Again, there are crimes of terroristic threatening and such that fit. No need to police the thoughts. With apologies to my friends in blue, there are also "enhancers" for attacking a policeman. I'm sorry, but my father is just as important to me as your father the cop is to you. Attacking either one should have the same punishment. Not exactly the same issue, but similar. What we are punishing is the crime, be it assault, vandalism, murder or any other crime. Leave the thought policing out.

Today the press is all about him being a white supremacist. But weren't the vics all white? And for what little I know, aren't jews considered to be white also?

This reminds me of a co-worker's observation about the Amish episode: "But y'know, those Amish kind of bring it on themselves." :P

BobK, the thoughts of an individual often come into play when charges are filed. A person kills someone with a car negligently, and it's manslaughter. That same fatality done with malice is first-degree homicide. Setting a fire accidentally is an issue for the civil courts (barring death or injury) but setting a fire deliberately is arson.

So hate crime laws aren't particularly novel when it comes to issuing criminal charges on the basis of intent.

If I stand on the corner counting people walking by waiting to kill the 100th person, or if I simply wait for an asian to walk by so I can kill him, why should the life of the asian be more important than the 100th guy? The intent was to kill. Both guys are dead. I still say it is an attempt to outlaw a particular thought that the lawgiver does not like.

Politically correct

I think the teacher did a good thing to bring him in to a class on non-standard US religious groups. My students have the option of reading a book about religious terrorism and it covers white supremecist religious terror in the USA.