ACLU Praises Senators for Rejecting Flag Amendment, Says Bill of Rights Stands

[Soul Crusher]

Free Speech | Flag Desecration
ACLU Praises Senators for Rejecting Flag Amendment, Says Bill of Rights Stands Strong and Intact
June 27, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           
Contact: media@dcaclu.org

________________________ ____________________

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded the Senate for rejecting a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban flag “desecration.”  The amendment, S.J. Res. 12, fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for passage.

“The Senate came close to torching our constitution, but luckily it came through unscathed,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.  “We applaud those brave Senators who stood up for the First Amendment and rejected this damaging and needless amendment. 

“America prides itself on tolerance and acceptance; it is essential that we not amend our founding document to allow censorship, even when the speech in question is reprehensible,” Fredrickson added.  “Today the First Amendment and, indeed, the entire Bill of Rights remain untarnished and more meaningful than ever.  It is our hope that the Senate will now move on to the real problems this country faces.”

The ACLU noted that flag burning remains an isolated and rare occurrence, even with the resurgence in political protest prompted by the war in Iraq.  The vote was projected to be the closest it has ever been in the Senate – and it was with the margin of defeat of only one vote.  Proponents hoped that election year pressures would swing the vote their way.

Opposition to the amendment has always been ideologically and politically diverse.   Former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell said in a 1999 letter, “The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous.”  In addition to Powell, former Senator John Glenn and former Reagan Defense Department official Lawrence J. Korb had spoken out against the proposal.  Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights, Veterans for Peace and Veterans for Common Sense had also been vocal in their opposition.

“Today is a victory for the First Amendment and all Americans who cherish the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,” said Terri Ann Schroeder, ACLU Senior Lobbyist.  “We are thankful, that with the help of thousands of veterans from around the country that the Constitution has survived yet another round of election year politicking.

“The constitution has somehow survived once again, unfettered and unstained by the political powers that be and that is reason to celebrate,” Schroeder added.  “Allowing a ban on flag desecration would have compromised the very freedoms that our Founding Fathers struggled so hard to attain.  By wisely voting down this amendment, the Senate has done its duty as protectors of our Constitution.”

For more on the ACLU's concerns with the Flag Desecration Amendment, go to: www.aclu.org/flag

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-praises-senators-rejecting-flag-amendment-says-bill-rights-stands-strong-and-intact

[Fury]

Makes sense. 

[Soul Crusher]

September 26, 2006
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/09/why_is_a_piss_c.php
Why Is A 'Piss Christ' Okay - But A 'Piss Muhammed' Is 'Too Offensive To Muslims' To Display ?
Topics: Dhimmitude

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _____________


Alternative title - "On More Outrage From The Religion Of Perpetual Outrage"

The secular, left-wing, anti-Christian media, academia, and the art world can "piss on Christ" any damned time they want to, but should anyone remotely joke about Muhammed, Islam, and its association with terrorism and violent jihad, and the Muslim world goes absolutely nuts! In fact, CAIR followers of the religion of perpetual outrage even express outrage over an ad campaign by a car dealership, that pokes fun at terrorism (although it does call attention to Muslims' tendency to refuse to assimilate into American life, putting the ummah before American citizenship).

Why is that so? Why is the image on the left considered "art", but the image on the left "offensive to Muslim sensitivities"? Why in the hell should we care? Do we or do we not still have free speech in America?



 

[Image on left - Christ in a vial of blood and urine, Image on right - Muhammed in a vial of blood and urine]
From our previous post we know that:

... the Council on American-Islamic Relations vehemently objected to the airing of the Ad. Asma Mobin-Uddin, president of the Columbus chapter of C.A.I.R., said she was concerned the ad's tone and imagery are "mocking and disrespectful to many different areas. One is Islamic faith and Islamic culture." She added "I don't think it's appropriate when it causes real pain. It exploits or promotes misunderstanding in terms already misunderstood or misused."
Well, if a simple ad campaign from a car dealership that mocks the Islamic terrorists has CAIR going ape (no pun intended):
... the Council on American-Islamic Relations vehemently objected to the airing of the Ad. Asma Mobin-Uddin, president of the Columbus chapter of C.A.I.R., said she was concerned the ad's tone and imagery are "mocking and disrespectful to many different areas, and one is "the Islamic faith and Islamic culture," and inappropriate "when it causes real pain" (what pain?), and exploits or promotes misunderstanding in terms already misunderstood or misused (blatently not the case - CAIR wants us to believe Islamic extremism and terrorism are not associated with interpretations from the Koran???)
... then why is putting a crucifix in a bottle of blood and urine laughed at by the media and the secular public, and called "art", with total disregard to the "real pain" and "mocking and disrespectful to many different areas, such as "the Christian faith and Christian culture," not considered equally offensive to Christians, and banned?

Because of something called free speech guaranteed all of us in the Constitution of the United States of America. CAIR and many Muslims that support them do not agree with this when it conflicts with Islamic law.

"Piss Christ" and the Virgin Mary being covered in elephant dung, and a plethura of other blasphemies that the Christian Church endures, are just as painful to Christians as some of the things that Muslims find offensive. However, so many Muslims, especially those at CAIR, find so damned much to be outraged about and find to be offensive, that we have to ask ourselves are they acting on an agenda to Islamicize America, or are they truly offended, or both. In either case, it doesn't matter. In a free and democratic sociey, Islam deserves no special treatment, it is no different than any other religion, and it certainly deserves no special protections from criticism. If CAIR and its supporters spent half the time condemning violent jihad, violence against other religions, terrorism, intolerance of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, and spreading Islam by the sword - as they did condemning and blaming everyone else for violations of "Muslim sensitivities", we'd have a hell of a lot less problems with terrorism in this world today.

You will find many more "Piss-Muhammed" - type images here...