This is a new but related article spinning off JM's thread on a priest being taken to court for similar reasons.

We need to be prepared for trouble in the years to come in my estimation of the times.

Oh, mercy. That's frightening, that is.

There's little doubt but that it's going to become increasingly difficult to be Christian in the West.

I am not saying this type of thing cannot happen in the United States, but it is important to note that Canada does not have the same scope of liberties as we do under the Bill of Rights. We still have strong constitutional remedies to protect us; though they are under attack.

Thanks Bill. We have a few men on the board who know about the laws of the States. Those of you who do, what safeguards to we have through the Constitution in contrast to Canada against this happening here.

Any international law experts here (or those who may have an armchair knowledge such?)

Originally Posted by staythecourse

Thanks Bill. We have a few men on the board who know about the laws of the States. Those of you who do, what safeguards to we have through the Constitution in contrast to Canada against this happening here.

Any international law experts here (or those who may have an armchair knowledge such?)

As of now, we should be protected by the first amendment. But all it takes is a Constitutional amendment banning Christianity (or "fundamentalist" religions) and the protections are gone.

The more subtle route though would be to just push through legislation against Christian values or "hate speech" like in Canada and hope that there is no public backlash or that the Supreme Court will look the other way (like with McCain-Feingold's violations of free speech).

It was interesting hearing one of our DEM candidates for POTUS say on Saturday that there is no room in American life for discrimination of "any kind." Knowing what both Hillary and Barack think of gay rights, I'm pretty sure that would include anything of a theological opposition to gay marriage.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Originally Posted by staythecourse

Thanks Bill. We have a few men on the board who know about the laws of the States. Those of you who do, what safeguards to we have through the Constitution in contrast to Canada against this happening here.

Any international law experts here (or those who may have an armchair knowledge such?)

As of now, we should be protected by the first amendment. But all it takes is a Constitutional amendment banning Christianity (or "fundamentalist" religions) and the protections are gone.

The more subtle route though would be to just push through legislation against Christian values or "hate speech" like in Canada and hope that there is no public backlash or that the Supreme Court will look the other way (like with McCain-Feingold's violations of free speech).

I think it will take a major shift in our political thought before this would happen in the US. Liberals and conservatives are united at least on the First Amendment.

The ACLU would be first to jump at defending this sort of case. They defended a conservative judge in our state (charged with judicial misconduct for speaking at a pro-life rally just an hour after getting sworn in as a Supreme Court justice). They won. It was almost a slam dunk.

I think we have very little protection under the Constitution.

There are many, many politicians, legislators, judges, decision makers, etc. out there who do not read the Constitution in the light it was drafted in and make no attempt to hide that fact. They do not care what the drafters meant when they wrote it, only what they can make it mean now. All they really need to do is re-define what is meant by "freedom of speech" like they have done in Canada in order to start throwing people in jail for their religious convictions.

Long ago, Judge Learned Hand made a few key distinctions in a decision involving defamation, namely that if your idea of defamation, i.e. being accused of homosexuality, is too "wrong-thinking", then you are not protected by the law and can't bring to action for the defaming conduct. In essence, the law wouldn't protect those who thought too wrongly, i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with the religion of the state (secular humanism).

It can all be done very subtly and simply. What is freedom of speech and freedom of religion is redefined to be "hate speech", even though there is nothing hateful about it; a simple assertion of value, that one thing is morally wrong. For this, it is labeled "hate speech". This is the expression of the ironic, irrational hatred of our generation: a negative moral judgment on others because they have made a negative moral judgment.

Thanks Vic,

I often here lop-sided views on the ACLU but I believe they are mis-represented at times. I do not know how often they defend Christian views.

It was interesting hearing one of our DEM candidates for POTUS say on Saturday that there is no room in American life for discrimination of "any kind." Knowing what both Hillary and Barack think of gay rights, I'm pretty sure that would include anything of a theological opposition to gay marriage.

That is just not well thought-out statement from them. We must discriminate good from bad and even they mut admit that. Thankfully we have the Word to teach us just that which they do not regard, unfortunately for them.

As of now, we should be protected by the first amendment. But all it takes is a Constitutional amendment banning Christianity (or "fundamentalist" religions) and the protections are gone.

The more subtle route though would be to just push through legislation against Christian values or "hate speech" like in Canada and hope that there is no public backlash or that the Supreme Court will look the other way (like with McCain-Feingold's violations of free speech).

I think so to. I will look up the McCain-Feingold violation to see what you mean here.

Thanks Andrew, I was hoping you would chip in.

the religion of the state (secular humanism).

You gave me a great amount of fodder here. I had never equated the obvious. The religion of the state is secular humanism.

When I was a kid and heard about Ernst Zundel's proclaimations and his problems with the law under the 'new' hate speech legislation, I thought it was a good thing...

I don't think that any more.

Originally Posted by staythecourse

Thanks Vic,

I often here lop-sided views on the ACLU but I believe they are mis-represented at times. I do not know how often they defend Christian views.

It was interesting hearing one of our DEM candidates for POTUS say on Saturday that there is no room in American life for discrimination of "any kind." Knowing what both Hillary and Barack think of gay rights, I'm pretty sure that would include anything of a theological opposition to gay marriage.

That is just not well thought-out statement from them. We must discriminate good from bad and even they mut admit that. Thankfully we have the Word to teach us just that which they do not regard, unfortunately for them.

