Free Speech

Mother's "Islamophobic" Remarks About School Board Member Yield Ban from School District Property

(at least unless she gets case-by-case permission to enter that property). But a federal district judge has correctly held that this likely violated the First Amendment.


From Friday's decision by Judge Lynn Adelman (E.D. Wis.) in Anderson v. Hansen:

[Heidi] Anderson is the mother of two children who attend schools within the Elmbrook School District. On August 11, 2020, the Elmbrook Board of Education held a public meeting to address the District's procedures for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the measures under consideration was a requirement that all children attending school in person wear masks to minimize the transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets. Anderson attended the meeting in person and signed up to speak about the proposal.

Anderson opposes mask mandates in general, and she was against the District's proposal to require children to wear masks at school. The Board allowed her to express her views during the time allotted for citizen comments about the proposal. She was given two minutes to speak. When she was called to the podium, she delivered remarks that lasted over eight minutes.

During her remarks, Anderson gave a variety of reasons for opposing the mask proposal. Some reasons related to her faith. Anderson is Christian, and she believes that wearing masks is inconsistent with the Christian faith. During her remarks, she expressed her view that "[s]ix-foot distance and masks are a Pagan ritual of Satanic worshipers." She stated that because her family is Christian and does not practice Satanic worship, her children are not made to "stand six feet apart from each other with facial coverings."

Towards the end of her remarks, Anderson turned her attention to Dr. [Mushir] Hassan, a medical doctor and school board member whom the Board had designated as its medical liaison:

"[Mrs. Anderson:] Dr. Mushar, and I hope I'm saying this correctly, you are not the right choice to be the Board liaison. You do not practice in infectious disease, you have political leaning contrary to the will of this district. You online state that you're a big Obama fan and you comply mentally with his control philosophy, and you have publicly slammed our president Trump online. I'm finishing. As a leader in the Islamic community—

"[Interjection by School Board President:] Heidi, we have to avoid defamatory comments.

"[Mrs. Anderson:] This is not defamatory. I'm stating facts. [To Dr. Hassan:] You are a leader in the Islamic community are you not, and a leader on the Board—

"[Board President:] Heidi.

"[Mrs. Anderson:] O.K. Well listen, my kids are Christians. They are not subject to wearing face coverings. Christian children should not be forced to wear face coverings any more than children who are Islamic or Muslim should be forced to, as you've put it, 'be subject to the American style sexualization of children,' and have to wear less clothing than you're comfortable with your children wearing….

"[To the Board generally:] You are employed by the people of Brookfield and Elm Grove, you are elected to serve us. And the Elmbrook School administration works at our pleasure. You do not work for Madison, or any other unelected entity—our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is one country, one nation under God, and we look to God for these answers when we can't figure it out and I would suggest that you all do that. There is a wonderful prayer that he taught us to pray, it's called the Lord's prayer, and you can find it in your Bible. Thank you for your time."

The board meeting was broadcast over the Internet. Anderson later learned that her comments had sparked controversy online. Some observers described her remarks as "ignorant," "Islamophobic," and "insensitive." In response to these comments, the Elmbrook School District contacted community members and told them that the District condemned Anderson's remarks. The District also "censored" a portion of Anderson's comments, which I assume means that the District edited the archived video recording of her comments to remove the comments she directed towards Dr. Hassan. Further, on August 12, 2020, the day after the meeting, the School Board published a statement on its website in which it apologized to Dr. Hassan and expressed its view that Anderson's statement was unacceptable….

[After some more back-and-forth, Superintendent Dr. Mark Hansen] informed Anderson that she would not be allowed on any District property without the prior approval of either the superintendent or the principal of her children's school…. Anderson may not attend a Board of Education meeting or participate in events at her children's school, including her daughter's dance recitals, without first obtaining permission from the superintendent or the school principal. Moreover, because Anderson's polling place is located inside an elementary school in the District, she may not vote in person without first receiving permission from the superintendent or a school principal….

