Someone asked, on Avvo, a legal website, the following question:
“What part of the consititution is the basis for outlawing murder? am wondering if a person says they worship allah and allah says to kill gays…what is to prevent them from doing this and saying it is the freedom of their practice of religion?”
Some lawyers replied, including myself. You may view the question and answers at: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-part-of-the-consititution-is-the-basis-for-ou-3079274.html.
My answer was as follows:
“Islam and true Christianity are diametrically opposed. When I say true Christianity, I am speaking of that practiced by true born again believers since the beginning of the church age as recorded in the New Testament. In order to answer your question, I believe I should give you a thumbnail sketch of how American law came to be. It was not founded upon the a religion that combines church and state (Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. or atheism). It came about as a result of a spiritual warfare which raged for many hundreds of years. I would add, without explanation, that sadly, the highest man made law in America, the United States Constitution, was a blend of God’s law and man’s reasoning; I do not have time to explain that in this comment.
–
“After the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts, the Jewish religious leaders, then Rome, then the official ‘church’ of Rome formed when Constantine combined church and state, the Protestant churches establishments which came much later, viciously persecuted (imprisoned, beheaded, drowned, tortured, etc.) those labeled heretics by established churches. 50-150 million of these “heretics” were so murdered. Many of them were authentic born again believers who had formed New Testament churches. This persecution, though less intense, was continued in the American colonies. As a result of that spiritual warfare, the First Amendment to the United States Constitutions was adopted in 1791. To read this whole story, go to https://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/god-betrayed….
–
“Under Islam (which combines religion and state), murder of certain people is practiced because the Islamic “holy books” say this is to be done. However, the Bible does not condone the murder of people by others. Of course, civil government (man ruling over man under God) was ordained by God as was capital punishment. God ordained Gentile civil government, and the theocratic government/nation of Israel. I explain this in The Biblical Doctrine of Government. America is a Gentile nation. America chose to honor God (the only God-the God of the Bible) in many ways. One of those ways was to provide that the government punish those who intentionally kill another or others without legal justification. In America, no one has a right to kill anyone else unless justified (self-defense, defense of a third person, etc.).
–
“I understand that some Muslims, including many who now live in America, want to convert the world and actively work to promote that goal. Those Muslims did not come to America to assimilate, but for that reason mentioned in the last sentence. However, this is not a Muslim nation. This is America. I suggest that anyone is free to seek to move to a nation that more closely practices their beliefs and that doing so should be their preferred course of action.”
Legal question asked on AVVO on May 12, 2015 from one wanting to know why drawing a cartoon of Mohammed was not the same legally as yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre with my reply and the reply of some other lawyers with whom I agree.
Asked on AVVO on May 12, 2014 – Dallas, TX
Practice area: Constitutional
See an article on the incident referred to in the above question at: Garland, Texas, Shooting Suspect Linked Himself To ISIS In Tweets (Note. I commend the police for bravely doing their job according to the law. Two of the Muslims, according to the article, “wore body armor. They carried assault rifles. And one had declared loyalty to ISIS.”)
The following was the question:
“Why isn’t the contest to draw Mohammad in Garland Tx recently the same as yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater and not protected a known hate group held a contest to draw a ‘cartoon’ of the Muslim prophet, Mohammad. In doing so, the group knew full well it would likely result in violence against those attending. In fact, only the Muslim protesting the drawing were killed as they approached the facility armed with weapons.”
My reply on May 12, 2014 (I did not address some of the issues raised in the question since I agreed with some other lawyer responses, some of which are below. Rather, I tried to offer some insights into the differences between certain Islamic beliefs and certain principles of freedom found in the United States Constitution.):
The religion of Islam has entirely different principles about some matters than does the religion which was responsible for giving the United States freedom of religion, speech, assembly, press, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These freedoms are denied in many Muslim countries where Christians and others are persecuted and/or killed. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution and the First Amendment, all these freedoms were denied in most of the American colonies (as they had been in the Old World where Catholicism or some form of Protestantism combined with the state).
These freedoms are secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Anytime religion and state unite, as proven by history, the result is the labeling of those who do not support and embrace the state/religion and “heretics” and their persecution and elimination. At least 50 million of such so-called “heretics” were murdered by the combination of church and state during the reign of Catholicism, and then by Protestant church state unions which adopted the church/state theology of the “mother” church (harlot). Those “heretics” believed in freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and the other freedoms in the First Amendment. Their beliefs were based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, not on the “spiritual” interpretations of the Catholic church which basically held that the Bible was open to interpretation by certain “spiritual” people (such as Origin, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas). Those interpreters paganized and spiritualized, according to their preferences, the great truths of the Bible.
As to the speech issue you mention, the teachings of Islam are fundamentally different from those of those Christian “heretics” who stood against the union of church and state and for freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly and which resulted in the freedoms in the First Amendment. Many of the Moslems who live in America have brought with them their Muslim beliefs and wish those beliefs to be applied in America. In order for that to happen, American law would have to be fundamentally rewritten.
A cross in a jar of urine is protected speech in America. Other odious depictions of Christ in movies, paintings, signs, etc. are common in America. As a believer, I detest those things, but I also believe in everyone’s right to the freedoms in the First Amendment. I don’t believe in killing anyone for their religious beliefs (as long as those beliefs do not result in murder, stealing, or some other crimes against one’s fellow man). The law protects, and rightfully so, those who express and practice their religious beliefs – even those who criticize other religions, religious leaders, etc.
This answer is not intended as and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Professional legal advice requires…
Answered May 14, 2014. Contrary to popular belief, yelling “fire” in a theater is not the most recent case law on clear and present danger. Schenck v. United States has been superceded by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Hate speech has also been approved as protected by the First Amendment (Virginia v. Black upheld a cross-burning). Hate speech is now akin to viewpoint discrimination. If the “hate group” was prohibited from having a drawing contest of Muhammed, then THEY would sue for violation of free speech rights.
The Constitution doesn’t protect against people being upset. The Constitution protects the speaker’s rights. Yelling “fire” causes panic to a reasonable person. A reasonable person would not have some impulse to hurt or kill other people because their religion/beliefs/opinions are threatened. The fact that they approached the facility armed with weapons WITH THE INTENT of committing a crime against someone who was expressing free speech shows they were in the wrong.
If you want this liberal/progressive defense of free speech that Pamela Gellar and company were engaging in, I suggest you watch some of the debates between supporters of Islam and with progressive TV host Bill Maher.
This answer is not intended as and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Professional legal advice requires…
Answered 28 minutes ago. Because it’s not illegal to “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”; it’s “illegal to FALSELY yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater”, which results in innocent people doing perfectly legal and reasonable things, and getting injured as a result.
Mounting an armed attack against someone who makes fun of your religion is, in the United States, neither legal nor reasonable, and isn’t innocent; it’s a crime.
This answer is not intended as and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Professional legal advice requires…
Answered a day ago. I think the big difference is that yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater will lead reasonable people to panic and potentially be injured, whereas drawing Mohammed will lead only criminals to react in a way that will cause injury.
This answer is not intended as and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Professional legal advice requires…
Churches under Christ Ministry Website: Understanding and Applying God's Principles for Church Headship "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:1-3). ————————————This Ministry is under the authority of Charity Baptist Tabernacle of Amarillo, Texas. Jerald Finney, a Christian Lawyer and member of Charity Baptist Tabernacle, having received this ministry in the Lord, explains how a church in America can remain under the Lord Jesus Christ and Him only. "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (1 Peter 4:10-11; See also, Ephesians 4::1-16 and 1 Corinthians 12:1-25). "Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it" (Colossians 4:17). "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1.22; See also, e.g. Colossians 1:18).
Simply Church: God's Prescribed Relationship Between Church and State 