Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘1st Amendment’

… Do those Gun Grabbers ever Learn [#abuse of power][#Social Security payee][#guns]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,January 5th,2017

.. you would figure that the gun grabbers in the ObamaCrap Administration would learn . They keep finding novel manuveurs in the law in order to further their agenda to take guns away from law – abiding Americans ..

.. but this ? this is really sick ..

.. People make use of representative payees in order to protect themselves when they are older . It does not entitle the government to go on a gun – grabbing expedition just because they have aradical agenda that they want to enact . If they have the support in Congress , then pass a law . If they do not , then quit playing around with people ‘ s constitutional rights …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. the Bill of Rights was designed [as a group] to protect the rights of the individual . In the case of the 9th and the 10th Amendments , it does so through their home states . The 2nd Amendment is itself an individual right . It was designed and written to protect an individual ‘ s right to own [keep] and utilize and possess [bear] arms …

.. so , keep your damn hands off of our damn firearms !! …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… We need to Support Pamela Geller [#A.F.D.I.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,November 9th,2016

.. and her organization , the American Freedom Defense Initiative ..

.. Why ? It is the right thing to do . She has taken some very gutsy stands , and she is courageous . She is willing to make the gutsy call these days that few of us are willing to do ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. also , because of the actions of this psychotic jihadist , Pamela , s life is under serious threat . This British – born jihadist tweeted her home address , home phone number , and her apartment number on their twitter account just a few days ago ..

.. he also attached the hashtag #goForth … Scary , isn’t it !! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Illinois should have Known Better [#pro life][#conscience clause][#morality]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,October 10th,2016

.. the state of Illinois should have damn well known better ..

.. Mandated speech . Overriding a conscience clause . Whoops ! ..

.. It violated federal law , for starters . It is covered by the federal supremacy clause , to say the least . Federal law and even OCC have a conscience clause in them . It seems that the state of Illinois forgot that ..

.. also , dummies , remember the U.S. Constitution . Try the 1st Amendment thereof . Yea , that one ! ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. people are guaranteed religious freedom in this nation . That damn law sure as hell overrides it ..

.. it will fall in court ! ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Earth to Nutcase [#activist lawfare lawyer]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,September 26th,2016

.. the university is named Catholic University of America . It is an institution of higher education , dedicated to presentation of in the way of the Catholic faith and based theoreon ….

.. other students are free to worship on the campus . They just need to understand and remember the mission of the Univeristy . …

.. [h/t —]…
.. [link] to the blog news post …

.. the District of Columbia should remember that whatever they may pass in their city ‘ s so – called Human Rights code , the entirety of the people in the District [including the students , faculty , and administration of Catholic University] still have their constitutional rights . Those rights include the Bill of Rights , among which is paramount , the First Amendment ‘ s protection of the Freedom of Religion ….

.. so , guys , back off , or else …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… It is Not Just Protecting One Person ‘ s Speech [#Pamela Geller]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,September 11th,2016

.. it is protecting that freedom for us all , as a nation ..

.. yes , Pam is a important symbol . Her events are symbolic of why the First Amendment exists : to protect the speech of those that we would normally find controversial , disgusting , or even possibly obscene . Now , though , it enters the real of national security …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. is I.S.I.L. shooting off its mouth ? Possibly . However , there is no way right now to be absolutely sure . Those goons are more likely now than before to send other ” teams ” after Geller and others willing to stand up for their rights …

.. your damn right that I stand with Pam Geller . I say controversial things , but I also think things through before I say them or post them . So does Pam . I am a long – time fan of hers , and I am glad that she simplified the website name [down to her name] . Now it is much easier to follow and remember . Especially now …

Posted in 1st Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Oregon must realize [#freedom of religion]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,September 7th,2016

.. that people have the constitutional freedom to exercise their religion ..

