DriveThru – Get What You Need

One of the problems with so-called “nondiscrimination” policies that create politicized lists of specially protected people is that once that list gets going, it’s really hard to know where to stop. Basically, every one and their dog wants to be included.

 The Rapid City, South Dakota, school board provided an apt illustration of this last night. Taking a vote that sent it sliding way over the cliff of that slippery slope, the board included no less than 16 categories of personal classifications in its nondiscrimination policy. Along with “sexual orientation,” the list now includes things like “student marital status,” “political orientation,” “pregnancy” and “status as a veteran.” It would almost be laughable if the ramifications weren’t so serious.

Even the city officials shied away from taking similar actions, after their attorney advised  against adopting an unruly laundry list, pointing out that the more protected classes the city added, the costlier it could become to defend the city from potential discrimination lawsuits. The South Dakota Family Policy Council also tried to convince the school board to at least stick to six basic categories mentioned in some federal laws, such as “race” or “disability.”

But alas, common sense didn’t prevail. Once the ball got rolling they couldn’t stop it.

 Truth is, it makes more sense to not to start on that slope at all. A truly constitutional approach would be to implement an across-the-board anti-bullying policy that prohibits bullying against any child for any reason. This should be based on the constitutional principle that every one has a right to life and the pursuit of happiness— it should not be based on the demands of every special interest group in the community.

It would be nice to see schools start emphasizing what we have in common as Americans—for instance, the Founding Fathers’ teaching that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights—rather than constantly focusing on dividing people into political categories.

This story caught my eye. Hate crimes against gays have increased “nearly 11%,” says the AP in this story. That number (extrapolated from the just-released annual FBI report on hate crimes compared to the 2007 version)  is of course being trumpeted all over the blogosphere this week by GLBT groups as “see I told you so”  justification for the recently passed federal hate crimes bill.

Except the AP number is seriously misleading. Like on a “Dewey Defeats Truman” scale of misleading. It turns out that AP used the increase in the number of “offenses” reported, not “incidents.” Why does that matter?

Let’s take a (hopefully) hypothetical example. A person with an anti-Christian bias sees me park my car, and notices the “Jesus Loves You” bumper sticker on it (no, I don’t really have one). He goes into a rage, and (1) bashes my head in with his trusty baseball bat (he was on his way to the batting cage), (2) spray-paints “Christianist” on my dog (I don’t know where he got the paint), (3) breaks my windshield and (4) steals my wallet for good measure.

How many “hate crimes” have been committed? One? Four? The FBI would classify that as one “incident” comprised of four “offenses.”  If I had been punched out last year by the same guy after he noticed my bumper sticker – but nothing more – did I experience a 300% increase in hate crimes this year or no increase at all? Your answer to that question will determine if you think like an AP reporter.

Actually, the FBI itself warns readers not to draw quick conclusions from its data, since the number of reporting agencies fluctuates wildly each year, as it is a voluntary program.  This year, roughly 450 more law enforcement agencies participated than last year. Even with that increase in participants, the number of hate crime “incidents” based on sexual orientation increased by only 32. Not 32%. Just 32. And violent crimes against the person based on sexual orientation (murder, rape, aggravated assault) actually showed a net decrease. (Note – If you add back in non-violent crimes and property crimes -  pushing and shoving, calling people names, vandalism, etc. – you get to that increase of 32 I mentioned.)

As a percentage of all “hate crimes,” sexual orientation bias incidents in 2007 came in at 16.6 %, and in the latest report (2008) came in at ….wait for it…..16.7%. Which hasn’t changed much from the mid-1990s when the FBI began keeping these statistics.

The Matthew Shepard Act is an unnecessary  threat to religious liberty, a “thought crimes” fiasco, and a usurpation of state sovereignty. The debate over this law continues. And the last thing we need is for the AP’s confused statistical analysis to take up any more breathing room.

