Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘First Amendment’

Attacks on Christians in America Grow as Islam Gets Special Protection


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/attacks-on-christians-america-grow-islam-gets-special-protection/

According to information released at a May 9, 2013 press conference by the families of Navy SEALs killed in an August 2011 helicopter shoot-down in Afghanistan, “military brass prohibited any mention of a Judeo-Christian God” and “invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah.”

The accusations arose over a “ramp ceremony” held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as flag-draped caskets of the dead soldiers were loaded onto a plane for transport back to the United States.  The shocking words of the Muslim cleric, revealed in later translations, were spoken at a memorial service meant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.  They were yet another example of the abject disrespect of Christians and Christianity endemic to the Muslim world.

445865468791056_1665221906_nvi-vi3

Here at home, Christianity and Christian religious practices are also under attack, but in more subtle ways and under a misinterpretation of the principle of freedom of religion.  In the United States, that legal doctrine is cited to marginalize Christian prayer and traditions, while, at the same time, dramatically accommodating and even expanding Muslim religious practices.  Myriad examples exist.

During the recent government shutdown, Catholic priests were warned that they could be arrested for celebrating Mass, even if performed on a voluntary basis.  Under Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s direction and determination was that priests do not “contribute to the morale” and “well-being” of military personnel.”  Thus, offering of the sacraments was prohibited and the Eucharist placed under lock and key.  Curiously, no mention was made of curtailing religious freedom for Muslim service members or furloughing imams.

This prohibition against Christian religious practice is not limited to the military.  Police throughout the land also frequently come down hard against Christians.  In 2010, a group of students from the Arizona-based Wickenburg Christian Academy were ordered by a police officer to cease their quiet prayers on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.  The officer cited a statute that prohibits demonstrations on the steps, but no official policy bars prayer at that location.

In June of 2010, David Wood and two other Christian missionaries were arrested by Dearborn, Michigan, police at the annual Arab festival for discussing Christianity on a public sidewalk outside the event. The men, who have since been acquitted, were charged with disturbing the peace and spent the night in jail.

Contrast these incidents with a massive public display of praying Muslims during the annual Muslim Day Parade in New York City. Muslims, who are protected each year during the event by Muslim NYPD officers, are free to engage in mass prayer, even prostrating themselves on the streets of midtown Manhattan. Vehicular traffic halts and participants freely harass non-Muslims who attempt to pass through the area on foot.

Meanwhile, the ACLU has been at the forefront of an extensive effort to ban Christian prayer from public schools under the “separation of church and state” provision of the First Amendment.  This is a signature issue for the “civil rights” organization.  However, for Muslim prayers, the organization reverses its interpretation and fights for student rights to engage in prayer.

For example, when Carver Elementary School in San Diego instituted a 15-minute prayer period during class time for Muslim students in 2004, the ACLU endorsed the practice.  ACLU spokesman Kevin Keenan said the group supported Muslim prayer under the First Amendment’s prohibition against impeding religion.  In this way, the ACLU was “honoring constitutional standards for freedom of religion.”

Meanwhile, in Michigan, Dearborn public schools have a policy of accommodating Muslim prayers at school during school hours, as well as ignoring unexcused absences for Muslims to leave school early for Friday prayers.  Yet, in 2009, after a Muslim organization complained about permission slips given to Christian students to attend off-site after-school Bible study, issuance of the slips was discontinued.

In addition to police, the ACLU, and schools, U.S. courts have also sided with the Islamic religion and against Christianity.  In 2001, the Byron Union School District in Byron, California instituted a three-week unit on Islam for 7th-graders.  Students took Muslim names, recited Islamic prayers, and celebrated Ramadan.  When parents sued the school on the grounds that the course was “officially endorsing a religion,” the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their appeal, leaving intact an earlier ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed that the unit did not violate the Constitution and had an “instructional purpose.”

