OpEd Contributor
'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.
Follow The Examiner
