Congress has just passed a new hate crimes bill. If the President signs the bill, it will be a crime to think certain things while committing a crime. This law was passed as a civil rights issue and it sure is.
The Bill of Rights insures your right to believe in and worship any god you choose in any way you choose. It permits you to say or write anything you want about anybody you want. I will grant that there are practical limits to those rights. If your religion includes human sacrifice, you will not be allowed to practice it, though you can still believe in it. You cannot slander somebody with impunity. But the restrictions that apply to your constitutionally guaranteed rights are restrictions upon your actions, not on your beliefs or motives.
Now Congress wants to expand the governments role to that of thought police. If you commit a hate crime, you are already committing a crime. Why is murder more evil if you commit the murder because of somebodies race or religion than if you commit it because you are in a bad mood? Are they any more dead?
Perhaps Congress is in session too long and they feel like they need to be doing something to be earning their pay. A law that punishes you for what you think is the ultimate infringement upon civil rights. We should be passing laws about behavior, not thoughts or beliefs.
This is not a defense of racism. It is a defense of a free society. Once we allow thoughts and beliefs to be a matter of legislation, we set a precedent that will permit broader applications in the future. Perhaps it will become unlawful to believe in Creationism....or evolution. What about Capitalism or Communism? What about Christianity, or Islam, or Atheism? This may seem far fetched now, but think about some of the laws today in light of what the Founding Fathers believed and intended 200+ years ago. Let's not go there.
A rational approach to politics & government.
Facebook Badge
Blog Archive
About Me
- Dick Gale
- Bellingham, WA, United States
3 comments:
Couldn't agree more... thank you Richard!
I agreed, at first. Then I read some and thought some and a few things came to mind. I read recently about a 15 year old Sikh boy who was held down and had his hair forcibly cut. A Sikh is never supposed to cut his hair. One person said it is like dieing. That strikes me as an example of a situation where it can not be viewed as if it is the same crime for everyone.
And sexual harrassment is defined as whatever somebody considers it to be. Does this make sense? There will always be injustices. When you try to eliminate them all through legislation, you create another form of injustice. The Sikh boy you refer to was assaulted. That was the crime. The effect on him & the intent of the perpetrators can and should be taken into account in sentencing, but it is not 2 crimes (assault & a hate crime), it is one crime. By your argument, we would not only be legislating the thoughts of the perpertrators, but the victimes as well. Can this possibly end well?
Post a Comment