Bias Related Assault at 36th and N Streets

Early this morning a student was assaulted at 36th and N Streets by an unknown male after being asked repeatedly “Are you a homo?” according to a DPS Public Safety Alert.

According to the PSA:

On November 1, 2009 at approximately 1:32 a.m., witnesses reported to DPS that a student walking in the area of 36th & N Streets, NW was assaulted by an unknown male. Immediately prior to the assault, the suspect asked the victim several times, “Are you a homo?” The suspect fled the scene after physically assaulting the victim.

DPS and GERMS responded to the scene. GERMS transported the victim to Georgetown University Hospital for treatment of the injuries sustained in the assault. DPS gathered information from witnesses and notified MPD. The investigation is ongoing.

According to the PSA, the suspect is described as “a white male with red and white face paint, wearing a black leather jacket.”

This is the second reported bias-related assault this week.  Another student was assaulted on Canal Road on Tuesday because she was wearing a pro-gay rights t-shirt.

55 Comments on “Bias Related Assault at 36th and N Streets

  1. I sometimes wonder if maybe reducing the number of reactionary, fratboy douchebags admitted to Georgetown might reduce the number of reactionary, fratboy-related hate crimes around campus. It’s just a theory, though.

  2. Unprovoked hitting of other students is inexcusable. At the same time, it’s becoming clear Georgetown is rightfully becoming tired of all the pro-sodomite behavior.

  3. I sure hope Rick P is being deeply, deeply sarcastic. “Pro-sodomite”? Are you kidding me?

  4. Of course not. Sodomy, like adultery and fornication, is a grave sin. As a Jesuit school devoted to educating and forming the whole person, we don’t want to deleteriously impact the spiritual aspect of their person.

  5. that spiritual aspect definitely doesn’t get deleteriously impacted by a brutal beating

  6. Rick P, I’m not sure the bible said for followers of Christ to harm or stone homosexuals. As for cura personalis, maybe your person need to be educated?

  7. Anonymous, I believe I was rather clear: “Unprovoked hitting of other students is inexcusable.”

  8. “As for cura personalis, maybe your person need to be educated?”

    Maybe you should learn basic grammar before criticizing.

  9. Pingback: Vox Populi » Students organize flash protest against recent anti-gay hate crimes

  10. Rick P:
    How dare you say “Georgetown is rightfully becoming tired of all the pro-sodomite behavior” as though the rest of us are as ignorant and closed-minded as you obviously are- I for one am absolutely disgusted that someone so offensive was ever admitted here. I would highly recommend adjusting your attitude so you don’t sound like a such a fanatical moron in the future. And, more importantly, don’t think that most of the student body here is like you with respect to this issue. Because we aren’t. Maybe you should transfer to Patrick Henry College where you’d fit in better.

  11. Wow anonymous 2, I’m fully outraged by your comment. You are the prime example of elitist, arrogant, rich wasps who believe people that have to go to Patrick Henry College are not as good as you. Just because you can go to Georgetown doesn’t mean that people who go to a different college are not as good as you. I am highly disgusted.

  12. yeah WHOAAAA! You tell this guy not to make a statement based on a stereotype about Patrick Henry College. But uh you use a stereotype with similar veracity about Georgetown in your response. Hypocrisy is perhaps not the best tactic in an argument. I do agree that adding that snip about PHC was pointless by Anonymous 2, his point is made without that.

  13. I’m really surprised at the intellectual intolerance of some people here. I think I posited a fairly acceptable statement. Let me expound.

    1. Hitting students is bad 2. Sodomy, like other sins of the flesh, is a grave sin 3. Even if students are perceived as engaged in activities promoting sodomy, it doesn’t make them valid targets of aggression 4. Georgetown as an institution should not condone pro-sodomite behavior. 5. Lastly, there is a difference between people with homosexual inclinations and the act of sodomy.

    You should welcome debate and discussion instead of derisively shouting down anyone who disagrees with you.

  14. Lets look at what Rick P just said.

    There is a difference between people with homosexual inclinations and the act of sodomy.

    How then, Rick, does this incident demonstrate that Georgetown is getting tired of pro-sodomite forces? You have no idea if the victim in this incident was 1. committing this grave sin of the flesh you refer to, 2. merely had the inclinations 3. was even homosexual to begin with!

    This person was beaten up solely because the attacker had a homophobic motivation, end of story.

    Rick, you might think putting in a line about people hitting each other not being ok exempts you from condoning this, but its your kind of third-world ignorance that creates a climate where these actions are tolerated.

  15. Hi Rick,
    Just another question to add to the ones from Chris D. What exactly is Georgetown doing to “condone” pro-sodomite behavior? It seems like this most recent behavior coming out of Georgetown is pretty clearly anti-sodomite, as you so charmingly put it.

  16. Hey Rick P., having debate and discussion is fine. But if “sodomite” behavior is what you hate, then maybe you should ask Georgetown to crack down on the thousands of straight Georgetown students who are engaging in oral sex, a form of sodomy. Or maybe the hundreds of millions of straight Americans who do the same.

    Oh, and speaking of sinful behavior, please let me know if you have ever done homework on a Sunday, and I will gladly look to my copy of the Old Testament to assist in punishing you for your grave sin of working on the Sabbath.

  17. Forget the sodomites…aren’t all of the people at GU engaging in sexual acts before marriage committing a “grave sin?” GU’s got a lot of work to do stopping all of this terrible behavior they are condoning. Before you know it, there will be mayhem in the streets with the five non-sinners attacking the thousands of sodomites and “other” sinners. Oh, wait, then the sinners will have the upperhand…sounds like a plan.

  18. These actions are obviously horrific, and inexcusable under absolutely any circumstances. Just something to add– and this is a massive disclaimer so that no one will ever perceive these comments to be condoning this sort of behavior in any way at any time, assaults motivated by hate are absolutely and unequivocally dispicable– but in addition to addressing the fundamental issue of intolerance on Georgetown’s campus, I believe the community would be better served if the administration and student body addressed the underlying issue of alcohol abuse, which, given that the assault occurred at 1:30am, was likely a contributing factor in this, and other similar incidents in the past (though admittedly probably not in last Tuesday’s crime, which happened before sundown). Obviously intolerance is one issue worthy of confrontation, but such incidents are likely to reoccur if the augmenting factor of alcohol abuse is not also tackled by the Georgetown community.

  19. Adam, while there should be no “crackdown”, Georgetown should certainly not fund groups which encourage any form of sodomy. Furthermore, in regard to “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”, sinning in this context constitutes a deliberate failure of the Sunday obligation for Catholics, i.e., purposefully not going to Mass. Nonetheless, this is not a mortal sin.

    Steve Thompson, yes, “all of the people at GU engaging in sexual acts before marriage [are] committing a ‘grave sin.'” Georgetown should seek to foster an environment where chastity is encouraged.
    At the same time, few are the times Georgetown has supported groups which directly or indirectly condone pre-marital sex.

    What I’m writing is very reasonable stuff.

  20. The Bible only says that if you ignore the line that immediately follows “Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy”: “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.”

    Basic Catechism, Rick P. Part 3, section 2, article 3, as a matter of fact.

  21. “To Rick P”, this is getting pedestrian, but I’ll oblige you.

    I encourage you to reread the section of the Catechism you just misinterpreted (CCC 2180-2195).

    The Sunday obligation

    2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.”117 “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.”118

    2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

    2182 Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    2183 “If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families.”120

    A day of grace and rest from work

    2184 Just as God “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,”121 human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord’s Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.122

    2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body.123 Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health.

    The charity of truth seeks holy leisure- the necessity of charity accepts just work.124

    2186 Those Christians who have leisure should be mindful of their brethren who have the same needs and the same rights, yet cannot rest from work because of poverty and misery. Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life.

    2187 Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. With temperance and charity the faithful will see to it that they avoid the excesses and violence sometimes associated with popular leisure activities. In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees.

    2188 In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church’s holy days as legal holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country’s legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this “festal gathering,” this “assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.”125

    IN BRIEF

    2189 “Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Deut 5:12). “The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord” (Ex 31:15).

    2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

    2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ’s Resurrection on the “eighth day,” Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord’s Day (cf. SC 106).

    2192 “Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” (CIC, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (CIC, can. 1247).

    2193 “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body” (CIC, can. 1247).

    2194 The institution of Sunday helps all “to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their amilial, cultural, social, and religious lives” (GS 67 § 3).

