Tag Archives: Censorship

News

MUST-READ: Supreme Court refuses to hear case of silenced Christian valedictorian

10 Comments
Brittany McComb

Story and video here at LifeSiteNews.

Excerpt:

The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of a high school valedictorian whose microphone was turned off by school officials after she began speaking about the part her Christian beliefs played in her success in life.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute asked the Supreme Court to hear the case of Brittany McComb, charging that school officials violated McComb’s free speech rights and engaged in viewpoint discrimination when they censored her speech because of its Christian content.

[…]McComb is a Christian and a top student, who graduated with a 4.7 grade point average from Foothill High in Henderson, Nevada. She knew that her valedictorian address would probably be cut short, but was determined to go ahead and mention her faith anyway.

School officials had previously edited her speech to remove Biblical references and one mention of the name of Jesus Christ, warning her she would be interrupted if she deviated from the approved text.

“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech,” McComb stated. “God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior.”

The 400 plus graduates and guests who had gathered at a Las Vegas casino for the commencement ceremony, booed and jeered after McComb’s speech was cut short, chanting “Let her speak!”

If this young lady were gay or a Muslim or anything else, she would have been allowed to speak about that, and Christians would have remained silent and respectful. Only Christians are suppressed, and that should tell you something about our government-run, unionized public schools today.

Video of her speech:

Video of her on Fox News:

Props to Alan Colmes for taking her side against the anti-Christian school administrators.

A lot of non-Christians and fake “Christians” on the secular left think that they are doing a good thing by silencing authentic Christians in the public square. They have decided that it is better to hurt the feelings of Christians by forcing them to keep silent and act like non-Christians, than to hurt the feelings of non-Christians. The problem with this is that ultimately, if Christianity is true, it only matters how each of us makes Jesus Christ feel. And if you hurt the feelings of Christians who are busy following Christ, then you are really hurting Christ.

The Bible says this in Matthew 18:1-10:

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2He called a little child and had him stand among them.

3And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

7“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

10“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

This story is in Mark, Matthew and Luke: it’s early and multiply attested, and is therefore authentic.

This cannot be any more clear. If you discourage people from following Christ then you are in big trouble. I think  that this suppression of Christians is worse than murder. Jesus is threatening people who discourage Christians with the eternal fires of Hell. Christians are morally obligated to talk about Jesus in public, and particularly to give thanks to him in public. When you tell Christians not to act like like Christians, then you are really forcing your religion onto them, and expecting them to act as if you are more authoritative than Jesus Christ.

The purpose of life, on Christianity, is not to hide your commitment to Christ in order to make non-Christians feel comfortable about their rejection of Christianity. The purpose of life, on Christianity, is to publicly acknowledge God in everything that you do and to have a relationship with God, as revealed by Christ’s life and teachings. The most important relationship is the vertical relationship – with God, not the horizontal relationship – with people. It is a non-Christian viewpoint that faith should be kept private and hidden.

Remember that the first commandment is not “Thou shalt avoid offending people who are in rebellion against God” nor is it “Thou shalt hide your faith from non-Christians so that they don’t feel badly about rejecting God”. There’s a temptation to pick moral rules like “don’t murder” and “don’t commit adultery” – things we don’t do, and then to say that those things are the really bad things. And since we don’t do those bad things, that makes us good. But what does God consider to be the really bad thing?

The first commandment, according to Jesus, is found in Matthew 22:34-38:

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.

35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

38This is the first and greatest commandment.

This story is in Mark, Matthew and Luke: it’s early and multiply attested, and is therefore authentic.

And consider Matthew 5:13-16:

13“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

14“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.

15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

This story is in Mark, Matthew and Luke: it’s early and multiply attested, and is therefore authentic.

(This is one of my favorite verses in the Bible. I always feel sad when I think of it because I think of it when dealing with laziness, ignorance and cowardice from fake Christians – which is often!)

And consider Matthew 10:26-33:

26“So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.

30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.

33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

This story is also in Luke, so it is part of the Q source shared by Matthew and Luke, which is very early and likely to be authentic.

One has to remember that for this young woman, her relationship with Christ is as real to her as her relationship with her parents – and she wants to honor him in her moment of celebration. It is striking that school administrators encourage other politically correct groups to express themselves in public. Only Christians are singled out for persecution and suppression. Christians can’t speak freely, but non-Christian school officials can call all pro-lifers murderers and Democrats can force Christians to pay for abortions.

People today seem to think that God, if he exists, would be loving. And what they mean by love is “making people feel happy regardless of what they believe about God’s existence and character”. People imagine what God is like for them using emotions and intuitions, instead of looking at the life of Jesus historically, and asking whether God really stepped into history to show us what he is really like. Biblical Christians don’t comport with this intuitive/emotional understanding of love, so that is why they are persecuted by non-Christians and fake Christians.

This bias against Christians sharing their faith is common in most non-Christian religions who would prefer to silence Christians rather than debate them with arguments and evidence. Countries like the UK and Canada punish Christians for speaking about Christianity, India and Israel consider passing anti-conversion laws, and in the atheistic North Korea or Muslim Iran they just imprison or kill Christians outright. When non-Christians persecute Christians for behaving like Christians, they really are aggrieving Christ himself.

My advice for non-Christians

If you are a non-Christian or an emotional/intuitive “Christian”, you want to avoid denying authentic Christians the rights of free speech and freedom of religious expression. Feel free to spend your lives on Earth seeking pleasure and avoiding a relationship with the God who is there. Even God won’t reveal himself overtly to you to compel you into a love relationship with him. But don’t make it harder on yourself in the after-life by persecuting Christians here and now for behaving like authentic Christians.

Some people think that by suppressing Christians, they actually are doing what God wants because God’s goal for us is to have happy feelings. But if your method of discovering God’s existence and character is by using your emotions and intuitions, then you should be careful about inventing a God in your own image. My advice is to conduct a genuine investigation of whether God exists, and what he is like, using arguments and evidence, not emotions and intuitions. If God is real, then he already has a personality. He isn’t YOU.

Related posts

Here is a series of posts I did on why people go to Hell.

And this debate in which Hindus argue that Christians should not be allowed to speak about Christ in public.

And this debate in which secular humanists argue that Christians should not be allowed to speak about Christ in public.

Here are some stories from the UK:

Here are some stories from Canada:

Here are some stories from the United States.

And of course in atheistic and Muslim countries they imprison or murder you for being a Christian:

You can read more about Brittany here.

News

Focus on the Family Canada edits radio show to adapt to hate crime law

1 Comment

In case you hadn’t heard, Obama signed a hate crime bill into law.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council responds in this Christian Post article.

Opponents of the bill, dubbed by some as the “thought crimes” legislation, argue that it is unnecessary because gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are already protected under existing state laws. They also say the bill could be used to prosecute Christian broadcasters and pastors who preach homosexuality as sin because they could be accused of inciting violence.

“This hates crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality,” said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, following the bill’s passage.

I thought that I would remind my readers where these laws lead by looking north to Canada. In Canada, Dr. Laura was effectively banned from radio stations for being critical of homosexuality, and Focus on the Family has to edit programs in order to comply with federal hate crime laws.

Consider this post from LifeSiteNews.

Excerpt:

A statement from a director at Focus on the Family confirms that the major Christian organization has been editing its radio programs in order to accord with Canadian “hate crime” laws.

“In particular, our content producers are careful not to make generalized statements nor comments that may be perceived as ascribing malicious intent to a ‘group’ of people and are always careful to treat even those who might disagree with us with respect,” Gary Booker, director of global content creation for Focus, told WorldNetDaily.com.

“Occasionally, albeit very rarely, some content is identified that, while acceptable for airing in the U.S. would not be acceptable under Canadian law and is therefore edited or omitted in Canada.”

A representative from Focus told LifeSiteNews.com that the organization is not prepared at this time to expand upon the statement sent to WorldNetDaily.com.

In April 2004, Canada enacted Bill C-250, a bill that added “sexual orientation” to “identifiable groups” protected from communication that would incite hatred towards them. In the months leading up to its passage, many conservative thinkers and activists prophesied that adding “sexual orientation” to the hate crime laws would give homosexual activists the leverage needed to persecute those opposed to their lifestyle for nothing more than expressing disagreement.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, a person is not to be convicted of a hate crime if “he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.”

Despite the nod to religious conviction, however, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has already investigated and punished numerous individuals for promoting opposition to homosexual practices based on traditional Christian teaching.

In November of 2007, the CHRC threatened the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHPC) with legal penalties for material on their website. Printer Scott Brockie has also been found guilty by the Commission and fined for refusing to print pro-homosexual materials, as was Christian pastor Steve Boissoin, who wrote a letter to the editor outlining Christian teachings on homosexuality. Bishop Fred Henry was hauled before the Commission for speaking out against homosexuality, and recently a complaint was made against the Catholic magazine, Catholic Insight for similar reasons.

Advocating for the traditional family is a criminal activity in Canada, because it may incite violence and then you would be charged with a hate crime.

