In Defense of Freedom

���If you've wondered what you would've done during slavery, the Holocaust, or [the] Civil Rights're doing it now. #Charlottesville��� ���Aditi Juneja via Twitter.

The events last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia have sent a wake-up call to America. While in the past, the official inclination was to call attacks on American soil ���isolated incidents,��� we can safely say that what we are now witnessing is a trend of disgruntled behavior centered on race and religion. On Saturday, August 13, it resulted in a crazed 20-year-old neo-Nazi ramming his Challenger into a crowd at high speed, killing a woman and injuring many others.

The scene of hundreds of neo-Nazis marching by torchlight, carrying guns, and channeling their genocidal inclination into anti-Jewish chants in protest of the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee is the stuff of nightmares ��� and ghoulish history.

But the ���alt-right��� as they like to be called cannot be confined to some geographical location. They have apologists everywhere who join them in protesting the ���historical significance��� of the ���Jim Crow��� segregationist and Civil Rights-era statues of Confederate generals. They argue that the heroic statues of those who fought to preserve American slavery that occupy pedestals across this nation are ���part of history��� and that the statues are not intended to convey any kind of honor beyond remembrance of who they were.

You become who you honor, and if you put somebody ���on a pedestal,��� that is telling.

The reality that we are witnessing is a demonstration of just how thin American freedom is ��� many very vocal people do not believe that all people are equal and are willing to defend honorary monuments to slavery. If the Civil Rights movement were taking place right now, you can be sure that a lot of people would still be silent on the issue of segregation.

Yes, there is a right to march and to protest, but don't lose sight of the fact that the "alt-right" protesters are using their freedom of speech to call for the elimination of the freedom of others.

Why is this relevant to religious liberty? Because religious freedom is dependent on the same legal structures that protect against racial discrimination. Before the Civil War, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states ��� only the Federal government. That meant that the States could do whatever they wanted to people, including enslaving them. Our nation at its first founding, ���four score and seven years��� before the Civil War had this fatal flaw built in that allowed States to decide for themselves whether to enslave people. But this issue reached a fevered pitch that led to the Civil War and after the war, the Federal government required all former slave states to sign onto the 14th Amendment with its due process and equal protection clauses that required states to apply the Bill of Rights to their citizens.

This 14th Amendment is what keeps us free today. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were the first founding, the post-Civil War Amendments were the second founding, and the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was the third founding of America. Freedom for all is relatively new and incredibly fragile. We must work to protect it.

I had a recent discussion on social media about this and received this response from a friend with a Middle Eastern background who did not want to make a public statement:

Hey Mike, I just wanted to privately say that I appreciate your recent posts and taking up the good fight on all this Alt-right nonsense. I think there are a lot of non-black and non-latino minorities out there that feel the same way, but from experience choose to keep their head down and take it on the chin. It seems like when whites stand up and oppose the white supremacists online it leads to more dialog rather than silly comments like "f*** you sand n*****" "terrorist" "we shouldn't dilute our gene pool" blah blah blah. So from the bottom of my heart thank you.

In a time when one cannot be certain about who is at the helm of this country, it���s up to you to defend freedom and to speak up against hate. Don���t leave it for someone else.

If you've wondered what you would've done during slavery, the Holocaust, or Civil Rights're doing it now. #Charlottesville

��� Aditi Juneja (@AditiJuneja3) August 12, 2017

Michael Peabody, Esq. is a regular Spectrum contributor and editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, a website that celebrates freedom of conscience, where this article first appeared. It is reprinted here by permission.

Image Credit:Torchlight procession at white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Photo: Karla Cote, Creative Commons, some rights reserved.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Wasn’t this event just a dress rehearsal for Halloween 2017?

“Channeling their genicidal inclinations into anti-Jewish chants”.

  1. The SCOTUS has already determined that they may do this, as long as they do not do violence. This was decided decades ago with the Skokie decision. For the author to say that this is somehow un-American is to misunderstand the very large freedoms we have. It is always going to be speech that offends that is going to be the problem. The “Resistance” offended some folk. Would he deny that group the freedom to chant various slogans of their choice? And who is it that decides which are inappropriate and not? That is why the S/C handed down the decision it did. You may not like the speech, but it is protected.
  2. Nazis marching through the steet is troubling, but the author needs to not be so narrow in his focus. Nazis have almost no sympathizers in America. It is a very small group. They were overwhelmed in Boston a couple of days ago. What kind of a real threat are they? They are actually a group the left uses to tar the right, and they have absolutely no national power. In fact that is their only use. The left knows that almost all on the right do not sympathize with them, but their purposes are better served by equating the right with Naziism.
  3. The “history” the author refers to is from Germany during Hitler’s time when Nazis controlled the government. This march in Charrlottsville, a small sleepy southern town, was NOTHING compared to what happened in Germany when the whole country erupted into antiSematic violence. A more nuanced assessment would certainly show the author a temperate man, but he is not looking for temperance here, but politely points.