Anderson sued, and Judge Adelman ruled that she was entitled to a preliminary injunction, because she had "a very high likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment claim":

At the outset, I note that this case does not require me to determine whether Anderson's comments towards Dr. Hassan displayed religious intolerance or were inappropriate, hateful, or offensive. For even if they were, the First Amendment would protect the plaintiff's right to make them. See Matal v. Tam (2017) ("Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.' "); id. (Kennedy, J., concurring) (recognizing that, with few exceptions, "it is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys"); Rosenberger v. Rector (1995) ("It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys."). Thus, basic First Amendment principles prevent the District from subjecting the plaintiff to adverse action for no other reason than it considered her speech at the board meeting intolerant, offensive, or hateful….

The government may place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech and regulate its own meetings. Thus, the District could have enforced its two-minute time limit for citizen comments and cut the plaintiff off once she exceeded the limit. Moreover, if the plaintiff's comments to Dr. Hassan amounted to a personal attack rather than an attempt to express a viewpoint on the mask proposal, the board members could have told the plaintiff to keep her remarks focused on the issues or taken other action to prevent her from continuing to speak on topics that were not germane to the board meeting.

Here, however, the District's policy cannot be viewed as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction or another permissible regulation of speech. The policy is not reasonably tailored to prevent the plaintiff from exceeding time limits, veering off topic, or being belligerent at future board meetings. Instead, the policy flatly bans the plaintiff from entering school property for any purpose without permission. This ban has no rational connection to enforcing restrictions on citizen comments at board meetings and thus can only be viewed as a way of punishing the plaintiff for the comments she made during the prior board meeting.

The defendants contend that their policy is designed to ensure that religious harassment is not tolerated on school property…. Perhaps the District is arguing that the policy is a prophylactic measure designed to prevent Anderson from entering onto school property and harassing others based on their religion. But this justification for the policy would be preposterous. It is not rational to think that because Anderson made religiously intolerant statements during her citizen comments at a public board meeting that she will roam the halls of the Elmbrook schools and harass those she encounters on the basis of their religion.

Moreover, in the unlikely event Anderson does engage in such behavior, the District could intervene at that time. As the defendants note in their brief, no person has an unlimited right to be present on school property, and the District has adopted a general rule that allows building administrators to eject disruptive persons from school grounds, Thus, if Anderson causes a disruption on school property, the District could have her removed even if the policy at issue in this case were not in force. This shows that the policy serves no rational purpose other than to punish Anderson for having expressed views with which the District disagrees….

Anderson seems like rather a fool to me, but, no, she can't be banned from school district property because she criticized a public official at a school board meeting, whether her criticism stemmed from hostility to Muslims or anything else.

NEXT: High School Student "Says Teacher Threatened To Kick Him Out Of Virtual Class Over Trump Flag"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Agreed. That rant about Hassan's faith seems more like an attempt to appeal to his religiosity, and by doing so, justify her own religiosity. Her conclusion is, paraphrased, "we should both be free to practice our religions", which is an entirely agreeable statement and the very anti-thesis of "discrimination". Even if her conclusion is based on a stereotype-laden premise that all Muslims advocate face coverings.

  2. “Under God” needs to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance ASAP...this woman is nuts but the fact is the Pledge discriminates against many religions and is unAmerican and emboldens nuts to behave in this way. The 1A very clearly states “religion” which means Hinduism and the Norse religion deserve equal respect to Jude-Christian regions. You want to make this a Judeo-Christian nation then amend the 1A.

    1. You can say under Odin or Ganesha if you prefer. Or say nothing and leave the line out.

      1. The official Pledge clearly states “under God”, this nut is clearly emboldened by that. The Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to unite Americans under common cause but by having “under God” it overtly excludes patriotic Americans that believe in multiple gods. The Pledge clearly violates the Free Exercise Clause because it intimidates people into not feeling free to express their belief in multiple gods. Quite frankly getting rid of “under God” isn’t even a close call and the fact it is still in there is proof of how intimidating it’s inclusion in the Pledge is.

        Btw, defending the Muslim while not defending Satanists who were also slandered is evidence of RELIGIOUS discrimination. The 1A says RELIGION and so all religions are protected by the FEC including Norse religion and Satanism.

        1. 1A protects religion from the government, not from fools who want to trash ones they don't believe in. She is entitled to her (foolish) opinions just as you and are entitled to ours.

          However your suggestion that she is emboldened because the pledge has that phrase in it is complete supposition. Either provide evidence that phrase is the reason she's so emboldened or stick with leaving it out of your diatribe about how it violates the free exercise clause.

          I wonder though, which public/government entities require a citation of the pledge these days? If it exists, but is never spoken how then would it violate free exercise? By it's existence? If that's the case we have a lot of things to remove from society because their existence violates a Constitutional right.

          1. She literally quotes language from the Pledge to make her point— “This is one country, one nation under God, and we look to God for these answers when we can't figure it out and I would suggest that you all do that.” I don’t look to God or Thor or Satan for answers, but our official Pledge of Allegiance overtly discriminates against Americans that practice religions with multiple gods by stating we are a nation “under God”. The 1A is very clear—the FEC protects RELIGION, and that includes religions with multiple gods. But our official Pledge excludes patriotic Americans that don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian notion of a supreme being. Easy call—UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

            1. We'll remove 'under God' from the Pledge and you give up the hundreds of billions a year sjws get in grants, taxpayer funding, and forced mandates for children and employees to attend brainwashing sessions and we'll call it even.

              1. You're stuck on that one mention of the term and where it came from, but say nothing of any of her other mentions of religion. If you're going to go after one, go after them all.

                In which case, I suppose you also abhor the American monetary representations since there's 'god' all over them as well?

                1. Heck no, Jesus was a noted fan of the money.
                  Of course, back then it had Caesar's face on it.

            2. By that silly logic, someone who quotes language from the nation's most important foundational text, the Declaration of Independence (nature's God, Creator, divine Providence), is being discriminatory.

              1. “Under God” is in the Pledge, it’s blatantly unconstitutional. This nut is simply showing how it violates the FEC because she is using it to bully the school board.

                1. So are all the regulations on fire arms.

                2. "“Under God” is in the Pledge"

                  Wasn't always.

                  "it’s blatantly unconstitutional."

                  Based on what? The Constitution is utterly silent on matters of pledges of alliegance to the flag, except to say that Congress shall make no law abridging your freedom to say whatever you like in regards to the matter.

  3. She seems like a fool only to an Ivy indoctrinated, Los Angeles acculturated, Koch Bros. paid lawyer. She is a patriot. The leftist Inquisitors on that Board need to be purged.

    1. "She seems like a fool only to an Ivy indoctrinated, Los Angeles acculturated, Koch Bros. paid lawyer."

      This claim is factually incorrect.

  4. If the transcript is complete I don't see anything defaming or Islamophobic about her apparently silly remarks. She didn't apparently refer to Muslims wear8ng face covering so much as the command to dress modestly.

    I do however think Heidi is a frequent speaker at these meetings, as the cha8r referred to her by her first name. Anyone who follows local p7bluc meet8ngs will be familiar with their local version.

    1. I don’t see anything defaming or Islamophobic about her apparently silly remarks.

      I agree.

      She's a crackpot. Let her talk for two minutes like everyone else and then move on.

      1. "She’s a crackpot. Let her talk for two minutes like everyone else and then move on."

        Problem was, she didn't stop talking when her two minutes were up.

        1. That's the Boards problem.

          My wife serves on a public board. They had an issue with a person who for bizarre reasons unrelated to the board's business decided to attack the board, its members and staff by showing up at every meeting and attempting to monopolize and disrupt the meeting. Her board adopted similar rules to this school board and ultimately had to have a policeman stationed in the room to remove speakers who wouldn't abide by the rules. Once they actually started removing him from the meetings he behaved and eventually lost interest.

          The board needs to control it's own meetings better and be less thin skinned.

          I suspect Heidi is well known to the school board and rants at them fairly often. I've seen similar unhinged "activists" at many board meetings including our local school board and city council.

    2. I was also wondering what was Islamophobic. She basically said "You shouldn't be forced to do things not in keeping with your religion, and neither should I." Her remarks were generally kooky, but not Islamophobic.

  5. As Voltaire noted, you cannot criticize your master. School Boards hold their own brand of tyranny. The game is obvious, disagree and be punished. Very left wing. She could have objected to teaching of the holocaust and have been beaten to death by the thin blue line!!!

  6. Dr.Hassan and this Hate America Board should be made to pay her $million for their constitutional tort. She should do so in a Bivens claim, request a jury trial, and seek punitive damages.

