or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Free Speech Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Free Speech Thread - Page 3

post #81 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Remind you of anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83tnW...eature=related

Colbert owes some big royalties.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 361


A look at the global state of free speech.

By Mike Sacks, Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor / October 2, 2010

Quote:
Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that "[e]veryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." Today, decades after the UN's 1948 adoption of the declaration, Article 19 continues to be an ideal actively pursued in some countries and aggressively denied in others.

For example, in Turkey, a constitutional republic, expression considered insulting to the nation itself is a criminal offense under a 2005 penal code. And writers and journalists have been prosecuted for recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915-17 an event the Turkish government officially denies.

Many European countries, on the other hand, have criminalized the denial of crimes against humanity. This summer, Hungary became the latest to do so, passing a law imposing three years' imprisonment for those who deny Nazi and Communist genocides.

In addition, much of Europe has also enacted hate speech laws that allow for prosecution of expression where the United States does not. Had Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., taken his "International Burn a Koran Day" overseas and arrived in Stockholm wearing one of the "Islam Is of the Devil" T-shirts that his church sells, he could have been charged under Sweden's prohibition on expressing disrespect for a group based on their faith.

In the Netherlands, ultranationalist politician Geert Wilders is currently on trial for illegally insulting Muslims and inciting hatred against Islamic immigrants. As grounds for the prosecution, the Dutch government has cited, among other statements, Mr. Wilders's comparing Islam to Nazism and producing a film that included a Danish newspaper's inflammatory cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the opening and closing frames.

While the First Amendment protects such expression in the US, Americans may still find themselves to be targets of violence for their speech. Molly Norris, a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly, has taken the FBI's advice to change her name and move after her "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon last spring landed her on an Islamic cleric's hit list.

Meanwhile, Iceland is erecting a legal framework to protect from prosecution those who seek to expose governmental and corporate whistle-blowers.

Already one of the countries most protective of free expression, Iceland wants to be the most protective. In June, its Parliament passed the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI), a proposal that promises to turn the small North Atlantic island into a "transparency haven" for whistle-blowers, journalists, and concerned citizens.

The creators of the IMMI believe that in addition to inspiring other countries to follow suit, the initiative will also encourage media organizations and human rights activists to use Iceland as the operational hub for their Internet-based communications.

The IMMI includes an "ultramodern" Freedom of Information Act inspired by the laws of Estonia and Britain; whistle-blower, libel tourism, and legal process protections inspired by US federal and state laws; and source protection laws inspired by those in Belgium.

These measures may not save the Russian reporter from assassination, the Iranian protester from torture, or the Chinese blogger from imprisonment. However, the IMMI does aim to provide cutting-edge protections for "the wide range of media and human rights organizations that routinely face unjust sanction," notes the IMMI website.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...went-to-Sweden
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #83 of 361


A Supreme Court case challenging the Westboro Baptist Church anti-gay protests will test the limits of free speech, with First Amendment implications for other forms of expression such as Quran burning and racist demonstrations.

By Warren Richey, / Staff Writer / October 2, 2010

Quote:
On Oct. 6, the US Supreme Court takes up a case examining whether members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., went too far when they staged a protest at a fallen marine's funeral in Maryland. The demonstrators hoisted signs proclaiming: "You Are Going to Hell" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Quote:
It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who in 1919 first gave voice to the task of separating speech deserving protection from dangerous speech that did not.

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent," Justice Holmes wrote. "It is a question of proximity and degree."

This "clear and present danger" test was used for decades to uphold the arrest of perceived government opponents and suspected communists, who in retrospect never posed much of a threat to the nation. Over time, the standard evolved, beefing up free speech protections. The evolution eventually led to the 1969 Brandenburg landmark ruling protecting the advocacy of unlawful action.

Behind it all is a conviction expressed by various members of the Supreme Court through the years that what is being protected in the First Amendment's free speech clause is the free flow of ideas the lifeblood of a democracy. It is the principle that the best way to counter a stupid idea, a hateful idea, a dangerous idea, is through the expression of better ideas.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis identified this dynamic in a 1927 case.

"To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion," Justice Brandeis wrote.

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education," he said, "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Quote:
That's what happened in response to Jones's threat to burn the Quran. Muslims expressed outrage. Jones received more than a hundred death threats. But something else happened. Many others spoke out against burning the Quran, including President Obama, Gen. David Petraeus, and a number of religious leaders. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a personal appeal to Jones in a telephone call. This outpouring of ideas fostered an international debate and an opportunity for education.

The debate culminated on the morning of Sept. 11 when Jones announced on NBC's "Today Show" that he had changed his mind about burning the Quran. "Not today, not ever," he pledged.

"That is the greatness of freedom of speech," says Goldberger, the law professor and former lawyer to a Nazi who wanted to march through Skokie. "It is the power of reason to persuade."

He adds: "What better lesson does the First Amendment teach us all than that the freest democracy is one where there is a give and take, where people listen and are capable based on what they learn to modify their course of conduct."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...irst-Amendment
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #84 of 361
By Leigh Montgomery, Staff Writer / October 2, 2010

Quote:
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, religion, and assembly may be the constitutional provision most widely understood by Americans. Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, it reads:

Quote:
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.



First Amendment protections have been subject to challenges, particularly in regard to hate speech, wartime security, and the practice of religion as it intersects with the state.

Some landmarks in these areas include:

NATIONAL SECURITY

1798: The Alien and Sedition Act made it a crime to disparage or ridicule government officials with the intent to undercut public support for the government.
1918: The Sedition Act made it illegal to criticize the government or the US effort in World War I.
1950s: The general trend toward widening First Amendment rights hit serious shoals in this period when US-Soviet tensions were running high. The Red Scare fears of the spread of Communism in the United States propelled Sen. Joseph McCarthys notorious House Committee on Un-American Activities to identify and designate various loyalties and organizations as subversive.
1971: The Supreme Court upheld the publication of the Pentagon Papers (a top-secret Defense Department report on Vietnam), ruling that prior restraints against speech or publication violate the First Amendment except in instances where the government can show an imminent threat to national security.

POLITICAL SPEECH

1969: The Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the First Amendment for an Iowa school district to suspend high school students for wearing black armbands with peace symbols.
1969: The First Amendment protects speech advocating criminal activity and even the overthrow of the government, the Supreme Court ruled in a case reversing the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader in Ohio. In contrast, the court said incitement to imminent lawless action by a speaker is not protected free speech.
1978: The right of a neo-Nazi group to march through Skokie, Ill., a largely Jewish community, was upheld by a federal appeals court. While hurtful, the threatened march which never actually happened was deemed a protected expression.
1989: On free speech grounds, the Supreme Court upheld the right to burn or desecrate the American flag for protest. The court said government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.
2010: The Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal campaign finance law that made it illegal for corporations and labor unions to spend money to influence federal elections. The court said corporate officials and union leaders have a free speech right to spend money for advertisements and forms of political speech during election season.

RELIGION

1947: The Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey law that allows all parents including those sending their children to parochial schools to receive government reimbursement for bus transportation to and from school. The 5-to-4 decision set the stage for future debate over how high the wall should be separating church and state. The case is also the first time the high court enforced the protections of the First Amendments religion clause against state governments rather than just the federal government.
1962: The Supreme Court struck down an attempt by New York school officials to develop a neutral, nondenominational prayer for schoolchildren. The court ruled that any kind of prayer composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
1963: The Supreme Court found Bible reading and prayer in school unconstitutional because its primary effect is to advance religion in violation of the First Amendments prohibition of an establishment of religion.
1980: The Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law authorizing the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. The court ruled that it violated the First Amendment because it had no secular legislative purpose.
1992: The high court ruled that a prayer offered by a rabbi at a high school graduation ceremony violated the First Amendments establishment clause because it created coercive pressure for the graduates and their guests to participate in a religious activity.
2000: A prayer delivered by a student prior to a high school football game in Texas was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which said it amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
2005: In a mixed decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a Ten Commandments display be removed from a Kentucky courthouse, but decided that a six-foot-tall Ten Commandments monument outside the Texas Capitol could remain. The Kentucky display crossed the line as an unconstitutional endorsement and entanglement with religion, the court said, while the Texas display was part of a larger secular grouping of historic monuments.