.. that also includes when they conduct their personal affairs when they run a business . When there is an issue that they do not support and cannot stand , they are free not to support that person , persons , or group . That means they do not have to do business with them . , especially if their action violates their religious beliefs …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog report …

.. we have a Constitution . We also have a Bill of Rights , which is a document which covers protections of our individual rights . Those protections outweigh those of a common law , , or even those of statutory law . So , A statute that covers protection of a person ‘ s sexual orientation des not protect them against someone else does chooses not to serve them , just because it violates their religious beliefs …

Posted in 1st Amendment, freedom (religion), freedom (speech), moral opinion, moral question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the Reason Why One Amendment is There [#Bill of Rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,September 6th,2016

.. it is there to protect all of the others …

branco cartoon (2nd Amendment rights)

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog cartoon …

.. May God Bless America !! … and the 2nd Amendment ! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What in the Hell is the Charlotte Observer thinking ?? [#editorial][#transgender issue][#school bathroom][#school lockerroom]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,May 25th,2016

.. indeed ..

.. here is the link to the editorial from the Charlotte Observer , regarding the transgender issue . It states , roughly , that students must get used to seeing genitalia of the opposite gender / sex in their locker room , whether they like it or not . Are they insane ?? ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. a bathroom , a lockerroom , both are private places . We go there to ” go to the can . ” In the other case , we go there to change our clothes into gym clothes , or to shower , clean up , and get dressed and return to our regular street clothes . It is just that , aa private ce . It is not a place that should be invaded by transgenders ..

.. Someone may be ” transitioning into trangender status . ” However , they have not had the surgeries needed to change their sex . Once they do , then they can get their birth certificate changed . Then you use the locker room of your new sex ..

.. Not before !! ..

Posted in 1st Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Now a Court is Showing some Sense [#Hands on Originals]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,May 16th,2016

.. Hands on Originals is a simple business . They generally sell t – shirts ..

.. however , that is also where it got them into trouble …

.. the local Gay & Lesbian Services Organization [GLSO] wanted to have some t – shirts made up to support one of their events . One of the owners of HOO objected . As a result , the GLSO filed a complaint in the county Human Rights Commission …

.. when that body ruled against them . HOO sued in court . Given the current legal climate , they did not expect the best of news . However , the judge in the case ruled in their favour …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post // legal opinion ..

.. I am going to include a lengthy clip from the blog post by Professor Eugene Volokh , of UCLA . He is the one who the blog is named for and who founded it . Professor Volokh explains things far better than I can , but it is a dandy explanation of the judge ‘ s reasoning . However , it is a bit lengthy , though …

The Commission decided in favor of Baker, but on Monday, in Hands on Originals, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, a Kentucky trial court judge disagreed.

1. First, the judge concluded that Hands on Originals was discriminating based on the pro-gay-pride message that GLSO wanted printed, not based on the sexual orientation of GLSO’s representatives or members. This suggests that the judge thought the ordinance just didn’t apply on its own terms, quite apart from any restrictions imposed by the First Amendment or by Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But as I read the opinion, the judge didn’t make any such specific finding about the inapplicability of the ordinance.

2. The judge did conclude, though, that applying the ordinance to Hands on Originals’ actions violated the First Amendment:

[“T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.[”] … The [Commission] attempted to distinguish [the compelled speech precedents] from the case at bar with the explanation that “In this case there was no government mandate that the Respondent (HOO) speak.”… [But i]n fact, HOO and its owners, because they refused to print the GLSO t-shirts that offended their sincerely held religious beliefs, have been punished for the exercise of their Constitutional rights to refrain from being forced to speak….

The Commission in its oral argument says it is not trying to infringe on the Constitutional Rights of HOO and its owners but is seeking only to have HOO “…treat everyone the same.” Yet, HOO has demonstrated in this record that it has done just that. It has treated homosexual and heterosexual groups the same. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, HOO declined to print at least thirteen (13) orders for message based reasons. Those print orders that were refused by HOO included shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video, and shirts containing a violence related message.

There is further evidence in the Commission record that it is standard practice within the promotional printing industry to decline to print materials containing messages that the owners do not want to support. Nonetheless, the Commission punished HOO for declining to print messages advocating sexual activity to which HOO and its owners strongly oppose on sincerely held religious grounds.