“We can now safely say we are witnessing a trend in disgruntled behavior based on race and relgion.”

  1. What? One guy, kills one person and injures a few and this is a trend? More people were KILLED in Chicago, a wonderfully Democarctcally governed city in the last week. Now is that a trend in the Democrats ability to govern? Is Emanuel getting a handle on this trend we can all safely say we are witnessing? And what about Muslim terrorists? Can we safely say we are witnessing a trend in disgruntled behavior among that class of folk?
  2. And what is the relgion on which this “trend” is based? Christianity? Hinduim? Tao? The author does not identify the relgion so we are left in the dark about his thinking. But I would assume that he means to paint Conservative Christians with the blood of this one individual.
  3. “Their freedom of speech to eliminate the freedom of others”. Well, we are allowed to do that. Gays have worked to eleimate the freedom of some to practice their relgion. There is great social pressure to comply with their agenda. There have been laws against sabbath keepers as well.
    The real issue is whether protesters are allowed to say as they wish, as long as there is not violence. And the definition of what is allowed to be SAID is clear, and quite broad. If the author thinks HE is the more capable of determining what is allowed to be said, he is stepping on the first amendment which does not give him that power.

If the author were not so utterly partisan, his comments could be thought as credible. He has demonstrated he cannot make distinctions between his own policial views and a more generalized morality that we all, right and left, accept. His is the only Christian morality on the planet. Right.


Communication is the transfer of meaning. As our President is set to have a rally this evening in Phoenix there are many who are praying that the discourse and exchange will be civil, peaceful and will be different than what happened in Charlottesville. As we talk to each other we need to be Christian, Christ like, so we can communicate more effectively. There are 3 basic Christian principles that are the foundation of our freedoms and civil discourse. I am honestly praying that the current occupant of the White House as our President will abide by all three of these verses.

Proverbs 11:12-13 He who despises his neighbor lacks sense, But a man of understanding keeps silent. He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is trustworthy conceals a matter.

Proverbs 10:19 When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise.

Proverbs 17:27-28 He who restrains his words has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent.

I have been around some 80 years now. I can truthfully say that I have never seen such hatred against a president or governing parties in general. I have kept silent for too long about the injustices that have taken place over the years, so now I can vent my frustrations on social media. I believe the time has come to speak out for what is right. Hatred, racism, foul language seem to be the norm for some. If we do not speak out we will never be able to teach these people some old fashioned values. By beholding we become changed is my motto and my aim is to be Christ-like so others can see Jesus in me.

Too much logic, Allen. Unacceptable to the radicals on the left, some of whom just smashed a Christopher Columbus monument in Baltimore. What next, removal of statues of the founding fathers? After all they were all slave owners. It is always dangerous and fruitless to judge past generations by today’s standards. Slavery was common all over the world, not just in the US.

When we are facing real problems that affect real people, it is hard to believe that so many people are getting their noses bent out of joint by some statues of guys who had the wrong worldview.

In my town there is a monument to the founder of some spiritualist church or something like that. It represents evil, pure and simple, but it does not affect my life in any way. Neither do these statues affect the lives of those who would destroy them. They are just thin-skinned crybabies. They need to get a life.

That is true, but it is also true of the Antifa Protesters as well. Remember they did a lot of damage in Berkeley and other placesshutting down invited speakers. If that freedom is really a freedom of speech it has to apply to even the speech we all dislike. Well not all nothing is ever all, but the key to repairing civility is to remove the violence and embrace the freedom of speech. It used to be people would say I don’t agree with you but I would fight to the death to protect your freedom to say it. We need that again. see my article: titled Resisting the politically correct line on Protests


