teach. I studied at Master’s level at Harvard University and speak German, French, Spanish and Italian. I have published two novels. The phrase “By Scott Rose” has appeared in over 1,000 venues including Strings, (a publication for *students* of string instruments), The World Scholar (a publication for *students*), Bon Appétit, The Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism, ShowBoats International, Decanter, Opera News, the New York Blade, Girlfriends, Caviar Affair, the Advocate, Relish’s The American Table and Mia/Enas, a magazine for Greek Americans. I have taught with conspicuously positive results. I have for example guest lectured on the arts in journalism at Brooklyn College. The students loved me. I gave them pointers on how to break into journalism and subsequently learned that some of them have done so.

When you demonize minority members of American society, saying they should not be allowed to teach school, you contribute to the terroristic atmosphere of hatred that results in gay students and teachers living in angst and in some cases even committing suicide. It is therefore most ironic that you of all people have served on a U.S. Senate Subcommittee for human rights. Recently in Tennessee, a lesbian couple found their house burned to the ground and the word “Queer” spray-painted on a remaining adjacent structure. Your demonizing of gay Americans contributes to the ongoing occurrence of such hate crimes. Do you intend to behave responsibly to stop the hate?

In addition to facing you on national television, I intend to organize a group of GLBT teachers from around the country to meet with you in Washington. I will not rest in my campaign to reverse your bigotry until you 1) retract your statement; 2) apologize for it and 3) commit to fostering atmospheres of diversity and acceptance in U.S. schools nationwide.

Sincerely,

Scott Rose

CC: Barack Obama, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Charlie Rose, Keith Olbermann, Kenneth B. Mehlman. R. Clarke Cooper, Tony Ortega, Steven Thrasher, Matt Taibbi, other community members

It is surely a very gruesome and unfathomable thing to beat to death a little child, sometimes more than beating a person to death in a club brawl. Although the thought of a little child getting beaten to death is as you say, "something worse", i believe that in the end, it is still killing a living person. That's just my opinion. I think what is important is the motive behind the killing. Your statement might be more acceptable to me if both parties in the pub brawl had a hand in starting the actual brawl. but what if the killer or the victim is just defending himself?

anyway, that's my opinion. great blog sir. i shall be subscribing to this

No Matt…  It would mean that the idiots who belong to these groups who go around with their "God hates fags!" signs bashing men who they suspect are gay should be criminalised.  And who would be against that.  It is NOT a matter of "<span style="color: black;"><span><span>believing that homosexual conduct is wrong" The thugs who beat the life out of (ie. murder or try to murder) someone for being gay are NOT noble philosophers merely expressing their well thought out beliefs – or saints upholding their spiritual beliefs.  They are akin to Nazi gangs on Kristalnacht.  </span></span></span>

Any YES! "<span style="color: black;"><span><span>the state is in a position of ruling which political beliefs are orthodox and which are heterodox."… thats why we don't have slavery… why women can vote… and why you are free to practice your religion… because the Big Bad State passed rulings on which political beliefs are orthodox (freedom, equality, etc.) and which ones are hetrodox (beliefs supporting racism, slavery, etc)</span></span></span>

<span style="color: black;"><span><span>Bad ideas like racism ARE fought with the rigorous propagation of good ideas that is why thet BECOME legislation.  I believe we are seeing this great tradition continue in our own lives.</span></span></span>

<span style="color: black;"><span><span>Now lets suppose a John (a European) beleives Bob is a Maori who lives in his neighbourhood, John on this basis beats Bob to death again clearly a crime and clearly justly punished. This however <span> </span>is considered a hate crime and punished more harshly. </span></span></span>  
<span style="color: black;"><span> </span></span>  
<span style="color: black;"><span><span>Whats the difference? In both cases the person had a moral judgment that an action was wrong and in both cases the person acted unjustly. The only difference is that the content of the moral judgment made <span> </span>in the former case it was a judgment about theft in the latter a judgment about race. The person in the latter case is incarcerated for longer solely because he believes Maori living in the same neighbourhood as Europeans is wrong. </span></span></span>  
<span style="color: black;"><span> </span></span>  
<span style="color: black;"><span>Now should people be discriminated against and have their liberty revoked because of their moral opinions about Maori living in the same neighbourhood as Europeans? I think the answer is clearly no that violates the persons civil rights. I have no problem with people being incarerated or even executed for murdering others, but I do not think that in addition to this they should be punished for not accepting a liberal view of race relations. </span></span>

Same deal?

In addition to being executed??

I have already answered your objections above I believe.  The person who kills someone because they think they are gay is more likely to re-offend, is more likely to convince others to commit similar crimes – just like the racist.

They are not being punished for hating gays – they are being punished for putting this hatred into action.  Personally I would be in favour of a preventative system in this instance which would stop the murder in the first place.

Just try to remember this Matt:  The people walking around inthe USA with "God hates Fags!" placards are not as sophisticated nor as tolerant nor as forgiving as you are.  Your arguments while having a coffee in a nice cafe inAuckland translate to a broken beaten body and a grieving mother in less intellectual atmospheres.  Always worth bearing in mind.

So yes.  I guess I am rather arrogant and totalitarian.  But you say this as though it is necessarily a bad thing.  As though to throw the word "democracy!" in the air is the same as having a reaoned belief.  But that is just my pet peeve….

To the question:

If someone's crime is motivated by a fanatical hatred of (lets say) black people – and the whole reason they killed was due to this prejudice, then they are far more likely to re-offend than someone who was motivated by a one off event (seeing their wife cheating say).  They are also more likely to incite other people to commit similar crimes.

I think there is a real difference between the KKK member and the over stressed husband who snaps.  To say mantras like "assault is assualt" an "murder is murder" just brushes the differencces under the carpet.

Hate crime laws are policing thought?  I guess so in a way.  Do you not think that thoughts can lead to violence and murder?  Do you think that we should (for instance) ban a Nazi party in this country or are you happy for them to have their say?  I would sy ban them.  Characterise me as totaitarian if you wil lbut – Here I stand.

Do I believe in punishing people for their beliefs?  I guess i do in some instanes.  Do I think *my* beliefs are better than other peoples?  Yes! Yes! Yes! I genuinly blieve that Nazism is NOT as good as what *I* believe… I think that the KKK do not have as good a grasp on principles of what it is to be human as *me*
You say this makes me arrogant?  So be it.  You say to try to shut these idiots up is totalitarian?  Again.  So be it.   I don't worship at the alter of Freedom until it becomes so important that I will allow attrocities to be committed in its name.