PRESS

1964: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court made it significantly harder for public officials or public figures to successfully sue a news organization for libel. Under the test established in New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure may prevail only if the news organization knew the challenged statement was false or acted in reckless disregard ohttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1002/Free-speech-Some-First-Amendment-landmarks/(page)/2f the accuracy of the statement.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #85 of 361
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #86 of 361
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing as Stephen G. Tallentyre)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #87 of 361
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #88 of 361
Quote:
I am thankful for all the complaining I hear about our government because it means we have freedom of speech.

~Nancie J. Carmody

Quote:
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.

~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #89 of 361


無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #90 of 361
Thread Starter 
"Our Liberty is not given to us as a matter of fact liberty is pretty meaningless, we adapt to all kinds of stuff all the time"
~ Hands Sandon

"We have all the freedoms of slaves and then some."
~ Hands Sandon

"All great nations will prosper if the right people in those nations prosper and prosper big time."
~ Hands Sandon


"The people are only as free as their masters allow, at least until the next election cycle."
~ Hands Sandon


"Great people will do great things at a time of great struggle, however that's a fat lot of good for most people."
~ Hands Sandon


"I stand for equality for all men, women, child and beast of any kind."
~ Hands Sandon

"All men are created equal by their creator but he's still mysterious"
~ Hands Sandon
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #91 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing as Stephen G. Tallentyre)

"I disapprove of your plans to stop my free speech, ban my beliefs, demonize me and wipe me from the map - but I will die in your slaughterhouse to defend you and make sure you succeed."

B B Black-Sheep.

Circa 10,000 BC - 2010 AD
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #92 of 361
All Laws Have Teeth:

Quote:
It's been five years since the feds took aim at nasal decongestant. Under George Bush, a normal part of everyday civilized life became a criminal act, namely the over-the-counter purchase of Sudafed and many other products containing pseudoephedrine. You can get it now, but it is seriously rationed. You have to present your driver's license and no one without one may purchase it. The limits on quantities you are permitted to purchase fall far below the recommended dosage, and buyers rarely know when they are buying too much.

The rationing and criminalization of this product appeared as part of the Patriot Act. The replacement drug phenylephrine is far less effective on noses but more effective in Washington: the company that makes it, Boehringer Ingelheim, spent $1.6 million lobbying Washington in 2006 (the latest data) and the same amount the year before. The makers of the drug everyone actually wants are diffuse and spread all over China. Pseudoephedrine was targeted in the name of the drug war because apparently you can use it to make methamphetamine. Since the near ban, there are indications that production of the drug has gone up, mostly due to smuggling in Mexico. Even a quick google demonstrates that the gray market is thriving.

I've written with sympathy toward those who have been caught in the legal tangles; many buyers are not actually doing anything wrong. Anyone who attempts to buy it is treated like a criminal and one never knows for sure when one is buying more than the legal limit. In several cases I've highlighted, people have bought without the intent to manufacture drugs but were ensnared in any case. In other cases, people have been asked to buy for friends who may or may not have been plotting to make meth. Still other cases involve shady figures with criminal records and suspicious associations who are thereby discredited and hounded by police and judges.

In my view, every person who is ensnared deserves to be defended. Their rights are being violated. One lady in my own community faces 20 years in jail solely for buying 4 boxes in a 12-day period. News reports suggest that she is a bad person for many other reasons, and, for that reason, there has been little public sympathy for her in the same way that people under alcohol prohibition were snagged on alcohol grounds even though the motivation for getting them was different (could be taxes or something else).

Something as serious as laws and jails should be used for punishment of those who infringe on person and property, not for self-medicating. If this lady is bad, she should be punished for things she did wrong, not for some trumped-up reason.

In any case, as with all stupid laws like this, the innocent are eventually harmed. It's strange how most people are willing to give the police and the courts the benefit of the doubt, and pretend as if the system somehow knows something that we do not know. Anyone hauled off to jail probably deserved what is coming to him, even if we don't know the specifics. People should do a better job at staying out of harm's way, of being beyond reproach. Don't play with fire and you won't get burned this is how people tend to think of these cases.

They are blaming the victim. Somehow I suspect that the same sentiments were pervasive even in the worst totalitarian states. By the time people wake up to the reality that the law and the law enforcers are the problem, it is too late.

Just this morning the following email arrived:

Quote:
In doing some internet research, I came across your article "Free the Clogged Nose-25" and I want to thank you for showing me that I'm no where near alone in my way of thinking and that the current situation that my husband and I find ourselves in is most certainly not uncommon. You see, we have 3 teenage children still living at home. In April of this year, their ages were 17, 16 and 15. Both my husband and I, along with our 3 teenagers suffer from terrible seasonal allergies and we have tried every over the counter medicine available as well as a few prescription meds. The only one that offers us any relief is Sudafed or the generic equivalent.

So, as you already know, my husband and I are the only ones in our family who can buy Sudafed. I will and have been the first to admit that in order to keep enough of the medicine for all of us, both my husband and I made purchases from more than one drug store. I knew we were exceeding our allotted amount but I also knew that the code of Alabama stated that purchasing over the allowed 6 grams per month was only unlawful "with intent to manufacture." So, since we had no intent to manufacture anything, I didn't see it as we were breaking the law.

In March of this year, local news media released word that a law was passed that would create a statewide database for all businesses selling pseudoephedrine so that customers could not bypass the limit by going from one pharmacy to another. That was the extent of the press release related to that new law. About the middle of May, my husband and I learned the hard way that they had conveniently left out a very important part of that new law when announcing it to the public. Apparently, "with intent to manufacture" had been dropped from the Alabama law regarding pseudoephedrine purchases. I'm sure you can easily guess the rest of the story. He and I were arrested for "buy/sale precursor chemicals" which on the first offense is a Class C Misdemeanor. My husband is a USMC veteran so he has a criminal record (bar fights, etc.) but never any drug charges. I have never had so much as a speeding ticket and I'm a criminal justice major in college.
Even after explaining the situation to the judge and pointing out that we are law-abiding citizens just trying to offer some comfort to our kids during allergy season, the judge still found us guilty. We have appealed that decision and will go back to court in December. We cannot hope to beat this with just the truth because obviously the truth doesn't matter, so I am going to pray that "mistake of law" will get us a not-guilty verdict this time around or I'm going to have to find a new major!

At the time we were arrested, our oldest daughter (not living at home) was a 4.0 GPA college student majoring in forensic investigation, our middle daughter was just days away from graduating historian of her high-school senior class after already having lettered in softball and volleyball and serving as secretary in the Beta club, our youngest daughter was finishing her 10th-grade year and an AB student who had just days before made the color guard drill team for the fall, and our son was finishing his 8th grade year, an AB student and hard working Junior Varsity and Varsity football player. We are very very proud of our kids and hate the fact that they have had to endure any negative associations that have come from our arrest. They are so resilient, though! They know that we weren't actually doing anything wrong so they hold their heads up high and keep going.

As I suspected, these cases are not isolated. Thanks to Google News, we can learn of many such tragic cases. So far as we know, the majority of cases of arrest involve innocent people trying to unclog their noses. But even if only one in ten cases involve injustice, that is plenty of reason to repeal the law. I don't favor laws against consuming or producing meth, but, if those laws are retained, then it's the taking or making of meth that should be punished, not actions that merely seem vaguely associated with illegal activities.

