Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

A CAMPUS FREE SPEECH ACT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED

George Leef writes in National Review Online:

I wrote last week about the importance of the model bill drafted by the Goldwater Institute — the Campus Free Speech Act. In my latest Forbes article, I elaborate on the problem and why state legislators must take action.

Free speech is far too important to leave to the campus crowd of administrators, faculty, and zealous students who are little inclined to stand up for free speech. Mostly, anti-speech views rule — that is to say, speech is tolerated only if it aligns perfectly with “progressive” ideology. Since campus officials have shown that they cannot be entrusted with the crucial task of justifying and defending free speech, it’s time for state lawmakers to step in. Sure, the academic elite will howl that such legislation interferes in “their” domain, but public colleges and universities are not theirs to run.

Let us hope that legislators who want to restore the First Amendment and its values on our campuses introduce the model bill in each state. It certainly won’t pass everywhere, but the debate will be enlightening.

** Update:  Lt. Gov. Dan Forest of North CArolina issued a news release 2/7/16:

Lt. Governor Dan Forest to Push for Campus Free Speech

Raleigh, NC – Lt. Governor Dan Forest today announced his intention to work with members of the General Assembly to pass the “Restore Campus Free Speech Act”.  Recently, in spectacles that have been broadcast around the nation, speakers at college campuses are being denied their first amendment rights to freedom of speech.  This proposed legislation would ensure the First Amendment right of freedom of speech is upheld on North Carolina public university campuses.

QUICK TAKES

-- Good idea of the day - relocate a number of federal bureaucracies out of D.C. and to the Midwest

-- Free speech is not a Dutch value: Geert Wilders convicted of hate speech.   Charlie Cooke: "Cherish the First Amendment, Americans.  It's exceptional."

-- French government votes to criminalize prolife websites

-- A major reason for Trump's victory - the progressives went too far in denying religious liberty and created a backlash.

KIRSTEN POWERS: HOW LIBERALS RUINED COLLEGE

Powers writes in The Daily Beast:  (HT: mh)

The root of nearly every free-speech infringement on campuses across the country is that someone—almost always a liberal—has been offended or has sniffed out a potential offense in the making. Then, the silencing campaign begins. The offender must be punished, not just for justice’s sake, but also to send the message to anyone else on campus that should he or she stray off the leftist script, they too might find themselves investigated, harassed, ostracized, or even expelled. If the illiberal left can preemptively silence opposing speakers or opposing groups— such as getting a speech or event canceled, or denying campus recognition for a group—even better.

Read the whole article.  I assume it serves as a good introduction to her new book The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.

FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA CHAMPIONED BY MEGYN KELLY, ALAN DERSHOWITZ, RICH LOWRY

Great commentaries - 

 

DERSHOWITZ: Everything that the critics of what Geller has said could be said about Martin Luther King. Now, I don’t want to make any comparisons between the two of them morally or legally. But from a Constitutional law point of view, there’s no difference. Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely in order to provoke and bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. It’s part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see.  [Not my bolding]

IS MATT DRUDGE'S INFLUENCE SECOND ONLY TO THAT OF THE PRESIDENT?

Brent Budowsky, a columnist for "The Hill," says the Drudge Report "determines the content of debate in our national discourse on an hourly basis."  I  agree.  I read the Drudge Report several times a day, as do millions of others.  If you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, it seems to me he gets a substantial percentage of his topics from the Drudge Report.  But so do liberal outlets.  Budowsky writes:

While as a liberal, I do not suggest the following with a great deal of pleasure, but Matt Drudge is by far the single most influential person in the American media, and it is fair to ask: Is he the second most influential man in America?

For more than any individual in the media, Drudge dominates his competitors to the degree that he has no competitors, and determines what you watch on television, what you read in newspapers, what you hear and radio, and even what you read on the Internet about politics more than any single person in American history.

MSNBC may claim it is liberal and Fox News may be the house organ for conservatives, but if you turn on either in the morning, you will often see the guiding hand of Drudge. The New York Times may consider itself the finest newspaper in the world, but while one of the Times' political reporters is reduced to writing ditties complaining that Hillary Clinton does not answer her questions, one entry on the Drudge Report can trigger 100 questions to any politician in America. Network anchors come and go, but Drudge remains, the omnipresent force who is required reading for political editors, television producers and campaign managers from all parties.

RIGHTEOUS HATRED AGAINST JIHAD SAVAGERY

David French writes passionately and persuasively:

The New York Times has peered into Pamela Geller’s heart — and found it full of hate. I’ll let others make the argument that it’s unseemly to so viciously attack the victim of an attempted murder just three days after the attack — to accuse her of intentionally provoking the attempt on her own life and the lives of her friends and supporters, no less. And Rich Lowry has offered a convincing argument that Geller was motivated not by hate, but rather “defiance.” Let me instead offer a defense of hatred. 

But first, a confession. I’m far more hateful than Pamela Geller. In fact, I’d argue there’s no way that she could hate jihad more than I do. I’ve seen jihad up-close, in an Iraqi province where jihadists raped women to shame them into becoming suicide bombers, where they put bombs in little boys’ backpacks then remotely detonated them at family gatherings, where they beheaded innocent civilians while cheering wildly like they were at a soccer match, and where they shot babies in the face to “send a message” to their parents. I’ve seen the despair in the eyes of the innocent victims of jihad, and — believe me — that despair is infinitely greater than the alleged “anguish” caused by a few cartoons. 

ISLAM AND FREE SPEECH

THOUSANDS STAND WITH PASTORS TARGETED BY HOUSTON MAYOR

 

Paul Strand of CBN News reports:

Thousands gathered in a Houston church Sunday evening and many more watched online to defend the right of pastors to be free of government intimidation.

The gathering came after Houston Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian, and fellow officials subpoenaed the sermons of five pastors.

Host Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, told the crowd at Houston's Grace Community Church that more than 700 churches and 3,000 home groups had signed up to take part in the "I Stand Sunday" event via the webcast.

"I stand here today with you that I may speak, preach and teach on the issues that deal with society, the issues that the Bible speaks about," Pastor Hernan Castano of Iglesia Rios de Aceite, one of the "Houston Five" -- as the pastors have become known -- said.

Mayor Parker became upset with church-organized opposition to a pro-gay, pro-transgender city ordinance. In a legal move, she had called for local pastors' sermons to be subpoenaed.

Erik Stanley, a senior legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, has been representing the pastors.

"These subpoenas are just one front in a rapidly developing conflict. And the philosophy underlying this conflict is that sexual liberty trumps everything, including religious liberty," Stanley said.

BRITAIN'S LOST FREEDOMS

Dale Hurd reports for CBN News:

 

LONDON - America owes much of its freedom to its British heritage. But today, Britain is losing its freedom.

Many Americans were stunned when British authorities arrested Liberty Great Britain party leader Paul Weston in April for publicly reciting Winston Churchill's criticism of Islam.

The calendar might say it's 2014, but in Britain it's starting to feel like George Orwell's "1984" because "Big Brother" has decided that certain things can no longer be said. 

Arrested over Churchill

Weston quoted from Winston Churchill's book, The River War, in which he wrote:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

As a young officer, Churchill fought Muslim jihadists in Sudan and believed Islam was a dangerous religion.

Weston chose to publicly quote Churchill because he thought that in today's politically correct Britain, comparing Islam to rabies--as Churchill did--would likely get him reported to police and arrested.

It did.

"I wanted to make the point that, if it's really become so bad in this country that you can no longer quote the words of the greatest living Englishman, then we really need to look seriously at what we can still say in this country," Weston said.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DENIED IN THE WEST

 

Dale Hurd reports for CBN News:

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- America is facing a new fascism that does not tolerate any views it doesn't like -- where "wrong" speech is being hounded, demonized and shouted down.

The head of Mozilla, maker of Firefox web browser, was forced to step down because he gave money to a campaign several years ago that was against gay marriage.

Brandeis University recently withdrew an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an internationally acclaimed champion of women's rights and a victim of female genital mutilation and forced marriage, because her opposition to Islam was deemed offensive.

Across the Water

If you want a glimpse into how bad it could become in the future, Americans need not look any further than across the Atlantic to Western Europe.

Transplant American conservative values of 'God, country and traditional family' in Western Europe and, more likely than not, you'd be branded "extreme right," "anti-woman," "homophobic," and even "Nazi." 

If you're against radical Islam or immigration, you can be labelled a racist. Wave your nation's flag too much and you're a fascist.

