Can you source that or are you just repeating a lie?

Which would be a strange consideration.

Racial profiling, as the term is often used is a policing technique that tends to be effective but raises social policies concerns.

As I wrote earlier, the “best argument in favor of hate crimes legislations is that hate crimes laws are actually anti-terrorist laws.” [1]

“I'm sure that it is harder to live as an Arab, not necessarily a Muslim, than it is to live as a Christian in America.”

Well, perhaps.

On one side, “Arab Americans better educated than most in U.S.,” [2] have higher incomes, etc.

Then again, there are draw-backs, as well. Millions of Christians who are black, but no Muslims who are Arabs, benefit from racial affirmative action laws.

“I'm assuming no one will dispute that more Arabs and Muslims in America experience some forms discrimination or harm on levels that Christians in America don't come near to.”

On the face of it, obviously not. There's something like 50-70x more Christians than Arabs-Muslims, so harm would have to be vanishingly rare for more Arabs and Muslims in to be harmed in absolute numbers.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/05/05/hate-crimes.html
[2] http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2005/03/09/News/Arab-Americans.Better.Educated.Than.Most.In.U.s-1429247.shtml

But the sort of tragedy that can result from hate and bigotry is heart-wrenching, no matter who the victims are.

1. http://www.hanania.com/hatevictims.html
2. http://www.alternet.org/story/17058/

As far as what Sikh victims should be classified as, its worth pointing out that I don't know if they've confirmed the four victims were Christians. Many non-Christians, such as myself, attend church, especially during the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas. If a visiting atheist or closet doubter was among the victims, would they be a martyr?

Congrats on taking over Amendment IX [1]!

Not sure why you call the claim a lie.

It is discussed in some detail over at the Powerline forum [2]. Considering the low level of hate-crime martyrdoms (see the 2006 data [3], for instance) plus those targeting Muslims have often hit Sikhs, the assertion is reasonable.

If you claim it is a “lie,” then first demonstrate the data is wrong, and secondly demonstrate intent to deceive.

(Of course, if you claim the data is merely wrong, you only need to demonstrate that.)

Adam,

“Hmm, reminds me of the recent Sarah Silverman episode where she engages in a debate over whether Jews or Blacks have it worse.”

In terms of life at age 18, blacks, clearly. A 1.5 standard deviation gap in general intelligence is a severe hardship, and nothing Jews currently put up with compares to it in terms of life limitations and troubles.

“Many non-Christians, such as myself, attend church, especially during the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas. If a visiting atheist or closet doubter was among the victims, would they be a martyr?”

At least from a policy perspective, it's probably good to recognize that martyrdom derives from witnessing. It's a good analogy. If an accuser accuses someone else, and “closets” the dependent's innocence, the accuser is still witnessing. Witnessing something they don't believe, perhaps — but that is there choice by using deception.

So I would count such a “closeted” atheist as a martyr for Christianity, for the purpose of policy, but not an atheist who merely happened to be killed at the same time.

(I've deleted lol's comment, as it does not fall into the category of helpful dialog.)

[1] http://amendmentnine.blogspot.com/
[2] http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/26618/
[3] http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table4.html

Ultimately, does it matter which group has been targeted by hate crimes in the US more? Dead is dead. All hate crimes are worthy of prosecution, regardless of the victims.