Free Speech Run Amok?

Anyone here care to weigh in and vote on the controversy going on over at The Blaze?

The Blaze - Vote & Comment: Should Supreme Court Allow Westboro Baptist’s Funeral Pickets?

My response:

Christinewjc
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:31am
I voted that the family of the fallen soldier deserves the right to have a peaceful funeral for their loved one. What I want to know is where does the right to “freedom of association” come in? Can’t the court use that as a reason why the family at the funeral has free speech rights over and above the vile spewing of hate-filled rhetoric by these crazy DEMOCRATIC LEFT-WING FAKE “Christians” who defile all that is holy and righteous? They do not live lives according to what is written in God’s Word, the Bible. They certainly do not follow the lead of Jesus Christ, the Great Commission, or the true Gospel!

Would this crazy group be allowed to barge into a public school and spew their hatred?

Would these idiots be allowed to scream their nutjob heads off outside someone’s house in the middle of the night without being handcuffed and hauled away by the police?

I’m sorry. This is “free speech” run amok. They are guilty of disturbing the peace of a private funeral service.

Hat Tip:

The Blaze

Patriotic and Resilient Citizen Resistance

Once again, it's "Blogment" time! Being that my time in limited for blogging today, I wanted to share a comment that I had originally posted in reply to commenter "Rebecca" in yesterday's post. She had mentioned that another radically pro-abortion person was most likely to gain a congressional seat in CO.

Earlier this morning, I received two emails on the topic of abortion. Here is the blogment:

I see Obama as the worst kind of liar. He tries to appear "neutral" by inviting someone like Rick Warren to the Inauguration (the gay activists are having a FIT about that) [Update: Oh boy...Obama's REALLY in the dog house over this!!], and claims that though he's pro-"choice" (code word for pro-death-to-babies-in-the-womb!), he wants to CLAIM to work to make abortions "legal, safe, and rare."

Ironically, I got an email from a dear friend this morning who shared this:

Rick Warren Not Satisfied with Making Abortions 'Rare'

The Christian Post reports that megachurch pastor Rick Warren may be on good terms with President-elect Barack Obama, but does not support Obama's policy of making abortions "rare." In an interview with Beliefnet Editor-in-Chief Steven Waldman, Warren said, "Of course I want to reduce the number of abortions... But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say 'We believe abortions should be safe and rare." He continued, "Don't tell me it should be rare. That's like saying on the Holocaust, 'Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,'" Warren said. "I'm not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended."

I also got an email entitled, "Pre-born in peril under Obama" from a pro-life activist who shared what Obama will do TO INCREASE ABORTIONS:

+ + Urgent Pro-Life Update ++

12/17/2008

Dear Christine,

With only weeks to go before the Obama presidency begins, Pro-lifers across the nation are fearful that he will promote the most radical abortion agenda in the history of our country...

To begin with, we anticipate that Obama will quickly sign "The Freedom of Choice Act" - abolishing any state or federal regulations on abortion!

-parental notification rights would be terminated.
-waiting periods for abortions would cease to exist.
-requirements for full disclosure wouldn't be necessary.
-the barbaric partial-birth abortion procedure would again become a legal option.

Most importantly, the Act would repeal the Hyde Amendment restricting the use of federal funds on abortion!

Without question Obama's intent is not to protect pre-bornlife, but rather make it even easier to destroy!

It makes me physically ILL to think about HOW DRASTICALLY THE PRE-BORN ARE GOING TO BE IN PERIL UNDER OBAMA.

*******

There is a petition that you can sign at Grassfire.org

The Resistance States:

As an American citizen, while I will show respect to President-elect Obama, I oppose the far-Left and socialistic elements that comprise the centerpiece of his agenda. I recognize that it will take a patriotic and resilient Citizen Resistance to block implementation of this agenda and I join with others who oppose these threats to our liberties.


Specifically, I Resist:

Socialistic wealth redistribution including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs.