In the end, this isn't about drug use or production. It is about special interests. It is about the use of fear and coercion and the expansion of state power. It is about human rights and liberty. Should we care about these things? Yes, if we care about saving civilization from its enemy, the state.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #93 of 361
The Declaration, the Constitution, and Liberty in Our Time

Quote:
Ever since the dawn of recorded history, people's minds have been inculcated with the notion that government is the master and the people are the servants. Hardly anyone, for example, has questioned the notion that government officials have the legitimate authority to manage the economy, or direct the education of people's children, or to control religious activity, or to decide what people can read or watch. It's just been commonly accepted that government officials can do whatever they want, especially in the best interests of society, and that it is the role of the good, little, model citizen to submit and obey in the service of the greater good of society.

Then one day in 1776 along came a Virginian named Thomas Jefferson who issued a declaration that set that age-old notion on its head. Jefferson suggested in the Declaration of Independence that people had had it all wrong. It's the people who are masters and it is government that is the servant.

Every person, Jefferson said, has been endowed with certain fundamental, inherent rights. These rights don't come from government and, therefore, people don't need to be beholden to government for them. People's rights are endowed in them by nature and God.

What is the role of government? Jefferson observed that people call government into existence for the sole purpose of protecting the exercise of these natural, God-given rights.

And when government becomes destructive of this end -- when it infringes upon or destroys people's rights, the people have the right to ditch the government -- alter or even abolish it and replace it with a government that is limited to its rightful role of servant whose job is to protect the exercise of people's rights.

The Declaration was the most radical political statement in history. It not only rattled government officials of that time, it continues to do so even today, especially those government officials who are unable to accept the notion that they are mere servants and that the citizenry are their masters.

Eleven years later, another Virginian, James Madison, crafted the Constitution, with the aim of calling a new federal government into existence to replace the weak central government under which the American people had been operating under the Articles of Confederation.

However, Americans didn't want to have anything to do with this new government. They simply didn't trust it. They knew history, especially the history of the English government. They knew that a strong central government inevitably would become the biggest danger to the freedom and well-being of the people.

Madison and the Framers responded that the Constitution would prevent the government from becoming powerful and tyrannical. Since we the people are calling this government into existence as our servant, Madison said, we set the conditions under which it will operate. And one of the conditions is that the powers of the federal government would be limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. If a power wasn't enumerated, government officials would be precluded from exercising it.

It was an audacious experiment. People around the world were shocked that citizens were actually limiting the powers of their very own government officials. But actually it was an idea that stretched far back into British history -- all the way back, in fact, to the year 1215. That was when the barons of England held their own king, King John, at the point of a sword and forced him to publicly acknowledge that his powers over the people were limited.

In fact, it was in Magna Carta -- the Great Charter -- that the phrase "due process of law" originates -- a phrase that many centuries later would find its way into the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The American people were finally persuaded to go along with the new federal government, but only on one condition -- that a Bill of Rights be enacted immediately after the federal government came into existence, one that would expressly protect important fundamental rights of the people from their very own government.

The Framers responded that that was unnecessary. Since the limited, enumerated powers that were being delegated to the federal government did not include the powers to infringe on the fundamental rights of the people, such powers couldn't be exercised. For example, since there was no power to interfere with freedom of speech or freedom of religion, the government had no lawful authority to do so.

That assurance wasn't good enough for the American people, however. They knew that the federal government, like all governments in history, would inevitably attract power lusters who would be tempted to break out of the limits of the enumerated-powers doctrine, zealously doing whatever they wanted for the greater good of society.

The American people insisted on passage of the Bill of Rights, which really should have been called a Bill of Prohibitions because it doesn't really grant anyone any rights, as many federal officials today suggest. People's rights don't come from the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. They come from nature and God. That is, even if there wasn't a Bill of Rights or a Constitution, people would still have such inherent rights as freedom of speech and the keeping and bearing of arms.

The Bill of Rights prohibits government officials from interfering with people's preexisting rights. The First and the Second Amendments guarantee that federal officials will not infringe upon such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments protect people from the most tyrannical power of all -- the power of the government to arbitrarily seized a person, cart him off to the Tower of London or other facility, torture him, even execute him without any due process of law, trial by jury, or other judicial review. The civil liberties in these Amendments were carved out in centuries of resistance by the British people against the tyranny of their own government.

Some people warned that the power lusters in Washington would claim that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were all the rights that people had. That was the purpose of the Ninth Amendment. It says that simply because the Bill of Rights names certain rights, that doesn't mean that the people don't have other rights. The list is not all-inclusive.

To make certain that all future power lusters in the government got the point, the people enacted the Tenth Amendment. It says that all the powers that exist in addition to the enumerated powers being delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the people and to the states.

So, the federal government was designed to be a weak government with few, enumerated powers. To make it even weaker, it was divided into three branches, each with its own delegated powers.

Moreover, the federal system established by the Constitution ensured that state governments would have jurisdiction over their respective geographical areas. And even that wasn't good enough for the American people. They enacted bills of rights at the state level to ensure themselves against the prospect of tyranny by their own state governments.

Now, we all know that there were severe violations of the principles of freedom in this new society. Slavery was the most horrific. There were also tariffs and many minor violations, especially at the state level, including subsidies to the railroads and other businesses.

But the practical significance of the Declaration and the Constitution is that a very large percentage of the populace experienced the most unusual -- and the freest -- society in history.

Imagine: A society with no income taxation or IRS -- people were free to keep everything they earned and there wasn't anything the government could do about it. No Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no welfare, no systems of public (i.e., government) schooling, no drug laws, no immigration controls, no Federal Reserve, no legal-tender laws, few economic regulations, no gun control, no torture, no huge standing army or military-industrial complex, no going abroad in search of monsters to destroy or to spread democracy with bombs, missiles, and bullets.

What was the result of this unusual society? Only the most prosperous nation that mankind had ever seen! When people were free to accumulate wealth, massive amounts of savings and capital came into existence, making workers increasingly productive. The reason that thousands of penniless immigrants were flooding American shores every day was because they not only had a chance to survive, for the first time in history they had the chance to become wealthy. People were going from rags to riches in one, two, or three generations.

It was also the most charitable nation in history. When people were free to accumulate wealth, they voluntarily gave large portions of it away. That was how the opera houses, museums, hospitals, universities, and lots of other things got built.

All of this should give you a clue as to why today our nation, which has embraced all of those things, finds itself in the depths of despair. Americans have rendered under Caesar the things that belong to God, especially in the area of voluntary charity and the moral duty that people have to honor their parents and to care for others.

As our ancestors learned in 1861, a nation that violates its founding principles of liberty will reap the whirlwind. And that is precisely what is happening today -- with out of control federal spending, out of control debt, hyperinflation on the horizon, torture, perpetual war, perpetual crisis, perpetual chaos, and perpetual and ever-growing infringements on the fundamental rights of the people.

That's the price Americans are paying for their abandonment of the principles of liberty on which our nation was founded through their embrace of socialism, interventionism, imperialism, and statism.

Can the tide be reversed? Of course it can. If the statists could import statism to our land, we can certainly export it out of here.

But what it will require is a renewed passion for the free society and a deep understanding of the importance of free will and freedom of choice to a society, along with an appreciation for the operations of a free market.

It will also require a belief in ourselves and, equally important, a belief in others.

Perhaps most important, it requires replacing the faith that people have placed in the federal government, especially in the area of charity, with an exclusive faith in God to help people confront the hardships and travails that people periodically encounter in the journey from birth to death.

Can we succeed?

That's where you come in. You are this era's George Washingtons, the Thomas Jeffersons, the John Adams, the Patrick Henrys. You are Virginians. You have a legacy of liberty. You are perfectly positioned to lead our nation out of this statist morass.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote that wherever there was liberty, that was his country.

Thomas Paine responded that wherever there was not liberty, that was his country.

We happen to have been born and raised and now live in a society that was Paine's ideal.

Our challenge and quest is to convert it into Franklin's ideal.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #94 of 361
If you want government to intervene domestically, youre a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, youre a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, youre a moderate. If you dont want government to intervene anywhere, youre an extremist.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If you want government to intervene domestically, youre a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, youre a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, youre a moderate. If you dont want government to intervene anywhere, youre an extremist.

What are you if you ideally want to replace the Government and the concept of Government but don't believe it can happen and until it does don't give a fuck about Governments of any type or stance and think those who do are woefully deceived and exploited?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #96 of 361
Why is the US giving 60 billion dollars to Saudi Arabia for them to purchase planes and other weapons?Saudi Arabia is the prime enemy in the Iraq war not Iran. Ben Laden is a Saudi.What is going on with this deal?
post #97 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Why is the US giving 60 billion dollars to Saudi Arabia for them to purchase planes and other weapons?Saudi Arabia is the prime enemy in the Iraq war not Iran. Ben Laden is a Saudi.What is going on with this deal?

US is a hostage to oil and Saudi is a hostage to money. Both are the same really.

Some points: Saudi are not representative of Islam and are in fact one of the biggest corrupt scumbags on the planet.....hence alliance with US.

Many Muslims and pretty much ALL Muslim 'States' hate Saudi for this reason and so they need US protection. It's a too way deal: Saudi gets money - US gets preferential treatment on oil (guarantees no taps turned off for example) and also bases in the region for attacking other Muslim nations.

Many 'terrorists' are actually people who want to topple the Saudi regime - and rightly so as they are perhaps the biggest human rights abuser current today. Some of these terrorists are people like bin Laden - others want democracy.

No matter. All are labelled 'al Qaeda' and tortured and killed with US connivance.

Birds of a feather....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #98 of 361
Gay marriage debate persists in some Nov. 2 races

Quote:
In Iowa, voters will decide whether to oust three state Supreme Court justices who joined last year's unanimous decision making the state one of five where gay marriage is legal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101017/...ion_gay_rights

Quote:
Polls show Iowa voters evenly split on whether to oust three Supreme Court justices who were part of the decision legalizing gay marriage. If the effort succeeds, it would be the first time since Iowa adopted its current system for appointing judges in 1962 that voters opted to remove a Supreme Court justice.
The targets include Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, who said the three wouldn't undertake a counter-campaign because they don't want to set a questionable example for judges by campaigning and raising money.
Brown said removal of any of the justices would be a "game-changer" with national impact.

When the Judge has to worry about re-elections, how will it affect future rulings. State Supreme Court Justices should serve fixed terms and be selected by independent state judiciary councils.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #99 of 361
Howard Kurtz: How the Media Blew the Midterms

Quote:
The media narrative by now is set in concrete: The voters are teed off, rising up, mad as hell and ready to wreak havoc.

There is a whiff, if you read between the lines, that the expected outcome is somehow unjust. The Democrats are going to get their backsides handed to them, in this telling, because the Obama administration has clumsily failed to explain what it’s done for the folks, and because of slightly scary passions unleashed by the Tea Party crazies.

The journalistic tone was somewhat different in 2006, when exasperated voters handed the House and Senate to the Dems, and 2008, when Barack Obama sold himself as a post-partisan savior.

I’m not saying this is intentional, or that the MSM are mangling the midterms. Many voters are angry, especially about the anemic economy, and it’s their right to toss out whoever they deem to be the bums. But on some level, many journalists believe the White House has accomplished a heckuva lot, and they see the Tea Partiers as inchoate and maddeningly inconsistent—denouncing big bad government while clinging to their Medicare and Social Security benefits. It’s as if the pundits are collectively engaged in a group grope, feeling their way around this strange and sharp-toothed political animal that resembles nothing they’ve encountered before.

Few have gone as far as the late (and usually great) Peter Jennings, explaining the 1994 Gingrich takeover by declaring that “the voters had a temper tantrum.” But news organizations were late to the Tea Party phenomenon, and are still grappling to explain it—in part because of its amorphous and unofficial nature. They were blindsided by Scott Brown’s win and Lisa Murkowski’s loss.

“The media profile is of an angry, racist rabble, and that doesn’t match the people I’ve seen in focus groups,” says Republican pollster Whit Ayres, describing the Tea Party movement. “There’s a predisposition in the more liberal elements of the media to paint Republicans as unsophisticated rubes who don’t appreciate all the wonderful things the Obama administration and the Democratic Party have done for the country. It’s just out of touch with the reality.”

For Jano Cabrera, a Democratic strategist, the subject strikes a nerve. “My wife and I were having this very conversation,” he says. “When we were trying to seize power, we had justified anger, and now we talk about uninformed voters.” Obama inherited unprecedented challenges, Cabrera says, but in politics “you can’t go back and say it’s the other guy’s fault.”

This is a year in which facts—the preferred currency of the reality-based media—often don’t seem to matter. Journalists report that Sharron Angle had favored privatizing Social Security, spoke of people considering “Second Amendment remedies” and counseled rape victims to turn “a lemon situation into lemonade” by giving birth—and she’s still competitive with Harry Reid. Media outlets report that Christine O’Donnell, the onetime witchcraft dabbler, opposes masturbation and considers evolution “a myth,” and she laughs it off (while trailing in the race). New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino calls gay pride parades “disgusting,” hurls baseless charges about Andrew Cuomo’s sex life (after fathering a child out of wedlock himself) and tells a New York Post columnist “I’ll take you out”—and still hasn’t been laughed out of the race.

Who, after all, has absorbed more abuse from the “lamestream media” than Sarah Palin, who can hit back with a Facebook post that bypasses the old gatekeepers?

In such a topsy-turvy season, one simple solution is…blaming the voters! They are so caught up in faulting Obama for everything but bad weather, so mesmerized by the right-wing noise machine that they can’t see straight. Yes, the refrain goes, high unemployment is heartbreaking, but do people really think they’re going to do better under Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell?

Small problem: These are the same voters who broke with more than two centuries of Oval Office white men by electing Obama. Weren’t many of us praising their judgment and tolerance then? (Yes, I know they’re not the exact same voters, in that turnout is smaller in off-years and many disaffected Democrats are likely to stay home. And Obama, like Ronald Reagan, swept in many party colleagues who could not survive in marginal districts once the wave receded.)

On the merits, journalists are right that Obama’s accomplishments have been minimized. Health care reform, however it pans out, was a huge achievement; the overall package remains unpopular, the individual parts (such as not excluding kids for preexisting conditions) not so much. Tightening financial regulation was a heavy lift against the forces of Wall Street. Even the much-derided stimulus law saved plenty of jobs.

All that has been overshadowed because many voters believe the president bobbled the economy while setting his sights on social engineering. But here, too, the short attention span of today’s journalism played a role. The health care and banking battles were covered ad nauseum, but once they passed, the press lost interest and moved on to mosque mess and the Koran-burning preacher and whatever other diversions were available.

The biggest media blunder, in my view, was the walk-on-water coverage that Obama drew in 2007 and 2008. The only real debate was whether he was more like FDR (Time) or Lincoln (Newsweek). The candidate obviously played a role in creating his own myth, but it was the breathless media that sent expectations soaring into the stratosphere. Once Obama had to grapple with two wars, a crippled economy and reflexive Republican opposition, he had no place to go but down. The press has long since fallen out of love with the president, but the overheated hyperbole did him no favors.

Who’s to blame for the coming electoral tsunami? We ought to be careful about dumping on the most convenient scapegoat, those moronic voters. In politics, it’s not that complicated: you either deliver or you pay the price.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #100 of 361
Christine O'Donnell Stuns Audience With 1st Amendment Gaffe
by FRANK JAMES

Quote:
Just when you thought Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, could do nothing further to top herself, she does.

At a Tuesday morning debate with her Democratic rival Chris Coons, she appeared to be aggressively ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.

The Washington Post reports:

Quote:
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that
Quote:
"religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."



