by ·Comments Off on So NOW Liberals are Concerned with Religious Freedom

The world is witnessing the by-product of intolerance and dysfunction as embassies burn, people are beheaded, and suicidal children are encouraged to end their life for the promise of eternal sexual pleasure. What is wrong with this picture? When a child throws a tantrum the appropriate response is not to cajole, condone, and run in fear. But that is what the world is doing in light of all the destruction at the hand of malcontents who insist the world embrace their form of “religion” and expression thereof.

The idea of religious freedom being paramount now to freedom of expression is a tad bit laughable coming from such wise sages as the Washington Post, CNN, and other bastions of liberal double speak. These are the voices that a little more than a month ago ridiculed Christians for wanting to preserve their cherished season with Christmas trees, carols, churches and other signs of the birth of an innocent little baby who did nothing in his life but preach love, peace and self-sacrifice.

But now, the representatives of the most violent and psychopathic sect of “religion” get their noses bent out of shape over a cartoon of their leader and they feel justified in taking lives, destroying property, and threatening the very existence of anyone who would disagree with them. And what do our usually intolerant-of-religion news outlets do? Do they condemn this reprehensible behavior? No . . .they condemn the Patriot Act that is purported to deny civil and personal liberties but say that in the interest of not defiling a specific religion, that free speech should be curtailed.

Where were they when a crucifix was being soaked in a bottle of urine . . .at taxpayer’s expense? Where were they when a portrait of the Madonna was smeared with elephant dung in a public museum? Where have they been with every depiction of a Christian symbol that was defiled, ridiculed, distorted, perverted or was used to tried and destroy a sacred, PEACEFUL religion? Oh, let me think.

They were the first ones to pull out those stupid little bumper stickers with the red circle and line through it suggesting that art was being censored by conservatives and Christians. No . . . you silly people . . . let me repeat what was said over and over and over again to a phalanx of deaf and disturbed liberals . . . no one cares if you want to purchase, with your own, hard earned money, a picture of Fred and Ted kissing, to hang over your sofa. The objection was that because there wasn’t that much call for such art in the market place, liberals had to feed at the public trough and DEMAND that this type of art be funded by all taxpayers, regardless of their beliefs, their faith, or even their economic reasoning that the Federal Government has no business in the art business. I’m an artist . . . where’s my grant?

But the outrage at the suggestion that the Federal Government should not fund openly blasphemous art was deafening. To hear the screaming and yelling you would have thought that Christians were out burning embassies, beheading people, throwing non-believers out of their country and basically terrorizing a country. But no . . . that is not how Christians respond. As a result of their polite objections to blasphemous art that would depict Christ as a homosexual, or with whips and chains or other suggestions of dishonor, their quiet, Christ-like response of suggesting that these depictions are wrong, especially when sponsored by the government, were met with outrage, and accusations of intolerance, bigotry, and homophobic rationale.

Perhaps the Washington Post, CNN, and every other news outlet that proudly proclaim that they are not running blasphemous cartoons of Mohammed, in the interest of honoring a religion, would apply that same standard to the next opportunity to trash Christianity. Or let’s get real edgy and suggest that the National Endowment for the Arts apply their fair and balanced depiction of blasphemous art to Muslim icons in addition to Christian ones and get an up close and personal distinction between the two religions.

I would suggest though, if the Federal Government did apply that same standard of equal blasphemy of all religions, and fund the same type of art that blasphemes Islam the way it blasphemes Christianity, that that they have their fire extinguishers ready, because the response is going to be quite different. And they know it . . .and that is why only Christianity is fair game for ridicule, and they cower in fear at the temper-tantrum hoodlums who hide behind a religion to perpetrate horror on an entire world.

PS Just one aside question . . . what do Muslim women get when they go to heaven?

by ·Comments Off on First the Cross in California… Then the Cross in Ashley Smith’s Heart?

Can Athiests Destroy the REAL Cross?

Sometimes life can become stranger than fiction and God has the most amazing way of gently reminding us, all of us, killers and atheists too, that He is alive and real.

With the protracted controversy surrounding the removal of a cross at the Mount Soledad War Memorial in La Jolla, California, coinciding with a bone fide, living symbol of its meaning, it is hard to call it coincidence.

Ashley Smith, of Atlanta Georgia, became the cross that the atheists want to remove in La Jolla. She was bigger than the concrete monument that has stood sentry over the lives of fallen heroes for over 50 years. A symbol that makes those who don’t believe there is a God quake at the thought that there might be one and want to eradicate anything that would force them to accept that there are those who do believe.

So what are the atheists of America going to do about the millions of living crosses who they encounter daily? They can’t remove every cross or symbol of God’s love for mankind… unless they desire to kill all Christians who reflect that love to their fellow man.

What is it that atheists fear about two pieces of material forming right angles together that symbolically has only represented unconditional, sacrificial love? Do atheists reject love? Do they deny that sacrifice is a laudable characteristic that we should all strive to embody? Do they think that what Ashley Smith did, in her willingness to sacrifice her life so that her captor, Brian Nichols, might come to know the God of the Universe deserves silencing and dismantling?

What is the next step for tortured souls who agonize over the presence of a symbol that must torment them to the point of destruction? Will they say that Christians are not allowed to use public facilities, wear crosses on public campuses, mention the name of Jesus in a public forum, drive on public highways, use the US Postal service to post letters about what Christ has done in their lives? Will they strike to remove all religious icons and art from every national museum in America and burn all literature that provides a history of the Christian founding of the United States? Will they take a chisel to the walls of the Supreme Court and deface all statues and murals that depict a presence of God’s sovereignty in the founding of America?

They might be able to do this . . . only if the 95% of those in the country who believe in something bigger than their own selfish agendas of intolerance for divergent views remain silent. But even if they were successful in eradicating every symbol of Christ’s love and forgiveness of a fallen man, they will never eliminate Christ from the hearts of man, who even as they are murdered, will proclaim Him as their Lord and Savior.

The stones of the cross in California may be dismantled and used to stone the Ashley Smiths of the world who wear the cross emblazoned on their hearts and represent for all a clear and perfect manifestation of God’s love for man on earth . . . but they will never silence God. The rocks and trees will rise to sing His praise even if the breath of man is silenced from doing so.

So we, as a free nation have the choice of following the lead of those who would destroy our heritage, dismantle sacred monuments to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice so that we may not live under this form of tyranny . .. or follow the embodiment of Christ in a young single mom in Atlanta Georgia who brought life to that cross in her amazing ordeal of sacrificial love.

by ·Comments Off on Free Speech vs. Offensive Acts . . . Will Liberals Please Tell Us What to Think?

The violence in Northern Ireland continued as the Protestants insisted on parading in a large Catholic area during their Orange Order celebration.

Liberals in America took personal offense on behalf of the Catholics and condemned the insensitivity of the Protestants. Interesting though, that these same people who were quick to point out that the Orangemen shouldn’t have the right to march in an all-Catholic area, were quick to insist that the homosexual march should take place at Vatican City in front of the Pope.

They were shocked that the Pope could possibly be offended by men parading in leather thongs and stiletto heels. And, these are the same people who want to prohibit prayer at high school football games because someone might be offended.

So either they should celebrate the Orangemen and their right to parade their beliefs in front of their opponents .. . in keeping with the concept of free speech, or . . . they should move to silence the homosexuals in Rome . . . in keeping with their philosophy of not allowing divergent opinions and views, lest they offend.

This is Nina May asking that whatever they decide is best for the rest of us . . . please, just be consistent.

by ·Comments Off on The Government Has Declared Itself Hostile to Religious Expression. What is next?

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, has decided that children who attend public school become subjects of the state the minute they enter the school house door . . .and abandon their First Amendment rights to free speech.

They seem to be offended by a child who is putting his life on the line to play football for a school that considers him less than a full citizen.

Hmmm, this sounds a little too much like pre-emancipation days when blacks were considered to be only partially a citizen. Either we are all treated equally in the eyes of the law or not. The court has basically said that voluntary religious expression during a sporting event on a public campus is unconstitutional.

Does that include a child who pulls out a prayer mat in a public library during Ramadan? Does that include a devote Jew holding a religious ceremony in a public park or building? And why wouldn’t it if you interpret the finding in its most complete form? If a child is not allowed to express his religious views in a public school . . .why not any other public building?

But my big question is . . . How does the US government intend to dispose of the billions of dollars in priceless paintings hanging in government funded galleries that depict religious scenes? After all, that is promoting religious expression in a public forum.

by ·Comments Off on Children Do Not Have Freedom of Speech In Public Schools

They are Now Subjects to Their New Master – the School System and the Federal Government

June 19th is a day that African-Americans celebrate, as it symbolizes the end of slavery in this nation in 1865. But 135 years later, this day will now symbolize the beginning tyranny for children with religious beliefs, who attend public school.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court said that children in public school cannot pray before a sports event, even if they all vote that they want to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech. Because while on public property, they become “subjects” of the state, and spokesmen for the school system, abandoning all their own rights to free speech.

So basically . . . children are less than full citizens when they attend public school.

As we celebrate the liberation of one group of people, we must mourn the unequal treatment of another. But does a decision like this mean that a child will be barred from praying in a public library, a public park, at national monuments, on a public highway or in the Nation’s Capitol?

Just what are the implications of a decision so draconian as it relates to a person’s rights as he navigates a nation surrounded by public arenas?

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in his blistering dissent, “Even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the court’s opinion. It bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.”

He rightly accused the majority of distorting legal precedents and “venturing into the world of prophesy” by deciding that harm was inevitable. This is all done in a court surrounded by engravings of religious symbols, that begins each court session by asking God’s blessings on the court and making everyone swear to tell the truth and asks God’s help in doing this.

It’s too bad that unequal protection under the law still exists 135 years after slavery ended.

by ·Comments Off on Kids are Only Good in a Political Debate

For Many, Kids are Only Good in a Political Debate But Don’t Deserve Equal Rights

 

The U.S. congress had a debate over their Chaplain. Not whether to appoint one or not . . . but what denomination he should represent.

The U.S. Supreme Court begins its sessions by reminding everyone that “God saves the United States and the court” . . . they also ask for God’s help.”

Almost all of the older federal buildings in Washington, D.C. have some mention of a creator, a supreme being, God, Jesus, Moses, the Ten Commandments or other indications that this nation was formed Under God.

So . . . our leaders are free to acknowledge God and even begin their sessions by invoking His name. So what are the children of America? Chopped liver?

Why does a case have to even come before the Supreme Court to decide whether a child can voluntarily say a prayer before an event as in the case in Sante Fe, Texas.

For all the posturing the politicians do out of feigned concerned for children . .. you would think at least one would say these children are entitled to the same rights that we have . . . which is to pray.

A lot less harm will come to them by praying, than having to defend themselves against other kids who have been told there is no God, and there are no consequences to their actions.

by ·Comments Off on Doesn’t the First Amendment Allow You To Protect the Second Amendment?

The liberal media is just not going to rest until they get everyone to agree that what Wayne LaPierre said about Clinton was outrageous. That he accepted a certain level of violence in the country to further his agenda.

Well, the truth is sometimes outrageous, but it’s odd, that they have never pressured anyone else to disavow their “outrageous” statements.

Remember when the Republicans were equated with Nazis during the school lunch program debate? Remember when Clinton said he loathed the military? Remember when Clinton said, on several occasions, that the religious right makes him sick and he hates what they stand for? And both Clinton and Gore continue to say that returning your hard earned tax dollars to you in the form of a tax cut is a “risky scheme”. Gore even called it “economic snake oil”

But that aside, what is really interesting, is that the media . . . which constantly fights against any kind of censorship in their profession, is working so hard to silence a man who is doing nothing more than protecting the integrity of the 2nd Amendment . . . while invoking the privilege of the 1st Amendment.

Just how biased is the media? It’s hard to say when 91% are self-proclaimed liberals.

by ·Comments Off on Totalitarian Double-speak

I was behind a very conflicted person the other day who displayed their schizophrenia on their bumper.

One bumper sticker had that international “don’t do it sign” the one with the red circle with the red line through it, printed over the words . . .”censor art.”  Of course this was referring to the federal funding of certain products that people quaintly refer to as art in order to get funding for it.

Well… they obviously think that any and all art should be allowed … whether funded or not … just don’t censor art. It is free expression of an individual, it is irrelevant if it is blasphemous or racists or insulting or sexually degrading, just… don’t censor it.

OK… so we know where this driver stands on the issue of censorship… except… Lo and behold, the bumper sticker, right next to it says “Pull the plug on Dr. Laura.”

Imagine that. I am supposed to respect the very open-minded tolerant stand of this person who obviously believes the Constitution allows for all types of divergent speech and expression in the arts . . . while this same person wants to restrict someone else from expressing their viewpoint? He needs another bumper sticker that reads, “Driver is ambivalent about totalitarianism.”

Sadly, this is a reflection of liberal hypocrisy that is strangling free speech in this country and classifying speech as intolerant or hateful if it is not what they want to hear.

by ·Comments Off on Will Someone Tell the ACLU to Chill Out?

What exactly does the ACLU really want? What is their agenda? They are like that little kid in school who tattles on everyone, and no one complains because they might be the next target. But enough is enough with the whining faction of the gestapo brigade.

They sent a letter to the coach of the University of Colorado basketball team DEMANDING that he call an end to the tradition of team prayer, saying they have received twenty complaints. Who from? From the players who VOLUNTARILY kneel at the end of practice?

Is it not their constitutionally protected right to pray? Would they be happier if the team swapped pornography in the name of free speech? Just what does the ACLU want?

It can’t be about free speech because every time a Christian is discriminated against . . . they are silent. They should stop hiding behind the First Amendment and just admit . . . they don’t like religious expression. But they are too late . . . the founding fathers guaranteed freedom against bottom feeders who would deny that freedom.

This is Nina May suggesting the ACLU just take a deep breath . . . and count to ten, and be thankful they have the right to be irritating tattletales.

by ·Comments Off on I’ll See Your Flag and Raise You One …

In the mid ‘80s I knew a young lady who was a Senior at Harvard University, who we quaintly referred to as our Yankee friend. She didn’t mind . . .she was proud of her New England roots.  So when she was reprimanded for flying a confederate flag from her dorm room she was amazed by the accusations of racism.

She wondered why only her flag was not allowed to be hung outside her dorm window, when several ANC flags, communist flags and Nicaraguan flags were prominently on display. She said, she might not agree with, and may even be offended by what they stood for, but she wasn’t going to tell them they couldn’t express their opinion. And at the very least, if she couldn’t display hers, certainly the standard should be applied fairly, and they should all come down.

She went on to explain that for her, the confederate flag had nothing to do with the south, with slavery, with any meaning others may attach to it. She said for her it was a symbol of rebellion against government tyranny . . .for example, the kind of tyranny that could tell her she couldn’t express her views while others around her could?

Gee, maybe she had a point . . . Free speech does not guarantee you will like what you hear . . . or that others will like what you say.