Posts Tagged ‘first amendment’

This is a topic I’ve covered far too often since Joe Biden was installed in the White House two years ago.  My defense is that I am only chronicling a long train of abuses committed by Joe Biden and his fellow progressives.  They have far too frequently obliterated the First Amendment protections guaranteed to each and every American.

The latest installment in this horror show of abuses is aimed at doctors and other members of the medical profession.  Joe Biden issued an executive order forcing all members of the medical profession to perform abortions, sterilizations, and sex change operations, even if these operations violate the religious beliefs of the medical workers

The Biden administration will withdraw a Trump administration rule that would have allowed any healthcare worker to refuse to participate in abortions, sterilizations, or sex-change operations for reasons of conscience.

Healthcare workers will still be allowed to opt out of abortions and sterilizations unless doing so would cause “undue hardship to their employer, ” the San Francisco Chronicle notes, under an existing 1973 federal law.

And a recent judicial order barring a Biden administration mandate on transgender surgeries in a Catholic hospital remains in effect (even though the judge confined the effect of the ruling to the parties in the case).

However, they would not be able to opt out at will, and might not be able to apply that law to so-called “gender-affirming care,” the administration’s euphemism for surgery or drugs that mimic opposite sex characteristics and that fall short of formal sterilization (such as the removal of breasts as a treatment of gender dysphoria).

The federal government forcing anyone to violate their religious beliefs is a direct violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.  The original 1973 law, which is now back in effect thanks to Biden’s executive order, did not go far enough because there is no “undue hardship” exception to the First Amendment.

As you can see from this next quote, President Trump understood the First Amendment far better than progressives because his rule was instep with the original understanding of the Free Exercise od Religion Clause.

The Trump-era rule, as described in 2018 in the Federal Register, aimed ” to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal conscience and anti-discrimination laws” within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): “The final rule also encourages the recipients of HHS funds to provide notice to individuals and entities about their right to be free from coercion or discrimination on account of religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The right of conscience is absolutely integral the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.  That is not just my opinion. It is a well-established fact, as you can see from this quote from the transcript of the debates in the House of Representatives when the Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights were debated.  The designation for that particular session is 5, 17 , 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:729–31, 755, 76

Mr. [Daniel] Carroll.–As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the Government than almost any other amendment he had heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the Constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Here in the People’s Republic of Marxachusetts, the name of one of the two most sacred Christian holidays is treated very much like one of the most vile curse words imaginable.  Few dare utter it in public even though a significant majority of us celebrate Christmas enthusiastically.  I know the same holds true for wherever progressives make up more than a token minority of the population,  They are very good at bullying people into compliance with their demands.

It is most depressing to see town after town in my part of the world hold Holiday Tree Lighting ceremonies and Holiday Bazaars.  Not a single one of the couple dozen towns I’ve seen listings for on social media mention Christmas. 

Back in the 70s, 80s and 90s my town was lavishly decorated for Christmas. This included an elaborate Nativity Scene right on the Town Hall grounds.   The Nativity Scene disappeared decades ago to appease progressive bullies who claimed it violated the “separation of church and state.” 

Nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase separation of church and state.  Some claim that it is part of the Establishment Clause.  This is false because the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment only prevents the federal government from declaring an official religion for the United States.  This clause does not reach down to the state or local level.

Progressives turn a blind eye to the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment, along with similar clauses in all state constitutions.  I know the Massachusetts Constitution contains more than one clause protecting the free exercise of religion.

The war on Christmas is fought most fervently in schools.  In a great many school districts Christmas parties are verboten.  Candy canes and Christmas colored napkins are banned.  On the website for my local school district, the students will have the next week off for “Holiday Break.”  Christmas is not listed at all, however, New Year’s Day is listed.   

Christmas is treated like a vile swear word because progressives claim naming it will offend some nameless individuals.  That is claptrap.  Only whiny progressives are offended.  It is utterly shameful that we have catered to these wretched bullies.

On Tuesday the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act.  Twelve traitorous Republicans joined with the Democrats to pass this Bill, which will trample on the Religious Liberty of every American, particularly those who believe in traditional marriage. 

Freedom of Religion is one of our most important God-given natural rights.  It is enshrined in the First Amendment.  Thanks to this clause, the federal government is barred from trampling on the religious freedom of every single individual. 

This letter from Republican Senator Mike Lee chronicles just how the Respect for Marriage Act violates the Free Exercise of Religion clause.

