Non-profit Org Uses Tax Exempt Status to Subvert First Amendment

Lynn's Efforts to Embarrass Organizations which Associate with Christian Radicals

Lynn and his cronies are not engaged in "preserving the Constitutional Rights of religious freedom," as their own tax exempt status allows. They are engaged in political advocacy by harassing their ideological and political enemies. Their advocacy, to be sure, is Leftist politics. What, for example, has their inveighing against Ann Coulter's rhetoric or Pastor Wiley's prayers got to do with the Constitution or with religious freedom? They have engaged in efforts to intimidate their ideological opponents from engaging in political speech and they do this as a tax exempt organization.

When Ann Coulter spoke at the "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" on March 3, 2007 sponsored by D. James Kennedy's Center for Reclaiming America, she uttered some words that offended the liberal AUSCS speech monitors. Stepping out of their putative role as a guardian of the Constitution's First Amendment, the tax exempt word police scolded the Center concerning the content of Coulter's speech. Indeed, they lectured the Center to "publicly disavow extreme statements made by Ann Coulter":

"Ann Coulter's statements can only be described as loathsome," said Lynn. "It is astounding to me that this type of vitriol was unleashed before a religious organization that claims to be 'reclaiming' America for Christ. This rhetoric must be repudiated immediately."[i]

(Zounds! How astonishing! And how offensively intolerant to sensitive human beings!)

In his letter to Dr. Gary Cass, Executive Director Center for Reclaiming America, Lynn says he was "outraged." Not only did Ann Coulter utter the word "faggot" in reference to (sodomy tolerating) Presidential wannabe John Edwards, but she spoke flippantly about the shooting of abortionists. This was "particularly outrageous," said Lynn. He counseled as follows near the close of his advisory:

Reasonable people can disagree about issues like legal abortion and which candidates are best qualified to lead the country. But I hope you would agree that the level of rhetoric employed by Coulter in these two cases is appalling and has no place in America's civic discourse. It is simply beyond the pale for Coulter to resort to slurs when referring to political leaders and to give tacit approval to murder. [ii]

Well, well, Mr. Lynn. "Reasonable people" do indeed disagree about "issues" like the termination of unwanted abortionists and whether or not such an act is a service to mankind. Hmm. Seems Mr. Lynn is a bit narrow-minded and intolerant here. What he calls "appalling" another man might call - "soothing." And what he intolerantly declares to have "no place in America's civic discourse" others think to be rhetoric long overdue.

The great dearth of abortionist slayers in contrast to the multitude of baby murderers was a matter of ridicule and served to illustrate the main topic of her speech: the failures of the "Right." How poorly, she observes, anti-abortionists have waged their war for life, for example. And why, when pro-aborts use rhetoric like "perform" and "procedure" to describe commission of murder, do they complain when Coulter plays the same rhetorical game when she cheekily references the termination of unwanted abortionists as follows?

Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I'm not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened . . . The number of deaths attributed to Roe v. Wade about 40 million aborted babies and seven abortion clinic workers; 40 million to seven is also a pretty good measure of how the political debate is going.[iii]

Yes, reasonable people can agree to peacefully disagree about some things. It seems that the ones doing all the tolerating, as child slaughter and sodomy advance throughout the land, are the ones who claim to actively oppose it (much less, those who have a "different opinion").

Who is intolerant? Consider the University of Connecticut and its intolerance of Coulter before she uttered the forbidden "hate speech." In a university where ideas of all kinds are generally entertained, there was no room for the ideas of Ann Coulter (or any other prominent defendant of Christendom). "Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead," was the report given by the Associated Press following her attempt to give an address at the University.[iv] The Hartford Courant reported on December 8 that she "gave up trying to finish a speech … when boos and jeers from the audience became overwhelming." The Courant also said that a section of the audience was chanting "you suck, you suck." Well, well, now that is one way that intellectually bankrupt Leftists can defend themselves. The AP report noted:

About 100 people rallied outside the auditorium where she spoke, saying she spread a message of intolerance.

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major who heads campus group Students Against Hate.

Well, in the name of hating hate speech, a trend among the elite of higher education personnel is to be intolerant of what is labeled as "hate speech." The AP story reports on the same tactics employed by "hate speech" monitors at another institution: "In October 2004, two men ran onstage and threw custard pies as she was giving a speech at the University of Arizona." It is nothing new. The easiest way to get a view of leftist intolerance of speech it doesn't like is to follow the efforts of David Horowitz, the convert from Leftdom who has spoken at - and been shouted down from - many a college campus at which he was invited and paid to speak.[v]

1  2  3  blog