May 21, 2005

It is "Freedom Of", Not "Freedom From"

I don't know if I should weep over this story, or whether I should engage in encourage massive rioting in the streets over the disrespect shown to my religious faith. In either event, I know I should be outraged over the rape of the First Amendment by both the school district and the judge in this case.

A public school prohibited a second grader from singing a religious song at a talent show, prompting a lawsuit Friday alleging violation of the girl's constitutional rights.

A federal judge declined an emergency request to compel Frenchtown Elementary School to allow 8-year-old Olivia Turton to sing "Awesome God" at the Friday night show, but allowed the lawsuit to go forward.

School officials in the western New Jersey community had said the performance would be inappropriate at a school event. A message seeking comment from a school board attorney about the judge's ruling was not immediately returned.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler in Trenton to consider the case later came just hours before Olivia had hoped to sing the pop song by the late Rich Mullins.

One verse has these lyrics: "Our God is an awesome God/He reigns from heaven above/with wisdom, pow'r and love/Our God is an awesome God."

It is implicit in the nature of a talent show that the students, not the school, select their songs. Therefore there is no question of the school "imposing" or "endorsing" anything. There is nothing "inappropriate" in the song -- unless one accepts the warped notion that allowing someone to acknowledge their religious beliefs is inappropriate. However, such a position would put you directly in conflict with the Constitutional prohibition on "prohibitting the free exercise" of religion.

What makes me saddest is that I somehow doubt that the school would have stopped this little girl from getting up on stage and parading around dressed like a whore and singing "Bootylicious". And as the story points out, the school has no problem allowing in a witchcraft ceremony during the talent show, drawn from Macbeth, despite the fact that witchcraft is ALSO a religion.

Such situations sometimes stir in me a disturbing thought. Maybe the Islamists have it right -- maybe we Christians need to take to the streets and leave a path of death and destruction through the cities of this country in order to get the respect from government that our numbers merit and the First Amendment supposedly grants us. But I know that is Satan -- and my own sinful nature -- talking.

We Christians follow the Prince of Peace. He has commanded us to turn the other cheek. He has warned us that we will be reviled by those who reject him, and will be persecuted for the sake of his name. So while we will fight in the halls of governemnt for our rights, and pursue them in the courts, true Christians will not engage in the savage behavior we have seen of late from the intolerant practitioners of a certain false religion.

For Jesus Christ is our Lord.

And Our God IS An Awsome God!

Posted by: Greg at 04:36 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Amen!

Sad to see this happening.

The girl has every right to sing that song just as a student decides to gather with other students to pray on public school grounds or at graduation, even a speech.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat May 21 04:55:05 2005 (PYrGt)

2 Like all other gods your god is merely a human construct that you choose to believe in. Keep your fairy stories for yourselves, and to your selves and leave the rest of us alone!!!!!!!!

Posted by: at Sat May 21 06:39:31 2005 (aHbua)

3 Hey, if the girl wants to sing that song, so be it. He is an awesome God.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat May 21 09:16:54 2005 (PYrGt)

4 To the coward who will not even put their name to their insult directed at the religious beliefs of most Americans;

1) Your belief that God is a human construct is nothing more than your personal construct that you choose to believe in -- keep it out of my life and my government.

2) The First Amendment protects out freedom of speech, guaranteeing that we do not have to remain silent simply because some arrogant SOB doesn't want to hear what we believe.

3) The First Amendment protects our freedom to practice our religion without interference from government -- or from scum-sucking SOBs who wish to drive Chistians back into the catacombs.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat May 21 11:59:20 2005 (lZxXq)

5 Greg, you're pitiful.

Go and visit McWeenie's blog -- he advocated editing the films, therefore he does not support the freedom of speech.

And the guy is right -- God is simply a figment of your imagination.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat May 21 13:06:52 2005 (nWmj6)

6 Whatever McConnell may or may not have said on his site regarding some film or another (and I don't pretend to know what you are talking about), that does not negate the validity of an argument based upon both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat May 21 13:29:31 2005 (7xsr8)

7 Exactly, RWR.

As for R, he missed the "for our personal freedom" in our homes to do what we want with those movies...not re-sell them altered. But R has every right to his own figment of his own imagination thinking that I do not support freedom of speech.

He couldn't be more wrong.

The girl has every right to sing that song as a choice from her repertoire list of songs. When kids sing about the glory of God, makes me smile. Goosebumps as well.




Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 22 04:06:51 2005 (94LEQ)

8 When you edite something that is not your own to start with, you ruin the art.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 22 10:56:42 2005 (nWmj6)

9 Maybe it wasn't art to begin with?

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 22 11:10:18 2005 (94LEQ)

10 The lawsuit against the Frenchtown district is correct. But when you talk about "leaving a path of death and destruction" in order to "get the respect that your numbers merit," then coyly disclaim the thought, you remind us that we'd be much worse off with Christian theocrats in charge.