    2195 Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day.

  22. Incidentally, just to clarify, the point about Patrick Henry College was about ideology, not academic rigor- it was merely a comment about an academic environment that encourages that kind of intolerance. Those of you who considered that to be the comment of an “elitist arrogant arrogant rich wasp” (none of which, as it happens, actually describe me) misunderstood the intent. The point was that Georgetown on principle accepts and encourages equally students ascribing to all faiths (in addition to students who do not ascribe to any), and it is ridiculous to argue that something that is a sin in Catholicism should inform the way the university handles issues involving human rights issues. And yes, inequality based on sexual-orientation is most certainly a human rights issue, every bit as much as religious persecution or racism is.
    As for “all the pro-sodomite behavior” that so offends you Rick P- unfortunately behavior of that sort is protected by the Constitution, and since the Georgetown students engaging in said behavior are legal adults, there is really nothing anyone can or should do to regulate or prevent it. That’s the beauty of living in a country like America.

  23. Anonymous P. thank you for saying human rights. We all too often forget that. Actually, we don’t. They do.

  24. Well, Rick, you chose to address Adam’s remark and not mine, which is fine. I would like you to rebut my point that your intolerance creates an environment where these crimes are accepted and occur regularly.

    This is the same as how the Klan, who really just don’t like some folk, believe in promoting a white America, but don’t explicitly condone attacks against non-whites. Nonetheless, their bigoted rhetoric creates the environment where people who lack the the self-control of those espousing bigotry go out and harm people. They hear people condemning certain kinds of individuals, and lacking the ability to sift through these remarks and temper their passions, they go out and murder or assault someone.

    Rick, you might not go out and beat up a gay person, but you are equally culpable, because whether or not you condone the act, you are condemning the victim and tacitly encouraging people who lack self-control to go out and punish certain kinds of people for simply being who they are. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    Yes, I am comparing you to a Klan leader. Its an apt comparison and I’ll defend those sentiments to the end.

  25. “The point was that Georgetown on principle accepts and encourages equally students ascribing to all faiths (in addition to students who do not ascribe to any), and it is ridiculous to argue that something that is a sin in Catholicism should inform the way the university handles issues involving human rights issues.”

    Why wouldn’t Catholic doctrine serve as a guiding light for a Catholic university?

  26. Pingback: The Morning Metropolitan «

  27. Who knew there were so many closeted Pharisees here at Georgetown, telling us what we can and can’t do.. who’s in sin and who’s unblemished, pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Just like the Pharisees who ostracized the blind man because of course blindness was a sin. (Jn 9)

    Then another man came along and opened the man’s eyes .. on a Sabbath, no less! He vowed that “those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.” I’m with him.

  28. What’s the objection to sodomy?

    Isn’t GU still a school in “the Jesuit Tradition”?

  29. Roger, you may have forgotten that after Christ met and loved sinners, he compelled them to go and sin no more.

  30. Josh, you missed the point entirely. Read the ninth chapter of John’s Gospel. The blind man was not a sinner, at least not because of his blindness. The Pharisees were sinning by excluding him from the community of faith. Do you think that Christ sinned by doing work on the Sabbath? Was the Son of God violating God’s rules, or fulfilling God’s law?

    Likewise, GU is doing the right thing by saying that LGBT people are part of our community, and have a right to be included as full and equal members, to live and study free from violence and fear. When two people profess genuine love for each other, this love cannot be a sin, because it is consistent with the Greatest Commandment (upon which all others rely). When someone expresses or commits an act of hate against another, this hatred is a sin, because it directly violates that most sacred of commands.

    Listen, for years, the Church sold “indulgences” to people who wanted to basically buy off an early exit from Purgatory. Then, one day, the Church said those indulgences were worthless. Which rule was right?

    In it’s truest form, our faith does not call on us to fret and point fingers every time someone is perceived to break a rule… it’s actually about breaking open your heart to understand the fullness of the mystery of love. LGBT people are testifying to the truth of this love in their lives.

  31. I’m unsure of when “one day, the Church said those indulgences were worthless”.

  32. Moreover, the comparison with the blind man is a false one. Just cause you think you may have homosexual inclinations doesn’t mean you have to have gay sex.