It’s come to our attention that President Obama will “commemorate” the enactment of the hate-crimes bill this Wednesday, October 28th.

Let’s all pause and listen to the sound of a little more of your religious liberty being flushed down the toilet.

Because let’s be honest. This bill was never about addressing the “epidemic” of hate crimes against homosexuals that advocates claimed it was.  There was and is no epidemic — as my colleague Bruce made very clear in this post.

The hate-crimes bill is, at its heart, about ensuring that those who believe in God’s design for male-female sexuality are scared into silence and coerced into acceptance.   Gay rights activists—emboldened by an ally in the White House and Democrat majority in Congress—are pushing for the complete normalization of homosexuality in every arena of society.

And they’re not done yet.

They want private employers to be banned from making hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions about homosexuality (note to for-profit, Christian business owners and employers: beware).  They’re also demanding more benefits for homosexual partners of federal employees, even after President Obama extended benefits by executive order.  And let’s not forget their holy grail: repealing the longstanding military policy of preventing homosexuals from serving in the military.  Or perhaps their holy grail is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.  (You know, that pesky thing that defines marriage as – oh my goodness! – between one man and one woman).

So when Wednesday rolls around and President Obama and his gay activist allies are celebrating their victory over religious liberty in the White House, do a little pondering on this: elections matter.

On Friday’s Focus on the Family Action broadcast, Dr. James Dobson alerted listeners about recent actions taken by Congress and our President that could affect families and children for years to come.

He was joined by three members of our public policy team—myself as the education analyst; Tom Minnery, our Vice President; and Carrie Earll, the director of the Issues-Analysis team. Here’s a quick run down:

We began the broadcast by discussing our alarm over the appointment of “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings, including his commitment to pushing homosexual advocacy into schools down to the kindergarten level.

Also topping the list of concerns was President Obama’s pledge to work to overturn a federal law protecting traditional, man-woman marriage (the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA).

When Tom Minnery pointed out that the President’s pledge actually contradicts traditional-marriage measures passed in at least 45 states, Dr. Dobson expressed his distress: “Can you imagine, now, that the President of the United States stands up there and essentially contradicts and defies the will of the American people in 45 states? What gall!”

Also discussed was the “hate crimes” legislation, recently passed by the U.S. Congress. Carrie Earll expressed her concern about the “aiding and abetting” section that’s attached to the bill, which could eventually be used to attack pastors who dare to preach about homosexuality.

To listen to the whole broadcast, click here.

The Matthew Shepard  Hate Crimes Act appears to moving along swimmingly as an attachment to the Defense Authorization Bill. As an attachment, it prevented folks in the Senate from offering amendments or even debating it fully. Voting against it forces senators and representatives to vote against the troops. It’s a great strategy for the Reid-Pelosi axis to take, even if unseemly and the opposite of “the-most-transparent-administration-in-history” pledge.

Too bad. It would be lovely to have a debate over its merits as a stand-alone bill. For instance, we’ve been told there’s a national epidemic of violent crime against gays and lesbians that justifies this federal excursion into thought crimes and religious oppression.

Far from it.

If by violent crime you look at FBI statistics for murder, rape and aggravated assault, the sham being perpetrated becomes readily apparent. In 2007, the most recent year for which FBI numbers are available, there were 963,032 incidents of violent crime (murder, rape and aggravated assault combined).

How many of those were attributed to a bias against someone’s sexual orientation?

Two hundred, forty-seven.

Some epidemic.

Late last week, the Senate passed “hate crimes” legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.  The vote was 63-28. (The House passed it in April this year 249-175).  President Obama has promised to sign “hate crimes” into law.

That means it will be a federal crime to commit violence against someone because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,  gender identity or disability.

Because some victims are more worthy of protection than others–say liberals in Congress.  Here’s what they mean:

Let’s say Joe needs cash for drugs, so he takes his gun purchased at a gun show and decides to rob someone.  Joe sees an elderly man from across the street and realizes he’d make a good target–the man is old and walking slow.  So Joe runs up and knocks him to the ground with the handle of his gun, and runs off with the man’s wallet.

Turns out the wallet had no cash.  So Joe searches for another victim. He notices a young man across the parking lot–short, skinny, and well-dressed.  Maybe he has more money, Joe thinks.  The young man is also wearing a shirt that says “Gay and Proud!” And Joe has never really liked guys who identify as gay.   So he knocks the young man down with his gun and steals his wallet.

Under the federal hate crimes law, Joe will be charged with a more serious crime–a federal crime–for assaulting the gay man than for assaulting the elderly man.  Even though he committed the exact same act.

I’ll take “unequal justice under the law,” for $200 please, Alex.

They say justice is supposed to be blind.  But under the federal hate crimes law, it’s only blind to some victims.

Between Congressional actions on “hate crimes,” mandated abortion coverage in healthcare reform legislation and the Sotomayor nomination to the US Supreme Court, this blog needs a lighter post.  So, here’s one out of Great Britain:

 A Telegraph newspaper article highlights the results of a book that aims to put a monetary value of what we value most.  Before you scroll away, the findings are interesting as authors Steve Henry and David Alberts (You Are Really Rich, You Just Don’t Know It Yet) reveal what most people already know – that money isn’t everything.  

 For the book, a research group asked more than 1,000 people what made them happy, and then ranked those findings with a calculated monetary value ( converted in this post from British Pounds to US Dollars) derived from how they’d feel about winning the lottery.   

At the top of the list is good health, roughly valued at $295.  Hearing the words, “I love you,” is the next highly valued experience at $267.  Other top rated experiences include having children ($202), spending time with family ($180) and laughing ($177).  

The list goes on but the point is made:  People still highly value family, children and interactions in those relationships – the very elements of life we promote here at Focus on the Family.   So, even in these tough economic times, you can “spend” generously on your friends and family.  A simple “I love you” is worth a lot.

One of the Left’s main talking points that is supposed to justify the federal “hate crimes” law currently pending in the Senate is the interest in preventing or punishing the perpetrator for causing fear in the community. But all violent crime causes fear in the community. “The subject is still at large” is one of those common news flashes that causes anyone to seriously consider locking the doors.

In fact, one of the supposed factual “findings” that the Senate bill’s sponsors identified as justification for passing a federal ”hate crimes” bill has to do with the effect on the community. In this post I’d like to address finding number two:

Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

All violent crime “disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities.” That’s why states and localities have passed criminal laws and have police forces out there to arrest the bad guys. “Hate crimes” laws add nothing to this mix. But the notion that “hate crimes” are “deeply divisive” to the community is patently absurd. If anything, a violent crime brings a community together as never before.

However, there is evidence that the existence of a “hate crime” law creates deep divisions in communities. In their book, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics, authors James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter detail the problems experienced in New York City over crimes committed by and against minorities, which prompted competing lobbying efforts by various community groups with the NYPD to either classify or keep the police from classifying an incident as a “hate crime.” Here’s how the authors sum up the problem:

Crime ought to be a social problem that brings together and unites all Americans. All law-abiding citizens oppose criminality and sympathize with crime victims. By condemning and punishing criminals, Americans ought to be affirming the values and norms that they share. However, bias crime laws and their enforcement redefine crime as one more arena for intergroup conflict. The hate crime laws and their enforcement have the potential to undermine social solidarity by redefining crime as a subcategory of the intergoup struggles between races, ethnic groups, religious groups, genders, and people of different sexual orientations.

Bottom line: “hate crime” laws cause the very social divisions that this “finding” says the federal bill will fix.

The debate in the House over this and other “findings” listed in their version of the Matthew Shepard Act was so frustrating for Democrats that they unilaterally removed the “findings” section of their bill. There is simply no justification for this law that will withstand scrutiny.