Politics | Ain't Complicated

Mangling the First Amendment

Cal Thomas published yesterday,

Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games.

Well, I don’t understand.

Because I thought the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech.

But I can’t see that it says so expressly:

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.

So we’re “stuck” with going by what it actually says.

I still say the modern-day usage of the First Amendment has become mangled, perverted, and distorted.

And inconsistent. For example, how does the government get away with fining broadcasters for using certain language on the air waves? And for another example, how come imaginary hate speech isn’t protected?

Politics.

Humanity.

Imperfection.

Oh well.

I must say, though, that I’m very thankful for the First Amendment.

And I’ll also say that I agree with Mr. Thomas’ closing statements:

In a perfect world, children would listen to, respect, and obey their parents. But this is far from a perfect world and parents could use occasional help from the state in preventing violent culture from undermining what’s in the best interest of the child, and the country. This ruling by the Supreme Court does not achieve that end.

Ultimate Blue-Collar Praise?

In it’s full version, this statement is a dumb-yet-telling (and elitist) proclamation:

the ultimate blue-collar acknowledgment of a job well done

And that would be what, according to a major mainstream magazine?

Were Quayle and Gore as foul-mouthed as the current and previous Vice Presidents?

What makes people use profane and vulgar words?

And why has such speech crept into the hearts and mouths of Christian men and women?

HT on the quote: World Magazine

Did President Obama Say That About Israel?

Some of what President Obama had to say today regarding Israel is extremely alarming (though hardly surprising) to me.

But my quibble in this post is with what is being reported about part of what he said.

Did he really call for “Israel’s return to pre-1967 borders” as the headline states above?

I didn’t listen to the speech, so I’ll stick my neck out and quote the President from the story headlined above:

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

That seems to me to say something different than what the headline says.

What say you?

Muslim Democracy and Christianity?

More Christians have been fleeing Iraq in recent months than ever before.

Carl Moeller with Open Doors USA says extremists are calling for the complete extermination of believers in the country.

“We’ve been calling this a ‘religicide’–which is the systematic destruction and elimination of a religious group simply for being that religious group. And we see this now unfolding in a very shocking way,” says Moeller.

The number of Christians in Iraq has dropped dramatically in the last few decades, dropping from 850,000 believers in 1991, to 550,000 believers in 2003, to 345,000 believers in early 2010. Now perhaps less than 250,000 Christians call Iraq home, a number which includes those who have been permanently displaced from their homes.

[…]

At the current rate of the exodus, Iraq will not have any Christians left in three years, according to an Open Doors’ field worker. Read it all

Homosexual Rights Trump Religious Rights

I know this is from the United Kingdom, but still….

In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK. The Judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be ‘inimical’ to children, and they implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.

Today’s ruling relates to the dispute between married couple Eunice and Owen Johns and Derby City Council. The Johns applied to the Council in 2007 to foster a child but the Council blocked their application because they objected that the Johns were not willing to promote the practise of homosexuality to a young child. In November 2010 both parties jointly asked the Court to rule on whether the Johns were able to foster children, or whether they could be excluded from doing so under equality law because of their Christian beliefs.

Today (28th February) that judgment has been released. The judges declined to make the statement that the Johns, wanting to re-establish their fostering application, had sought. Instead, the judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience and leaves the Johns currently unable to foster a child as desired, despite their proven track record as foster parents. There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practise of homosexuality to small children.

Source: High Court Judgment suggests Christian beliefs harmful to children. Fostering by Christians now in doubt.

And here’s a March 4 update: Johns Fostering Case: Effects of the Ruling and Further Analysis

Egypt: Fasting and Prayer

While many fear the Muslim brotherhood could hijack Egypt’s revolution, one organization says there’s a spirit of hope for Christians in that predominately-Muslim nation.

President of IN Network USA Rody Rodeheaver says, “There is a rejoicing. I think there is a genuine joy on their part that [President] Mubarak has stepped down and that there is some hope for change and maybe some real freedom and a voice in the country.”

[…]

Rodeheaver says Christians have set aside the next three days for fasting and prayer “that the revisions of the constitution will not shut out the Christians.”

[…]

Rodeheaver also says Christians are reaching out to help Egyptians adversely affected by the poor economy caused by the riots. “They used to be poor, and now they’re extremely poor and quite destitute. So our staff is reaching out to these people and trying to provide groceries.”

Source: Egypt: a window for the Gospel

California SB 48: Excluding Mennonites

This bill would require instruction in social sciences to also include a study of the role and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and other ethnic and cultural groups, to the development of California and the United States.

Why aren’t Mennonites in the new list? 😯 😆

Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of any school district from adopting textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.

This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in these provisions to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and sexual orientation, or other characteristic listed as specified.

Source: SB 48 Senate Bill – INTRODUCED

How about slipping in political orientation somewhere just for the generosity and multi-something-or-other of it? 🙄

And that is my news update for you.