Petraeus Condemns U.S. Church’s Plan to Burn Qurans (WSJ)
EXCERPT:
KABUL—The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said the planned burning of Qurans on Sept. 11 by a small Florida church could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.
Gen. David Petraeus said the Taliban would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians.
…
Gen. Caldwell said many Afghans do not understand either the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can’t simply issue a decree to stop Mr. Jones from his demonstration.
…
“There is no question about First Amendment rights; that is not the issue,” Gen. Caldwell said. “The question is: What is the implication over here? It is going to jeopardize the men and women serving in Afghanistan.”
EDITORIAL: FTC floats Drudge tax
Read the full article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/ftc-floats-drudge-tax/
EXCERPT:
The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, “Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses.”
In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place.
Texas education board rejects in-depth study of First Amendment (DallasNews.com)
EXCERPT:
AUSTIN – Republicans on the State Board of Education soundly rejected a Democratic-backed proposal Thursday that would have required Texas students to be taught the reasons behind the prohibition of a state religion in the Bill of Rights.
The contentious decision in curriculum standards for U.S. government classes appeared to signal the unhappiness of several board members with court rulings that have affirmed the separation of church and state – including a longtime ban on school-sponsored prayer.
Read the full article at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/031210dnmetsboe.19ab856dd.html
Religious Tension Leads to Clashes in Jerusalem (From Al Jazeera English)
Russia plan to “kick out cults” could also affect religious freedom (RT)
Pastor Boissoin’s Lawyer: Case Will Positively Impact Religious Freedom in Canada (LifeSiteNews)
From http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120706.html
EXCERPT:
CALGARY, December 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Gerald Chipeur, the lawyer who represented Pastor Stephen Boissoin, has said that the recent ruling in favor of Mr. Boissoin “will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada.”
Pastor Boissoin was exonerated by a Court of Queen’s Bench judge last week after being subjected to the proceedings of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for over seven years. The Tribunal had found Boissoin guilty of “hate speech” for having written a letter to the editor of a local newspaper about the homosexualist agenda.
But Justice Earl C. Wilson last week ruled the letter Mr. Boissoin wrote to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate on June 17, 2002 on the subject of homosexual-rights curricula in the province’s educational system was not a hate crime but legitimate expression allowed under freedom of speech.
“The decision of Justice Earl Wilson of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Boissoin v Lund will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada,” Gerald Chipeur wrote in a summary analysis of the judgment, forwarded to LifeSiteNews.com by Boissoin.
Chipeur states that the bar has been raised substantially on what may in the future be construed as a violation of the “hate” provisions of human rights laws. “The decision established a very high threshold for the conclusion that a publication is in violation of the ‘hate’ provisions of Alberta’s human rights laws,” he said.
Read the full piece at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120706.html
The dangers of relinquishing liberty for a quiet and “safe” life
In recent months, it has become increasingly clear that religious freedom, or any individual liberties for that matter, are best respected in lands where private property and financial resources are respected by the state. Mark Steyn explores the themes of private property and financial responsibility in this speech describing the dangers other nations are facing when they fail to respect these boundaries. I would encourage you to read the speech in its entirety. Editor
The following excerpts are from a speech Mark Steyn gave at Hillsdale College on March 9, 2009. You can read the full article here.
“In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood—health care, child care, care of the elderly—to the point where it’s effectively severed its citizens from humanity’s primal instincts, not least the survival instinct.”
…
“And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it’s another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ’s Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that’s underway. The 44th president’s multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can’t make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%—ten years ago. Today, it’s about 40%. In four years’ time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.”
…
“That’s Stage Two of societal enervation—when the state as guarantor of all your basic needs becomes increasingly comfortable with regulating your behavior. Free peoples who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life. When President Bush talked about promoting democracy in the Middle East, there was a phrase he liked to use: “Freedom is the desire of every human heart.” Really? It’s unclear whether that’s really the case in Gaza and the Pakistani tribal lands. But it’s absolutely certain that it’s not the case in Berlin and Paris, Stockholm and London, New Orleans and Buffalo. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government “security,” large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and a ton of other stuff. It’s ridiculous for grown men and women to say: I want to be able to choose from hundreds of cereals at the supermarket, thousands of movies from Netflix, millions of songs to play on my iPod—but I want the government to choose for me when it comes to my health care. A nation that demands the government take care of all the grown-up stuff is a nation turning into the world’s wrinkliest adolescent, free only to choose its record collection.
