Wednesday, April 12, 2006 

Goodbye good folks!,At Least For Time Being

I am shocked beyond compared that I would receive so many visits and hits in the short time this blog has been up.I have checked my stats at site meter and many people have been reading for as much as 30 minutes and that is the type of thing I love to see.

But this type of blog require numerous of amounts of time to do research and I just don't have the time to keep this blog running.(Edited April 20,2006.If I should find the time,I will consider in trying to take this subject for another spin.)

I want to thank all of my readers for stopping by and those who have been reading but haven't commented I appreciate you all,and I appreciate all the comments that I have received even all the negative ones.

The ACLU may have won a few battles but they haven't won the war!!

May God Bless You!,And May God Bless The U.S.A.!!

Wednesday, April 05, 2006 

Funeral protest bills are passed 'To slander a soldier's name is wrong'

Funeral protest bills are passed 'To slander a soldier's name is wrong'
2/8/2006 Lexington Herald-Leader

FRANKFORT - Kentucky is joining a growing list of states limiting when and where people may protest at funerals -- all because of a small fundamentalist Kansas church whose members picket soldiers' burials and argue that Americans are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals.

The state House and Senate each passed bills yesterday to limit the church's protests to outside a 300-foot buffer zone around funerals and other memorial services. Neither bill had opposition.

The Senate had approved the measure last week, but reconsidered and passed it again yesterday. That version also would keep people from making their protests audible to bereaved family members attending funerals or other services.

During the 1990s, members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka went around picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with protest signs that read, "God Hates Fags." Recently, they started showing up at the burials of soldiers and Marines killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and politicians began paying more attention.

"It just stunned me. It was like a sucker punch to my stomach," said Regina Talley, who saw the protests at the funeral of Spec. Michael Ray Hayes of the Kentucky National Guard's 617th Military Police Co. The funeral was in Bowling Green.

Talley, a family-support group leader for that company, attended Hayes' funeral last summer. Her son, Sgt. Jon Ray, 31, is also a member of the 617th, she said.

"I was going, 'What is that and what are they doing?'"

The protesters say their message is not against the war. Church members -- largely the extended family of the Rev. Fred Phelps -- see the soldiers' deaths as a sign that God is punishing the nation for tolerating gays. They also went to West Virginia last month to protest at the funeral of coal miners.

They often carry signs that read such things as, "Thank God for IEDs," referring to improvised explosive devices used by insurgents.

"To slander a soldier's name is wrong and it's not covered under the Constitution," said Talley, of Nashville. "They have no respect for the family members at all."

Legislation is being considered in at least 14 states, and several of the bills are moving quickly, with backing from legislative leaders and governors.

Last week, Gov. Ernie Fletcher's spokeswoman Jodi Whitaker said Fletcher supported the proposal.

Kentucky lawmakers were trying to expedite the bill through the legislature and get it signed into law before an expected protest at a Fort Campbell memorial service on Wednesday. However, Rep. Mike Weaver, the bill's House sponsor, said it would not affect the memorial service because the post is a federal installation.

Weaver, D-Elizabethtown, said he is also pushing a resolution urging Congress to address the matter at federal locations.

The church group has announced it would protest at the funeral of Scott Messer, an Army soldier from Ashland killed in Iraq last week.

The bill would prohibit demonstrators from "making unreasonable noise" or making "any utterance, gesture or display designed to outrage" people attending funerals or memorials services. Violations would be misdemeanors.

In a telephone interview, Phelps said such laws are unconstitutional and the church was still planning its protest for Wednesday.

"The amazing thing going on here is that this nation is manifesting a willingness to trash, absolutely trash, the thing that makes it distinctive and glorious. And that's the First Amendment," Phelps said. "They would gladly repeal it to stop our message."

Monday, April 03, 2006 

What is your viewpoints on church and state Issues?,I want my reader's views

Have an opinion? Let your voice be heard on how you feel.

Thursday, March 30, 2006 

The “Bah, Humbug” Cases

The “Bah, Humbug” Cases

The Mayor of Denver decided that a church in that city should be barred from entering a float in Denver’s annual Parade of Lights. What was the offense of this church which caused its exclusion? It intended to enter a float which was explicit in mentioning the reason for Christmas, that it marked the birthday of Jesus Christ. In accord with advance warnings from the ACLU, the Mayor decided that he should shut down such unacceptable behavior.

The Denver issue has not yet developed into a case in court, but it could. Likewise the decision of a school district in New Jersey to forbid all “holiday” songs from school performances, if those songs have any “religious” content. Parents in New Jersey have pointed out that the school system’s policy does not require such a blanket exclusion, and that songs with “religious” content are only to be excluded if they go beyond merely historical references.
For the rest of the story


The "Pornography for Pupils" Case

The "Pornography for Pupils" Case

In the December session of Congress, it passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, requiring that all school libraries which have federally-funded computer systems must include "blocking" software which will prevent access by students to certain Internet sites which have obscene content. The ACLU immediately announced that it would file suit against this Act because the federal government is seeking "to require censorship in every single town and hamlet in America."

Note this position statement by the ACLU: "More than 100 years of local control of libraries and the strong tradition of allowing adults to decide for themselves what they want to read is being casually set aside" by this legislation, said Chris Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU. An article on WorldNetDaily on December 21, 2000, brought this to my attention.

This statement is intended to appeal to conservatives, who are generally in favor of state and local autonomy from the federal government. It is also intended to appeal to conservatives who oppose "censorship," especially the federal government deciding what people in general can and should read and hear.

However, almost all parents would not want their children looking at pictures of men and women engaging in various sexual acts, on their computers at home. Nor would they want their children to be able to look at such pictures in school, where the parents cannot be present to supervise the activities of their children.

The ACLU objections concerning citizens' rights, censorship, and the overreaching of federal control (not normally a major item on the ACLU agenda) are all off-base. First, as the US Supreme Court has repeatedly found in cases involving student newspapers and meetings, children are not just small adults, with all the same rights and privileges as adults, and schools are not open forums, like a public discussion among adults.

Schools have a right to make reasonable restrictions in the activities of students -- even high school students, much less elementary school students. This law says absolutely nothing about the Internet viewing habits and choices of adults.

Secondly, the Act does not require that any federal bureaucrat somehow decide what students in Elephant Breath, Montana, may look at on their computer screens. "Blocking" programs are content-based. If certain content is present -- and for those not familiar with the darker regions of the Internet, some of this "content" is nearly unbelievably gross -- the program prevents the user from bringing up that website on his or her computer.

For the rest of the story