Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ronald May's avatar

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I read through the thread: The need for a permit, jailing, fining, or imposting any civil liability for speaking ones mind is unconstitutional. This is what the words abridging the freedom of speech. The comment by Brian Johnston concerning Andrew Blawat "doing it the right way" is in opinion only. One should not have to call the police department to tell them they are going to exercise their rights. It was a wise decision, but to say it was the "right" decision is taking away from one that under unction of conscience to freely speak.

Speaking specially to the issue of rights not being absolute: A person does not have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded room unless there is eminent danger. Who made this exception to the freedom of speech and why? According to Whalen Law Office (2024) Legal Mythbusting Series: it is not against the law. In fact, it was overturned for the censorship of free speech.

Addressing the need to bring America back to the Judes-Christian roots it was founded upon is very evident. It is sad to hear people are "cradle to grave Episcopalian" or as one man said to me "I will bleed 5 point Calvanism." Having a Master's degree in biblical studies, I understand different doctrinal beliefs. I understand those of different denominations having a slight twist to their biblical understanding. What I don't understand is how a professing Christian can state the words in the Bible are not God breathed, that they are not timeless, that they are circumstantial, and the most horrific of all, they can be interpreted any way one wants to. There is a biblical principle for each of prior statements, but this is about the freedom of speech.

I commend these that stood up to protest this wicked generation, not because I agree with them, but because they are exercising the right that men, women, and children have died for to give them that freedom. I commend them as Christians because righteousness exalts a nation, but sin disgraces it.

The city of Rome was wrong and hopefully it will cost them a lot of money so as not to make this mistake again. Unfortunately it will take a person who is willing to go to battle to accomplish it. God said who will I send concerning liberty in the LORD...America's freedom is in jeopardy and lady freedom is asking...Who will fight for me? I am a Christian first and then an American Patriot...

Expand full comment
Brian Johnston's avatar

First Amendment Rights, as with any other rights are not absolute. It is well decided law that governments have the ability to restrict the free exercise of speech based upon time, place and manner. This limitation also can include the requirement for a permit for any sort of demonstration or counter demonstration.

Everything here seems to fall underneath those well established parameters. These are not new "woke" limitations, nor is Rome, by any stretch of the imagination, a "woke" town.

I am a cradle to grave Episcopalian, but I disagree with the intent and spirit behind the protest from my splintered brothers and sisters from the Anglican parish. However much I may disagree with their opinion, I will fight to my last breath to defend their right to have that opinion and express it in public. Thar was accomplished here.

By the same token, while I agree with members of the LGBTQ community having full and equal rights in our society, if in celebration of pride, some committed acts which violate local ordinances or state laws regarding behavior in public places, those people should have been cited or arrested and charged criminally.

Expand full comment
58 more comments...

No posts