Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 02/05/2026 6:18:31 AM PST by Tench_Coxe
When a radical mob that included former CNN anchor Don Lemon broke into Cities Church in St. Paul to protest ICE, were they upholding or violating the First Amendment?
According to everyone from Sen. Patty Murray to the International Press Institute, breaking into a church and interrupting a religious service is “First Amendment activity”. But if preventing other people from praying is “First Amendment activity” then what is the church service itself?
First Amendment activity entails expressing your opinion, your belief or your religious practice, but the moment your actions interfere with and prevent someone else from engaging in their expression or activity while they are within their space, it’s an assault on their rights.
(snip)
Tyranny has come draped in slogans of liberation and fascism has come to America wrapped in a protest sign and a cause. Democrat politicians and the media claim that their radical mobs are protected by the First Amendment while the opposition’s rallies are a “threat to democracy”. Their speech is sacrosanct social justice while opposing speech is dangerous “misinformation”.
The First Amendment wasn’t needed to protect the speech already favored by elites. And yet, if liberals and leftists had their way, it’s the only speech that it would protect. The former censors of Facebook and Twitter insist that rioting mobs burning communities are “mostly peaceful” but that speech they don’t like is “violence”. Now, in the face of violent riots, they claim that their violence is speech and that the First Amendment entitles them to shut down church services.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Problem is, those people won't stop until they're stopped.
I’ve seen Leftists shout in people’s faces so that no speech is possible. Shouting, shouting shouting. And you cannot reply because of all the shouting. And the Left insists that this is their First Amendment right.
I think we need more people getting punched in the face.
Absolutely right. Immediate consequences tend to moderate bad behavior. It’s time for a bunch of Leftists to be spitting teeth.
Carry those handheld airhorns and blast in their ears in response.
First Amendment!
Siren whistles are fun, too. :P
Violated. They have the right to PEACEABLY assemble. There was nothing peaceable about that.
If the terrorists invading a church forcibly prevent people (especially children) from leaving, that can probably be considered aggravated kidnapping and a lot more than a punch in the face can be use to stop these terrorists.
This is sadly nothing new.
Back in ‘87, then-VP George Bush came to the University of Minnesota for a public speech at Northrop Hall. I went and was disgusted.
A large number of Leftists 9though hardly the majority in the audience) showed up, yelling, booing and screeching thru his speech. You could hardly hear any of the speech.
The guy sitting in front of me was doing it. I kicked the back of his chair. he turned around and i said “Do you mind shutting up? I’d like to listen to the speech.”
The guy replied “Why do you wanna do that? It’s all lies anyway”. I told him “Let me decide that”. He turned around and went back to yelling.
This incident encapsulates liberal thinking:
(a). Prevent others from exercising their freedom of speech.
(b). Prevent others from hearing something that runs contrary to the liberal’s way of thinking.
“According to everyone from Sen. Patty Murray to the International Press Institute, breaking into a church and interrupting a religious service is “First Amendment activity”
Why would a communist and an international leftist organization give a rat’s patoot about the first amendment, or any other part of our constitution?
Their aspirations are morbid, as are the means of stopping them.
You cannot connect with them.
You have no conventional option, other than to avoid them.
Great article
I have said this before ... if a bunch of people stream into a mosque wearing their shoes, possibly carrying weapons, screaming at the ‘true believers’ whilst they are plotting whatever, it is very likely that the bodies of the invaders would never be found.
As Christians are not typically as primitive as the average member of the religion of pieces, examples could be made say subdue and strip the invaders completely nude and expel them to the parking lot.
The FACE act protects free expression of religion, and punishes anyone who “physically obstructs” the free exercise of religious activity. You could argue the FACE act is unconstitutional but then the rule against protesting at abortion clinics would also be unconstitutional. There are limits on where and when you can exercise your free speech, not on what you can say. Whoever planned the Cities Church stunt should have consulted a lawyer first.
I suspect that they were arrested based on “anti-Klan” law; that is Klansmen busting in to black churches during services. If this is the case, then equating Lemon and his party with foaming democrat racists of the past is more than appropriate.
The First Amendment protects content, not volume.
Your rights end where those of another person begin. You can, for example, swing your arm around wildly if you wish to do so - that’s your right (even if you might look stupid doing so). But your right to do so ends when another person is close enough to be hit by your arm (or even be put in reasonable fear of being hit by your arm), because your rights do not extend to hitting others or to putting them in fear of being hit. Similarly, your right to free speech is limited by the rights of others to enjoy their First Amendment rights, among which are freedom of association (which necessarily includes the freedom to NOT associate with one or more other people) and the freedom to worship (or not) as they see fit. In addition, the church in question was not a public space - it is private property which belongs to a charitable entity (almost certainly a corporation), and that entity has the right to admit (or not admit) anyone it wishes to that property. So, in addition to violating the 1st Amendment rights of the worshippers at that church, these “protestors” also committed a trespass.
The “Heckler’s Veto” stems from the Left getting to control what is considered “Controversial”.
Lots, maybe most, churches no longer prohibit members of the congregation from carrying. Some have armed security. That makes what Lemon and his invaders did extremely dangerous, akin to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the classic limitation to the right of free speech. I carry in church and would have reacted to them as a lethal threat.
Bkmk
Last month heard about a 25 minute sermon on the need for dialog by a substitute minister who is a Democrat. No mention of the 2020-2024 history of censorship. Not going back while he is preaching.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.