In a May 29 essay at the WorldNetDaily web site, reprinted four days later at Concerned Women for America, Robert Knight blasts a newly proposed federal hate crimes measure that enjoys bipartisan support.
After calling GOP Senators Orrin Hatch and Gordon Smith “liberal” — a reminder to readers that few in the ex-gay movement know what a liberal is — Knight accuses the conveniently undefined “homosexual lobby” of moving to criminalize thought and persecute Christians.
Knight fails to mention the Independent Gay Forum, whose arguments against hate-crimes legislation are far more compelling and level-headed than Knight’s. Knight also neglects to mention that various Christian organizations (gasp!) support hate-crimes legislation.
While overlooking a diversity of views about hate crimes, Knight offers the strange and off-topic observation that in Massachusetts, “weddings no longer require a bride.” Well, actually, they do require a bride or groom. Furthermore, a majority of the gay marriages in Massachusetts have been between two women, and many of the couples married, in part, to protect their children.
Meandering from the marriage issue back to hate crimes, Knight undercuts his own argument that hate crimes are on the decline when he acknowledges that reporting of hate crimes increased dramatically in California after that state passed a hate crimes law. He further undermines his argument by insulting those who, in 1998, showed compassion for hate crime victim Matthew Shepard and disapproval of those who said Shepard deserved his fate. Knight calls these compassionate Americans “liberal chattering classes.” And he damages his credibility by exaggerating laws in Canada and Sweden that limit incendiary hate speech.
Knight complains that hate crimes against churches often go unreported — but seems to blame homosexuals for that, and not the police who face disincentives for reporting hate crimes against either churches or homosexuals — or, for that matter, predominantly gay churches.
I believe Knight is justified in his concern about the potential misuse of hate crimes laws.
Unfortunately, he offers no recognition that opposition to hate crimes laws crosses political and sexual boundaries. He ignores the severity and impact of crimes based on the victim’s race, religion, gender or sexuality. And he offers no defense of free speech for “liberals,” whether they reside in the GOP or anywhere else.
Instead, Robert Knight views the entire subject with one eye shut.
(Thanks to Michael Hamar for the heads-up.)
I can’t help but notice in the previous post ExGW called-out Focus for making a passing reference to higher rates of HIV and substance abuse among homosexuals without feeling the need to cite evidence. Now we all know Focus and their ilk (example here) frequently trot out reports to prove such things on a regular basis, so among Focus readers, it is simply an assumed fact, with no need for citations.
>I believe Knight is justified in his concern about the potential misuse of hate crimes laws.
That’s nice. This should be obvious to any observer: hate crimes laws do not become controversial until it is proposed to extend them to “sexual orientation”–primarily (but not exclusively) to extend hate crimes legislation to protect gay people. There were few peeps out of the Knights of this world when they were originally proposed and passed. Of course, the original laws protected christians, so of course they weren’t going to object.
It is only when it is proposed to extend the hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation that they become controversial. But we all know that the reason is that christians do not want to be exposed to hate crimes legislation when they bash gay people because they are gay people. But they do want to have special protections if gay people lash out at them because of their gay-bashing.
Christians do love their special rights.
BTW, Mike, I’m sure that Steve Miller appreciates your citation of IndeGayForum. But it should be clear that his incessant sucking up to Republicans and the Republican party should be an indication that that the utility of that web site has become marginal at best. It was a decent web site when they had a message board. And I do site articles from there from years past. However, more than a bit of the silliness that is posted there now is not worthy of mention.
BTW, it’s WorldNutDaily.
Where some of the graduates of the Reagan administration have gone has been interesting for some of us who have been paying attention. WorldNutDaily is run by Joseph Farah, a graduate of the Reagan administration. WorldNutDaily has been a gay-bashing operation from way back.
Brent Bozo (a/k/a Bozell), also a graduate of the Reagan administration, founded the so-called Media Research Center, whose affiliate the Conservative, no Christian, no Cyber News Service (they have changed their name throughout the years) has also been a gay bashing operation.
To Republicans, especially conservative Republicans (which may be redundant), gay bashing can be quite lucrative.
Robert Knight = Bloviator extraordinaire.
No position too sophist or too cynical for him to leave unused, and use them all at every opportunity.
The Joseph Goebbels of das kulturkrieg.
FWIW, Germans would refer to at as “der Kulturkampf” (the cultural struggle) not “der Kulturkrieg” (the war between the cultures).
Ja, aber Herr Dobson et al refer to it as a culture war – kulterkrieg, hence that useage. Der, Die, Das… always had trouble with the form of “the” to use.
Sharon: Obwohl Deutsch nicht meine Muttersprache ist, weiss ich, dass die Deutsche “Kulturkampf” sagen wuerden, nicht “Kulturkrieg.”
Curses, Out-deutched again!
:>
Sorry, although German isn’t my mother tongue, I learned it because my boyfriend IS from Germany and we spend a lot of time over there outside of Munich. We have a subscription to Der Spiegel, the German answer to Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report (put together, and Spiegel puts them all to shame). Although, yes, “der Krieg” translates to English “war,” it is more likely that Germans would use “der Kampf” (struggle) when referring to what Pat Buchanan has referred to as “culture war.”
No criticism meant. My aim is to educate. Although, I have to admit that it does grate on me a little when someone misuses the German language.
BTW, Germans now are probably more gay-friendly than more than a few Americans.
Off topic, but I was stationed at Neu Ulm while in the Army. Got down to Munich several times. I love Bayern.