And should you be brave enough to demonstrate publicly for a conservative cause or run for office on conservative principles, you could be physically attacked or, in Sweden, your home might be wrecked.

IS THIS AMERICA?

The Supreme Court considers a Massachusetts law against speech outside abortion clinics.

Charles C. W. Cooke reports:

This morning, in America’s frigid and fractious capital city, a soft-spoken 77-year-old grandmother named Eleanor McCullen stood up to the machine.

At stake was a Massachusetts law that makes it illegal for any citizen to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of the entrance or exit to an abortion clinic — unless, that is, that citizen either works in the clinic or is in agreement with what goes on inside. This has severely restricted the ability of McCullen, a regular fixture outside the Planned Parenthoods of Boston, to hand out anti-abortion literature and to offer would-be patients financial support — both of which she has been doing pro bono for decades. The state law, she contends, is flatly illegal, violating her sacred right to free speech, depriving her of equal protection under the law, and effectively establishing speech codes on public land.

Apologists for the measure claim rather anemically that the law is necessary to prevent “harassment,” and they promise that it strikes a reasonable “balance” between respect for free expression and the need to protect visitors from being hassled. McCullen and her lawyers disagree, holding that because the law’s applicability is contingent not on one’s behavior but on one’s speech per se, it is unconstitutional. They are right.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Undermines Freedom By Banning Sexual Orientation Therapy

When I heard the news, my first reaction was "Christie doesn't know the facts and is a victim of homosexual activist propaganda."  The Family Research Council comments:

Family Research Council (FRC) today voiced disappointment with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's decision to sign into law Assembly Bill 3371, which forbids licensed professional counselors in the state to "engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age."

A similar bill in California has been put on hold by the federal courts after its constitutionality was challenged in two lawsuits (now pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). U. S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb, in the case of Welch v. Brown, declared that "because it appears that [California's] SB 1172 is content-and viewpoint-based and unlikely to withstand strict scrutiny, plaintiffs have established that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that SB 1172 violates their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment."

Family Research Council's Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg made the following remarks:

"The New Jersey bill strips away a core ethical principle of the counseling profession-the right of the client to set his or her own goals for therapy. Under this bill, even if a young person, the person's parents, and the therapist all agree on the goal of seeking a change in sexual orientation, the iron hand of the state will forbid it. This law tramples on the rights of minors, parents, and therapists alike.

"Gov. Christie has accepted a distorted view of what the research shows. There is abundant evidence that therapy can be effective in helping some people to achieve a personal goal of changing their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The claims of harm resulting from such therapy are, on the other hand, almost entirely anecdotal. And any weighing of risks and rewards must include consideration of the risks associated with homosexual conduct itself, such as high rates of depression and anxiety; high rates of tobacco, alcohol and substance use; a higher prevalence of certain cancers; and among men, high rates of sexually transmitted diseases."

Connie Mackey, President of FRCAction PAC, made the following comments on the political implications of the governor's decision:

"Governor Christie's poorly informed decision not only undermines the rights of minors, parents and therapists but I predict that it will also ultimately undermine any of his national political ambitions.   

"Values voters are looking for candidates who will lead the way to preserve the right to live out one's faith.  Unfortunately, Governor Christie has decided to join with those seeking to restrict the free speech rights of those deemed to hold politically incorrect views. His endorsement of this shocking invasion into the privacy of the relationship between therapist and client should cost him the support of libertarians as well," concluded Mackey.

MEDIA AND POLITICAL ELITE WILL SOON CALL ANY OPPOSITON TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE "HATE SPEECH"

I find it scary and a portent of a very dark future when a formerly fairly civil, level-headed Democrat  characterizes anyone employing Biblical arguments against same-sex marriage in public as "shameful" and "obscene."  At least that's how I interpret Erick Mataxes' report of Lanny Davis' views.  Read on:

Listen Now | Download A few years ago, Lanny Davis, former strategist for Bill Clinton, called on members of Congress to sign a civility pledge. “I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior,” the pledge read. “I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them. I will stand against incivility when I see it.” Well, I have to wonder whether Davis signed the pledge himself, because just a few days ago he wrote some deeply uncivil things in his column, titled “Purple Nation,” about people who don't share his opinion about same-sex “marriage.” Davis was responding to a letter by N. Michael Nunn, a member of the Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. Nunn wrote that for the Temple to officiate over unions of homosexual couples and call such relationships “sanctified” “is unacceptable to a sound mind.” “Homosexuality,” Nunn added, “is explicitly condemned in Scripture.” It “has been categorically and passionately rejected by all classical Jewish legal and ethical thinkers as a cardinal vice in the same category as incest, murder and idolatry.” Nunn addressed this letter to fellow Jews who oppose allowing same-sex “marriage” ceremonies to take place in their Temple. Well, in his column, Davis called these comments “shameful” and “obscene.” He even compared Nunn's words to the writings of the fanatic Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini! That in itself is out of bounds, because Nunn and many of his fellow congregants are Persian Jews, some of whom may have been persecuted by the Khomeini regime. It's worth noting Davis did not respond to Nunn's assertion that Scripture condemns homosexuality—because the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, DOES condemn homosexual behavior, along with a host of other sexual behaviors. And Davis surely knows this.

MILITARY CENSORS CHRISTIAN CHAPLAIN, ATHEISTS CALL FOR PUNISHMENT

See what you think of the following news report.  If it doesn't make you angry, you don't have an appropriate appreciation for  the role of chaplains in the U.S. military or the free speech protections afforded by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  What is particularly galling is the collusion between the Defense Department and President Obama in kowtowing to militant atheist groups.   Can anyone imagine Ronald Reagan kowtowing to atheists?   Ken Klukowski writes:  (HT: Drudge)

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.

CHINESE REFUGEE CHEN GUANGCHENG AND SPINELESS NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

From the editors at the National Review:

Not since the Olsen twins had something so big hit New York University. In May of last year, Chen Guangcheng arrived there from China. Now he is being asked to leave, and the question is, “Why?” Is it merely because his fellowship has expired? Or is he being forced out, because the university wishes to please Beijing?

Chen, recall, is the “blind peasant lawyer” who is one of the bravest people in the world. He blew the whistle on China’s forced abortions and sterilizations. He endured four and a half years in prison, being subjected to the usual horrors the state visits upon its political prisoners. Then there was a year and a half of house arrest, which included equal horrors. Last year, Chen and his wife, Yuan Weijing, escaped to the U.S. embassy. After about a month of negotiations, they were allowed to fly to America.

Chen’s main patron was Jerome A. Cohen, a veteran China scholar and law professor at NYU. The university was undoubtedly good to take Chen in. At the same time, the university got something out of the deal too: A genuine world hero was in its midst. Now there has been a bitter split.

GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS BULLY TEBOW, CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

Todd Starnes writes:

Gay rights activists are demanding Tim Tebow back out of a speaking engagement at Liberty University just two weeks after pressuring the New York Jets quarterback to cancel a speaking engagement at the First Baptist Church of Dallas.

Tebow is expected to speak this weekend at Wildfire – a men’s conference hosted by the conservative Christian university. His remarks will be closed to the general public.

The professional football player is well-known for sharing his faith in Christ – but in recent weeks he’s come under fire from the national media and gay rights activists for speaking in churches that follow biblical teaching.

Huffington Post called Liberty a “notoriously conservative private college with an anti-gay reputation.” And more than 10,000 people have signed a petition launched by Faithful America calling on the quarterback to cancel his speech.

“Liberty University isn’t just another conservative Christian college,” the group stated. “It’s ground-zero for a global assault on the legal rights of gays and lesbians – and a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the religious right.

A Liberty University spokesman refused to comment.

Faithful America said Tebow would give his “Christian faith a bad name” by speaking at the university founded by the late Jerry Falwell.  [more]

Does anybody besides me find this outrageous?  As one commentor questioned, where is the petition to counter the gay activists' petition?

CAN WE STILL PRAY AT GOVERNMENT MEETINGS?

From the Family Research Center (FRC):  [I have highlighted in bold print certain sentences to help introduce the subject under discussion}

On January 7, the director of FRC's Center for Religious Liberty, Ken Klukowski, filed a compelling brief with the U.S. Supreme Court concerning efforts to prevent prayer at the beginning of government meetings (whether they be municipal, county, state, or federal).

Signed by 49 Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the document makes a convincing argument that prayers before government meetings are constitutional and a matter of religious liberty for all Americans. You can read the brief in its entirety here.

