I was a firm backer of sarah, but this leaves me with little room to maneuver....this is a first amendment issue, the supremes got it right, however distasteful this so called “church” is.....if I disagree with her over something as fundamental as the first amendment, I can no longer back her
I came on this thread ready to say the same, but if all she said was really: “Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square”, then that’s hardly the same as what the headline implies.
Think about this for a minute, before you decide that her opinion on this corner case is fatal.
WBC has deliberately set themselves up so that they are engaging in essentially commercial speech (fishing for lawsuits) under the guise of political/religious speech. WBC has deliberately chosen to set up this issue.
I’m certain that WBC would consider your reaction a win for their side.
Consider the entirety of her body of opinion, rather than just her pronouncement on this case.
What do you disagree with in the following?
“Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square,”
How is protesting a soldier's funeral "political speech" exactly? How does such an act protect the public from government overeach?
LLS
>> I was a firm backer of sarah, but this leaves me with little room to maneuver...
>> Palin just shot herself in the foot.
She’s drawing contrast to court decisions where the obscene is protected but Christianity gets locked in chains.
It’s a well stated tweet that makes no assertion about limiting speech.
You’re not going to be the tiny hole in the dam that brings it crashing down, if that’s what you’re thinking.
(And another little thing you seem to have missed: Palin’s statement was true. It wasn’t a statement about the first amendment.)