When words cease to have meaning
C. S. Lewis, in his excellent book, Mere Christianity, wrote of the danger of broadening the definition of words. He pointed out that the word "gentleman" at one time simply meant a man that owned land, a bit of a rarity in medieval Europe. Land owners had an automatic source of wealth, denied to most of the people, and therefore had access, through that wealth, to education. A better education meant a different way of talking, thinking, behaving, which produced a "gentleness" that was markedly different than the "rough" behavior of the uneducated. The uneducated, therefore strived to emulate that "gentleness" and as time passed "behaving like a gentleman" was an oft repeat admonition from mothers to sons. Eventually the word changed from referring to men who owned land, to men who behaved politely and courteously. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, there already were plenty of words for men who behaved such ways, but only one that referred to the type of British land-owner of means that the word "gentleman" referred to. Thus by broadening the definition, the language became less functional.
C. S. Lewis was warning of the over-broadening use of the term "Christian", but we can see the damage in many other areas of expanding the definition of words well beyond their reasonable limits.
Fox News reports of a "hate crime" trial in which the abuse of the term "hate" has been poignantly exposed...
The victim was Michael Sandy, a gay, black 28-year-old. The suspects were a group of young whites who ran out of money and drugs on a Sunday night and figured a gay man would be an easy mark for a robbery.
Police said the men, using an online chat room, lured Sandy to a remote New York City beach by promising a date, then beat him and chased him into the path of a speeding car. Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the crime "a pernicious scheme" to single out a victim because of his sexual orientation. Prosecutors filed murder and hate crimes charges.
But a trial has produced a surprise: The man who first suggested going after a gay target [Anthony Fortunato] was probably gay too....
Prosecutors argue that Fortunato's sexual orientation is irrelevant.
Under New York law, they said, defendants can be convicted of a hate crime even if they bear no actual hatred for their victim.
The law requires only that they have singled out a person for a violent act because of some belief or stereotype about that person's ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation.
The judge overseeing the case backed that interpretation of the law before trial.
It is ironic that we see a group that already led the misappropriation of one word, "gay" now leading the misappropriation of yet another—"hate"
Of course the real problem is that New York law has defined a behavior, homosexuality, as an inherent trait, thereby leaving chaos as that behavior is targeted by criminals, who are ambivalent to whether or not it actually is or isn't a trait. One would have to be in serious denial not to see the trend among homosexuals to seek situation which will obviously put them in risk. If Senator Larry Craig had been arrested in New York, rather than Minnesota, would that arrest have been considered a hate crime? Does the term "hate" actually mean anything anymore in New York, since it has now been broadened to mean nothing more than targeting people by their predictable behavior patterns?
But all that comes after the simple question: How is punishing people for what they think, not enforcing Thought Crimes? Do we really want to have a long litany of Thought Crimes added to our laws? Do we really want to empower Thought Police?
The saddest part is that we Conservatives have been arguing for stricter punishment for crimes all along. Liberals finally agree to a little more strictness, but only for Thought Crimes, but even then, less strict than we want for simply committing the crime, regardless of thought.
So how will Liberals broaden the cruel club of Thought Crimes under the guise of "Hate Crimes" next? We know that in some nations, churches are under attack for preaching the Bible, because the Liberals in power find the Bible offensive, and have therefore made teaching parts of it illegal.
Anthony Fortunado and his cronies should receive life in prison, yet under these same Liberals they'll most likely be out on the street within a decade or so. A few years of that slap on the wrist will be for using a predictable behavior as part of their crime. For thinking the wrong thoughts. Yet had they received a fair and just sentence, they would have been punished much, much more simply for the heinous act they committed, not the political incorrectness of their thoughts while committing the act.
How long until the heinous act is no longer require for the thoughts to be punished? How many other thoughts will have been pushed under the ever widening and contorted definition of "hate"?
Posted by Danny Carlton at April 16, 2008 7:05 AM