Is the FIRST Amendment for REAL???

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin, Oct 20, 2003.

  1. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Here's another rather startling commentary, from Barbara Simpson in WorldNetDaily this morning, once you read it and give it some serious thought! It's just another example of just how far we have strayed from the path of the real meaning of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers mus all be spinning in their graves.....


    'General! Shut your mouth ... Sir!'
    By Barbara Simpson
    October 20, 2003

    It's quite amazing, isn't it, this "freedom of speech" that we have. It's guaranteed in the Constitution. You can say anything you want, anywhere – just don't yell fire in a theater.

    Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. Nowadays, you can say anything you want unless someone, somewhere might be offended by what you say.

    What does that mean?

    Well, sir, it means anything the offended person might want it to mean. Sort of like "is."

    Mention God in a school? Well, no. Can't do that.

    Wear a cross at work? Well, no. Hanging decorations on your body is a form of "speech" too.

    Say grace before your meal at college? Uh-uh.

    Repeat the Pledge of Allegiance as it has been said by millions for the last 49 years? Well, almost "uh-uh." The Supreme Court is mulling that one over.

    Call a terrorist a terrorist? Uh, sorry. No. Can't do that. Wouldn't want to offend people of the same belief as the terrorist.

    What? How can that be? We know who's behind terrorism. Specifically, Islamic terrorism. That's the terrorism bragged about by the likes of Osama bin Laden. He's still declaring jihad against the U.S. and the West. We see tapes and hear him gloating about the destruction of the World Trade Center. We saw the celebrating in the streets over the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in this country on that fateful day.

    Actually we only saw those pictures in the news until the powers that be in TV management decided that kind of "free speech" might hurt someone's feelings and so they stopped broadcasting the video.

    For the same reasons, they stopped showing the video of people jumping out of the towers, and finally stopped the rebroadcast of the towers collapsing.

    There are those who might call that political censorship but, gee, that accusation might hurt someone's feelings. But that doesn't mean I won't think it's censorship because that's exactly what it is.

    The difference is it's an "accepted" censorship, because if we saw those pictures, we might get angry at the perpetrators of the mayhem. Specifically, Islamist terrorists. And getting angry at them is a "no-no."

    We've also heard other rants about the gripes of the terrorists against the West. We've also seen people investigated and arrested for complicity in the 9-11 and other terrorist attacks perpetuated by the same groups.

    They are Islamic terrorists – like it or not, they are Muslims and they say they do it to avenge Allah.

    We watch as money is tracked across the world – it is raised and laundered and moved and donated to support worldwide terrorist activities. One need only look at a map of the wars on this planet today to see clearly that the bulk of them involve followers of Islam fighting against Christians, Jews and any form of democracy.

    Hey, be careful now, someone might get offended.

    You're right, they might. But they shouldn't.

    No American authorities have said that all Muslims are terrorists, but there's no doubt that Islamist terrorists are indeed Muslims. That means, some Muslims are terrorists.

    Can we say that? Won't someone be offended?

    Well, gee. Why do you ask such difficult questions? But yes, someone might be offended. But it's factual. And we do have freedom of speech. Right?

    Yes, of course. But ... but ... it really depends on who hears what you say. Actually, it really depends on HOW they hear what you say.

    That makes it difficult to figure out what to say, when, how and to whom. Bottom line, it means that the West, specifically, the United States and every single one of its citizens better watch their lips. This rule especially applies to anyone who in any way is a government official.

    So we have the sad spectacle of an American military man, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, dragged across the carpet last week for what he said in speeches to Christian religious groups.

    What did he say?

    He said we're a Christian nation with Judeo-Christian roots. We're in a battle against Satan and God will not fail us. He also said, in reference to a Muslim warlord in Somalia in 1993, that "my god was a real god and his was an idol."

    Oops. Can't go around saying things like that. No one is bigger or better than anyone else. What do you mean Christians have God on their side? What an outrage that a military man might believe in God and actually talk about it publicly.

    Freedom of speech, indeed – for thee but not for me.

    Keep your eye on those homeland color alerts.

    © 2003
  2. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    I heard some chatter on the local news radio station about what Lt. Gen. William Boykin said. Honestly, I can see both sides of that issue.

    For starters, he is an individual and has a right to free speech. He can believe what he wants and say what he wants. But when he's wearing the uniform or speaking to a large audience in his official capacity as a member of our government, the rules get fuzzy. Yes, he still has the freedom to say what he wants. But that doesn't mean that there aren't ramifications to what he says.

    The fact that he is saying things like this in his official capacity is what the fuss is all about. In essence, people around the world hear a US government leader making the case that "our God is better than your god". This is exactly what the Bush administration has been trying to avoid. Because our country does not have an official national religion (thanks to that same First Amendment), we cannot represent ourselves as being of any particular religion. At least, not from an official capacity.

    And I think that's the difference here. It's not that he doesn't have the freedom to say what he wants. It's that what he says is confrontational and contrary to what our government is trying to do.

  3. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    Sniper, you are right on point about the good General. However, the rest of the comments in the artical are spot on, also. Political Correctness is being taken to extremes and fanatics scare me. Regardless of the subject, fanaticism is dangerous.

  4. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    That was precisely the point I was trying to make, Pops.

  5. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    Absolutely! I agree with the rest of it!
  6. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    I never doubted that you did, Toby.

    My whole point was the total running amuck of "Political Correctness", which, I feel, is one of the primary contributing factors to the breakdown of sound thinking and the Founding Father's dreams and morés....
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits Thursday at 9:32 PM
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Did Wisconsin just lose the 4th amendment rights Sep 18, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The 2nd Amendment in 2016 Aug 14, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Second amendment: a good deal, but a deal nonetheless. Aug 13, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Don Lemon Gets Owned AGAIN, over Trump’s 2nd Amendment comments Aug 10, 2016