Conceptually, the Chronicle (and all of media) claim to be champions of the 1st Amendment and the free speech/religion principles that it proclaims. This works up until the point that whatever speech they are hearing runs counter to their progressive value-system.
Open Carry anti-Islamic Rallies: Who's the terrorist here? Sarah Raslan, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
And even if it were a mosque, isn't religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution that the protesters claim to revere? Or do they believe the Constitution enshrines "freedom of religion sans Islam"?
First off, the writer is incorrect. The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. That guarantee is provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads as follows:
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.
Where the author, and the Chronicle, are confused is that the 1st Amendment is a two-way street. Yes, it grants those who practice Islam the right to construct, and worship, within a Mosque, a right that I wholeheartedly support (even though I myself do not follow Islam and will not worship there). It also, and this is the sticky part, grants the protesters the right to conduct a peaceful protest against the presence of a Mosque. If you accept the first then you must also accept the second. You cannot only have it one way as the author tries to do.
What the First Amendment does not protect is the right of the protestors to get violent, or disruptive within the private property of the Mosque, or to throw things etc. You do not have the right to enter a crowded theater and yell "Fire!" or engage in activities that may harm another individual. Hurting someone's feelings doesn't count.
With free speech comes the responsibility of both being offended and facing the consequences of that speech. We're not promised that the Government will protect us from other people shouting us down. More importantly, this is not a violation of the Mosque members' rights (as the author is claiming) but an endorsement of those rights. In certain countries Christians, and other non-Muslims are not only protested against, but they are being slaughtered for their refusal to accept the official orthodoxy. THAT is a true violation of the first amendment, not Ms. Raslan's hurt feelings.
On matters regarding the 2nd Amendment the Houston Chronicle (and other media) are even worse.
Aiming for Sanity. The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board. Chron.com
Why do you consider the Second Amendment among all others sacrosanct? Every other constitutional right is circumscribed, including our First Amendment rights of free speech, a free press and the freedom to demonstrate peaceably. Setting aside the debate about whether the right to bear arms actually refers to militias rather than individuals, how can you argue that the Second Amendment confers an absolute immunity against any attempt to protect the general welfare? Do the words "well-regulated" mean anything to you?
Do the words "false narrative" have any meaning to the Chronicle?
I ask this because we do have regulations surrounding guns already. We have in place restrictions who can purchase them, who can carry them (both concealed and in an open manner) and we've even settled the so-called 'thorny' issue of individuals vs. militias at both the federal State and Municipal levels. After all, the debate regarding abortion and the Affordable Care act is considered "settled" by prior Supreme Court ruling, why does this not mean that the individual vs. militia issue is not settled as well?
On gun rights the media and gun opponents are trying their level best to not mention confiscation as a part of their narrative but it keeps slipping in regardless. The reason for this is because, at heart, the anti-gun movement is about confiscation. It's the only end-game to an problem with no end. What the Chron (and other media outlets) do is try and put a pretty picture on that face. They roll out the editorial board and Lisa Falkenberg to try and make the case that 'common sense' is needed when what they really want is for you to admit fault and submit to the confiscation quietly and meekly. Only by delegitimizing gun ownership can they ultimately succeed. The desire is to establish a more perfect society (in their eyes) but not a more perfect union. The details in the differences matter.
The biggest problem with repeal of the 2nd Amendment is that enacting such a plan in the real world would involve suspension of the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Consider this:
It's been mentioned, in several places, that there are over 300 Million guns in private ownership within the borders of the United States. In order to confiscate those guns the United States would need to enlist the help of the US Military, this is a violation of the posse comitatus act which would lead to the natural suspension of the 3rd amendment (the confiscating soldiers would have to live somewhere), 4th Amendment (unlawful search and seizure), 5th Amendment (due process), 6th Amendment (trial by jury) the 9th Amendment (removing the rights of the people through interpretation of the constitution) and the 10th Amendment (the powers of the States to individually regulate firearms). Any way you look at this, it's problematic.
All of this just goes to show just how hell-bent media organizations are to ring true Benjamin Franklin's famous quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Now, granted, Franklin was originally speaking about liberty in financial terms, but it applies here as well.
I've long argued that the editorial arm of the Houston Chronicle is an aging relic whose stated purpose has long since outlived it's expiration date. The presence, on a newspaper, of both unsigned editorials and house opinion writers makes as little sense as the proverbial feminist fish with a bicycle.
There is no special expertise that can be given to a degree in journalism when it comes to complex socio-political issues. In many cases the author only receives their ideas from others and acts as a wordsmith to arrange them in an aesthetically pleasing manner on a computer screen. Just because one has written about science for a period of time does not make them a scientist, nor does writing about war make one an experienced soldier qualified to comment on battle tactics. And writing about hot-button political issues does not make one a qualified expert on Constitutional matters.
Neither the Houston Chronicle or any of the other Chron opinion writers add anything of note to the conversation that cannot be handled by outsourced editorials or enhanced investigative reporting. What's worse, the path that they find themselves on currently is one that is disastrous for the City, State and Union as a whole because they are actively attempting to limit the rights of the citizens in return for crumbs from the table of the ruling class. It is time for them to go, with the resources they free up being deployed to more and better news gathering activities.
Of course, they probably think the same thing about me and my blog, when they spend any time at all thinking about it that is. The difference is that I pretend to have no special expertise on the matter, only an opinion whose right to express I exercise. Yes, they have the same right, they are just provided with a bigger bullhorn and an air of legitimacy that I believe it's time to take from them.