FRC filed the brief on behalf of the Members to support the Alliance Defending Freedom's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Town of Greece v. Galloway. In Galloway, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the use of public prayer before town meetings in the town of Greece, New York was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

The Second Circuit Court maintained that a prayer is unconstitutional if it contains frequent Christian references or if those saying the prayer say "we" when offering it. Also, the Second Circuit Court ruled that government-meeting prayers are unconstitutional if too few prayers in a given venue are offered by non-Christians. Ironically, this was despite the town of Greece's highly inclusive policy that allowed even practicing Wiccans and atheists to offer civic prayers.

In the brief, Klukowski argues:

Since its creation, the United States House of Representatives has begun its daily sessions with prayer. Both chambers of the First Congress passed resolutions to hire a salaried chaplain, whose foremost duty is to open each session with a formal invocation seeking the blessing of God on the people's elected Representatives as those leaders discharge their official duties ... These (congressional signatories) regard legislative prayer as important for policymaking bodies, both to solemnize official occasions and to seek God's blessing, wisdom, and guidance in making consequential decisions. Each Member also represents municipalities, school districts, and counties--not unlike Petitioner Town of Greece--and part of a sovereign State, each of which is governed by a body that practices legislative prayer at the outset of its meetings and sessions.

FRC President Tony Perkins, noting the importance of the case, said:

The Founders understood that religion is good for society, and defended "the free exercise thereof." Family Research Council is honored that 49 Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have chosen FRC to present their arguments to the nation's highest Court. We hope the Supreme Court will reject the freedom-threatening Second Circuit opinion in this case, and reverse it.

FRC's friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom have compiled a list of all relevant briefs, including FRC's and that of a group of distinguished theologians.

As we go forward advancing our cherished religious liberty in this effort, we ask for your prayers, both for wisdom for us and for a sound outcome from the nation's senior jurists.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice-President
Family Research Council

PASTOR RICK WARREN - RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WILL BE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE OF THE NEXT DECADE

Warren is absolutely right.  He plans a national congress on religious liberty in June.  Read more about it here (plus video).

GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY ATTACKS FREE SPEECH

From the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

Dr. Angela McCaskill.    You may not know her name but you should. She is the first black deaf woman to be granted a PhD by Gallaudet University, a national university for deaf people.

Until a few days ago, she was Gallaudet's chief diversity officer.

You can see her discussing her job here:

But then someone complained about Dr. McCaskill.

Was it about her job performance? Did she make a mistake? Fail in a key duty? Treat someone wrongly?

No. The complaint against Dr. Angela McCaskill consists of one fact and one fact alone: she exercised her core civil rights by signing a petition to put the question of marriage on the ballot for the voters of Maryland.

That's it. But that in itself was enough for Gallaudet to relieve Dr. McCaskill of her responsibilities and to place her on paid leave while they "investigate" her!

This is a very sad day in America. African-American Christians, it seems to me, are paying a disproportionate price for exercising these core civil rights to speak, to vote, to donate and to organize on behalf of marriage and traditional views on sexuality. Consider these examples:

Crystal Dixon, an administrator at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing a letter (as a private citizen) to the editor of the Toledo Free Press. The letter respectfully opposed the notion of gay rights and explained God's plan for human beings. Activists later tried to keep a city from hiring her.

In New Jersey, a special education teacher, Viki Knox, wrote a message on her personal Facebook page criticizing the school's promotion of a "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month." Activist groups and others have demanded that she be fired, and have planned protests targeting her. The lawyer who began the attack on Knox said: "Hateful public comments from a teacher cannot be tolerated. She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it."

This week The Star-Ledger reports that, under ongoing pressure and threats not only to her job but to her pension, Viki Knox has chosen to resign!

And in Michigan, Julea Ward, a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University, was dismissed from that school's counseling program after asking for permission to refer a client to another counselor because she was uncomfortable affirming that client's same-sex relationship.

But there's something especially chilling in this most recent case regarding the treatment of Dr. McCaskill, who simply exercised her civil right to sign a petition in favor of putting a certain question before her state's voters.

It would be shocking to the conscience if this happened anywhere. But here's another thing you may not know about Gallaudet: it's not a private university! It's a Congressionally chartered corporation, with a legal obligation to report each year to the Secretary of Education, who must approve any transfer or sale of real property owned by the university. Traditionally, the diplomas at Gallaudet are even signed by the President of the United States.

I hope Gallaudet University does the right thing. If not, I hope the President of the United States will make it clear that this injustice must stop. As a final failsafe, I hope Congress recognizes its responsibility to affirm how this behavior is unacceptable in a government-affiliated institution.

Let me make it clear that there is a principle at stake here as important as marriage itself: No American, whether he or she is for or against gay marriage, should be afraid to vote, to sign petitions, to donate or to speak—with civility of course!—in support of that position.

Even Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign manager, Josh Levin, says that Angela McCaskill "should be reinstated immediately."

I thank Mr. Levin for that, and I hope and pray that he's doing that out of conviction and not just because he knows that this story is a real problem for his goal of getting voters to approve gay marriage in Maryland—the record of gay rights activists is not very good in this regard.

Please join me in praying for Dr. McCaskill, and praying that justice be done in her case.

In addition (10/13/12), the Family Research Council makes the point:

As Americans wrestle over this debate in four states, Dr. McCaskill is the perfect illustration of what's at stake. It's not love. It's not commitment. It's not even equality. The battle for marriage is about our most basic civil rights--rights to worship, to speak freely, to cast our ballots, even, in Dr. McCaskill's case, to pursue a livelihood. As Derek McCoy, head of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, pointed out, "If these attacks can be made before same-sex 'marriage' is law, how can homosexual activists in good faith say that religious liberties will not be attacked it Question 6 passes?" If Gallaudet is willing to harass its own educational pioneers, there is no limit to the persecution everyday Marylanders will face if marriage is redefined.

WEASEL ZIPPERS - BEST SITE FOR NEWS POSTS ALL DAY LONG

If I had the time, I would probably put up a dozen blog post links (out of 3 dozen or more!) that Weasel Zippers puts up throughout the day.  If you scan the Weasel Zippers headlines and short squibs you will know a thousand per cent more than you would relying on newspapers or TV (including Fox News).  Sample posts in the last few hours:

France’s Socialist Government To Ban Words “Mother” And “Father” From All Official Documents Thanks To Gay Marriage Law…

A glimpse into our “progressive” future should we choose to go down it.

Via Telegraph:

France is set to ban the words “mother” and “father” from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word “parents” would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.

The draft law states that “marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender”.

It says all references to “mothers and fathers” in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply “parents”.

The law would also give equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told France’s Catholic newspaper La Croix: “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring a child up better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?”

Keep reading…

Note: Legalizing gay marriage and adoption was one of the first laws France’s socialist government passed after they were elected in May.

 

OIC Demands West Enact Laws Outlawing “Islamophobia”…

Silence infidels!

(Reuters) – The world’s largest Islamic body called on Tuesday for expressions of “Islamophobia” to be curbed by law, just as some countries restrict anti-Semitic speech or Holocaust denial.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the 56 countries that form the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), condemned a video made in the United States that defamed Islam and the Prophet Mohammad, igniting Muslim protests around the world this month.

“Incidents like this clearly demonstrate the urgent need on the part of states to introduce adequate protection against acts of hate crimes, hate speech, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation and negative stereotyping of religions, and incitement to religious hatred, as well as denigration of venerated personalities,” Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said in a speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The Obama administration has condemned the film entitled “Innocence of Muslims” as “disgusting”. But Western countries remain determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and have already voiced disquiet about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.

Akram said the crudely made video, as well as the burning of the Koran and the publication of defamatory cartoons, amount to “deliberate attempts to discriminate, defame, denigrate and vilify Muslims and their beliefs”.

Such acts constitute “flagrant incitement to violence” and are not protected by freedom of expression, Akram said. Rather, he said, Islamophobia must be acknowledged as a contemporary form of racism and be dealt with as such.

“Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism, especially in legislations.”

Other posts:

Breakdown Of Obama’s U.N. Speech: 5 Minutes Spent Talking About Mohammed Film, Only 1 1/2 Minutes On Iran…

Good News: 60% Of U.S. Firms To Kill Health Insurance Or Charge Employees More Under Obamacare…

Islamic Battle Flag Makes Its Way From Cairo To NYC Muslim Day Parade…

NY Democrat Attends Muslim Parade In Manhattan, Shocked To Hear Anti-Semitic Rhetoric From Speakers…

Afghan: 16-Year-Old Girl Whipped 100 Times On Orders Of Muslim Cleric…

Senior Jihadi Writer Calls For Beheading Westerners, Putting Their Decapitated Heads On Display To Silence Attempts To Mock Mohammed…

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Bill Muehlenberg quoting Mark Steyn:

"If it’s a choice between an unlovely citizenry with all its flaws or an overbearing state policing their opinions, I know which is the lesser evil."