Silencing conservatives through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech.

Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”.

Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens.

Weakening of our military through rapid pullback from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament.

Social liberalism including radical pro-abortion agenda, the end of marriage and the homosexual agenda.

Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control.

Post-American globalism that diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty.

Environmental extremism, the CO2 tax, undermining coal and nuclear, and bans on exploration.

Weakening the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional gun laws that take away or penalize us for owning firearms and our right to defend our family, our property, and ourselves.

Update: New Study: High Rates of Psychological Problems and Death Among Post-Abortive Women

That research article if just more proof:

Abortion kills one life and destroys another...

HT's:

Grassfire.org

Scooters Report

Wake Up Americans

*******
Thursday evening Update:

For those of you who are following (or, unsure about the reasons for all the lawsuits) the Obama natural born citizen controversy, the following two videos help to spell it out clearly:

Dr. Orly Taitz - Part 1

Dr. Orly Taitz - Part 2

Colorado's Bible Ban Faces Court Challenge

The following article reveals the reason why anti-discrimination laws written in favor of homosexual behavior do much damage to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association laws which are guaranteed by our United States Constitution.

The idea that homosexual persons should be shielded from ever "being offended" does not bode well with the aforementioned freedoms mentioned in the above paragraph, that were originally written into our Constitution by the Founding Fathers, are Constitutionally sound, and must not be squelched - no less taken away - by a kind of hyper-tolerance that homosexual activists and their supporters try to impose upon our nation.

FAITH UNDER FIRE
Colorado's Bible ban faces court challenge
Dems combine to banish 'anti-gay discrimination'

Excerpt:

"Section 8 of the bill makes it a crime to publish or distribute anything that is deemed a 'discrimination' against the homosexual and transsexual lifestyle," said a statement from the Christian Family Alliance.

Mark Hotaling, executive director for the Alliance, said the work of Gill and his homosexual lobby has been evident since Democrats took the majority position in the state legislature in 2004.

"But this is just so over the top," he said of the latest attack on biblical values.

He said initially supporters and even some opponents of the bill explained that there was an exception for churches and church organizations. However, lawmakers then attached to the bill a state "safety clause" which is supposed to deal with laws that are fundamental to protecting the lives of residents.

That, he said, simply stripped away any potential allowances for churches and church groups.

"Anyone who claims that there's an exception for churches really doesn't know the ins and outs of the bill," Hotaling told WND.

"So the religious exemption is purely window dressing and very deceptive," he said. "The Word of God literally now is banned, and that's a legitimate slam-dunk First Amendment issue there."

Also a horror is the provision for adults to be provided access to restrooms of their choice, he said.

The law "gives increased access for predators and cross-dressers to go into any bathroom they choose," he said. "The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says predators prey on children where they have their greatest access."

What could better suit predators' purposes than the closed doors of public restrooms, he suggested.

He said his organization is working with Liberty Counsel to document the impact of the law, its provisions and what constitutional authority may be usurped by the state law.

"We're going to fight this thing," he said. "We're very confident that at least some aspects of SB200 will be thrown out, and perhaps the entire bill."

There have been no reports of prosecutions under the law yet.

"But it will happen," Hotaling said, "The danger is this legislation is not necessarily an individual complaint, but how it is weaved into the fabric of society. I heard … there are school districts in the state where elementary schools are trying to figure out how to implement unisex bathrooms."

The most important issue, he believes, is that churches keep preaching the Bible.

"If we're yelling anything from the rooftops, it's that pastors and churches should not stop preaching the Word of God and not to temper the Word out of fear," he said.

HT: WorldNetDaily

Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Sept. 28th

Hooray for ADF (Alliance Defense Fund)!! IT'S CERTAINLY ABOUT TIME that this unconstitutional ban against churches was scrapped!!

Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors Targeted

Isn't it amazing how all of the political talk given by Rev. Wrong was not vilified by groups like the ACLU (Against Christ, Loves Ungodliness) or the Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Yet, when churches desire to have their freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion rights reinstated through participating in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" - which is designed to throw out this ridiculous 54 year old ban - the leftist groups start screeching and complaining!! They didn't threaten Obama's church (because they know the church agrees with their leftist ideology) but they certainly are quick to threaten Christ honoring, Bible teaching churches with punishment - claiming that their tax exemption status will be taken away.

What is wrong with this picture, people?

Plenty!!

Excerpts:

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

Defining its latest mission, the ADF declared that pastors have "too long feared" the loss of tax exemptions.

"We're not encouraging any congregation to violate the law," Stanley said. "What we're encouraging them to do is exercise their constitutional right in the face of an unconstitutional law."

Way to go ADF! I hope that hundreds of churches participate in Pulpit Freedom Sunday!!

rjwusa over at Digg makes a great point:

The 'kabash' was put into place under the Johnson(D) administration when the tax exempt laws were re-written to limit the speech within a church to not include political statements. A church should enjoy tax exempt status just as any other not-for-profit organization does. N.O.W. enjoys tax exempt status as does Jessie Jackson's Rainbow coalition. The Christian church contributes millions upon millions of dollars to charitable causes, and this alone should suffice as a valid reason for tax exemption. The 501(c)(3) tax exempt status is not equally administered across the spectrum. That alone should cause it to be trashed.

HT: Washington Post

*******
Update 9/9/08 @ 10:52 a.m. PT

Additional resource:

Alliance Defense Fund and Family Research Council's letter to thousands of pastors informing them of their free speech rights.

*******
Update 9/9/08 @ 11:05 a.m. PT

Over at my other blog Protect Biblical Marriage I have posted an article and link to the latest onslaught against traditional marriage from the rabid, homosexual agenda activists and advocates.

Slap in the Face Against Traditional Marriage

Mythbusters out in liberal licentious land may want people to think that:

There is no "homosexual legal agenda" - all that activists desire is "tolerance" and "equality".

Well, the following article will convince you otherwise! I encourage you to purchase the book offered at the end of the article. It will open your eyes (Just like the Marketing of Evil book did) to the real goal(s) of the homosexual legal agenda going on in America today.

From ADF:

These terms often mean different things to activists than to ordinary Americans. The homosexual agenda was outlined by activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a 1987 article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” and a 1989 book titled After the Ball.

These publications outlined a six-point strategy to dramatically change America’s perception of homosexual behavior.1 The six points were:


Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.
Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause.
Make gays look good.
Make the victimizers look bad.
Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause).

And this strategic campaign is not concerned with truth. As Kirk and Madsen said, "It makes no difference [if portrayals of homosexuals] are lies, not to us...not to bigots. We're talking about propaganda."


"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible"

In “The Overhauling of Straight America,” Kirk and Madsen noted, “The principle behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”

The media has been a willing participant in this strategy. Conservative media critic Michael Medved remarked, “A Martian gathering evidence about American society, simply by monitoring our television, would certainly assume that there were more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians."

Episodes of Will & Grace, and recently, Law & Order: SVU, have mocked those who have overcome homosexual behavior. Far from neutral, these shows attempted to discredit the effectiveness of counseling men and women who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle.

After one particularly disturbing episode of Will & Grace, Mike Haley, a former homosexual who works with Focus on the Family, sent a letter to Jon Kinnally, the executive story editor of the show. In his response, Kinnally said:

“…come on, Mike, even you’ve got to admit that fags trying to pretend they’re straight is pretty funny. In response to your request for a meeting, well, I think I can read between the lines on that one. I’m about 6’1”, brown hair, green eyes, and I’m into rollerblading, baking cookies, and cleaning up afterwards. My dislikes include game-playing, negative attitudes, and condoms.”2

"Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers"

Despite demographic statistics to the contrary, homosexual activists have skillfully portrayed themselves as a victimized class in need of special protections. Closer examination shows just the opposite. According to The Human Rights Campaign, 82 percent of the Fortune 50 offer sex-partner benefits. What's more, a Comm Group/G Society study released in October 2001 shows that the median household income of homosexual households is $65,000 - compared to the national average of $40,800. Also, 47 percent of homosexual men and 40 percent of lesbians hold professional or managerial jobs - more than twice the figure for the general population.


