Sleepycatz

Hate Crimes

Nearly two months ago Kenneth Cummings Jr disappeared outside of Cypress, TX. His burnt remains were discovered recently on property linked to Terry Mark Mangum, who had used Mr. Cummings credit cards on the night of the disappearance. Mr Mangum was arrested and confessed to murder:Mangum, who described himself as “definitely not a homosexual,” said God called on him to “carry out a code of retribution” by killing a gay man because “sexual perversion” is the “worst sin.”

Mangum believed Cummings to be gay.

“I planned on sending him to hell,” he said.

There can be little doubt that Mr. Mangum is a bit touched in the head; yet, what is the difference between a man who brutally murders another because he is inspired by ‘god’ and a man who blows himself up in a crowded bus because he is inspired by ‘god’? Ultimately, the only difference lies in the volume of lives maimed and killed. Mr. Mangum may have only barbarically snuffed out one life, but he left behind the maimed lives of Mr. Cummings’ friends and family. Mr. Mangum’s act was designed to do more then kill one man, like a jihadi bomber, the act was framed to carry out divine justice.

I have written previously that the hate filled rhetoric of conservative christians will, eventually, lead to acts of violence. Many will dismiss Mangum as an extreme case, an aberration, but in fact Mangum was following the religious principles he was taught. He was following the literal Word of God, and as a principle of faith the Word cannot be questioned.

Mangum’s faith in the Word cannot really be questioned but his actions, and those who will follow him, should be treated most harshly. Conservative christians have been fighting the passage of HR.1592 (The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) for the past several months on the grounds that the law represents infringement upon their religious speech. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the present hate crimes statutes (see 18 U.S.C. § 245 and § 247) include religious belief and race among the protected classes. The current bill before congress simply adds gender identity and sexual orientation to the existing classes, as well as expanding local resources and federal jurisdiction. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that this law would somehow prevent religious leaders from criticizing homosexuality. Existing laws have stopped no one, including myself, from criticizing religious belief or behavior; I know of no atheist arrested under these laws for mocking religion or speaking out against God.

HR.1592 adds additional penalties to existing crimes committed for reasons of bias. Some will argue that a ‘crime is a crime’, and no additional prosecution is needed. As a society we separate classes of the same offense all the time — the rape of a child is treated vastly differently then the rape of an adult. In a pluralistic society it seems prudent that we should treat some crimes as more heinous than others because they seek to undermine the fabric of our civil society. A murderer, for instance, targeting Jews simply for their religious beliefs commits a worse crime then a murderer who targets individuals for their money. This is because our society values religious diversity and it is cognizant of the historic tragedy of anti-semitic crimes. Sexual preference and gender identity are as core to ones identity as race or religious belief. There exists mountains of historical evidence to show that crimes based upon these two classes are prevalent and and often under prosecuted. The cold blooded murder of Mr.Cummings is simply the most recent, public, testament to this fact.

As Tom, at PurpleScarf, has pointed out: conservative christians seem to believe the entire notion of hate crimes is a joke. At the same time they argue that additional penalties to crimes motivated by the hatred of a victim’s sexual orientation constitute a burden upon their religious rights. The only conclusion that can be drawn by this argument is that conservative christian leaders seek to promote some level of violence. There is really no other explanation: we tolerate abhorrent speech regularly but action is prosecuted. As a society, we tolerate — and even accommodate — groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, neo-nazis, as well as numerous other supremest groups. Legal prosecutions of these groups have only occurred when criminal action was taken on behalf of the group. Ultimately, this is what concerns these religious leaders: that either they will be deterred from inciting criminal violence, or that their bigotry will be relegated to the same acceptance levels as that of the Klan. In either case, civil society wins, and perhaps the the brutalization that Mr. Cummings suffered won’t be repeated.

This entry was posted by steve on Sunday, July 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pm and is filed under Injustices, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.