Hate Crimes

You asked, “Hate Crimes Are Bad, But Is a Law Needed?” (Register, Aug. 1-7 issue).

Not only are they not needed, but they're a threat to the Bill of Rights. The government and the media are selective about which crimes they consider “hate crimes.” For instance, the murder of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual,—was a “hate crime,” and was supposed to show the need to have indoctrination sessions in our schools to fight “homophobia.” The rape and murder of 11-year-old Eddie Werner by a 15-year-old homosexual who was seduced by middle-aged men, on the other hand, if mentioned at all, was also supposed to show the need to fight “homophobia.”

In December 1997 a high school student fired at eight fellow students who were gathered in prayer at a high school in Paducah, Ky. And in April 1999 we had the more famous attack on Christians at Columbine High. As The Weekly Standard of May 10 put it, “eight of the murdered students at Columbine High School were serious Christians, four Catholics and four evangelicals. The killers went after 17-year-old Rachel Scott and 18-year-old Valeen Shnurr apparently for no other reason than that they had Bibles. The central image of Littleton … is that of Cassie [Bernall], the 17-year-old with a gun to her head being asked if she believed in God.”

But the media doesn't see murder carried out because of hatred of Christianity as a “hate crime.” In fact, the usual media response was to blame the victims, and claim that the real problem was the “intolerance of diversity” and “homophobia” of the student body.

And that's how “hate crimes” laws will attack the First Amendment—by insisting that only politically incorrect views are “hate,” and that they can be prosecuted even if the holders of those views don't advocate any violence. (Watch what happens to pro-lifers once they're put on the books.)

Don Schenk

Allentown, Pennsylvania