Pharyngula

Don't you people understand? Those kids were in the trenches fighting the War Against Christmas! How dare Mr. Adler not respond with a Merry Christmas. He is lucky he just got his ass kicked, and wasn't a business that could be boycotted. Thank goodness we have a bill pending in Congress to honor the Xmas and persecuted Xtians.

Posted by: Lawdog | December 13, 2007 11:20 AM

Ambivalence: Repugnant behavior from Xian idiots yet commendable behavior from a muslim toward a jew and all over a holiday assimilated from pagans and a second holiday that finds an extended lamp burning somehow miraculous.

Amazing that these obviously devout Xian numbnuts can't even discern Channuka from EASTER or Romans from Jews. Pitiful, just pitiful.

Posted by: Jsn | December 13, 2007 11:22 AM

Presumably Bill O'Really will have those Christian heros on his show to thank them for joining in the counter-offensive in the 'War on Christmas', won't he?

Posted by: Sigmund | December 13, 2007 11:22 AM

So the police reach the subway train, and what's the first thing they do? Arrest and handcuff the Muslim good samaritan!

Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | December 13, 2007 11:26 AM

One member of the group allegedly yelled, "Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus," she said.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | December 13, 2007 11:28 AM

Ya know, I've always said that if the Jews Killed Jesus, they did it so the Christians wouldn't have to.

Posted by: Denis Loubet | December 13, 2007 11:32 AM

Well now its official...the House Resolution honoring Christmas and rejecting persecution* of Christians passed...oh the irony

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847

*"rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide"

Posted by: Lawdog | December 13, 2007 11:44 AM

This is pretty startling for a couple of reasons - firstly this hits a bit too close to home for my liking. I like to think that we have less of this kind of nonsense here on the east coast, but clearly the infection is alive and well.

Second, stories like this really highlight the dangers of indoctrinating our youth with this kind of madness at an early age. I mean really, "Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus,"?! Are you serious? This bullshit can only be one of two things, willfull ignorance or insane brainwashing.

I used to understand religious people. I used to see where they were coming from. Hell, I used to be religious - 12 years in Catholic school will do that to you. To this day I am trying to undo the damage inflicted by that place. It is a dark, insidious thing, striking from the back of my mind. All I see when I look at these people is that darkness. It's madness, plain and simple. I see them following their ragged prophets, spouting their lies and propaganda like some deranged Nostradamus with the sort of confidence that only blindness and insanity can bring, and I can't wait for the day that we are rid of it for good.

I ripped open that veil with the pure light of reason a long time ago, and stories like this remind me how glad I am for that.

Posted by: Bozman | December 13, 2007 11:44 AM

Wait. There are Jewish people in New York City?

Posted by: Warren | December 13, 2007 11:45 AM

That story hurted my smart.

Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | December 13, 2007 11:52 AM

At the time Jesus died, there were no Christians.

Posted by: June | December 13, 2007 11:56 AM

(.)(.)

I just found out today that Garth Brooks is Jewish.

Who knew?

Posted by: wòÓ† | December 13, 2007 12:01 PM

No-one here will, I trust, leap precipitately to the conclusion that the "vast majority of Muslims are good people". You have to balance anecdotes like this with all we hear that doesn't speak so highly of them.

Posted by: Jamie | December 13, 2007 12:05 PM

Richard - that makes sense. I didn't think about that. How do we ever charge someone of a hate crime, then? Is it only if they readily admit it?

Posted by: amanda | December 13, 2007 12:11 PM

But... But... But... We're a Christian Nation, therefore this can't be true. It was the Jooooosss teaming up with the Camel Jockey in their war on Christmas. Clearly this was all made up to frame the innocent Christians on their way back from Bible Study because we know that Christians NEVER, EVER attack people for their beliefs, but are long suffering martyrs...

Posted by: Moses | December 13, 2007 12:19 PM

Jamie: It's pretty much a given that any time Muslims are mentioned here, someone will either jump in calling us anti-Semites for not condemning them enough or anti-Muslites (sure, why not) for condemning them too much. Sometimes both. Context be damned.

Posted by: Rey Fox | December 13, 2007 12:24 PM

First, the Muslim college student is a hero. He could really teach the nutjobs who beat up Adler a thing or two about Good Samaritanism.

Second, I want to know how you think Billo will spin this. And HR 847. Or has he already? (I don't want to rot my brain watching the "ORLY" Factor. Please do my grunt work for me. (:)

Posted by: Skwee | December 13, 2007 12:40 PM

Relationships between the Christians, Muslims, and Jews are very complex. The Southern Poverty Law Center's newsletter reported a few years ago an incident in which white supremacists staged a demonstration in which they yelled anti-Semitic garbage, cheered the September 11 attacks (I don't know how that gibes with their conspiracy theory that the "Jews did it," but whatever) and waved the Palestinian flag. Well, a bunch of Palestinians (who can be both Muslims and Christians) staged a counter-demonstration, demanding that the white supremacists surrender the Palestinian flag and saying, essentially, "The Jewish-Palestinian conflict is family matter - butt out!" Well, it's important to remember that Jews and Palestinians are both Semitic people, and they know this. The Muslim in the story was from Bangladesh, but he obviously knew more about his religion's roots than the self-professed Christians. Which is not a new story.

Posted by: Kristine | December 13, 2007 12:41 PM

But it's the Christmas season, you see. It's more about cultural solidarity than anything else.

Posted by: Rey Fox | December 13, 2007 12:42 PM

Doh, should've proofread, I said "for a moment" twice in the first 12 words >,

Book of Mormon anyone? And so it came to pass *VOMITS*

Posted by: zer0 | December 13, 2007 12:43 PM

When Jesus died the Christian cult was small but it did exist.

It was a Jewish sect at that time. Not until Paul of Tarsus allowed gentiles to join the cult did Christianity become its own religion.

Posted by: Sarcastro | December 13, 2007 12:46 PM

Why do Christians get all hot and heavy over who killed Jesus anywho? Biblically speaking he was sent here specifically to be killed right? So isn't saying "You killed my Jesus!" the equivalent of saying "You urinated in my urinal!"?

Posted by: Troy | December 13, 2007 12:47 PM

No More Mr. Nice Guy! (#8) said,

So the police reach the subway train, and what's the first thing they do? Arrest and handcuff the Muslim good samaritan!

Irony noted and logged. For additional irony, consider that once upon a time (before Muslims and indeed Christians existed), "Samaritan" meant a person from Samaria. A Samaritan was chosen for the "good" role in that parable because Samaritans practiced a faith which was almost Judaism, and the Jews reviled them for it. Nowadays, the parable has soaked into our collective meme pool, and we're probably apt to think that Samaritans were a famously good and upstanding people, known for their decent conduct. Not so — or at least, not among the Jews of the first century CE.

Many years ago, Isaac Asimov suggested translating the parable into modern terms by telling a story about a rich white man attacked by white robbers and left to bleed to death beside a road in rural Alabama. A minister and a sheriff walk past and avert their eyes, but his life is saved by "a Negro sharecropper".

Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 13, 2007 12:48 PM

Those 19-20 year olds sound like the crowd for which Huckabee holds so much appeal.

Posted by: Ken Cope | December 13, 2007 1:01 PM

I wonder if Bill O'Liely will have this story on this next "War on Christmas" segment? Anyone will to bet a bottle of single malt scotch?

Posted by: ryana | December 13, 2007 1:07 PM

Hate Crime laws just say "terrorizing a community is a heinous motive, and we think it should afford a greater sentence."

Posted by: bob | December 13, 2007 1:12 PM

If Jews did kill Jesus, they waited too long.

Posted by: craig | December 13, 2007 1:30 PM

"It was a Jewish sect at that time. Not until Paul of Tarsus allowed gentiles to join the cult did Christianity become its own religion."

But if Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews?

Posted by: craig | December 13, 2007 1:33 PM

Good one, craig.

Posted by: csrster | December 13, 2007 1:40 PM

Let's see. Someone walks onto a NYC subway train, just so "yells out" Merry Christmas, and that on the seventh of December?

Must be one of the 27 % who vote for people like Alan Keyes.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 13, 2007 1:46 PM

So the police reach the subway train, and what's the first thing they do? Arrest and handcuff the Muslim good samaritan!

I don't see racial profiling here, guy calls the cops says like 10 people just attacted, cops start arresting people who have clearly just been in a fight (he had a black eye), guy says 'hey, not him, he jumped in to save me', cops let him go. Pretty standard whether the guy was muslim or not. And, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the guy was from Bangladesh, would the cops have recognised him as muslim just by looking?

Assault is Assault, there is no reason to adjudicate what the assaulter was thinking at the time.

Um, a hate crime is only a hate crime when there's an assault isn't it? Charging them with a hate crime is pretty much the same thing as charging them with assault, just a different degree. Like murder 1 and murder 2 neh?

Actually it was three Jews, not one.

But they weren't involved in the attack, as either victims or attackers, not really relevent that they happened to be sitting there.

Posted by: Drekab | December 13, 2007 1:53 PM

I just found out today that Garth Brooks is Jewish.

Who knew?

Posted by: wòÓ† | December 13, 2007 12:01 PM

Duh... he's Mel's nephew.

Posted by: markbt73 | December 13, 2007 2:09 PM

Those 19-20 year olds sound like the crowd for which Huckabee holds so much appeal.

Good thing they probably aren't the voting type.

Posted by: moon_grrl | December 13, 2007 2:19 PM

I love the idiots who responded on the Stern show about the tree thing. First of all, don't they realize that the tree is a pagan symbol, or that Christmas conveniently falls on what was once Saturnalia?

The early Christians co-opted everything they could to push their message. But even if they did, there's really no evidence of Jesus Christ other than that of the Bible which to me is the fishiest of the fishy.

But I am dismayed by the outright Christian lunacy that seems to have taken hold of the nation. Even in RI there was a small story about the city of Cranston not putting up anything but lights on the trees. No creche, no menorah, just light. Bravo to them for acknowledging the true sentiment behind the evergreen and light.

I think the Christians are emboldened due to the fact that we have an allegedly pious man as President. Of course were there a Christ and were he alive today, he'd roundly condemn the acts of George W. Bush & Co.

Posted by: Tony P | December 13, 2007 2:36 PM

Amanda, Hate crimes are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, since they rely on mens rea of the defendant.

So where in the Constitution does it say that mens rea can't be taken into account?

as far as I'm concerned it's tantamount to thought crime

So much the worse for you. Thinking something isn't a crime, so there's no thought crime. Rather, harming others is a crime, and the intent is relevant to the penalty. Your blather about "unconstitutional" and "mens rea" is apparently intended to create the impression that you are informed about the law, when in fact it makes you look very uninformed about even the most trivial aspects.

Posted by: truth machine | December 13, 2007 2:49 PM

P.S.

the only difference in the example above is what I was thinking at the time

No, that's not the only difference. Robbing people is a different crime than beating up black people, and the difference is determined not by what you are thinking but by evidence which must be introduced in trial, in the same way that evidence was introduced in the Menendez brothers' trial to determine whether they killed their parents to end abuse or for some other reason.

Posted by: truth machine | December 13, 2007 3:08 PM

Which of Stephen Weinberg's categories do the attackers fall? Evil people doing evil things, or good people doing evil things because of religion. The Muslim fellow seems to have sewn up the "good people doing good things" role.
The group was trolling for a fight - and found it. That puts them in the "evil" camp. Their use of Merry Christmas and subsequent verbal attacks was window dressing, not an indication of their religious persuasion. They were probably tired of the "Are you looking at my girlfriend?" gambit.
News reporters, however, like to flog controversy and a story that "Ten youths attack passenger until aided by another passenger" just doesn't sell papers.

This is pathetically simplistic. People with the potential to act nastily did so as a result of religious bigotry and the "War on Christmas" victimization meme common among Christians. The notion that these folks were simply "evil" people -- a religious concept if ever there is one -- and religion was irrelevant or incidental is absurd. The evil here is that which comes about from religious indoctrination, especially Christian indoctrination as it is often manifested in modern American society.

Posted by: truth machine | December 13, 2007 3:22 PM

If intent is used to distinguish degrees of a crime murder, why not other violent crimes as well? If the victims where targeted for not other reason than that they where Jewish, then the intent is to intimidate the Jewish population of a community at large. If you found out some person or persons where randomly attacking atheists in your community, wouldn't you feel intimidated and threatened as a result. That's how hate crime is adjudicated.

The degree of murder is determined by whether or not the killer thought about killing the victim before they went and killed them. It makes no distinction as to why they killed.

Posted by: Richard | December 13, 2007 3:31 PM

No-one here will, I trust, leap precipitately to the conclusion that the "vast majority of Muslims are good people". You have to balance anecdotes like this with all we hear that doesn't speak so highly of them.

Uh, Ok. Thanks for that Jamie.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 13, 2007 3:47 PM

Uh, Ok. Thanks for that Jamie.

Yeah, it seems that Jamie's concerned that we might go soft and get all unbigoted against Muslims for a moment. After all, there's "all we hear" that "doesn't speak so highly" of "the vast majority of Muslims". Why, just the other day there was a news report that the vast majority of Muslims ... hmmm, what was that we heard about the vast majority of Muslims?

Posted by: truth machine | December 13, 2007 3:58 PM

I wonder sometimes about my fellow Americans' commitment to freedom as a way of life. Obviously, conservatives generally hate and fear freedom, except perhaps the freedom to antagonize minoroties. But the concept of "hate crimes" really is just a big crock of fascist shit. A crime is a crime, and motive is ALREADY taken into consideration. To give extra sentencing for hate crimes is to give extra protection to some groups, not as a matter of emergency, but as a matter of course, and that is discrimination. It's just another political bone to throw, and creates more confusion in a case than it clears. Everything in consideration for a hate crime is already considered during the course of a trial and sentencing. If a person steals to feed their family, they will usually get a lighter sentence than a repeat thief who steals for fun or profit. Same with bar fights vs. a history of violence. Hate crime laws just give society a chance to exact revenge on an individual not for what they did, but what they were thinking while they did it. How is that not thoughtcrime?

There was never a need for even harsher penalties, just a need for equal enforcement of the law. Here in California we had a case a couple of years ago. A pair of teens had been vandalizing homes and businesses. It was considered annoying, and the cops got some overtime, and people went on with their lives. Then the pair vandalized a church. No different crime committed, just a change in victim. Suddenly it was in the papers all over the state, a large investigation ensued, and the teens were given much stiffer penalties than usual. So you can deface a private home, small crime. You can deface a business, no big deal. But if you break a few windows on a church, or say bigoted things while you're doing it, it becomes a heinous act that must be purged? Again, how is that not thought crime? How is that fair or just? The long term effect will only help professional victims keep their cherished status as victims, and give the haters and bigots an actual REAL reason to carry on. Or we could just grow up and deal with the fact that assholes are assholes, and treat them with justice and honesty instead of manufactured controversy.

As far as this case goes, I am filled with anger at their arrogance and wanton violence. But I don't care why they did it, except perhaps to further the study of violent behavior. All the perpetrators need to know is that it will not be tolerated. Period.

Posted by: Neil | December 13, 2007 4:02 PM

I have a hypothesis: anyone who claims that hate crimes are "fascism" is a racist.

Hate crime law, that is. Hate crimes themselves are a tool of fascism.

Posted by: truth machine | December 13, 2007 4:11 PM

No-one here will, I trust, leap precipitately to the conclusion that the "vast majority of Muslims are good people". You have to balance anecdotes like this with all we hear that doesn't speak so highly of them.

Kudos for your willingness to stand up for bigotry against an unpopular group. Shows a lot of personal courage.

Posted by: Jake Boyman | December 13, 2007 4:23 PM

Now the reason I stated the obvious, in this particular case, is that people often bug me by saying something along the lines of, "The vast majority of Muslims are perfectly reasonable people." I ask them how they know, and they produce a few anecdotes concerning the deeds of a few good Muslims.

Posted by: Jamie | December 13, 2007 4:44 PM

people often bug me by saying something along the lines of, "The vast majority of Muslims are perfectly reasonable people." I ask them how they know, and they produce a few anecdotes concerning the deeds of a few good Muslims.

Splendid. So I assume you can share us your evidence proving how they're in fact all bad people?

Posted by: Jake Boyman | December 13, 2007 4:48 PM