You can hear more about Obama’s hate crime bill in this current events podcast from William Lane Craig.

The silencing of Christians in the public square is now quite common in Canada and the UK.

Here are some stories from the UK:

Here are some stories from Canada:

And bad things are already happening the United States.

Something to think about, especially since a lot of “Christians” voted Obama because they supported wealth redistribution and the appeasement of terrorists abroad. I am sure that in time those same “Christians” will learn to redefine Christianity so that it complies with Obama’s hate crime bill, and then they will turn to demonizing authentic Christians who still think the Bible is authoritative on moral questions.

Polemics

MUST-READ: How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?

Leave a comment

Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 has written a nice review of Dawkins’ new book. He is very polite in this review, but also very effective.  He also posted the audio for the recent debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins.

Brian starts his review by explaining Dawkins’ plan for the book:

Dawkins seems to place all doubters into the young-earth category, while the illustrations he employs put them on par with “well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers.”

That’s right. He is not refuting the work of intelligent design theorists – he is refuting young earth creationists. He spends an entire chapter on the age of the earth. The names of intelligent design scholars hardly even appear in the index of his book! This book is not a refutation of the likes of William A. Demsbki, PhD, PhD or Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD. (That is not a typo, they each have two PhDs, and from top-tier schools)

And then it goes from bad to worse.  He uses intelligent selection by human dog-breeders as proof of the efficacy of random mutation and natural selection. Intelligent design that produces micro-evolution is used as evidence for unguided macro-evolution.

[…]”The difference between any two breeds of dog gives us a rough idea of the quantity of evolutionary change that can be achieved in less than a millennium. The next question we should ask is, how many millennia do we have available to us in accounting for the whole history of life? If we imagine the sheer quantity of differences that separate a pye-dog from a peke, which took only a few centuries of evolution, how much longer is the time that separates us from the beginning of evolution or, say, from the beginning of mammals? … Can you imagine two million centuries, laid end to end?”

Actually, this “can you imagine” argument is a lot better than his fraudulent drawings of embryos argument. Neither of them works, but at least he isn’t using fraudulent evidence with this “can you imagine” argument.

Oh, but here’s the “you’re stupid and evil” argument, which taken together with the “can you imagine” argument and the fraudulent embryos, forms the beginning of a very persuasive case for macro-evolution.

“If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity.”

Did you know that human pregnancy is actually evidence for macro-evolution? Yes – babies evolve in a Darwinian fashion from a fertilized egg until their birth! That’s macro-evolution!

Chapter eight is entitled You Did It Yourself in Nine Months. Here Dawkins cites an interaction between J.B.S. Haldane, a leading architect of neo-Darwinism, and an evolution skeptic. The skeptic poses a complex question of how, even given billions of years, a single cell could develop into a complicated human body that thinks and feels. Haldane’s one-liner response was, “But madam, you did it yourself. And it only took you nine months.”

Brilliant! Sheer brilliance! Let’s call this one the “pregnancy is macro-evolution in action” argument. Put that with the rest.

Dawkins says that scientists don’t even need to observe any fossils in order to know that evolution happened, even on distant planets.

“I love speculating on how weirdly different we should expect life to be elsewhere in the universe, but one or two things I suspect are universal, wherever life might be found. All life will turn out to have evolved by a process related to Darwinian natural selection of genes.”

He knows that aliens evolved because what else could have happened? Evidence is irrelevant when you have blind faith. Let’s call this the “fossil record? we don’t need no stinking fossil record!” argument. And of course you know that Dawkins thinks that these aliens who evolved unobserved may have seeded the Earth with life – that’s his solution to the origin of life problem.

OK, one more quote from Brian’s review before I really have to stop. It’s Christopher Hitchens’ “I wouldn’t have done it that way” argument!

“…the overwhelming impression you get from surveying any part of the innards of a large animal is that it is a mess! Not only would a designer never have made a mistake like that nervous detour; a decent designer would never have perpetuated anything of the shambles that is the criss-crossing maze of arteries, veins, intestines, wads of fat and muscle, mesenteries and more.”

Oh, just one more! This is the “origin of life? what’s that? (nervous titter)” argument.

“We don’t actually need a plausible theory of the origin of life…”

OK, I really have to stop. You will all go to Brian’s site and read his review. It is awesome. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims to believe that Dawkins is NOT a lazy-brained ignoramus, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Note to Darwinist commenters. If you want to defend Dawkins here, then pick one of his arguments that I cited here, and go for it. For everything else, comment on Brian’s site.