“And don’t be too sure you’ll get to choose your record collection in the end. That’s Stage Three: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it’s a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts. When my anglophone friends in the Province of Quebec used to complain about the lack of English signs in Quebec hospitals, my response was that, if you allow the government to be the sole provider of health care, why be surprised that they’re allowed to decide the language they’ll give it in? But, as I’ve learned during my year in the hellhole of Canadian “human rights” law, that’s true in a broader sense. In the interests of “cultural protection,” the Canadian state keeps foreign newspaper owners, foreign TV operators, and foreign bookstore owners out of Canada. Why shouldn’t it, in return, assume the right to police the ideas disseminated through those newspapers, bookstores and TV networks it graciously agrees to permit?
“When Maclean’s magazine and I were hauled up in 2007 for the crime of “flagrant Islamophobia,” it quickly became very clear that, for members of a profession that brags about its “courage” incessantly (far more than, say, firemen do), an awful lot of journalists are quite content to be the eunuchs in the politically correct harem. A distressing number of Western journalists see no conflict between attending lunches for World Press Freedom Day every month and agreeing to be micro-regulated by the state. The big problem for those of us arguing for classical liberalism is that in modern Canada there’s hardly anything left that isn’t on the state dripfeed to one degree or another: Too many of the institutions healthy societies traditionally look to as outposts of independent thought—churches, private schools, literature, the arts, the media—either have an ambiguous relationship with government or are downright dependent on it. Up north, “intellectual freedom” means the relevant film-funding agency—Cinedole Canada or whatever it’s called—gives you a check to enable you to continue making so-called “bold, brave, transgressive” films that discombobulate state power not a whit.
“And then comes Stage Four, in which dissenting ideas and even words are labeled as “hatred.” In effect, the language itself becomes a means of control. Despite the smiley-face banalities, the tyranny becomes more naked: In Britain, a land with rampant property crime, undercover constables nevertheless find time to dine at curry restaurants on Friday nights to monitor adjoining tables lest someone in private conversation should make a racist remark. An author interviewed on BBC Radio expressed, very mildly and politely, some concerns about gay adoption and was investigated by Scotland Yard’s Community Safety Unit for Homophobic, Racist and Domestic Incidents. A Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested and detained in a jail cell over a joke in a speech. A Dutch legislator is invited to speak at the Palace of Westminster by a member of the House of Lords, but is banned by the government, arrested on arrival at Heathrow and deported.”
MARK STEYN’S column appears in several newspapers, including the Washington Times, Philadelphia’s Evening Bulletin, and the Orange County Register. In addition, he writes for The New Criterion, Maclean’s in Canada, the Jerusalem Post, The Australian, and Hawke’s Bay Today in New Zealand.
Read the full article at http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/mvanderwei/Page_4221/ImprimisApril09.pdf
Canada: Fundraisers planned for Alberta pastor punished for expressing beliefs
You may recall that Pastor Stephen Boissoin got himself in hot water with the Alberta Human Rights Commission when he wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that was critical of the “homosexual agenda.” The community newspaper published the letter and the pastor was promptly sued. Limits on free speech can lead to persecution and should be a concern for everybody who at one time or another dares to express something controversial from any point of view in the marketplace of ideas. Editor
For more information about “thought crimes” see “Thought and Crime” which was published in Liberty magazine in the March/April 2008 issue. Since then, we have posted an update at RLTV. A series of fundraisers ahve been planned for Canada to support Pastor Stephen Boissoin. Thanks to Mark Chipeur for alerting us to these events. The following text is lifted from their promotional materials. Michael Peabody]
Stephen Boissoin was hauled before Alberta’s human rights commission over a complaint from a teacher with a Messianic complex. This teacher accused Mr. Boissoin of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation over a letter criticising homosexuality that was published in the Red Deer Advocate.
The human rights commission found Mr. Boissoin guilty of discrimination and hate. The adjudicator has banned Mr. Boissoin from preaching the Gospel This militantly state-ist ruling is one of the most aggressive attempts yet in Canada to stamp out public Christianity.
