How Nihilism Enables Theocracy

From time to time, I have alluded here to some disturbing similarities to the nihilistic left shown by the religious right in its political tactics. Specifically, I have discussed (1) How, like environmentalists, creationists dress their dogmas in the respectable trappings of science in order to gain them unearned respect, (2) How the religious right is beginning to use the legal tactics of minorities that seek preferential treatment in order to have their teaching foisted upon school children at taxpayer expense, and (3) How the anti-concept of "hate crime" is being used by some conservative social commentators to describe what are really possible acts of war.

Today, via Michelle Malkin (who doesn't help matters by using the term "hate crime" herself), is a story about an act of vandalism against a memorial to aborted fetuses erected by a right-to-life group. This piece is alarming, not because of the anti-abortion protest, and not because the freedom of speech of these protesters was abridged by vandals, but because it shows the inexorable logic by which crimes against Christians could come to be granted special status, once we accept the dangerous idea of "hate crimes." The concept of "hate crimes" was first introduced by nihilists under the guise of multiculturalism, but it seems to be gaining widespread acceptance by Christians all over the place.

Richard Mahoney, president of the [St. Mary and St. Joseph Family Memorial F]oundation, said they have been lending crosses to Students for Life for 10 years and that vandalism has occurred before, but never like this.

Mahoney is furious, and said that if LSUPD does not handle the situation justly, he has lawyers prepared to file suit.

“Defacing a religious symbol is a hate crime [emphasis added],” Mahoney said.

Mahoney said the vandals damaged more than $9,000 worth of private property, which should be prosecuted as a felony.

But Adams said there is no way of knowing who took what, so the identified individuals probably will be charged with misdemeanor charges.

Mahoney said that if a Jewish or other religious minority group set up an exhibit that vandals defaced, such as the Star of David, the act would not be tolerated. He said a Christian organization should not have to tolerate it either. [boldface added]

“This is not just a couple of broken crosses,” he said. “This is a symbol of our faith. They spit on Christ, his church and his people.”

Notice that Mahoney is not demanding to be treated just as well as others (as he should be). Instead, he's angling for Christians to receive the same special treatment he (correctly or not) perceives Jews to be getting. The vandals should, of course, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But the fact that the victims were Christian (or Jewish or Moslem, for that matter) should not accord them special status. This is a nation founded on the notion that all men have equal rights under the law. The vandalism cited here is indeed a crime. But the fact that it is against a religious object should not make one iota of difference under the law.

I don't know whether Louisiana has hate crime statutes in force, but note the expressed desire that crimes against religious objects be granted special status as "hate crimes." This is, as I elaborate upon further in this post , essentially the desire that the intent of the vandals be prosecuted legally. In other words, Mahoney wishes to make certain thoughts illegal.

In a free society, only acts that violate an individual's rights constitute crimes, not thoughts, however malevolent or immoral they might be. How could damaging $9000.00 worth of crosses be somehow worse, in the eyes of the law, than damaging $9,000.00 of, say, food? Only if the law has something to say about why the crosses were damaged. Most would agree that freedom of speech is our most important political right, but they would be wrong, for what is freedom of speech but the freedom to express what one is thinking? What does freedom of speech mean when certain thoughts have been criminalized? Nothing. If we accept such legal distinctions, then we move a step closer to outlawing blasphemy. Some Christians might fantasize about this, but they should try thinking about it instead.

I am alarmed, but not entirely surprised that some commentators are choosing to use the term "hate crime" to describe things done against Christians. I have a question for all the Christians jumping on to the "hate crime" bandwagon, but I will ask it after relating a lesson I learned over the course of my life. When I was a teenager, I considered myself a socialist and favored dictatorship. Of course, this dictatorship would force everyone to live as I thought they should live. As I grew older, I remembered this fantasy, especially at times when I was not fully free to act as I wished. During military training, for example, it did not matter what I thought or whether my way of doing things really would have been better: I was powerless to change things. This, not my fantasy of what life would be like under "my dictatorship," was but a taste of what a dictatorship would really be like. So it would be for many Christians if "Christianity" got special status under the law.

So here's my question. What if you get your wish and crimes against Christians become worse than those against everyone else? For that matter, let's shoot for the moon and say that blasphemy is made illegal. Sound good? But what if it's not your sect of Christianity? And what if your sect is regarded as heretical -- beyond the pale of Christianity -- and anything you say in its defense is illegal because it constitutes blasphemy?

Maybe a secular government and a pluralistic society are worthwhile, after all.

This business about "hate crimes" is very alarming indeed, but not for the reasons of those shouting "hate crime" the loudest. Those of us who value freedom should keep an eagle eye out for anyone pushing the dangerous notion of "hate crimes."

-- CAV