| |  Of the many laws in our country, perhaps the most controversial and ambiguous are laws against hate crimes. Exactly how one defines a hate crime is a matter of opinion. To prosecute a hate crime at times threatens Constitutional issues such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of expression. It furthermore threatens the State created line of separation of State and Church. Therefore, to pass hate crime bills, the bill must be very specific (thus prejudice) or ambiguous (thus open for interpretation). Both can be dangerous.
Recently, US Attorney General Eric Holder was asked a question regarding a recent hate crime bill and how it would be prosecuted. He was asked a hypothetical question. If a homosexual was attacked because of a sermon preached by a pastor, would the pastor be guilty of a hate crime? Holder answered, yes. But if a pastor is attacked by a homosexual, would the proposed hate crime bill protect the pastor? In the end, Holder admits that it would not.
In response to this question from Republican Senator Jeff Sessions (Alabama), Holder said:
Well, the statute would not – would not necessarily cover that. We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute."
In other words, if you are a straight-white-Christian-man this bill does not protect you. Here is an example of selective protection given through the use of hate crime laws and one of its many dangers. The danger here should be obvious, but sadly, too many miss it.
Eric Holder also stated that the murder of Army Private William Long in Little Rock, Arkansas would not be considered a hate crime, even though Private Long was killed by a black, Islamic convert that admitted to shooting Private Long simply because he was wearing an American uniform. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpGBxNd3JJjuV9QJUYnEN69QjwJAD98MT1EG0
In response to a question about this particular crime, Eric Holder said, "There's a certain element of hate, I suppose. What we're looking for here in terms of the expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis to see groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don't know if we have the same historical record to say that members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African- American, Hispanic, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over, over the many years."
Sadly, too many want to make such laws about sermons and personal beliefs (religious, political, moral, etc.), but really, in the end, it is about reverse prejudice. Too many well-intentioned lawmakers feel that racial and sexual minorities have been considered outcasts and denied their rights for too long and thus seek to equal the playing field. What they do, in the end, is punish prejudice by being prejudice. They raise the bar of equality by silencing out opposition. Did no one really not think about protecting the pastor in this situation? Is he not as worthy of protection as the homosexual? This is not an issue of sexual orientation or religious belief, but about the laws responsibility to show no favortism.
But this is the danger of hate crime laws. Not only does it endanger Constitutional rights, but is oftentimes used to protect some and not others. And if it selectively protects, it selectively threatens some and not others.
As a Christian and a pastor this concerns me. This is not just about homosexuality but about anything that might be said in a public forum like a sermon. What if I preach a sermon on hell? On the sinfulness of abortion? Or on the corruption of the culture and the destruction of the family? What if these sermons offend someone? What if that someone is a minority? Suddenly I become a danger to society for simply professing my religious belief.
In the end, what is put on trial is not a pastor or his sermon, but the faith (and therefore the Book that defines that faith) of the pastor and his adherents. We become guilty by association. See the slippery slope? Already in other nations religious texts like the Bible have been considered hate speech and is therefore a danger to society.
The danger of such laws and how Holder articulates them sends us down a slippery slope in which there seems to be no return. The Constitution is under assault. Our nation finds itself following the footsteps of other Western nations who have used such laws as an excuse to prosecute and silence the Church. Any religious belief that stands contrary to the fickleness of the culture will be deemed as inappropriate and criminal. This is, in the end, an attempt to silence some in the defense of others. And with it, democracy dies.
Democracy and freedom can only thrive whenever dissenting voices are allowed to speak. Yes the shouts can at times turn violent, but to selectively protect one over another is nothing more than the sort of prejudice that we are seeking to overturn. Therefore, lawmakers should think twice before before voting on a bill that would make them appear sensitive to the needs of minorities, while at the same time trample on the freedom of others.
Let freedom ring and let freedom sing . . . even if we get our feelings hurt every once in a while.
For more: |
