Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Health Insurance Bill for Children (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/washington/29health.html?_r=1&ref=policy&oref=slogin), which is packed in the current Defense Appropriations bill, is a segue to socialized medicine and therefore corrupted on its face. However, the hate crimes item – a provision that is more or less invisible to the naked eye – which is included in this bill, is a pernicious attempt by the left to silence dissent against alternative lifestyles.
Hate crimes amount to thought crimes, an Orwellian notion indeed. Hate crimes legislation essentially creates a double standard in the legal system such that whosoever is protected under the bill is actually more important than the rest of us. This contradicts the very principles upon which this Republic was founded. Every criminal act is one of personal prejudice; otherwise, one wouldn’t violate someone else’s rights to serve [oneself].
To understand the implications herein, one must first grasp the notion that laws are set up to protect persons and property. A crime is just that because it entails an act of transgression against another’s liberties. By extension, one man’s liberty is another man’s restraint.
To say that homosexuals are more important than heterosexuals (which is what this bill does in fact establish) is to say that homosexuals deserve a higher tier of justice than heterosexuals and are therefore morally superior. This violates the fundamental notion of all men being created equal, a natural law, which the Constitution and Bill of Rights documents were written atop, entitling every man to impartial justice.
Hate crimes legislation is preferential justice. An attack on a homosexual is just as wrong as an attack on an evangelical Christian. Precluding speech (which is what hate crimes intends), therefore, violates the First Amendment and is a harbinger of the totalitarian state.
For veracity, the Black Panthers, al Qaeda and the KKK can all speak freely under the First Amendment [of the Bill of Rights], as long as they gather peacefully in public and as long as they aren’t spreading death propaganda specifically aimed at persons to intimidate them or to conspire against them for the purposes of promoting their bodily harm or murder.
The rights of individuals, therefore, are already protected [equally] under the American Frame of Government. What this specific [hate crimes] bill and others like it do is to make the protection of persons preferential, which is a form of redistributive justice, as it were. One doesn’t need to feel prejudice against any certain group to acknowledge that establishing preferential justice [for the ostensible purpose of promoting equal justice] is an exercise in futility with drastically negative side effects.
First of all, if one were to target [homosexuals, e.g.] with criminal intent, one would be charged with a crime in the same manner as if one were to target heterosexuals with criminal intent. The aim of this type of legislation, therefore, is not ‘equal justice’, but insulation from criticism. Moreover, the implications of said insulation are suppressed insofar as this line item’s sleaze is obfuscated by an ostensibly unchallengeable moral cause (e.g., Children’s Health).
In the same vein that white [men’s] rights have been usurped by Kennedy and LBJ under the cover of an illicit war (e.g. Executive Order 11246 – Equal Employment Opportunity)*, Dems are smuggling in this hate crimes provision to silence Christians at the pulpit as well as in all spheres of the body politic. To be sure, making verbiage illegal is tantamount to rendering the thought of said verbiage illegal in substance, which is mind control. Moreover, for the purpose of making an inverted deduction to connect the notion of a physical attack to a verbal one, establishing hate crimes for homosexuals is a segue for making speech against their behavior illegal.
Make no mistake, this bill will make certain aspects of the Bible illegal to quote (e.g., referring to sex sin, and specifically, sodomy, as an ‘abomination’). Condemnation can be construed as an attack on a person’s character, which, in turn, may be interpreted as malicious intimidation with intent to harm. To be sure, there are provisions against libel and slander in our government documents already, but they apply to all persons equally.
Let’s put this argument in another light and take it to its logical conclusion: If a hate crime were provisioned for white men, a specific group in society, a recent NY Times advertisement slandering Gen. Petraeus would be punishable by law and George Soros would be going to jail for inciting hate and soliciting murder†.
The point of all this is that hate crimes legislation usurps individual freedom of speech in order to protect particular classes from criticism. This, in effect, will lead us to become intellectually guarded, which precludes open and honest debate about reality – i.e., the truth. In turn, this would render us impotent to govern ourselves as we would necessarily be shrouded in smoke reflected by mirrors. People who demand insulation from criticism aren’t accountable to their peers and as such, are incapable of living in a free society with said peers.
