Posted on 04/10/2008 4:55:20 AM PDT by moneyrunner
The Virginian Pilot has decided that displaying a Christian cross crosses the free speech line. Free speech must allow nude dancing and sex shows because if we close them down, we are on the slippery slope to Fascism.
But displaying a cross? Horrors! People will get the idea that anything goes regarding that First Amendment.
Let’s read that once again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
According to the Solons at the Pilot, that part about the free exercise of religion and free speech was really put in there to allow women to dance nude and is a rock solid protection for peep show operators and internet porn providers.
You can read it right there, can’t you? I’m sure you can; read it again, and again, and again. That’s right there in the original contract between the American people and it’s government.
Still can’t see it? What are you? Stupid? It’s right there!!! They can see it, why can’t you?
(Excerpt) Read more at hamptonroads.com ...
Its starting early this year.
A newspaper? A civic group? A govt. organization.?
Bingo. Liberals always throw this stuff out like chum during an election year. They know the DBM will run to the "faces" of the Christian Right (used to be Jerry Falwell, but now Pat Robertson and James Dobson?) for comment. So you'll have Pat Robertson and James Dobson all over the TV scaring folks who think Robertson and Dobson advocate that the U.S. be a Christian theocracy.
When graduations roll around, we'll have an incident or two of someone mentioned Jesus or God in their commencement address and people will go apoplectic. Again, Robertson and Dobson all over the place.
It's so predictable, you'd think people would have it figured out, but there's always a new generation to prejudice against Christians.
congress didn’t make a law here...so where has the federal government restricted the free exercise of religion and free speech in this matter ?
and SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that that local communities can decide what’s obscene...
so what’s your point ?
So city officials are allowing nude dancing and sex shows in the July 4 parade and in the public park afterward? I might have change the location of my July 4 celebration.
It’s the major newspaper down in Tidewater Virginia (Newport News/Norfolk/Virginia Beach).
}:-)4
Haven’t you heard?? The First Amendment was included to protect flag burning and pornography! /sarcasm off
And a close second to the Daily Press for birdcage lining quality.
that’s why i’ve called it the Pravda for years...
Actually, local governments cannot restict your constitutional rights. Didn’t you know?
But yes they can(though maybe not much longer)...hence Parker v. District of Columbia.
The 10th Amendment is the forgotten amendment.
Better to use the Constitution of whatever state is involved.
Otherwise, there is no point in any state having a Constitution.
Rather than erecting a giant cross in the park and standing beside that symbol of faith, they might consider taking a spot at the grill, feeding the hungry, forgiving and asking forgiveness. That would be more than just symbolic. That would be practicing what they preach.
I agree with the referenced article that the above actions are probably more heartfelt expressions of faith than erecting a cross. But the Virginian-Pilot is wrong about what the Constitution and its history actually indicate about religious expressions of faith.
To make a long story short, this post (<-click), while addressing a tax-related issue, tells how FDR unthinkingly weakened the 10th A. protected powers of the states when he established his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal federal spending programs.
Then keeping in mind that the now-ignored 10th A. protected powers of the states include the power to address religious issues, this post (<-click) tells how corrupt justices later used FDR's "license" to ignore the 10th A. to unconstitutionally limit our religious freedoms, also scandalously legalizing abortion.
Sadly, the reason that the federal government is getting away with ignoring 10th A. protected state powers and stifling our religious freedoms is because ignorance of the Constitution, its history and how the government is supposed to work is epidemic. Widespread constitutional ignorance is evidenced by the following links.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tThe consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance is that the people are impotent to take a firm stance against government officials who unthinkingly limit religious expression as evidenced by this cross issue.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
The people need to reconnect with the intentions of the Founders as reflected by the Constitution and its history. The people need to wise up to the major problem that the federal government is now not only operating outside the restraints of the federal Constitution, but also ignoring 10th A. protected state powers, wrongly limiting our religious freedoms by doing so. The bottom line is that the people need to quit sitting on their hands and vote Constitution-ignoring federal and state government leaders out of office.
People may differ on this issue, but that is not something for either the Pilot or the local cops to decide.
Look, I am not a fan of in-your-face proselytizing. But personal style is not a constitutional issue. The people who put up the cross were making the statement that they were Christians. If they wanted to work the food line, they may have exhibited certain Christian virtues, but they would have been indistinguishable from the atheists next to them.
They had every right to let people know their religious beliefs, even if that exhibition was counterproductive, as long as it was not disruptive. It's mere presence was not disruptive. End of case.
But what happens when a ‘religion’ calls for the murder of Jews and Christians? Do we still allow the free exercise of that religion?
Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared,"Kill any Jew who falls under your power."
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
It still remains that ongoing c&s separation strife is a consequence of people not knowing the Constitution and its history. Given any of the examples of c&s separation conflicts being discussed in this forum, if the people involved were aware of the historical materials being presented in this forum concerning their religious freedoms, then I expect that we’d see different things happening.
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.