Alberta’s provincial government intervened in the case on the side of the commission and the complainant, against Mr. Boissoin.
The “human rights” commissioner also ordered Mr. Boissoin to issue a – false, if necessary – apology for his written comments. He was also ordered to pay money to the complainant for hurt feelings even though the complainant was supposedly fighting on behalf of homosexuals, not for himself.
Stephen Boissoin fears God and has refused to comply with this “human rights” decision. Instead, he has appealed the decision into Alberta’s court system.
This course of action, which has very important implications for all Christians and lovers of freedom, not just for Mr. Boissoin himself, may cost a lot of money.
Ezra Levant incurred a cost of $100,000 to fight back against an Alberta human rights commission attack based on his publication of the Muslim “Danish cartoons” in Western Standard magazine.
Christian businessman Scott Brockie incurred $170,000 in costs to fight several appeals of a homosexual-based “human rights” complaint in Ontario.
We need to support Mr. Boissoin’s legal challenge. We need to hold up his arms and help him fight this battle. The ECP Centre stands with Mr. Boissoin, and we are asking you also to lend your support to this important appeal, to join this battle to preserve fundamental freedoms in Canada – the freedom to share the Gospel to all people, including homosexuals; freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.
Religious Freedom Fundraising Dinners:
Calgary – April 30
Red Deer – May 1st
Edmonton – May 2nd
Ezra Levant, one of Canada’s most powerful and relentless advocates for freedom will be the Feature Speaker at each of the three Fundraising Dinners to be held in Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton.
Ezra has just published a book on the scandal of human rights abuse by the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. Autographed copies will be available at each of the Fundraising Dinners.
The Calgary dinner is on Thursday, April 30th. The Red Deer dinner will take place on Friday, May 1st. The Edmonton dinner is scheduled for Saturday, May 2nd.
Tickets for these Fundraising Dinners are $100 each. I look forward to seeing you in Calgary, Red Deer or Edmonton. Please let ECP know how many tickets you would like to reserve and send your donation directly to:
ECP Centre,
P.O. Box 7,
Russell, Ontario K4R 1C7 or call
613-482-1790. Tickets can also be purchased online at
http://www.ecpcentre.com/dinners.php
Download the event poster at http://www.ecpcentre.com/pdf/ECP_Boisson_poster.pdf
ECP is also looking for sponsors who would like to sponsor a table of eight. If you are interested in helping Rev. Boissoin and the ECP
Centre with that level of support, please call them at 613-482-1790.
Thank you for you interest and support for this important court case and the other threats to freedom that must be addressed across Canada.
*Funds raised at these dinners will be allocated with 50% directed to Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s legal expenses and 50% directed to the work of
the ECP Centre, which includes direct support and advocacy for Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s case and other important cases across Canada.
UN Human Rights Council approves proposal for limits on religious speech
Last week 23 of the 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council approved a resolution urging member states to provide ”protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”
The act, primarily promoted by Muslim nations, is designed to shield religion, primarily Islam, from criticism in the media and public discourse. “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism,” the resolution stated.
Canada, all European member states, the Ukraine, and Chile opposed the resolution, however Muslim nations in the Middle East and Africa supported the resolution.
The United States is not a member of the Human Rights Council but does act as an observer. The United States has not participated in the Council in recent years due to its anti-Israel sentiment and failure to act in the Sudan.
COMMENT: This is a serious issue that deserves ongoing monitoring. While we cringe at disrespect aimed toward various religions, the doors to the free marketplace of ideas should not be closed.
In wake of Supreme Court decision, ‘clear defense needed of church-state wall’ (Des Moines Register)
The following analysis is from: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090227/OPINION03/902270335/1110
EXCERPT:
Considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s contentious struggles over free speech and religion, it was a surprise to say the least to see Wednesday’s ruling unanimously endorsing a government installation of the Ten Commandments in a city park.
While this ruling will likely have limited impact, it raises troubling questions about how dedicated this court – particularly the younger justices, who will be shaping it for decades to come – will be to maintaining the proverbial wall separating church and state.
. . .
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That’s a fair concern. It’s one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it’s another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.
Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there’s only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can’t use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.
Read the full article at
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That’s a fair concern. It’s one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it’s another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.
Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there’s only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can’t use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.