In 2009, the same court of appeals upheld a ban by Henry Jackson High School officials in Everett, Washington against an instrumental performance of Ave Maria at a 2006 commencement ceremony.  A student futilely challenged the school’s determination that the song was “an obvious religious piece” at a graduation that should be “strictly secular.”

Government entities also bear down on the Christian religion.  After allowing baptisms in Sinking Creek in the Ozarks for an almost uninterrupted 50-year span, the National Park Service in August notified Gladden Baptist Church in Salem, Missouri that permits would now be required in advance of baptism ceremonies in the waterway.  The requirement was later rescinded in response to the intervention of local Congressman Jason Smith.

And this month, in Ovid, Colorado, the director of a city-owned cemetery initially refused to inscribe the Ichthus or “Jesus fish” on the tombstone of a local preacher’s wife on the grounds that some people might be offended.  Despite the fact that the cemetery is filled with headstones inscribed with religious symbols and Biblical verses, city officials refused to come to the family’s aid.  The cemetery director defended his position with a logic-defying hypothetical: “What if someone wanted to put a swastika?” — Thereby disrespectfully equating a representation of Christ with a symbol associated with Nazi Germany.  The city reversed itself only after public outcry and media attention.

The instances listed above make it readily apparent that the First Amendment is often conveniently misinterpreted to buttress the assault on the Christian religion and its expression, practice, and traditions.  In this way, Christianity is being insidiously expunged from public life using false legal pretenses.  The legitimate interpretation of the provisions of the First Amendment, which include prohibitions against government interference in public religious expression and the establishment of a national religion, has been twisted to prohibit Christian prayer in public places and schools.  This is a false reading of “separation of church and state.”

Yet, as the instances listed above and many others illustrate, this interpretation doesn’t apply to “mosque and state.”  Freedom of religion has come to mean no freedom for the practice of Christianity but ample freedom to practice Islam.  If the war on Christianity in America isn’t halted soon, Barack Obama’s statement that “[w]hatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” will certainly become a reality.

About Janet Levy

Janet Levy, MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist who has contributed to American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Full Disclosure Network, FrontPage Magazine, Family Security Matters and other publications.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/attacks-on-christians-america-grow-islam-gets-special-protection/#ixzz2in4FggtQ

Media Shield Law Heralds the Death of the 1st Amendment


By http://eaglerising.com/1785/media-shield-law-heralds-death-1st-amendment/#Xu8A6M6vQeb5ttHO.99 

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.

The Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a new “media shield” bill, and will now ask the Senate to take the bill up for a vote. In the wake of the Justice Department’s recent attacks on the freedom of the press, many members of Congress seem ready to take up the cause and support the media shield law. At first glance a new media shield law would be a positive development, because it would imply that our Congress took our press freedom seriously. However, that is just not the case. This media shield law is not just a bad idea, but a dangerous one.

GrahamLet’s begin with the most basic argument against the media shield law. It is unnecessary because the Bill of Rights offers us complete coverage on freedom of the press. “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. So the real issue here is not that we need a media shield law (we already have the 1st Amendment), but that someone at the Justice Department needs to go to prison for their roles in the AP scandal and in the Fox News and James Rosen case. The likely jailbird should be Attorney General Eric Holder, because he signed off on both investigations. In addition, the Justice Department should have to pay hefty restitution to both organizations for their heavy handed attack on free speech.

The first argument was easy – we already have a media shield in the First Amendment and the real problem is that the Justice Department broke the law, so they should be punished. But the next argument gets a little more nuanced.