As of now, we should be protected by the first amendment. But all it takes is a Constitutional amendment banning Christianity (or "fundamentalist" religions) and the protections are gone.

The more subtle route though would be to just push through legislation against Christian values or "hate speech" like in Canada and hope that there is no public backlash or that the Supreme Court will look the other way (like with McCain-Feingold's violations of free speech).

I think so to. I will look up the McCain-Feingold violation to see what you mean here.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed a few years ago is what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by victorbravo

I think it will take a major shift in our political thought before this would happen in the US. Liberals and conservatives are united at least on the First Amendment.

The ACLU would be first to jump at defending this sort of case. They defended a conservative judge in our state (charged with judicial misconduct for speaking at a pro-life rally just an hour after getting sworn in as a Supreme Court justice). They won. It was almost a slam dunk.

I hope you're right, but I don't give them that much credit. I don't think they are consistent in their defenses, but rather proclaim free speech when it suits them. I do hope I am wrong though and am judging them too harshly.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed a few years ago is what I was referring to.

I agree with you on this point. McCain-Feingold regulates political speech, plain and simple. The Supreme Court bought it in the interests of civility, among other things.

The Human rights acts/tribunals are evil star chambers created to "get" people who offend a powerful & influential religious minority. I will not name this "powerful & influential religious minority" because to do so could result in a charge against me!!!!

Now other groups such as the ********* lobby & the ******groups are using these laws as well. Although this seems like it is worse, it may really be the begining of the end. Since the afore amentioned minority can not be publicly challenged in any way the acts were "safe" from challenge. The old "you are not one of those anti-*******, are you?" canard was enough to keep criticism at bay.

However these new groups still can be criticised. And the result is a outpouring of outrage. Previously this outrage was the "right that dare not speak its name". Now however it *could* be overturned. Pray that it is.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

Oh, mercy. That's frightening, that is.

There's little doubt but that it's going to become increasingly difficult to be Christian in the West.

You can say that again; watch this space for a thread I am going to start about the current situation in Northern Ireland.

why couldn't Canada share a border with Iraq under Saddam or Iran? They would have been much better behaved.

Originally Posted by victorbravo

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed a few years ago is what I was referring to.

I agree with you on this point. McCain-Feingold regulates political speech, plain and simple. The Supreme Court bought it in the interests of civility, among other things.

You certainly couldn't tell during the democratic primary! Hillary and Obama were eating their young at one point.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Originally Posted by staythecourse

Thanks Bill. We have a few men on the board who know about the laws of the States. Those of you who do, what safeguards to we have through the Constitution in contrast to Canada against this happening here.

Any international law experts here (or those who may have an armchair knowledge such?)

As of now, we should be protected by the first amendment. But all it takes is a Constitutional amendment banning Christianity (or "fundamentalist" religions) and the protections are gone.

The more subtle route though would be to just push through legislation against Christian values or "hate speech" like in Canada and hope that there is no public backlash or that the Supreme Court will look the other way (like with McCain-Feingold's violations of free speech).

As long as the National Alliance, the Klan, and the New Black Panthers are allowed to assemble peacefully and say their vile stuff in public we should be ok legally. Our "Public Relations" however is already compromised.

Benjamin,

I wouldn't count on that level of consistency. They are enemies of the Gospel, the world will love their own.

Very True Zenas. I stand corrected in stating that The "Church" will be held to a different standard than the race supremacist organizations. All under the rubric of a single letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1803.

That's an awful ruling by the Canadian government "tribunal," but don't think that's necessarily coming to the US anytime soon. Free speech is consistently well-protected here, and as Vic and others have pointed out, the ACLU would be the first group to defend the priest in what would be an easily winnable case here.

If you don't believe this is true, come to Manhattan on a given weekend and notice all the wacko, nut-job, far left, far right, racist, sexist, anti-Semetic, communist extremists openly spewing their doctrine in the street, often with police protection. I'm not saying we shouldn't be vigilant, but we're a far cry from the Canadian anti-free speech gestapo...

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Originally Posted by victorbravo

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed a few years ago is what I was referring to.

I agree with you on this point. McCain-Feingold regulates political speech, plain and simple. The Supreme Court bought it in the interests of civility, among other things.

You certainly couldn't tell during the democratic primary! Hillary and Obama were eating their young at one point.

That just demonstrate's man's (or woman's) creativity in getting around the law.

Free speech is consistently well-protected here, and as Vic and others have pointed out, the ACLU would be the first group to defend the priest in what would be an easily winnable case here.

Still, when a city uses a cross in their coat of arms it's always the ACLU that takes them to court to remove it, so I'm not sure they should be considered allies.

If you don't believe this is true, come to Manhattan on a given weekend and notice all the wacko, nut-job, far left, far right, racist, sexist, anti-Semetic, communist extremists openly spewing their doctrine in the street, often with police protection. I'm not saying we shouldn't be vigilant, but we're a far fry from the Canadian anti-free speech gestapo...

Thanks for the point. My concern isn't the insane people (far right/left. anti-Semites, etc.) but when reputable people who have a gathering/follow/voice in society and are punished as an example.

I am comforted, though, by hearing that the First Amendment is still honored here as much as it is and that the ACLU protects it more fairly than I had understood.

Thanks for posting it.