Freedom of speech: Does the constitution come with disclaimers?

     Does freedom of speech apply to all, or just to those with whom we agree? I surprised myself in the writing of this article.  By the end of it I realized that I did not have the opinion that I believed I did upon first hearing of this case.  When I put aside my emotions I realized that intellectually I had to disagree with my own initial thoughts.

     I recently read about a case that is going to be heard by the Supreme Court this session.  The case began as a lawsuit brought by a father against a church group that protested at his son's funeral in 2006.  The man's son was a U.S. marine killed during active duty in Iraq.  The church group believes that U.S. soldiers are being killed because our country in too tolerant of homosexuals.  They picketed outside the marine's funeral with signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."  A Maryland court awarded monetary damages to the marine's father for invasion of privacy and emotional distress, but an appeals court overturned the ruling on the basis of the church group's first amendment rights.  The case will now go to the Supreme Court. 

      I'm sure that this topic could bring forth very heated debates in any venue.  I am very glad not to be one of the judges making this decision.  As much as I abhor what these people did, I believe the Supreme Court will have no choice but to uphold the appellate court's ruling.  While I doubt that the writers of the constitution would support these people’s despicable actions, they insured that they would have the right to voice their opinions no matter how offensive you or I may find them.  I have always been quite fond of saying that nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have to right to not be offended. 

      If we put limits on our first amendment rights, we go against everything that our forefathers believed in; everything that our soldiers have fought and died for since the birth of our country.  I may detest what these protesters did and how they added to this poor father's grief, but his son died protecting their right to do so.  As vulgar as this group’s actions are to me, I have to stand by their right to perform them.  

"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim."--Brian Kilmeade

     Today I read a blog by David Neiwert on the Crooks and Liars website.  His blog was in response to Brian Kilmeade’s comment that “Not all Muslim are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim”.   Neiwart’s blog is aimed not only at Mr. Kilmeade, but also at other Americans who share the same view.  Mr. Neiwart supplies examples of numerous non-Muslim people who have performed acts of terror in our country.   I agree with Mr. Neiwart.  I had this argument with someone just a few days ago when they posted on facebook that we should stop allowing Muslims into our country.  My question to them concerned Christians who bomb abortion clinics.  By their logic, all Christians will bomb clinics.  Apparently we should stop allowing Christians into our country as well.

     Our country is great because of its diversity not in spite of it.  The close mindedness that people like Mr. Kilmeade are demonstrating is the same as that shown by people who think all black people are thieves or all Hispanics are illegal.  The majority of Muslims entering our country are coming because they are fleeing the same radicalism that we fear not because they want to participate in it. 

     I believe I may have lost track of my critique and crossed over into an editorial of my own.  I apologize.  I feel that Neiwert did a good job of disabusing the notion that only Muslim’s are terrorists.  His viewpoint is well supported by the examples he provides.  He provides sound arguments that negate Kilmeade’s statement.  He reminds us all that the greatest threat to our country is not coming from without; it is coming from within. 

voteeasy.org: Helping you navigate the murky waters of the political pool

I read an editorial in the Austin American Statesman titled Voting time approaches; do your homework.  The title caught my eye because I myself have such a difficult time trying to sort through all the information and mud slinging to decide which candidate to choose.  The author of this article is speaking to Texans voting for legislative candidates who may be having the same difficulty as I am.  He agrees that it is often difficult for the average person to figure out on their own which candidate shares the viewpoints and ideals that they themselves have.  In this article the author tells us about Project Vote Smart, a nonpartisan group that helps voters by getting them easier to understand information about the candidates.  The author does a good job of pointing out both the strengths and the weaknesses of the group and their website voteeasy.org.  He explains to us the methods that the group uses to obtain this information such as questionnaires given to the candidates.  Unfortunately, the effectiveness of questionnaires is limited by the amount of candidates who actually respond.  According to this editorial, only 40% of those running for legislative office in Texas responded this year.   Luckily, this low participation does not deter the group.  They conduct extensive research into the candidates to glean the information they need in other ways such as reading public statements.  I agree with the author in that this is an excellent resource for voters.  It is unfortunate that this group only deals with legislative candidates.  Their help would be appreciated in other elections as well.