Beating of Queens Satanist Prompts Hate Crime Charges

[karyn]

from new york times

By COREY KILGANNON

Published: January 12, 2005

ever since he was 12, Daniel Romano has cut a noticeable figure around Middle Village, a working class part of Queens. Mr. Romano, 20, who calls himself a Satanist, stands out, with his blue-tinted bouffant hairdo, his black clothing and fingernails, and the prominent crucifix, worn upside down.

Mr. Romano has long been teased for dressing like a "gothic kid" or simply a "goth," in a community with small homes, neat lawns and populated with many Roman Catholics.

But in recent weeks, two local teenagers began fixating on Mr. Romano, calling him names including "Satan worshiper," "baby sacrificer" and "hooker killer," the authorities say. On Sunday the verbal harassment turned into violence.

Mr. Romano, while walking on 72nd Street in Maspeth, was attacked by the two teenagers, the authorities say. Yesterday the Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, announced that the young men, Paul C. Rotondi and Frank M. Scarpinito, both 18 and from Middle Village, would be charged with hate crimes, which carry harsher penalties and are usually leveled when an attack involves a victim's ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

Prosecutors say they attacked Mr. Romano because of his religious beliefs: They thought he worshiped Satan. They were arraigned yesterday on charges of second-degree assault as a hate crime, possession of a weapon and aggravated harassment. The charges could carry prison terms of up to 15 years.

About 2 p.m. on Sunday, prosecutors say, the teenagers pulled up in a car and one yelled to Mr. Romano, "Hey, Satan!"

The authorities said that both defendants then attacked Mr. Romano - Mr. Rotondi using a metal club, and Mr. Scarpinito wielding an ice scraper. Mr. Romano was taken to Elmhurst Hospital Center, where he received 12 stitches. On Monday, he filed a complaint with police officers, who arrested the two youths.

At their arraignment yesterday, prosecutors asked that they be held in $75,000 bail, but a judge set it at $5,000 and they were released. An assistant district attorney, George J. Farrugia, said the defendants believed that Mr. Romano worshiped Satan and "over the last month and a half, they have had it in for this kid, and have been abusive."

Mr. Scarpinito's lawyer, Richard Leff, called the charges "an abuse of the hate crime status," and said his client had never been in trouble. Mr. Rotondi's lawyer, Sean A. McNicholas, said prosecutors were calling this a hate crime because of "politics and press."

"The kid is gothic with blue hair: He falls into a category of kid," Mr. McNicholas said. "At worst, this is a simple dispute between kids, not an attack on a minority."

"If the accusation was that he was black or Asian or Latino or Jewish, it's one thing," he said. "They see this as a religious practice. It's a dispute between kids, the same way you have the nerds, the jocks, the artsy kids and the teacher's pets. What's next? Someone being accused of attacking a preppie, or a nerd?"

In an interview last night at his apartment, which he shares with his mother, Mr. Romano said that he was raised Catholic but is now a Satanist. A hard rock musician, he attended Talent Unlimited High School in Manhattan and leads a band.

Mr. Romano said he was working at a bagel store last summer when Mr. Scarpinito, who worked next door at a hardware store, began making fun of him.

"My allegiance is to Satan and I hate Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but I don't hurt anyone," Mr. Romano said. "I take out my anger in mosh pits and S-and-M clubs. I think it's ironic that the Christians got violent with the Satanist."

His mother, Debbie Romano, 48, said, "I'm a Christian, but he went the other way; I don't understand his beliefs, but he doesn't hurt nobody."

Michael Wilson contributed reporting for this article.

[Drakken]

Lol it's not my way but I'll be damned if I don't agree with Romano and the courts on this one.

More power to him.

[One Eyed Cat]

I have serious reservations regarding the application of hate crime laws. Regardless, it is wrong to violate this clearly innocent man. I note with trepidation that he is an admitted hater of christianity, judaism, and islam. I do not believe such sentiments are consistent with any gothic scene (clearly misapplied in this instance) Still, the attackers should be punished to the fullest extent of the law which includes the hate crime statutes. They should have been aware of these laws before violating Romano due only to his religious beliefs. Rotondi and Scarpinito are despicable cretins who have forfeited their right to freedom for a very long time to come.

