OpEd Contributor

[Print]  [Email]        

'Hate crimes' law makes some more equal than others

By: David Bass, OpEd Contributor
-
May 4, 2009

Ascension by the “new evangelicals” continues as a number of left-wing Christian leaders have recently come out in support of hate crimes legislation approved April 29 by the House.
 
Politico reports that Joel Hunter, a religious advisor to President Obama, and David Gushee, a Christian ethics professor at Mercer University, have signed on in support of the bill, which would add extra penalties for what a criminal thought (or what we think he thought) when committing a violent crime.
 
The measure is particularly controversial because it puts the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on an equal footing with race and religion. For his part, Hunter thinks the bill is in line with Jesus’ protection of the woman caught in adultery from John 8.
 
“This bill protects both the rights of conservative religious people to voice passionately their interpretations of their scriptures and protects their fellow citizens from physical attack,” Hunter said.
 
Actually, U. S. citizens are protected from physical attack already. The bill, however, adds extra penalties for the intention behind the attack. That foray into the thought world is a short step from prosecuting speech the government thinks might contribute to certain crimes, not just the crimes themselves.
 
Fairness is also an issue. Classifications listed in the bill single out some citizens for more protection than others. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee refused to include veterans and the elderly as protected classes in the bill.
 
Therein lies the trouble with government parsing out which citizens are more worthy of protection than others. The credo is equal justice under law, not equal justice unless you happen to be religious or a homosexual, in which case you receive preferential treatment.
 
Beyond its constitutional implications, the bill vividly demonstrates the Left’s hypocrisy on religious participation in public life. Absent are calls from the Left for Hunter, Gushee, or other leftist Christians to cease mixing faith and politics. The silence might be hypocritical, but it is not surprising.
 
In liberal-land, the worn-out diatribe against religious voters mixing church and state only applies to conservative religious voters. If faith influences a citizen to support global warming regulations or federal anti-poverty measures, he or she is a hero.
 
If faith influences a citizen to support abortion regulation or the traditional definition of marriage, he or she is a bigot. The values dichotomy could not be more obvious.
 
Both Left and Right often agree that religious involvement in some public issues is, without question, beneficial. Few, for example, would condemn the involvement of Christians in the civil rights struggle.
 
But when the debate turns to the sanctity of human life or other cultural issue, traditionalist Christians are deemed to have no right to speak, while leftist Christians are revered for their values and commitment to a higher cause.
 
So far, that’s a double standard the Left can inflict only if those of a conservative religious persuasion allow it. Soon, it might have the force of law behind it, and hate crimes legislation is one big step toward that goal.
 
Look at other western nations that began with hate crimes prohibitions and that now regulate political speech deemed “hateful.” Our country’s leftward lurch, courtesy of President Obama and a leftist Congress, could make that a reality in the United States sooner rather than later. Maybe that’s one of the reasons the House’s top Republican wants to thunder in response to Obama’s thought crimes agenda.
 
In reality, the debate has little to do with homosexuality or religion, but rather basic constitutionality. Is it appropriate to give one group preferential treatment, and as a byproduct grant non-preferential treatment to the rest of us?
 
Who decides that homosexuals are more worthy of protection than veterans? Should one protected class be more protected than the others — say, race above religion?
 
That’s the result when government arbitrarily decides who gets protection and who doesn’t, a cacophony of chaos. Punish the criminal act, and leave the intentions behind it to the constitutional protection to think and believe as we desire.
 
David N. Bass is an investigative reporter and associate editor with the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think based in Raleigh, North Carolina.



beltway confidential

From the National Law Journal: ABA will cut dues for many lawyers not at big firms The American Bar Association announced this week that it's cutting the cost of dues for solo...

A new poll shows Republicans making solid gains, and President Obama losing ground, in public opinion on the most important issues facing the country. The survey, by the...

In response to the attention we gave him for his old column on how Washington has "anemic winters" because of global warming, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells NRO's Robert...

By a vote of 52 to 33, the Obama administration nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, just failed to get the 60 votes needed for his nomination to proceed...






To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

JamesJ

May 4, 2009

Orwell was off by 25 years

 

JamesJ

May 4, 2009

Orwell was off by 25 years

 

May 4, 2009

This bill is NOT about protecting gay people, It's about discouraging violent criminals from targeting any number of groups of people......simply because they exist. Gay people are just one popular target for violent haters, but anyone can be the victim of a hate crime, if the main, or sole, reason for the attack was the fact that they existed.

 

Tim

May 4, 2009

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

 

SRP

May 4, 2009

The introduction of "intent" is not a new thing. Many of our federal and state laws consider the defendant's intent, or motive, when prosecuting. Unless you posit to remove intent entirely from our criminal law jurisprudence, arguing that consider intent NOW is a "foray into the thought world" is intellectually lazy. Hate crimes laws, like other laws, do not punish thoughts; they punish intent. The current hate crimes laws have been on the books since 1964. No pastor or religious leader has been brought to trial for anti-religious sentiment, unless they are openly encouraging their followers to commit crimes. There is no reason to think this will change under the proposed revisions.

 

Doubting thomas

May 5, 2009

I have a serious doubt that hate-crime laws could lead to direct censorship of so-called hate speech: the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1992, the justices of the Supreme Court overturned a local law in St. Paul, Minnesota that banned display of so-called hate symbols, saying it was too vague. In 2003, they also overturned a conviction under Virginia's ban on cross burnings.

 

Doubting thomas

May 5, 2009

I have a serious doubt that hate-crime laws could lead to direct censorship of so-called hate speech: the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1992, the justices of the Supreme Court overturned a local law in St. Paul, Minnesota that banned display of so-called hate symbols, saying it was too vague. In 2003, they also overturned a conviction under Virginia's ban on cross burnings.

 

JSmith

May 5, 2009

I am really bothered that someone wants to criminalize thoughts, where actions are already crimes. Where does this leave us with Freedom of Speech?

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




Local

Another snowball fight planned for Dupont Circle

The Official Dupont Circle Snowball Fight facebook fanpage has over 6,000 fans now, and it looks as if snowed in DC'ers will return for another battle. Full story

Politics

GOP winning war over Miranda rights for terrorists

Even as the administration defends its decision to grant accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, the president himself is hinting that things might be done differently in the future. Full story

Local

D.C. region braces for up to 20 more inches of snow

The National Weather Service has the entire D.C. metro area, from Prince William County north, under a winter storm warning for 10 to 20 inches of snow. Forecasters have had their eyes on this storm for days, but the projected snow totals were bumped up late Monday. Full story