A Chicago Tribune story on the Westboro Baptist Church’s funeral protests noted that the church is listed as an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, and has inspired new legislation in Congress to restrict protests outside national cemeteries. And there were two cautionary quotes about all the new state laws aimed at the Phelpses’:
– Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and authority on First Amendment law, said, “You can’t treat speech as a breach of the peace simply because it offends people. These protests are tremendously offensive and hard to ignore. But ignoring them or counterprotesting is unfortunately the only remedy the First Amendment allows.”
– Charlie Mitchell, state legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that because of the damage awards the Rev. Fred Phelps could win if he prevails in court challenges, “The great irony of these bills — they are going to put the citizens of these states in the position of paying money to Fred Phelps.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
The Eagle editorial board received an interesting letter from a Kansas pastor upset about the state’s new concealed-carry gun law. His complaint is that churches are among the places where concealed guns aren’t allowed.
He seems to support letting churchgoers bring guns: “History shows us that when shootings take place in a church, it is by people that come off the street and start shooting. If this law stands, then it will make it illegal for ‘religious’ people to defend themselves.”
But his main objection is a separation of church and state: “The state has no right to determine what and who can go into a church; this is a decision of the church. If this law stands, then it will give the government a crack in which they can invade the church.”
And besides, the offerings are sure to increase if you know the preacher is packing.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
“A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke our laws to come to America,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote about the immigration debate. “This is not a compromise meant to appease both sides without achieving anything. It is not some piece of hybrid legislation that arbitrarily divides illegals into those with five-year-old ‘roots’ in America and those without, or some such mischief-making nonsense. This is full amnesty (earned with back taxes and learning English and the like) with full border control.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas are unhappy about the Senate Judiciary Committee’s recent passage of a proposal to televise the court’s sessions. Thomas told a House committee Tuesday that cameras would undermine or at least change the court’s proceedings. Kennedy as much as told lawmakers to mind their own business. True, the decision should be the court’s, but the justices should realize that they would build public trust in the judicial system by raising the curtain on their history-making work. (And too bad that, in any case, it couldn’t happen in time for Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline’s reargument of the death penalty case April 25. As all Kansans know by now, Kline is always ready for his close-up.)
Posted by Rhonda Holman
The state has seen fewer abortions each year since 2001, according to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, most recently experiencing a nearly 8 percent decrease between 2004 and 2005. For most, the 10,542 abortions in Kansas last year remain too many for comfort. That 46.6 percent were performed on out-of-state women is hardly a point of state pride (and what’s up with 80 Kansans having abortions out of state?). And many Kansans, seeing that 1,849 abortion patients were 19 or younger, would conclude students need better access to sexual education in schools, rather than the opt-in approach recently adopted by the State Board of Education.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
