THYME Magazine

Citizen Journalism with a Better Flavor


Volume VI, Issue IX

Marriage Wins in the Big Picture

A 'Best of THYMEs' Feature...

"In terms of their social orientations, journalists are clearly more influenced by the post- 1960s "new morality." Few attend church or synagogue." -- Donald Lazere, American Media and Mass Culture: Left Perspectives.

It is not surprising then that the 'other' weekly news magazine last week stated that traditional marriage has Already Lost [click to read]. This week they're looking at Latino Influence in the Church [click to read] and The Rise of Evangélicos [click to read]. Journalist Elizabeth Dias has discovered a growing interest in Faith among the Latino community. She writes: "What I discovered signaled a Latino Reformation. Both churches were doubling in size every few years. Many of the congregants were Catholic converts, and even more may have been undocumented. All were fervent believers—they sang with hands high, danced during worship, and often brought their own tambourines and flags to Sunday services. They were charismatic and believed in miracles. They told me their stories over tamales and café con leche—how they converted, how G-d healed their physical illnesses, and how their churches became refuges from hunger and homelessness. To the mainstream American culture, and even other white evangelical churches, they were invisible. But they were hiding in plain sight."

"I offer the single most politically incorrect statement a modern American — indeed a modern Westerner, period — can make: I first look to the Bible for moral guidance and for wisdom." -- Dennis Prager [click to read].

The post 1960's culture declared marriage 'obsolete' thirty years ago. Certainly there are trends toward cohabitation, easy divorce and out-of-wedlock parenting (and a new set of societal costs as a result), but marriage as an institution is still a strong force in our society. Mark Steyn [click to read] has a pretty straightforward picture of what is really happening here. Steyn writes: "Gay marriage? It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, "It's not about expanding marriage, it's about destroying marriage."

Steyn's article is worth pondering. The case of Elane Photography [click to read] and the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association [click to read] bear out Steyn's argument. These cases are not about freedom to marry, but about imposing a civil morality, or civil legality [1.] upon people of faith. In the first case, a photographer is sued for not photographing a same-sex ceremony for reasons of faith [2.]. In the second, a Methodist organization does not allow their facility to be used for a same-sex ceremony for the same reason. Ultimately this is about First Amendment protected religious freedom. Most of us would not deny a person the right to live with whoever they choose, and civil and contract law allow for the sharing of property. Most of us also acknowledge that this country was built upon religious liberty as well as individual freedom.

Marriage has come under attack in times past. Claudius II, Emperor of Rome issued an edict prohibiting marriage for his troops, seeing family life as a 'distraction' to them. A priest named Valentine [3.] performed secret marriages anyway. He was beheaded on February 14, 270. People still give their wives cards on that date, and soldiers still get married. For people of Faith, marriage is more than a human institution. In Ephesians 5:25-32, Paul states:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."

Thus marriage is, for the person of faith, a picture of the relationship of the believer with his G-d. The sacrifice and fidelity of a traditional relationship are essential to this picture. Marriage as an institution survived Claudius. Today, the challenge is to build our own marriages upon the challenge of Ephesians 5. The marriage that models relationship of humanity to G-d is impossible to codify. Those precious couples who's lives actually reflect this, (and I greatly admire them), create a transcendent work of art that no law can snuff out.

It is for this reason that I see great hope for the institution. Are not the stories we remember the stories of love that is steadfast and triumphant in the face of overwhelming challenge. G-d in His wisdom has made that a picture of the Relationship of Redemption!

Revelation 19:6-9 speaks of the time when people of all nations are joined in communion with G-d:

"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord G-d omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of G-d."

In Isaiah 60 [4.] and in Revelation 21 Believers look to a New Heaven and a New Earth where a Heavenly Jerusalem descends to join the Earth. Here is a Kingdom that needs no temple, needs no sun to light it, for G-d Himself is the force that illuminates it! [5.]

"And I saw a new Heaven and a new earth: for the first Heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from G-d out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of G-d is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and G-d himself shall be with them, and be their G-d." -- Revelation 21:1-3


Journey to Jesus, a mural depicting the nations coming to Jesus in the New Heaven and New Earth described in Revelation 21. Mural by Kristina Elaine Riley and Bob Kirchman

Journey to Jesus [click to view larger images].

"Our Christian hope is that we're going to live with Christ in a new Earth, where there is not only no more death, but where life is what it was always meant to be." -- Timothy Keller.


The hope of Heaven.

THYME Magazine

Citizen Journalism with a Better Flavor


Volume VI, Issue II
 
Pursuit of Virtue
Cover: The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino

"Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of 'the pursuit of happiness,' they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure." -- Carol V. Hamilton, Ph.d.

The 'other' weekly news magazine this week considers The Pursuit of Happiness [click to read]. Quoting the philosophers who say we're "wired for happiness," they then delve into the conundrum of why we are so unhappy. THYME once again ventures in where angels fear to tread... to consider the truth intended by the original writers.

Modern Americans err because they've replaced the institutions of virtue and protection with the multiplex cinema and the mall as center of the settlement. Consider the first Jamestown settlement, where the church, the storehouse and the armory were at the center. Personal happiness, in the packaging of self-actualization demands we redefine marriage and reduce consequences for pleasurable behaviours. Society must now provide outcome instead of opportunity, even if that outcome is tepid compared to the results of mankind unchained to pursue loftier goals that are out of the direct pervue of government.

Thus, many are lauding the Supreme Court's latest "Dred Scott"  [1.] moment as an American triumph, overturning a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act and striking down the restoration of California's popularly ratified Proposition Eight. The portion of DOMA actually overturned has to do with an inheritance case and is NOT at all like Roe vs Wade, which nullified state abortion laws in a sweeping motion. The media rushes to herald it, but it does not really create what qualifies as a landmark decision. In fact it is but one more strike against traditional thinking which includes the government forcing Catholic Charities in Massachussetts to place children with same-sex couples (they folded rather than compromise their beliefs), the suit against a photographer who, on faith grounds, declined to photograph a same-sex ceremony and the Methodist group in New Jersey who were denied tax-exempt status because they would not allow a same-sex ceremony to be performed in their facility [2.]

Marriage Wins in the Big Picture [click to read]

In each of these cases, there were other options open to the couples and they were in no way forbidden from creating their covenant relationship. At issue, in each case, was the religious freedom of those who hold that G-d alone may define what is marriage. Beyond the religious freedom considerations, a strong body of research suggests that children are best raised by a father and a mother [3.] While the thought may nor be politically correct, the evidence is well-documented. State law is still able to support traditional marriage and may well strengthen the virtues epitomized in eudaimonia by doing so. Courage, moderation and justice would ask: "what is best for our children?"

The First Amendment of the Constitution both prohibits government establishment of a 'state' church and protects citizens in the free exercise of their faith. While it is a good thing to restrict the government's direction of the distribution of an estate (property being an important right), it also follows that the government has no business redefining what for many is a matter of faith (freedom of belief being one of the fundamental rights). Providing protection for a person's directives concerning shared property and hospital visitation priviledges is in keeping with the virtues of courage, moderation and justice. Creating a 'right' for someone to overwrite the tenets of faith with fines and sanctions is the antithesis of them.

THYME Magazine

Citizen Journalism with a Better Flavor


Volume IV, Issue XXXII

Playing 'Chicken' With the 1st Amendment

The 'other' weekly news magazine this week features "Buying the White House." Of course, they are concerned about big Republican money, overlooking of Soros money as they lament the demise, as they see it, of the 'small' donor ($5 - $10).

But the small donor is alive and well. They are the individuals who contribute to groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. They are the ones who show up for Tea Party events and are making their mark in politics, most recently in the Texas primary! They are the ones TIME is casting as irrelivant! They ARE the First Amendment today! They showed up yesterday!

Yesterday's events surrounding Chick-fil-A nationwide were not about Homosexual rights or chicken sandiches so much as about basic Human Rights as expressed in the First Amendment: Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech; and they were about the G-d given duty to be true to one's core convictions.


The crowd at Chick-fil-A in Waynesboro, Virginia.

Core Convictions and the Cost of Conviction

Every Olympic year I dust off that old classic: Chariots of Fire and watch Ian Charleson's beautiful portrayal of 1924 Olympian Eric Liddell. Liddell was the Scottish runner who's convictions about keeping the Sabbath led him to not participate in his best sprint event. He won gold in the 400 meter race and died in occupied China doing missionary work. I mourned when Charleson, who was gay, died of AIDS.

Samuel Truett Cathy is also a man of convictions. A member of the Jonesboro Baptist Church, he has taught Sunday School there fo fifty years. He, like Liddell, has strong convictions concerning the Sabbath. Beginning with his Dwarf Grill, founded in 1946, Cathy began the practice of closing his business on Sundays. At Dwarf Grill, Cathy created a chicken breast sandwich as an alternative to the ubiquitous hamburger. His Sons Dan and Bubba helped out in the grill and Dan eventually became CEO of the Chick-fil-A corporation that grew out of that first venture. Chick-fil-A still closes on Sundays.

Banned in Boston

In an interview with a Baptist news publication, Dan Cathy affirmed the company's support for families and Biblical values. Homosexual activists took Mr.Cathy's comments and created a firestorm, calling for a boycott of the chain. The Mayor of Boston issued a statement that he would bar the chain from opening stores in his city. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also said he would ban the chain.

But Michael Sherer, who writes for the 'other' weekly news magazine reports: "No evidence has been presented to suggest that Chick-fil-A discriminates against gay or lesbian customers or employees. There is nothing to suggest that the company has broken the law in any way. In his comments to the Baptist Press, Cathy did not even mention same-sex marriage. He simply said that he and his company supported traditional marriage. The only issues at play are the personal view of the owner of the restaurant chain and the philanthropic efforts of the private company."

The discussion was no longer about legitimate issues such as legal protection for non-traditional families; it became an effort to destroy a good business. Efforts to hurt Chick-fil-A ignored the chain's actual practice of treating all people with dignity and respect...a courtesy not returned by critics like Roseanne Barr, who directed a string of expletives toward the chain. Former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called for a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on August First. There was an outpouring of popular support for the business. The crowds were friendly and celebrating American liberty.

But we've been dragged here before. Consider the case of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization who own a pavilion in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. Following the Biblical beliefs they hold, they did not allow a same-sex ceremony to be performed in their pavilion. In 2007 they were stripped of their tax-exempt status by Neptune Township for that. In Massachussetts and Illinois, Catholic Adoption Agencies were forced by legislation to either close or offer services to same-sex couples, against their beliefs. They chose to close.

Closing Catholic Charities

The elimination of Religious institutions that provide an important service is tragic, particularly when same-sex couples have other alternatives available. History shows us that these institutions often stepped up to provide services when government couldn't. Consider the flood of immigrants in the Nineteenth Century. Catholic Charities were there first, providing assistance and schools.

A number of Liberal-leaning journalists and the ACLU have come to the defense of Chick-fil-A. Apparently they are well aware of the fundamental liberties at risk in this. Perhaps it is time to put aside all politics of destruction and have an honest discussion about real issues. Same-sex couples DO have legitimate concerns about legal recognition when it comes to hospital visitation, shared property and medical directives. While they should not be able to rashly legislate their views over those with Religious convictions, society must always treat all with the dignity conferred by Imago Dei.


Cars waiting to enter Chick-fil-A in Waynesboro, Virginia.

A Double Standard for Free Speech

In the Politically Correct World, Islam Can Do No Wrong

Mark Steyn [click to read] in Jewish World Review.

"So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for "respect" and "sensitivity" toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it." -- Mark Steyn

Art that Has Class...

Remembering the Cost of Freedom


Xaver Wilhelmy's beautiful glass organ pipes form an American flag.

Lynn at SWAC Girl has been writing about Run for the Fallen, [click to read], a beautiful tribute to some great American heroes. We used to be pretty good at remembering why we enjoyed such freedom as we do. We made movies like The Longest Day [click to read] and the story of Alvin York. The men and women who serve today deserve the same honor.

The War Memorial in Richmond is one place I would recommend anyone visit. Every name is a life worth remembering.

Send a Shirt and Send a Message

A World Without America Would Be Far More Offensive



Tim, of Left Coast Rebel, contacted No Sheeples Here [click to read] via email with a request to make an idea go viral in support of the five kids who were sent home because they chose to wear T-shirts that depicted the American flag. The idea is the brainchild of Chris, the proprietor of My Thoughts on Freedom. I’m supporting the effort and I hope you will too.

If you own a blog, please repost this on your site and invite your readers to send T-shirts to the patriotic kids who stood up for America to let them know that we’ve got their backs.
America is under attack. Our history, our culture and our way of life has been assailed by forces from within to the point that if you celebrate America and what it stands for, you are called a racist, a Nazi or a tea bagger.

The latest assault on America came last week when five high school students in California were sent home for the day because they chose to be patriotic and wore T-shirts depicting the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. This act of patriotism was deemed incendiary by one school official and offensive and disrespectful by students of Mexican descent who claimed that this was their day to celebrate Mexico.

This cannot be tolerated. Even though the school's principal has since apologized, that does not begin to address the issue which is this is America and every day we are a free nation is a cause to celebrate.

To this end, we need to band together to show the anti-America crowd that we will not accept these assaults on free speech and patriotism. We also need to show, not only these five students but, students across the country that they should not be ashamed or fearful of showing their pride in America at any time.Please show your solidarity and send a flag adorned T-shirt or any other representation of the flag to:

Flags for Freedom
c/o Live Oak High School
1505 East Main Ave.
Morgan Hill CA 95037

Let the kids know that America’s got their back. ht/No Sheeples Here

Meanwhile in Art Class...

California Again [click to read]. In this art class drawing the American Flag is 'offensive' but drawing Obama is cause for praise.

Why Free Speech Matters in School

Life's Most Powerful Lessons are Not in Academics


Bradford pear blossoms.

Graduation season will soon be upon us. Valedictorians will be polishing their speeches and hoping to share from their experiences to light the way into the future for their fellow students.

But, just as our new 'green' sensitivity mandates low wattage bulbs in literal lamps, look for low energy light coming from our halls of knowledge. Religious messages, even those given in personal testimony, are not welcome. Nat Hentoff [click to read] in Jewish World Review writes about the story of Brittany McComb, 2006 valedictorian of Foothill High School in Nevada.

She was a student who wanted to testify about G-d's influence in her life. "Brittany had been forewarned. Her high school required a prior draft copy of commencement speeches, and censored all references in hers to her religious faith. She went ahead anyway because, as a student of the First Amendment, she knew she was speaking as an individual — and not on behalf of the state as represented by officials of her public high school."

Her microphone was cut. She was not allowed to finish her speech. She knew her rights and brought suit with the help of John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute in Charlottesville. The Supreme Court refused to hear her case!

"Thomas Jefferson, in his "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1782), emphasized that the government has no authority over the natural rights of conscience: "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

The censored Brittany McComb did not injure anyone, but her public high school unconstitutionally deeply injured her free-speech rights — an injury in which the Supreme Court has become complicit."

Or consider the case of Kathryn Nurre of Henry M. Jackson High School in Snohomish County, state of Washington. It was the tradition of the school to allow the school's seniors in the woodwind ensemble to choose a piece to perform. When they chose to perform Ave Marie the school denied their choice. Their reasoning was that someone might find it "offensive."

If "offensive" is the criteria, why is it allowed for an official of the school to contradict parental values and offer, under the umbrella of school sanction, instruction in sensitive matters that might "offend" me as a parent? Why must I not be offended by the inclusion of "Heather Has Two Mommies" in the school library? Most of us do not find the religious practices of each other offensive. If I am in a Muslim country I expect to take the day off on Friday. I do not want people in an official capacity to prostelytize my children but I am not offended when they as individuals desire to speak.

Ms. Nurre's case was ignored by the Supreme Court as well.

Recently someone challenged me about "corporate greed. Isn't that what has brought down our financial system?" Indeed there is much evidence of CEOs who acted immoraly.

I responded: "You tell kids in school that there is no absolute right or wrong. You tell them in college that there is no right and wrong. You tell them that people who believe in absolute right and wrong are intolerant and deny them a platform to speak from... then these young people rise to positions of leadership in industry... AND GOVERNMENT... and they believe that there is no absolute right and wrong. What do you get? When a person's own self-actualization becomes the sole moral imperative, how WILL they decide in those instances we have always considered 'making the tough choices?' "

I went on to point out that Franklin Raines paid himself 90 million in bonuses at Freddie Mac [supposedly a GOVERNMENT corporation] while it was collapsing. Now we want to solve the problem by putting everything under the control of government.

It won't work. The founding fathers knew that liberty would only work when people were morally grounded. They wisely structured separation to avoid a state church but never intended for religious speech to be snuffed out. Such denial of religious ideas can only lead us down the path that Europe has already trod. The modern European lives in a secular vacuum where government is ever empowered to perform the functions that moral people once performed out of Divine instruction. Nature Abhors a vacuum, however. Witness the modern day 'Siege of Vienna" where Turks presently living in the Austian city may accomplish what two military attempts failed to do. [1.]

Home Schooling [click to read] looks better all the time.

Reinvigorating the Value of Virtue [click to read]. "Dangerous"[2.] Homeschooler Noah Riner's speech to the incoming freshman class at Dartmouth.

The System Failed, Bust the Bloggers

TSA Goes After Two Travel Bloggers

Judith Miller [click to read] talks about the whole debacle surrounding Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab’s almost successful act of terrorism. Seems like TSA went into high gear with new regulations that caught the attention [and subsequent ridicule] of two travel bloggers: Chris Elliott and Steven Frischling. Somehow they got hold of the new regulations before they were supposed to. TSA went after the two journalists:

"Rather than focus its energy and resources on discovering how the 23-year-old Abdulmutallab managed to board an American airliner wearing explosive-laden underwear—endangering nearly 300 other passengers flying from Nigeria or Amsterdam, where the plane stopped before heading for Detroit—the TSA sent three of its agents at night to the journalists’ homes. Elliot and Frischling described them as “polite” but intimidating: they were armed with subpoenas and threats of grave legal consequences if the reporters failed to divulge their source. Under pressure, Frischling handed over his computer, which was returned the next morning, its software corrupted. Elliott called his lawyer and refused to turn over his computer or e-mails. The TSA gave him another two weeks to comply with the subpoena."

Ultimately TSA dropped the matter but the problem remains; the government wants to control the internet. Americans for Prosperity reports on this latest overreach and Makes a Call to Action [click to read] that all of us who cherish the free media need to step up for. Rush Limbaugh refers to the MSM as State Controlled Media.' We don't need the internet reduced to the level of Newsweak.

Hard Days for the First Amendment

Attempts to Chill Free Speech, Local and National:


Every seat was filled as Augusta residents protested the assessment process. Many who came had to sit in the hallway or were turned away. Francis Chester spoke for thousands of county residents as he presented petitions to roll back assessed values.

Don't Challenge County Assessments

Lynn Has More to Say [click to read] about the 'sanctions' the county seeks to impose on Francis Chester. The message they're sending is clear: "Don't mess with us as we assess."

Hard Days for the First Amendment

Attempts to Chill Free Speech, Local and National:


Hundreds of thousands of marchers passed by the First Amendment etched in stone on September 12.

Don't Challenge County Assessments

At least that is the message being sent to attorney Francis Chester, who's attempt to roll back property values to 2005 levels was thrown out of court. Now the county wants to sanction him over the lawsuit. County officials should chill on this one. Residents and businesses faced the possibility of massive tax increases as assessors applied the spiked values of 2006 and largely ignored the subsequent fall of values. Although the rate was reduced there was no guarantee that this would happen. Mr. Chester's challenge was a reasonable exercise of First Amendment rights given the circumstances surrounding the assessment process this time.

Don't Read the Fine Print

HR 3200 was over a thousand pages and yet we were told that it had to be pushed through in record time. There wasn't time to read it. When we did get a chance to read it we were shocked to see the framework for rationing, including illegal aliens and many other problems. When Joe Wilson dared to point out the President's prevarication it was Wilson who was raked over the coals.

'Hate Crimes,' ENDA and the 'Fairness Doctrine'

These all have chilling effect on people exercising their rights. The party in power is the sole determiner of who is 'threatened' by certain ideas, who you might be required to hire even though they disagree with your moral standards and who on the radio needs to be 'balanced out.'

In a letter to the Democrat Base, Bill Clinton asserts: "...the Republican base is energized. Using ultra-conservatives like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin..." Rush always makes the list. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck do most of the time too. The point is that they consider certain voices "dangerous" and will use just about any legal technicality they can to silence them. They've used Limbaugh's statement: "I want everything he's doing to fail" as a stand alone quote, forgetting the fact that he's speaking of the largest expansion of government oversight ever envisioned.

So who's protecting our rights and freedoms? The American Civil Liberties Union claims to. In a letter to their base, the ACLU talks about "restoring our liberties and renewing American freedom." Sounds good, but read on: Their big priorities are as follows:

1. Ending U.S. involvement in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. [apparently they forget the dangers we face from terrorists and the fact that their icon, JFK used it extensively, even considering Dr. Martin Luther King a potential threat].

2. Ending U.S. taxpayer support for "faith-based initiatives" that provide public funding for programs that practice religious discrimination. [problem is Faith based programs are effective, and those in prisons, for example, actually SAVE taxpayer dollars because of their strikingly lower recitivism rates].

3.Bringing the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution.

4. Ending government funding of abstinence-only programs. [why? they are effective and many parents WANT them].

5. Challenging restrictions on same-sex marriage and other forms of discrimination against LGBT people. [most States have voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage and that is what the majority wants, not restrictions on other forms of partnership].

6. Reversing policies that have thrown batrriers and restrictions in the path of women seeking to exercise their reproductive freedom. [that's a mouthful but it simply means ending any restrictions on abortion and making it a 'right'].

Also the letter waxes long about agressively investigating the Bush administration. Nowhere could I find a word about protecting our religious liberties or the freedom of our radio stations to broadcast unfettered by any 'fairness doctrine.' Nowhere did I see a committment to protect pastors' rights to free speech.

The ACLU was founded ninety years ago by Roger Baldwin. He was a socialist thinker who said things like: "America must follow the example of Stalin's Soviet Union where greater freedoms exist than anywhere else in the world". Wow, I never would have known from the history I read! Knowing America would never follow the path to 'social u[dys]topia because of her Judeo-Christian foundations, Baldwin set out to diminish the influence of Christianity in America.

For 80 years the ACLU has twisted the Constitution to exclude Christianity from the public square and the public discourse. That sense of mission is what drives the endless stream of lawsuits against prayer and Christian expression. That is why your kid's 'religious' message is excluded from the poster contest. That's why the school 'Winter Holiday' assembly is devoid of sacred traditional music. Thankfully there is the Alliance Defense Fund [click to read] which was founded to counter this destructive movement.

Her Passion Speaks for Millions

Today on Rush Limbaugh's show a woman named Susan called. Her passion and frustration were evident over a president and Congress who seem determined NOT to hear the voice of the American people. Rush let her talk for ten minutes and then only interrupted her for the required commercial break. Then he brought her back for more. She lamented that there seemed to be nothing she could do.

May I suggest that Susan's ten minutes are what the First Amendment is all about.

A lot of us were listening to our radios and we stopped what we were doing to follow her more closely. She spoke for all of us.

Listen to Susan [click to listen] at RushLimbaugh.com

You Might Be a 'Right Wing Extremist' if...

You're a Veteran, You're Pro-Life, You Oppose Illegal Immigration

That according to a Report Put Out by Janet Napolitano [click to read] that pretty much puts all who disagree with certain policies of the administration on Homeland Security's short list.

Outraged? Here's where to exercise your First Amendment right to Free Speech [while you still can]:

WRITE THE SECRETARY:
Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY COMMENT LINE:
(202) 282-8495

WRITE THE PRESIDENT:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington D.C., 20500

WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD:
(202) 456-1414

The First Amendment Under Fire

Recent Attacks on Basic Rights Suggest Where the Battle Will Take Us

Amendment I

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.

When James Dobson and the American Civil Liberties Union agree that a piece of legislation is dangerous, take note! Such was the case with Senate Bill 1, Section 220 as it was introduced in 2007 after Democrats regained control of Congress. The legislation, basically lobbying reform, strayed from the path when it laid out clear provisions for criminalizing 'grassroots' lobbying. It would have required grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists must do. Substantial penalties were perscribed for non-compliance. The bill was amended January 9th, creating criminal penalties, including prison sentences, for someone who "knowingly and willingly fails to file or report."

The Bill Put Undue Burden on 'Grassroots' Lobbying Efforts while exempting larger entities such as Unions, Corporations and Entities with Large Memberships.

2009 may well see an attempt to reinstate the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' in broadcasting. It was done away with in the 1980's and that led to a whole plethora of programs devoted to discussion of issues. Most notable was the Rush Limbaugh Show, where an alternative viewpoint actually was offered to the so-called 'mainstream media.' The demise of the 'Fairness' Doctrine actually led to more and varied program formats. I was riding in a cab in Seattle when the driver clicked on a rather left-leaning program, obviously an attempt to provide a Limbaugh-like forum for the more liberal perspective. Clearly neither program would have happened under the old 'Fairness' Doctrine. The fact that both exist proves the legislation is unnecessary.

No doubt, the reinstatement of the 'Fairness' Doctrine would push talk shows and their listeners to the internet. An even more chilling effect of this legislation is the very real possibility that Religious stations would be forced to air "opposing views." I'll leave the full scope of what that could mean to your imagination, but the recent ruling reqiuring Christian dating site: E Harmony to provide Gay matchmaking services should serve as some indication. The same judges might decide what "opposing views" should consist of, effectively eliminating Faith-based media. That tramples on two clauses of the First Amendment as I read it.

The protection of basic liberties will require some heroic effort in the days ahead.