People who live in a free society are [independent of government mind control] because they are competent enough to make their own decisions. Once we agree to allow the government to take away our free speech (which invariably attends hate crime legislation), we then give up our rights to make our own decisions. After all, if we aren’t allowed the possibility to condemn specific behavior or a particular course of action, then we are relegated to accepting that behavior or specific course. In essence, this bill and others like it, notwithstanding the ostensibly good intentions, will enslave us to the will of an all-powerful bureaucracy.
We need to look no further than Europe to see the effects of hate crimes legislation. France, one of the most intellectually vital places on earth, has become a very intellectually guarded place, and concomitantly, a very dangerous place to live. Whatever you cannot condemn controls you. Moreover, based on the premise that behavioral norms are mutually exclusive, that which we cannot reject [by will or law] we must accept. In effect, hate crimes legislation imposes the character of the protected class on society-at-large.
Some people will enjoy the liberty [of others’ restraint], but others will be unduly affected in a negative way. It is unfair, therefore, to impose such restrictions on a society at the federal level. If particular municipalities or states want to issue hate crimes laws, then I suggest they try it out. This is in no way binding on other cities or states, but at least in the laboratories of individual localities, the merits of such legislation can be judged and compared.
This is a states’ rights issue††; if hate crimes are passed in one place, then the law should be upheld there. Moreover, in other localities, where there are no [hate crimes] laws, people who would otherwise benefit from said laws either need to accept that their behavioral norms aren’t universal, develop a thicker skin, change their lifestyle habits, or move to a locality with the legal protection in place to insulate them.
This hate crimes bill will serve the interests of those advocating alternative lifestyles at the expense of the body politic’s freedom of expression and religious liberties, the latter being the foundation upon which our Republic stands. Insofar as the stifling of free speech precludes dissemination of knowledge, this act impedes self-government.
Voltaire proclaimed, “I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” because of the self-evident truth that usurpation of free speech liberties is a slippery slope to mind control and therefore, tyranny. We cannot keep our Republic if individuals aren’t allowed to explore various options and ideas and if these individuals aren’t allowed to freely accept or condemn whatever ideas or options they choose. To that end, hate crimes legislation is a harbinger of doom for freedom, liberty and justice for all.
The antidote for deterring crimes against innocents is swift and just punishment for the same, not silencing dissenters against human behavior (or government influence for that matter).
Finally, to grasp the big picture and speak to the issues squarely, religious fundamentalists who denounce homosexuality are no less entitled to their opinions than anti-American apologists who denounce Pres. Bush. We have a very open, civic and libertarian culture here in America that rests upon enlightenment tradition; to that end, wooden interpretations of the OT will likely wreak as much havoc on this society as Wahabbi sharia. Ignorance, then, is the culprit of criminal acts targeted against gays and other innocent people†††, not free speech. And this social problem should be dealt with accordingly.
Here’s what my pastor says about sex sin:
“I think heterosexual sin is more acceptable in most church circles than homosexual sin. And that is wrong! Sexual sin is sexual sin. And we’ve got to be honest enough to admit that we tend to condemn sins we’re not committing. I call them lighting rod sins. We single out sins we don’t struggle with and we channel our condemnation towards them. So if I’m greedy I have a problem with gluttons or if I’m gluttonous I have a problem with greed. It’s disingenuous. And the truth of the matter is this—God hates moral pride more than homosexuality or adultery or pornography.
“Having said that let me say this: we live in a society where it is wrong to say something is wrong. And that’s wrong. And we need the moral courage to tactfully, thoughtfully, and gracefully speak the truth in love. We ought to be more concerned about being biblically correct than politically correct. So here is the biblical bottom line: sex outside of marriage is wrong. Sex is a sacred covenant between a husband and a wife. Period,” (Mark Batterson, NCC, 912/07).