Quick Takes

George Will - Democrats have no respect for the Bill of Rights. 

South Korean customs officials discover thousands of pills filled with powdered human baby flesh

Southern Poverty Law Center refuses to investigate the Left

Eric Metaxas - Christian outreach to  Elites can change history

WILL OBAMA STAND UP TO CHINA ON BEHALF OF CHEN?

President Obama gloats over killing Osama bin Ladin.  Now comes a real test.  Will he stand up to China on behalf of blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng?  He wants to meet with Secretary Hillary Clinton who is now in China.  The Financial Times reports:  (HT: Drudge)

The fate of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng was injected into the US presidential election on Thursday after Republican challenger Mitt Romney described the incident as “a day of shame for the Obama administration”.

Mr Romney joined a series of Republican lawmakers who piled criticism on the Obama administration after an agreement to allow Mr Chen to remain in the country appeared to collapse.

The Obama administration was forced into damage limitation after Mr Chen said he had changed his mind and now wanted to leave China, one day after the state department announced a deal with the Chinese authorities to allow him to reunite with his family and attend law school.

In a telephone interview with the FT, Mr Chen said that he wanted to leave on the same aircraft as Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, who is in Beijing for an annual economic and security summit.

Mr Chen, a 40-year-old self-taught lawyer, took refuge in the US embassy last week after making a dramatic escape from house arrest in a rural area 300 miles from the capital.

Mr Romney said that it appeared US officials had “sped up” Mr Chen’s departure from the US embassy in Beijing because of the summit meeting being attended by Mrs Clinton and had not put in place measures to assure Mr Chen’s safety once he left the embassy.

“If these reports are true, this is a dark day for freedom,” he said.  . . . 

The administration also came under intense criticism from Republican lawmakers and some human rights groups at a specially called congressional hearing on the case. Christopher Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey, said that the administration had “dropped the ball significantly” and that it would be “scandalous” if the US did not do everything it could to protect Mr Chen.

Bob Fu, who runs ChinaAid, a Texas-based Christian group that has worked extensively on human rights issues, added to the pressure on the administration. “Secretary Clinton, this is the moment to deliver on what you promised over the last few years,” he told the hearing. . . . [more...]

Me:  Now, it seems to me, is a test of the importance President Obama places on freedom and human rights.    Is anyone brimming with confidence?

FREE SPEECH FOR EX-GAYS IN LONDON DENIED

Juliann Mann writes:

The Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson has just banned this statement from London buses: "Not gay. Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it."

Such censorship of these advertisements, responding to the earlier "Some people are gay. Get over it." campaign by the highly politically influential homosexualist lobby group Stonewall, is disturbing enough. But the reasons Mr Johnson has given for the ban in the UK capital city are even more alarming.

His latest rationale frighteningly exposes the dry-rot in the edifice of democratic freedom.

SO MUCH FOR FREE SPEECH

Leftists can be relied on to try to silence opponents.  They're not interested in dialog or debate.  Kevin Holtsberry says:

I have worked in or around the Ohio Statehouse for a decade or more.  I have seen a great many protests, counter-protests and events involving all kinds of issues and groups.  But when I stopped by the Statehouse today to check out the Values Bus Tour event put on by Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council I experienced something I don’t believe I had ever witnessed.  A counter-protest effectively shutting down an event.

Holtsberry continues:

As you can see in the video above, a small group of what appeared to be pro-abortion and gay/lesbian protestors had gathered with signs to protest the values groups.  And this is to be expected, and would have been largely uneventful, except for one thing: a couple of the protesters had bullhorns equipped with sirens.  They used these to emit an earsplitting noise that made hearing the speakers nearly impossible and mere rational thought challenging. In person it was much louder and headache inducing than in the video if you can believe it

The video does capture the anger and vitriol of the left quite well in my opinion. But it also points out the hypocrisy of the left. They so often pretend to defend free speech, dialog, tolerance, elevated discourse and a host of other virtues and freedoms. But here is a group hosting an event focused on getting people registered to vote, educating them on the issues and getting them engaged in the political process. Whether you agree with their policies or politics this is democracy, right? This is about free speech and public engagement on the issues that matter to our country.

So what does this group of angry leftists do? Instead of providing an alternative point of view for those attending the event, or even protesting the event from the sidewalk, they basically use sirens and shouts to prevent the speakers from being heard. They were clearly attempting to silence an opposing viewpoint. They were not interested in debate or discussion but loudly and angrily demanding that these peaceful folks leave the state; screeching that these views were not to be tolerated but shouted down and silenced.

We have entered an Orwellian world where views on issues from spending and deficits to abortion and marriage – views held by large swaths of the American electorate – are not opposing viewpoints or different perspectives to be debated and/or refuted but “hate speech” that must be silenced and kept from even having an audience.

Keep this in mind next time the left tries to claim the moral high ground on free speech and tolerance.

INSIDE N. KOREA'S PRISONS: MOMS KILL CHILDREN TO SURVIVE

From today's 700 Club:

SEOUL- South Korea -- Meet a woman who has witnessed unspeakable evil and lived to tell about it.

For 28 years, Kim Hye Sook languished as a prisoner inside North Korea's oldest concentration camp. She saw daily executions, mass starvation, and mothers killing their children to survive. 

Kim granted CBN News the first American television news interview. We must warn you that the images and content of this report are not suitable for children. 

 

Languishing in Prison

Kim is perhaps the longest serving prisoner ever to escape from North Korea.

"I went to the prison camp when I was only 13 years old and I got out when I was 41," she said.

THURSDAY IN CUBA - WIVES AND SUPPORTERS OF CUBAN POLITICAL PRISONERS ATTACKED

Jay Nordlinger posts:

The Ladies in White, as you know, are the family members and friends of Cuban political prisoners. Dressed in white, they walk quietly and peacefully through the streets, hold vigils, and so on. Needless to say, they have been the targets of vicious attacks, by state security and the mobs they work up. The Cuban dictatorship is terrified of these women. Otherwise, they would not be so intent on beating them. A totalitarian dictatorship countenances no opposition whatsoever.

This was Thursday:

In the streets of Neptuno and Hospital, at around 4:30 P.M., mobs instigated by the Cuban regime brutally attacked a group of almost fifty pro democracy women dressed in white as they were about to march through the streets of Havana to advocate on behalf of Cuban political prisoners and the freedom of all Cubans. As the “Ladies in White” set off from the house of Laura Pollan located at Calle Neptuno No. 963 between Aranburen and Hospital, following their monthly “Literary Tea”, they were dragged, beaten, kicked, spit upon, scratched, pushed, and had their hair pulled as well as their clothes ripped off by paramilitary mobs. The violence forced them back inside the home they consider their headquarters.

To read this report in full, go here.

WILDERS ACQUITED OF HATE SPEECH AGAINST MUSLIMS

This is good news!  Free speech, at least for now, still reigns in the Netherlands.  It was a close call.  Pamela Geller reports:

The judges in the Court of Amsterdam delivered their verdict Thursday morning in the heresy trial of Dutch Freedom Party politician Geert Wilders. Wilders has been found not guilty of all charges of inciting hatred against Muslims. The judge, Marcel van Oosten, and the other Dutch authorities ended up doing the right thing, no matter how cowardly and compromised they may have been. They must have known how history would view them if Wilders had been found guilty: as troglodytes who ushered in the return of the Dark Ages.

When do the Islamic supremacists go on trial for inciting hatred against non-Muslims?

“I am delighted with this ruling,” Wilders said. “It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people. Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about islam, and resistance against islamisation is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.”

The charges against Geert Wilders were that he had made statements that were intentionally offensive to Muslims; incited hatred against Muslims; incited discrimination against Muslims; and incited hatred of non-Western immigrants.

The Islamic supremacists who initiated the case told the Dutch dhimmi judges that the things Wilders said had led to a rise in discrimination and violence against Muslims. They had no proof, of course, of anyone committing any act of violence against any Muslim, or discriminating against any Muslim, because of anything Geert Wilders said. They just wanted to compel the Netherlands to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws.

