Thursday, March 24, 2011
Proud Bigots
There are days when I really don't know what happened to my country. Here's Bryan Fischer of the conservative American Family Association:
"Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam," Fischer wrote today.
"The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam.
I certainly don't expect everyone to know all the ins and outs of the background of the First Amendment, but this guy is the group's Director of Issues Analysis, you'd expect he's know something about it. Even if he doesn't (and from his statements is clear that he doesn't) is he incapable of doing the Google?
Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."
In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan."
For those of you not familiar with Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedoms, the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion is based upon it.
Here's what some of Jefferson's contemporaries had to say (from the same article):
"Let Jews, Mehometans and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious liberty…thrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys and weaken this infant state. It is mens labour in our Manufactories, their services by sea and land that aggrandize our Country and not their creeds. Chain your citizens to the state by their Interest. Let Jews, Mehometans, and Christians of every denomination find their advantage in living under your laws."
These so-called conservatives who claim that the Founders intended this to be a Christian nation, and that the 1st Amendment's guarantees do not apply to Islam are profoundly ignorant of history at best, and at worst, religious bigots.
As an aside, the AFA is one of the sponsers of the Values Voters Summit. Click the link to see which politicians have no shame with appearing at this forum.
"Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam," Fischer wrote today.
"The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam.
I certainly don't expect everyone to know all the ins and outs of the background of the First Amendment, but this guy is the group's Director of Issues Analysis, you'd expect he's know something about it. Even if he doesn't (and from his statements is clear that he doesn't) is he incapable of doing the Google?
Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."
In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan."
For those of you not familiar with Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedoms, the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion is based upon it.
Here's what some of Jefferson's contemporaries had to say (from the same article):
"Let Jews, Mehometans and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious liberty…thrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys and weaken this infant state. It is mens labour in our Manufactories, their services by sea and land that aggrandize our Country and not their creeds. Chain your citizens to the state by their Interest. Let Jews, Mehometans, and Christians of every denomination find their advantage in living under your laws."
These so-called conservatives who claim that the Founders intended this to be a Christian nation, and that the 1st Amendment's guarantees do not apply to Islam are profoundly ignorant of history at best, and at worst, religious bigots.
As an aside, the AFA is one of the sponsers of the Values Voters Summit. Click the link to see which politicians have no shame with appearing at this forum.
Labels: 1st Amendment, religion
Friday, December 31, 2010
Legal Costs
It appears there is a sheriff in Florida who doesn't understand the basics of the Constitution.
Atheists of Florida Inc. intends to file suit against the Polk County Sheriff's Office over its donation of jailhouse basketball goals to churches, the nonprofit's legal coordinator said Thursday.
The equipment belongs to the taxpayers, and donating them to churches clashes with the 1st Amendment, hence the lawsuit.
Judd seemed to relish the opportunity to tangle with the group over the issue, and said a Lakeland law firm -- Valenti Campbell Trohn Tamayo & Aranda -- has offered the Sheriff's Office free representation.
"They have no idea how much I look forward to their silliness," Judd told reporters.
Silliness? Asking someone to obey the law is silly? I'll tell you what's silly. Removing the basketball hoops from the jail in the first place because you don't think the people locked up there deserve recreational opportunities.
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd is known for his no nonsense approach to crime. Once again, he is laying down the law -- this time, in the Polk County jail.
He says from now on, there will be no more playing around there. Judd is removing the inmate’s basketball hoops.
"It just bothered me that people would drive by and say, 'I'm working hard, and the guys are sitting in the county jail playing basketball,'" Judd told FOX 13 on Thursday. "Well, no basketball, no more."
Which people said that? Remember, this is a jail, not a prison. The people incarcerated in jails generally are serving terms of under one year or are being held for trial, you know, the innocent until proven guilty types who are there because they've been accused of a crime, and cannot afford bail.
I'm not surprised though. This sheriff seems to be setting himself up as the next Joe Arpaio, doing things in an attempt to get the media's bright lights shining upon him. He's the fellow who create a fanfare for arresting this guy, and as appalling as Greaves book is, I'm pretty sure its protected under the First Amendment as it doesn't depict illegal acts. If Polk County succeeds in convicting Greaves, you could theoretically arrest and charge William Pierce (yes, I know he's dead, and can't be charged, that's not the point) or Tom Clancy for writing "how to books" for terrorists.
Well, perhaps the taxpayers of Polk County will enjoy paying the legal costs of this fiasco, but then again, perhaps they wont.
Via Friendly Atheist.
Atheists of Florida Inc. intends to file suit against the Polk County Sheriff's Office over its donation of jailhouse basketball goals to churches, the nonprofit's legal coordinator said Thursday.
The equipment belongs to the taxpayers, and donating them to churches clashes with the 1st Amendment, hence the lawsuit.
Judd seemed to relish the opportunity to tangle with the group over the issue, and said a Lakeland law firm -- Valenti Campbell Trohn Tamayo & Aranda -- has offered the Sheriff's Office free representation.
"They have no idea how much I look forward to their silliness," Judd told reporters.
Silliness? Asking someone to obey the law is silly? I'll tell you what's silly. Removing the basketball hoops from the jail in the first place because you don't think the people locked up there deserve recreational opportunities.
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd is known for his no nonsense approach to crime. Once again, he is laying down the law -- this time, in the Polk County jail.
He says from now on, there will be no more playing around there. Judd is removing the inmate’s basketball hoops.
"It just bothered me that people would drive by and say, 'I'm working hard, and the guys are sitting in the county jail playing basketball,'" Judd told FOX 13 on Thursday. "Well, no basketball, no more."
Which people said that? Remember, this is a jail, not a prison. The people incarcerated in jails generally are serving terms of under one year or are being held for trial, you know, the innocent until proven guilty types who are there because they've been accused of a crime, and cannot afford bail.
I'm not surprised though. This sheriff seems to be setting himself up as the next Joe Arpaio, doing things in an attempt to get the media's bright lights shining upon him. He's the fellow who create a fanfare for arresting this guy, and as appalling as Greaves book is, I'm pretty sure its protected under the First Amendment as it doesn't depict illegal acts. If Polk County succeeds in convicting Greaves, you could theoretically arrest and charge William Pierce (yes, I know he's dead, and can't be charged, that's not the point) or Tom Clancy for writing "how to books" for terrorists.
Well, perhaps the taxpayers of Polk County will enjoy paying the legal costs of this fiasco, but then again, perhaps they wont.
Via Friendly Atheist.
Labels: 1st Amendment
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Restrictions
This is precisely the reason why I'd never want to live in a development with a homeowners' association and restrictive covenants.
Donald Henderson knows not to overdo it on Christmas decorations. A week after Thanksgiving, Henderson placed a tasteful wreath on the front door, strung a few lights along the front porch railing, and, just to elevate his game a notch or two, plopped an inflatable Mickey and Minnie Mouse on his front lawn, wishing all "Season's Greetings."
Tucked behind Mickey and Minnie stood one last touch, a small blue sign that reads, "Happy Birthday Jesus, Come Let Us Adore Him."
In this era of culture wars and all-powerful homeowners associations, what came next seems all but inevitable: When Henderson opened his mail on Christmas Eve, he found a letter from the New Bristow Village management company informing him that he had violated one of the development's covenants.
The problem was not with the inflatable. Although the sign marking Jesus's birthday had been up for three weeks, the Community Management Corp. ordered that it be removed. No signs - except for real estate or security signs - are allowed in the Prince William County development.
When you buy into one of these communities, you also buy into their restrictions. As one who believes in the First Amendment, I find these types of restrictions repugnant. IMHO, its the man's property, and if he wants to put up a sign advocating his religion, he should be able to do so. Unfortunately, he made the conscious decision to surrender some of his Constitutional protections when he purchased a home where he did. More:
"This is a matter of a private contract, and HOAs are entitled to have declarations, and whatever those declarations are make up the laws of that community," said Mike Inman, a Virginia Beach lawyer and co-publisher of the Virginia Condominium & Homeowners' Association Law Blog. "But it would seem to me that the 'Happy Birthday Jesus' item was not necessarily a sign, but yard decor for the season."
Now read that again...."HOA's are entitled to have declarations, and whatever those declarations are make up the laws of that community." That sounds an awful like "The Government" to me! And can a homeowners association, functioning is essence as the government, really restrict a fundamental right like that? Apparently so! We're not talking about grass length, paint choices, the existence of a clothesline, or unsightly trash cans (although I think HOA's should butt out of those issues as well), we're talking about free speech.
People complain about their local, state and federal government? Overzealous neighborhood government seems a bigger threat.
Donald Henderson knows not to overdo it on Christmas decorations. A week after Thanksgiving, Henderson placed a tasteful wreath on the front door, strung a few lights along the front porch railing, and, just to elevate his game a notch or two, plopped an inflatable Mickey and Minnie Mouse on his front lawn, wishing all "Season's Greetings."
Tucked behind Mickey and Minnie stood one last touch, a small blue sign that reads, "Happy Birthday Jesus, Come Let Us Adore Him."
In this era of culture wars and all-powerful homeowners associations, what came next seems all but inevitable: When Henderson opened his mail on Christmas Eve, he found a letter from the New Bristow Village management company informing him that he had violated one of the development's covenants.
The problem was not with the inflatable. Although the sign marking Jesus's birthday had been up for three weeks, the Community Management Corp. ordered that it be removed. No signs - except for real estate or security signs - are allowed in the Prince William County development.
When you buy into one of these communities, you also buy into their restrictions. As one who believes in the First Amendment, I find these types of restrictions repugnant. IMHO, its the man's property, and if he wants to put up a sign advocating his religion, he should be able to do so. Unfortunately, he made the conscious decision to surrender some of his Constitutional protections when he purchased a home where he did. More:
"This is a matter of a private contract, and HOAs are entitled to have declarations, and whatever those declarations are make up the laws of that community," said Mike Inman, a Virginia Beach lawyer and co-publisher of the Virginia Condominium & Homeowners' Association Law Blog. "But it would seem to me that the 'Happy Birthday Jesus' item was not necessarily a sign, but yard decor for the season."
Now read that again...."HOA's are entitled to have declarations, and whatever those declarations are make up the laws of that community." That sounds an awful like "The Government" to me! And can a homeowners association, functioning is essence as the government, really restrict a fundamental right like that? Apparently so! We're not talking about grass length, paint choices, the existence of a clothesline, or unsightly trash cans (although I think HOA's should butt out of those issues as well), we're talking about free speech.
People complain about their local, state and federal government? Overzealous neighborhood government seems a bigger threat.
Labels: 1st Amendment, government, religion
Friday, December 17, 2010
Offensive
Via Hemant, we learn that atheists in Florida were instructed by agents of the government to remove or cover up their t-shirts at a public meeting because they were deemed offensive. The shirts read "One nation, indivisible" over a US flag image, with "Atheists of Florida" printed underneath.
Looks like someone needs a refresher course on the 1st Amendment.
Looks like someone needs a refresher course on the 1st Amendment.
Labels: 1st Amendment, censorship