OEC

[aXa]

being as i was similarly harassed throughout high school for my religious leanings(i was a wiccan/pagan but was thought to be a satanist by many), i hope that the attackers get whats coming to them. it would have been nice back then to have some protection from the threat of attack or even harassment from ppl. it would have given the ppl who were accusing me of worshipping satan, killing animals etc something to think about. seriously, when the cops start coming to your house based on just "rumours" every time something "occulty" happens in your town it gets worrisome! i even had my books on wicca confiscated by the police! now, i know that this kid isnt a wiccan/pagan. but he has "freedom of religion". he has the right to follow his own path. and to do so openly, and without fear. i can see how this case could set a "legal precident" in terms of the hate crimes laws being applied to similar relgious beliefs. i think thats a good thing. and about friggen time!

[suicidal_tendencies]

what a bunch of bull. thats like me beating the fuck out of a priest because he goes to church every sunday.

[Tequila Zaire]

what a bunch of bull. thats like me beating the fuck out of a priest because he goes to church every sunday.

I think you missed the point...

If you commit an act of violence on a person for something like religion then it can fall into a hate crime. I'm not a fan of the hate crime idea since any crime has hate a part of it no matter how philisophical one wants to be about it.

So beating up a priest cause he symbolizes a religion would be a hate crime...beating up a priest cause he molested you as a kid would not.

The above is a silly case to be honest...I'm guessing neither side where saintly and the only reason it got brought up is cause of the whole satanist thing. The quote from the guy saying he "hates" certain religions while being the victim of a hate crime is pretty funny...

Jsut cause you don't harm the things you hate does not make you morally superiour or enlightened. Though maybe he meant "I tolorate those faiths I don't agree with"...hate could have simply been used badly in his statement.

But I see it like...if you hate something with enough conviction that it can blind you, don't be shocked if it comes back to bite you as a result. This simply sounds like a case of hate feasting on hate.

[aXa]

well, if u did that, and it could be proved that it was because of his religion then u could get into major trouble. the main issue tho is that this looks like it was a highly premeditated attack. they "had it in" for this guy for a month or so. thats more than your normal amount of hatred there.

[LrdSatanas]

He is a good ole LeVayian Satanaist. Reconised as a reiligon by the us goverment. So its definitly a hate crime. I really don't think thell get 15 years tho.

[Nightingale]

It is often the case, however, that a prosecuter will pile a whole range of charges to ensure a conviction or to make a plea bargain better for the victim.

[One Eyed Cat]

It is often the case, however, that a prosecuter will pile a whole range of charges to ensure a conviction or to make a plea bargain better for the victim.

True. Hate Crime laws are pretty specific tho. It is questionable to use them in a case where the victim admits to hating the religion of others. I think it should be simple assault.

OEC

[Drakken]

True. Hate Crime laws are pretty specific tho. It is questionable to use them in a case where the victim admits to hating the religion of others. I think it should be simple assault.

OEC

Then you're saying they could use 'provocation' as a defense because he openly hates christianity? That's scarecely logical. Its no different form abunch of KKK members hanging a colored man because hes black. Regardless of whether he 'hates white folk' back, it still remains a hate crime on the KKK's part. If the person were to have shot a few white folk then they would have 'provocation' and the hate crime charge would be waived.

[One Eyed Cat]

Then you're saying they could use 'provocation' as a defense because he openly hates christianity? That's scarecely logical. Its no different form abunch of KKK members hanging a colored man because hes black. Regardless of whether he 'hates white folk' back, it still remains a hate crime on the KKK's part. If the person were to have shot a few white folk then they would have 'provocation' and the hate crime charge would be waived.

I wouldn't say it would qualify as a provocation. Let's say a KKK member was killed for his beliefs by a black man. Either way, it is murder or assault. I believe they will and should go to prison. I just find hate crime laws to be tenuous in their application. The actions of the perpetrators are indefensible.

OEC

[Nightingale]

True. Hate Crime laws are pretty specific tho. It is questionable to use them in a case where the victim admits to hating the religion of others. I think it should be simple assault.

OEC

Ah, but that is the difference between hate and a hate crime. There are many things we all hate, but that doesn't make it a crime. When we do something physical to prove that hatred it becomes another matter entirely.