Posted by: garym at Sun May 22 13:01:52 2005 (4H6pV)

11 I'm trying to draw a comparison between how Christians act and how the Islamists act. That you cannot see the point tells me that you are either a willfully blind anti-Christian bigot or an idiot.

And given how well the US did under us theocrats for most of the first two centuries of its existance, I think it is fair to say that you atheocrats have screwed it up rather seriously in the last 40.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 22 14:02:42 2005 (pm2sM)

12 mcweenie, it is an art whether u like it or not.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 22 19:40:56 2005 (nWmj6)

13 Art is only to the eye of the beholder. It doesn't mean that art is art for art's sake. Having a framed picture of a dog poo and calling it "art" relates to the state of mind of that person who created it. Certainly, to many, it's definitely not art.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 23 04:59:35 2005 (SALCs)

14 If you dislike it, it is an art because you already expressed it with your first reaction. Think hard a little more. Oh! I forgot -- the Xians do not think stuff like that.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 23 09:35:47 2005 (nWmj6)

15 R--you're forgetting one small detail. if editing strips of film that arent yours to begin with is wrong, then we would not be able to enjoy "gay bar" by electric six. more specifically, we wouldn't be able to chortle at tony blair and dubya seemingly propositioning each other.

Posted by: defBef at Mon May 23 09:49:33 2005 (Lo0/D)

16 If you want to consider doggy poo as "art," more power to you.


Anyhow, that's not what I'm here to discuss but RWR's "Freedom of" on a more intelligent level.


Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 23 10:08:53 2005 (SALCs)

17 Do any of you alleged "Christians" even remember why the Puritans were so willing to leave England??
Answer truthfully and you might begin to understand why the first amendment also implies "freedom from" religion. Idiots.

Posted by: at Mon May 23 13:29:04 2005 (aHbua)

18 Yes -- the left England so they could set up their own little theocracy, in which the laws were made according to their religious beliefs and not those of a tyrrant king.

One of their customs was for the pastor to preach a sermon befor ethe elections, in which he laid out which candidate was more Godly and therefore more willing of the vote of the people -- an endorsement which usually resulted in the election of his candidates.

It was illegal to be a Catholic or a Quaker in Massachussetts or Plymouth Colony, and Jesuits (or other priests ) were subject to a death sentence.

Is that a system which you would be willing to return to?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 23 13:44:10 2005 (wfdL5)

19 Hey why not I hear the inquisition was a real riot too?

Posted by: at Mon May 23 13:58:15 2005 (aHbua)

20 Both Christians and Muslims committed atrocities. However, it was Pope Paul II who made a public apology of these terrible deeds against humanity during the Christian's multiple crusades and inquisitions.
http://biblia.com/islam/pope.htm

However, it was also the Moslem Turks who wanted to continue their expansion across the world that helped sparked the Christian crusades. Yet, people continue to ignore the fact that "Muslims won more battles and eventually the war, seizing Palestine and Jerusalem for hundreds of years... so, they had more opportunities to commit atrocities." - http://biblia.com/islam/pope.htm

"In Islam the problem is accentuated because the Ruler of a Muslim country is at the same time the Political and Religious leader... starting with Muhammed himself who personally fought many wars to defend and expand Islam, and of course he is the model for all the Muslims... and because the final aim of Islam is to conquer the whole world for Allah... by peaceful means, or by war, as started by the Prophet himself."
http://biblia.com/islam/islam.htm

Two dark history, however, the Pope apologized for past grieviances.

Where's the Muslim's apology?

Right.

And who would say that Muslims everywhere won't try this again to take control of the world as long as they hold up Islam as their answer and excuse to take over the world?

Right.

Decide carefully who you chose. I choose on the side of freedom and freedom from tyranny, repression and violation of human decency. Islamic-govt controlled countries do not exactly inspire my confidence for obvious reasons in those areas.


Please, move to that country if you so hold them to high regards. Call your friendly terrorists your pals and buddies since you people seem to be quiet about this, wouldn't this be a confirmation (taking a jab at Newsweek) of their alliances?

Right.


Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 23 17:02:20 2005 (z6Eaf)

21 Islam is only 1,300 years old. It is going through the parenthesis stage. In time, they will water down its beliefs, just likst the Xian did in 1700s. It takes time.

Plus, I do not believe in Pope John Paul II's apology.

Vatican is filled with riches that were stolen from thousands of families across the world -- return them back to the owners with a sincere apology would be in a good order.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 23 19:53:15 2005 (nWmj6)

22 I am sure the "watered down" version of Islam includes beheadings, jihads, 72 virgins, martydoms, holy koran (itself, not allowing any type of desecration), stonings, chopping off of hands for thefts, instruction to take over the world and so on....

The problem is, "R", we're in the modern age of nuclear and chemical warfare. And seeing such overt zealousness among Islamic countries shows how alarming it is. They are constantly decrying "death to America" or proclaim "Jihad" against America and Americans.

This is what YOU do not see "R". They will strike at us and any countries they consider as "infidels" in their eyes.

This is the nature of the beast when it comes to Islam and their beliefs.

You had better hope that this "watered down" version happens over a speeded up time scale of a few hundred years in a space of several years.

Not gonna happen. Not with all this modern weapons available.

Nada. The only thing that protected America is the ocean expanses. Soon, that won't matter.





Posted by: mcconnell at Tue May 24 03:29:27 2005 (Tbivg)

23 I'm actually inclined to agree that the girl has the right to sing the song. I'd have to hear more information since the writer of the article is so unfamiliar with the case that he didn't know that the "verse" he quoted was the "chorus." I do however know the song and there's nothing offensive about it. It is however interesting to note that most of the people decrying this case have remained silent on a judge preventing Wiccan parents from raising their child in a "non-mainstream religion." See when I seek to defend the freedom of religion (which does, by it's nature, require a freedom from religion) I don't limit my fight to religions that I consider "mainstream."

I am troubled by the call to violence offered in this post (despite a weak attempt to retract it). This is what we need to fear my friends. What these nutcases can't accomplish with legislation they WILL accomplish with violence.

Posted by: dolphin at Sat May 28 05:53:52 2005 (TGO2t)

24 Actually, I plan on posting on that particular case as soon as i get done mowing the lawn (I'm on lunch break right now). I'm with you on it.

And there was no threat of violence advocated. There was an explanation of why there are not acts of violence, despite the fact that a certain other religious faith, accorded protected class status by ur government despite the fact that a large portion of it is making war on the United States, clearly does advocate and carries out precisely such acts of violence.

It isn't the Christians you have to worry about, my friend -- it is the folks who TODAY execute homosexuals under religious law, and who will gladly impose such laws here if given the chance. It isn't Christians, the folks who built this country into the beacon of freedom that it is today, who will impose religious tyrrany. But you folks are simply too blind to see.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat May 28 07:21:46 2005 (vm849)

25 It isn't the Christians you have to worry about, my friend -- it is the folks who TODAY execute homosexuals under religious law

I know it's not the Christians I have to worry about. It's the people like yourself who call themselves christians but are anything but. It's not the folks who excute gay people TODAY in their respective countries that I ahve to worry about. It's those, again like yourself, who want to excute gay people in THIS country TOMMORROW (metaphorically speaking, not actually tommorow the day).

I'm curious how you'd feel if the child wanted to read a passage from her favorite book "Heather has two Mommies" at the talent show.

Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 06:24:06 2005 (bTR97)

26 My only objection is that reading from ANY book really falls outside of the usual definition of "talent" that is used as a criteria.

And for the record, i'd also make that argument about getting up on stage to recite multiplication tables or disect a frog.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 29 07:06:24 2005 (mRNmZ)

27 And as for the execution comment, I will make a couple of points.

1) Not my position at all.

2) If I made a similar comment on your site, you would call it a personal attack and delete it. I guess you are simply a hypocrite.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 29 07:07:45 2005 (mRNmZ)

28 Wrong on two counts.

A, I would not consider the comment an insult and it would not be deleted. B, even if I did it would not be hypocritical. When in Rome, do as the Romans. I conduct myself as appropriate for the site I visit. Now at any point that you wish to establish rules for posting on your site I will be certain to abide by them to the letter, something you refuse to do at my site.

Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 13:52:56 2005 (ap5O2)

29 Acually, i do abide by them. You simply apply a different standard to those with whom you disagree -- ow who you wish to libel.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 29 14:20:00 2005 (/M+uy)

30 Yes a different standard for those I disagree with, unless of course they abide by the posting policy then they get treated just liek everybody else. Take for instance yourself. You frequented my site once upon a time. Post MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY comments. I disagreed with 99.99999% of them. How many were deleted prior to you becoming hostile?? Answer me that. Tell me how many were deleted. Go ahead and take a peek and tell me how many, they are all still up there (well at least those since June 27, 2004 when I switched from Haloscan to dotcomments.

Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 18:04:05 2005 (UIVSD)

31 You know it's interesting. If I'm this big bad monster out to silence all opposition, it's very interesting to note that despite plenty of disagreeing voices on my site, you are the only one that got deleted...

Could it possibly be that you're argument falls completely apart under scrutity.

Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 23:05:41 2005 (V5cZa)

32 Given your clear pattern of lies, I don't see why anyone would have any reason to believe your statement above.

And given your decision to "comment spam" my site with around 20 identical messages (I didn't take an exact count), you've more than demonstrated your maturity level -- especially since I never made the demand that you claim I did.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 30 01:04:56 2005 (XJvMc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
27kb generated in CPU 0.0087, elapsed 0.0202 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.013 seconds, 61 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]