Posted on 03/15/2005 5:07:23 AM PST by SJackson
Yet our leaders have NOT so identified the enemy.
Because of that lack we have no proper law to uphold such legitimate restraint on speech during war.
Has anyone been convicted for instigating any boycott against Chinese products? Would such conviction be possible under the law that you’re mentioning?
I really don’t appreciate the inaccuracy of smearing “the Presbyterian Church,” “the Lutheran Church,” and “the Anglican Church” without naming WHICH of the denominations with those generic names the author means.
There are several “Presbyterian” churches for example—consisting of many hundreds of congregations—which have nothing to do with the mainline Presbyterian Church USA.
Probably over a 1/3 of Lutheran churches in the USA are Luthern Church Missouri Synod, very conservative, which also has nothing to do with the mainline (liberal) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
“Anglican” is the name orthodox and/or evangelical Episcopalians have take up who have LEFT the leftist pansexual mainline church called The Episcopal Church. Why the author chose to use “Anglican” I don’t understand, especially when the Episcopalians he’s writing about don’t use the term...
Not being specific will cause suspicion and misunderstanding unearned by the conservative orthodox Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans.
Well, the principle that that there are different laws in wartime is a a a general principle — a principle of Natural Law. One instance is Abraham Lincoln’s rescinding of the Writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.
...agreed that the enemy hasn’t been correctly identified as being Islamo-fascist.
Interesting. Thinking of the current poisoned food problem. Isn’t a list of the companies that used the Chinese “food” products the equivalent of a “Boycott Israel” list?
The “mainline” Protestant Churches are guilty of apostasy.
They do not recognize homosexuality as a grievous sin, many of them deny the personality of Satan or the existence of Agnels, and they frequently question the primacy of Biblical scripture.
They have become dens of sin and error - which is why they are losing members to Fundamentalist Christian Churches and the Catholic Church.
It can be, as are financial contributions.
Speech is restricted in many instances, including the advocacy of criminal activity. Which I don't think is happening here, the Congressmen are overstepping for political gain which politicians do. But the idea that religious institutions contrary to law could become part of a foreign boycott based either on speech or their status as religious institutions doesn't hold water.
You're correct the courts could change their mind. My guess, if you see this issue raised it's likely to be in a case of speech advocating violence, which was acted on, but we'll see.
Should a group of mosques file a suit demanding their right to speak out in support of Hamas, Hizbollah, or any designated terror group, and raise funds for them, base of freedom of religion and free speech, would you support them on Constitutional grounds?
Should a group of mosques file a suit demanding their right to speak out in support of Hamas, Hizbollah, or any designated terror group, and raise funds for them, base of freedom of religion and free speech, would you support them on Constitutional grounds?
Do you similarly consider the Logan Act unconstitutional on similar grounds of speech and association?
Hijacking the Leadership of Churches is a long established sport. I just would not want to be in the shoes of the Hijackers when they meet St Peter and get the bad news..
W
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.