Faith Is Not Wishing--8

One of the chapters in Greg Koukl's book Faith Is Not Wishing deals with a topic that gets me steamed every time it is raised. It has to do with hate crime legislation. In this essay, Greg says it makes sense to be against hate crimes, yet still oppose hate crime laws. I agree totally with his position – hate crime legislation is a frontal assault on fundamental liberties that should not be restricted, and represent an unfair use of power to prop up the legitimacy of politically correct values.

The first reason Greg opposes hate crime laws has to do with criminal thought. It's obvious – hate crime laws criminalize thought, not conduct. We can already punish assault using existing statutes. This legislation of hate crime levies an additional penalty solely for the attitude of heart. Government can coerce actions, but it should not attempt to govern people's hearts. When it tries to do this, it creates excuses for the worst kind of tyranny.

The second complaint Greg has for hate crime legislation focuses on the types of hate that are stressed. Virtually any crime of passion could be construed as a hate crime because it entails malice toward persons. However, all crimes of passion are not considered hate crimes under this new legislation since they do not involve a protected class of people. This leads to a key question – Is hate crime legislation about hate per se or is it really about something else? We see that such laws mandate penalties for particular government-disapproved states of mind. Only certain types of people gain protection from hate crime legislation. If a gay was attacked, the person doing it would receive a heavier penalty than a person who attacked me. That's because I don't belong to a class protected by the law. So this law has to do with groups of people, but groups have no rights, according to the Constitution.

A final argument Greg has with this type of legislation is the oppression that comes with it. These laws can serve as a legal tool to enforce a particular moral and political point of view that goes by the misnomer of "tolerance." So, for example, if a gay is attacked, it encourages many to actually blame Christians for such incidents. By claiming homosexuality is evil, Christians, according to critics, demote homosexuals to a "less than" status. That makes the homosexual marked in a way to become an object of scorn, hatred, and physical abuse. Greg points out this kind of thinking would make Alcoholics Anonymous responsible every time a drunk gets beat up in an alley. It does not follow that moral condemnation of homosexuality encourages gay bashing. To those who want hate legislation, people taking a moral position are hatemongers. But objecting to hate is also a moral position. So, are those who demonize Christians for their views equally guilty of hate-mongering? I have seen something like this out at Palomar College where a group claiming to be against hate lashed out with hateful language itself.

Hate crime legislation is not the answer. It turns the government into thought police and turns the law into a club to enforce political correctness. Existing laws should be enforced to give equal protection to all people, punishing the crime, not the frame of mind.

A final note: We as Christians believe homosexuality is an evil. But we are all fallen individuals made in the image of God. We must always be grieved and angered at any injustice.