Tag Archives: first amendment

Quebec May Ban ‘Religious Clothing’

See the source image

You asked for it–and now you don’t like it?

As they say in Canada, and among liberals here at home, “We don’t need no stinkin’ First Amendment!”

The Quebec legislature is considering a ban on “religious clothing”–that is, say, a cross on a necklace, a yarmulka, or a hijab–for all public employees: civil servants, teachers, nurses, bus drivers, lawyers, “and other people who interact with the public” (https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/religious-symbols-proposal-ignites-fiery-debate-quebec-62377627).

Although “all religions” are to be affected, the focus is on Islam, and especially on the head scarves and other coverings required of some Muslim women. Secular libs don’t like the headwear. They don’t like it, so Muslims can’t have it.

Uh, guys–this is Islam. Or at least some brands of it. If you don’t like it, you shouldn’t be importing it. “You can have your religion, as long as you don’t practice it.” What kind of sense does that make?

If your life turns sour on you because your kid’s teacher has a cross on her bracelet, or the bus driver is a Sikh with a turban, then you need to change your life. Isn’t it funny, though, how the “tolerance” crowd is always the most intolerant bunch of them all?

If this were happening in America, we would call it an unconstitutional attempt to establish secularism as the state religion. But a lot of the Quebec legislators are perfectly comfortable with that. They like the idea of themselves owning the state religion, before which all other religions must bow down and confess themselves inferior and wrong.

Isn’t that what they always accuse us Christians of doing?


Here Comes the Internet Censor!

See the source image

But in Britain they don’t have a First Amendment…

Well, the UK is preparing to anoint an “internet czar” to rein in the social media, promote “internet safety,” whatever that is, and prevent “online harms,” whatever they are (https://www.cnet.com/news/uk-to-keep-social-networks-in-check-with-internet-safety-regulator/).

Yessir, they’re gonna set up a “regulator” who will have the power to shut down any sites on the internet where they find any of the following: 1) inciting violence and spreading violent content; 2) encouraging self-harm or suicide (Are you listening, Netflix?); 3) spread of “disinformation and fake news,” whatever that may be; 4)cyber-bullying; 5) children accessing “inappropriate material” (eye-of-the-beholder alert); and 6) child exploitation and abuse content.

To some, “violence” is defined as any failure to agree with their Far Left delusions. To governments, and especially to Democrats, “fake news” is anything they don’t want you to know about, or anything that makes them look bad: but if it’s aimed at Donald Trump, no problem. As for “inappropriate material,” grade school libraries are full of fornication-celebrating “young readers” books.

Do you trust politicians to decide what you can or can’t say on the Internet?

I’d love to hear Brett Kavanaugh’s take on some of this.

 


‘Journalists’ Fall for Another Hoax

See the source image

Not exactly a “news anchor,” but he’ll do

Speaking of noozies totally falling for hoaxes and rushing to “report” false information as “news”…

Last week The New York Times, Washington Post, and Bloomberg News all shouted from the housetops the “news” that a new “study” had revealed massive discrimination against women in the high-tech industry (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/02/18/journalists-fall-for-completely-fake-stats-about-sexism-in-tech/). According to the hoax, when women applied for tech jobs without revealing their sex, 54% of them were offered interviews; but when they did reveal that they were women–thousands of ’em, by the way–only 5% were invited to an interview.

Oops. The source of this “study” is no longer available, no one can find its supposed authors, it wasn’t published anywhere–and it may not actually exist in any form at all!

That didn’t stop the noozies from leaping aboard the bandwagon and using each other as their sources. When I was a newspaperman, they used to call that “rewrite”: lift the story from another paper and change a few of the words.

Now they’ve got egg on their faces and are quietly whispering their mea culpas.

It never occurred to anyone in the noozerooms that the story was preposterous on its face. Like, only 5% of computer jockeys are women? You mean people who get paid real money for being reporters… believed that? Even for a minute?

Of course they did. It fits their “narrative” that America is a sexist hell-hole and needs to be ruled by liberals with Hillary Clinton in the White House. Only leftids can clean up this mess! So they ran with the story. Like they always do.

In writing the First Amendment, complete with its guarantee of freedom of the press, our country’s founders never anticipated that practically the whole freakin’ news industry would make itself worthless as a source of information. Live and learn.

Meanwhile, we can’t be confident that any of the nooze we hear is true.


Street Preachers Arrested at St. Paul’s–Why?

Image result for images of street preacher being arrested

I’ve been thinking about this video Linda posted yesterday as a comment on this post, “Because They’re Crazy” (https://leeduigon.com/2018/07/24/because-theyre-crazy/). Scroll down a bit, and you’ll find it.

In it we see a street preacher in London being arrested for preaching outside St. Paul’s Cathedral, on church property. Two Bible verses sprang to mind.

When Our Lord Jesus Christ was arrested by temple officials in the garden of Gethsemane, he said to them, “When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53).

