|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
The 'Right' Not to Be Offended Steve FarrellIf you want to watch human reason descend to its lowest form, tune in and observe the finger-wagging parade of ‘experts' on the evening news who, with straight faces and the utmost dignity, mouth such nonsense as the idea that atheists, agnostics and others have an unalienable right "not to be offended" by Christians and Jews. An unalienable right "NOT TO BE OFFENDED"?! Story Continues Below Such a right was defended on "The O'Reilly Factor" the other night – to which Bill O'Reilly astutely pointed out that 75 percent of Americans are equally offended by the ACLU and a Supreme Court which assumes that such monuments to the faith of our forefathers and the founding influences upon which this nation's laws were written cannot be displayed in public places. "What about THEIR right not to be offended?" O'Reilly asked. The guest countered that the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect minority rights. "But what about the rights of the majority?" O'Reilly countered. Good point, but the bigger point Mr. O'Reilly was making is that such a ‘right' that would impose such ridiculous limits on religious speech sounds like a rerun of the kind of hostility toward religion that existed under Stalin and Hitler. Besides, someone will always be offended no matter how perfect the law, how pure the intentions of its framers, how smooth the delivery of its defenders. Even of the one perfect man, we read that endless volumes could be published if all the words that were ever spoken against him were put in print. Truth is, they are still writing those books, some of them by card-carrying members of the ACLU. Bill O'Reilly, to his credit, moved passed the ‘expert's' truly inane ‘It's unconstitutional to offend anyone' claim, and reasoned – as he often has – that he "can't see where anyone's rights are being trampled on here." Rights being trampled upon is an entirely different and legitimate issue, something a heck of a lot more substantial than being "offended." As this column has discussed in the past, one's religious rights are not violated unless one of the following occurs to an individual, as a result of his faith:
As to the denial of the right to hold public office, isn't this what happened to Judge Moore in Alabama? And isn't this what occurs any time a Judge is filibustered for not worshipping man's law more than he worships the Higher Law – you know, the very Higher Law the Founders taught was the foundation of the Unalienable Rights judges are sworn, before God, to uphold? Follow Steve's daily commentary on America's Founding Father's and our Judeo-Christian heritage at LibertyLetters.blogspot.com NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, press agent for Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International), and the author of the highly praised, inspirational novel "Dark Rose" (available at amazon.com).
Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |