3 August 20 1st Amendment only applies to

3 August 20 1st Amendment only applies to…


In a poll conducted by the Johnson City Press – Johnson City TN – 31% of respondents feel it is alright to deny Moslems the right to worship freely.

Appearing on the editorial page of the same paper today were two letters to the editor claiming that Moslems are not entitled to the 1st Amendment rights, freedom of worship, assembly, and speech, that are promised all American citizens.

There are currently three gubernatorial candidates vying for the GOP nomination. One’s television advertising makes repeated mention of Christian faith as if such faith is among the qualifications necessary for election. Another has publically stated that Moslems are not entitled to 1st Amendment protections and that their citizenship rights can be diminished. He’s all but demanded the segregation and expulsion of Moslems from the body politic. Perhaps he wants to use those secret FEMA concentration camps his Tea Party mob backers keep inventing.

In an election which features an endless train of GOP candidates and propagandists demanding that the Constitution be “protected,” it is frightening how selective the protection is intended to be.



Below are two excerpts from a NY Times column concerning Newt Gingrich. The poor excuse for a Congressman is busily exporting hatred from Georgia to the rest of the nation. He is likely to run for POTUS based, if nothing else, upon his historical opposition to the Clinton administration. He needs to be exposed for the hatemonger he is and stopped cold.



“Newt Gingrich, pushing prejudice at Ground Zero



By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, August 3, 2010”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080203721.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

“Newt Gingrich, his doctorate notwithstanding, has offered us an illogical and historical context to the ugly dispute about building an Islamic cultural center and mosque near Manhattan's Ground Zero. For a while, I thought that Sarah Palin and others would be the only ones to reap the political benefit of exploiting anti-Muslim sentiment, but Gingrich was not to be denied. With a preposterous solemnity, he expounded the schoolyard doctrine of tit for tat.”

“This mosque and Islamic center were approved by the local neighborhood advisory board and have the backing of the mayor. To an alarming extent, the opponents are mostly Republican politicians -- Palin, Lazio, Gingrich and even congressional candidates in other states. They pretend to have the courage of their convictions, but the truth is otherwise. When it comes to convictions, they have none at all.”



I am old enough to recall the McCarthy era, saw some of the hearings on television. What I remember is how much damage was done to the careers of countless writers, musicians, teachers, film makers, and others, based upon nothing more than innuendo and the gullibility of the American public. The power wielded by Senator McCarthy ruined lives for no reason. The supposed Communist 5th column that he claimed to be able to expose never existed. Like today’s Tea Party mobs, he sucked energy from a populace that was too lazy to read for itself, to willing to let inaccurate labels define who people and political parties were. The pointed finger and shrill scream, “socialists, communists!” is being used today, hurled by people who can’t define either term with any accuracy. They defame intellectuals and, in doing so, demonstrate their own lack of intellect.



http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/08/is_fear_of_islam_the_new_mccarthyism.html?hpid=talkbox1

“Is fear of Islam the new McCarthyism?

By Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite



Religious freedom and the right of free expression are the strongest source of power Americans have for combating radicals who use Islam as the excuse for their violent extremism. The struggle with such extremists will not, indeed cannot, be won with military force, but through the power of our values. If there is a "narrative" abroad in the world that justifies violence against the West because the West "hates Islam," the way to correct that narrative is with the practice of our cherished ideals of religious freedom and tolerance for diversity of opinion.

Instead, however, conservatives such as Newt Gingrich want us to reject not only violent extremists, but also Islamic ideas, especially ideas on religious law, that is, Sharia law. Gingrich believes that Americans are "at risk" as a nation, not only from the violence of a "militant Islam," but also from the cultural integration of Muslims in the West. The latter he calls "stealth jihadists." A close historical parallel, Gingrich argued in a lengthy address to the American Enterprise Institute entitled America at Risk: Camus, National Security and Afghanistan, where he is now a senior fellow, is the struggle with communism.





“Newt Gingrich peppered his national security address about the threat of Islam with references to famous figures who fought Nazism as well as communism, though not Nixon. He quotes Harry Truman several times, but he does not quote Truman on the dangers of targeting ideas rather than acts in regard to fighting the threat of Communism. In 1950, Truman vetoed the McCarran Internal Security Act, and wrote this about his veto: "The basic error of these sections is that they move in the direction of suppressing opinion and belief. This would be a very dangerous course to take, not because we have any sympathy for communist opinions, but because any governmental stifling of the free expression of opinion is a long step toward totalitarianism. There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have." (Italics added)

There's another historical figure who was not featured in the Gingrich address, but whom we who venture into the media would do well to emulate: Edward R. Murrow, the famed CBS newscaster and analyst, who took on McCarthy and his tactics. On March 9, 1954, Murrow said these words that rebuked forever those who would use fear to manipulate our political processes.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember we are not descended from fearful men--not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."