• Home

Articles By Curt
Curt's Laws
Good Books
Karlstad MN

• Ideas On Liberty

Foundation for
Economic Education

Cato Institute

Heritage Foundation

Freedom Foundation

Washington Policy Center

• A Good Cause

Romania Reborn

  Exploding debt

Persecuted Christians
 Christian Freedom, Int  
Voice of the Martyrs 


 Thomas Sowell
 Walter Williams
 Steve Cotton
 Herb Meyer

  Mike Adams
  Gary Aldrich
  Doug Bandow
 Michael Barone
 Tony Blankley
 Neal Boortz
 Brent Bozell
 Peter Brookes
 Pat Buchanan
 Mona Charen
 Linda Chavez
 Chuck Colson
 Ann Coulter
 Dinesh D'Souza
 Larry Elder
 Suzanne Fields
 Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
 Maggie Gallagher
 Doug Giles
 Jonah Goldberg
 Paul Greenberg
 Rebecca Hagelin
 David Horowitz
 Paul Jacob
 Jeff Jacoby
 Terence Jeffrey
 Jack Kemp
 Charles Krauthammer
 John Leo
 David Limbaugh
 Rich Lowry
 Ross Mackenzie
 Michelle Malkin
 Clifford D. May
 Joel Mowbray
 Bill Murchison
 Oliver North
 Robert Novak
 Marvin Olasky
 Kathleen Parker
 Jordan Peterson
 Dennis Prager
 Alan Reynolds
 Paul Craig Roberts
 Debra Saunders
 Phyllis Schlafly
 Ben Shapiro
 Thomas Sowell
 Jacob Sullum
 Mark Steyn 
 Mark Tapscott
 Cal Thomas
 Matt Towery
 Rich Tucker
 Emmett Tyrrell
 Diana West
 George Will
 Armstrong Williams
 Walter Williams


     site by wikm graphics
Printable Version     Other Articles       Home        
Lemon of a Law

The New Thought Police
  by Curt Wikstrom

     Among the more serious threats to our liberty are those new laws that permit our notions of decency to be called “hateful” thoughts.  For example, those who believe homosexual behavior to be “sinful” are to be subject to disciplinary action and sensitivity training in California schools.  The insidious aspect of these new laws is that while they do include behaviors which do need to be kept in check, they also are intended to punish people for their beliefs and for speaking honestly about their beliefs, or defending their point of view.

     Another insidious aspect of these laws is that they elevate behavior that should be handled on a personal basis as ethical training within the school into a criminal reporting system.  This level of intimidation is unprecedented in America.  In the name of tolerance, those who promote and pass these laws are fostering the worst form of intolerance.

     Most of us learn to grow up and settle most socializing issues with our peers. Give and take between individuals is necessary for people to grow up and learn to live with others. To the extent these laws extend the heavy hand of the oppressive bureaucracy into this aspect of our lives, they are also wrong.   Local adult authorities can no longer interact with the student peer culture in a responsible manner when they are converted into the thought police of the state and the homosexual political movement.

     Real tolerance requires that we permit others to use words that they feel necessary to express themselves.  We need to try to interpret others as they truly intend, not as we allow ourselves to be offended.  That is the only way others can be free to speak their minds honestly, and the only way we can retain our freedom as well.  The philosophy of others often challenges or questions ours, or even condemns ours.  I am sure that slave owners were furious at the condemnation of those who advocated the abolition of slavery.  They would have called talk of abolition hate speech. People should not be penalized for “telling it like it is”, or for pointing out the errors or hypocrisy of the thought police.  Those who are unethical themselves are always offended when they are challenged.

We need to listen to others and debate them, not punish them for thinking differently, or using words differently.  Just as we are free to disagree with various religious doctrines, we must also be free to disagree with the unhealthy and unnatural practices of homosexuals.

        It is also a mistake to establish “hate crimes”.  We punish people in this country for what they do wrong, not for what they think wrong.  Would it be right to punish someone more who hurts us slightly but “hates” us, while punishing someone less who kills us but does not “hate” us. And what is going to be considered “hate”, disagreeing with us, disliking us, being repelled by us?  Should we punish someone more if he is repelled by us when he robs us of $10 than we would punish someone who really likes us when he robs us of $10,000?  Should hurting an ugly, obnoxious, aggressive, mean (hateable) homosexual have a higher penalty than hurting a sweet, innocent child?  The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to our Constitution were meant to protect us from a government that would punish us because it didn’t like us or how we thought. Hopefully our Supreme Court will strike down these hate speech laws and hate crimes laws for the evil that they are.



Printable Version       Other Articles         Home