They had labored for four months through the terrible heat of that Philadelphia summer, but they knew as they moved forward to sign their names to that new document that in many ways their work had just begun. This new Constitution, this new plan of government, faced a skeptical, even hostile reception in much of the country.

To look back on that time, at the difficulties faced – and surmounted -can only give us perspective on the present. Each generation, every age, I imagine, is prone to think itself beset by unusual and particularly threatening difficulties, to look back on the past as a golden age, when issues were not so complex and politics not so divisive, when problems did not seem so intractable.

Sometimes we’re tempted to think of the birth of our country as one such golden age – a time characterized primarily by harmony and cooperation.

In fact, the Constitution and our government were born in crisis. The years leading up to our constitutional convention were some of the most difficult our nation ever endured. This young nation, threatened on every side by hostile powers, was on the verge of economic collapse. In some states, inflation raged out of control. Debt was crushing. In Massachusetts, ruinously high taxes provoked an uprising of poor farmers led by a former Revolutionary War captain, Daniel Shays.

Perilous State of Confederacy

Trade disputes between the states were bitter and sometimes violent, threatening not only the economy, but even the peace. No one thought him guilty of exaggeration when Edmund Randolph described the perilous state of the confederacy. ”Look at the public countenance,” he said, ”from New Hampshire to Georgia. Are we not on the eve of war, which is only prevented by the hopes from this convention?”

Yes, but these hopes were matched in many others by equally strong suspicions. Wasn’t this convention just designed to steal from the states their sovereignty, to usurp the freedoms so recently fought for? Patrick Henry, the famed orator of the revolution, thought so. He refused to attend the convention, saying, with his usual talent for understatement, that he ”smelt a rat.”

The Articles of Confederation, all could see, were not strong enough to hold this new nation together. But there was no general agreement on how a stronger Federal government should be constituted – or, indeed, whether one should be constituted at all. There were strong secessionist feelings in many parts of the country; in Boston, some were calling for a separate nation of New England. Others felt the 13 states should divide into three independent nations. And it came as a shock to George Washington, recently traveling in New England, to find that sentiment in favor of returning to a monarchy still ran strong in that region.

No, it wasn’t the absence of problems that won the day in 1787. It wasn’t the absence of division and difficulty. It was the presence of something higher – the vision of democratic government founded upon those self-evident truths that still resounded in Independence Hall. It was that ideal, proclaimed so proudly in this hall a decade earlier, that enabled them to rise above politics and self-interest, to transcend their differences and together create this document, this Constitution that would profoundly and forever alter, not just these United States, but the world.

When Revolution Truly Began

In a very real sense, it was then -in 1787 – that the revolution truly began. For it was with the writing of our Constitution, setting down the architecture of democratic government, that the noble sentiments and brave rhetoric of 1776 took on substance, that the hopes and dreams of the revolutionists could become a living, enduring reality.

All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Until that moment some might have said that was just a high-blown sentiment, the dreams of a few philosophers and their hot-headed followers. But could one really construct a government, run a country, with such idealistic notions?

But once those ideals took root in living, functioning institutions, once those notions became a nation, well, then, as I said, the revolution could really begin, not just in America, but around the world, a revolution to free man from tyranny of every sort and secure his freedom the only way possible in this world – through the checks and balances and institutions of limited, democratic government.

Checks and balances; limited government – the genius of our constitutional system is its recognition that no one branch of government alone could be relied on to preserve our freedoms. The great safeguard of our liberty is the totality of the constitutional system, with no one part getting the upper hand. That is why the judiciary must be independent. And that is why it also must exercise restraint.

If our Constitution has endured, through times perilous as well as prosperous, it has not been simply as a plan of government, no matter how ingenious or inspired that might be. This document that we honor today has always been something more to us, filled us with a deeper feeling than one of simple admiration – a feeling, one might say, more of reverence.

Covenant With Mankind

One scholar described our Constitution as a kind of covenant. It is a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind. As John Quincy Adams promises, ”Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers.” It is a human covenant, yes, and beyond that, a covenant with the Supreme Being to whom our founding fathers did constantly appeal for assistance.

It is an oath of allegiance to that in man that is truly universal, that core of being that exists before and beyond distinctions of class, race or national origin. It is a dedication of faith to the humanity we all share, that part of each man and woman that most closely touches on the divine.

And it was perhaps from that divine source that the men who came together in this hall 200 years ago drew the inspiration and strength to face the crisis of their great hopes and overcome their many divisions.

After all, both Madison and Washington were to refer to the outcome of the Constitutional Convention as a miracle; and miracles, of course, have only one origin.

”No people,” said George Washington in his inaugural address, ”can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some providential agency.”

No doubt he was thinking of the great and good fortune of this young land: the abundant and fertile continent given us, far from the warring powers of Europe, the successful struggle against the greatest power of that day, England, the happy outcome of the Constitutional Convention and the debate over ratification.

America’s Solemn Duty

But he knew, too, as he also said, that there is an ”indissoluble union” between duty and advantage, and that the guiding hand of providence did not create this new nation of America for ourselves alone, but for a higher cause – the preservation and extension of the sacred fire of human liberty. That is America’s solemn duty.

During the summer of 1787, as the delegates clashed and debated, Washington left the heat of Philadelphia, and with his trout fishing companion, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, made a pilgrimage to Valley Forge. Ten years before, his Continental Army had been camped there through the winter. Food was low, medical supplies nonexistent, his soldiers had to go ”half in rags in the killing cold, their torn feet leaving bloodstains as they walked shoeless on the icy ground.”

Gouverneur Morris reported that the general was silent throughout the trip. He did not confide his emotions as he surveyed the scene of past hardship. One can imagine that his conversation was with someone else -that it took more than the form of prayer for this new nation, that such sacrifice be not in vain, that the hope and promise that survived such a terrible winter of suffering not be allowed to wither now that it was summer.

One imagines that he also did what we do today in this gathering and celebration, what will always be America’s foremost duty – to constantly renew that covenant with humanity, with a world yearning to breathe free; to complete the work begun 200 years ago, that grand, noble work that is America’s particular calling – the triumph of human freedom – the triumph of human freedom under God.

###

Speech Made by Congressman Tom McClintock from the House Floor on April 27, 2012

The app, still available elsewhere, pulls together a database of thousands of famous Jews – including movie stars, musicians, Nobel Prize winners and more – and offers insights into their backgrounds. Jewish mother? Jewish father? A convert? For $1.99 in the United States, app owners can know.

“I’m not a spokesman for all Jews, but, being Jewish myself, I know that in our community we ask ourselves often if this or that celebrity is Jewish or not,” he told the French newspaper. “For me, there’s nothing pejorative in saying publicly that this person or that person is Jewish. Instead, it’s something to be proud of.”

But no matter Lévy’s personal background or motivation, compiling details about peoples’ identities without their consent is against the law in France. And that was all Apple needed to know to swipe “Jew or not Jew?” from France’s App Store shelf.

Read the full article

This is Article18–RLTV’s weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we profile a different nation, and the struggles facing one of its religious communities. This week, Poland, where citizens in Bialystok protest against horrendous statements of antisemitism and a death metal singer is allowed to go free after ripping up a Bible during one of his concerts.

During the Second World War, what was arguably history’s most deadly and vicious assault on religious liberty  took place in the unassuming countryside of Nazi-occupied Europe. Almost half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland. That number is approximately three million. Ninety percent of Poland’s Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps, and today, in some towns, the only legacy of that tragedy is a plaque or a statue of remembrance. So last week, when local “vandals used green paint to spray a swastika and ‘SS’” on a monument dedicated to the hundreds of Jewish villagers who were burned alive in Jedwabne village during the Holocaust, protesters took to the streets demanding an end to the “wave of thoughtless hatred.”

Other hostile phrases such as “I don’t apologize for Jedwabne” and “They were flammable” were spray-painted onto the monument. The march was led by Sen. Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz and the mayor of the city of Bialystok as well as other concerned citizens.

The AP reports that those attending “The ‘March of Unity’ walked in silence from the city center to a monument of Ludwik Zamenhof, a Jewish doctor born in Bialystok, who invented the Esperanto language. It occurred without violence or arrests, despite a counter-demonstration by people chanting nationalist slogans.”

Sadly, this is not an outlying incident–”Other recent anti-Semitic or racist attacks in Poland have targeted a synagogue in the village of Orla, a Muslim center in Bialystok, and the Lithuanian minority in the Punsk region.”

A lack of respect for the religious beliefs of others seems to be a common trend in Poland as of late. But in some scenarios, acts of religious intolerance fall within the bounds of free speech, as in the case of Polish death metal singer Adam Darski.

“Adam Darski, who goes by the stage name Nergal and is the frontman for the death metal band Behemoth, was charged after he ripped up the Bible during a 2007 concert in Gdynia, in the country’s north.” Three weeks ago, “a Polish judge found a death metal singer innocent of offending religious feeling, ruling that his ripping up of a Bible during a show was a form of artistic expression consistent with the style of his band.”

Poland is a strongly Roman Catholic nation, with almost 90% of the country identifying themselves as such. So when Darski ripped pages out of the Bible, tossed them to concert-goers and instructed them to burn them, he was charged with offending religious feeling. But after the court explained that it had no “intention of limiting freedom of expression or the right to criticize religion,” Darski celebrated the verdict on his website writing, “I’m so glad to see that intelligence won over religious fanatics in my home country [but] there’s still so much work to be done to make things right.”

The line between free speech and criminal defamation of a religious group can sometimes be rather thin and some insensitive hardliners in Poland will probably accuse the law of double standards. But surely there is a noticeable difference between these two incidents.

Matthew Kramer is a close friend of mine from college, an amateur entertainment journalist and serious fan of heavy metal. Along with Brad Kenyon, who created the logos for this blog, and RLTV contributor David Ranzolin, Kramer and I ran our college’s biweekly student newspaper. He saw Darski’s death metal group, Behemoth, in concert a few years ago and while nothing outrageously provocative occurred–other than the usual screaming and ear-piercing music–he explained what separates even the most offensive art from criminal, racist acts.

“There is a difference,” Kramer said. “When the Bible is torn up on stage some people are offended, just like with the Koran.”

“But vandalizing a Holocaust memorial is worse because of the associated pain. There are still people alive who had family members killed during that time.”

Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.

Article18: Kosovo — Muslim Headscarf Ban Upheld for Schools; Christians Required to be Buried in Islamic Graveyards

Article18: Pakistan — Christian Flood Victims in Punjab Face Land Discrimination in Disaster Aftermath

Article18: Norway — Personal Reflections on the Origin of a Tragedy

Article18: Uzbekistan — Recent Incidents of Violence Against Christians Alarm Religious Minorities

Article18: Cuba — Three Protestant Pastors Interrogated; Roman Catholic Church in Havana Helps Free 126 Prisoners of Conscience

This situation allows small groups of people to have a profound impact on public attitudes and policy discourse, provided that they are well-organized, well-funded, and stay on message.

– Stephen M. Walt

Read the full article

The summer camp where children of the Norwegian Labor Party went for soccer, swimming, political debates and lectures “sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth,” Beck said in his national radio broadcast.

Read the full article

But, following the latest tragic church attack in Alexandria which claimed 23 lives, many feel the current daily protests by Coptic youth could represent a new phenomenon. Thousands of the younger generation have marched in protest in Alexandria and in Cairo, among other major cities. They’ve brandished religious symbols, chanted slogans, called for more religious freedom and clashed with the police.

Their protests were widely reported by national and foreign media and were broadly seen as a natural reaction to the unprecedented attacks targeting the Coptic community. And sympathetic Egyptian Muslims have organised rallies expressing their condolences, condemning the attack. But some analysts believe the anger shown by Coptic youth represents a deeper problem – a new generation who feel increasingly marginalised and discriminated against, exhibiting a collective sentiment that their religious believes have come under attack.

Read the full article

[District spokesperson Elaine] Naleski says some students were offended at how others were wearing the religious symbol, but the ACLU disagrees with that reasoning. “The First Amendment protects the right of students to express their faith by wearing crosses, rosaries, or other religious symbols without interference from school officials. Our Constitution protects the right to individual religious liberty and the ACLU is here to support everyone who chooses to exercise that right,” said Mark Silverstein, the ACLU Legal Director, in a statement sent out to the media.

