Home » Posts tagged 'first amendment'
Tag Archives: first amendment
The Second Amendment Comes Right After the First Amendment
Not to insult your intelligence, but the second amendment comes right after the first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers believed that the right to bear arms was necessary to protect first amendment freedoms. They believed citizens possessed a right of protection of those rights from the government. Without the right to bear arms, the government could overstep its constitutional boundaries and threaten freedom of speech, religion, the press, redress of grievances, and assembly.
History
The Framers experienced tyranny firsthand and knew tyrants disarmed militias to eliminate them. They needed an armed citizen militia to resist an oppressive military if constitutional order broke down. Catholic rulers in England prohibited their Protestant subjects from owning firearms. In 1689, the English Bill of Rights corrected that injustice. In Heller v. District of Columbia (2008), the Supreme Court then ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own guns, rather than the collective right of a state to have a militia. Yale Constitutional legal scholar, Akhil Reed Amar, wrote in a 2001 Utah Law Review article:
Consider once again the First Amendment. The core idea underlying the Founders’ Freedom of Speech Clause was a right to engage in political expression, especially anti-government speech. Intratextual and historical analysis confirms that this was the core idea: the phrase “freedom of speech” derives from the English Bill of Rights protecting “freedom of speech, and debates … in parliament. “Parliament,” from the French parler, “to speak,” is a parley place, a speaking spot. But Parliament is not quite a spot for any and all utterances: the core concept here is political expression.
Voting itself is a powerful individual expression. When citizens believe the government is nullifying their vote, they might protest. When they begin to think government is taking away their vote, the government might expect a forceful response.
Protection Against Tyranny
The First Amendment is often viewed as fundamental to a democratic society because it ensures that citizens can express their opinions and dissent against government actions without fear of retribution. This principle is essential for fostering a healthy political discourse. Following this foundational principle, the Second Amendment addressed concerns about self-defense and protection against tyranny. The framers believed that an armed populace could serve as a check against potential government overreach or oppression.
Philosophers like John Locke emphasized natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. These ideas influenced American thought during the founding era; thus, protecting individual rights became paramount in drafting both amendments. While both amendments protect individual rights, they do so in different realms. The First Amendment ensures that citizens can freely express their thoughts and assemble to advocate for their beliefs. The Second Amendment provides a means for individuals to defend those rights physically if necessary. In this sense, one could argue that the Second Amendment serves as a safeguard for the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Both first and second amendments emerged from a backdrop where individuals had recently fought against British rule. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware that oppressive governments could stifle individual rights through censorship (First Amendment) or disarmament (Second Amendment). When only one side of a political divide has the firearms, this quells or quenches the free expression on the other. Other threats can also stifle free speech. Without the possibility of citizens arising with arms, the police power of the government can enforce its own approved speech to the elimination of its citizens.
Case Study of January 6
I would ask that we consider January 6, 2001 as a case study of first amendment rights. For the last seventy-five years one political party participated in political speech accompanied with violence in the United States, the Democrat Party. Hundreds of examples exist and almost every one of them come from the left, including the BLM riots of 2020 with at least 25 killed that Summer. All of this resulted in thousands of deaths and multiple billions of dollars in damage. Anyone reading here knows that violent protests and rioting are the unique domain of the Democrats, the left, and their supporters. Citizens have tolerated these for decades. Then comes January 6.
January 6 was an outlier for right wing protests. The primary motivating factor was the perception of interference in the 2020 presidential election. Conservative authors have written numerous entire books and dozens of published articles outlining and giving evidence for the interference with the 2020 election by advocates of the Democrat Party. Four Trump supporters alone died that day, one unarmed Ashli Babbit, who was shot and killed. The crowd that day saw the election interference as a greater violation than the vitriol and hostility of its demonstration.
The United States government understands the threat of violence against it posed by the existence of the second amendment. Defense of liberty goes two ways.
Debate Moderators As a Paradigm for a Censorship State
Freedom of Speech
A distinguishing characteristic of American liberty from the rest of the world is the first amendment of its bill of rights and in particular the freedom of speech. The people of modern Western states, apparent allies of the United States, do not have this same right. England doesn’t and France doesn’t. As serious as any single issue in the 2024 presidential campaign season is the attack on the first amendment rights of American citizens.
