Tag Archives: first amendment

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.


The Best Time to Stifle Freedom of the Press… Is Here

See the source image

Let’s say you’re a power-drunk government official who wants to suppress a news story that might embarrass the government and call your position into question.

Has there ever been a better time for doing that, than this?

Recently Australian police, armed with warrants, raided the offices of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australia’s equivalent of PBS), seizing files and computers, looking for evidence that an editor and two reporters broke some law when they reported that in 2017, some Australian soldiers in Afghanistan killed unarmed civilians (https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Australian-police-raid-public-broadcaster-seize-13938095.php). Someone, it seems, wants to track down whoever were the sources for that story and make them sorry for it.

We would not like to see this happen in America. Freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution, and by long tradition.

Our problem is that our “free and independent press” has abused its freedom and turned itself into a 24/7/365 shill for the Democrat Party. Time and again we catch them making up stories, embellishing stories, leaving things out, putting things in–and then having to walk it all backwards once it’s been demonstrated that those stories aren’t true. Think Jussie Smollet, the Covington kids, and “Trump’s a Russian agent!”–all crapola. All designed to help the Far Left Crazy take over the country.

Consequently, tens of millions of Americans don’t trust the mainstream nooze media to tell the truth about anything–only because they’ve been caught lying so many times. All they ever do, anymore, is to attack Donald Trump and anyone who stands with him. All they want to do is drive the president out of office. Because their candidate, Hillary Clinton, didn’t win in 2016. Hence more than two years of wall-to-wall “Russian collusion” coverage… which turned out to be false. Even now they haven’t let it drop.

So who’s going to shed a tear if government agents raid, say, the Washington Post’s editorial offices? Who’s going to believe the New York Times, if their offices get raided?

A free press is a vital component of a free republic. But the press in our country has all but pissed away its freedom–voluntarily, to gain a political end. The government didn’t turn them into Pravda. They turned themselves into Pravda.

At this point you might want to ask me, “Well, what do we do about it? How do we fix the problem? How do we get our free press back?”

I think the noozies have to fix it themselves–and soon.


Senator: Congress Shouldn’t Fund Colleges That Suppress Free Speech

Image result for images of college stopping free speech

Uh-huh… And everyone who’s not you is a “bigot,” and everything they think and say is “hate.” Right.

Senator Ted Cruz told Campus Reform recently that Congress should stop funding colleges and looniversities where free speech is not allowed (https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12256). This comes following an executive order by President Donald Trump to stop granting federal research funds to colleges where the First Amendment is ignored.

“Congress should not fund colleges that do not support free speech,” Cruz said. “We’re not going to fund discrimination.” Colleges and universities commonly discriminate against anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the Far Left Crazy point of view.

We’ll see if Sen. Cruz goes so far as to introduce a bill to cut the funding–not that it’d get anywhere in the House, where neo-Stalinist Democrats are the majority. But maybe we, the voters, can pitch them out of the House in 2020 and the bill might stand a chance.

Otherwise we just continue with “higher education” as propaganda for the Left–and really expensive propaganda, at that.

Nevertheless, some small progress has been made. The president’s executive order is a reality. And two years ago no one in either house of Congress was saying what Cruz is saying now.

We should not be made to pay for the poison that our colleges are pouring down America’s throat.


Wonderful News! 28 States Act to Restore Free Speech on Campus

See the source image

Its days are numbered

In the wake of President Trump’s executive order cutting off federal research grants to colleges and universities that refuse to honor the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, 28 states have enacted free speech legislation (https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12186).

Not only that–16 more have introduced such legislation and are currently working on it. Hey, that’s 44 out of 50! Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kentucky are the latest to come on board, with Texas expected to join them in a few days.

In general, the new laws stop the colleges from restricting free speech to “free speech zones,” limiting the free speech rights of students and faculty, withholding resources from anyone whose ideology doesn’t match the college’s.

America’s colleges and universities are currently infamous for enforcing uniformity of speech and thought. They call it “diversity.”

We’ll see if they keep on doing this, once it starts costing them.


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?


%d bloggers like this: