Sunday, October 4, 2015
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

WCN Site Search

Lost & Found

Lost: Border Collie, black and light brown, 9 months old, wearing a green collar, last seen Sept. 22 near CR 427 in Poth. If found call 210-324-1208.

VideoLost: Basset hound mix puppy, goes by the name "Darla," 15272 U.S. Hwy. 87 W, La Vernia. Call Kaitlynn at 210-758-2495.
Found: Male, MinPin?, about 2?, not fixed, sweet, very smart. Found 9/25 inside Floresville Walmart. Healthy, no fleas, clean teeth, manicured nails. Will keep if owner not found.
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

Hair Stylist/Massage Therapist/Esthetician/Nail Tech, minimum 3 years experience, located in Nixon. The Cutting Edge Salon and Spa, call 830-582-2233.
ON-CALL CRISIS POOL WORKERS NEEDED. Part-time positions are available for after hours “on-call” crisis workers to respond to mental health crisis for Wilson and Karnes Counties. Duties include crisis interventions, assessments, referrals to stabilization services, and referrals for involuntary treatment services according to the Texas Mental Health Laws. You must have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in psychology, sociology, social work, nursing, etc. On-call hours are from 5 p.m.-8 a.m. weekdays, weekends and holidays vary. If selected, you must attend required training and must be able to report to designated safe sites within 1 hour of request for assessment. Compensation is at a rate of $200 per week plus $100 per completed and submitted crisis assessment, and mileage. If interested call Camino Real Community Services, 210-357-0359.
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos

Video Vault ›


Real Answers: The Supreme Court's Bipolar Decision

E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story

The author of this entry is responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Wilson County News or
March 3, 2011 | 2,046 views | Post a comment

Copyright: ©2011 Gregory J. Rummo

By Gregory J. Rummo
As a Christian first and a Baptist second, I am left to wonder about the deeper meaning behind the Supreme Court‚s ruling to allow religious hate speech in public on Wednesday.

The high court ruled 8-1 in favor of allowing members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church to continue protesting at military funerals, displaying messages such as „Planes crash, God laughs,‰ „You‚re going to hell,‰ and „Thank God for dead soldiers.‰

The case was made in newspaper editorials across the country that although the speech itself is hateful, ugly and „toxic,‰ it is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution and that the Court made the right decision.

But I have a few questions.

What was it about this type of speech that the High Court found so acceptable that it was willing to almost unanimously accommodate? Were the Justices inferring that this type of aggressive, religious hate speech is largely meaningless, that few take it seriously, that these Kansans are kooks and therefore it‚s acceptable?

And does that not beg the question of why the High Court has consistently ruled the opposite on more moderate religious love speech: Ten Commandment postings in public places; Nativity displays in town squares and public buildings; prayer in public schools including graduations and sporting events; and allowing Bible clubs to meet during after-school hours?

What is it the High Court is protecting Americans from˜religious truth?˜the Bible in its purest form absent an aggressive tone? Christianity?

Clearly religious love speech can be compelling. It can be taken seriously. It has the power to work on the heart, mind and conscience of the listener effecting a life-changing transformation. And since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that religious love speech is „dangerous.‰

The Supreme Court‚s bipolar treatment of religious hate speech vs. religious love speech is well documented.

Take for example the 1980 decision „Stone vs. Graham‰ in which the posting of the Ten Commandments on the walls of public schools was ruled unconstitutional.

The Justices wrote: „If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps venerate and obey [them.] This is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.‰

One is left to conclude that in America, it‚s a constitutional right to disrupt military funerals, screaming hate-filled invectives such as „God hates fags,‰ at grieving family members but a violation of the First Amendment for a child attending a public school to be taught from the Bible that „God so loved the world.‰

John 11:35 comes to mind: „Jesus wept.‰

Gregory J. Rummo is a businessman and the author of „The View from the Grass Roots.‰ Contact him through

Real Answers" furnished courtesy of The Amy Foundation Internet Syndicate. To contact the author or The Amy Foundation, write or E-mail to: P. O. Box 16091, Lansing, MI 48901-6091; Visit our website at
‹ Previous Blog Entry

Your Opinions and Comments

Be the first to comment on this story!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Not a subscriber?
Subscriber, but no password?
Forgot password?

Commentaries Archives

Commentaries page
Commentaries who represents me?
Heavenly Touch homeAllstate & McBride RealtyVoncille Bielefeld homeDrama KidsTriple R DC Expertsauto chooser

  Copyright © 2007-2015 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.