HOO did not decline to print the t-shirts in question or work with GLSO representatives because of the sexual orientation of the representatives that communicated with HOO. It is undisputed that neither [of the] HOO representatives … knew or inquired about the sexual orientation of either GLSO representatives …. Rather, … the conversation between GLSO representative … and HOO [co-]owner [Blaine] Adamson was about GLSO’s mission and what the organization generally promoted…. HOO’s declination to print the shirts was based upon the message of GLSO and the Pride Festival and not on the sexual orientation of its representatives or members….

If Massachusetts could not compel [St. Patrick’s Day] parade organizers to include a group advocating a [gay rights] message that the parade organizers did not support, [Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995),] how can the LFUCG Human Rights Commission interpret the “Fairness Ordinance” to compel HOO and its owners to print a t-shirt conveying a message that HOO and its owners do not support and in fact find blasphemous? The Court holds that the Commission cannot take this action consistent with the U.S. Constitution….

This Court has undertaken review of this case based upon … the doctrine of “strict scrutiny.” … This Court does not fault the Commission in its interest in insuring citizens have equal access to services but that is not what this case is all about. There is no evidence in this record that HOO or its owners refused to print the t-shirts in question based upon the sexual orientation of GLSO or its members or representatives that contacted HOO. Rather, it is clear beyond dispute that HOO and its owners declined to print the t-shirts in question because of the MESSAGE advocating sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. The well established Constitutional rights of HOO and its owners on this issue is well settled and requires action by this Court….

3. The court also held that the commission’s actions violated the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides,

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion of programs or access to facilities.

The court first concluded, following the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby (where the Court was interpreting a very similar federal statutory scheme) that the Kentucky RFRA applied to corporations such as Hands On Originals, and, “[b]ecause the Commission’s Order requires HOO and its owners to print shirts that convey messages contrary to their faith, that Order inflicts a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion.” And the court then concluded that the commission’s actions can’t be justified under the “strict scrutiny” (“compelling governmental interest” / “least restrictive means”) exception that the Kentucky RFRA provides:

[T]he Commission has not even attempted, much less shown by “clear and convincing evidence” or otherwise, that it has any compelling government interest in the consequences imposed upon HOO and its owners in this case. As previously mentioned, it is the understanding of this Court based on the record that GLSO was able to obtain printing of the t-shirts in question at a substantially reduced price or perhaps even had them printed for free. This was the offer extended by HOO owner Adamson in the initial phone conversation with a GLSO representative to refer GLSO to another printing company to do the work for the same price quoted by HOO. The Court holds that the Commission has not proven by clear and convincing evidence or otherwise that it has a compelling governmental interest to enforce in this case….

The analysis seems quite right to me. I expect there will be an appeal, so we’ll see what the Kentucky appellate courts have to say about this.

Posted in body of law, legal opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Emory University has a Real Problem [#free speech][#US Constitution]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,March 30th,2016

.. Emory University has a real problem on its hands . The usual campus ‘ radicals ” are running wild , trying to bring pressure on the school to achieve their usual pet causes . They are also bring more pressure on the school . They want to act to crush any and all campus opposition to their agendas . However , they have a much bigger problem than they realize ..

.. It is legal . It is also constitutional . It is also moral . And those dummies [both the Administration and the radicals] had better wake up ..

.. Emory ” allows ” political speech by the act of those chalk drawings . Admittedly , it is a bit odd . But , they do allow it . As a result , they have to play fair to all sides . I repeat , to ALL sides . That includes the chalk drawing trump 2016conservatives , as well ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. if they allow these drawings , then play fair . Also , no retaliation . None whatsoever . If there is retaliation , especially , there will be repercussions . Most likely , financial . But not just to the University , though . The individuals and groups will be nailed , as well ..

Posted in 1st Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… This One Could Be a Game Changer [#Labour Law case][#Friedrichs v C.T.A.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,January 11th,2016

.. yes , this one could really be a doozy ..

.. I think that there could be as many 6 votes for this one , possibly 7 …

.. well , start at the beginning . Lori Friedrichs is a schoolteacher in California . She resigned for her union , the C.T.A . This union is , to be specific , the California Teachers Association ..

