Posts Tagged ‘First Amendment’

Where does the Constitution say religious freedom does not apply in daily life?!

March 16, 2013
English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dominos Pizza Founder Wins Court Order Stopping HHS Abortion Mandate | LifeNews.com:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/14/dominos-pizza-founder-wins-court-order-stopping-hhs-abortion-mandate/

From the article:

Mersino said Judge Zatkoff’s decision protects our freedoms granted under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Obama administration argued against the preliminary injunction by claiming that once a business owner chooses to enter into the marketplace, he surrenders his right to exercise his religious beliefs.

I find it incredible that an argument like this was even offered seriously in a courtroom. It’s getting crazier by the minute in America, and it shows how irrational the thinking can get when they blindly go along with whatever the Thought Police tell them to think. It’s like they subscribe to a Thought of the Month Club, and the mind benders are pushing it to see how crazy they can make it.

And since when does religious liberty only apply to groups of pastors and priests? Where is that in the First Amendment?! It. Is. Not. There. NOT!

Advertisements

Can the Secret Service tell you to shut up?

March 15, 2012

Andrew Napolitano says it so well:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/can-the-secret-service-tell-you-to-shut-up/

Read the whole essay, he articulates the issue clearly.

Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.

Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government. The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a “restricted” area may be prosecuted. And because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well.

Even liberals and atheists are outraged at this attack on religious freedom

February 10, 2012

Let’s hope the outrage lasts:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577209112780407698.html

How much is too much, people?

When are Americans going to get sick and tired of getting told what to do in every moment of their lives in everything they do? Where is the limit?

We have federal legislation crammed down our throats against the will and demand of 70 percent of Americans that abdicated legislative authority to a federal branch of government, carte blanche to make up laws as they go along, and now they have made a rule that violates the First Amendment.

Read our lips, read the Constitution: The First Amendment says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, NOTHING! about any COMPROMISE of religious freedom.

Somebody complained to me about the “In God We Trust” motto the other day! As if it were a law that established religion! What religion, I asked her, which one? The Catholic? The Protestant?

Egads. Then they answer “the Christian religion“! The Judeo-Christian religion, as if!

It’s an abomination as a motto on the currency anyway. In God we (as the USA) do NOT trust!

Obviously with this outrage it’s not just we do not trust God as a nation, our high-and-mighty rulers are telling us we have to put our money where their mouth is and pay for things we do not agree with.

Before I go on, let me say that in my doctrine, I do think it’s better for couples (and women) to have faith in God for the children he permits with conception, but it’s also “According to your faith be it done unto you”. In other words, I don’t think chemical contraceptive methods violate Biblical faith.

However, when one man’s religious freedom is attacked, it is ALL of us who are being violated including atheists! The ACLU protests when a PRIVATE party expresses itself with a symbol of faith in public land, in cases where NOT ONE PENNY of government money is expended for it, and in fact they force governments to spend MILLIONS of dollars keeping crosses out of public parks.

So now you have a decree from federal dictators that says you have to spend private money to limit your own private free exercise of your religion.

And they act like the First Amendment only applies to cloisters that are almost nunneries and monasteries.

If the United States accepts this forcing of payments on people without allowing free exercise then it’s a lost cause and America is dead, dead, dead, and there is no chance of recuperating it. That and the whole federal nationalization of medicine.

Revelation 17 and 18. No wonder.

 

 

Free speech is a natural right

January 31, 2012
English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

Image via Wikipedia

Arresting Christians costs U.S. city $100,000:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/arresting-christians-costs-u-s-city-100000/

The judge ruled properly here. When police powers are abused beyond those permitted by the natural rights listed in the Bill of Rights, there should be some kind of punitive remedy.

A judge in Detroit has ruled that the decision by police in neighboring Dearborn to arrest a Christian pastor who wanted to hand out Christian tracts at the city’s Arab fest in 2009 will cost the city some $100,000.

That’s the decision following a request from the pastor’s attorneys that the losing side in the First Amendment argument over expressing religious perspectives on city streets be required to pay them for their work on behalf of Christian Pastor George Saieg.

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen said his recommendation for fees and costs totaling $103,401.96 be awarded in the case that was handled by attorney Robert J. Muise.

Of course the problem is that one must vote for people one trusts, BUT then one must keep their feet to the fire to make sure they respect the proper boundaries.

Bloggers Are Not Journalists Rules Portland Judge

January 19, 2012

This blogger, Mona Zhang, wonders whether this judge did right in ruling that a blogger is not a journalist:

http://www.mediabistro.com/10000words/bloggers-are-not-journalists-rules-portland-judge-oregon-shield-law_b9043

Apparently it made a legal difference here in a defamation case. Crystal Cox was sued for defamation.

I’ll post here my comments in response:

 

The only “standard” for new media old media should be the same as always, and anybody who puts text in front of you qualifies as “press” for purposes of the definition in the First Amendment. Newspapers should not have one micron more privilege than any blogger or commenter anywhere on the Internet, period!

“Traditional journalism” has let us down in fact, due precisely to the legal and investment barriers for someone to speak their mind. For example, all traditional journalists have participated in another new mini-holocaust in Libya by leaving so under-reported the racist massacre of an entire town of 10,000 blacks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…

Some old-line media made it a back-page story for ONE DAY because it totally destroyed the conformist government-media complex line that these were simply freedom-fighters trying to end a dictatorship. And the fact that these “rebels” were cutting crosses into the bodies of these blacks (because many of them were Christians), barely made a blip.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation is a good place to find clarity with issues like this one:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/oregon-defamation-decision-could-chill-free-speech