Quote:
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked:
Quote:
"You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"



Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,"
Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Not only is this extraordinary because O'Donnell is running for the U.S. Senate, but she represents a political movement, the Tea Party, that has made a fierce adherence to the Constitution one of its fiercest principles.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ment-ignorance
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #101 of 361
She might have been referring specifically to the phrase "separation of church and state", which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #102 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

She might have been referring specifically to the phrase "separation of church and state", which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Christine O'Donnell Stuns Audience With 1st Amendment Gaffe
by FRANK JAMES

Quote:
Just when you thought Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, could do nothing further to top herself, she does.

At a Tuesday morning debate with her Democratic rival Chris Coons, she appeared to be aggressively ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.

The Washington Post reports:

Quote:
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that
Quote:
"religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."



Quote:
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked:
Quote:
"You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"



Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,"
Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Not only is this extraordinary because O'Donnell is running for the U.S. Senate, but she represents a political movement, the Tea Party, that has made a fierce adherence to the Constitution one of its fiercest principles.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ment-ignorance

Then again she might have gotten it wrong---again.

FIRST AMENDMENT:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;......

There are two portions to the 1st Amendment regarding religion. The first is called the Establishment Clause and the second is the Free Exercise Clause. The Congress shall make no laws respecting is where the State shall make no laws thus separating the State from the Church.

The other side of separation of state and church is that in publicially funded schools, you can't teach religious doctrine ie Creationism. Private and parochial schools are free to teach Creationism because generally they are not publicly funded.

Two Supreme Ct. cases touch on this issue:

Quote:
Lemon v. Kurtzman @ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89
Established what is called the Lemon Test
To be constitutional,
1.a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose,"
2.It must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion,
3.and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Quote:
Edwards v. Aguillard @ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513
A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools unless that instruction was accompanied by the teaching of creation science, a Biblical belief that advanced forms of life appeared abruptly on Earth.

The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three-pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause

O'Donnell questions separation of church and state
By BEN EVANS
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 2:44 PM

Quote:
The First Amendment states: "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 phrase "separation of church and state" is usually traced to President Thomas Jefferson. In a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and added that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State." The relationship of government and religion continues to be debated in American law.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate. Her campaign manager, Matt Moran, later issued a statement saying that O'Donnell wasn't questioning the concept of separation of church and state.

"She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution," Moran said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902501.html



Tape of Comment in Debate@

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010101903659
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #103 of 361
Rush: Media Twist O'Donnell-Coons Exchange on Church and State

Quote:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There was a debate between Christine O'Donnell and Chris Coons, and the way the media... I read this this morning, and I knew -- I just knew but I didn't have time to get into the details at the time, but I knew -- with what I had read that it could not be this way. There was a story that was written in such a way as to make the reader believe that Christine O'Donnell did not know that the First Amendment prohibited the government from establishing a religion. The story was written in such a way they had Christine O'Donnell saying, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" What she was talking about was this idiot Coons talking about "the separation of church and state." She was saying, "Are you telling me separation of church and state's in the Constitution?" because it isn't.

There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of which you need and state. It was Coons who couldn't figure out what's in the Constitution. It's Coons who didn't know what he was talking about. And so the panic in the State-Controlled Media, they write a story making it look like O'Donnell doesn't know what she's talking about. They had to misquote her and take her out of context in order to make this point. "Are you telling me that that's in the First Amendment?" meaning, the government cannot officially sponsor a religion. That's not what she was expressing incredulity over. She was incredulous that somebody was saying that the Constitution said, "There must be separation between church and state." Those words are not in the Constitution.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Back to Delaware here. I'm reading this story today, and it makes it out like Christine O'Donnell did not know that the First Amendment forbids the establishment of religion by government. My first reaction when I read it was to call somebody. I said, "What the hell is this?" I said, "This can't be. I'm not going to call anybody. This has to be an out-and-out lie." Here's a partial sound bite from a debate this morning in Wilmington. At the Widener Law School during the debate ba-da ba-da ba-da, a discussion of evolution and creationism, after Coons said, "Private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that religious doctrine doesn't belong in public schools." Christine O'Donnell and Coons had this exchange about "the separation of church and state."

O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

COONS: It's in --

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Excellent point. ...

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Hold on. The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion?

RUSH: Could you replay the sound bite? I need to hear the whole bite. Somebody interrupted me during the -- replay the bite. Here's what Christine O'Donnell said.

O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

COONS: It's in --

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Excellent point. ...

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Hold on. The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion?

RUSH: And she said, "Are you telling me that's in the First Amendment?" What she meant was, "Are you telling me separation of church and state is in the First Amendment?" It's not! Christine O'Donnell was absolutely correct. The First Amendment says nothing about "the separation of church and state." This is a modern and incorrect description of the prohibition of the establishment of a national religion, pure and simple. And the left has taken this to say that religious people cannot be in government and that you can't teach something like creation in the schools while you can teach evolution, because evolution isn't religion but creationism is. Intelligent design can't be taught because that's a religion. Evolution isn't.

Yet both require faith, because neither can be proved as an explanation where all this came from. Nobody can prove where this came from! You can't say that we evolved from nothing, and the anti-creationists don't want to believe that there's a God with intelligent, efficient design, and all that. She was not saying she didn't know that government shall not establish a religion. So that's the bite. You heard the laughter. Now, Michelle Malkin has a different take. Chris Coons cannot name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. This is what's not being reported. ""Delaware Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons can't name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. But all you'll hear from the MSM today is that Christine O'Donnell -- correctly -- questioned Coons' claim that the phrase 'the separation of church and state' appears in the First Amendment.

"Coons' ignorance doesn't fit the O'Donnell bashers' narrative. So they'll pretend this didn't happen," and here's the story. "Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state. The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O'Donnell jumped in. 'Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?' she asked. The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of 'whoa' and laughter coming from the crowd. Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

"'You're telling me the First Amendment does?' O'Donnell interrupted to ask. Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark -- likely thinking he had caught O'Donnell in a flub -- saying, 'I think you've just heard from my opponent in her asking "where is the separation of church and state" show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.' 'That's in the First Amendment?' O'Donnell again asked. 'Yes,' Coons responded. O'Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the 'five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.' Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others -- the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition -- and asked that O'Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

"'I guess he can't,' O'Donnell said." So when he got caught with his own intellectual pants down he ran to the moderator for cover. All she was saying was the Constitution doesn't say anything about "separation of church state." listen to the bite again, because the scary thing here is that the audience laughed. That's the scary thing. The scary thing at a law school, the scary thing is that a bunch of idiots laughed at the notion that the Constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state." Here's the bite again. It's number 31.

O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

COONS: It's in --

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Excellent point. ...

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Hold on. The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion?

RUSH: That's not in the Constitution. "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, and the fact that people laughed about this is what's really scary. Most of the Framers and the congressmen who were first elected to the House and Senate prayed every day and went to church in Congress on Sundays, and in fact the House is opened every day with a prayer! Apparently back in the day, the Founders didn't know that there was separation of church and state. All the Founders said was that the state shall not establish an official religion. It does not say that people in government shall not practice or cannot practice a religion. The Senate opens with a prayer every day, as does the House. The House has a chaplain, for crying out loud!

So this story was purposely written to make it look like Christine O'Donnell does not know what's in the First Amendment, when she was right. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the words "separation of church and state," and nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything written to convey the meaning that religion is not permitted to be part of government. All it says is that the government shall "establish" one. The United States government cannot proclaim, "This is a Christian nation." It cannot proclaim, "This is a Jewish state," cannot proclaim the official religion of our country is Islam. They cannot do it. But we can have Islamists in government, we can have Christians in government, we can have Jews in government, and they can pray while serving! This has been one of the tricks of the left for as long as I've been alive.

To get God out of our culture, to get God out of the schools, to get God out of everyday life. It's to try to say that the Constitution prohibits God, that's what they want the interpretation of the First Amendment to be. The Constitution does not prohibit God. I mean, for crying out loud, look at the Declaration, acknowledged as one of our founding documents. We are all "endowed by our Creator." The reason for this phrase in the First Amendment was where were these people fleeing? England! The Church of England. Henry VIII established a religion so he could get divorced. Pure and simple, he wanted to get a divorce. Religion said, "No." "Okay, I'm going to make my own religion. Screw you! I'm gonna behead somebody. Screw you!" They were fleeing religious persecution. The scary thing is that a bunch of dummkopf, dingleberry law students and audience at a law school laughed at the correct portrayal of what's in the Constitution.

