Call It Murder
But don't call it a hate crime.
Aug 14, 2006, Vol. 11, No. 45 • By DAVID GELERNTER
PAMELA WAECHTER was murdered at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on Friday, July 28--an American who was born a Lutheran and reared in Minneapolis, a middle-aged mother, a convert to Judaism who became a leader in Seattle's Jewish community. Pamela Waechter. Do not stamp her "hate crime" victim and file her away. Because her killer said, "I'm Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," the local police and the FBI have both called this a "hate crime" murder--just one more handy tag for deceased human beings whom you lack the time or energy to remember. And this particular tag is foolish and destructive. It attempts to bring home the frightfulness of the ultimate crime by seasoning it with social-worker talk.
Murder is always a crime, and to call it a "hate crime" adds nothing and explains nothing. (Murders done for love or any other reason are just as bad.) Hatred is never a crime; if the Seattle killer had kept his hatred to himself, it would still be his business and no one else's. The "hate crime" label makes it too easy to lose track of the dead woman as we ponder the crime and the killer. It speaks of a society where solving crime isn't enough for law enforcement officers; where they need to preen for the cameras too. It suggests a society that is already on the road to forgetting that we claim the power (in this free land) to police your actions, not your emotions.
Of course it is important that hatred is wrong for America's two principal religions. Although Judaism and Christianity travel different routes, they reach approximately this same point. But there are subtleties along the way. And policemen and justice officials are the wrong people to teach us about them. We should be hearing about these topics from our priests, rabbis, and ministers (and maybe our philosophers of ethics, if they can remember to hold onto reality and think straight). The whole idea of "hate crime" is one more sad symptom of the dreadful modern tendency to replace "moral" by "legal," "what is right" by "what is lawful" (which inevitably becomes "what you can get away with")--and worst of all to substitute bureaucrats, legislators, and academics for clergymen and bona fide philosophers.
It is not merely nonsense, it is dangerous to call certain crimes "hate crimes." Suppose some thug commits barbaric cruelties against a homosexual because of his homosexuality--an obvious "hate crime." Would the crime have been less wicked if the same thug had done the exact same thing to the same man who happened, in this scenario, to be a homeless drifter the thug had never seen before? Whose face he didn't happen to like?
Here is the real danger and potential evil of the "hate crime" label. Society will be tempted to pour more energy into solving the hate crime than the other one. Sometimes it's right to work harder on certain crimes--if the criminal is likely to strike again, if the crime is virulent and likely to catch on; for other reasons of public safety. And it's only natural to work harder on history-making crimes that affect the whole public--a Lindbergh kidnapping, a JFK assassination.
But we want fewer and not more "special" crimes that get extra attention. Equal justice under law is the noble idea carved on the front of our Supreme Court building. It means that, among other things, we pursue killers of down-and-out drifters just as hard as any other killers. It's true that talk about "hate crimes" began partly because some crimes were getting less than their fair share of attention, under some circumstances in some places. But we no longer live in 1965.
Equal justice under law is a goal we are still far from reaching, but it's a good goal--and labels like "hate crime" send us off in the opposite direction. They distort the landscape of justice. How ugly and odious that affirmative action should still be pulling strings and putting in fixes post-mortem, should still be working to submerge your actual personhood under a flood of chatter and statistics when you are in your grave.
Maybe the FBI believes that, after all, hate is wrong and citizens must be taught not to do it. But even the briefest glance at (for example) the Jewish sources makes clear why this view is simpleminded.
Three statements tell us collectively that hatred is bad but not all hatreds are equal, and circumstances and gradations are crucial. Most important, in the Bible: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thou shalt rebuke yes rebuke thy neighbor" (Leviticus 19:17). Which does not condemn hatred; it orders us never to let hatred fester--conceding implicitly that hatreds do arise and always will. And when they do, we are precisely not to pretend that they haven't. (Here the Bible anticipates the psychology of Nietzsche and Freud.)
Two other nuanced statements from the Talmud: Rabbi Yehoshua says that "hatred of mankind shortens a man's life." He is condemning blanket, undiscriminating hatred--not hatred of a man who deliberately hurt your child (say) but hatred of the sort that encompasses everyone. Elsewhere in the Talmud we read that God decreed the destruction of the Second Temple because of "groundless hatred" within the Jewish community. A staggering idea: that such devastating punishment would be imposed on account of unbrotherly hatred running wild, like an evil thread through an unraveling tapestry. A statement that modern America (and Israel and Europe, not to mention the radical Arab world) ought to ponder. But again groundless hatred is the culprit, and not all hatred is groundless.
There is no way to read the Jewish sources as a group and not conclude that hatred is bad and must be avoided wherever it can be. ("Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins." Proverbs 10:12.) When hatred is inevitable, the best a man can do is to speak honestly to his enemy--and never behind his back.
The New Testament view seems less psychological, more categorical. ("But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." Matthew 5:44, and similar verses.) But there are nuances under the surface here too. Other ethical systems have their own views, subtleties, and circumstances. An important topic--and our policemen and bureaucrats are the wrong people to teach us about it.
A crime and sin like the one we saw in Seattle probably has no great implications for U.S. criminology. But it does throw light into the great U.S. cultural rift, now wider than the Grand Canyon. Where do we go for spiritual wisdom, to our religious heritage (and the occasional wise teacher) or to the do-gooding, ceaselessly nattering Professor's State that smothers us like a child's antique yellow raincoat?
In Hebrew, "repentance" and "return" are the same word. The Seattle catastrophe calls on us to return to churches and synagogues where we can get wisdom instead of sociological insight. Let the cops return to catching criminals without editorializing, and the clergy to preaching religion. A change of pace for everyone. The murder of Pamela Waechter and the injuries inflicted on five of her coworkers--Dayna Klein, Carol Goldman, Cheryl Stumbo, Christina Rexroad, and Layla Bush--tell us that this is a time for national repentance, or in other words national return, from moralizing to morality.
David Gelernter, a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is a national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.