Posted on 01/16/2012 7:33:21 PM PST by InvisibleChurch
FT. LAUDERDALE, Fla., Dec. 5 /Christian Newswire/ -- As Christians around the country are met with violence and marginalization, Dr. Gary Cass, has founded the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) a new organization that aims to counter threats to millions of Christians' First Amendment rights. While the overwhelming majority of Americans are professed Christians, it has become routine for the media and elites to openly mock and trivialize Christians because they choose to express their faith.
In his new book Christian Bashing and the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Dr. Cass examines the threats, slurs and violence being perpetrated against Christians--and the apathetic reaction of American society. "When controversial statements are made against certain groups, there is a demand for an immediate apology. When anti-Christian sentiments flow from the media, there is never a response--until now," said Dr. Cass.
"When a group known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of radical homosexual agitators, recently disrupted a Catholic mass in San Francisco, the reaction from the entire religious community was a big yawn. It is time for Christians to stand up and call bigotry by its rightful name and to fight back when defamed."
An employee of an Idaho computer company was fired after displaying Bible verses in his cubicle--in response to a pro-homosexual flyer distributed by the company.
Howard Stern on his nationally syndicated radio show said, "If I was president, I would have you (pro-lifers) gassed. I would march you into the ovens."
(Excerpt) Read more at christiannewswire.com ...
It will never work without the implicit threat of violence or some concrete form of retaliation - which the Church at large will not support.
Christians - in the majority - would have to vote as a bloc and take over one party with lots of money and dedication to make this effort effective.
The last time that happened big enough to actually change anything was when the “moral majority” rose up to politically kick humanist fanny. However, we failed to remove them from our unelected institutions and change their re-education cabal so they kept “progressing” in culture and society to come back again politically.
What other faith has that component of love and self-sacrifice?
That makes all the other faiths look rather listless. It makes those whose lives are kaka (Hollyweird) totally meaningless, shallow, vapid and worthless, every single solitary minute of life.
Stalinism has returned behind the Pink Triangle and the Rainbow Flag.
Dr. Cass ought to watch some TV; it’s been perfectly ok for a long time now to bash white males on commercials as stupid, clumsy, mean, etc. At least 50% of commercials are built on the premise that white males are dolts incapable of doing squat. Payback by angry female Producers obviously. I wonder if they’re surprised that no male wants to date them.
Christian Catholic Bashing: The Last Acceptable Bigortry?
Or perhaps, the businessmen who pay to produce and broadcast those commercials have found that commercials that use that formula are effective is selling their product.
Should not that title be listed:
Mormon Bashing: The Last Acceptable Bigotry?
If my memory is correct, at least there is a Catholic League organization that promotes the civil rights of Catholics.
But the question needs to be asked, are Mormons Christians or a seperate faith?
So I take it you don't believe this quote from the article represents a violation of free speech?
An employee of an Idaho computer company was fired after displaying Bible verses in his cubicle--in response to a pro-homosexual flyer distributed by the company.
It’s Spiritual Warfare. Satan isn’t interested in doing battle with other types of religion. Those people are already lost, he’d be wasting his time.
“So I take it you don’t believe this quote from the article represents a violation of free speech?”
It is not that I believe the quote from the article does not represent a violation of the First Amendment, but rather that I know for a fact that the quote from the article does not represent a violation of the First Amendment.
That is unless you can show me the part of the Constitution that reads, “An Idaho computer company shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”
In short, the fact of the matter is that the First Amendment only guarantees that the government will not violate your right to free speech, it does not guarantee that a private employer will not violate free speech.
Thus, the author’s claim that the former Idaho computer worker had his First Amendment Rights violated is complete Nonsense.
The answer is bound and gagged, and lying on our doorstep.The word "gospel" means "good news."
Philippians 4:8, King James Version (KJV) Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.Journalism as we know it, OTOH, is about bad news.
The Bible says that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Journalism claims, without proof, to be "objective," and by that they mean nothing other, IMHO, than that journalism (which is entirely secular) is actually wise.
As Adam Smith put it,
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,Wisdom, and skepticism of claims of authority, are what are called for and are in short supply.
and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
Wire service journalism has homogenized journalism around the self interest of journalists in general. That self interest lies in the profitability of journalism in general and in the authority of journalists to say what is important. But when giving one's own self interest free rein, one is least able to exercise the caution which would allow one to make a serious attempt at objectivity. When journalists claim that they, or their compatriots who agree with them, are objective they are at that moment making no attempt to actually be objective. We know this because the only possible way to attempt objectivity is to be honest and forthright about your own motives and self interest. And claiming to be objective is the very opposite of being forthright about your own motives.
If I am correct in stating that a claim of objectivity is tantamount to a claim of wisdom, journalists are behaving in the time-dishonored tradition of the Sophists of ancient Greece. The term "sophistry," which is defined as facile and spurious argumentation, derives directly from the Sophists. "Soph" as the root word meant "wise." The counter to the Sophists arose in Greece under the name "philosopher," meaning "lover of wisdom." Etymologically, "philosopher" is the term for a person who refuses to claim wisdom but who also rejects the claims of others to superior wisdom. A "philosopher" demands facts and logic whereas the "sophist" will pound the table if that's what it takes to distract from the contrary facts and logic. "It depends on the meaning of 'is'" is a modern classic of sophistry. Similarly, "That's old news" as a way of diffusing devastating evidence against the Clintons was sophistry. The age of the facts does not change the facts.
My conclusion is that the homogeneity of journalism under the wire services implies that the wire services themselves are constructs which violate the Sherman Antitrust Act - and that the wire services themselves should be sued into oblivion on that basis. The wire services being the mechanism by which a lie (such as the one against Rush Limbaugh which prevented his becoming a partner in the ownership of the St. Louis Rams) gets propagated and turned into "truth" via the Big Lie. Christians should be on the lookout for such a piling-on of distorted reportage - and be prepared to sue, big time.
The Associated Press was held by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945, but back then its mission - that of conserving bandwidth in the dissemination of news - seemed far "too big to fail." Half a century later, bandwidth is dirt cheap, and that excuse won't fly. SUE THEM INTO OBLIVION!!!
Plenty of Christian bashing here on FR, Christians bashing each other.
always
I sure would not mind seeing AP legally harrassed!
That is unless you can show me the part of the Constitution that reads, “An Idaho computer company shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”
So are you making the argument that this is not a violation of free speech, or are you saying this is not a violation of freedom of religion?
In either case, I think there are enough examples of judicial decisions to indicate that it is not all that unusual to believe an employer is not permitted to violate constitutional rights any more than the government can. I know you disagree, but apparently many judges across this country do not.
Let me be clear, I'm not agreeing with that stance. I'm just saying that there is ample legal precedent for those who do hold to that interpretation.
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.