Friday, July 29, 2005

Sexual permissiveness vs. sexual restrictiveness

“Sexual permissiveness” and what I will call “sexual restrictiveness” (for lack of a better term) are two opposing social agendas. Sexual restrictiveness proposes that appropriate sexual relations occur only between a man and woman who are married to each other. Advocates of sexual restrictiveness point out the astronomical financial and social consequences of permissiveness: abortions, unwanted children, STD’s, broken homes, poverty, AIDS, etc.

Sexual permissiveness, on the other hand, is characterized by tolerance toward a wide variety of sexual expression including sex outside of marriage, sex with multiple partners, homosexual sex, and even violent sex. A few TV programs are pushing the envelope even farther by jokingly alluding to sex with animals. Some groups go so far as to advocate sex with children!

Advocates of permissiveness argue that restrictiveness doesn’t work, so they support a wide range of alternative options including 1) handing out free condoms to children in schools, 2) opposing anything that would limit access to abortion--including parental notification, 3) promoting sex education programs that teach tolerance for all kinds of sexual lifestyles, 4) opposing all efforts to restrict children’s access to pornography (e.g. American Library Association), 5) misrepresenting or not reporting the results of scientific research that opposes their agenda, 6) vilifying anyone who opposes their agenda using hate speech like “homophobe.”
While there has never been a golden age of sexual purity in America--and never will be as long as fallen human nature is a factor--there is an enormous difference between a restrictive culture that discourages sex outside of marriage, and a permissive culture which actively promotes and even glamorizes virtually all kinds of unrestricted sexual activity. The fact is that permissiveness often masks itself in the rhetoric of compassion and freedom but when you rip off the mask, you find that it actually promotes lifestyles that lead to STD’s, broken marriages, AIDS, and even death.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

ACLU and forced re-education

On my July 19 post I argued that when homosexuality first came out of the closet the plea was for tolerance and compassion, but that the agenda had changed to a demand for full acceptance as an honorable lifestyle. Apparently I didn’t go far enough. The agenda has now moved beyond merely demanding acceptance. Some who support a radical gay agenda are now demanding forced, re-education (read: brainwashing). According to a recent article by Robert Knight, “The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing school districts in California and Kentucky in an attempt to force them to conduct mandatory homosexual appreciation sessions for students and staff.”

There are undoubtedly many gay people who want nothing more than freedom from harassment and discrimination--but how long will it be before America realizes that there is also a much more radical element which works for the suppression of all opposition and even the brainwashing of the next generation of children. I guess the real question is whether America will wake up before it is too late.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

William Patterson University and Jihad Daniel

Anyone who has still has doubts about how our freedom of speech is being trampled on in the name of political correctness needs to read the attached link about how an Muslim man was formally reprimanded for simply expressing his opinion in response to an unsolicited e-mail.,2933,163705,00.html
See also:

Abortion and medical risks

I’m sure you heard the news about a pro-choice (yes, pro-choice) counseling service which estimates that at least 10% of women who have abortions develop severe psychological problems after their abortion. No? Well maybe you heard of the 2001 study of “41,000 women who had abortions” which showed that they actually had five times more “hospital admissions for psychiatric problems compared to a similar number of women who had no abortions.” No again? Well surely you heard of a “study of 600,000 women” who had “a six-fold increase in suicides” after their abortion as compared with those who gave birth. Missed that one too?

That’s not really surprising since the news media just doesn’t seem to report things like this, nor do they report the fact that women who have had abortions are at greater risk for subsequent infertility, premature deliveries, and breast cancer.

Isn’t there something terribly uncompassionate and radically immoral for society to aggressively push a woman’s “right to choose” and then not tell her about all the negative medical and mental health consequences of her "choice"? Could it be that promoting a more sexually permissive society is more important to some groups than women's health?

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Abstinence Programs

While studies have shown that abstinence programs have been effective in preventing STD’s and teen pregnancies, critics constantly argue that abstinence programs don’t work. What do they want, 100% effectiveness? If so, perhaps we should abolish all drug, alcohol and prisoner rehabilitation programs as well. After all, regardless of how many success stories these programs produce, an immense number of people are still taking drugs, drinking to excess, and committing crimes. Could it be that much of the opposition to abstinence programs has more to do with an ideological agenda of sexual permissiveness rather than whether abstinence programs really work or not?

Monday, July 25, 2005

Abstinence pledges and STD's

“In the April 2005 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, professors Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner claimed that adolescents who have taken the virginity pledge have the same rate of STD infections as those who have never taken a pledge.” This finding was immediately picked up and spread widely by the news media. Two other researchers, Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, however, later examined the same research data of 14,000 surveys, and found the story to be misleading.

Rector and Johnson examined five STD measures (including the only one that Bearman and Bruckner reported) and discovered that in every case the abstinence pledge “predicts lower STD rates among young adults.” Four of these measures were confirmed at a statistical level of 95% or above. The one measure Bearman and Bruckner reported was “only” confirmed at a 90% level--not quite high enough to satisfy social science requirements. This doesn’t mean abstinence didn’t work (which was the impression given by the media), only that the level of confidence in this one measure, was not quite high enough to prove it statistically. But in all five measures, abstinence pledgers had lower STD rates than non-pledgers.

In addition to lowering STD rates, those who pledged abstinence were also found to be less likely to have children out of wedlock. This means that abstinence pledges would lower the number of unwanted children and the number of children growing up in neglect and poverty. Why would anyone want to suppress or misrepresent news that could lessen human suffering? And why haven’t the news media picked up on this story the way they did when they thought the story was against abstinence? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the health of our children is not the primary agenda behind this debate.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Islam and the Left

Those on the left are constantly, sometimes viciously, attacking America, but I rarely hear them criticizing radical Muslim countries or militant Islam. Why is that? Those on the left are tireless defenders of freedom, yet few Muslim countries are democratic. Those on the left are fierce defenders of women’s rights, yet some of the worst atrocities against women in the world occur in some Muslim countries. Those on the left are rightly against racism, and yet some Muslim countries are among the most racist countries in the world. The left is rightly insistent on the ethical treatment of prisoners and yet many Muslim countries routinely torture prisoners. The left is adamant about separation of church and state and yet some Muslim countries are governed by religious law. In every one of these cases, America is much closer to the leftist ideal than many Muslim countries, so why is it that the left’s criticism of America is so rabid while they just seem to give a free ride to everything related to Islam?

Friday, July 22, 2005

Guards at Gitmo

Concern over prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay is still in the news, yet according to Steve Harrigan, (Fox Weekend Live, July 2 or 3) who had recently returned from Guantanamo Bay, some of the more “noncompliant” inmates sometimes throw a cocktail of urine, feces, and semen on the guards! Some extend their arms in airplane fashion and say, “9/11, 9/11, boom” and then laugh! With all the concern over the treatment of terrorists at Gitmo isn’t it sad that almost no one in Hollywood, the media or Congress seems to express concern for the treatment our men and women who are assigned to guard these..., these..., well, I’ll let you finish the sentence.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Personal peace and prosperity

Last week I mentioned some big-mouthed Brit who interrupted a live CNN broadcast from England, blaming America for the terrorist attacks in London. Apparently this Brit thinks we should have just left Saddam alone to take over his neighbors and slaughter his own people. If America had used this philosophy sixty years ago Nazi’s might be ruling England today. So what if Hitler would have continued his mass tortures and killings. Just think how many American lives would have been saved! (Of course I’m being sarcastic).

Francis Schaeffer once criticized western culture for being interested only in “personal peace and prosperity.” He was referring to an attitude which says, “leave me alone, let me be prosperous, and give me freedom to do anything I want to do.” I often wonder if this is not the real agenda behind some (certainly not all) in the anti-war movement. They don’t seem to care if people in other countries, like Iraq, were being oppressed, tortured, gassed and slaughtered--just as long as we don’t have to get involved! So much for compassion!

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

John Roberts and the Supreme Court

For more information on John Roberts, the new Supreme Court nominee:

ACLU and polygamy

Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that re-defining marriage opens the door to all kinds of other marriage arrangements. For example, if same-sex couples can be married, why not legalize polygamy or even incestuous marriages between brothers and sisters, or mothers and daughters (the offspring problem could be resolved by sterilization and adoption). Why not legalize marriages between groups of men and women? Those who support same-sex marriage, of course, argue that these scenarios are absurd. The ACLU has unwittingly helped clear up this dispute. In a speech at Yale University (January 27, 2005) which received almost no media attention, ACLU president, Nadine Strossen said that the ACLU defends the rights of adults to engage in polygamy.

Same-sex marriage is not even widely recognized yet and the ACLU has already taken the next step. Despite the smoke screen to the contrary, re-defining marriage will open the doors to all kinds of other arrangements. These “alternative lifestyles” may seem bazaar to us right now, but, with a little help from Hollywood, they’ll seem perfectly normal in a few years. After all, the idea of same-sex marriage would have seemed perverted and unthinkable to most in my parent’s generation. So never mind that these new alternative lifestyles could have devastating consequences on the children who are raised in these experiments, all that really matters is personal sexual freedom, right?

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Homosexuality and compassion

Over the weekend, (July 16, 2005) CBS news did a news story on a sports star from New Hampshire who had recently revealed a secret he had kept for his whole life. The secret--that his parents were gay--came out when his parents became the first gay couple in the United States to be married. In reality the “news story” was a tear-jerker propaganda piece--complete with sentimental background music--clearly designed to promote sympathy for a gay/lesbian agenda.

Years ago, when the issue of homosexuality came out of the closet in America, the initial plea was for tolerance and compassion. The agenda, however, has changed dramatically. Society now demands that gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual lifestyles be eagerly embraced as appropriate and acceptable in every way. Hollywood, the ACLU, special interest groups, and even the news media have been particularly effective in changing public opinion--so much so that anyone who merely expresses reservations about homosexuality may now be called an extremist or homophobe (sounds like intolerant hate speech to me)! Indeed, in Vermont, a Catholic couple is now being sued for merely expressing verbal reservations about allowing a reception for a gay civil union to be held in their own privately owned inn (for those who support the more radical gay agenda, freedom of speech apparently means protection of their speech only)!

Just to be clear: mocking and violence toward gays is unacceptable and should be condemned. But let’s think about this for a minute. Even if the gay community were correct that some people are born gay--that doesn’t mean that all who engage in such risky behaviors are gay. Some have just been drawn into risky behavioral decisions, including same-sex relationships, by purely environmental influences. As the result of a new study recently published in the Journal of Pediatrics, a Harvard Medical school physician and researcher said, “the leading causes of morbidity and mortality are no longer infections, congenital disorders, and cancer, but the outcome of acquired health risk behaviors, including risky sex.”

As a result of these "acquired health risk behaviors," over five hundred thousand people in the United States have died from AIDS (according to the CDC)! To put this in perspective, that is more than the total number of people living in the entire state of Wyoming, or not much less than the total number of people living in Washington DC! The gay/lesbian community, of course, would be quick to point out that AIDS is not just a homosexual problem. They are right. AIDS and other STD’s are also regularly spread by the same lifestyles that are so successfully glamorized by such shows as Friends and Sex and the City.

The fact is that the western world is actively--even aggressively--promoting lifestyles that lead to widespread suffering and death--and they are doing it in the name of tolerance and compassion! To deliberately promote and glamorize such deadly lifestyles is not only profoundly uncompassionate, it borders on the criminally insane!

Monday, July 18, 2005

Karl Rove and the CIA

Karl Rove, special assistant to President Bush, continues to be big news this morning. In the course of a discussion with a reporter, Rove happened to mention that Ambassador Joe Wilson’ wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Because of the legal technicalities involved there is some question about whether Rove technically broke the law or not, for example, Rove didn’t actually give out the agent’s name (though he clearly revealed her identity).

Whether Rove technically broke the law is really beside the point. We simply cannot allow someone--especially in Rove’s position--to reveal the identity of a CIA agent, not even if the revelation was indirect, accidental or with good intentions. Potentially, a tiny slip like this could cost valuable connections, critical intelligence, and agents’ lives. For Rove to insist that he didn’t reveal the agent’s “name” is a bit like some of the parsing Bill Clinton used to do! The criminal investigation will only tell us whether Rove needs to be jailed. We already have enough information to know that in this case, the Democrats are right: the president needs to fire Karl Rove.

Friday, July 15, 2005

Boy Scouts and freedom of speech

Once every four years the Pentagon apparently helps to foot the bill for the Boy Scouts of America to hold their National Scout Jamboree on a military base in Virginia. Thousands of scouts from all over the country are benefited by this. The Associated Press and Religious News Service reported that just last week a federal judge in Chicago ruled that this was unconstitutional because of the Boy Scouts’ pledge that says “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country…” A former United Methodist minister (!) who brought the lawsuit said “Government must be neutral because we are a nation of many religious views.”

Excuse me, but exactly which religious views are violated by the Boy Scout pledge? The overwhelming majority of Americans are Christians, Jews or Muslims and all of them believe in God. The Scouts don’t tell anyone what God to believe in or what church/ synagogue/mosque to go to. They don’t give preference to any denomination or religion. In fact, the Boy Scouts is not even a religious organization!

I suspect that the real agenda has nothing to do with concern over various religious views. Judges who view the Constitution as a “living, breathing document,” are systematically removing every reference to God or religion from public life. But as Justice Souter demonstrated, the founding fathers never intended to remove religion from public life. If creative judges can restrict religion from public life they can just as easily re-interpret “freedom of speech” to mean freedom of “private” speech.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech

In the last 50 years or so, the Supreme Court has increasingly outlawed religious expression in public life, e.g. prayer in public schools, the Ten Commandments in courthouses, nativity scenes in city squares, Christian symbols on state banners or flags, etc. In fact, while school teachers once taught the Bible in public schools, they no longer have freedom of speech when it comes to religion in the classroom. The point is that the Supreme Court is increasingly re-interpreting “Freedom of Religion” to mean, in effect, “freedom of non-public expression of religion.” As Justice Scalia has shown, this is something that would have been
unthinkable to the Congress that submitted the First Amendment.

My question is this: When “Freedom of Religion” can increasingly be re-interpreted to mean, “freedom of non-public expression of religion,” how can we be so sure that “Freedom of Speech” won’t some day be re-interpreted to mean, freedom of non-public expressions of speech? In other words, as the Supreme Court becomes filled with justices who treat the Constitution as a living, breathing document, how can we be sure that they won’t decide that “Freedom of Speech,” really means freedom to express our opinions in the privacy of our own homes, but public speech must not violate certain political, or politically correct boundaries?

If this seems far-fetched, it is only because you have still not read You Can’t Say That; The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws by David Bernstein. The fact is that the courts are already moving in this direction and the only way to stop it is to appoint Supreme Court Justices who are “originalists”, that is, who will interpret the constitution as originally intended rather than seeing it as a “living, breathing document.”

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

England's homegrown terrorists

England is in shock this morning by revelations that the ones who bombed London were born and raised in England. Welcome to the club. America has some home grown terrorists too. I’ll let the Brits speak for themselves, but in our public schools and colleges, America’s history, heritage, and Judeo-Christian traditions are regularly berated, ridiculed and demonized, while the evils of other cultures are downplayed or ignored (all in the name of multiculturalism)! This being the case, doesn’t the real miracle consist in the fact that we don’t have more home-grown terrorists?

Maybe it’s time to give more emphasis to the good things in our history and tradition. I’m not suggesting that we whitewash our national sins--far from it! I myself am a big critic of American culture! But I am suggesting that we teach our children the good with the bad and that we take our politically correct blinders off when we look at the atrocious evils of many other cultures. By the way, if you even had to pause for a second to ask, “what good things,” you just made my point about public education! What good things? Maybe you should ask the millions of immigrants who want so desperately to get into this country and then ask yourself why we don’t also have millions who are leaving.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Justice Scalia and the Ten Commandments

I finally had a chance to read Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion on the Kentucky Ten Commandments case. Justice Scalia argues that the framers of the Constitution never intended to exclude religion from the public forum. According to Scalia, the same week Congress submitted the First Amendment--which is supposedly the basis for the idea of separation of church and state--they not only began their legislative sessions with prayer, they also “enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate.” In fact, the very next day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress “requested the President to proclaim ‘a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.”

Scalia’s examples go on and on, but his point is that our founding Fathers never dreamed that their Constitution would one day be used as a means to systematically exclude religion from public life. When after 200 years, the Supreme Court can suddenly find something, like public display of the Ten Commandments to be unconstitutional, our freedom no longer rests on the Constitution, but on the whims of a high priesthood of justices and their ever evolving social agendas.

Monday, July 11, 2005

British bombings and blaming America

Doesn’t it seem like whenever something bad happens in the world, someone will find a way to blame America? On Saturday, a live broadcast from England was interrupted briefly by some guy shouting to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that she should tell the truth, which according to him was that the bombings in England happened because America is in Iraq! Unfortunately, many in England and America agree. They seem to think that if America had only have left the bad guys alone to torture, gas, and mass murder their own people, they would have left us alone as well.

Maybe this Brit forgot that even before America relieved Iraq of its murderous dictator:
1) Terrorists killed 3,000 Americans (9/11, 2001)
2) Terrorists killed 17 Americans in the attack on the USS Cole in (2000)
3) Terrorists killed 11 with a bomb outside an American embassy in Tanzania (1998)
4) Terrorists killed 213 with a bomb outside an American embassy in Kenya (1998)
5) Terrorists wounded 4,500 in these two embassy attacks
6) Terrorists killed 19 Americans outside the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996)
7) Terrorists killed 6 and wounded over 1,000 with a bomb in the basement of the
World Trade Center (1993)

Or perhaps he thinks all of these murders were in retaliation for the Gulf War in 1990-1991. But terrorists were killing us even before that war too. In 1988 terrorists bombed a Pan AM 747 killing 259 passengers. In 1983 Shi’ite Muslims exploded a bomb in Beirut killing 241 Americans. The murder of all 500 of these innocent people happened before the 1990-1991 Gulf War in which we, along with a coalition including Muslim nations, helped rescue the Muslim country of Kuwait from the unprovoked take-over by Iraq.

But somehow our enemies still blame America. Perhaps if all 300 million Americans and Israeli’s in the world just committed mass suicide Muslim terrorists would then be happy. Probably not. After all, it was the takeover of one Muslim country (Iraq) by another Muslim country (Kuwait) that got our troops committed to the Gulf in the first place! Before that, Shi’ite and Sunny Muslims were killing each other in the war between Iraq and Iran, and Pakistan’s Muslims and India’s Hindus have, at times, actually brought the region to the bring of nuclear war! While its true that these are nations and not terrorists, that doesn't provide much comfort. America certainly has its sins, but I can’t help thinking that those who blame almost everything on America, just hate America.

Friday, July 08, 2005

AIDS and circumcision

As recently as April 4th a writer for the UCLA Daily Bruin demanded that circumcision be outlawed, calling it “genital mutilation” and a “violation of human rights.” She is not alone. Earlier this year a bill was introduced in the California state legislature that would make circumcision illegal. After reading the bill, it is hard for me to wonder whether the real agenda isn’t anti-religious bigotry since the arguments against circumcision are vastly are overstated and Jews and Muslims would be the primary targets.

This controversy, however, is what makes the article in the July 5, 2005 Wall Street Journal so interesting. The Wall Street Journal reports “…French and South African researchers have apparently found that male circumcisions reduce by about 70% the risk that men will contract HIV through intercourse with infected women.” If scientists even remotely suspected that they had discovered a medication which might reduce AIDS by 70%, every major news outlet in the country would be on the story like flies on cowpies! So far, the San Francisco Chronicle is the only major news source to have picked up on the Wall Street Journal story. Radio commentator Dennis Prager suspects that many in the media are so biased against religion that they suppress the story deliberately. It’s hard to imagine that so many journalists could be so bigoted as to suppress news which--if confirmed--could save millions of lives. I sincerely hope that religious bigotry is not the reason the lack of widespread media attention.

Muslims and Terrorists

In the weeks to come we will undoubtedly be bombarded with news and commentary about the terrorist attacks in London. With this in mind, as you come to the front of the Walmart checkout line and find that the cashier waiting on you happens to be a Muslim, please remember one thing…she didn’t do it! The terrorists did not ask her opinion or advice about the bombings and if she is an American Muslim the chances are good that she is just a disgusted over the attacks as you are. Unfortunately, there are some Americans who will undoubtedly vent their anger and frustration out on innocent Muslims so please, in the coming days when you happen to meet a Muslim in the store or on the street, go out of your way to be a little more friendly and show a little extra kindness. Even if they personally agreed with the attacks (which is unlikely), the words of St. Paul would still apply, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Steve Groene and Level 3 Sex Offenders

Last night on CNN, I watched an emotional plea from Steve Groene, the father of the children who where kidnapped and molested by Joseph Duncan. Duncan had a long history of violence and child rape, and was classified as a level 3 sex offender (the most violent kind). He was actually out on parole when he kidnapped Shasta and Dylan Groene and killed their mom! Mr. Groene appealed to the audience to ask their congressional representatives to ensure that people like Duncan are never released into the public again. I agree. Shasta and Dylan didn’t get a second chance. Why should people like Duncan have a second chance?

To contact your representatives click on: or see the “Thomas” link in the left column of this blog. (Hint: when writing to your representatives, 1) always be respectful. 2) be concise and get to the point. I doubt that long, preachy messages get read even by congressional aids). For example, I sent the following e-mail to my congressman:

“Last night on CNN Shasta Groene's father made an emotional plea for congress to put a stop to the release of level 3 sex offenders into society. I agree. Please consider proposing legislating that would make the kidnapping and molesting of children a federal offense punishable by death or at least by life in prison without possibility of parole. Thanks for your good work!”

Breaking News: London

Pray for the people of London this morning. If you missed the news, the story is still breaking that seven separate explosions have rocked the London transit system during the height of the morning rush hour. At this hour, TV news is reporting over 150 known casualties, a number that appears to be growing. An organization claiming connection with Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility, though the sick fact is that numerous groups often claim responsibility for such terrorist acts so it is still unclear who is actually responsible (some might suspect the IRA but reports are that suicide bombers may be involved and the IRA has never used suicide bombers).

If this does turn out to be the work of Islamic terrorists, now is the time for Muslims who have claimed that Islam is a peaceful religion to flood the talk shows, the blogs, and their local newspapers with condemnations for these heinous terrorist acts. We also need to see Muslim religious leaders on the local TV news telling of how they condemned these attacks publicly before their congregations. Now is the time to demonstrate that true Islam is a peaceful religion.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Pakistan's Blasphemy Law and the Qur'an

Shabaz Kaka was on a bus going to Faisalabad, Pakistan, when the bus stopped at a Mosque for a break. The leaders of the mosque, noticing that Kaka was wearing a cross, questioned him and found that he was a Christian. They called the police and falsely accused him of desecrating a Qur’an. Kaka was arrested and jailed under Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law. He was in jail for three years before even getting a court hearing. Last September he was sentenced to life in prison.

Imagine the world-wide protest that would result if a judge sentenced someone to life in prison for tearing up a Bible?! Human rights groups would rightly be outraged. Unfortunately, persecution of Christians--which is widespread--rarely even makes the news.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Intolerance and Dr. Reina Michaelson

Australia’s new “Racial and Religious Intolerance Act” is again raising its ugly head. Psychologist Reina Michaelson, winner of the 1997 Young Australian of the Year Award and tireless campaigner against child abuse, is now being sued for religious vilification. According to the Melbourne Herald Sun (May 31) an occult group claims that an article on Dr. Michaelson’s website could incite hatred against their group (the article wasn’t even written by Dr. Michaelson). The article refers to the group’s own text which, apparently contains verses that “talk of blood rituals using children, eating flesh, the sacrifice of a child, the killing and torture of others and uninhibited 'love' without restraint."

In my June 22 blog I referred to this same Intolerance Act as applied to two Christians who were convicted, essentially for teaching passages in the Qur’an that put Muslims in a bad light! While we may think this could never happen in America, please read You Can’t Say That; The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws by David Bernstein. Bernstein shows that the courts in America are already moving in this direction by placing anti-discrimination laws even above the First Amendment! Unfortunately, when we have Supreme Court justices who creatively interpret the Constitution in light of contemporary culture, and now, even in light of foreign cultures, the future of free speech looks pretty grim. This is why it is so critical for the president to appoint judges who will interpret what the Constitution actually says, rather than creatively re-interpreting it to fit the whims of modern culture.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Sandra Day O'Connor

ABC News is reporting that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has just retired. Now begins one of the most important battles in decades! It is absolutely critical that the president appoint a justice who will interpret what the Constitution actually says, rather than creatively inventing meanings based on current cultural whims or foreign pressures. See my posts on June 29 and May 6.

Seizing Justice Souter's home?

On June 29, I received an e-mail from “Conservative Alerts” entitled, “Punish Souter for property theft decision”. The e-mail said that a private developer has contacted the local town government in the hometown of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, asking that his property be seized to make room for a new hotel. This is in retaliation for the Supreme Court ruling allowing cities to seize private property for the good of the community. The developer is arguing that his hotel is in the best interest of the community because it will bring business to the town.

As much as I hate the idea that a private developer could pressure a city government to run people out of their homes, seizing Justice Souter’s property will not change the ruling. In fact, the only thing this effort will do is give more reason for some to think that conservatives are mean-spirited. I often find myself agreeing with “Conservative Alerts,” but this petty vindictiveness is just wrong!

Senator John Cornyn of Texas just introduced “The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act (S.1313). This is a much more appropriate response. If you’re interested, you can find your senator’s e-mail address in the “Thomas” link in the left column of this blog.