A good friend of mine, who happens to be my pastor, uses an illustration that always gets my attention. In it, every person's thoughts running through their head are simultaneously and publicly scrolled across one of those electronic billboards situated in front of each home. The point? None of us are innocent when standing before a God who judges both deeds and thoughts. Scripture tells us that the Lord weighs the thoughts and intents of our hearts and they are generally pretty pathetic.
Should the state, however, be in the business of policing thoughts? Congress is trying to do just that through a bill dubbed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The legislation creates a new brand of criminal applying harsher sentences based on what was going through perpetrators' heads when they acted.
The reasoning is that crimes against certain groups -- those of a specific race, gender or sexual orientation -- have a wider effect on the community and should be treated more severely than your run-of-the-mill assault. Let's think this through.
Everyone who commits a crime is motivated by something. Revenge. Fear. Jealousy. Ignorance. Greed. Horrific thoughts lead to horrific actions such as the sickening murder of Matthew Sheppard in Wyoming back in 1998, who was targeted because he was gay. His case brought on the current slate of hate crime bills that Congress has been looking at for the past 10 years. The people that committed that heinous crime categorically deserved the harshest penalty the state could dish out. Should they have received a harsher sentence, however, than other murder cases that didn't involve a "protected" class? Shouldn't we all be given equal protection? Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes?
Consider, if you will, another possible motive behind the legislation.
Some activists want to legally prohibit and punish those in the faith community for having and espousing traditional, biblical views on homosexuality. Hate crime laws have paved the way to religious persecution. How? If the hate crimes bill is enacted, the possibility of hate "speech" prosecution is immediately encoded into federal law through the federal aiding and abetting statute that says "whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."
Let's say a pastor gives a sermon on the moral failings of homosexuality and then an imprudent church member goes out and assaults a gay person. The church member gets charged with a federal hate crime and the pastor could be charged as a principal for "inducing" the act. Does that sound far-fetched?
Where "hate crime" laws have passed, speech arrests have followed. In Sweden, a pastor spent 30 days in prison for speaking against homosexuality. In Wisconsin, a former homosexual was arrested and charged with a hate crime for simply giving his testimony to a gay man. He was then ordered to attend re-education classes taught by a lesbian at the University of Wisconsin. In Canada, a pastor is currently facing charges before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply writing a letter in June to a local newspaper calling the homosexual agenda "wicked."
The law is clear and severe for those who decide to bring violence on others, regardless of the motive. Let's go after those with full force who bring physical harm to innocent people. Engaging the criminal justice system, however, because you happen to disagree with someone's point of view or speech is not the solution. We're each guilty of reprehensible thoughts, but we need to be on our knees for that, not in court.
Jim Minnery is a Community Voices columnist. He is founder and president of Alaska Family Council.