Read the full article

The rise of the far right has hardly caused a ripple in the Netherlands. The Dutch coalition deal was done before the end of September, marking the political whitewashing of the previously unacceptable Geert Wilders, the provocative, and peroxide-blond political wunderkind MP, and his right-wing Party for Freedom. He has agreed to lend his support to a minority government [and] in return Wilders has been given freedom to pursue anti-immigrant measures and several openly anti-Muslim initiatives, including a burqa ban and closer monitoring of Islamic schools.

His outspokenness has made him a hated figure for some Muslims, and he lives under constant police protection. Recently, an Australian imam called for his beheading, the last in a long line of threats. Wilders himself argued in July on the website muslimsdebate.com that he does not hate Muslims — he just opposes Islam and wants Muslims to liberate themselves from its shackles. [But] Geert Wilders is slowly but surely making Islamophobia an accepted element of political rhetoric in the Netherlands. To give an idea of the tone of his discourse in the Netherlands, he has called for a “head rag tax” on women wearing headscarves. He favors banning the Quran, wants to close Muslim schools but not equivalent Christian or Jewish ones, wants to force immigrants to sign “assimilation contracts,” and wants to include the “Judeo-Christian character” of the state in the constitution.

Read the full article here

KABUL—The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said the planned burning of Qurans on Sept. 11 by a small Florida church could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.

Gen. David Petraeus said the Taliban would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians.

…

Gen. Caldwell said many Afghans do not understand either the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can’t simply issue a decree to stop Mr. Jones from his demonstration.

…

“There is no question about First Amendment rights; that is not the issue,” Gen. Caldwell said. “The question is: What is the implication over here? It is going to jeopardize the men and women serving in Afghanistan.”

Read the full article.

EXCERPT:

The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, “Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses.”

In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place.

AUSTIN – Republicans on the State Board of Education soundly rejected a Democratic-backed proposal Thursday that would have required Texas students to be taught the reasons behind the prohibition of a state religion in the Bill of Rights.

The contentious decision in curriculum standards for U.S. government classes appeared to signal the unhappiness of several board members with court rulings that have affirmed the separation of church and state – including a longtime ban on school-sponsored prayer.

Read the full article at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/031210dnmetsboe.19ab856dd.html

EXCERPT:

CALGARY, December 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Gerald Chipeur, the lawyer who represented Pastor Stephen Boissoin, has said that the recent ruling in favor of Mr. Boissoin “will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada.”

Pastor Boissoin was exonerated by a Court of Queen’s Bench judge last week after being subjected to the proceedings of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for over seven years. The Tribunal had found Boissoin guilty of “hate speech” for having written a letter to the editor of a local newspaper about the homosexualist agenda.

But Justice Earl C. Wilson last week ruled the letter Mr. Boissoin wrote to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate on June 17, 2002 on the subject of homosexual-rights curricula in the province’s educational system was not a hate crime but legitimate expression allowed under freedom of speech.

“The decision of Justice Earl Wilson of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Boissoin v Lund will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada,” Gerald Chipeur wrote in a summary analysis of the judgment, forwarded to LifeSiteNews.com by Boissoin.

Chipeur states that the bar has been raised substantially on what may in the future be construed as a violation of the “hate” provisions of human rights laws. “The decision established a very high threshold for the conclusion that a publication is in violation of the ‘hate’ provisions of Alberta’s human rights laws,” he said.

Read the full piece at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120706.html

The following excerpts are from a speech Mark Steyn gave at Hillsdale College on March 9, 2009.  You can read the full article here.

“In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood—health care, child care, care of the elderly—to the point where it’s effectively severed its citizens from humanity’s primal instincts, not least the survival instinct.”

…

“And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it’s another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ’s Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that’s underway. The 44th president’s multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can’t make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%—ten years ago. Today, it’s about 40%. In four years’ time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.”

…

“That’s Stage Two of societal enervation—when the state as guarantor of all your basic needs becomes increasingly comfortable with regulating your behavior. Free peoples who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life. When President Bush talked about promoting democracy in the Middle East, there was a phrase he liked to use: “Freedom is the desire of every human heart.” Really? It’s unclear whether that’s really the case in Gaza and the Pakistani tribal lands. But it’s absolutely certain that it’s not the case in Berlin and Paris, Stockholm and London, New Orleans and Buffalo. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government “security,” large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and a ton of other stuff. It’s ridiculous for grown men and women to say: I want to be able to choose from hundreds of cereals at the supermarket, thousands of movies from Netflix, millions of songs to play on my iPod—but I want the government to choose for me when it comes to my health care. A nation that demands the government take care of all the grown-up stuff is a nation turning into the world’s wrinkliest adolescent, free only to choose its record collection.

“And don’t be too sure you’ll get to choose your record collection in the end. That’s Stage Three: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it’s a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts. When my anglophone friends in the Province of Quebec used to complain about the lack of English signs in Quebec hospitals, my response was that, if you allow the government to be the sole provider of health care, why be surprised that they’re allowed to decide the language they’ll give it in? But, as I’ve learned during my year in the hellhole of Canadian “human rights” law, that’s true in a broader sense. In the interests of “cultural protection,” the Canadian state keeps foreign newspaper owners, foreign TV operators, and foreign bookstore owners out of Canada. Why shouldn’t it, in return, assume the right to police the ideas disseminated through those newspapers, bookstores and TV networks it graciously agrees to permit?

“When Maclean’s magazine and I were hauled up in 2007 for the crime of “flagrant Islamophobia,” it quickly became very clear that, for members of a profession that brags about its “courage” incessantly (far more than, say, firemen do), an awful lot of journalists are quite content to be the eunuchs in the politically correct harem. A distressing number of Western journalists see no conflict between attending lunches for World Press Freedom Day every month and agreeing to be micro-regulated by the state. The big problem for those of us arguing for classical liberalism is that in modern Canada there’s hardly anything left that isn’t on the state dripfeed to one degree or another: Too many of the institutions healthy societies traditionally look to as outposts of independent thought—churches, private schools, literature, the arts, the media—either have an ambiguous relationship with government or are downright dependent on it. Up north, “intellectual freedom” means the relevant film-funding agency—Cinedole Canada or whatever it’s called—gives you a check to enable you to continue making so-called “bold, brave, transgressive” films that discombobulate state power not a whit.

“And then comes Stage Four, in which dissenting ideas and even words are labeled as “hatred.” In effect, the language itself becomes a means of control. Despite the smiley-face banalities, the tyranny becomes more naked: In Britain, a land with rampant property crime, undercover constables nevertheless find time to dine at curry restaurants on Friday nights to monitor adjoining tables lest someone in private conversation should make a racist remark. An author interviewed on BBC Radio expressed, very mildly and politely, some concerns about gay adoption and was investigated by Scotland Yard’s Community Safety Unit for Homophobic, Racist and Domestic Incidents. A Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested and detained in a jail cell over a joke in a speech. A Dutch legislator is invited to speak at the Palace of Westminster by a member of the House of Lords, but is banned by the government, arrested on arrival at Heathrow and deported.”

MARK STEYN’S column appears in several newspapers, including the Washington Times, Philadelphia’s Evening Bulletin, and the Orange County Register. In addition, he writes for The New Criterion, Maclean’s in Canada, the Jerusalem Post, The Australian, and Hawke’s Bay Today in New Zealand.

Read the full article at http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/mvanderwei/Page_4221/ImprimisApril09.pdf

For more information about “thought crimes” see “Thought and Crime” which was published in Liberty magazine in the March/April 2008 issue.  Since then, we have posted an update at RLTV.  A series of fundraisers ahve been planned for Canada to support Pastor Stephen Boissoin.  Thanks to Mark Chipeur for alerting us to these events. The following text is lifted from their promotional materials. Michael Peabody]

Stephen Boissoin was hauled before Alberta’s human rights commission over a complaint from a teacher with a Messianic complex. This teacher accused Mr. Boissoin of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation over a letter criticising homosexuality that was published in the Red Deer Advocate.