Jesus preached in and around the temple in Jerusalem. The authorities hated it, but didn’t dare move against Him in broad daylight. They had to do it under cover of darkness, for no one to see.

After His ascension into heaven, His disciples preached in the temple and they were arrested–by day. Officials ordered Peter not to preach Christ anymore, to which he answered, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

I’m not sure which of these verses applies here, because I don’t know what the laws were in Jerusalem at the time, nor do I know what the law is in London today. But I do know that church property is private property.

If I were to cross the street and preach on the steps of St. Francis Cathedral, I doubt the church would tolerate it indefinitely–although some of the local teens use those steps as a skateboard rink and I’ve never seen the police chase them away. I’m pretty sure the church would eventually demand that I go somewhere else, and call the police if I refuse. Not that I intend to put this to the test: getting arrested is not something I need in my life just now.

They didn’t arrest Jesus openly because they were afraid of Him, and afraid of the people who flocked to hear Him. My personal belief is that some of the temple authorities already knew that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, and that’s why they had Him crucified: they feared His authority would be greater than theirs.

They were a bit afraid of Peter and John, too, because the disciples had performed miracles of healing and the people were coming more and more to see them. They wound up persecuting the disciples, too, when arrests and beatings couldn’t silence them.

I don’t think these dynamics were involved in the arrest of the street preachers in London. Again, I have to be careful because the video doesn’t give us the church officials’ side of the story.

On the whole, though, I think I have to agree that the churches’ property rights must be respected. If anyone can preach on church property, that could open a can of worms that wouldn’t be easy to close. What if an atheist stood on church property and preached atheism? It could start a riot. Or a Muslim, or a scientologist, or a cultist? You see the problem.

In our country, unlike anywhere else, our First Amendment protects our free exercise of religion. We ought to guard it zealously, and take back ground that has been wrongfully taken from us. Even so, we cannot come onto private property uninvited and preach whatever we want to preach.

In East Lansing, Michigan, a few years ago, a band of “gays” invited themselves into a church and disrupted the services (http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-2302-Gay-anarchist-action-hits-church.html). They said they were doing some preaching of their own. Most of them left before sheriff’s deputies could arrive. The church chose not to press charges, and as far as I know, the incident was not repeated.

But it does show us a destination to which we don’t want to go.


The Leftids’ War on Christianity

See the source image

“The Spirit of ’76”–we need it now.

Well, here we go again.

At a condo building in Port Charlotte, Florida, a sign has been posted: “ANY AND ALL CHRISTIAN MUSIC IS BANNED” (https://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2018/03/08/christian-music-n2458899), reports Todd Starnes at townhall.com.

No Bible study, no group prayers, no hymn-singing, no crosses on doors–it’s all been banned, thanks to a “complaint” made to the government’s “Fair Housing” agency. I am at a loss to understand how this is “fair.”

Do we still have a First Amendment? If so, where is it?

There is, of course, a lawsuit filed against this high-handed decree. We can pray it succeeds. But why should we need a judge to tell us we can listen to Christian music, and come together to share it, if we want to? And what if the judge says no?

Another thing I can’t understand is why a country in which the vast majority of people are Christians seems to be governed solely in the interests of a tiny, rabidly Christian-hating minority–and why we put up with it. We wouldn’t have put up with it in 1776. Why do we put up with it now?


‘Collidge Morons Demand to Control News Reporting’ (2015)

When I was a newspaperman, I sometimes encountered politicians and other characters with high opinions of themselves who demanded to approve and alter my story before I published it. This was shockingly bad form, and I told them so. Some of them understood. I mean, if we can’t report it like we saw it and we heard it, there’s no point in reporting it at all.

But now bad form seems to be gaining the upper hand. Remember this incident at Smith College, just a couple years ago?

https://leeduigon.com/2015/11/20/collidge-morons-demand-control-of-news-reporting/

Leftids just won’t stop until there’s no more freedom left.


Article Asks, ‘Is America Having Second Thoughts About Free Speech?’

See the source image

From The Week, Feb. 12, by Damon Linker–who is against the government putting restrictions on free speech, but can’t help seeing a disturbing trend in that direction (http://theweek.com/articles/753274/america-having-second-thoughts-about-free-speech).

Who can deny it? But to his argument I would like to add the observation that the proposed limitations on speech are mostly coming at us from the Hard Left/Democrat Party–while they themselves enjoy absolute freedom to say and publish anything they want, no matter how wrong, how vicious, how inane, how jejune, how childish, how spiteful, or how mean-spirited it might be.

We Christians and our friends are expected to just suck it up, yum yum, when we hear collidge prefessers and other pinheads declare that everything we hold dear and sacred is evil and stupid, white people are responsible for all the ills of the world and must be punished for it, every “value” in play before 1990 is wrong and must be erased along with the people who hold to them, America is a racist sexist stinking country and must be punished, only black lives matter, yours don’t–and on and on and on, no end to it. The past eight years have been especially trying.