.. California is not a union – friendly state . Since the latter part of the 1970s , the reigning SCOTUS precedent , Abood v Detroit Bd of Ed , has allowed unions to collect fees [agency fees , to be exact] from non – members of the union . These people are required by law , however , to be members of the collective bargaining unit , no matter what ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog article …

.. like many who resign from the union , Friederichs endured quite a bit . Teachers who resign from their union get a large amount of professional shunning and personal abuse from their fellow teachers . Yet she endured , as did several dozen others ..

.. now SCOTUS has offered certiorari on these folks appeal from their loss at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . Given the rulings and precedents of recent years , such as Beck v CWA , Ferris State Teachers , and Knox v CTA, the ground could be extremely dangerous for the AFL – CIO and their member unions ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Dummies , the Point is Religious Freedom [#accomodation][#religious freedom]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,November 14th,2015

.. the 7th Circuit is highly libertarian , and the D.C. Circuit has [for now] gone totally loonie – leftie with Dingy Harry Reid ‘ s court – stuffing stunt ..

.. neither one seems to get the point , though . The point is that the filling out of the HHS form is a substantial burden on the religious order ‘ s freedom of religion , dummies ….

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. D.C. Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers – Brown [a future GOP Supreme Court justice nominee] puts it very well in her stinging dissent , exceprted here …

This seems to miss an obvious causal step: the “mandate on insurers” at issue here is not merely a general ACA requirement to provide contraception coverage, but a series of cost-sharing mandates that are not triggered unless the religious groups fill out the form. In a powerful dissent, Judge Janice Rogers Brown explains why this is nonsense:

[T]his case is not “paradoxical” because Plaintiffs object to regulatory requirements the government intended as a religious accommodation. That the government’s expressed intent in enacting the regulations at issue was to allay religious adherents’ concerns about the contraception mandate is not determinative of the ultimate question of whether Plaintiffs were in fact accommodated. Where the government imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise and labels it an “accommodation,” that burden is surely as distressing to adherents as it would be if imposed without such a designation. Therefore, heightened skepticism is not appropriate. We should look at Plaintiffs’ claims as we would any RFRA claim. After all, in the substantial burden analysis, the government’s motivations— no matter how benevolent—are irrelevant; we ask only whether the government’s action operates to place “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”


Plaintiffs identify at least two acts that the regulations compel them to perform that they believe would violate their religious obligations: (1) “hiring or maintaining a contractual relationship with any company required, authorized, or incentivized to provide contraceptive coverage to beneficiaries enrolled in Plaintiffs’ health plans,” Pet. for Reh’g En Banc at 3; and (2) “filing the self-certification or notification,” id. at 4. Plaintiffs have therefore shown both that they are being compelled to modify their behavior and that, if undertaken, the modification would be a violation of their religious beliefs.


The panel did not dispute that federal law operates to compel Plaintiffs to maintain a relationship with an issuer or TPA that will provide the contraceptive coverage and to execute the self-certification or alternative notice. Their disagreement with Plaintiffs is about the significance of those compelled acts; in other words, the panel rejected the “adherents’ claim about the religious meaning of the undisputed operation of [] federal regulation[s].”

.. you can count on this one going before the Supremes . SCOTUS will not be able to avoid it . The Court could even be down one justice , though . Why ? ..

.. I think that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is slowly dying . Especially since she has already escaped pancreatic cancer once [already] , she is living on borrowed time . She wants to do as much damage as she still can while she still lives . However , I am betting [especially with Chuck Grasseley in charge of the Senate Judiciary Cmte] that …. His Lordship will try to push thru a radical leftist as her replacement , and the GOP – controlled Senate will have nothing of it …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Clear Ruling on Gun Rights in D.C. [#not a big surprise]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,May 26th,2015

.. Federal District Court Judge Frederick Scullin strikes again ..

.. and , once again , the political leadership in the District ends up looking like a bunch of damn fools ..

