Go to Antithesis Root Page

"Hate Crimes" as Opposed to?

More good news! We're cracking down on hate crimes! . . . and becoming Oh So Wise. Soon, no crimes will be committed out of hate; all crimes will be committed lovingly, by unbiased, unprejudiced criminals!

Good grief. How is a "hate crime" different from a normal crime? Is it one done with a bad attitude instead of a good one? How does one even begin to comprehend the mindbogglingly foolish "rationale" behind this movement?

The attack is on the attitude now, not just the crime itself. Those behind this idea know that the state -- their only lord and savior -- can't change the bad attitudes of the world by punishing the outward actions, so now they wish to punish the inward motive. This is just one more example of the state trying to save us from our sins, this time by idiotically attempting to change the hearts of criminals, rather than by restricting itself to their actions.

But why should we confine ourselves to hate, if we're so interested in changing the heart? Why not prosecute for "lust crimes" separately from rape, and "greed crimes" separately from theft. Why single out hatred, or crimes committed because of hatred, as specially heinous? Are crimes committed in sheer cold blood better because no feeling was involved? Or are crimes where the criminal went through a great deal of anguish, struggling with overwhelming moral ambivalence while beating the daylights out of his victim, that much more understandable and therefore less evil?

The state has a religious viewpoint; it always does.

Some of us remember the case a year and a half ago in Madison, Wisconsin, wherein a woman was charged with discrimination because, after she had advertised a vacancy in her apartment she, refused to let a lesbian room with her. The upshot? The state forced the woman to attend classes designed to raise her tolerance level for those of other sexual "orientations." Brainwashing, that is.

Now can't anyone with approximately half a head on his shoulders see what that means? The state is supporting a particular viewpoint -- a religious viewpoint -- that says homosexuality is morally neutral. That is a fundamentally religious judgment. And why that particular judgment? Why didn't the court decide in favor of the poor woman and send the lesbian to counseling to help her overcome her intolerance for people who are repulsed by the idea of having a homosexual roommate? Why not send the state to classes for states who are intolerant of those with ethical standards?

One wonders why those who are behind movements like this one haven't seen the absurd conclusion to which their logic leads. If they truly believe, without a standard, that it's an awful thing for people to take action against those with whom they disagree, then why don't they put themselves behind bars for taking action (instituting "hate crime" laws) against those with whom they disagree (people who take action, using crowbars, against people with whom they disagree).

WJC


Copyright © by Covenant Community Church of Orange County 1991
Return to CRTA Root Page


Return to CRTA