"Give homosexual protectors a 'just' cause"

Activists have repeatedly turned tragedies into opportunities to advance the homosexual agenda. Matthew Shepard's murder was horrible: two nonreligious thugs shamefully and brutally killed this young homosexual man by hanging him on a fence to die. However, homosexual activists blamed this senseless crime on conservative Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family .3

Appropriately, the media expressed outrage over this horrible killing.

Yet, the same media was virtually silent when 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising was raped and murdered by homosexuals. Dirkhising's attackers drugged him, strapped him to a bed, gagged him with his own underwear, sodomized him repeatedly, and tortured and strangled him. This gruesome crime received coverage totaling 46 stories. In contrast, the Shepard murder saw more than 3,000 stories published.4


"Make gays look good"

Kirk and Madsen were well aware of the potential problems inherent in revealing too much, too soon, saying, “In the early stages of the campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible.” They added, “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent – and only later his unsightly derriere!”

Homosexual activists are subtle in their public demands as well, insisting that they want only "equality." This statement is heard the loudest in their demands for homosexual "marriage." Yet their plans for the institution of marriage are much bigger, and much more ominous. Activist William Eskridge admits he hopes gay marriage "will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of families we choose."5

Michelangelo Signorile has told activists "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.... The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."6

Others tell us the goal is the abolition of marriage entirely.


"Make the victimizers look bad"

Perhaps most alarming is the growing trend of intolerance toward any individual who does not express complete and unconditional support for homosexual behavior. Betty Sabatino, an employee for a San Antonio bank experienced this animosity first hand. During a mandatory session of "fair employment practices," Betty participated in the question-and-answer portion (billed as a "safe zone") by asking why the company provided special considerations for employees based on sexual behavior. Her boss expressed "concern" about her question following the session, and within a few weeks, Betty was fired due to "management's loss of confidence" in her. 7

The Boy Scouts have faced unrelenting pressure and attack for refusing to admit homosexual scoutmasters to help lead and form the character of young boys. Columnist Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel offered this opinion to the world:

"If I were the United Way, and all the agencies that depend on it, I'd build a big pile of wood with a pole stuck in the middle of it. Then I'd tie the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America to the pole, using only the most secure half-hitches and square knots. Then I'd rub two sticks together and work on that campfire merit badge."8

So much for tolerance.


"Solicit funds: the buck stops here"

The Gill Foundation reports that donations to gay and lesbian groups have grown to $100 million.9

In stark contrast, many organizations lobbying for family values are constantly seeking cash just to keep the doors open.

For more on this subject, contact us about receiving a copy of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.


Footnotes
1 Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, "The Overhauling of Straight America," Guide, November 1987.
2 Correspondence between Mike Haley of Focus on the Family and Jon Kinnally
3 Julia Duin, "NBC Flooded with Calls after Couric's Remarks: Family Groups Irked at Links to Death of Gay Man," Washington Times, October 16, 1998
4 Toby Harnden, "Liberal Media Ignores Rape-Killing of Boy, 13," The London Telegraph, March 30, 2001
5 William N. Eskridge, "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage," 1996.
6 Michaelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT, December-January 1994.
7 Robert Knight and Kenneth L. Ervin II, "Can I question Homosexuality? Don't Bank on It," from The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism, Family Research Council, 1997,8.
8 Mike Thomas, "United Way Makes Giving Not Easy," Orlando Sentinel, July 23, 2001
9 Jim Hopkins, "Gay Entrepreneurs Pour Tech Cash into Causes," GFN.com, June 19, 2001.