[Nightingale]

Also, if you are trying to justify the crime through provocation, you need to prove that the two knew he hated other religions. Now, if that is the case, every single follower of fundamental Islam wouldn't get off practically scot free even through they hate Christianity, and those who claim to hate Islam much the same. There would then be no hate crimes on a religious basis whatsoever.

[One Eyed Cat]

Ah, but that is the difference between hate and a hate crime. There are many things we all hate, but that doesn't make it a crime. When we do something physical to prove that hatred it becomes another matter entirely.

Agree. And again I was not trying to justify any crime. I believe the perpetrators should be punished to the *fullest* extent of the law.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

Also, if you are trying to justify the crime through provocation, you need to prove that the two knew he hated other religions. Now, if that is the case, every single follower of fundamental Islam wouldn't get off practically scot free even through they hate Christianity, and those who claim to hate Islam much the same. There would then be no hate crimes on a religious basis whatsoever.

Again, I was not trying to justify any crime. It just makes me wonder about the efficiency of hate crime legislation vs having all physical crimes carrying the same penalties. I believe anyone who violates the person of another should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

you read too much into things... you assume that the framers of the constitution were being litteral. freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to particpate in any religion you choose (hello, Waco texas, anyone?) It means that you have the freedom to worship Christianity and no one has the right to stop you from worshiping christianity freely, or to try and force you to follow the Church Of England. Freedom of Religion also means that you have freedom of (christian) religion, not the right to Freedom FROM Religion. you don't have that right.

[One Eyed Cat]

Here is an interesting counterargument I found. Personally, I do believe in some crimes carrying longer sentences when motivated by hate. In this instance, the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (including codified hate crime legislation as it stands in NY) You just tend to wonder where the line should be drawn. At some point, I believe the classification of hate crime will actually diminish the meaning of hate crime legislation. Anyways, just to consider:



Attack on Satanist shows absurdity of hate crime laws

January 13, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The decision by New York prosecutors to treat the beating of a Satanist as a hate crime provides more proof that the bizarre legal doctrine must be overturned, Libertarians say.

"What in heaven's name are these prosecutors thinking?" asked Joseph Seehusen, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "When a law supposedly designed to protect religious minorities is being used to protect devil-worshippers, our criminal justice system has been turned upside down."

Self-described Satanist Daniel Romano, who sports black clothing and fingernails and wears a prominent crucifix upside-down, was attacked on Sunday by two teens who jumped from a car, yelled "Hey Satan" and beat him with a metal club and an ice scraper.

On Tuesday, Queens district attorney Richard A. Brown said the victim was attacked because of his "religious" beliefs -- the youths thought he worshipped Satan -- and announced that the two young men, Paul Rotondi and Frank Scarpinito, would be charged with "second-degree assault as a hate crime" and two other charges, which could carry a 15-year prison term.

Under such a bizarre interpretation of the law, thugs who assault a Satanist because of "religious bias" could be punished more severely than if they attack a priest, rabbi, or any ordinary American and steal their wallet, assuming they're motivated only by greed, Seehusen noted.

And someone who murdered a Satanist because of a religious motivation could get a harsher penalty than someone who assassinated the president because of a political motivation.

"Is the life of a priest, rabbi, president or any ordinary American worth less than that of a Satanist?" he asked. "In the bizarre world of hate-crime legislation, the answer is yes -- because their murderer would get a less severe punishment."

But the main issue isn't whether Satanism actually constitutes a religion, and should therefore be covered under hate crime laws, Seehusen said.

The point is that hate crime laws are totally unnecessary because every violent crime is already covered under existing laws.

"The individuals who attacked Daniel Romano should be charged with second degree assault, period -- not second degree assault as a hate crime," he said.

"The concept of equal justice under the law requires that bigots be punished not because they assaulted a Satanist, but because they assaulted a human being. Police and prosecutors should focus on punishing all violent crimes, not on those which happen to be politically incorrect."

In addition, hate crimes are nothing more than thought crimes, in which people are punished for what they think, not for what they do, Libertarians note.

"Bigotry is despicable, but it shouldn't be illegal," Seehusen said."The job of government is to punish people who harm others, not to improve their character. Until politicians understand that mission, Americans in New York and elsewhere have the right to ask just what the devil has gone wrong with our justice system."