Blacks, Latinos , other non-caucausian ethnics , have logical grievances . Blacks, especially , have been hard done by socalled “white supremacists”. Firstly , supremacists must say WHY there is a “race” problem. Caucasian Americans can’t logically have things both ways. All they had to do was to say NO BLACKS IN AMERICA and there would not be a “race problem” , But NO. everyone from the early Presidents down the line jumped on the blackslavery bandwagon to make profit from forced labour , THEN try to supress slaves’ later agitation for freedom from forced labour and murder and torture for so agitating. The argument that blacks have greatly benefited from life in America, economically and in almost every other sphere one can think of is , at base, spurious. They are the only group that were murdered if they refused to come to Amedrica ; then later murdered for protesting attempts to make them little above animal status. Let them starve in Africa, if such is the supremacists’ reading of life in Africa. Why would they even pretend to care at all? People who declare themselves “neo-nazis” are simply saying they support brain damage, at root. A study of Hitler’s life and other despots show this. His grandmother worked as a domestic for the Rothschilds (rich Jews) in Vienna., became pregnant and was sent home and given an annual pension,perhaps to keep the secret of who the father was. Her son Alois Hitler never lived down the humiliation of being called a “half-Jew”. He took out his frustration on his wife(hitler’s mother) beating her mercilessly while she was pregnant with Adolph. When a mother is so distressed during pregnancy the blood flow (and oxygen) from the placenta to the gestate is curtailed within less than half a minute. The gestate then struggles for life as it is threatened to be suffocated by carbon dioxide buildup. Critical damage is done to the immature emotional centers of the LIMBIC SYSTEM , so that by time of birth the newborn has been fully damaged in the emotional centers of the brain. Hitler used to order his driver to hald-suffocate him by pulling on his tie till he almost passed out .s recreating the in utero condition; on top of that he was brutalised by his father, once receiving 230 strokes with a hippotamus-hide whip. Such conditions, we now know will produce an extremely brutal human unable to empathise with any human suffering. ALSO many NAZI mothers were encouraged to raise their children in like ways to produce SPARTAN_LIKE children who could avenge the humiliation of the VERSAILLES TREATY in WW1. Nazi Moms werer encouraged to bang on their bellies to suppress any kicking by gestates and so on. The human condition , mentally , is very fragile, and research has shown that a criminal can be made at the age of NINE MONTHS as was the case with the UNA BOMBER , He had hives and was tied down to his bed . He tried to reach out to his mother when she visited, but could not. Nurses were forbidden to hold him or cuddle him for fear of aggravating his condition. The sign came when(before he left the hospital) he becam totally unresponsive to all human contact, and just stared fixedly at nothing in particular. The deed was done a criminal mind was created at NINE MONTHS.

There are far more instances of the alt Left trying to silence freedom of speech than the alt right doing this. Far more instances of violence on the Alt Left than violence on the alt right. There is just as much danger of falling in suppression of free speech when the left does violence and threats of violence tries to silence free speech. Many times if we allow the right to speak even when that speech is offensive to us such as the neo nazis it does give them a way to vent their anger by talking about it. If we put a lid on their free speech sooner or later this will erupt into an explosion of violence. So let them talk as long as they are peaceful. No one has to pay them any mind. Just let them vent. When we start to unfriending people on facebook because we do not like their conservative or liberal viewpoints we became just as hostile to others point of views as these Neo Nazis are.


I can say I have never seen a president who has so pervasively lied, sought personal gain, supported radical white supremacists, insulted the national security experts and FBI, and criticized war heroes like John McCain who served his country faithfully and was a prisoner of war. Hatred against the president? The president pursues divisive speech, his own self interest, and is under investigation for obstruction of justice.

He seems to have a fascination with Russia and Putin that is stunning and strange.


Allen, Peabody & Jason Hines were some of about 2-4 contributors back during the election that caused me to not contribute on this site for about 8 mos. They basically seem be “talking heads” of DNC views and policy with a little “personal religious views” which actually unite church and state with their own spin. They seldom respond to those who may challenge their thought and when one did challenge their “free pass” their comments were soon removed because one “didn’t show proper respect to the author.”

It doesn’t seem to matter what Trump actually said or actually did. It simply doesn’t go with the Liberal and alt./left narrative. It is as if he didn’t say anything and they give a response according to their narrative.

It is an INSULT TO RATIONAL THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION! Trump never made a moral equivalence. A judge gave a permit to the “alt./Rt.” NOT Trump…as you well point out SCOTUS. Michael, “trained in Religious Liberty”, did you consider this? Trump on multiple occasions CRITICIZED white supremacist of all stripes. He correctly said that all sides had violent factions…look at films…but no matter it doesn’t fit the “left/Jason’s” narrative.

Peabody states, “Yes, there is a right to march and to protest, but don’t lose sight of the fact that the “alt-right” protesters are using their freedom of speech to call for the elimination of the freedom of others.”

Michael, what do you suggest UCBerkley is doing when they will not allow conservative speakers and BLM and Antifa create disorder and destruction? Modern “political liberalism” is just as dangerous as anything true Conservatives have ever done to “free speech.” To think otherwise is to ignore present reality!