Christine O'Donnell may be as "stupid" as Justice Scalia. You want to know what he said about it? Justice Scalia: "In holding that the establishment clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the court with nary a mention that it is doing so lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves and that is a component of an even more long-standing American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the court invents a boundless and boundlessly manipulable test of psychological coercion." That is Justice Scalia writing about people amplifying the establishment clause to suggest that God can't be mentioned, that prayers cannot happen at public graduations.

That was Justice Scalia writing about those on the Supreme Court who would rule that God could not be part of anything to do with government or anything public. The Constitution doesn't say it. Christine O'Donnell was right. Chris Coons couldn't name the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment. (interruption) Christine O'Donnell is... (interruption) Well, does she...? Snerdley says that Christine O'Donnell's not slick; she doesn't know how to say it to get past these connivers and SOBs. I guess not if you want to look at it that way. The guy says establishment of church and state. She says, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" She knows full well it's not. It's not that she's not slick enough. She's assuming that everybody is as smart as she is. She's assuming that everybody's as informed as she is. That's the mistake many of us conservatives make: We assume everybody knows what we know. We assume everybody is as informed as we are. That's why I say it was really scary that these lamebrains at that law school laughed at the absolute correct assertion that she made.

END TRANSCRIPT

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #104 of 361

semanticsguru.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #105 of 361
This is the "free speech" thread, after all.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #106 of 361
By Jess Bravin

Tuesdays debate in the race for Delaware Senate got right down to detailsconstitutional details, that is.

Quote:
Quote:
I didnt bring my Constitution with me. Fortunately, senators dont have to memorize the Constitution,

Christine ODonnell, Delawares Republican Senate nominee, declared at the forum, held in the moot courtroom of Widener University.

Ms. ODonnell attacked her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, for insisting that public schools teach evolution but not intelligent design, which posits that life forms are too complex to have evolved through natural processes and must have been created by a conscious being such as God. Mr. Coons, the New Castle County executive, said that public schools could not teach intelligent design or similar theories, like creationism and creation science, because they were religious doctrine rather than science.

Quote:
That is a blatant violation of our Constitution, Ms. ODonnell said. The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.

Thats generally trueexcept when it comes to teaching religion-based nonscientific theories of human origin. In 1968, the high court struck down an Arkansas law prohibiting instruction in evolution. In 1987, the court invalidated a Louisiana statute requiring that creation science, an antecedent to intelligent design, be taught alongside evolution.

Ms. ODonnell likened Mr. Coonss position on evolution to those of our so-called leaders in Washington who have rejected the indispensible principles of our founding.

When Mr. Coons interjected that one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state, Ms. ODonnell demanded, Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

The audience exploded in laughter.

The Bill of Rights begins with the command, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but it doesnt specifically use the words separation of church and state.

In 1802, however, President Thomas Jefferson used the metaphor to explain the framers purpose, and courts since have followed his guidance.

The moderator moved on, but Ms. ODonnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons,
Quote:
So youre telling me the phrase, the separation of church and state, is found in the Constitution.

Mr. Coons began reciting the Establishment Clause, as it is known, prompting Ms. ODonnell to ask,
Quote:
Thats in the First Amendment?



After the debate, an ODonnell campaign spokesman said his candidate simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Coons campaign spokesman Daniel McElhatton said,
Quote:
It is clear that Ms. ODonnell does not believe in the separation of church and state, something the framers believed in so strongly that they made it the very first amendment.

Ms. ODonnells unfamiliarity with the Constitution extended beyond the First Amendment, when she was asked her view of tea party proposals to repeal some or all of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments.

She said she would retain the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913 to make U.S. senator an elected position, rather than appointed by state legislatures.

Quote:
Can you remind me of what the other ones are?

she asked.


The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, resolved the constitutional dispute that sparked the Civil War, empowering the federal government to safeguard individual rights from encroachment by the states. Among other provisions, it guaranteed American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., nullifying Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 Supreme Court ruling that blacks could not be U.S. citizens.

Some conservatives have proposed repealing the birthright clause, which they argue has encouraged illegal immigration by mothers seeking to provide their children with U.S. citizenship.

The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, authorized the federal income tax.

Ms. ODonnell did not respond directly to the question, instead stressing that she favored solving immigration problems and lowering taxes.

Ms. ODonnell did say she agreed with Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Courts 1965 decision voiding a ban on contraceptives for violating a constitutional right of privacy.

Mr. Coons said it was inconsistent to back Griswold while opposing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 opinion holding that women had a right to abortion under the privacy theory. You cant have Roe v. Wade without Griswold v. Connecticut, Mr. Coons said.


Ms. ODonnell, who opposes Roe v. Wade, responded that she favored Griswold because it applies to married people, not the so-called right of privacy.

Mr. Coons, who attended Yale Law School, criticized his opponent for a
Quote:
fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is, how it is amended, and how it evolves.

He made no bones about his own constitutional philosophy, firmly siding with the liberal jurisprudence that produced Griswold, Roe and other decisions that limited state power over individual rights.

Such opinions
Quote:
interpreted the Constitution in a modern context in a way that fulfills the early promise of the founders,

Mr. Coons said.

Asked to name recent opinions with which they disagreed, the two candidates cited starkly different examples.

Ms. ODonnell, who in a prior appearance could not name any such cases, explained that under Chief Justice John Roberts and his late predecessor, William Rehnquist, the court has been on the right track, producing few objectionable decisions.

One, however, was Kelo v. New London in 2005, when the court ruled that local authorities can force landowners to sell their property when the government slates an area for economic redevelopment. The court said redevelopment is covered by the Fifth Amendment, which bars taking private property for public use without just compensation.

Quote:
I dont think the government has a right to dictate what someone does with their private property,

Ms. ODonnell said.

Mr. Coons cited a 2000 case, Bush v. Gore, which halted a recount of disputed ballots in Florida while Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush was ahead. Mr. Coons called it an inappropriate judicial intervention driven by the justices political leanings.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/1..._share_twitter

Quote:
Senator Byrd always carried the Cato Institutes pocket edition of the Constitution as he made that vital point in Senate debate.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rober...-constitution/

O'Donnell's Constitutional Ignorance Extends Beyond Church and State
Nicole Allan is a staff editor at TheAtlantic.com, where she writes for the Politics Channel.
OCT 20 2010, 10:50 AM ET

Quote:
Yesterday's Senate debate in Delaware generated headlines about GOP candidate Christine O'Donnell's comments about the separation of church and state. When Democratic nominee Chris Coons said that public schools are not legally allowed to teach the theory of intelligent design alongside evolution, O'Donnell called this stance "a blatant violation of our Constitution." When Coons pointed out that one tenet of the Constitution is the separation of church and state, O'Donnell asked him, "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"

The audience laughed and the blogosphere latched onto O'Donnell's question as an indication of her ignorance on Constitutional matters. In a legal analysis of the debate, however, the Wall Street Journal's Jess Bravin reveals that O'Donnell had a point:

The Bill of Rights begins with the command, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state."

In 1802, however, President Thomas Jefferson used the metaphor to explain the framers' purpose, and courts since have followed his guidance.


The moderator moved on, but Ms. O'Donnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons, "So you're telling me the phrase, 'the separation of church and state,' is found in the Constitution."

Mr. Coons began reciting the Establishment Clause, as it is known, prompting Ms. O'Donnell to ask, "That's in the First Amendment?"

After the debate, an O'Donnell campaign spokesman said his candidate "simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."

But Bravin draws attention to other areas of O'Donnell's Constitutional ignorance:

Ms. O'Donnell's unfamiliarity with the Constitution extended beyond the First Amendment, when she was asked her view of tea party proposals to repeal some or all of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments.