.. a new case came up . No , it is not the original one [Palmer v. D.C.] , which struck down the District ‘ s clear gun rights ban . This one is much different . It was brought by 4 individuals , each of whom wanted to own a gun in the District of Columbia . As you might expect , the District ‘ s P.D. [under the new restrictive ” may issue ” gun law ] refused to issue each of these individuals a license to own a gun …

.. Big problem for the District , however . The U.S. Constitution allows for individuals to own and ” bear ” arms . Plain and Simple . Also , no ” Mother , may I ” about it …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog news post ..

.. so , Judge Scullin struck down the District ‘ s ” good reason ” standard , stating …

“This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public,” Judge Scullin said in his ruling. “The District of Columbia’s arbitrary ‘good reason’/’proper reason’ requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Well, that was the point. The district’s establishment wants to make it impossible or very nearly so for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights in the nation’s capital, and they calculated this law to leave themselves enough room to guarantee it. This particular effort was so bad, though, that it was doomed to failure, and should embarrass everyone associated with it. The law essentially said that constitutional rights can be rationed by government only on the basis that government sees a “good reason” to allow it. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with the Bill of Rights.

The city tried to argue that the “good reason” requirement was connected to public safety, but Scullin rejected the argument :

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting). Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good 12 reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.

.. first Palmer , now this case . It is only a temporary injunction , but it is an injunction . To get one , you have to show  a very strong likelihood that you will ” win on the merits . ” This one may well skip the D.C. Appeals Court , and go right to the U.S. Supreme Court ..

.. I certainly would hope so ..

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… We Should Support the Dugggars [#TLC]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,April 14th,2015

.. I do not watch TLC that often ..

.. but the show about the Duggars [19 Kids and Counting] is one I like to watch . They are a highly entertaining and spirited bunch of self – supporting wholesome Christians …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog news …

.. she chose to exercise her 1st Amendment rights to speak out against homosexuality and the transgendered . As is their wont , those of the homosexual community chose to act in  a bullying fashion .  They have mounted a petition campaign to have TLC yank “19 Kids” from the air …. however , the petition campaign is backfiring …

.. but , this petition organizing against the Duggars ? What a ridiculous joke ….

.. it is an amazing retort that fans of the show mounted a counter to the boycott petition . Not only that , but the counter petition has done far , far better than the original boycott petition …

.. it is even more amazing given the media bias against the Duggars and the almost total lack of news about the whole situation …

.. I would advise my friends to do everything they can to help and support the Duggar family [all 21 (or 22) of them] . They are a fine outfit , worthy of your support …

Posted in 1st Amendment, communications strategy, media bias, media bigotry, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Scott Walker was part of Campaign Fundraising …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,June 24th,2014

.. but it was hardly criminal .

.. [h/t — Newsmax]..
.. [link] to the news piece ..

.. doing it on the federal level might be illegal . Albeit some co – ordination is permitted . Wisconsin laws evidently are quite different ..

.. the ” John Doe ” prosecutors are quite sore that they had their supposed investigation shut down . It was a clear abuse of 1st Amendment rights , and the federal appeals court called them on it . The surprise is the Club for Growth …

.. I am a little bit surprised that the Club for Growth wanted the documents that the prosecutors accumulated disclosed . The documents would appear to be put in the worst light , making the Club and Gov Walker look bad . Their conduct might even look illegal . However , it was not , and it never was , even before the Citizens United case . The disclosure was a smart move . It mitigates any attempt at spin by anyone during this year ‘ s campaign , or in the future . Now , Gov Walker and the club for growth are in the clear , and have nothing to worry about …

Posted in investigation, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Our Uniformed Military (enlisted & officers) have as much right to Religious Liberty as Anyone Else …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,July 25th,2013

.. Since when do outside groups have the right to impose religious censorship on our nation ‘ s military ? This is crazy !

.. Good Lord , they have enough to worry about , as it is . Their first job , Job One , is our nation ‘ s defense . Their efforts are second to none . Their abilities to perform their jobs and their missions are second to none . Our nation ‘ s military , its technology , its strategy , and its ability are second to none .

