Colin Kaepernick, Cliven Bundy and The Man who Refused to Salute

by Nomad

The Colin Kaepernick controversy has highlighted America's divide over paying respect to symbols and the right to dissent, as a form of free speech.
In this post, we look at the historical reasons why our views changed following the rise of fascism and perhaps why they are presently called into question again. 

"False Rogues, Boring from Within"

Back in March 1944, The California Law Review published an interesting article called "Conscience v. The State" by Chester Charlton McCown.

Despatches from Switzerland a few months ago told of the execution of some and the arrest of many more of these sectaries. They were accused of teaching children to pray for peace and for the return of their fathers and brothers from the battle front; of putting Germans in the dilemma of choosing between the Fuehrer and a heavenly leader; of interpreting their visions as warnings of impending doom upon the German people.

These "false rogues, boring from within," who were chiefly working people, exhibited admirable courage and tenacity of faith. When, recently, seven were executed, their wives begged them not to sign a recantation in order to obtain a possible pardon. Repression seems to have had no deterrent effect upon the spread of the movement.

McCown, as a Professor of New Testament Literature, inevitably saw parallels between this act of defiance in the face of a fascist state and the early Christian martyrs who refused to pay their not only their taxes but their absolute submission to Caesar. 

That ethic has remained a long part of the faith. The writer cited the formal protestant attitude to nationalistic symbolism:

They believe that they "must obey God rather than man." If a national majority should decide upon policies which they thought wrong and they should be ordered to take part in the resulting actions, many would refuse to comply, accepting without resistance whatever punishment resulted.

This is, incidentally, the basis for Kim Davis' and her position on religious liberty. 

Generally speaking, religious convictions (and, in more secularist form, the moral conscience of the citizen) have found safe haven in any nation that dares to call itself free.  

GOP Congressman's Defense of the First Amendment and Religious Liberty Outrages Conservatives

by Nomad

One Republican Congressman was given a stern dressing down for a letter he sent to a constituent regarding fears of a Muslim takeover. Apparently, upholding the First Amendment and the Constitution's defense of religious liberty makes some conservatives livid.

Earlier this month, a widely-read conservative website, RedState, posted an article expressing outrage about a letter sent to a constituent by Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger from Illinois. As per the Tea Party echo chamber, this article was re-posted ad nauseam.
The original letter sent to Kinzinger's office was related to the fears of the supposed spread of Muslim Sharia Law in his district.
To this, Kinzinger gave a polite and well-considered reply. That did not sit well with the conservatives. At all. 

According to the site:

Kinzinger’s email response begins by acknowledging that many people inside and outside of the expansive 16th congressional district have concerns about Sharia Law, but then took things a bridge too far by stating that Sharia Law was protected under the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment and that it was his sworn duty as an elected member of Congress to defend the Constitution and by extension Islamic Sharia Law.

First elected to Congress in 2010, Kinzinger was re-elected to Congress in both 2012 and 2014 to represent Illinois's 16th congressional district. He is also a United States Air Force vet and flew missions in South America, Guam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. With a military record like that, Kinzinger's loyalty to his nation and all that it stands for is something few would dare to question.

The writer of the RedState piece, Ulysses Arn, said that the reply made Kinzinger, the spokesperson for the House GOP establishment on all things related to the military and foreign policy "look like a fool."
Even for a conservative, that's a pretty disrespectful thing to say to a veteran who risked his life fighting Islamic extremists.

Recording the Police: When Your Constitutional Protections Mean Nothing

by Nomad

You may not know this but you really do have a constitutionally-protected right that is routinely ignored by law enforcement. And worse than that, there's not a lot you can do about it.

Civil liberties attorneys will tell you straight up that you have a right to photograph and videotape any public official doing their jobs when plainly visible in public spaces. And yes, that includes on-duty police officers. 

The Interference Limitation

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) adds that it is perfectly legal and that right includes recording the "outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties."

Delroy Burton, chairman of D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Union and a 21-year veteran on the force joins that chorus:

As a basic principle, we can’t tell you to stop recording. If you’re standing across the street videotaping, and I’m in a public place, carrying out my public functions, [then] I’m subject to recording, and there’s nothing legally the police officer can do to stop you from recording.”

There are some important limitations, of course.
In the course of recording, you do not have the right to put your life or the lives of others in danger. You cannot break the law in order to record, such as trespassing or disturbing a crime scene. You should not interfere with officers attempting to keep the peace in, for example, a riot or civil disturbance.  

The recording should be done in a transparent manner, and not in a surreptitious or covert way. If you record public servants without their knowledge, you could be accused of - get this- eavesdropping. Privacy laws protect the police too.

As Burton puts it succinctly "Record from a distance, stay out of the scene." As long as you are not directly involved, nothing more than a citizen witness, the police have no right to tell you to stop recording.

That's the theory, anyway.

Texas Lawmaker Decides Muslim Americans Must Now Swear Allegiance to United States

 by Nomad

One legislator's policy discriminating against Muslim Americans raises questions about what religious liberty actually means in Texas. 

A couple of days ago The Dallas Morning News reported about Texas state Representative Molly White and a new policy she adopted.  From now on, she decided, all Muslim visitors to her government offices will be required to renounce terrorism and to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States. If not, she has stated that she would not meet with them.

"We Don't Want You Here"

White's policy came in response to the seventh annual Texas Muslim Capitol Day in which some 200 Texas Muslims attended. They were  to speak with legislators about their goals for the session. 

The events were hosted by the Texas chapter of the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR). The meeting was supposed to be “an opportunity for community members to learn about the democratic political process and how to be an advocate for important issues.” 
Like any other lobbying organization,

Before the rally, Mustafaa Carroll, the executive director for the  CAIR,  explained to reporters the main problem was a lack of contact between Muslim Americans and the lawmakers  Carroll explained:

“The problem that even the lawmakers have—they don’t know Muslims. They’ve never been to a mosque, they’ve never talked to any Muslims more than likely and all they see is what they see on TV.

Instead the were greeted with an example of the democratic political process at its worst and in disarray. The Muslim Americans (which included dozens of middle and high school students) were met by roughly 30 self-identified Christian protesters. The protesters who heckled " shouting “we don’t want you here,” and holding signs that said “no Sharia.” They also held flags and signs like ”One God,” and “Remember 9/11.”

Quoting Exodus: Religious Liberty, Incitement and the Free Speech Hypocrisy

by Nomad

Two seemingly-unrelated situations involving free speech, come together in this post to expose America's first amendment hypocrisy.

Most of us know that free speech is not absolute. But why should some forms of free speech be restricted except when it comes from religious leaders? Why only Christian leaders? Why is hate speech allowed to hide behind the shield of religious liberty?

Often you'll see news stories and you think, there has to be more to this. If you take it a face value then the whole thing is just too stupid / ridiculous / scary to be believed. Or, at least, you don't want to believe it could happen in the US. Here's an example of what I mean.

The Evans Case

According to a local news channel, a 31-year-old Muhlenberg County, Kentucky man posted heavy metal song lyrics on his Facebook account on August 24th and three days later, James Evans was charged with "terroristic threatening.”

On Wednesday last week Evans was finally released on bail after spending a full eight days in jail. He has been told the case would be deferred for six months and he would have to undergo a mental evaluation.

The article quotes Mike Drake, the Muhlenberg County school resource officer, explaining that multiple agencies received calls concerned about the post. Other than that, the county attorney and the school resource officer for the Muhlenberg county schools have declined to comment about the Evans case.