She said she would retain the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913 to make U.S. senator an elected position, rather than appointed by state legislatures.

"Can you remind me of what the other ones are?" she asked. ...

Ms. O'Donnell did not respond directly to the question, instead stressing that she favored solving immigration problems and lowering taxes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...d-state/64862/
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #107 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This is the "free speech" thread, after all.

Then why are we off topic on:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

and the Separation of Church and State?

Oh, BTW more on the Separation Clause:

Quote:
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build
Quote:
a wall of separation be- tween Church and State.

In Reynolds v. United States, Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as
Quote:
almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.

In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jeffersons metaphor for sub- stantial guidance.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #108 of 361
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #109 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politic...tion.gaffe.cnn
semanticsguru.

But O'Donnell has the right to say that she understands the Constitution---even though it's obvious that her knowledge is lacking.

and that's two thimbs up!!!!

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #110 of 361
Being ignorant of our founding documents has the same effect as intentionally ignoring them.

Obama omits 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence...again

Quote:
It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

From the Declaration:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Endowed by whom or what, Mr. President? The government?



"It was a completely unintentional omission and I have fired the teleprompter responsible for it!"

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #111 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Then why are we off topic on:



and the Separation of Church and State?

Oh, BTW more on the Separation Clause:

What those quotes fail to note, is that the understanding of the time referred to a state religion as in the state picks your religion for you and you must be of that religion.

This does not mean absence of religion, but rather that the state cannot mandate you be Catholic or Jewish as examples.

When you look back at the history of Europe and the rise of nation/states from the various monarchies exerting their influence in conjunction with the church, it is easily understood.

There is a reason Protestants and Catholics are still killing each other in Northern Ireland as an example. The concept of religion as something not part of your ethnic identity is not universally accepted worldwide. In the United States, you do not have to be Spanish and Catholic. You can be Spanish and whatever you want.

That still doesn't mean the state has the right to exclude religion though.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #112 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This is the "free speech" thread, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Then why are we off topic on:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

and the Separation of Church and State?

Oh, BTW more on the Separation Clause:

Quote:
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build
Quote:
a wall of separation be- tween Church and State.

In Reynolds v. United States, Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as
Quote:
almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.

In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jeffersons metaphor for sub- stantial guidance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What those quotes fail to note, is that the understanding of the time referred to a state religion as in the state picks your religion for you and you must be of that religion.

This does not mean absence of religion, but rather that the state cannot mandate you be Catholic or Jewish as examples.

When you look back at the history of Europe and the rise of nation/states from the various monarchies exerting their influence in conjunction with the church, it is easily understood.

There is a reason Protestants and Catholics are still killing each other in Northern Ireland as an example. The concept of religion as something not part of your ethnic identity is not universally accepted worldwide. In the United States, you do not have to be Spanish and Catholic. You can be Spanish and whatever you want.

That still doesn't mean the state has the right to exclude religion though.

At the time the 1st Amendment was drafted, there were already different religions being practiced within the new United States. Some of the religions came to America to escape religious persecution.

Quote:
In the drafting of the Constitution, Madison originally proposed The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed. The House proposed Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience. The Senate version was Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, ...

In a joint conference committee the final language was drafted.

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......



In the House debate, Madison stated
Quote:
he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.

It was not until Everson v. Board of Education where the Supreme Court declared that the Establishment Clause forbids the aid of one religion over another or the preference of one religion over another but also the aid to all religions.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=330&invol=1


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

[B]That still doesn't mean the state has the right to exclude religion though.

No it wouldn't under the Separation of State and Church. However, a religious organization that discriminates against gays, lesbians and non-Christian believers can be excluded from a publicly funded university.

Quote:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the college's all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student organization forum; and, therefore, did not transgress First Amendment limitations.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1371.ZS.html
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #113 of 361




Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

Quote:
Its time for our politicians to take the religious literacy quiz.

In a debate on Tuesday with Democrat Chris Coons, Republican Senate candidate from Delaware Christine ODonnell seemed to be learning, in real time and reluctantly, that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion.

As Coons was arguing against the teaching of creationism in the public schools on the grounds that the First Amendment mandates the disestablishment of religion, ODonnell said, The First Amendment does? Let me just clarify: Youre telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?

Coons, who seemed surprised by the question, responded by quoting chapter and verse: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. To which ODonnell, channeling Homer Simpson, asked, Thats in the First Amendment?

As the author of Religious Literacy and adviser to the recent Pew Forum U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, each of which demonstrated the ignorance of Americans about most things religious, I am not surprised that candidates for the U.S. Senate seem as surprised to learn about the Bill of Rights as I am by the latest plot turns in "Glee." (Emma? With John Stamos? Really?)

In fact, in a quiz I gave Boston University students a few years ago, only 41 percent were able to name the free exercise clause, only 23 percent the establishment clause.

And in the recent Pew Forum religious literacy survey, American adults demonstrated that they had about as much of a grip on what the Supreme Court has said about religious establishment as does ODonnell. Only 36 percent knew that public schools could offer comparative religion courses and only 23 percent knew that public school teachers could read from the Bible as an example of literature.

A few years ago, as I was traveling around the country arguing for religious studies courses in the public schools, I challenged journalists to start asking political candidates basic questions about religion. I don't care whether Mitt Romney is a Mormon, I said, but I do care whether he knows which religion predominates in Indonesia, and in India.

I also said that, if politicians are going to invoke Christianity and the Bible to support their positions on abortion and immigration and stem-cell research, then voters have the right to know whether they know anything about that tradition and that scripture.

Far less controversial than that stance is this: voters have a right to know whether candidates for the U.S. Congress have even a passing acquaintance with the Constitution.

Thats in the First Amendment? She Who Would Be Senator asked. Yes it is, ODonnell, yes it is.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/1...ent-ignorance/
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #114 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

At the time the 1st Amendment was drafted, there were already different religions being practiced within the new United States. Some of the religions came to America to escape religious persecution.

In a joint conference committee the final language was drafted.



In the House debate, Madison stated

It was not until Everson v. Board of Education where the Supreme Court declared that the Establishment Clause forbids the aid of one religion over another or the preference of one religion over another but also the aid to all religions.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=330&invol=1

No it wouldn't under the Separation of State and Church. However, a religious organization that discriminates against gays, lesbians and non-Christian believers can be excluded from a publicly funded university.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1371.ZS.html

Fine, I enjoy your postings, but why fill me in on what I already know? You've essentually given a longer version of what I already said. Noting a 5-4 decision and having one side declare that they agree with the reasoning of the 4 isn't some sort of ignorant or extremist position. It simply means the matter is still being worked out publicly and one side would rather exclude the other from discussion rather than have the public hear and weigh in on the merits. If O'Donnell has the same view as 4 justices, then that view is an informed but disagreeing view.

Also on the matter of the case itself, people wonder why when they give the public the right to discriminate, the public begins de-funding those public organizations and forming separate ones. At some point the government has to reflect the consent of the governed. If it doesn't that consent (and subsequently the funding) will be withdrawn.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 361


By TOM BREEN, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 21, 9:54 am ET
Quote:
KING, N.C. The Christian flag is everywhere in the small city of King: flying in front of barbecue joints and hair salons, stuck to the bumpers of trucks, hanging in windows and emblazoned on T-shirts.

The relatively obscure emblem has become omnipresent because of one place it can't appear: flying above a war memorial in a public park.

The city council decided last month to remove the flag from above the monument in Central Park after a resident complained, and after city leaders got letters from the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State urging them to remove it.

That decision incensed veterans groups, churches and others in King, a city of about 6,000 people 15 miles north of Winston-Salem. Ray Martini, 63, an Air Force veteran who served in Vietnam, launched a round-the-clock vigil to guard a replica Christian flag hanging on a wooden pole in front of the war memorial.