The right to free speech couples with the right to the free expression of religion and the rights to freedom of assembly and the right to petition the state for the address of grievances. Long ago the state exempted the truth of the Bible from the public square. As an example, Hammurabi’s one appearance of one pillar and his one code count as history but the multiple ancient Hebrew copies of Old Testament do not. This practice is a deliberate abridgement of the free speech right.
Moderation of the Vice Presidential Debate
Last night, I watched the entire Vance-Walz Vice-Presidential debate. Like in the ABC debate, the two CBS moderators only fact-checked or moderated one candidate. Moderation of one and not the other is a form of censorship. I would ascertain that this is why Trump refuses a second Presidential debate.
Based on what he saw from the first debate, Vance challenged a “fact check” from Margaret Brennan on the true legality of Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio. Before the debate, the Associated Press reported that CBS agreed that the moderators would not fact-check the candidates in real-time. Instead, they left it to the candidates to fact-check each other. In the ABC debate, the moderators fact checked Trump four times and Harris zero.
The Fact Check
Vance did not need a fact check. His point was legitimate. Calling the Haitian migrants legal was an opinion, easily in dispute. It is part of a larger effort to use a fact-checking apparatus to treat a statement as misinformation. The entire exchange went like this:
JD VANCE: Margaret. The rules were that you guys were not going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator.
JD VANCE: That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to.
Point of Contention
Wikipedia accounts for the CBP One App to which Vance referred, also giving links to appropriate related information:
CBP One was launched on October 28, 2020 primarily to help commercial trucking companies schedule cargo inspections.
In January 2023, CBP One’s functionality was expanded to include unauthorized migrants seeking protection from violence, poverty, or persecution.
In May 2023, CBP One was designated by Biden administration as the only path to request asylum on the U.S.-Mexico border and book asylum appointments.
The President of the United States does not have Constitutional authority to open the border of the United States or allow anyone to enter the United States regardless of the law. The executive branch of the United States, the president, has authority to enforce the immigration laws. The president does not have power to create laws. The Constitution gives that authority to the Congress. Those laws are subject to the review of the judicial branch as to their Constitutionality.
If the president grants legal status to a migrant, that doesn’t make him legal. He is legal or illegal based on the laws of the United States, passed by Congress and signed by the president. If the president grants asylum to the Haitian migrants, that doesn’t mean they’re legal. This president has allowed tens of thousands of migrants to enter and then stay in the United States illegally. The debate was between Vance and Walz and it was up to Walz what to fact check of Vance, if necessary.
Moderation and Censorship
If the moderators of the debate wanted to save time for all their questions, as in Brennan saying, “We have so much to get to,” then don’t take time for their so-called fact checking. The fact checking is a form of censorship in which the media amplifies the power of and as a part of the administrative state as a force multiplier. It furthers one position as a party apparatus for the consolidation of power. The administrative state censors what does not agree with its position. This is a process by which it eliminates all opposition toward an authoritarian regime.
One party in this presidential race doesn’t see the need to do many interviews. It exerts the most control of societal institutions and structures in a powerful means. A relatively few elite in the United States exert a tremendous hold over the minds and imaginations of the country. Key leaders for the uniparty signal the importance of arriving at a censorship state. At the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings of the World Economic Forum, John Kerry said:
Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence. What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.
Restriction of Information
In addition he warned that “there are some people in our country who prepared to implement change by other means.” In a poll by Pew, now 55% of Americans (39% in 2018) support the federal government restricting false information. Pew also stated from its poll:
In addition, the share of U.S. adults who say that tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online has increased from 56% in 2018 to 65% in 2023.
False information, disinformation, and misinformation are all very easy to define as something that disagrees with conventional wisdom or a societal norm. For a long time, people used the words “politically correct.” That doesn’t mean it is correct, but that it is the acceptable position of an administrative state.
Punishing Unacceptable Speech
Authoritarian regimes prosecute and incarcerate unacceptable speech. They send those espousing a disagreeable position to reeducation camps. What suffers is the actual truth. It’s easy today to see the truth chilled in the public square. People are afraid to lose their jobs and livelihood because of espousing something that was a moral belief and behavior less than fifty years ago.
Satan knows the truth shall set you free (John 8:32-36). When you read the Bible, the government jailed those expressing something contradicting the favored position. When John the Baptist spoke truth to Herod, he lost his head and life. The government banished the Apostle John to the isle of Patmos and executed the other disciples. The direction of censorship and threats to the first amendment portend a return to such a day, where you will suffer and die for the truth. May we first be warned and then attempt to protect and keep these rights while we still can.
*********************************
Related video (speech by Matt Taibbi) to this subject matter and then a link to an article by Jonathan Turley, Constitutional scholar.
The Watershed Moment in the Decline of the American Church: Distinction Between the Sexes
The Beginning of the Bible
When you open your Bible to the first chapter of Genesis, you read in verse 27:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
As if that mattered, God repeats this in Genesis 5:1-2:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Male and female. That’s it. God created male and female, two different sexes. When I read scripture I notice also two different genders for mankind, communicated by he, him, his and she, her, and hers. “It” never refers to a member of mankind, only the masculine or feminine genders.
God Designed
Furthermore, God designed distinction between the sexes. He gave each a distinct kind or type of body and emotional make-up. God also differentiated a separate, distinct role for each sex. Each role complements the other. According to this truth, God forbade same sex coital activity and marriage.
God also mandated the preservation or keeping of the designed distinctions between male and female. He banned or outlawed masculinity for women and effeminacy for men. God never rescinded any of that. He repeated the regulation in both the Old and New Testaments. God also instructed on it with varied statements intended for compliant application.
The fall of mankind in Genesis 3 resulted from abrogation of the male and female roles. The curse of sin on mankind then instructs also in Genesis 3 concerning the future disorientation of sexual roles. God prohibits men and women from changing or exchanging roles. He also requires them to preserve clear symbols or marks of distinction in appearance.
Rebellion
The rebellion against God starts with the man abrogating headship. It continues with the woman usurping male authority. Mankind perverts the God designed and created hierarchy.
Mankind follows role rebellion with role and then sex confusion. A person becomes his sex at conception. God ordains parents to train the conceived and then born male to continue a man in every way; likewise the female to be a woman in all manners.
The animus between male and female in Genesis 3 continues. People must support God’s design. They must also oppose all manner of role confusion. God especially demands this of true churches.
Long ago churches began relinquishing their responsibility to distinguish between sexes. The world started this decline, but churches followed. Churches accommodate role rebellion now in numbers of ways. Some churches take some stand against the decline, but nearly every church capitulates in some manner out of fear, convenience, or pragmatism.
Rick Warren and Southern Baptist Convention
In a very obvious, public way, the Southern Baptist Convention battles right now who can lead their churches. Will they be men or men and women? So-called “America’s pastor,” Rick Warren, fights for the egalitarian, role confusion in the Convention. He threatens the departure of thousands of “purpose-driven” churches from the convention over the issue.
Transgenderism, surgical sex changes, and gender neutral bathrooms make the headlines. This ship started sailing long ago. Conservative evangelical John MacArthur preached a standard exposition of Ephesian 5 on the two distinct marriage roles. Women in mass rose and left the auditorium in protest.
Sixty to seventy years ago, every woman wore a dress or skirt in church, let alone at home. Of course, every man wore pants. This was (and still is) the only symbol of sexual distinction. It’s why transgender “women” wear dresses like Kaitlyn Jenner. It’s also why transgender “men” wear short hair and pants.
Anecdotal
In the first month after my wife and I moved to Indiana, I went to a junior boys basketball game at the elementary school. A blue jean wearing woman coached the boys team. She stomped and yelled like Bobby Knight on the sideline. No one flinched at her antics. Just another day in rural, red-state Indiana. This, my friends, is the new normal.
The next night my wife and I went to an ice cream place and started up a conversation with some professing Christians there. We continued in pleasant interaction. Then I told the story of the junior boys game, its four overtimes, ending with sudden death. I described the coach something like in the previous paragraph. They met my story with no response. They went mute silent with pained expressions on their faces. After an awkward moment of hearing the crickets in the background and feet shuffling, subject changed.
For the Future of Churches and America
Maybe at one time in the United States, leadership fires a woman for behaving like a man. Today, leadership, maybe even female leadership, fires a man for criticizing the woman. This fits into the contemporary battle of first amendment rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, these inalienable rights come from God. The country banishes God from public conversation. Government and society in general prevent speech from and about God.
If you visit a business promoting transgenderism today, you could say the following. “I will be back when you stop pushing your left wing religion on me.” It is a very dogmatic religion established by the state today.
