THIS is what the 1st Amendment is about

As much as many of us of the so-called “religious right”, decry the attack on our faith in the public square, at least we here in the United States aren’t experiencing what our faithful brethren in Europe are experiencing.

3 thoughts on “THIS is what the 1st Amendment is about

  1. It’s not just the “faithful.” Anyone who “denies” the holocaust in Germany (and other, but not all, parts of Europe) can be locked up or fined. That’s prosecution for thought crime, pure and simple.

    As for the “attack on our faith in the public square,” I think we’re seeing some hopeful signs of relief. I’m optimistic that in a few more years and with some serious campaigning, we’ll someday see at least a few Christians holding high office in this country. Maybe even President! Someday. Be patient.

  2. I know it’s not just the faithful. It is criminalizing thought. At this point, the “hate crime” laws here in the U.S. haven’t become as insane as elsewhere.

    However, Allen, I would like to point out that while the majority of presidents have been self-called (I question more than a few statements of such) Christians, many of those that they have nominated, for example, have been destroyed for having religious beliefs. The forced retirement of General Pace only the most recent example.

    Also, while the “hate crime” laws currently on the books mostly only affect actual crimes, there was one recently, that failed (barely) to pass, that would have made it a crime for a pastor to say, for example, “homosexuality is a sin.” I think what is happening is that people look at those “hate crime” laws as a way to shut down speech that they oppose, and currently those issues are abortion (you must be pro, else you hate women), climate change (you must believe that mother nature has nothing to do with, evidence not withstanding), and other “liberal” (I hate using that word, because this is in truth, very un-liberal) pet causes of the week. Even the ACLU is supporting these stupid laws.

    First, dead is dead, and murder is murder, self-preservation is the only motive that matters, not whether the victim was of the wrong religion, sexuality, gender, nationality, skin color, whatever.

    At this point, I don’t believe most people who oppose hate crimes laws would use them against those that do support them, however, power shifts are inevitable, and those that crave power will use the law (not the spirit of the law, but the letters in black and white) to silence anyone they oppose.

    It completely boggles my mind that a person who says that a pastor’s sermon is a hate crime thinks that someday the same twisted logic (or lack thereof) will not apply to them.

    There is an institutionalized despising of faith in both the media and ivory tower institutions. Saying out loud that your are a person of faith (especially Christian faith) can destroy your career, or at best completely stall it out. However, oddly enough, the U.S. voter has truly embraced that, and I doubt they will, although the percentage of difference that will and won’t will not be sigificantly different soon, if it isn’t already.

  3. For the record, I strongly oppose so-called “hate crime” laws. We’re on the same page there. I hold hope if such “hate crime” laws are ever passed against political or religious speech, that the courts would send such laws packing. Congress has occasional difficulty understanding that Document thingy they’re supposed to be defending. That said, the bill I think you’re referring to has been the subject to quite a lot of hyperbole. Hyperbole is the new black. Everybody’s doin’ it!

    Regarding General Pace, I also agree that it was stupid of the administration to shy away from putting the him through another round of hearings just because he expressed a personal opinion about homosexuality — one that is in line, I might add, with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as set in place by a Democrat of all people. I think that both the policy and the General Pace are mistaken, but I also think Pace was being consistent to the written rules of conduct as they currently stand and to his personal beliefs about morality when he made his comments. The administration gave up on him.

    (I thought those guys didn’t read polls. Heck, they’ve got people in all six branches of government, what’s the problem?) 🙂

Comments are closed.