Tuesday, October 21, 2014
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

Lost & Found


VideoLost Dog! Golden/Pyrenees mix, Kaiha, was last seen October 11 - Hwy 119 - Denhawken area. Was wearing collar (Drama Queen). Please help us find her! Call Billy 210-745-6059. Thank you!

Video Lost: Cat, black and white, last seen the evening of Sept. 29 in the Woodcreek Subdivision area, La Vernia. Reward for his safe return. Call Richard, 830-779-2080 or 210-776-4930.
Lost diamond - diamond set in gold mounting prongs fell off of my wife's wedding ring. Reward offered, 210-867-1319.
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

The Wilson County Appraisal District is accepting applications and/or resumes for an entry level Field Appraiser position. Responsibilities include office and field work associated with the appraisal of all types of properties. Applicants must be willing to complete the requirements to obtain an RPA designation through the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Interested applicants must have reliable transportation, a valid Texas driver's license, and proof of liability insurance. Send resumes and/or applications to: Wilson County Appraisal District, Attn: Field Appraiser Position, 1611 Railroad Street, Floresville, Texas 78114.
*Fair Housing notice. All help wanted advertising in this newspaper is subject to the Fair Housing Act which makes it illegal to advertise "any preference limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention, to make any such preference limitation or discrimination." This newspaper will not knowingly accept any advertising for help wanted ads, which is in violation of the law. Our readers are hereby informed that all dwellings advertised in this newspaper are available on an equal opportunity basis.
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos





Video Vault ›

Commentaries


Real Answers: The Supreme Court's Bipolar Decision




E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story

Disclaimer:
The author of this entry is responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Wilson County News or wilsoncountynews.com.
March 3, 2011 | 1775 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 www.GregRummo.com

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; amyfoundtn@aol.com. Visit our website at www.amyfound.org
 
« Previous Blog Entry (March 3, 2011)
 


Your Opinions and Comments
Be the first to comment on this story!

You must be logged in to post comments:



Other Commentaries



Commentaries
Commentaries page govtrack.us
Commentaries who represents me?

Wilson's Auto ChooserBlue Moon Karaoke & DJTriple R DC ExpertsAllstate & McBride RealtyChester WilsonDrama KidsSacred Heart SchoolVoncille Bielefeld homeHeavenly Touch home
  Copyright © 2007-2014 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.