Democrats, with a straight face, propose that people be “investigated” for the Crime of Climate Change Denial. What would they say if Republican Senators huddled with a Republican attorney general and discussed RICO sanctions against persons who had committed the Crime of Climate Change Affirmation–and made that a plank in their national party platform? Think they’d be upset? Think they’d invoke their First Amendment rights?

We are expected to listen to them, or at least not try to shut them down. Let’s make that a two-way street, shall we? See, we already have a frightfully good idea of what government restrictions on free speech would look like. The Democrats and their colleges have shown it to us.

A lot of this problem would go away if the government would stop funding universities. And we would be a better country for it.


France to Rein in ‘Fake News’

See the source image

French President Emmanuel Macron says he will propose new laws to crack down on “fake news” and its sponsors, and that persons who produce “fake news” will be “punished” somehow (https://www.politico.eu/pro/macron-proposes-new-law-against-fake-news/).

Does that mean I’d better not do any more jackalope stories?

How does Macron define “fake news”? Is it just reporting things that aren’t true? Gee, he’d have to ban almost all the America nooze media. Like, really–babbling away on Election Night, 2016, about Hillary’s impending landslide victory: how fake was that? Or the New York Times, year after year, printing Walter Duranty’s lies about the workers’ paradise being created in Russia by Stalin? It was all lies, and they got a Pulitzer Prize for it.

When you make laws against “fake news,” you have to anoint somebody to decide what’s fake and what isn’t, and that’s where the whole idea goes wrong. Suddenly “fake news” is any news critical of the punks in power. Try to imagine Loretta Lynch with the power to label and prosecute “fake news.” It ought to make your hair stand on end.

Our First Amendment guarantees, by law, the freedom of the press–without adding that the press is, of course, free to report all the news deemed “not fake” by the government. Because that freedom comes with no strings attached, we have always had to put up with “journalists” who are something less than a credit to their profession. We have always had to put up with a certain amount of bogus news. Our mainstream nooze media is, frankly, a disgrace. But because the First Amendment prohibits putting fetters on the press, alternative news outlets, made possible and effective by the Internet, have been able to develop and thrive.

Confound these power-hungry empty suits, like Macron, who are always trying to chop down the tree of liberty! Always for our own good, of course–which they know, but we don’t.

The partisan nooze media we have to tolerate now is an annoyance.

But giving some government dummy the power to decide what news is fake and what isn’t–well, that would be a lot more than just annoying.


School: Private Conversation Isn’t Private

Image result for images of duct tape over mouths

Our public education system continues to poison our society. Thanks (I think) to Linda for this news tip. (https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2017/05/17/augusta-school-department-punishes-employee-for-telling-coworker-i-will-pray-for-you/)

In Augusta, Maine, a public school employee was recently disciplined with “coaching”–can these people do euphemisms, or what!–for saying, in a private conversation with another employee who is also a member of her church, “I will pray for you.”

Well, hey, hey! She was “instructed” never to say such a thing in any private conversation. Hello! Aren’t private conversations private anymore? Not in a public school, they aren’t. The employee has filed charges against the school district for religious discrimination.

Even more disturbing, school officials told her that she cannot use “phrases that integrate public and private belief systems.”

Whoa! Hold it right there! Since when does America have any “public belief system”? Has the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment been repealed? Did it happen while we slept? Who established a “public belief system” that binds us all? (“One ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them…” –Tolkien)

These people have got to be sent packing, before we all wake up behind barbed wire. Who do they think they are?

Wake up, O spirit of 1776! Wake up!


College vs. Free Speech

Image result for images of violent student protests

If our country ever collapses into chaos and we lose our precious freedoms, our colleges and universities will be largely to blame for it.

The vice provost of New York University, one Ulrich Baer, has declared that trampling on free speech “ensures the conditions of free speech” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2017/04/30/nyu-administrator-goes-full-orwell-violating-free-speech-ensures-the-conditions-of-free-speech/#4f6ac8243718 ). Put that in your postmodern pipe and smoke it. It’ll make you as loopy as he is.

It’s simply “undebateable,” says this Stalinist wannabe, that we must kill our First Amendment to protect the fragile feelings of “minorities,” who must be rigidly shielded from ever hearing anything they don’t want to hear. It’s necessary to silence some of the people–us, he means–for the good of “a greater group of people.” This is what has been learned, he prates, by studying postmodernism and other forms of fractured logic.

He goes on to praise the Soros-funded thugs of Black Lives Matter, and other violent “protesters,” for “keeping watch over the soul of our republic.”

Don’t even ask for his definition of a “republic.” It’s bound to make no sense. For that matter, I’m not sure I want to find out what he means by “soul.”

So how about it, America? Are you ready now to stop pouring money into these institutions of “higher learning”? Or isn’t the pot boiling hot enough for you yet?


%d bloggers like this: