FREE SPEECH -- ASSAULT ON TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VALUES

 

That traditional American values are being assaulted in many ways today cannot be legitimately doubted or debated. As readers know, protection of these traditional values is a focus of mine in much of what I write. I am pleased to post this piece by Mr. Michael Wilson who knows about traditional America and her values. He nearly lost his life in combat protecting the rights of all Americans as well as others. He is a man of many talents, many accomplishments, a "thinking person" as I often speak of since many are not so, erudite and more. I am pleased to post this piece with Mr. Wilson's approval.

 

Assault On Traditional American Values

By Michael Wilson

 

I have observed American society and politics for more than sixty years. During that time I have seen almost every group, of almost all philosophical and political persuasion, allowed to express itself freely. Some, such as Neo-Nazis, communists, militant anti-war types, militant pro-war types, pro-civil rights or white or black supremacists, and every era of music popular with the young from Johnny Ray to Justin Bieber, were not happily received by many, but they got their say. We even allow such vile and contemptible scum as the representatives of NAMBLA to have their say, and the sadistic pit dog fighter Michael Vick was forgiven and given a multi-million dollar professional football contract.

I lived through McCarthy and the reaction to him, but I have seen nothing in my entire life in this country to compare to the assaults on traditional American values, traditional Christianity and Judaism in particular, by those extremists who try to portray themselves as 'liberals'. Free speech, it would seem, must be vetted by the left. Only what the progressive groups deem acceptable can be spoken, and this most assuredly does not include traditional religious values!

The recent hoo-haw concerning the remarks by Phil Robertson are an example of how no one is supposed to voice a personal opinion if it runs counter to current leftist orthodoxy. I can relate to his feelings about the appeal of the sexual aspect of male homosexuality, but I think that it is none of my business. There...I said it. My homosexual friends have known for years that I wasn't interested in physical relationships with them. They have accepted this. I accept their right to do as they wish if they are consenting adults. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are NOT consenting adults, and I do not feel that the BSA or GSA should have homosexual adults or sexually conflicted youth forced on them. I don't think that this makes me a bigot, and I don't give a damn who agrees with my position or dislikes my saying it. THE FIRST AMENDMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT MY RIGHT TO SAY THIS, PHIL ROBERTSON'S RIGHT TO VOICE HIS OPINION, AND THE RIGHT OF GAYS TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS WHETHER THE EVANGELICALS LIKE IT OR NOT. The Founders did not place this Right at the head of the Bill of Rights to protect popular speech, as popular speech does not need protection. They enacted the First Amendment to protect UNpopular speech. 

Unfortunately, the courts have been loaded with supporters of 'progressive', the media with progressivism's mouth pieces, and our schools at every level with those who seem to reject all traditional values. I support the right of atheists to oppose creches or minorahs on municipal property if they wish. I emphatically reject the right of a miniscule minority to proscribe the rights of hundreds of millions of Christians and Jews to enjoy these manifestations of their belief. I totally oppose the abuse of the very mechanisms that protect the rights of this extremist, but well organized, funded and vocal tiny minority, to deny the harmless rights of the majority. Only a 'willing suspension of disbelief' would enable any intelligent and educated person to see any intention to preclude public expression of faith in the Separation Clause. The playing field has for too long been woefully out of whack. It is not level because devious operators have connived and contrived to skew it to the advantage of extremist minorities, and to the detriment of the law abiding majority who are doing no one any harm. This nation is not some politically correct soccer league, in which the good team must be handicapped in order to create a spurious 'equality' which is in reality the antithesis of true equality or good order.

I don't have to like what you say, and you don't have to like what I say. Absent real harm to others, however, we must both be allowed to say it without someone else trying to destroy our lives or livelihood at their whim and at our expense.

ED/JAM