courts

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.

Timothy Miller Update

Yesterday I was informed:

As of Friday evening Joanna does not have to appear in court on Thursday May 5th, as she was originally told. She may have to in the future, we just don’t know. She claimed her rights as a spouse. But now they are talking about maybe seeing her in court with charges against her…

Now within the last hour I learned of a site set up to provide information on Timothy Miller and the court action against him.

Here are some excerpts from across the site:

Lisa left the US before the order was issued by the Vermont Court transferring primary custody of Isabella from Lisa her biological mother to Janet Jenkins her former lesbian partner.

And if you were Timo, a pastor who has dedicated his entire life to helping others, and you were faced with a desperate call for help from someone you didn’t know, would you respond?

When Timo received that plea for help, he didn’t know that it could be illegal to assist with arranging travel, as Lisa was the sole legal guardian of her child and there were no travel restrictions. But even if he had, should have he responded differently?

Source: The Timothy Miller Support Network

The site has a page dedicated to facilitating donations to the family and the defense fund.

They also have a subscription link for a GoogleGroup dedicated to providing updates and prayer requests.

Oh, and I doubt the site is official in any sense. (According to Network Solutions, it was created on May 1, so it’s brand new.)

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

Sharia in Florida?

Is this a legitimate use of Islamic law in a US civil court?

Is this anything to be alarmed about?

Is this precedent setting?

The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

“This case,” the judge wrote, “will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.” Read it all

Shed My Beliefs?

Yesterday I read this in a story about the trial of the Woodburn bombers:

When they entered deliberations for the death penalty, jurors knew they had to shed any personal or religious beliefs about possible redemption and follow the judge’s instructions and the legal process that requires answering four questions affirmatively to deliver the death penalty, including the future danger of a defendant.

And there is a secondary reason why I could not serve on a jury.

I do not want “to shed any personal or religious beliefs” — not about possible redemption, not about right and wrong, not about justice, not about returning good for evil.

Has a Tracking Device Been Planted on Your Car?

No, very likely not.

But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the government may do so. All sneaky-like. Legally.

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell.

[…]

Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit’s — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

[…]

Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. “1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last,” he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell’s totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: “Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.”

Source: The Government’s New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS

Now don’t go getting paranoid, OK?

Just live as though somebody were tracking you all the time.

Because Somebody is.

“The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3).

“Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:24).

I am blessed and thankful to realize again that God wants to watch over me for good. I needn’t fear His omniscience; rather, I can be comforted and encouraged by it.

Above all, love God!