Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

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!





|| Greg, 10:36 AM || Permalink || Comments (32) || Comments

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

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, May 21, 2005 10:55 AM ||

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 , May 21, 2005 12:39 PM ||

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

|| Posted by mcconnell, May 21, 2005 03:16 PM ||

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, May 21, 2005 05:59 PM ||

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, May 21, 2005 07:06 PM ||

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, May 21, 2005 07:29 PM ||

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, May 22, 2005 10:06 AM ||

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

R-

|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, May 22, 2005 04:56 PM ||

Maybe it wasn't art to begin with?

|| Posted by mcconnell, May 22, 2005 05:10 PM ||

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, May 22, 2005 07:01 PM ||

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, May 22, 2005 08:02 PM ||

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

R-

|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, May 23, 2005 01:40 AM ||

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, May 23, 2005 10:59 AM ||

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, May 23, 2005 03:35 PM ||

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, May 23, 2005 03:49 PM ||

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, May 23, 2005 04:08 PM ||

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 , May 23, 2005 07:29 PM ||

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, May 23, 2005 07:44 PM ||

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

|| Posted by , May 23, 2005 07:58 PM ||

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, May 23, 2005 11:02 PM ||

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, May 24, 2005 01:53 AM ||

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, May 24, 2005 09:29 AM ||

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, May 28, 2005 11:53 AM ||

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, May 28, 2005 01:21 PM ||

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, May 29, 2005 12:24 PM ||

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, May 29, 2005 01:06 PM ||

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, May 29, 2005 01:07 PM ||

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, May 29, 2005 07:52 PM ||

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, May 29, 2005 08:20 PM ||

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, May 30, 2005 12:04 AM ||

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, May 30, 2005 05:05 AM ||

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, May 30, 2005 07:04 AM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs