The ABA wants to suppress my exposition of Catholic philosophical and moral teachings. It's simple: define everything that the urban secular elites don't like as "bias" and define all bias against ideas that the urban secular elites don't like as not bias,and - Hey, Presto! - you have a world of thoughtcrime. //The American Bar Association has adopted a new provision in its Model Rules of Professional Conduct — an influential document that many states have adopted as binding on lawyers in their state. I blogged about it when it was just proposed, in slightly different form, but I thought it was worth repeating my analysis now that the ABA is formally recommending it to state bars and state courts. Here is the relevant text (emphasis added): It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these rules. Discrimination and harassment . . . includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. The substantive law of antidiscrimination and anti-harassment statutes and case law may guide application of paragraph (g). Conduct related to the practice of law includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law. Lawyers may engage in conduct undertaken to promote diversity and inclusion without violating this rule by, for example, implementing initiatives aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing [diverse] employees or sponsoring diverse law student organizations. So say that some lawyers put on a Continuing Legal Education event that included a debate on same-sex marriage, or on whether there should be limits on immigration from Muslim countries, or on whether people should be allowed to use the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. In the process, unsurprisingly, the debater on one side said something that was critical of gays, Muslims or transgender people. If the rule is adopted, the debater could well be disciplined by the state bar: 1. He has engaged in “verbal . . . conduct” that “manifests bias or prejudice” toward gays, Muslims or transgender people. 2. Some people view such statements as “harmful”; those people may well include bar authorities. 3. This was done in an activity “in connection with the practice of law” — Continuing Legal Education events are certainly connected with the practice of law. (The event could be labeled a bar activity, if it’s organized through a local bar association, or a business activity.) 4. The statement isn’t about one person in particular (though it could be — say the debater says something critical about a specific political activist or religious figure based on that person’s sexual orientation, religion or gender identity). But “anti-harassment . . . case law” has read “harassment” as potentially covering statements about a group generally, even when they aren’t said to or about a particular offended person, and the rule is broad enough to cover statements about “others” as groups and not just as individuals. Indeed, one of the comments to the rule originally read “Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct towards a person who is, or is perceived to be, a member of one of the groups.” But the italicized text was deleted, further reaffirming that the statement didn’t have to be focused on any particular person. Or say that you’re at a lawyer social activity, such as a local bar dinner, and say that you get into a discussion with people around the table about such matters — Islam, evangelical Christianity, black-on-black crime, illegal immigration, differences between the sexes, same-sex marriage, restrictions on the use of bathrooms, the alleged misdeeds of the 1 percent, the cultural causes of poverty in many households, and so on. One of the people is offended and files a bar complaint.// We are a long, long way from the understanding of freedom of speech that existed when I was in law school.

Acquire a reputation for violence and lack of self-control...

...dictate terms to society.

//Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. People who are willing to use violence to suppress speech will learn that such behavior is effective, at least when the police don’t come down particularly hard on the thuggery. Indeed, they may find at times that even merely threatening violence might suffice to suppress speech they dislike. And of course this message will be easily learned by the potentially violent of all religious and political stripes (again, so long as they suspect that the police won’t make the thuggery too costly).

There are already plenty of rewards for this sort of violence and threatened violence. First, it can feel emotionally satisfying on its own to lash out against speakers who offend you. Second, many speakers will give in to the private violence quite apart from police orders to leave; that too can be emotionally satisfying to those who see that their power has gotten results. Third, the violent will see benefits to their political and religious cause, as the message gets out that their opponents are in danger (and maybe even those who host their opponents, say in private lecture halls or rented government buildings).

But the “heckler’s veto” gives the violent hecklers extra bonuses. They get to see the speakers suppressed by the government itself. They get to feel the extra pleasure and validation of feeling that the government has stepped in on other side. And they get to block speech even by those who don’t fear physical attack, but who understandably don’t want to be arrested and prosecuted.

The society we live in stems from the incentives we create. Incentives for violent speech suppression mean more violent speech suppression. That, I think, will be the consequence of the Sixth Circuit panel decision, if it is not reversed by the en banc Sixth Circuit or by the Supreme Court.//

This is not the First Amendment I was taught in law school.

What could possibly go wrong if we permit government to have the power to regulate political speech?

I mean, it's not like one party in power would ever promote laws to suppress speech it doesn't like.

Liberal proposals to re-write the First Amendment:

Championed by some 43 Democratic Senators, the new amendment contains four provisions that would essentially undo the central first amendment protections for political speech. The first two deal with the expanded scope of federal and state power respectively:

SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on—(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Section 2 grants a parallel authority to the state over its elections. Section 3 then announces, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” Section 4 provides that both “Congress and the States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Know your place, peasant!

The First Amendment is not for your kind.

The explosive discovery by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that its ranking Democratic member coordinated with the IRS to target True the Vote came as no surprise to its founder and president. She called it “the tip of a very ugly iceberg.”

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the committee’s chairman, released emails earlier this week strongly suggesting that Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., was in direct communication with disgraced IRS supervisor Lois Lerner in an effort to target True the Vote’s non-profit application.

In an interview with Newsmax, Catherine Engelbrecht, president of True the Vote, a Texas-based conservative organization founded to combat election fraud, said this week’s disclosure gives proof to her earlier claims.

“I’m thrilled to see that these documents are seeing the light of day and my current hope is that we continue on in this discovery process because we’re only beginning to see what I believe is the tip of a very ugly iceberg,” she said.

Through her attorney, Cleta Mitchell, Engelbrecht filed a complaint in February alleging that Cummings was pushing an investigation against True the Vote. He called those charges “absolutely incorrect and untrue” at the time. The emails Issa released this week directly contradict that claim.//

Another cloud on the horizon.

Another professor calls for jailing people for thoughtcrime on "climate change."

Welcome to the Soviet Union circa 1919

The Obama Administration was this close to instituting an affirmative action for news stories....

...and the media didn't care.

I’ve said it many times, and it’s worth saying again:

. . .we no longer need wonder why the mainstream media seems unconcerned about possible attacks on our first amendment rights to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof. They have already cheerfully, willfully surrendered the freedom of the press to the altar of the preferred narrative. People willing to dissolve their own freedoms so cheaply have no interest in anyone else’s freedom, either.

The biggest problem in our nation is not the Democrats, or the Republicans; it is not the Obama Administration, just as it wasn’t the Bush Administration, and it won’t be the Clinton or Warren Administrations. Our biggest problem is that the press has voluntarily surrendered its freedoms for the sake of idols and ideologies.

And they won’t have the clumsy GOP around much longer, to guard their weak flanks, as they did, this time.

Beyond Parody.

And maybe the lapdog media is beginning to feel that perhaps it hasn't been doing its job.

Washington Post: The Justice Department has allowed us to say AG Holder supports press freedom

As The Washington Examiner‘s own Susan Ferrechio reports Friday most news organizations boycotted on principle Attorney General Eric Holder’s offer to join a press conference Thursday  in which he discussed the Obama’s White House various efforts to monitor, intimidate and harass journalists. Holder’s condition was that the meeting be “off the record,” meaning none of the reporters would be allowed to report what was said at the meeting.

Among those who did attend was the Washington Post. Today’s Post has an account of the meeting — sort of. That is, they have a story about what the Justice Department allowed them to say about its efforts to protect press freedom. The result is just beyond parody (All emphasis is added):

 Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. pledged Thursday to take concrete steps to address concerns that the Justice Department has overreached in its leak investigations and said officials would seek procedural and possibly legislative changes to protect journalists’ First Amendment rights.

Holder’s commitment came at a private meeting with news executives after criticism that the Justice Department had infringed on the news media in several high-profile leak investigations. Participants said he told them officials would revise guidelines for issuing subpoenas to obtain reporters’ phone records.
The 90-minute meeting was attended by a small group of journalists after several news organizations objected to the Justice Department’s insistence that it be held off the record. The participants, however, reached an agreement with the Justice Department under which they could describe what occurred during the meeting in general terms. The Justice Department is expected to meet with other news organizations and media lawyers in coming days.
Holder and aides “completely endorsed the president’s statement that reporters should not be at legal risk for doing their job,” said Martin Baron, The Washington Post’s executive editor, who was among the participants. “They acknowledged the need for changes in their own guidelines and the need to have a more rigorous internal review.”
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

The only possible conclusion from this poll is that...

...public education is a failure.

1/3 of Americans want to establish Christianity as the official religion.

I'm talking about the part where 42% aren't sure if the Constitution permits the establishment of religion.

*Sheesh*

Walter Russell Mead has a more relaxed view about why we are not in danger of a theocracy.

The Theocracy Cometh!

...or not...

...but it does seem that the Secularist Iconoclastic Jihad to scrub the divine name off of everything public will be a bit delayed.

U.S. Supreme Court denies review of decision holding that non-denominational reference to God is not an "establishment of religion."

Remember when the liberals defended free speech?

The best - only - defense is now coming from conservatives opposed to political correctness.

Check out this Aussie video on a move by Oz to curtail free speech.

The nice thing about having a Democrat in the White House is that there is never any bad news...

...and no one gets the vapors when Obama signs bill restricting protests in the presence of Very Important Politicians.

On March 21, 2012, President Obama signed HR 347 into law. According to this article, HR 347 lowers the intent requirement from intentional to wilful and extends the scope of the Secret Service's ability to arrest people who protest against politicians with Secret Service protection:

President Obama signed bill H.R. 347 (also known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) into law on March 9th, amid numerous protests from the Occupy movement, as well as other agencies. HR 347 is a modification from Senate bill S. 1794, which restricted people from entering or blocking public areas that have been closed off by Secret Service while a person under their protection is passing through. The law also included major public events, such as the Inaguration and Presidential campaigns.

The new law, which passed the House with a vote of 399-3, extends the original law by adding more protected areas within Washington D.C, and removing the word “willfully,” from the paragraph stating that protesters can be prosecuted if they enter the area “willfully and knowingly.”

Representative Justin Amash, R-Michigan, explains this change by saying:

“ The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect its illegal.”

This is either a bold affront against the First Amendment or a sensible revision of existing law.

Obviously, inasmuch as a Democrat signed it, it's no problem either way. The ACLU - which gets the vapors if a single cross casts a shadow on public property - is taking a laid back attitude to HR 347.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections.

Well, that's mature.

Remember how the Patriot Act was an offense against all that was decent? Now the Secret Service can cordone off any space around the president and its mostly "all good."

It's nice when a Democrat is in office and we don't get hysterical about unconstitutional restrictions on Free Speech.

In the future, when some tooth-ache liberal says something over the top about President Romney, and then loses some gig with the government, and liberals start talking about free speech and how "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"...

...I'm going to pull out the time that the military cancelled a Ted Nugent concert after he said something over the top about President Obama.

I don't care what the rules are; I just want them applied equally to all sides.

The New York Times and Religious Freedom.

James Taranto reads the NYT editorials so we don't have to:

But the most revealing Kristof assertion was this one: "The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can."

That prompted an incandescently furious response from Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Nicholas Kristof's statement is light years beyond the President in disrespect for religious liberty.…The language of accommodation is almost as old as the Constitution itself, but it was never framed as Kristof frames it—certainly not by the founders who spoke of "inalienable rights" granted to human beings by the Creator's endowment.…

With this one simplistic and condescending sentence he throws religious liberty under the bus and reveals what makes sense to so many in the secular elite.

They will try their best, they promise, to respect our religious beliefs, and to "accommodate them where we can."

That's it. Don't dare ask for anything more.

Religious liberty—no scare quotes here—is one of America's basic principles, the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. The separation of church and state protects religious minorities, and nonreligious ones, from the coercive imposition of religious law. It is also a bulwark against a secular government's impositions on private conscience. To the Times editorialists, it is at best an inconvenience.

And the paper's reporters aren't much better. Here's what passed for balance in a story by Laurie Goodstein:

The uproar threatens to embroil the Catholic church in a bitter election-year political battle while deepening internal rifts within the church. On the one side are traditionalists who believe in upholding Catholic doctrine to the letter, and on the other, modernists who believe the church must respond to changing times and a pluralistic society.

Albert Mohler is a Baptist. This columnist is an agnostic. But I'm with Mike Huckabee, another Baptist, who said: "We're all Catholics now."

Guess who is losing his attempt to rouse up the masses in a "two minute hate" against Catholics?

Obama, that's who.

How do we know that?

Because on Friday as part of the traditional "Obama news dump," the administration announced a new defintion of "religious employer" that includes colleges and universities.

According to Jimmy Akin:

From the National Catholic *Reporter* (not Register):

Taking a conciliatory tone and asking for a wide range of public comment, the Obama administration announced this afternoon new accommodations on a controversial mandate requiring contraceptive coverage in health care plans.

Coming after a month of continued opposition from the U.S. bishops to the mandate, which was first revised in early February to exempt certain religious organizations, today’s announced changes from the Department of Health and Human Services make a number of concessions, including allowing religious organizations that self-insure to be made exempt.

Also raised is the possibility that the definition given for religious employers in the original mandate could be changed.

. . .

News of the changes also came as a separate ruling on student health insurance coverage was announced by the Department of Health and Human Services this afternoon. Under that ruling, health care plans for students would be treated like those of employees of colleges and universities—meaning the colleges will have to provide contraceptive services to students without co-pay.

Religiously affiliated colleges and universities, however, would be shielded from this ruling, according to a statement from the HHS.

“In the same way that religious colleges and universities will not have to pay, arrange or refer for contraceptive coverage for their employees, they will not have to do so for their students who will get such coverage directly and separately from their insurer,” the statement said.

In the 32-page proposal on the broader health care mandate published in the Federal Register today, the Health and Human Services Department says it is not yet making final rules on the contraceptive mandate, but is instead issuing questions and suggestions for a 90-day comment period to begin today.

Repeatedly, throughout the document, the federal departments involved in the ruling—which include Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury—ask for advice on how best to address several issues raised by the mandate.

The federal departments, the document says, “seek input on these options, particularly how to enable religious organizations to avoid such objectionable cooperation when it comes to the funding of contraceptive coverage, as well as new ideas to inform the next stage of the rulemaking process.”

Among the suggestions made in the document, known as a “proposed rulemaking,” is that self-insuring employers with a religious affiliation be given several options to ensure that they will not have to cover contraceptive services. Included in the possibilities is the use of a system of third-party administrators to administer the coverage.

While the original version of the mandate defined religious employers as those which primarily serve or hire those of their faith, the rulemaking acknowledges that federal law in other areas define religious employers more broadly.

A few thoughts:

1) Note that this was in a Friday news dump from the administration, to have minimal news impact.

2) The provisions, while welcome, do not go far enough. Nobody should be required to pay for abortion and contraceptive services against their will. Religious freedom matters for everybody, not just the minimum number that the Obama administration thinks it must grant religious freedom to.

3) This is a sign of weakness. The Obama administration has begun to realize how badly it has burned itself by its thuggish, totalitarian move to restrict freedom of religion to freedom of worship in this country.

4) This is not the time for the bishops or others to go soft. It’s time to press further and demand full respect for religious liberty. Caving at the first opportunity would be a grave mistake.

5) Ignore analysis about tone (e.g., taking a conciliatry tone, dialing back rhetoric, etc.). Tone is just the wrapping on the package. What’s inside the package is what counts.

Factor in the booing on St. Patrick's Day and you have to wonder what Obama's polling shows about the "blow-back."

Hope and Change...

...if you are part of an official minority group that Obama cares about!

Mark Shea writes:

Victory! Obama Administration Allows Conscience Exemption…

for Native Americans whose conscience wants to kill federally protect and endangered bald eagles.

Catholic consciences? “Screw ‘em,” says our God King.

Democrats appeal to religious prejudice - Mormons and Catholics ("RCs") are "cultists."

We know this would get ugly, but Chris Matthews couldn't wait to go there.

Chris Matthews opines on Catholics and Mormons:

MSNBC's Chris Matthews says Republicans are willing to outsource the election to a Mormon in order to win the presidency. Matthews also likened the process to calling India or another third-world country to get your computer fixed.


On top of that, Matthews called Romney a cultist as well as his two opponents, which are Catholics.


"I think religion matters," Chris Matthews said on MSNBC's "Ed Show" with host Ed Schultz. "Reverend Al, you, Ed and I know the way that the people in these polls down there say they think the president is a Muslim. I mean, the majority in one of those states thinks he is, the other 30-some percent don't know. In other words, they don't know whether he's lying about his religion, which is a pretty strong indictment right there. So, culturally, they are out to lunch for the president. There not going to vote for President Obama. So who they going get to beat him. That seems to be on their mind's now, not who they like. They are willing to outsource it to a Mormon."

"It seems to me, if they can win -- I said it's almost like calling up India, or somewhere in the third-world to get your computer fixed. You don't care who is fixing it, just fix the damn computer. They want to get rid of Obama so they're willing to vote for a guy they don't like or trust his religion. But they have no choice," Matthews said during MSNBC's primetime coverage of primary results on Tuesday night.

