It would seem that the 1st Amendment
guarantees of freedom of speech and religion are more pliable that one suspects
the Founders intended. Take, for example, the strange story of Lt. General
William Boykin.
He was recently named Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
for Intelligence. His mission is to reinvigorate the search for bin Laden,
Mullah Omar and other leaders of global terrorism. Boykin is also a Christian.
The general delivered a sermon at an Oregon church in which he called
the terrorists who war against us 'demonic' and said they hate us because 'we
are a Judeo-Christian nation.'
General Boykin's sermon was secretly
recorded by an LA Times reporter, who promptly recast it as a 'speech' and
selectively released quotes from it to the mainstream media.
Within
hours, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Howard Dean, the Egyptian
Foreign Minister, Osama bin Laden, the PCUSA and the rest of the liberal world
were screaming for Boykin's removal from office.
Ironically, the demands
for the head of General Boykin were being made on behalf of 'religious
tolerance'.
Among the 'intolerant' remarks seized on by the mainstream
was Boykin's assertion that "We're a Christian nation, because our foundation
and our roots are Judeo-Christian, and the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Let's take that statement apart and see how Boykin offended the
'tolerant'.
Whether or not America actually IS a "Christian" nation is a
matter of some dispute, but the fact is that the terrorists think we are. Osama
bin-Laden's declaration of war was against Christian America and Zionist Israel.
It wasn't a religious statement. It was a statement of secular fact.
As far as America's roots being Judeo-Christian, it depends on how one
defines 'roots'. The Pilgrims? The Founding Fathers? The Pilgrims came to
America in order to practice their Christian faith freely. The Declaration of
Independence acknowleges a Creator.
Again, a statement of secular fact.
And if our enemy isn't a guy named Satan, who cares? Unless the liberals
want to argue that Satan has been offended by Boykin's remarks, where is the
intolerance?
Not only was Boykin's freedom of speech been curtailed by
calls for his dismissal, but his comments were made in a church!
Assessment:
Let's shift gears, for a moment, and take a look at
another example:
Under the law, issue advocacy groups have an absolute
right to express their political views, provided they do not coordinate their
efforts with any single political campaign.
Moveon.org has defended its
anti-Bush ads by claiming their right under the 1st Amendment, for example.
When the Swift Boat Vets, also an issue advocacy group, launched its
series of ads questioning Kerry's background, the Kerry campaign smeared them as
liars, questioned their motives, threatened legal action to silence them, and
having exhausted those efforts, blamed the Bush campaign for NOT silencing them.
(Of course, if the Bush campaign DID tell them to stop, it would be an
'illegal coordination' -- Kerry knows that)
These are men who discharged
their oath to defend the Constitution in battle, many spilling their own blood.
Where is the outrage at efforts to subvert their 1st Amendment rights?
Capping it all was the Kerry campaign's allegation that because the
veterans received donations from prominent Republicans, they should be silenced.
(According to WorldNetDaily, of the top 25 contributors to 527 'soft money'
groups, the top 23 are Democrats.)
Over the course of the last
generation, the 1st Amendment has increasingly been interpreted as protecting
any speech or any religion except that rooted in Judeo-Christianity or espousing
conservative values.
The Koran can be taught in public schools, for
example, but the Bible cannot even be present in the classroom.
Liberal
advocacy groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and
State work tirelessly to keep God from playing any role in American life,
usually by claiming it offends some other religion or culture.
And
always, by cloaking themselves in the Constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, or the incredible, bendable, 1st Amendment.
The United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed in 1948 and serves as a
global 'bill of rights'. It guarantees all the same things that our Constitution
does, including freedom of assembly, religion, movement, etc.
In clause
29 of the 30 clause document, it says, "These rights and freedoms may in no case
be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
(UNUDHR Art 29, para 3)
To recap: In the case of the rights contained in
the UNUDHR, they are granted by the UN, provided they are in harmony with "the
purposes and principles of the United Nations."
On the other hand, the
Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."
If there is no Creator, America is founded on a myth.
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God
hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that,
when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:19-22)
REFERENCE:
Thank God for General Boykin
Liberal Congressman Condemns Christian General
Muslims Outraged by Gen. Boykin’s Remarks