‘Protected by the First Amendment (We Hope!)’

See the source image

Should we be scared of a couple of silly old apostate churchmen with their homosexual rainbow flag?

Protected! by the First Amendment (We Hope)

After all, unlike Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all the rest of the not-so-free “Free World,” the law of our land, enshrined in our Constitution, the First Amendment, forbids the government to abridge our freedom of speech.

So California in 2019 could only “resolve” that it’s all Christians’ fault that sexual aberrants are miserable, yatta-yatta, and we’d better straighten up and “affirm” them if we know what’s good for us. Of course, that’d mean throwing our own core beliefs overboard–but if “progressives” can’t force regular people to do that, they feel they’ve lived in vain.

A word of warning: our First Amendment will only protect us for as long as we protect it–and may God protect us both.

‘Good News, for Once!’ (2016)

See the source image

America needs to start being America again! Some years ago, a high-school girl showed us how.

Good News! (For Once)

“School officials” told the students that no one could mention the name of Jesus Christ–especially not at any point during the graduation ceremony. The girl did it anyway! And what could the dunderheads do but sit on their hands and fume?

What has all this COVID bullschiiff taught us?

No more speech police, no more transgender propaganda, no more elites lording it over us, no more lockdowns, and no more atheism as the unofficial state religion! A teenage girl’s courage, just five years ago, has already shown us the way.

R.J. Rushdoony, ‘Religious Liberty’

Amazon.com: R. J. Rushdoony: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

(This important essay on the roots of religious liberty, by R.J. Rushdoony, first appeared in 1991 in Roots of Reconstruction.)

This piece is a little long, but well worth reading and considering. It traces the origin of American religious liberty to Martin Luther and the Reformation: when Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony, a staunch Catholic, extended his projection to Martin Luther, Protestant religious reformer–and Luther extended his protection to Frederick. Between them they declared the Biblical basis for religious liberty.

https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/religious-liberty

Liberty is so much more than “freedom to sin”! For Rushdoony it was a theological fact. And so it ought to be for us.

As our country’s founders so well knew, government naturally seeks at all times to extend its power–which God’s law limits. Rushdoony wrote at a time when many different government agencies were forcefully encroaching on religious liberty.

And that has not changed.

A firm Biblical understanding of and belief in religious liberty is the best protection of religious liberty. As Luther himself said, “He that believes most will protect most.”

And our freedom needs protection.

Good News: Court Nixes California Pronoun Law

Spanish judge orders 25-yr old man to 'leave home and get a job'

Holy moly! The Transgender Machine actually lost a court case! And in California, no less.

The 3rd District Appeals Court struck down a provision of a 2017 state law that would have required nursing home employees to use “preferred pronouns” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/21/california-court-strikes-down-transgender-pronoun-/). I don’t know how many 90-year-old trannies are to be found in California’s nursing homes, all clamoring to be called something they’re not; but this time they lost a unanimous court decision.

The court ruled, 3-0, that forcing anyone to use a “preferred pronoun”–calling a man “she” or a woman “he”–forcing people to say things that they believe to be untrue–is a “content-based restriction on speech” and violates the First Amendment.

Violates it? More like lacerates it. Imagine living in a state where they can make you say things that you not only don’t believe, but which thoroughly affront your sense of truth.

The Far Left state senator who drafted the law whined about “deliberately misgendering a transgender person” is nothing less than “harassment,” blah-blah. Like forcing people to say things they know to be wicked and wrong… isn’t?

And like there’s really any such thing as “misgendering.”

‘How About Just “Some” Religious Freedom?’ (2015)

See the source image

It’ll do for a religious freedom zone. Note the mayor in the background.

And to think this was written five years before anybody thought of shutting down our churches in the name of you-know-what!

How About Just ‘Some’ Religious Freedom?

How big is government going to get before it bursts?

I wonder if I’m shadow-banned.

Good News for Free Speech

Happy Puppy Images, Stock Photos & Vectors | Shutterstock

A federal appeals court in Florida, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has ruled that banning “conversion therapy” to get rid of unwanted same-sex attraction is unconstitutional (https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/appeals-court-rules-ban-gender-counseling-unconstitutional/).

The ban, said the court, is “content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny.” That is, the government cannot force individuals or organizations to express a message chosen by the government. They can’t force you to say things you don’t believe in. Because–duh!–it violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Conversion therapy, noted the court, is “only words”–and words are protected.

California and New Jersey, just to name two states that I know of, have banned conversion therapy.

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government cannot lawfully force anyone to express a message chosen by the government.

Expect the LGBT crowd to howl and gnash their teeth.

P.S.–The picture of the happy puppy serves a purpose which I am probably wiser not to name.

Far Left Crazy Opposes Harvard’s ‘Religious Liberty Clinic’

Image result for images of first amendment

Is it the law of the land, or not?

I’m sure we’ve mentioned once or twice that two competing and mutually opposed moral codes can’t co-exist in one society. Harvard University is about to find that out.