.. So when it is said that having religious faith , and showing the same , and speaking about it , is against the good order and discipline

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

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

in the military service . When does the civilian leadership have the right to impose anti – religious censorship , impinging on the religious freedom and rights of our fellow citizens in uniform ? Why ?

.. These radicals , such as the “Military Religious Freedom Foundation ” and the ” Freedom from Religion Foundation ” have perverted our Constitution , and its freedoms and rights . Most of all , our religious freedoms , for civilian and military alike , in the First Amendment to the Constitution , in the Bill of Rights . What it stands for is not the prohibition of religion in the public sphere . Not at all . It stand for the free exercise thereof , and the prohibition of a “state church.” Not for the suppresion of religion and faith .

.. Our history , military and otherwise , is clear on those points . First and foremost , is the 1st Amendment ‘ s targeting of religious freedom . Our founders wanted to be absolutely sure and clear that all of us have the free and clear right to practice our faith , or to not practice it , if that is our choice . Also , the provision of chaplains of various faiths . These people (men and women) are priests , pastors , rabbis , and imans , there to minister to the religious needs of our troops & Marines . Most of all , without impignging on the good order and discipline in the ranks , is their rights to make statements of religious and moral issues , that are a part of their job as a religious leader from the pulpit .

.. I post this article from Breitbart Media ‘ s “Big Government” of the insanity that is going on in the current atmosphere . It is time that a thorough cleansing of the anti – religious bigots from the public sphere take place …

A Christian chaplain in the military is being officially censored for engaging in free speech, and anti-Christian activists are demanding he be punished.

Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes is a Christian chaplain currently serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. As an ordained clergyman whose duties are to provide religious instruction and spiritual counseling, he has a page on the base’s website called “Chaplain’s Corner.”

Reyes recently wrote an essay entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.” This common saying is attributed to a Catholic priest in World War II, made famous when President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: “I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes.”

As reported by Fox News’s Todd Starnes, when Reyes referenced this famous line in his essay, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) contacted the base commander, Col. Brian Duffy, demanding he take action on Reyes’s “anti-secular diatribe.”

MRFF’s letter says that by Reyes’s “use of the bigoted, religious supremacist phrase, ‘no atheists in foxholes,’ he defiles the dignity of service members.” They accuse him of violating military regulations.

My legal research on this issue uncovered no regulation prohibiting Reyes’ speech, which looks like expression protected by the free speech and religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment. Military leaders did not respond to Fox’s inquiries asking the Air Force to identify any such rules.

Nonetheless, only five hours after MRFF’s complaint, the essay was removed from the website. Duffy has profusely apologized to MRFF for not stopping this religious leader from sharing religious thoughts.

But this response—which again appears to be a violation of Reyes’s First Amendment rights—is insufficient for MRFF. They said, “Faith based hate, is hate all the same,” and, “Lt. Col. Reyes must be appropriately punished.” (Emphasis added).

So MRFF is saying that the coercive power of government must be used to punish a military officer, who is also an ordained Christian minister, for making ordinary religious references consistent with his faith.

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council—one of the leaders of a new religious liberty coalition for the military—responded, “A chaplain has been censored for expressing his beliefs about the role of faith in the lives of service members… Why do we have chaplains if they aren’t allowed to fulfill that purpose?”

MRFF is activist Mikey Weinstein’s organization. He called observant Christians “fundamentalist monsters” seeking to impose a “reign of theocratic terror,” and he described sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military as an act of “spiritual rape” that makes believers “enemies of the Constitution” who are committing an act of “sedition and treason” against this nation.

The Obama-Hagel Defense Department and Air Force have met with Weinstein and MRFF over a period of four years and recently told Congress that there are no problems with suppressing religious speech in the military. However, because this growing wave of anti-Christian extremism has been exposed to the public, the U.S. House has inserted new religious liberty protections for military members in pending legislation.

President Obama threatens to veto the legislation. Reyes’s story makes it more likely that Congress will stand its ground and fight to protect the religious liberty of him and countless others in the military, as those service members continue risking their lives to fight for all Americans.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.


Posted in military affairs, personal opinion, religious opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »