The Methodist cross has flames around it. Allegedly the flames represent the Pentecost. But the Methodists adopted this particular symbol in 1968, when the idea of burning crosses = anti-civil rights activity wasn't far from people's minds. I'm not terribly comfortable with it, even though I was raised in a church that had it printed on everything. Distance doesn't always make the heart grow fonder.

This is awesome! [link]

A blogger sez:

Totally Looks Like is a new blog from that guys behind I Can Has Cheezburger? that features photos of famous people and the animals, things or other non-famous people they look like. It’s kind of like a mutated version of Spy Magazine’s classic “Separated at Birth” feature.

Huh. I never noticed it before, bit Glenn Close does sorta look like Robocop....

I think cross burning is a special case because it has a specific historic context and meaning. Is it ever done not in that context?

I don't know. I see spray-painting a swastika or "God hates fags" or "clever" catch-phrase of choice on a house or business as a similar statement.

Glenn Close does sorta look like Robocop....

this just made me snort wine out of my nose.

With some actions, I think the thought is implied by the action itself. Cross-burning is one, or spray-painting swastikas on a Temple or gangs who go out intending to "fag-bash."

True, DebetEsse.

(hey, btw, how did you come up with your b.org name?)

Going further than the premeditated/heat of passion murder distinction, the difference between accidental manslaughter and premeditated murder is one of intent—the victim is still dead in either instance.

Well, and the case I did not get put on -- naked - not a crime -- naked do to some sort of sexual purpose changes the nature of the action

OK. Two seperate points.

1) I don't think in the U.S. hate crime laws usually apply to things that are not crimes anyway. Even cross burnings are arson or vandalism. I mean it is illegal to build a circle in a public park too: it is just more illegal to burn a cross - and the fact that this is historically a death threat is a good reason. Intent has always been part of criminal law. I don't think there is any abstract reason to think racist intent can't be part of that. Incidentally I do think there is good practical reason to oppose hate crime laws in a nation where prosecutors already have way too much power. But that is very different from abstract arguments about free speech or mind reading.

2) Taking a wafer you put into your mouth with permission, that have permission to swallow, and walking out without swallowing is not a hate crime. It may be offensive, ill judged. It may even be hateful, but it is not the sort of thing that should be covered by hate crime statutes, even where hate crime statures are a good idea.

The difference between negligence and murder is intent, but the distinction is whether you knowingly intended to kill someone, not why.

And intimidation & harassment are in themselves crimes. As for cross-burning:

In Virginia v. Black et al. the Court found that Virginia's statute against cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate is constitutional because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. [...] The Court did, however, strike down the provision in Virginia's statute which stated "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons," holding that the provision was facially unconstitutional because of its "indiscriminate coverage." The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.

[link]