[Morning Glory]

you're telling me that killing the president doesn't have a stiffer penalty than killing joe shmoe on the street? I find that pretty unbelievable, since "assault on a police officer" is a seperate and worse charge than plain ol "assault" or "agrivated assault" (which is a joke too, you can calmly beat the shit out of someone, but if you get angry while doing it, you'll face a higher charge.) so the president doesn't matter one bit more than anyone else, wow I feel special now. oh yeah, and if it doesn't account for any charge higher than murder 1, you can kill the president and be pardoned by the state governor. sweet!

[One Eyed Cat]

you're telling me that killing the president doesn't have a stiffer penalty than killing joe shmoe on the street? I find that pretty unbelievable, since "assault on a police officer" is a seperate and worse charge than plain ol "assault" or "agrivated assault" (which is a joke too, you can calmly beat the shit out of someone, but if you get angry while doing it, you'll face a higher charge.) so the president doesn't matter one bit more than anyone else, wow I feel special now. oh yeah, and if it doesn't account for any charge higher than murder 1, you can kill the president and be pardoned by the state governor. sweet!

That's from an article I found. I seriously doubt assassinating a President would not have a greater penalty. You just have to wonder about some of the classifications of hate crimes. I support the legislation still, but I can see where it may be used contrary to its intent.

OEC

[killerkat]

That's from an article I found. I seriously doubt assassinating a President would not have a greater penalty. You just have to wonder about some of the classifications of hate crimes. I support the legislation still, but I can see where it may be used contrary to its intent.

OEC

do you think it could be an unwritten type of thing ,like he killed the president, so they just happen to give him a fuckup sent. treat him like shit in prison,ect.ect

just a thought i stayin' outta this one....mostly

[Amelia G]

Wow, that is one Libertarian who needs to hit the books. The Libertarian argument against hate crime legislation is that you don't need to make extra laws when beating someone with a metal club and an ice scraper badly enough to send them to the hospital is already quite illegal. The "devil-worshipper" comment makes me think maybe we do need anti hate crime legislation after all, when I would generally be disposed to think have fewer laws but enforce them. Probably not really, but what a poor spokesman.

I think motive and intention count in terms of punishment i.e. perhaps be more lenient if they attacked the guy for a reason such as he burned down their dad's store, assaulted their sister, etc. Maybe even for the purpose of robbery should carry less of a punishment (although still a significant one) than for no reason beyond personal taste. A civilized society can't have people running around attacking other people for essentially no reason, because they don't like what they look like, whether it is because of the color of their skin or how it is suspected they worship or love in private or just because the next guy is better looking or whatever. I think that is just part of the social compact.

[Amelia G]

you're telling me that killing the president doesn't have a stiffer penalty than killing joe shmoe on the street? I find that pretty unbelievable, since "assault on a police officer" is a seperate and worse charge than plain ol "assault" or "agrivated assault" (which is a joke too, you can calmly beat the shit out of someone, but if you get angry while doing it, you'll face a higher charge.) so the president doesn't matter one bit more than anyone else, wow I feel special now. oh yeah, and if it doesn't account for any charge higher than murder 1, you can kill the president and be pardoned by the state governor. sweet!

I agree. I doubt an assassin would even make it to jail in the first place if it was clear who did it. We do have Secret Service for a reason and I think anyone who got close enough to do something like that successfully would also be close enough to be taken out by those charged with protecting our first families. And I really doubt too many people would think a person blatantly doing that should not be shot on the spot.

[One Eyed Cat]

Wow, that is one Libertarian who needs to hit the books. The Libertarian argument against hate crime legislation is that you don't need to make extra laws when beating someone with a metal club and an ice scraper badly enough to send them to the hospital is already quite illegal. The "devil-worshipper" comment makes me think maybe we do need anti hate crime legislation after all, when I would generally be disposed to think have fewer laws but enforce them. Probably not really, but what a poor spokesman.

I think motive and intention count in terms of punishment i.e. perhaps be more lenient if they attacked the guy for a reason such as he burned down their dad's store, assaulted their sister, etc. Maybe even for the purpose of robbery should carry less of a punishment (although still a significant one) than for no reason beyond personal taste. A civilized society can't have people running around attacking other people for essentially no reason, because they don't like what they look like, whether it is because of the color of their skin or how it is suspected they worship or love in private or just because the next guy is better looking or whatever. I think that is just part of the social compact.