Churches will die with concession on sexual distinction. The Democrats famously booed including the name of God in their political platform in 2012. Will churches boo sexual distinction? Have we reached a moment when this is even an unwelcome subject matter?
To stop American decline, judgment must begin in the house of God. Churches must stand on the designed distinctions between male and female. They may say they support supernaturalism and young earth creationism. Will they worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator? If creation means anything in a practical way, it means male and female created He them.
How Does a Culture, Including a Christian Culture, Survive Without a Cancel Culture?
Previous Articles (One, Two, Three)
“Cancel culture” has a nice ring to it, a kind of poetic rhythm when one says the two words together. Go ahead, say them, “cancel culture.” It does now have a Wikipedia article. When I googled books with the terminology “cancel culture,” a glut of books appeared written in 2020-2021 with “Cancel Culture” in the title. I’ve not read one of them. I wanted to know how early the term appeared, because it’s been on my radar for at the most two years.
A book, Environmental Impact Assessment, written in 1979, reads:
We have come to the realization—yet again—that knowledge is power, that we need to keep building on our science and be ever mindful that a democratic society is based on genuine public engagement, not the so-called cancel culture that is denying genuine dialogue (author’s italics).
Before I graduated from high school, the quote appeared. Surprising. That’s the first and only usage I found in the twentieth century. I don’t know who popularized it. I went about trying to trace it, but I don’t know who originated the terminology. Originally, it seems, it was “call-out culture,” the idea here being that described by Adrienne Matei on November 1, 2019 in The Guardian:
The contemporary idea of a “call-out”, however, generally refers to interpersonal confrontations occurring between individuals on social media. In theory, call-outs should be very simple – someone does something wrong, people tell them, and they avoid doing it again in the future. Yet you only need to spend a short amount of time on the internet to know that call-out culture is in fact extremely divisive.
She pointed to a statement by former President Obama in an Obama Foundation Summit, which was on October 30, 2019, in which he said:
If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right, or used the wrong word or verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, because, ‘Man, you see how woke I was. I called you out.’ That’s not activism.
The rise of the term “cancel culture” seems to occur in the middle of 2020, which also happened to be right at the beginning of the Covid-19 ‘pandemic.’ Now it is well entrenched, and the earliest popular book seems to be Primal Screams, which said:
Consider an example that materialized in March 2019, captured in a New York Times piece called “Teen Fiction and the Perils of Cancel Culture.” It reported the case a (sic) young black man who identified as gay and was employed as a “sensitivity reader” by various publishing houses. In that capacity, he enforced “cancel culture” (i.e., the flagging that progressive groupthink would deem unacceptable).
Wouldn’t it be an interesting job to be a “sensitivity reader”? I had never heard of it until this quote. I googled that too, and it appears a lot, 40,000 times. As a pastor, a chunk of your congregation could take that job while listening to your sermons. The New York Times article was written on March 8, 2019.
Cancel culture emerged as perhaps one of the top issues for the 2022 mid-term elections. The cancel culture tried to cancel Joe Rogan on Spotify and failed. On the other hand, Whoopi Goldberg said something offensive about the Holocaust on her show, The View, and they cancelled her for a few weeks, so she could take time to reflect on her ignorance, stupidity, or callousness. Another aspect, it seems, of cancel culture is a reaction to the unvaccinated, losing one’s job even if he has natural immunity. This relates to the trucker protest on the U.S. Canadian border, which is bigger than a vaccination issue.
During this last six months I’ve worked on a lot of writing projects and wrote almost two chapters on sanctification for our book, The Salvation That Keeps On Saving. The two chapters are “Dedication and Sanctification” and then “The Biblical Theology of Sanctification,” the latter of which I’m halfway done, the former I’ve completed. For the latter, I am looking at every use of the related Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament words for sanctification, which is almost 1,000.
You reader know that God canceled in the most severe way everyone on earth except for eight people in Genesis 6-9. He ordered the cancellation of all the Canaanites. When Israel didn’t, Israel suffered greatly for that. The Assyrians and Babylonians tried to and succeeded greatly at cancelling Israel. The Bible requires churches to cancel someone’s church membership, called by us, “church discipline.” Jesus taught that in Matthew 18:15-17 (See our book, A Pure Church).
God says in Leviticus 20:24, “But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.” Two verses later, He continues: “And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.” It’s not just Old Testament. Jesus said in Matthew 13:49, “So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.” Many more examples occur.
Recent Comments