The human rights commission found Mr. Boissoin guilty of discrimination and hate. The adjudicator has banned Mr. Boissoin from preaching the Gospel This militantly state-ist ruling is one of the most aggressive attempts yet in Canada to stamp out public Christianity.

Alberta’s provincial government intervened in the case on the side of the commission and the complainant, against Mr. Boissoin.

The “human rights” commissioner also ordered Mr. Boissoin to issue a – false, if necessary – apology for his written comments. He was also ordered to pay money to the complainant for hurt feelings even though the complainant was supposedly fighting on behalf of homosexuals, not for himself.

Stephen Boissoin fears God and has refused to comply with this “human rights” decision. Instead, he has appealed the decision into Alberta’s court system.

This course of action, which has very important implications for all Christians and lovers of freedom, not just for Mr. Boissoin himself, may cost a lot of money.

Ezra Levant incurred a cost of $100,000 to fight back against an Alberta human rights commission attack based on his publication of the Muslim “Danish cartoons” in Western Standard magazine.

Christian businessman Scott Brockie incurred $170,000 in costs to fight several appeals of a homosexual-based “human rights” complaint in Ontario.

We need to support Mr. Boissoin’s legal challenge. We need to hold up his arms and help him fight this battle. The ECP Centre stands with Mr. Boissoin, and we are asking you also to lend your support to this important appeal, to join this battle to preserve fundamental freedoms in Canada – the freedom to share the Gospel to all people, including homosexuals; freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

Religious Freedom Fundraising Dinners:

Calgary – April 30
Red Deer – May 1st
Edmonton – May 2nd

Ezra Levant, one of Canada’s most powerful and relentless advocates for freedom will be the Feature Speaker at each of the three Fundraising Dinners to be held in Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton.

Ezra has just published a book on the scandal of human rights abuse by the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. Autographed copies will be available at each of the Fundraising Dinners.

The Calgary dinner is on Thursday, April 30th. The Red Deer dinner will take place on Friday, May 1st. The Edmonton dinner is scheduled for Saturday, May 2nd.

Tickets for these Fundraising Dinners are $100 each. I look forward to seeing you in Calgary, Red Deer or Edmonton. Please let ECP know how many tickets you would like to reserve and send your donation directly to:

ECP Centre,
P.O. Box 7,
Russell, Ontario K4R 1C7 or call
613-482-1790. Tickets can also be purchased online at

http://www.ecpcentre.com/dinners.php

Download the event poster at http://www.ecpcentre.com/pdf/ECP_Boisson_poster.pdf

ECP is also looking for sponsors who would like to sponsor a table of eight. If you are interested in helping Rev. Boissoin and the ECP
Centre with that level of support, please call them at 613-482-1790.

Thank you for you interest and support for this important court case and the other threats to freedom that must be addressed across Canada.

*Funds raised at these dinners will be allocated with 50% directed to Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s legal expenses and 50% directed to the work of
the ECP Centre, which includes direct support and advocacy for Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s case and other important cases across Canada.

The act, primarily promoted by Muslim nations, is designed to shield religion, primarily Islam, from criticism in the media and public discourse.  “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism,” the resolution stated.

Canada, all European member states, the Ukraine, and Chile opposed the resolution, however Muslim nations in the Middle East and Africa supported the resolution.

The United States is not a member of the Human Rights Council but does act as an observer.  The United States has not participated in the Council in recent years due to its anti-Israel sentiment and failure to act in the Sudan.

COMMENT: This is a serious issue that deserves ongoing monitoring.  While we cringe at disrespect aimed toward various religions, the doors to the free marketplace of ideas should not be closed.

EXCERPT:

Considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s contentious struggles over free speech and religion, it was a surprise to say the least to see Wednesday’s ruling unanimously endorsing a government installation of the Ten Commandments in a city park.

While this ruling will likely have limited impact, it raises troubling questions about how dedicated this court – particularly the younger justices, who will be shaping it for decades to come – will be to maintaining the proverbial wall separating church and state.

. . .
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That’s a fair concern. It’s one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it’s another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.

Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there’s only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can’t use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.

Read the full article at
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That’s a fair concern. It’s one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it’s another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.

Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there’s only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can’t use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.