As you are aware, we are one step closer to passing into law the Respect for Marriage Act. In the Obergefell oral arguments, there was a now infamous exchange between Justice Alito and then–Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. In response to Justice Alito asking whether, should states be required to recognize same-sex marriages, religious universities opposed to same-sex marriage would lose their tax-exempt status, General Verrilli replied, “ . . . it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito, –it is going to be an issue.”

And it is an issue. Obergefell did not make a private right of action for aggrieved individuals to sue those who oppose same-sex marriage. It did not create a mandate for the Department of Justice to sue where it perceived an institution opposed same-sex marriage, but the Respect for Marriage Act will. What we can expect should this bill become law is more litigation against those institutions and individuals trying to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions.

Should Congress decide to codify Obergefell and protect same-sex marriages, we must do so in a way that also resolves the question posed by Justice Alito. Instead of subjecting churches, religious non-profits, and persons of conscience to undue scrutiny or punishment by the federal government because of their views on marriage, we should make explicitly clear that this legislation does not constitute a national policy endorsing a particular view of marriage that threatens the tax exempt status of faith-based non-profits. As we move forward, let us be sure to keep churches, religious charities, and religious universities out of litigation in the first instance. No American should face legal harassment or retaliation from the federal government for holding sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

According to this Fox News article, Republicans were able to incorporate a very modest religious liberty amendment, while failing to pass true religious liberty amendments. 

An amendment by Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., was adopted Monday evening aimed at making sure the bill does not undermine religious liberty and states that nonprofit religious organizations “shall not be required to provide services” to a marriage it opposes.

On Tuesday the senate also considered three additional amendments to the bill by Senators Marco Rubio, R-Florida, Mike Lee, R-Utah, and James Lankford, R-Okla., that would have purportedly added stronger religious liberty protections to the measure, but all failed to reach a threshold vote for final adoption. 

The First Amendment consists of the following six clauses. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Respect for Marriage act violates four of them.  Firstly, this act establishes progressive orthodoxy as the official religion of the United States, in direct violation of the establishment clause.  After this act is passed, Americans who hold and espouse views contradictory to progressive orthodoxy will be punished, violating the free exercise of religion clause and the free speech clause.  The freedom to assemble includes the freedom to not assemble.  The Respect for Marriage Act forces private venues to assemble for marriage ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

It is beyond common knowledge to those born before 1970 that from the very beginning of the Unites States, freedom was universally cherished.  Sadly most college students would be shocked and greatly distressed to learn that universal truth. They have been subjected to endless progressive indoctrination.

It has become quite evident over the past decade that progressives dislike freedom rather intensely, more intensely than vampires dislike crucifixes and garlic.  Progressivism is a collectivist philosophy derived through a couple of generations from the teachings of Karl Marx. 

Marxists believe that the vast majority of common folk are not capable of deciding for themselves. They believe that the unwashed peasants need the unending guidance of enlightened experts to guide their every move.  Most of the brainwashed victims of progressive indoctrination believe that they will be one of the enlightened experts who will be guiding the unsophisticated masses.

They are in for a very rude awakening.  All collectivist societies descend into a totalitarian nightmare where only a small number of the most ruthless thugs get to make decisions.  The vast majority end up as impoverished slaves.

The lack of organized resistance to the Wuhan Flu lockdowns and mandates is a sure sign of just how widespread and how thorough the progressive indoctrination has been over the past few decades.  Those who called for the freedom to live their lives, free from mandates, have been met with outright hostility.  Mass counter protests have met those protesting for freedom.

It was shocking to see the liberal media’s meltdown over Elon Musk’s attempt to buy Twitter.  Check out this pathetic attack on Elon Musk by the AP.  It shows how poorly the left understands freedom of speech and how much they loath it.

The freedom to defend yourself has been under constant assault from the left.  The Second Amendment has been one of their most ceaseless targets.

Your freedom to move as you wish is now in jeopardy because the Biden regime has decreed that all cars built after 2026 must have a government controlled kill switch.

Biden recently signed into law a requirement that all vehicles produced after 2026 be fitted with a remote kill switch. Electric vehicles are already equipped with this capability via internet-connected “superchargers.” These corporations can sell you a product for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, then prevent you from using them.

Worse yet, if the law is not challenged or repealed, these kill switches will have a “back door” that allows government agencies to shut your vehicle off remotely as well.

The lack of resistance to this egregious threat to one of our most basic freedoms has been depressing in the extreme