Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
FRC: Terrorism is “politically incorrect”

FRC: Terrorism is “politically incorrect”

Last updated on: April 6, 2007 at 6:32 pm by Fred Clark

FRC: Terrorism is “politically incorrect” 2007-04-06T18:32:27-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Suppose that Tony Perkins is walking down the sidewalk in front of the Family Research Council's Washington office when he is struck by an SUV and instantly killed.

Police arrive and find the driver of the SUV dazed but not seriously injured. They take him into custody.

What happens next? Well that depends on what just happened. The basic outline — Tony Perkins killed by impact from an SUV on the sidewalk — doesn't begin to tell us what really happened, if there was a crime and, if so, what kind of crime.

There are many possibilities here:

A sudden mechanical malfunction caused the SUV to veer out of control. So it's an accident, not a crime.

The driver, who had never before manifested any of the symptoms of epilepsy, was struck without warning by a grand mal seizure. Again, an accident.

The driver was intoxicated. That's a crime, even though the driver didn't intend to kill anybody.

The driver gets his jollies by cruising down sidewalks at high speed. He mistakenly thought the sidewalk was clear. Again, even though he didn't intend to kill anybody, this is still a crime (or several crimes).

The driver saw Tony Perkins walking on the sidewalk, gunned his engine and aimed the SUV at him on purpose, fully intending to kill the man. This is homicide and thus, of course, a crime.

Note that the physical act in each case above is the same: SUV strikes Tony Perkins. Note also that the physical result of each case is identical: Tony Perkins is dead. Whether or not this incident was a crime depends on the driver's motive.

Motive is a monumentally important part of our criminal code. Identical deeds can be very different crimes if the motives in the two cases are different. By motive, of course, we mean intent. Call it either one — motive or intent — and it means the same thing: what the criminal is thinking.

If the final case is true in our hypothetical scenario, we still don't know what kind of homicide was committed until we further examine the driver's motive, i.e., what he was thinking.

The driver may have been a demented creep who acted on a sudden, lethally violent impulse.

The driver may have been consumed by a fit of rage after learning, moments earlier, that Perkins was having an affair with his wife, and so he lashed out in an act of passion.

The driver, FRC's executive vice president, Chuck Donovan, resented Perkins and had been plotting this cold-blooded murder for months.

The driver mistakenly* believed that Tony Perkins was gay and he killed him, deliberately, to "send a message to the queers."

Different motives, different crimes and thus appropriately different punishments. Different thoughts, different crimes and thus appropriately different punishments.

The reason I chose Tony Perkins for this little review of the obvious is that Perkins doesn't believe in any of this. He thinks any consideration of motive is out of bounds in a criminal statute. Different punishments for different motives is, to Perkins, legislating "thought crimes."

Thus, Perkins believes, there is no legitimate difference among the cases above — no legitimate legal distinction between manslaughter and first-degree murder. To pretend there is such a distinction is to criminalize motive — to criminalize thought.

Perkins is so gung-ho against this that he has even started a Web site: StopThoughtCrimesLaws.com.

The reason Perkins is so fired up to abolish consideration of motive is because of pending "hate crime" legislation that would protect homosexuals from attacks like the final one described above.

Hate crimes have dominated the news for the last few years, ever since that sunny day when we watched the towers fall in the biggest hate crime of them all. We didn't use the words "hate crime," but that of course is what terrorism is.

Here again is the definition of terrorism in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d):

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Notice how much of this definition falls under Perkins' category of "thought crime" —

"premeditated"

"politically motivated"

"intended to influence an audience"

That last is what hate crimes have in common with terrorism. They are "intended to influence an audience," i.e., to terror-ize.

Perkins and the Family Research Council explicitly reject any consideration of this. Take a look at their spin-heavy Q&A: "What's Wrong with Thought Crimes ('Hate Crimes') Laws?":

Why do you call them "thought crimes"?

Violent attacks upon people or property are already illegal, regardless of the motive behind them. With "hate crime" laws, however, people are essentially given one penalty for the actions they engaged in, and an additional penalty for the politically incorrect thoughts that allegedly motivated those actions.

So there's no reason to distinguish terrorists from other criminals just because they may have some "politically incorrect" motives. After all, hijacking, murder and destruction of property are already illegal. Calling it "terrorism" just means "an additional penalty for the politically incorrect thoughts that allegedly motivated those actions."

What the Family Research Council is deliberately ignoring, of course, is the terrorist's intent to "send a message," to "influence an audience," to terrorize.

Yes, assault is a crime, so if a bunch of hoodlums beat somebody up, they have broken the law and deserve to be punished for their actions against their single victim. But if that single victim was intentionally selected because of his or her "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation," then they are not the only victim. The crime is a form of terrorism, meant to influence an audience. The victim was chosen as a representative of an entire group with the intent of sending a message to that entire group. The perpetrators of such a crime deserve to be punished for their actions against the entire group as well.

Motive matters. Perkins and the FRC want to pretend it doesn't. If they have their way, not only will they weaken the legal protection of minority groups here in America, but they will actually be guilty of Dick Cheney's favorite all-purpose slur. Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council support the terrorists.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* As far as I know. Perkins strikes me as a member of that minority of homosexuality-obsessed preachers who loves the topic not because of his inner demons, but because it plays well with donors.

evangelicals

Previous Post

April 6, 2007

L.B.: Hot property

Next Post

April 7, 2007 OK, then, "intent"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "I am not ashamed of the gospel"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter Paul John James