“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” – The First Amendment
The First Amendment is unmistakably clear, yet the onslaught against these
freedoms has heightened. Free speech and free exercise of religion are targets
for liberals, extreme Islamists, homosexuals, and politically correct people in
general. It goes against the grain of what the United States of America stands
for and, barring reforming voices willing to stand up for |
 |
the First Amendment, we could lose its provisions and the
freedom that goes with them.
“For decades we have been watching the precious religious
liberties and freedoms our founding forefathers gave their blood
to protect being eroded,” says Mike Johnson, senior legal
counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Scottsdale,
Ariz.-based legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak
the truth. “Truth can prevail when it is presented, but the
reason prayer was removed from schools and abortion was
legalized is because truth wasn’t presented. We have to wake
up.”
Attacks on Free Speech Escalating
The ADF often goes head to head with the American Civil
Liberties Union, or ACLU, on First Amendment issues. The ADF won
a victory against the ACLU’s push to have a painting of Jesus
removed from the Slidell city courthouse in New Orleans. Other
battles are still brewing. Consider Erica Corder, a high school
valedictorian from Colorado. The school district forced her to
publicly apologize for declaring her Christian faith and sharing
the Gospel message in her graduation speech. In fact,
Lewis-Palmer High School refused to give its valedictorian a
diploma until she did.
On a different front, pro-life demonstrators in Kansas City, Mo.
still await justice. They were arrested three years ago for
carrying signs depicting an aborted unborn child. Meanwhile,
Susan Mendelson filed suit against a Long Island town for
standing in the way of her Gospel-preaching efforts. The Jews
for Jesus member was recently ticketed for proselytizing and
handing out religious materials in a public park. Police
escorted her off the property. And in Florida, two Gideon
International members, Anthony Mirto and Ernest Simpson, were
arrested earlier this year for handing out Bibles on a public
sidewalk. When the judge dismissed the trespassing charges,
authorities filed new charges under an ordinance that bans
people from being within 500 feet of school property. The
arresting officer verbally assaulted the men, who suffered wrist
injuries, according to police filings. Not last and not least,
two 70-plus-year-old grandmas were arrested in Philadelphia for
spreading the Gospel. Under a hate crimes law there, they faced
up to 47 years in jail.
“Organizations like the ACLU are using the constitution as a
weapon against the expression of religion,” says John Armor,
legal counsel to the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), a
non-partisan organization in Alexandria, Va. that aims to
protect the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans. The
ACRU is the ideological opposite of the ACLU. “The founders
intended that government should not be in the business of
promoting one religion over the other,” Armor continues, “not
that the government should be hostile to the idea of religion.”
The attacks against free speech aren’t all centered on religion,
though. The Vermont Supreme Court recently ruled that a reporter
cannot refuse to testify about what he or she witnesses at a
public meeting if it’s relevant to issues in a civil lawsuit. In
another example, Avery Doninger is appealing to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to overturn 2008 class office
election results, alleging school officials unconstitutionally
denied her candidacy because she exercised her free speech
rights to complain on her blog. And WCBC, a radio station in
Maryland, recently filed suit against an Allegany County Board
of Education member for denying its First Amendment rights.
County schools refuse to give the station access to press boxes
at sports events because the station aired negative stories
about the board.
“Freedom of expression is never safe, never secure, and is
always in the process of being made safe and secure,” says John
Seigenthaler, founder of First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt
University, an organization whose mission is to create a
national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment
values. “When the country is fearful, uncertain, and insecure –
in times of war – rights of expression are most at risk. Freedom
of expression in times like this is in jeopardy,” adds
Seigenthaler, who is also a former president of the American
Society of Newspaper Editors. He served 43 years as an
award-winning reporter and was the founding editorial director
of USA Today.
Polarizing Political Motivations
First Amendment watchdogs agree with Seigenthaler’s take. In
times of war, free speech comes under greater attack. Beyond the
individual assaults, however, there are broad movements in
political, religious and secular humanistic realms against First
Amendment rights, or at least their interpretations.
Although news headlines are peppered with stories about the
Fairness Doctrine and the Hate Crimes Bill, less is known about
potentially limiting legislation such as Project Fair Play. Even
fewer may realize PBS is a liberal mouthpiece, as Robert Knight
puts it. Knight is the director of the Culture and Media
Institute, a division of the Alexandria, Va.-based Media
Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group. And fewer
still may understand how Islamic extremists are using the First
Amendment against law-abiding citizens, according to Dr. Rachel
Ehrenfeld, director of The American Center for Democracy (ACD),
an organization that monitors and exposes the enemies of freedom
and their modus operandi, and explores practical ways to
counteract their methods.