Libertarian Arguments generally fail prima facie. I agree motive and intent should be primary concerns, I just wonder how and when you want to make the classification of hate crime (I'm thinking beyond this case, obviously) Obviously, Satanists are not devil-worshippers tho as well


OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

do you think it could be an unwritten type of thing ,like he killed the president, so they just happen to give him a fuckup sent. treat him like shit in prison,ect.ect

just a thought i stayin' outta this one....mostly

Yeah I'm really not "pro" or "con" on this. I definitely think they should prosecute those 2 based on the laws on the books. If I was the Prosecutor, I would do exactly as that one did.

OEC

[Amelia G]

I agree OEC. The way the case is being prosecuted is correct, I think. If hate crime laws should be taken off the books is up for debate in my opinion. So long as they are on the books though, I totally think they apply in this instance.

[One Eyed Cat]

I agree OEC. The way the case is being prosecuted is correct, I think. If hate crime laws should be taken off the books is up for debate in my opinion. So long as they are on the books though, I totally think they apply in this instance.

That was what I was trying to get at. I don't think I expressed myself well in this instance. I think the best way to go would be to have hate crime as a recommendation and then just let the jury decide based on the *totality* of the circumstances.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

I agree. I doubt an assassin would even make it to jail in the first place if it was clear who did it. We do have Secret Service for a reason and I think anyone who got close enough to do something like that successfully would also be close enough to be taken out by those charged with protecting our first families. And I really doubt too many people would think a person blatantly doing that should not be shot on the spot.

naw, what about squeeky and that guy that shot at ronald reagan (or did that ever happen, maybe I just imagined it)? even oswald , although he did get shot, it wasn't by secret service.

[One Eyed Cat]

naw, what about squeeky and that guy that shot at ronald reagan (or did that ever happen, maybe I just imagined it)? even oswald , although he did get shot, it wasn't by secret service.

Hinckley pled insanity. I believe Squeaky Fromme did too. Sirhan Sirhan was tackled by football legend Rosey Grier after shooting Bobby Kennedy. I believe most of the earlier assassins were either shot or executed. Hinckley got lucky. Noone even knew Reagan was hit. They took in Oswald alive due only to the possibility that he may have indicted others in a conspiracy. Instead, he may well have been killed on behalf of co-conspirators.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

what about JWB?

[Morning Glory]

whoops, I meant to say more. here's my impression of that:
Lincoln: "hey, it's johnny booth, the famous actor. why are you here instead of on stage?"
JWB: "um.. I am acting... this is part of the play, want to play a part?"
Lincoln: "which one?"
JWB: " yankee president that get's assasinated."
Lincoln: " I'm not sure how play that one.
JWB: "Like this!" BAM! BAM! BAM!
(jumps off stage)
"aw shit, I broke my leg, who would have thought a 25 foot drop would do that? oh,yeah... The south shall rise again!"

[One Eyed Cat]

what about JWB?

Booth was cornered in a barn after assassinating Lincoln and killed. He was actually sniped *against the orders* of a Superior Officer. Obviously, the man who shot him became a hero. Booth was actually a top thespian of his time. It was similar to a Warren Beatty killing the President.

http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton/Lincoln40.html

Lieutenant Luther Baker (a detective) yelled, "Surrender, or we'll fire the barn and smoke you out like rats! We'll give you five minutes more to make up your minds."

Booth asked for time to decide. Finally, after some more give and take with the soldiers, Booth yelled, "Well, my brave boys, you can prepare a stretcher for me! I will never surrender!"


OEC

[Kidthorazine]

you're telling me that killing the president doesn't have a stiffer penalty than killing joe shmoe on the street? I find that pretty unbelievable, since "assault on a police officer" is a seperate and worse charge than plain ol "assault" or "agrivated assault" (which is a joke too, you can calmly beat the shit out of someone, but if you get angry while doing it, you'll face a higher charge.) so the president doesn't matter one bit more than anyone else, wow I feel special now. oh yeah, and if it doesn't account for any charge higher than murder 1, you can kill the president and be pardoned by the state governor. sweet!