"They have three, or two RCs -- Roman Catholics running and a Mormon so the three cultists running. I have to pick one of the three cultists as they see them. This isn't as funny as I'm making it, but it's ridiculous to pick a guy they really think is the other, the heretic, the Muslim, what a strangest of religious prejudice is at work here, they pick the guy they don't like to pick a guy they hate worse," he finished.

Notice how conservative pundits don't say that Obama is a Muslim; liberal pundits make that claim about conservatives?

Notice how liberals always phrase their appeal to Know-Nothing bigotry on the grounds that Republicans - who are actually voting for the "RCs" and the Mormon - are religious bigots?

It's all projection on their part.

From the "Dealing with liberals is like playing Fizbin" file...

...the rules depend on the days of the week.

Remember when "dissent was patriotic"?

Remember when Occupy Wall Street actually occupied federal property for months?

Well, now, as opposed to last month, if you kneel and pray in front of the White House in protest of the freedom of conscience destroying HHS mandate, you get arrested pronto if not sooner.

Six pro-life activists, including one Catholic priest, were arrested this morning in front of the White House while holding a peaceful prayer vigil in protest against the Obama administration’s birth control mandate. They were released shortly thereafter, after paying a $100 fine.

Fr. Denis Wilde, the Associate Director of Priests for Life, told LifeSiteNews that by their arrests the protesters hoped to send a “wake-up call” to President Obama that opposition to his mandate is not going away.

The six were arrested on a charge of “disobeying a lawful order.” The priest explained that while it is legal to hold protests in front of the White House, protesters are not allowed to remain stationary, including if they kneel down and pray.

“Occupy Wall Street protesters have been occupying federal property for months, but when we kneel in prayer, the police are called in and we are arrested,” Father Wilde said. “We knew that was the risk when we gathered today, and we will do it again regardless of the risk. What people of faith – of every faith – need to do now is stand with us.”

Judge throws out assault case against Muslim who attacked atheist wearing a zombie Muhammad costume...

...because if you are part of a religion that issues fatwahs, you are legally entitled to issue a "heckler's veto."

Discussions about this case have been flitting around the internet for the last week, but I didn't know the fact, which are reported here:

A legal expert, a former Navy chaplain, and a pro-family leader agree that a Pennsylvania judge should be removed from the bench for throwing out an assault case lodged against a Muslim who attacked an atheist dressed as a zombie Muhammad at a Halloween parade last year.

Judge Mark Martin is an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathon Turley. The incident, recorded on video, occurred on October 11, 2011 at the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Halloween parade. Ernie Perce, an atheist, was attacked by Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, because of the former's costume.

Judge Martin threw out video evidence of the assault, dismissed the testimony of an eyewitness officer, and then lectured the atheist victim about the sensitivities of the Muslim culture. He stated in court that Elbayomy was obligated to attack the victim because of his culture and religion.

"They are so immersed in it," he said. "And what you've done is you've completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I'm a Muslim. I find it offensive."

Apparently, Martin actually said "If I were a Muslim...."

And:

Professor Turley also notes that another atheist, dressed as a zombie Pope, was marching beside the zombie Muhammad, but no outraged Catholics attacked him.

"If a Christian had been doing the harassing, I don't believe the judge would have dismissed those charges," Gramley contends. "I think in this case, Judge Martin is showing preference to the Muslim."

Here is the NRO story, with a transcript of Martin's comments.

The Volokh Conspiracy provides this follow-up:

From a CNN interview (starting at 2:15):

Interviewer: When I spoke to him over the phone, Judge Martin acknowledged it’s his job to protect the rights of people like the atheist, no matter how offensive they might be.

Interviewer to Judge Martin: … There are some who believe you were failing to protect that right.

Judge Martin: No, I don’t think so. Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.

But I don’t quite see how this is “the thing,” at least in the sense of an explanation of the judge’s actions at the trial. I don’t think that we’re in danger of losing our free speech rights because some people say things that are offensive to Muslims. I do think that free speech rights are in danger when judges berate alleged crime victims for their anti-Islam speech, and thus convey the message that the legal system may be biased against those who engage in such speech and may fail to protect those people because of such speech.

This judge is nuts. It's his job to protect free speech rights, even for socially-autistic atheist jerks who undoubtedly deserve a good ass-kicking.

The idea that the police are supposed to protect even obnoxious and offensive attacks on religious minorities - at least when they are Catholic - was exemplified in Cantwell v. Conn., 310 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1940, where the United States Supreme Court reversed the defendants' convictions for unauthorized soliciting and inciting a breach of the peace.

The facts of Cantwell show an amazing insousiance on the part of the defendants and their trust in the American legal system. As described in the case:

The facts adduced to sustain the convictions on the third count follow. On the day of their arrest the appellants were engaged in going singly from house to house on Cassius Street in New Haven. They were individually equipped with a bag containing books and pamphlets on religious subjects, a portable phonograph and a set of records, each of which, when played, introduced, and was a description of, one of the books. Each appellant asked the person who responded to his call for permission to play one of the records. If permission was granted he asked the person to buy the book described and, upon refusal, he solicited such contribution towards the publication of the pamphlets as the listener was willing to make. If a contribution was received a pamphlet was delivered upon condition that it would be read.

Cassius Street is in a thickly populated neighborhood, where about ninety per cent of the residents are Roman Catholics. A phonograph record, describing a book entitled "Enemies," included an attack on the Catholic religion.

Cantwell v. Conn., 310 U.S. 296, 301 (U.S. 1940)

And:

The facts which were held to support the conviction of Jesse Cantwell on the fifth count were that he stopped [*303] two men in the street, asked, and received, permission to play a phonograph record, and played the record "Enemies," which attacked the religion and church of the two men, who were Catholics. Both were incensed by the contents of the record and were tempted to strike Cantwell unless he went away. On being told to be on his way he left their presence. There was no evidence that he was personally offensive or entered into any argument with those he interviewed.

Cantwell v. Conn., 310 U.S. 296, 302-303 (U.S. 1940)

Picture the facts: a bunch of Jehova Witnesses invade a working-class Catholic neighborhood to play a record accusing the Catholic Church of being the anti-christ.

It's amazing that these JWs managed to get out with their life, much less a good thrashing.

It also reflects well upon working-class Catholics in a less-enlightened time that they didn't administer said thrashing.

Naturally, the police felt that there was the potential for a sound thrashing of a couple of scrawny JWs by a neighborhood filled with outraged working-class Catholics, so they arrested the JWs on breach of the peace.

The court was having any of that "breach of the peace" talk on that day:

The offense known as breach of the peace embraces a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts but acts and words likely to produce violence in others. No one would have the hardihood to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech sanctions incitement to riot or that religious liberty connotes the privilege to exhort others to physical attack upon those belonging to another sect. When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious. Equally obvious is it that a State may not unduly suppress free communication of views, religious or other, under the guise of conserving desirable conditions. Here we have a situation analogous to a conviction under a statute sweeping in a great variety of conduct under a general and indefinite characterization, and leaving to the executive and judicial branches too wide a discretion in its application.

Having these considerations in mind, we note that Jesse Cantwell, on April 26, 1938, was upon a public street, where he had a right to be, and where he had a right peacefully to impart his views to others. There is no showing that his deportment was noisy, truculent, overbearing or offensive. He requested of two pedestrians permission to play to them a phonograph record. The permission was granted. It is not claimed that he [*309] intended to insult or affront the hearers by playing the record. It is plain that he wished only to interest them in his propaganda. The sound of the phonograph is not shown to have disturbed residents of the street, to have drawn a crowd, or to have impeded traffic. Thus far he had invaded no right or interest of the public or of the men accosted.

The record played by Cantwell embodies a general attack on all organized religious systems as instruments of Satan and injurious to man; it then singles out the Roman Catholic Church for strictures couched in terms which naturally would offend not only persons of that persuasion, [**906] but all others who respect the honestly held religious faith of their fellows. The hearers were in fact highly offended. One of them said he felt like hitting Cantwell and the [***1221] other that he was tempted to throw Cantwell off the street. The one who testified he felt like hitting Cantwell said, in answer to the question "Did you do anything else or have any other reaction?" "No, sir, because he said he would take the victrola and he went." The other witness testified that he told Cantwell he had better get off the street before something happened to him and that was the end of the matter as Cantwell picked up his books and walked up the street.

Cantwell v. Conn., 310 U.S. 296, 308-309 (U.S. 1940)

And:

In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.

The essential characteristic of these liberties is, that under their shield many types of life, character, opinion and belief can develop unmolested and unobstructed. Nowhere is this shield more necessary than in our own country for a people composed of many races and of many creeds. There are limits to the exercise of these liberties. The danger in these times from the coercive activities of those who in the delusion of racial or religious conceit would incite violence and breaches of the peace in order to deprive others of their equal right to the exercise of their liberties, is emphasized by events familiar to all. These and other transgressions of those limits the States appropriately may punish.

Cantwell v. Conn., 310 U.S. 296, 310 (U.S. 1940)

So, to recap, back in the day, Catholics were supposed to withstand rank provocations like true gentlemen and did; today, Muslims aren't and don't.

It certainly appears that 70 years of "progress" in diversity, victimization and multi-culturalism have not yielded much progress in making better citizens.

Ban Bacon????

Over my dead body!!!

I will defend to the death the right of bacon-eaters everywhere:

Glen Reynolds - who inhabits the fever swamp of "libertine libertarian" - makes an interesting point, which is worth quoting in full:

THE NON-PROCREATIVE FUNCTIONS OF SEX:“If you’re interested in the stability of families, then you should also be a fan of non-procreative sex (which, let’s face it, is going to be a majority of sex any couple engages in, even if they’re choosing to forgo birth control). Women who have more sex are happier in their relationships. Sexual satisfaction outstrips even good communication in ratings of a couple’s happiness. Whether you have an active sex life is a strong predictor of your mental health and a lesser, but still significant, predictor of physical health. None of that has anything to do with babies. And it doesn’t really have anything to do with mere pleasure, which is what Santorum said sex is reduced to once the potential for kids has been stricken from the equation. Sexual satisfaction increases relationship satisfaction and couples who are more satisfied in their relationships are less likely to divorce.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with mere pleasure, as far as I’m concerned. Related thoughts here.

But note how the narrative in the press has shifted. The Obama Administration says that churches who oppose contraception still have to pay for it. And then, when people object, suddenly the talk shifts from who pays for contraception to whether someone wants to ban it.

It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying “What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!

I’m not much of a Santorum fan — to me, he seems like Mike Huckabee without the charm or political talent — but it’s hard not to notice the narrative jiu-jitsu here. Expect more effort to gin up social-issue hysteria in order to distract people from the real story, which is this:

Obama spent us into bankruptcy, most of the money went to cronies, and the job situation got worse. That’s the real story, not a question of who pays for birth control, which doesn’t cost that much anyway.

Unanimous Supreme Court Rejects Obama's Argument that Government can Control Appointment of Priests.

From The Anchoress:

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled unanimously in favor of a church’s right to be itself, and its freedom to assign its ministries:

This is an enormous and timely victory for religious freedom:

In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.

But the court’s unanimous decision in a case from Michigan did not specify the distinction between a secular employee, who can take advantage of the government’s protection from discrimination and retaliation, and a religious employee, who can’t.

It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws — a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves employees of these institutions.

At the time the SCOTUS heard the case, it was noted that both Justices Scalia and Kagan had reacted with something like shock at the government’s constitution-shredding argument:

President Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claimed during oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court last week that it can order a church to restore a fired minister to a teaching position.

But that was a claim not even the president’s handpicked appointee, the very liberal Justice Elena Kagan, could accept as she and her colleagues considered Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. [...] The justices then rejected the argument of Leondra Kruger, Obama’s lawyer for the EEOC, who argued that there’s no ministerial exception in the Constitution, only the same rights that secular organizations possess to choose their own affiliations.

At this, Scalia exploded. “That’s extraordinary! There, black on white in the text of the Constitution, are special protections for religion. And you say it makes no difference?”

Kagan agreed with Scalia’s rejection of the argument that the First Amendment doesn’t protect churches from government ordering who they should hire as pastor or priest.

Given reports following the hearing, it’s not really shocking that the SCOTUS came down unanimously against the government’s case. But it’s reassuring, all the same.

Writing the court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Allowing anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want.”

“Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs,” Roberts said. “By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.”

But, Roberts said, since this was the first time the high court has ever considered the “ministerial exception,” it would not set hard and fast rules on who can be considered a religious employee of a religious organization.

“We are reluctant … to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister,” he said. “It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers (Cheryl) Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment.”