True Freedom Of Speech And OF Religion

Our world has a very long history of ministers-of-religion, philosophers and others of like position and influence speaking for and against government leaders and officials on the basis of their morality-vs-immorality, logic, policies and other official or private behaviors. You might reflect on the teachings of Confucius, Protestant preachers, priests and popes, mullahs and imams and secular teachers/philosophers to understand that such comments are of long standing and basic to our understanding and development of government.

Within our own American traditions, we have a firm history of from-the-pulpit (And, in print) encouragement and criticism of specific and named political leaders----Especially in the periods just before elections. The making of such moral statements was expected of religious and other leaders, by the People, for their clarification of thoughts and election decisions.

However and in these degenerate times, too many political leaders (eg Senators Feingold and McCain) have elected to take great efforts in muzzling such person-specific comments---Especially in those 60 critical days before elections. To aggravate that insult to the People, there are laws which punish (By removal of tax exempt status) organizations which address the suitability of specific political figures to hold the public trust by election to office. (Unless the organization is so “politically correct” as to have practical exemption from such penalties---Such as certain “Black” churches who welcome to their platforms only one view of politics by specific speakers.)

By perverse “reasoning” the Supreme Court of the USA has, somehow, declared these laws in accordance with our Constitution and legal traditions. That is false! My position can be sustained on two grounds.

First, any political speech (Short of the equivalent of “falsely crying FIRE in a crowded theater” (ie Speech which provides a clear-and-present physical danger to others.(A KKK member attempting to force his speech on a meeting of the NAACP could be forbidden. A mob of student terrorists, as at Columbia University, who used noise and other force to stop political speech by supporters of a secure border with Mexico were, in fact, opposing free speech and should have been punished or resisted by such force as was required to maintain the rights of the scheduled speakers.) is a basic value and right in any democracy. However, other unilateral speech (Or, reasoned debate) as to any political question OR person should have the fullest protection of the Constitution and our laws. Among those political questions are the morality and public acts/positions of officials or those who wish to be elected to some public office---Most specially in that period just before elections.

Secondly, restrictions on the speech of ministers-of-religion (Or, their secular equivalents) is a violation of the “free exercise of religion” as guaranteed by our Constitution as such persons are expected to make such comments in both general, “issue”, matters AND as to individuals in or seeking public office. To rule otherwise is to make a restriction on religious practice no less objectionable than those imposed by the Church Of England before our Revolution or those inflicted by the Ayatollahs of Iran on those who wish more democracy in that ancient land. Other than in a few cases where there is a clear danger to the physical safety of others (Especially children), government has NO place in deciding what is a religious practice as that constitutes the “establishment of religion” prohibited by our Constitution.

Of course, most newspapers and “broadcast media” tend to favor those restrictions on free religious/philosophic speech noted above due to their general opposition to religion in the public forum (The place for debate) AND the fact that such restrictions do not apply to them and give them more power over the Public understanding of moral and political questions.

Too many politicians view such restrictions in the same positive light as they do the gerrymandering of election districts OR special exceptions as allow them to transfer money from one election account to another---A means to guarantee their reelection.

THE TRULY DARK SIDE OF THIS ISSUE IS THE REPORTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SENT ITS AGENTS (FROM THE IRS?) TO LISTEN TO (SPY UPON) SELECTED RELIGIOUS LEADERS/MINISTERS TO DETERMINE IF THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF THEIR CHURCHES. [Some private, atheist/secularist, citizens have made demands for such punishments.]

WHAT TO DO? The Congress should repeal the McCain-Feingold and anti-free-speech act.
After that, the Congress should (As is provided in the Constitution) pass such a limit on the various Federal Courts' jurisdiction as would prevent them from such abuses of the “free exercise of religion” and freedom of speech as are described above---And, the Congress should/must take no actions towards such ends itself.

Of course, this most excellent goal would be enabled by editors and TV producers supporting it after abandoning their “stuck in the 1960s” attitudes towards both religious freedom and free speech for other than themselves.