On "Real Hate Crimes"

I read "Real Hate Crimes" by Nathan Tabor. I've got some real issues with the premises of his piece.

Here are a few excerpts:

In recent years, it's become fashionable in America to talk about the need to stop hate crimes. But, all too often, "hate crimes" are defined as speech which questions the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle.

True hate crimes, however, are acts of violence perpetrated without cause but with a tremendous amount of malice. A perfect example of this is something that happened in Florida recently.

A couple of thugs attacked a homeless man, causing him to sustain serious bruises. What makes the incident newsworthy is that the assailants were ten years old.

...

To begin with, the conservative sees violence as being the opposite of love and the God who is love. The conservative reasons that, when prayer was taken out of schools, God was too. Since nature abhors a vacuum, hate filled the space that should have been occupied by love of neighbor.

A young person who can't even check in with God at the place that he spends the majority of his day isn't likely to ooze compassion to other people—especially the poor. A heart which lacks prayer is a heart which lacks love.

The conservative also knows that young people believe life is cheap. For this we can credit the abortion-at-all-costs crowd, who never met an abortion they didn't embrace. Young people are smart—they know that abortion is murder. And they figure, if you can go ahead and end the life of a baby in the womb, what's to stop you from clobbering the homeless guy down the street? Abortion is violence and violence always begets violence.

...

Meanwhile, Florida legislators are working on a measure that promises more protection for the homeless. But for the homeless to truly be protected, we'd have to return to an America in which prayer is welcomed in public schools, the Ten Commandments are welcomed in courthouses, and legalized abortion is shown the door.

So, now I'll tear into it. While I completely agree that it is horrible to beat up homeless people, I think it is inappropriate to suggest that violence against homosexuals is any less serious. Violence against homosexuals should be considered a hate crime. So should violence against any group of people, if it is based on their belonging to a specific group. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need any protected groups. Violence against anyone is wrong, be it against homosexuals, homeless people, or anyone else! (To quote Tabor, perhaps against his own meaning: "violence [...] being the opposite of love and the God who is love.")

The main premise of this article is that youth are not taught to love, because religion has been removed from the schools and because abortion is legal. I'm not going to comment on the abortion issue here. However, I will discuss religion.

I do not think that it is necessarily bad to have religion (read: Christianity because really, Tabor is talking about Christianity) in the schools, if it is done in a way that respects others. However, this is almost impossible to accomplish, so the safest route is probably to just keep it out of the schools.

When I was a child, I was sheltered from religion at school. As a Jehovah's Witness, I was pulled out of anything that was even remotely religious. However, I think that I got a pretty firm moral base from my family. My cousins were raised by an agnostic and an atheist. They also seem to have turned out just fine, despite not having any sort of Christian education. In fact, one of them chose to become a Christian in her teens (I guess all kids rebel in some way).

Suggesting that Christianity is necessary for being morally grounded is flawed. There are many non-Christians (ever heard of a guy named Ghandi? among others) who are incredibly moral and non-violent. There are also plenty of belligerent, violent Christians (I'm thinking King Richard the Lion-Hearted, George W. Bush, the many members of the Inquisition, etc).

I think that the problem is not the lack of religion. The problem is the lack of respect for themselves and fellow man. I would suggest that the main responsibility for this rests on the family. When family does not fulfill this obligation, then the community needs to step in to provide moral direction. Teaching the Golden Rule, reiterated by many cultural groups, is something that is not religion specific. Teaching a child that they should treat others as they wish to be treated is not something that can only be found in the Church.

Please do not try to equate morality with religion!