FeinsteinThe second argument here is that by allowing Congress to pass a media shield law we are allowing them to decide who is a journalist. Congress will not pass a bill that gives blanket protection to any Tom, Dick, or Harry’s free speech or press freedom. Their concern is that someone blogging out of their mom’s basement will get a hold of classified information, publish it and then be covered by the media shield law… and Congress just cannot risk any more Edward Snowdens. So in the bill that has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, they have drawn lines to show who is and isn’t a “real” journalist. An example – an 80 year old retired English teacher working for a small town newspaper (or newsletter) is a journalist… but Matt Drudge who publishes the Drudge Report and is read by millions may not be covered. A reporter with a college paper may be covered, but one of the writers for this site might not be. This begs the question… where is Congress given the authority to decide who is and isn’t a journalist? The answer is, that Congress has no say in that question whatsoever – because the 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. In fact, the 1st Amendment strictly prohibits Congress doing anything to draw lines on free speech or press freedom. The very notion of passing a media shield law that applies only to some is Congress doing exactly what the First Amendment says it CANNOT do.

So… Congress passing a shield law for some but not for all, and putting conditions on the information covered by said law – is unconstitutional and therefor illegal.

The last argument I want to make is about precedent. If we allow Congress to move forward with a media shield law that protects some citizens at a greater level than others, who’s to say they won’t use similar tactics to weaken other freedoms? For example, could we next see a Religious Practice shield law? Perhaps it will allow only practitioners of certain government recognized religions to practice freely. Or maybe a Firearm Shield law, which will say that the government cannot prohibit the use of certain firearms, while at the same time effectively saying that other firearms can be legislated against? Do you see the danger? Do you see how thin the razor’s edge of our liberty is?

A media shield law sounds like a good and noble idea, and maybe some legislators are well intentioned as they seek to pass the law. But you know the old saying about good intentions don’t you? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s often true, and this law is no exception.

This is a dangerous bit of legislation and those of us who value our freedom of speech and our free press, should stand against it.

Million Muslim March Planned in DC on Anniversary of 9-11


The Conversation

A group called The American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) is planning a one million Muslims march to Washington D.C. on September 11th. The timing of the group’s march is seen by many as tasteless (to say the least) considering it is scheduled for the anniversary of the worst domestic massacre in American history perpetrated in the name of Islam. AMPAC ups the tasteless quotient by issuing “demands” for the American government:

We at AMPAC (American Political Action Committee) are planning an historic event for 9.11.13 where one million Muslims will march to Washington D.C. and demand that our civil rights be protected by our government.

We are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our 1st amendment . We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly we are asking for the release of the 9/11 commission report to the American people.

The group seems to rationalize the date chosen for their march by claiming that the media has been lying to the American people with regard to the role Islam played in the 9/11 attacks:

On 9.11.01 our country was forever changed by the horrific events in New York. The entire country was victimized by the acts done on that day. Muslim and Non Muslim alike were traumatized but we as Muslims continue 12 years later to be victimized by being made the villains. To this day every media outlet and anti Islamic organization has committed slanderous and libel statements against us as Muslims and our religion of Islam.

Yet our Government either sits idly by and does nothing to protect our freedoms or it exacerbates the problem with its constant war on terrorism in Islamic countries, congressional hearings on Islam in America, and its changes to the NDAA law.

These lies told to the American population has made it impossible for us to do true Dawa**. Why do we have to defend our religion while doing Dawa**? Why can’t we just share the perfection of the Quran and the beauty of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (SWS)?

**Noun 1. dawah – missionary work for Islam

missionary work, mission – the organized work of a religious missionary

But now comes the Obama Administration to tell you that Yes, you just might be imprisoned for something you say online, so you’d better Watch What You Say.


by Ace Of Spades31 May 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/31/US-Attorney-Bill-Killian-Posting-Something-Mean-About-Muslims-on-Social-Media-Might-Be-a-Criminal-Action-Under-Federal-Civil-Rights-Laws

US Attorney Bill Killian: Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be a Criminal Action Under Federal Civil Rights Laws

The First Amendment served us well for a time, but now it’s outdated.

Remember reading that England had arrested a guy for anti-Muslim Twitter postings in the aftermath of the Woolrich slaughter? And remember thinking, “Well, this is America, that can’t happen here”?
Oh yes it can. Obama’s Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee wants you to know that if you say something untoward about Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” … Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.