The Fairness Doctrine has caused a heated debate across the
nation. The theory behind the Fairness Doctrine, put in place in
the 1940s when there were relatively few radio and television
stations compared to today, was that media outlets should offer
people the full spectrum of news and opinion. The Fairness
Doctrine revival has set off a fierce battle between
conservatives and liberals who hope to silence conservative talk
radio. According to Dr. Craig Smith, founder of the Center for
First Amendment Studies at California State University, Long
Beach, “The Democrats weren’t in control of Congress for years –
and they blamed conservative commentators in the media. Now they
want to try to restrict those conservative commentators and
chill their free speech by reimposing a Fairness Doctrine.”
Next up is the Hate Crimes Bill. The bill passed through the
Senate at the end of September. At the time of this writing it
was waiting for approval from the House of Representatives. The
Hate Crimes Bill would commission a separate federal criminal
prosecution for state offenses tried under its provisions. If
convicted, an offender could face life in prison. The bill has
serious implications for Christians. In October of 2004, 11
Christians with Repent America, an evangelistic organization
based in Philadelphia, were arrested while ministering the
Gospel on the city’s streets during a publicly-funded
celebration of homosexuality called “OutFest.” The District
Attorney charged them under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law,
known as “Ethnic Intimidation.” These charges were later
dismissed; however, if the Christians had been convicted, they
each would have faced up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in
fines. While pastors were concerned about the Hate Crimes Bill,
many don’t know about Project Fair Play. “Project Fair Play, a
program of Barry Lynn’s Americans United for the Separation of
Church and State, is seeking informants to monitor churches for
evidence that pastors are engaging in political speech,” Knight
explains.
Meanwhile, Muslim organizations are using the First Amendment
against the U.S. democracy to silence the voices of Islamic
critics and to gain a platform at American Universities. Rosie
O’Donnell may believe, as she has stated under her First
Amendment rights that, “Radical Christianity is just as
threatening as radical Islam in a country like the United
States.” But she won’t get sued for it. Pro-Muslim groups like
the Council on American-Islamic Relations, though, are known to
file libel lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in damages
against people whose free speech they perceive as a threat to
their agenda. “We have to enforce the First Amendment,” says
Elhred. “The government is too scared to upset the Muslim
population in the oil fields. It’s outrageous. We are living in
a free county and we must fight for free speech.”
Radical Islamic extremists enjoy the free speech America offers.
Take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent, controversial speech at New
York City’s Columbia University. The Iranian President’s visit
to Columbia University demonstrates the profound stupidity and
naiveté on the part of American academia. So says Canadian
moralist Tristan Emmanuel, president of the ECP Centre of Canada
– the Canadian equivalent of the Moral Majority – who believes
that liberalism has betrayed the trust of America. “Ahmadinejad
used the occasion to turn all the questions on their head and
accused America of terrorism – he also scored points with
several in the audience. Only an idiot can interpret this
publicity stunt as a victory for American free-speech values,”
Emmanuel says. “This event had nothing to do with free speech –
Ahmadinejad already has and continues to exercise free speech
daily. He doesn’t need American lackies for that. Furthermore,
the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily even apply to
non-Americans. But even so, if ‘Free Speech’ was the issue, why
the double standard? What about the free speech rights of The
Minutemen and others who’ve been denied the right to a forum or
podium at Columbia and other universities because their views
were ‘politically incorrect’?”
Standing Up and Speaking Out
Elhred, for one, is waiting for Americans to fight. But what are
we fighting for? Well, America. What would America look like if
these anti-First Amendment issues gain ground in the land? A
Third World country where you believe and practice whatever the
government tells you to, according to Judge Roy Moore, the
former Alabama Supreme Court judge and founder of the
Montgomery, Ala.-based Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit
organization that litigates and educates people about religious
liberties under the First Amendment.
“People are too proud to pray to the God that made us. They open
Congress with Hindu prayer. The President of the United States
rededicates a mosque to a false god. Where are we going? We are
going to tyranny,” Moore says. “Tyranny is the other end of
liberty and freedom. Tyranny is when government tells you
everything you can do and believe, think and act. They have no
right to do that. Our country was not founded on that basis.”
Freedom fighters like Moore are issuing a wake up call to the
Body of Christ. Although most people are aware of the culture
wars in the U.S., the ADF’s Johnson notes, they are largely
apathetic until a hand grenade detonates in their backyard.
Often, it’s too late by that time. Regardless of vocation or
station, Johnson recommends some practical steps every citizen
can take to prevent further erosion of the First Amendment and
ungodly culture changes.
“You’ve got to be armed with information because people perish
for lack of knowledge,” Johnson says. “Write a letter to the
editor of your newspaper and articulate the issues and the truth
on matters going on in your area. Form a community impact
committee in your church. Gather like-minded people that have
caught the vision, who understand the threat and who want to do
something about it. Combined, these efforts can make a huge
impact on the culture. If more people would get involved we
would see the tide turn.”
Comment on this story in The Voice blog
