The last time Congress tried pushing through a hate crimes bill, their plan died when President George W. Bush threatened a veto, describing the idea as unneeded and probably unconstitutional.

But now, Barack Obama's White House website clearly states his dedication to strengthening "federal hate crimes legislation" and expanding "hate crimes protection."

"While this new bill has not yet been given a new name or bill number, it is more dangerous to our constitutional rights than the other hate crimes bills that are also still pending. All hate crimes legislation is a direct threat to our religious liberties. We must let Congress know we are watching!" said Gary Cass from the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission in statement Thursday .

He said the plan offers "one of the gravest threats to religious liberty and freedom of speech."

"Even while national attention is focused in on the economy and Obama’s radical economic and foreign policy, the far left is at work undermining our First Amendment rights at home with hate crime legislation," he warned. "In other countries where these types of laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been jailed and fined for their faithful adherence to the Scriptures."

He said the expectation is that U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., will reintroduce the same plan that has been considered previously.

"This new hate crime bill is making its way to the Judiciary committee as soon as this Friday!" he said.

"Now we are on the verge of passing federal hate crime laws that will be used to silence believers like in Canada, Europe and Australia. No more will your pastor be able to declare the truth about Islam or homosexuality because it will be considered a hate crime."

There are some, however, who are fighting back like Republican Congressman from Texas, Louie Gohmert.

"A large part of this is that many people do not understand the Christian heart," he said. "They just don't like people who disagree with them. The true Christian heart can disagree with people, and still love them deeply," he said.

But the law, he said, would allow prosecutors to "go after a minister … who says [sexual] relations outside of the marriage of a man and a woman are wrong."

He says if there is a crime, and the suspect says he was inspired by a minister, the preacher would also suddenly be a defendant in the crime.

Tony Perkins of FRC Action also was busy alerting his constituents.

He emphasized that the scenario explained by Gohmert not only is possible, but probable.

"How would it happen? A federal 'hate crimes' law prohibiting 'bodily injury' could be construed by many law enforcement officials and judges to include words that inflict emotional or psychological distress," he said.

"That means an 'offended' homosexual could accuse a religious broadcaster … a pastor … Sunday School teacher … or other individual of causing emotional injury simply by expressing the biblical view that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and unhealthy.

"That's all it could take to trigger a wave of federal prosecutions and begin an era of censorship like America has never seen!" he warned.

"Remember, all violent criminals should be prosecuted but we already have laws for that," he said.
 But, many states already have "hate crimes" legislation. A couple running a photography studio in New Mexico faced thousands of dollars in fines for their decision not to provide photography services to a pair of lesbians because of the Christian beliefs of the studio owners. In Pennsylvania, a 75-year-old grandmother was threatened with prison for advocating a biblical perspective of homosexuality. And the list goes on, and on, and on.

Internationally, Christians in several nations have been penalized for stating a biblically based condemnation of homosexuality.

Former White House insider Chuck Colson, in his Breakpoint commentary, has called such proposals "Thought Crimes" plans.

"It's about outlawing peaceful speech – speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong," he said.

Critics have said "hate crimes" laws actually criminalize thought because they demand enhanced penalties because of the "perception" of the victim by the perpetrator. For example, a mugger who attacks a victim while screaming an epithet denoting a race or sexual preference could get a much more significant penalty than a mugger who attacks a victim but doesn't say anything.

Matt Barber, chief of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel , has spoken out repeatedly in opposition to the idea.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law," he said. "Hate crimes legislation is … [a] violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it elevates one class of citizen based upon their chosen sexual behaviors above other people."

---

Users' Comments (0)

Add your comment