“Gay” Etc. students and staff are opposing Harvard’s plan to create a “religious liberty clinic” whose function we suppose, would be to protect everyone’s lawfully guaranteed, by the First Amendment to the Constitution, religious liberties (https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14549). No way, says Far Left Crazy–not unless the clinic takes a pledge not to take any cases that might “impinge on the [undefined] rights of LBGTQ+ people.”

Those “rights” are not defined because organized sodomy demands supremacy–and veto power over the free exercise of religion. Wherever there’s a conflict, “gays” are supposed to win. They’ve grown accustomed to it.

So yeah, sure, you can have religious liberty–as long as you don’t say, write, believe, or do anything that the “gays” don’t like.

Doesn’t sound like liberty to me.

The overriding purpose of America’s colleges and universities, these days, is to crank out more Far Left Crazy zealots. Anything else they might accomplish is an afterthought.

The sooner most of them go out of business, the better–before they put America out of business.

Germany’s Version of ‘Free Speech’

See the source image

Cute and cuddly, happy puppies!

Some countries in the Free World aren’t as free as they ought to be. Germany springs immediately to mind. It seems they just can’t kick their old authoritarian habit.

Germany already has a harsh “hate speech” law, enacted last year. But Chancellor Angela Merkel sounds like she wants to make it even more harsh (https://townhall.com/columnists/ianhaworth/2019/12/02/angela-merkel-and-german-freedom-of-speech-n2557309). In a speech she gave last week, she said, “Expressing an opinion does not come with zero cost.”

In fact, under Germany’s hate speech law, the cost is a fine of up to 50 million euros. A small price to pay if the government is going to “oppose extreme speech.”

Free speech has to have limits, Merkel says. “Those limits begin where hatred is spread.” Not allowed to hate. “They begin where the dignity of other people is violated.”

Uh-huh. And here’s the catch: In Merkel’s little utopia, the government gets to decide what speech is “hateful” and what speech isn’t. Don’t tell me you don’t trust the government to do that.

American liberals see this and lick their chops with envy. Oh, if we could only do that here! Confound that pesky First Amendment! Dash it all, we’re already doing this on all our college campuses! Why can’t we do it everywhere?

Freedom is not something that our self-anointed big shots like us to have. That’s why we have to protect it, day in, day out. Because otherwise some shadowy characters in Facebook, with the enthusiastic support of Democrats, will censor everybody who isn’t them.

This is America, not Germany. Let’s keep it that way.

 

Can They Tell You When to Speak and What to Say?

See the source image

Government: they always want you to worship their golden image

Laws used to mostly tell you what you couldn’t do. Now, increasingly, they tell you what you must do: including what to say and when to say it.

The state of Minnesota threatened a husband-and-wife videography team with fines and a jail term if they persisted in not filming same-sex “weddings,” which they would not do because it would violate their Christian religious beliefs. The couple sued the state, a court dismissed it–but now a federal appeals court has revived the couple’s lawsuit and ruled for it to go forward (https://www.saukvalley.com/2019/08/23/federal-appeals-court-rules-for-st-cloud-couple-seeking-to-deny-same-sex-wedding-film-services/aieyc6y/).

It is, of course, a First Amendment issue. Where is religious liberty, as guaranteed by our Constitution, if one can be forced to say and do things that are against one’s religion? Like, you have to obey the homosexual or else wind up in jail? What kind of country is that?

To the Far Left Crazy, homosexuality and other kinds of sexual aberration are sacred, holy, never to be questioned, and everyone must “affirm” and “celebrate” these abominable things or else be punished by the all-powerful State.

We reject this vision. We reject this false religion. We pray that the Minnesota couple’s lawsuit will succeed; but if not–

“O Nebuchadnezzar… If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou has set up.” (Daniel 3:16-18)

Protected! by the First Amendment (We Hope)

See the source image

“Our mind is right, boss! Our mind is right!”

The California legislature has passed a resolution blaming “religious people”–the key words are “has caused”–for the high rate of suicides among homosexuals, lesbians, and other sexual aberrants (https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/ca-legislators-blame-religious-people-high-lgbt-suicide-rates/).

“The Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits [?] of family and community acceptance” of those who practice the homosexual form of fornication. They do not tell us what those “benefits” are.

The reason this is only a resolution and not a law–yet!–is because the First Amendment to our Constitution prohibits any government from ordering the people’s religious beliefs. Without that protection, it’s a sure thing that these tinpot California fascists would be ordering all churches to “affirm” homosexuality as a positive good, and to erase all those sections of the Bible that do not affirm it. And there would be prison time for anyone who failed to obey.

The fact that it really is just about the easiest thing in the world to find a lamebrained liberal “affirming” church that affirms every sexual malpractice known to biology, cuts no ice with the legislature. It’s not enough for them that there are plenty of “gay-affirming” apostate churches. They won’t be satisfied unless all the churches are apostate.

And if they could literally dig their way into our brains and root out all the ideas they disapprove of, they’d do that, too.