This has been dragging on for a good while. The Wilders heresy trial began last October 4, but fell apart just a few weeks later after a special legal panel determined that the judges were biased against Wilders. No kidding. But they found more dhimmi judges and kept going.

The Islamic supremacist “plaintiffs” were seeking a one-euro fine. But it was of course never about a fine, symbolic or otherwise. The Wilders case has always been an attempt to win an Islamic supremacist triumph over the tenets of Western law and free speech. They said if they didn’t get their symbolic one-euro fine, they didn’t get it, but they said they were considering taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Ah yes, take it to the anti-humans under the guise of human rights.

This was a seminal case. Last fall Wilders explained what was really at stake in Holland, and in the entire Western world, in his case: “I am standing trial,” he said, “because of my opinions on Islam … and because the Dutch establishment – most of them non-Muslims – wants to silence me. I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no longer be fully enjoyed. In Europe the national state, and increasingly the EU, prescribes how citizens – including democratically elected politicians such as myself – should think and what we are allowed to say.”

Wilders was our proxy — the West was on trial. And while this was a great victory, the fight isn’t over. Even as Geert Wilders is justly acquitted, the noose of the sharia grows ever tighter around neck of the West. Attempts to silence freedom fighters — by legal action as well as through threats – will continue. Let’s take a step back ourselves and understand the price that Wilders and others really are paying, and will continue to pay. Former Muslim and author Wafa Sultan, former Muslim and Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, scholar Robert Spencer, former Muslim and scholar Ibn Warraq, scholar Bat Ye’or, former Muslim Nonie Darwish, cartoonist Lars Vilks, cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, Danish newspaper publisher Flemming Rose, South Park producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Salman Rushdie and countless others, myself included, receive horrible threats all the time. Wilders himself lives under round-the-clock tight security because of the hundreds of death threats he receives every year. And that will not end with his acquittal; if anything, he is in even more danger now.

In his closing remarks before the court a few weeks ago, Wilders said: “Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.”

They did. Thank Gd. And now we must keep on choosing freedom, and defending freedom, no matter what.

Me - Pamela Geller, who wrote the above, is one of the heroes of our time.  Check out her blog Atlas Shrugs.   (Note: I have blogged about Geert Wilders previously here,  here, here, and here.)

GEERT WILDERS - TRUTH REGARDING ISLAM ON TRIAL IN THE NETHERLANDS

 And free speech, as well.  I found the transcript of Wilders' final remarks at his trial today eloquent and compelling.  He is a modern day hero, a man willing to speak the truth about Islam -- political  correctness be damned.   For such bravery he has been brought to trial and his life constantly threatened.  That the Western press refuses to cover the story is scandalous, a further example of the ineptitude and utter unreliability of the so-called MSM to cover major stories of our time.   (Previous posts about Wilders here, here, and here.)

 

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I.

I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.

All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle. 

CAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS TAKE AWAY KIDS' RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

The "Candy Cane Case" will be argued tomorrow (Monday, 5/23/11) before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.  How important is it?  Informed officials say, "This is widely considered one of the most important religious liberty cases in the nation."

What happened?  According to the Liberty Institute:

First, they banned eight-year-old Jonathan Morgan from handing out candy canes with Jesus’ name on them to classmates at a school holiday party.

Then they confiscated a little girl’s pencils after school because they mentioned “God.” But that’s not all…

They even banned an entire classroom from writing “Merry Christmas” on cards to our troops serving in Iraq!

Where is this?  Plano, Texas.  Liberty Institute, along with two former U.S. Solicitors General--Ken Starr and Paul Clement (of Defense of Marriage Act fame)--will go to battle for the rights of American students before all 17 judges on the Court.

 

LETTER TO U.S. CONGRESS BY WIFE OF TORTURED CHINESE HERO

Jay Nordlinger has sobering words to share with reference to the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the United States.  Nordlinger writes:

In a below post, I mentioned Gao Zhisheng, one of the best people in all of China — I believe he is still alive.  [Me: See my earlier post on Gao Zhisheng here.]  With the PRC, the government we Americans are honoring this week, you never know. Gao has been incredibly brave: He has defended Falun Gong practitioners, “house church” activists, and other people targeted by the government for arrest, torture, and death. Gao has paid very, very heavily for his principles.

In April 2009, Gao’s wife, Geng He, wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress. I wrote about this matter in a column, here. The letter in full can be found here. Geng began,

“On the night of September 21, 2007, my husband, with a black hood thrown over his head, was kidnapped and brought to an unknown location. For 59 days, many people tortured and ravaged him in all kinds of ways, including beating him with an electric prod, inserting bamboo sticks into his reproductive organs, holding lit cigarettes close to his eyes and nose, etc., so that his eyes would burn and he would be forced to inhale smoke. My husband told me later that he was in such unbearable pain at the time that his sweat, blood, and other bodily fluids covered the floor. Among the reasons the authorities gave for tormenting my husband was that he had written to the United States Congress.”

The head of the government that has done this to Gao, we are honoring at the White House, our American home. Isn’t that wonderful? Are you proud?

Geng went on to write,

“I remember that, when my husband was still free, whenever major human rights cases arose in China, he would always look towards the United States. He always said: The United States is the cornerstone of world freedom, human rights and social order; the United States would not tolerate despotic rule and the wanton abuse of the weak and the masses.”

Ain’t that quaint? I’m sure you’re laughing your head off. One more excerpt, from Geng’s letter:

“Honorable members of the U.S. Congress, please help me support my husband, lawyer Gao Zhisheng, so that the evil forces will know that there is resistance against persecution; so that the millions of Chinese suffering this despotic rule will know that the United States is concerned about their human rights situation, and will not give up. My husband would be more resolute because of this, the Chinese people would feel inspired because of this, and China and the world would eventually transform because of this!

“Many thanks for your concern!”

“Your concern”? Our concern?! I’ll tell you what our concern is, lady: to make money and go with the flow.

At the beginning of this administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, traveling in Asia, said that human rights would not be allowed to “interfere” with such urgent issues as “the global climate-change crisis.” This week’s pomp in honor of Hu Jintao proves that the administration is true to its word: Human rights sure as hell aren’t interfering.

SHAMEFUL FAILURE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY IN IRAN - AND CHINA

I remember well the silence of the Obama administration in 2009 when Iranians rose up in revolt against their rulers.  Fouad Ajami in a Wall Street Journal article today also recalls that moment.  He writes: (my bolding)

. . .  Mr. Obama had come into office with a belief that he knew and understood the Islamic world. He was proud that Islam was a strand in his identity. He was sure that the policy of his predecessor had antagonized Islam. President George W. Bush's "diplomacy of freedom" was not given the grace of a decent burial. "Ideology is so yesterday," Secretary Clinton proudly proclaimed in early 2009. Realpolitik was to be the order of the day.

The Bush diplomacy had declared an open ideological assault against the Iranian theocracy. Mr. Obama would offer that regime an olive branch and a promise of engagement. Syria had been pushed out of Lebanon and viewed as a renegade regime that had done its best to frustrate the American war in Iraq. The Obama diplomacy would offer the rulers in Damascus diplomatic rehabilitation.

Thus the word went forth to the despots in the region that the American campaign on behalf of liberty that Mr. Bush had launched in 2003 had been called off. A new Iraqi democracy, midwifed by American power, was fighting for its life. The Obama administration would keep Iraq at arm's length.

This break of faith with democracy was put on cruel display in the summer of 2009, when the Iranians rose in revolt against their rulers. True, American diplomacy was not likely to alter the raw balance of power between the regime and its democratic oppositionists. But the timidity of American power, and the refusal of the Obama administration to embrace the cause of the opposition, must be reckoned one of American foreign policy's great moral embarrassments. . .   [more . . .]

Me:  Mr. Ajami goes on to talk about Syria, Lebananon, and Tunisia in this article.   But I wanted to record Ajami's assessment of President Obama's inexplicable and shameful failure to support the 2009 uprising.  Though it struck me forcefully at the time, it seemed that Obama's silence never received the attention it deserved.  Now the distinguished Fouad Ajami offers his opinion, and explains how the ebb of Americn power continues to affect the Middle East.

(Ajami is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. )

Update 1/20/11 - Regarding the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Washington, Ellen Bork notes that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo

undermined the carefully cultivated image of a legitimate regime in full control of, and tacitly accepted by, its people.  Chinese leaders fear international support for individuals who are brave and stubborn enough to work for a democratic alternative to the Communist party. . . .

On January 13, he [President Obama] did meet at the White House with a group of experts and activists on China. But people who would have offended Chinese leaders — people like Harry Wu, the former prisoner of China's laogai or forced labor camps; Rebiya Kadeer, the exiled Uighur leader; Ngawang Sandrol, a Tibetan nun jailed and tortured for her songs of praise for the Dalai Lama; Wang Juntao, a former Tiananmen protester; or Wan Yanhai, a famous AIDS activist and longtime associate of Liu Xiaobo — they were absent.

The president's determination to avoid using the weight and prestige of his office to support democratic opponents of authoritarian regimes in China, Iran, Belarus, and elsewhere is quickly becoming a hallmark of his administration. It's a dispiriting trend. And it suggests that the president simply does not grasp the meaning and potential of Liu Xiaobo and his fellow Chinese democrats.  (my emphases)

Update #2 - Washington Post editorial - "President Obama makes Hu Jintao Look good on rights"

CHUCK COLSON - APPLE CORPORATION CENSORING PRO-FAMILY "MANHATTAN DECLARATION"

This is really serious.  As Chuck Colson says,  (my emphases) 

 More and more, the forces of political correctness and intolerance are seeking to ban Christian beliefs and Christian speech from the public square. And they are targeting corporations and the media to enforce stringent sanctions against what they deem to be politically incorrect speech.

He writes:

I remember the days when the term “freedom of speech” referred to, well, actual speech.

Of course, it’s come to mean “freedom of expression.” That is to say, an artist can claim a constitutionally protected right to display a picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or pornographers can claim free speech by peddling obscene pictures over the internet or in a magazine.

Such expression is, of course, protected by law. We don’t even argue about it anymore. But while restrictions on expression are vanishing, how is it that restrictions on actual speech in the public square are increasing?

One obvious case in point is Apple’s decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration app from its iTunes app store. Apple has decided that the document, which uses civil and biblical language to declare that marriage should be reserved to one man and one woman, constitutes the equivalent of hate speech.

We do not live in a truly free, liberal democracy when a major corporation like Apple, which controls so much of the information flow in our society, can seek to control the great moral debates of our age by simply denying access to one side of the debate.

It’s true, if government seeks to censor, say, a newspaper or a magazine, all kinds of lawsuits are sure to follow. But private censorship of free speech can be just as deadly; even more so.  And this, I fear, is what is happening in American life today.

 Now, in banning the Manhattan Declaration app, Apple decided to bend to the wishes of a small but very vocal group of homosexual-rights activists. But don’t think those activists will stop at the Manhattan Declaration. They are on the lookout for any organization that dares to oppose so-called “same-sex marriage.” Just last week, homosexual bloggers squawked that the Pennsylvania Family Institute was sponsoring what they called an “anti-gay,” “anti-equality” conference; and worse yet, that a prominent food chain, Chick-fil-A, was a co-sponsor. Of course, the conference was no such thing. The conference’s title is “The Art of Marriage, Getting to God’s Design.”

NEW HAMPSHIRE NEWSPAPER REFUSES TO PUBLISH HOMOSEXUAL WEDDING ANNOUNCEMENTS

From Family Research Council:

This weekend, New Hampshire's largest newspaper didn't just report the headlines--it became one. When two homosexual men submitted a wedding announcement to the Manchester mainstay, editors turned it down. Joseph McQuaid, the paper's publisher, said the decision isn't anti-gay. It's pro-marriage. "This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples," he said in a statement. "It would be hypocritical of us to do so, given our belief that marriage is--and needs to remain--a social and civil structure between men and women and our opposition to the recent state law legalizing gay marriage."

Not surprisingly, McQuaid's bold stand is creating plenty of waves in one of the few states where counterfeit marriage is actually legal. In the brief time since Saturday, the paper's position even became a topic of local campaigns. Paul Hodes, a Democratic candidate for the Senate, insisted that the Union Leader change its policy and "respect the law." Hardly, said Kelly Ayotte, his GOP opponent. "Government has no right to interfere with the freedom of the press." And he's right. The First Amendment guarantees both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press for everyone--including newspaper editors. Our hats go off to McQuaid for cutting through the political correctness and refusing to yield on a matter of principle. "While the law sanctions gay marriage," he explained, "it neither demands that churches perform them or that our First Amendment right to choose what we print be suspended." While the Left screams about intolerance, it's encouraging to see that the Union Leader is living up to its name.

Me:  Freedom of the press.  Yes.  Plus, the Union Leader is standing by principles it's hard to fault.

I'll add to the above post this notice, also from FRC, regarding Facebook's excruciatingly politically correct posture towards homosexuality.  FRC can foresee future Facebook censorship.  Hope not.  Here's FRC's post:

VIDEO: UNIVERSITY MAKES DIPLOMA DEPENDENT ON SUPPORTING GAY RIGHTS

We are talking here of Augusta State University and Jennifer Keaton, a student in the counseling program, who was told she must undergo a "remediation program" concerning her biblical views on homosexuality.  Ed Morrissey has the video and offers commentary.

The Family Research Council adds:

Unfortunately, this is not the first such story of political correctness in the counseling profession reaching totalitarian levels. ADF [Alliance Defence Fund] is representing a student who was already kicked out of a similar program at Eastern Michigan University, and another woman who was fired as a counselor for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, her story appears on our video "ENDA: The End of Religious Freedom in America?." This radical agenda--not just to officially affirm homosexuality, but to forcefully crush any dissent--is exactly what Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has endorsed. When will they learn that we have no intention of forfeiting our constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion?

VIDEO: LYING POLICE REPORT FILED IN DEARBORN, MICHIGAN

As the current phrase blandly puts it, "This is unacceptable."  No, it's more than unacceptable.  It is infuriating and maddening, and must not be tolerated!  When police arrest someone, and then blatantly lie about the circumstances and reason for the arrest, all American citizens must protest and demand that the corruption be cleaned up immediately -- and those responsible pay a steep price!  Dearborn, Michigan has become an unsafe place for anyone but Muslims.   One wonders what tick in the brain has infected the Mayor and police department to suppose they can deprive ordinary citizens of free speech and the rule of law.   The United States must never allow sharia law to trump the freedom of American citizens anywhere in this nation. 

Pamela Gellar posts:

Back in June, four Christians were arrested and their cameras confiscated at an Arab festival for passing out leaflets. Yes, the lefties, the Muslims, the commies, can go berserk at their hate protests, but decent Americans, OTOH, are living in a police-enforced sharia state. The Christians are being represented by the same brilliant legal team that brought my free speech lawsuit against Detroit, The Thomas Moore Law Center.

David Wood and Acts 17 finally got their video cameras back yesterday, and the police didn't even erase the footage. They have them lying about a dozen or so times. They will be posting the footage over the next few days. Here's a video of Negeen's arrest (apparently for telling police officers not to touch her).

Negeen's Arrest at Dearborn Arab Festival

Here's the video footage from Negeen's camera while she was being assaulted by Dearborn Police. In any other city, in any other state, police officers would recognize her Constitutional rights. But this is Dearborn. They can accuse a Christian of anything, and violate her rights in any way they see fit.

If this doesn't make your blood boil, nothing will.

It is reported that more footage is on the way.

DICK MORRIS: OBAMA VS. PRESS FREEDOM

I found this pretty shocking.  (HT: Drudge)

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL (FRC) COLLATES VALUABLE ESSAYS AND ARTICLES

The Family Research Council is launching The Social Conservative Review.  An e-mail states it will constitute

"a unique summary of news of interest to social conservatives. The focus of this comprehensive collation of stories, journal articles, and op-eds is the intersection of moral  concern and public life, the issues that reflect and shape not only events and legislation, but the nation's very soul.

FRC will send the Review out twice monthly.

It will feature important pieces from the country's leading newspapers, magazines, journals and conservative Web sites. FRC's goal is to help keep you informed -- and ready to act -- about the policies and proposals, research and reports that bear directly on life, liberty, family and Christian faith.

Me: I have reproduced the e-mail below, complete with links.  It looks to me like a fabulous service.

---

The Social Conservative Review: The Insider's Guide to Pro-Family News

April 29, 2010

Educational Freedom and Reform

• "The ACLU: Unwelcome Schoolyard Bully?"
  Cynthia Hill, Family Research Council
• 2010 April School Reform News (full text pdf)
  Edited by Ben Boychuk, The Heartland Institute
• "Making Men without Chests: The Intellectual Life and Moral Imagination"
  R. J. Snell, First Principles Journal
• "Are There Harms of Home Schooling?"
  Christopher O. Tollefsen, The Witherspoon Institute
• "Expulsion may await campus pro-lifers"
  Bill Bumpas, OneNewsNow
• "Teach Social Justice-Or Else"
  Mark Bauerlein, Students For Academic Freedom
• "Education Spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Stimulating the Status Quo"
  Lindsey Burke, The Heritage Foundation

Environmental Issues

• "How a Climate Change Treaty Threatens You, Your Nation and Your Church"
  Dr. Cal Beisner, FRC Family Policy Lecture
• "My Tribute to Earth Day"
  Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council
• "Titles You Can't Make Up: Cleaner Air Could Speed Global Warming"
  Tom McClusky, Family Research Council Action
• "Creation and Man"
  Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship
• "Getting Into Hot Water: Evangelicals and Global Warming"
  Benjamin B. Phillips, Acton Institute, Journal of Markets and Morality
• "Polls on the Environment and Global Warming"
  Karlyn Bowman, Andrew Rugg, American Enterprise Institute
• "Celebrate Earth's Best Friend"
  James M. Taylor, Heartland Institute
• "The Green Shepherd: The White House Wants Churches To Advance It's Climate Change Agenda"
  Meghan Clyne, The Weekly Standard
• "Environmentalism is now a religion, and being overtaken by extremism"
  Robert H. Nelson, The Catholic Thing

Faith and Policy

• "Fiscal Conservatism Is Not Enough: What Social Conservatives Offer the Party of Lincoln"
  Robert W. Patterson, The Family in America Journal
• "Prophet Jim Wallis and the Ecclesia of Economic Ignorance"
  John Couretas, The Acton Institute
• "Living Under God"
  Ken Blackwell, Family Research Council

Health Care

• "States Face Their First ObamaCare Test"
  Grace-Marie Turner, The Wall Street Journal
• "Hospital Visit Horrors? Here's the Rest of the Story"
  Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council
• "Ten Ways Consumer-Driven Health Care Is a Proven Success"
  Greg Scandlen, The Heartland Institute
• "The Separation of Health and State: What happens when all medical decisions are political"
  Opinion, Wall Street Journal
• "Krugman Admits Rationing (Death Panels) From Obamacare"
  Wesley J. Smith, First Things
• "The Tea Party Spirit and Lawless Health Care Reform"
  Charles R. Kesler, Claremont Review of Books
• "Bad Medicine: The Public Square"
  Joseph Bottum, First Things
• "US Is Turning Into Dependency Society"
  Lee Edwards, Ph.D., The Heritage Foundation
• "Where's the Administration's Cost Estimate?"
  James C. Capretta, National Review

Homosexuals in the Military

• "FRC's Tony Perkins Condemns Franklin Graham's Rescinded Invitation" to participate in Pentagon prayer event.
  FRC Press Release
• "Sex Matters in the Military"
  Peter Sprigg, The Washington Times
• "Homosexuals in the Military"
  Mackubin Thomas Owens, The Ashbrook Center
• "The Real Anti-Christian Bigotry"
  Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice

Judiciary

• The Judicial Review
  Family Research Council Action's Constitutional and Legal Commentary
• "The Coming Constitutional Debate"
  Judge Stephen Markham, Imprimis
• "Koh Fails the Democracy Test"
  John Fonte, Hudson Institute
• "Delegitimizing the Roberts Court"
  David Marion, The Ashbrook Institute
• "ADF on striking down the National Day of Prayer Statute"
  Alliance Defense Fund
• "More Prayer than Protests"
  Tobin Grant, Christianity Today

Marriage and Family

Family Economics

• "The Family GDP: How Marriage and Fertility Drive the Economy"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Family Research Council
• "The Economics of the Family Household"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Family Research Council Family Policy Lecture
• "Family Policy Lecture: The Crushing Burden of Student Loans on Family Formation for Generation X+"
  Dr. Allan Carlson, The Howard Center, Family Research Council Family Policy Lecture
• "Obamacare Update: About That Only Tax the Rich Thing . . ."
  Tom McClusky, Family Research Council Action
• "The VAT's in the Fire"
  Ken Blackwell, The Patriot Post

Marriage

• "Facing the Bad News (on out-of-wedlock births)"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., The Catholic Thing
• "Culture Clash: Monogamy vs. Polyandry"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Family Research Council

Pornography

• "The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family and Community"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Family Research Council
• "Standing for Truth"
  Daniel Weiss, Citizen Magazine
• "Pornography and the Muslim World"
  Carson Holloway, The Public Discourse
• "Public urged to take action to prevent .xxx web domain"
  Erin Roach, Baptist Press

Religious Liberty

• "Wall of Separation Between Church and State: Myth, Reality, Results"
  Dr. Kenyn M. Cureton, FRC Lecture
• "High Court Says Mojave Cross in California Can Stay"
  Robert Barnes, The Washington Post
• "Supreme Court Protects War Memorial Cross"
  Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice
• "Texas students see religious bias with 'year of Our Lord'"
  Casey Curlin, The Washington Times
• "Homeless in Binghamton"
  Faith J.H. McDonnell, Front Page Magazine
• "Western Civilization on Trial"
  Paul Marshall and Nina Shea, National Review Online Symposium
• "Hastings Case Tests Religious Freedom on Campus"
  By Newt Gingrich, Jim Garlow, The Washington Post

Sanctity of Life

Abortion

• "Post-Abortion Suffering: A Psychiatrist Looks at the Effects of Abortion"
  Dr. Martha Shuping and Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., Family Research Council
• "Virginia Cuts Funding of Abortions"
  Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council
• "Abortion Isn't Painless"
  Editorial, The Washington Times
• Oklahoma Senate overrides governor's vetoes to pass abortion laws
  Joe Sterling, CNN
• Legal status of induced abortions around the globe
  CBC News

Adoption

• "A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life"
  Family Research Council Publication
• "Louisiana Senate panel rejects gay adoption expansion"
  Bill Barrow, Times-Picayune
• "Visits to mission result in adoption"
  Rob Hedelt, Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star

Cloning

• "UK Scientists Clone 3-Parent Embryos"
  Dr. David Prentice, Family Research Council

Bioethics

• "Obama Administration Eyes a More Active Role in Genomics"
  Rachel Lehmann-Haupt, BNET
• "Panel to take broad view of bioethics: President Obama appoints commission to advise on stem cells, clinical trials and more"
  Brendan Borrell, Nature
• "The First Christian Voices Against Euthanasia"
  David W.T. Brattston, The Weekly Standard
• "Euthanasia Bill turned away, but work goes on"
  Charlie Butts, One News Now

Stem Cell Research

• Family Research Council's major adult stem cell initiative, "Adult Stem Cells Saved My Life" ("Stem Cell Research Facts") features compelling video stories of persons whose lives have been transformed through adult stem cell implantation. The site also contains leading-edge information on this dynamic, transformative and entirely ethical type of stem cell treatment.
• "Vatican Funds Adult Stem Cell Research"
  Dr. David Prentice, Family Research Council

Other Articles of Note for Social Conservatives

• "Apologist in chief"
  Ken Blackwell, World Magazine
• "A Crisis Republicans Should Not Waste"
  Hadley Arkes, Weekly Standard
• "After Virtue: Localism and the Restoration of Character and Community"
  Austin Lipari, First Principles Journal
• "How America became a 'secular-socialist machine'"
  Newt Gingrich, The Washington Post
• "Schumer: Obama's 'counter-productive' Israel policy 'has to stop'"
  Ben Smith, The Politico
• "The Foreign Policy of Self-Abasement"
  Mona Charen, National Review
• "When Free Speech Wins"
  Eric Giunta, Front Page Magazine

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO HEAR CASE OF SILENCED CHRISTIAN VALEDICTORIAN

Wintery Knight has the full story. Valedictorian Brittany McComb's microphone was cut off when she began talking about Jesus in the  midst of her 2006 graduation speech.  Below is a video of that event.  What has happened to America?  Wintery Knight is right:  "If this young lady were gay or a Muslim or anything else, she would have been allowed to speak about that, and Christians would have remained silent and respectful. Only Christians are suppressed . . .

WHY DO WE HEAR SO LITTLE ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF DISSIDENTS IN CUBA?