  33. Those that shield their hatred of people different than them under the cloak of religion are the worst types of bigots that exist.

    Just as your type conveniently skips over the pro-slavery parts of the bible now that it’s beyond the pale, so too will your type skip over the anti-gay parts of the bible once it becomes too socially unacceptable to hate gays.

  34. According to the Catechism:

    “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination… is objectively disordered…”

    The Church states that the inclination itself is disordered because it leads those to sin. This is indeed quite similar to the blind man in John 9, because his blindness was itself considered to be sinful: “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” The Pharisees reacted with indignation that the blind man could speak about his encounter with the Divine: ” ‘You were born totally in sin, and are you trying to teach us?’ Then they threw him out.”

    Christ is telling us that there is no excuse for excluding anyone on the basis of their intrinsic characteristics. In fact, he quite explicitly violated the clerics’ purity codes about not touching unclean things on the Sabbath– which comes from Leviticus, mind you. Was this an example of Jesus committing a sin or an act of love? I assume you agree that the former is impossible, as it would negate the divinity of Christ.

    Archbishop Wuerl read a statement at the beginning of a Mass on October 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM at St. Matthews in Washington DC, where he noted that he would deny communion to anyone who publicly identified themselves as gay at the service, even though they were Catholic. He followed through on his warning. Was Archbishop Wuerl acting out of love because after all, he followed the rules? Or, was he sinning by selectively enforcing man-made rules to exclude members of the community?

    I don’t “think I have homosexual inclinations,” either. I know that I am gay. I know that I am in love with another person of the same sex, and I am testifying to the truth about that love.

  35. This is a silly discussion. Why are we feeding trolls?

  36. jerry’s right. all this shows is just how dumb and irrelevant right-wing catholicism is to living a decent life.

  37. Pingback: Vox Populi » Homophobic slur written on the door of the LGBTQ Center

  38. Pingback: Vox Populi » MPD not investigating hate crimes because victims won’t talk to police, Lt. Hedgecock says

  39. Pingback: Vox Populi » Georgetown students, faculty and administrators gather for vigil for hate crime victims

  40. Rick P: You’re trying to sound “reasonable” while not recognizing the extent of your own bigotry. For the record, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of the dreaded “sodomy” you so decry: “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex”

    Did you read that? Then I ask you, Rick P, to demonstate at least a shred of intellectual and moral consistency: Would you condemn, as broadly as you do gay people, all those straight people who also engage in oral sex? Do note that the definition of sodomy makes no distinction between married or unmarried oral copulation. Do you pledge that you have never received, and never will receive, a blow job from your opposite-sex partner, for life?

    Anything less is sheer bigotry and hypocrisy.

  41. I must say that I’m appalled that such violent activity happens. I, as a Christian that wholeheartedly believes in God and his love; am even more socked and appalled that such violent acts are committed in God’s name.

    I’m frankly quite tired of those who claim to be religious using the sacred belief in God as a means of intolerance. At what point will we as Christians get tired of individuals like Rick P. hijacking the Christian belief. “blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth”; “love thy neighbor as you love yourself”; “let any man who has not sinned cast the first stone” etc. Those are all teachings of our lord and savior that have been tossed by the wayside in exchange for bigotry, hatred and other forms of vile rhetoric. God is the man that loved the very man that he knew was betraying him. God is the one that loved Peter even though he denied him.

    God loves us all – Gay, Straight, Bi, Trans, Tall, Short, Black, White and ALL other forms of idiotic divisions that we as humans have created. His requirement is that we love him and each other as he loves us. He does NOT require us to hate each other or attack each other for his namesake!

    Micah Chapter 6 verse 8 says: “He has shown you what is good. And what does the lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your god.

    Where in there do you interpret that to say or imply “God requires you to senselessly attack another human being”?

    I encourage you, Rick P and others who share your viewpoint, to remember that which is commanded of you by God – to judge not less ye be judged. I’m quite sure that you have fallen short of your Christian responsibilities and have disappointed God. That in which you also do NOT deserve to be attacked. Provided you were ever attacked, you also do NOT deserve anyone to rationalize the said attack in any way, shape or form which is what you are indeed doing.

  42. Pingback: Georgetown U’s Second Bias-Related Attack « Unfinished Lives

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>