One might add to this blog's title, "and political correctness", for it fits in well with my concerns about our national plight.
Cal Thomas, the conservative news columnist, wrote in today's newspaper of the infiltration of fifth columnists by Islamic fundamentals through "front" organizations, such as Islamic schools and Islamic-related Foundations. A court case in Florida was the object of his article, and that case did not conclude favorably for the safety of Americans.
Here is a quote from the article: "Anyone in doubt about the game plan for infiltrating, undermining and attacking America from within our borders had better sober up. Our enemies know our ways and they are using them to gain a strategic advantage over us."
For quite some time I have pondered this question about our First Amendment's provision for "freedom of religion": When a religion's doctrine is such that it requires its followers to murder anyone who will not submit to its precepts, its god, how is the constitution to be followed?
Will the courts decide--in their present liberal bias--that this confronting religion wins out, and that it may proceed in its "freedom" stance, or will the protective provisions of citizens' rights under the Constitution--pursuit of happiness, etc.--prevail? When this issue comes to that First Amendment provision, how could it be turned about and used against us in that manner?
It seems we--the national mentality--are on a roll of "tolerance" and "political correctness" that wants to give away whatever we have that makes America special. And I am concerned that the blatant stupidity of liberal, anti-Christian metality in the courts and in the media would bend further in that direction.
We are at a crossroads, for sure. And which potential national leader will stand in the gap that is widening between the traditional American freedoms we have known and enjoyed for our lifetimes and these new ideas of "tolerance" and "political correctness" that liberals have "lathered" over our bread of life? Who was it that made the statement somewhat like, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence"?
Gene Lawley
fiddlefax@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Gene
It was a good article. I find it interesting that we (USA)are allowing a foreign nation (Saudi Arabia) to finance islamic schools under the first amendment. Why should the religious freedoms of US citizens apply to those of a foreign nation? We certainly do not have the ability to follow the Constitution when in their country.
Andy
Yes, Andy, it is a great question, and needs a strong answer from the USA citizens--maybe directed to our own leaders, or would-be leaders. Why do we have to apply our constitutional provisions to the foreigners while they do not allow us our freedoms in their country? It leads us in a destructive direction for the nation.
Gene
Therein lies the deception of strength in diversity. Just as knowledge is only potential power until applied, diversity as well is only potential until harnessed in a useful direction.
By prostituting our freedoms to any that enter the borders is the same as saying those freedoms are not worth the price paid for them.
Andy
Edgara, it reminds me of a statement by a character in one of O. Henry's stories in the early 1900s: "He jumped on his horse and rode off in all directions." i.e.,having to do with diversity--seems unlikely that it would normally lead to unity in any manner.
Gene
Post a Comment