Jay Nordlinger writes:

On the House floor last night, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) gave a speech. His subject was the persecution of Cuban democrats, and the general ignoring of this persecution by the American press. This has been a longstanding grievance of Cubans and Cuban Americans, and their supporters: Horrible things take place on that island, 90 miles from our shore; and yet we tend to look away (and wear our Che Guevara T-shirts). If a Palestinian kid skins his knee in Ramallah, we hear about it. But what about torture in

SELECT POSTS FROM WINTERY KNIGHT BLOG

I have some catching up to do with what Wintery Knight has been up to.   Following is a selection.  All are worth "clicking through" to read:

-  How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?

-  Skincare company uses aborted fetal tissue in anti-aging cream

-  American Library Association silent as librairies ban books about ex-gays

- UK Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade (Must read)

- Hindu/Christian debate on anti-conversion law in India

- New books of interest to Christian apologists

         Update:  One of the books listed is Dr. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell about which Charles Colson has important things to say.  Dr. Douglas Groothuis, for his part, rhapsodizes:

The book is no less than magisterial, an adjective that curmudgeons such as myself seldom use. At every level--philosophical, scientific, historical and literary--it is a superb treatise.    Reading every word of its 508 pages of text (not counting end notes)--as I did--repays the reader greatly.

WASHINGTON POST WON'T COUNTENANCE DESCRIPTION OF HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT AS "UNHEALTHY"

In case you hadn't notice, folks, it's about 11:55 PM as far as Free Speech in the United States is concerned.  And one of the big boys -- e.g. The Washington Post -- isn't on the side of free speech.  That probably isn't news to anyone who has been awake the last few years.  The Family Research Council reports:

In a last-ditch effort to sway voters away from Virginia 's GOP ticket, the Washington Post unleashed a stinging op-ed against Ken Cuccinelli, the pro-family candidate for state Attorney General. Desperate to get its dig in before next Tuesday, the Post lashed out in "Mr. Cuccinelli's bigotry," an article that tried to paint Ken's conservative social views as "an embarrassment to Virginia." According to the Post, Cuccinelli's biggest crime is describing homosexuality as "intrinsically wrong." In an interview with a local paper, Ken also said, "I happen to think that [homosexuals] represent... behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society."

The Post's hostility is mind-boggling when you consider that Cuccinelli's statement happens to be true, given the data on the health risks of homosexual conduct. As for his personal faith, if the

IN EUROPE, THE NOOSE AROUND FREE SPEECH TIGHTENS

Pamela Geller, over at Atlas Shrugs, titles one of her posts today,  "DO NOT OBJECT TO ISLAAAAAAAAM":

European Union set to outlaw objections to Islamic practices

This would, of course, render us mute and hence defenseless in the face of the advancing jihad -- and that is just what it is designed to do. Free Speech Death Watch Alert: "Objections to Muslim and Homosexual Practices to be Unlawful in Europe - Media MIA," by Paul Belien for Hudson NY, October 26 (thanks to Magnus):

If all goes as planned, the 27 member states of the European Union will soon have a common hate crime legislation, which will turn disapproval for Islamic practices or homosexual lifestyles into crimes. Europe's Christian churches are trying to stop the plan of the European political establishment,

GEERT WILDERS SPEAKS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Pamela Geller offers photos and major coverage of Gert Wilders appearance at Columbia University, including a five-part video of his speech.  She titles her post "Geert Wilders Rocks Columbia Univeristy."  She offers a link to an mp3 of the speech (here), as well as the full text of his speech.  Wilders is the producer of the film, Fitna which warns of the threat of radical Islam utilizing quotes from jihadis, imams and Quranic texts.  If you haven't seen it yet, you need to do so.    The text of his speech follows:

CLAUDIA ROSETT - "FIRST THEY CAME FOR FOX NEWS"

- Update 10/21/09 - The Real Reason the White House is attacking Fox News: Containment  (Interesting article)

- (Original Post) Rosett writes: 

You don’t have to love Fox News to see how dangerous it is when the President of the United States gives his staff and advisers a green light to single out and denigrate by name a specific news organization. As we surely all know by now, this is what the White House has been doing to Fox. . .  Welcome to the road to China’s Xinhua News Agency and Russia’s Channel One TV.

Me: The White House's attempt to control news it doesn't like is another reason to be wary of its totalitarian impulses.

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: FREE SPEECH OUT THE WINDOW?

David Horowitz writes about the hate campaign at Temple University:

Everywhere you look these days Americans’ most basic freedom is under attack by the jihadists of the international left. The infamous UN Human Rights Commission which includes the worst human rights violators on the planet (now joined by the Obama Administration) has recently passed a resolution against religious defamation — defined as linking Islamists to terrorism. At home Democrats have attached a “hate crimes” amendment which would make thinking a crime to the new defense appropriations bill.

YALE'S COWARDICE

Key Sentence:  "If Western liberal civilization endures, it will be despite the modern university, not because of it."

That's Dennis Prager's considered opinion.  I agree.  He  writes:

When I was a graduate student at Columbia University in the early 1970s, I came to the then-tentative conclusion that I would probably never encounter a morally weaker, more cowardly group of people than college administrators.

While there are exceptions to this rule and there are other institutions that regularly exhibit as much moral cowardice as universities do, nearly 40 years later my conclusion is no longer tentative. . .  

For an explanation of what prompts these comments,  read on . .

DO YOU THINK "HATE CRIMES" LEGISLATION A GOOD IDEA?

Then it's crucial to read this analysis.  It will explain the horrors of the bill that Congress will soon be voting on.

Call your two senators and representative and ask them to vote against the "Hate Crimes" bill.  You can reach all three at 202-224-3121.

Update 6/25/09 - From Family Research Council:

This morning FRC submitted testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding one of the Left's most coveted policy objectives--a federal hate crimes law. The House passed the Hate Crimes measure on April 29, but today's hearing in the Senate was the first on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909). I won't go into how the bill's title is historically and factually incorrect (you can see that for yourself in FRC's documentary, Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians). This measure would create special protections for people based on their sexual behavior, gender identity, or perceived sexual orientation or gender.

Yielding to pressure from the homosexual community, which is among the loudest in the Democratic Party's base, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had vowed to attach "hate crimes" to must-pass legislation by August. As we document in Censoring the Church, hate crimes laws are a threat to free speech, religious freedom, and equal protection under the law. Congress should not allow certain privileged groups to have special protection under the law, and FRC said as much in our testimony when we stated, "A federal hate crime law is unnecessary, it's ineffective, and it promotes inequality."

To read how, click over to www.frc.org and read our testimony. You can also see where this legislation would lead in stunning real-life stories featured in our documentary, Censoring the Church, available online. When you're through watching clips, contact your senators and urge them to vote "no" on S. 909.

Additional Resources
Read Tony Perkins' written testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee

CHRISTIAN GROUP BARRED FROM SIDEWALK HANDOUTS AT ARAB FESTIVAL IN DEARBORN, MI

According to the Family Research Council, the Dearborn Arab International Festival is expected to draw 300,000 people.  FRC reports:

Dearborn's Muslim population, which is about 30 percent of the city, wields strong political influence. So strong, in fact, that the city's ordinances were modified in 2004 to allow the Muslim call to prayer to be broadcast across the city five times a day.

Yesterday morning, two Christians were detained and questioned by police for over four hours. Their crime? Distributing Bibles on a public sidewalk. Organizers of the festival had adopted a policy that restricted the Arabic Christian Perspective (ACP) from disseminating religious materials or sharing their faith on the public sidewalks around the event. Although the Christians were later released, city officials told ACP that their activities would have to be limited to a booth at the festival.

One News Now has details about the Arab Festival and the denial to the Christian group.  Literature distribution would be limited to a designated table-and-booth section of the festival site.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRYING TO STOP HOME BIBLE STUDIES

- Update 6/4/09 - San Diego withdraws Bible study warning 

According to 10 News in San Diego:

SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.  [more . . .]

The Family Research Council comments:

Where two or more are gathered in Christ's name, there San Diego County officials will be also. For a suburban California family, this was the shocking reality during last month's Good Friday holiday. A local pastor and his wife invited a dozen or so people to their house for a Bible study, only to be interrupted by a San Diego employee who threatened to fine the couple for breaking an obscure County land code.

People at Pastor Jones's church are stunned by San Diego's actions, particularly its investigation of the group's activities. According to the family's attorney, Dean Broyles of the Western Center for Law & Policy, the officials asked pointed questions such as, "Do you have a regular meeting in your home?" "Yes." "Do you say amen?" "Yes." "Do you pray?" "Yes." "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord?'" "Yes."

What business is it of the county's how the Joneses' worship? This is not communist China. The Joneses aren't operating an underground church in violation of state law. This is their home! And