The posting he offers as a “for instance” is an egregious one. And yet this country has long protected, absolutely, egregious speech, such as hardcore pornography, for a simple reason: Either you are at liberty to say what you will or you are not. If you are constantly double-thinking every word you might say, for fear of being prosecuted, you are self-censoring, in anticipation of a possible prosecution by the government.

Rather than having a system in which people were constantly worried about imprisonment for speech, our country has evolved a simple bright-line code: Speech of all kinds, with a few exceptions that can be counted on three fingers, is absolutely protected.

Remember, the importance of this bright-line, no-exceptions rule of free speech was preached to us, even when some of us might not have liked it so much, as when hardcore pornography was afforded absolute protection under the First Amendment. In the case of hardcore pornography, it was argued — successfully — that having each artist weigh the possibility of an obscenity prosecution was too much of a burden on his free speech rights, and would have, unavoidably, a chilling effect on speech.

That was the rule then, and that was the rationale.

vampire_obama-275x300But now comes the Obama Administration to tell you that Yes, you just might be imprisoned for something you say online, so you’d better Watch What You Say.

Remember when Ari Fleischer said that, without suggesting any kind of legal penalties? Remember how the media freaked out?

But now comes the US Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee explicitly telling you that you may be imprisoned if a political appointee decides your political speech has crossed a line.

Somehow, I don’t think Tim Robbins will be portentously howling us that a “chill wind” is blowing across our rights of free expression this week.

Successful Defense of First Amendment Rights


Student’s First Amendment Rights Violated by School Says U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The Pocono Mountain School District believes elementary school students should have their First Amendment rights greatly limited.

In December 2010, a fifth grade girl at Barrett Elementary Center in Cresco, Pennsylvania went to school carrying flyers for a Christmas party at her church.  Although other students have passed out flyers and invitations to other out-of-school events like scouting and various clubs, school officials stopped the girl from handing out her flyers because it contained elements of religious faith.  The Pocono Mountain School District stood behind the school’s decision, claiming they have a policy that forbids anything being handed out that mentions religious faith in any fashion.

In March of 2011, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against Pocono Mountain School District on behalf of the student, claiming that her First Amendment rights of free speech had been violated.  The school district not only cited their policies but argued before the court that elementary students are young enough to have their First Amendment rights greatly limited.

A lower court heard the case and ruled that the school had indeed violated the student’s First Amendment rights.  The school district appealed the case to the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals who just issued a ruling that backs up the lower court’s decision that the school district did in fact violate the student’s First Amendment rights.  The Appeal Court also ruled that the two policies the school used as their defense were unconstitutional when applied in this form of student expression.  In their decision, the court wrote:

“It is difficult to identify a constitutional justification for cabining the First Amendment protections … to older students.  The fact that [the student] was only in the fifth-grade and the invitation originated from her church does not mandate a different approach.”

David Cortman, Senior Legal Counsel for ADF who filed the original lawsuit on behalf of the student, commented about the latest ruling:

“In this day and age, when our younger students are subject to so much that comes from both the school district and outside sources, it’s certainly important that they’re able to speak about their own faith and not be subject to censorship for it.”

“In this case, the school district tried to argue that for some reason the Constitution doesn’t apply to younger students, but the court rejected that theory – and that’s certainly good for all students.”

This is not the first time that a school district trampled on a student’s First Amendment rights only to have the courts rule in favor of the student.  The Candy Cane Case from Plano, Texas, was fairly similar to this one and ended with a similar court ruling in favor of the student.

If you find that your child’s school is bullying them about their Christian faith, church or the like, check into it and if need be contact someone like Alliance Defending Freedom.  Schools must be stopped and taught that they are not as powerful and privileged as they think they are.  If you don’t take action, the school will continue to bully other kids and violate their First Amendment rights, so you owe it not only to your child, but all of the others as well.

Tag Cloud