Since Sept. 22, the vigil has been bolstered by home-cooked food delivered by supporters, sleeping bags and blankets donated by a West Virginia man and offers of support from New York to Louisiana.

Quote:
"This monument stands as hallowed ground," said Martini, a tall, trim man with a tattoo on his right arm commemorating the day in 1988 when he became a born-again Christian. "It kills me when I think people want to essentially desecrate it."

The protesters are concerned not only about the flag, which was one of 11 flying above the memorial when it was dedicated six years ago, but about a metal sculpture nearby depicting a soldier kneeling before a cross.

Quote:
"I won't let it fall," Martini said. "I have already told the city, before you can take it down, I'll tie myself to it and you can cut me down first."

The identity of the resident who complained about the flag, a veteran of the Afghanistan war, has not been made public. But the state chapter of the ACLU has no problem with the vigil.

Quote:
"We were concerned when the city was sponsoring the Christian flag, but we don't have any concern with veterans groups displaying the flag," legal director Katy Parker said. "We think it's great the city is offering citizens a chance to express their opinions."

The protesters, though, aren't satisfied with the vigil. They're planning an Oct. 23 rally in support of their ultimate goal, which is for the city to restore the Christian flag to the permanent metal pole on the memorial.

At a recent public hearing, roughly 500 people packed the King Elementary School gymnasium, many waving Christian flags. Of more than 40 speakers, no one spoke in favor of removing it.

Quote:
"We've let our religious freedoms and constitutional rights be stripped away one by one, and I think it's time we took a stand," King resident James Joyce said.

Mayor Jack Warren said the city won't make a decision until it can go over its options with legal counsel. One possibility is designating a flag pole at the memorial for the display of any religious emblem, he said. Another is selling or donating the memorial to a veterans organization, essentially privatizing it.

Quote:
"What it comes down to is: What can we do and what can't we do, what's legal and what's illegal?" he said.

Created by a pastor in New York City a little over a century ago, the flag, which sets a red cross in a blue square in the upper left corner of a white field, has been used by both liberal and conservative Protestant churches, but rarely draws much attention, according to Elesha Coffman, a history professor at Waynesburg University.

Quote:
"I would guess most churchgoing Protestants in America have never even noticed if there is a Christian flag in their own sanctuary," she said. "It's just kind of there, unless there's a controversy, and suddenly people pick it up."

In King, it's virtually inescapable. Gullion's Christian Supply Center, an area retailer, has sold hundreds of flags since the dispute began, according to Leanne Gay, who was running a tent at Calvary Baptist Church in King where everything from Christian flag decals to T-shirts were for sale.

Quote:
"In the first couple weeks, we were running out of flags every two hours or so," she said.

The Rev. Kevin Broyhill, pastor at Calvary Baptist, donated the flag now flying at the vigil. But Broyhill thinks having it returned permanently to the memorial is a losing legal strategy. He wants the city to transfer the memorial to a veterans group, which would make it private land.

Quote:
"Right now, the judges on the Fourth Circuit Court are very liberal," he said. "This battle's already been fought in court."

Broyhill is probably right, according to Larry Little, a lawyer and professor of political science at Winston-Salem State University.

Quote:
"They know they'd lose," he said of the city council. "They would have to use taxpayers' money to defend what any lawyer worth a grain of salt could tell them is a violation of the separation of church and state."

For veterans who say they're honoring the sacrifices of fallen comrades or Christians who say they're defending their faith, though, such a compromise seems like a sellout.

Quote:
"That's an easy out," said Eugene Kiger, who has been part of the vigil since the beginning. "The people here saw what was happening and said, 'Somebody has stood up. It's time to stand up with them.'"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/...flag_defenders
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #116 of 361
Quote:
.....but, if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought -- not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I think that we should adhere to that principle with regard to admission into, as well as to life within, this country. And recurring to the opinion that bars this applicant's way, I would suggest that the Quakers have done their share to make the country what it is, that many citizens agree with the applicant's belief, and that I had not supposed hitherto that we regretted our inability to expel them because they believed more than some of us do in the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.

UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U. S. 644, 654 (1929), Justice Holmes dissenting opinion with Justice Brandeis concurring
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #117 of 361
By Václav Havel and Desmond M. Tutu
Friday, October 22, 2010

Quote:
Immediately after the imprisoned writer Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this month, for more than two decades of pursuing democratic change in China, the Chinese government responded by calling him a criminal and accusing the Nobel Committee of blasphemy. It sent security agents to the Beijing apartment of his wife, Liu Xia, took away her mobile phone and placed her under house arrest. We have seen this before: in the dark days of apartheid, under the long shadow of the Iron Curtain. Whenever we took a small step toward securing the freedom of our people, we were stripped of our own.

As we write, Liu remains cloistered in a remote prison in northeast China. This fourth prison sentence of 11 years came after he co-authored Charter 08, a document calling on the Chinese government to institute democratic reforms and guarantee the freedoms of assembly, religion and expression. Though Charter 08 was modeled after Czechoslovakia's Charter '77, the fundamental values it invokes are no more Western than they are Chinese.

We nominated Liu for the Nobel Peace Prize this year because of the universality of his call for fundamental freedoms for his people.

At its core, Charter 08 asks the Chinese government to honor rights enshrined in the Chinese Constitution. The government has already signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ratified the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. In a recent interview with CNN, premier Wen Jiabao acknowledged that "Freedom of speech is indispensable.... The people's wishes for, and needs for, democracy and freedom are irresistible."

This need not be a moment of shame or insult for China. This should be a moment of pride, celebrating the fact that one of China's own is recognized as the world's greatest contributor to that which all nations seek: peace. It is an affirmation of one of humankind's oldest living languages that Liu's words in Charter 08, Chinese words, could inspire such admiration. It is a testament to the strength and courage of the Chinese people that Liu's actions have earned such widespread respect.

Despite its initial reaction, this remains an opportunity for the Chinese government to turn the page on a century of victimization. We know that many wrongs have been perpetrated against China and its people throughout history. But awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu is not one of them. Nor is the peaceful call for reform from the more than 10,000 Chinese citizens who dared to sign Charter 08.

Today, more than at any other time in history, the world looks to China as a leader. China has a chance to show that it is a forward-looking nation, as it has been for thousands of years. If it keeps Liu behind bars, the Chinese government is no more progressive than the ever paranoid and closeted Burmese junta, the only other regime with the gall to lock away another recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Aung San Suu Kyi. Release Liu, and China continues its impressive emergence on the world stage. Beijing helped keep the global economy afloat amid recent crisis; now it can show the world that it has the confidence to face criticism and embrace change.

China has made such brave strides before. Thirty years ago, while we were still being punished simply for speaking our minds, the Chinese government opened up its economy and unleashed the industriousness and ingenuity of the Chinese people on the world's markets. The world has watched with awe as China pulled itself out of poverty and into a thriving, dynamic future. This is a moment for China to open up once again, to give its people the ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas where they will surely prove just as extraordinary.

We have seen this story in the churches of Soweto and the theaters of Prague. We know how it ends. We are able to write today, free of fear and full of hope, because our people won our freedom back. In time, Liu and the Chinese people will win their freedom.

After Liu's sentencing last year, he said in a statement: "I have long been aware that when an independent intellectual stands up to an autocratic state, step one toward freedom is often a step into prison. Now I am taking that step; and true freedom is that much nearer."

The Chinese government can continue to fight a losing battle, against the forces of democracy and freedom that its own premier recently called "irresistible." Or it can stand on the side of justice, free Liu Xiaobo and immediately end the house arrest imposed on his wife.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=artslot

Václav Havel is a former president of the Czech Republic. Desmond Tutu is archbishop emeritus of Cape Town. They are honorary co-chairs of Freedom Now, which represents Liu Xiaobo as his international legal counsel.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101103077.html
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #118 of 361

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #119 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Law vs. Legislation



Do you have a Cliff or Spark Notes version?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #120 of 361

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Free Speech Thread