Actually under the law killing the president would technically be the same thing as killing any other government official (unless federal prosecutors found a way to convicy you of treason or something of that nature as well) but im sure any judge or jury would automatically slap on the harshest penalty available unless they hated the president of course it would be impossible to find anyone in the country without a bias in this case and to my knowledge no one who has ever assasinated a president has made it to trial in recent history in this country

[23*]

Actually under the law killing the president would technically be the same thing as killing any other government official

I damn well hope so! He's only human.



Yeah this Goth dude seems a pretty bad representative for the goth community, the incident will do more harm than good.

As for being a hate crime, I can't help but feel that this seems somehow to miss the point. I guess its because goth is more of a style than a religion or ethnicity (I'm probably going to get torn apart for saying that!) and as such there are no laws governing styles against humanity.

Obviously they should be convicted for assault. No debate, what they did was wrong.

[karyn]

I damn well hope so! He's only human.



Yeah this Goth dude seems a pretty bad representative for the goth community, the incident will do more harm than good.

As for being a hate crime, I can't help but feel that this seems somehow to miss the point. I guess its because goth is more of a style than a religion or ethnicity (I'm probably going to get torn apart for saying that!) and as such there are no laws governing styles against humanity.

Obviously they should be convicted for assault. No debate, what they did was wrong.

the guy was assaulted because he is a satanist and not because he has blue hair or is "goth"
it is the defense attorney scumbag lawyer for the guys who beat him with a metal pipe and an icescraper who is saying the victim is just a goth kid with blue hair
the victim is not trying to be elected representative for the goth community. i don't think he even is a goth guy at all.
he is taking a stand and fighting for his right as an American to practice freedom of religion without being beaten so badly for his beliefs he must be hospitalized

[23*]

but don't you think that in this case satanism too is more of a style than a religion?

I think the term assault and subsequent imprisionment for the thugs is enough here. I find it hard to take the guy too seriously from what I've read.

[Morning Glory]

I believe they refered to him as satan, not as one who worships satan. so I can't see how you can argue they beat him up because of his religious beliefs, if they were to have called him satan and he was jewish, could you say they attacked him because of his religious beliefs, or because of their own? I use the example once again of militant muslim fundamentalists who view everything that isn't devoted to the one god allah as being associated with satan, but that doesn't mean they are targetting satanists any more than everyone else.

[One Eyed Cat]

but don't you think that in this case satanism too is more of a style than a religion?

I think the term assault and subsequent imprisionment for the thugs is enough here. I find it hard to take the guy too seriously from what I've read.

The guy sounded like a hateful moron to me. Obviously, he doesn't deserve to get beaten for it tho. I'd apply the hate crime statutes as a prosecutor. Ultimately, the people of NY will have to decide whether hate crimes legislation is effective. I'd apply it in this instance, tho I have a lot of reservations about the actual effects of these laws.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I believe they refered to him as satan, not as one who worships satan. so I can't see how you can argue they beat him up because of his religious beliefs, if they were to have called him satan and he was jewish, could you say they attacked him because of his religious beliefs, or because of their own? I use the example once again of militant muslim fundamentalists who view everything that isn't devoted to the one god allah as being associated with satan, but that doesn't mean they are targetting satanists any more than everyone else.

I'd have to read more about this case before deciding that. Something about this case is mighty unsettling tho.

OEC

[Amelia G]

but don't you think that in this case satanism too is more of a style than a religion?

I think the term assault and subsequent imprisionment for the thugs is enough here. I find it hard to take the guy too seriously from what I've read.

Satanism is a legally recognized religion. Some people just think it sounds cool to call themselves Satanists or to wear upside-down crosses and go to nightclubs, but they don't really know much about Satanist dogma or apply much of it to how they live their lives. Some people like wear their Sunday best frilly dresses and big hats and go to picnics, but they don't really know much about Baptist dogma or apply much of it to how they live their lives. There is absolutely no fundamental difference between the two and hate crime legislation is designed to protect minorities for exactly the reason that people tend to be prejudiced against whatever religion is not their own.

I also don't see where you are getting the idea that the guy was attacked for his look rather than his beliefs. The people who attacked him called him "Satan" and not "Bluey" or anything referring to his appearance.