    Sovereign immunity is based on the idea that the Sovereign speaks with the voice of God. Not only is that justification psychotic and irrational, but it violates the Establishment Clause.

    Immunity will grow an industry. Anyone seeking to shrink the size of government should support ending its immunity. Because physical punishment is its only tool of enforcement, government torts qualify for strict liability.

    1. Sovereign immunity is based on the idea that the Sovereign speaks with the voice of God.

      Uh, no. Sovereign immunity is based on the idea that the Sovereign, as the fount of justice, set the courts up in the first place (to decide cases he was too busy to hear personally), so it was absurd to ask him to judge himself.

      1. The Voice of God justification was from the Notebook of Henry of Bracton, whose law is still 80% practiced today.

        Where on earth did your justification come from?

        1. In Prussia, people sued the Emperor. His lawyer showed up and defended him in court. Sovereign immunity is a fictitious lawyer construct and bullshit, just not true. This immunity is a major factor in the metastasis of ineffective government. We now have more government control of every aspect of life than in the Soviet Union. With more textualists on the Supreme Court, we should return to the plain English of the Eleventh Amendment, prohibiting citizens of another state from suing a state. That Amendment is itself void for criminality, since it was enacted in the middle of the night, to defraud the bond holders of other states.

          1. "Sovereign immunity is a fictitious lawyer construct and bullshit, just not true."

            Oh, it's true enough.

    2. No luck finding treatment for your delusions, huh?

    3. " She should do so in a Bivens claim, request a jury trial, and seek punitive damages. "

      Because not enough people are laughing at her already?

  7. The diameter of the corona virus, from spike end to end is 120 nm (billionth of a meter). The weave on those masks are 3000 times bigger. The weave on the best, American made, N95 masks is 300 nm apart.

    The forced wearing of masks is an attempt to make us look like Democrat douche bags. This oppressive, quack policy is copied from China. No mask has been approved by the FDA to prevent spreading or catching the corona virus. Mask wearing could not be proved useful in preventing the flu.

    1. Please be advised that the term "mask", when used in conjunction with the general public is correctly expressed "cloth face covering" per the CDC. They specifically designate "cloth face covering" to distinguish from a "mask", which in a medical setting, properly fitted and worn by a trained professional, may reduce the spread of some viruses.

      1. Clayton Moore's mask was properly fitted and worn by a professional. And he stopped plenty of bad things from happening. With a mighty "Hi-Ho Silver!" and away.

    2. The virus doesn't just swim around on its own in the air. It has to be transmitted, usually by droplets from someone speaking, sneezing, etc., and masks CAN catch those droplets.

        1. It sure fogs up my glasses.

    3. "Mask wearing could not be proved useful in preventing the flu. "

      The goal is reduced transmission. For prevention you're supposed to be at home, isolated from everyone who has the virus.

  8. I love how they trespass the parent while insisting that the child can benefit from the same schools.

    I'd love to see an intrepid attorney argue that the Federal FAPE mandate is violated and make the district pay for out of district schooling. Uber expensive....

    1. Did you know that Dunning & Kruger actually used you as their case study?

      1. Citation? Details?

        Perhaps a scintilla of detail?

        1. "Perhaps a scintilla of detail?"

          Here's a detail. You are an idiot with serious wish-fulfillment fantasies.

          1. Only because I don't blindly accuse others of lying.

            1. Yeah. That's why.

      2. This deserves a gold star.

  9. If Anderson's kids went to a private charter school, they could be kicked out for this reason or no reason at all. Private is always better. It allows more kicking out for good/bad/arbitrary reasons. The government sucks at kicking out. Because the constitution is wonderful. It protects the private right to kick out. We still need maybe a few public schools, for Anderson's kids to go to. But if Anderson sent her kids to a private christian school, and that school had a face covering and/or distancing policy, and Anderson argued that god says no, Anderson's kids would be on the curb before you could say John Hancock.

    1. Government is the one that sends you to gas chambers, or "re-education" camps, or prison, if you are uppity to those in power.

    2. _West VA v Barnette_???

      Barnette said that "God said 'no'" and won...

  10. If we actually read Ms. Anderson's remarks rather than abuse her, there is nothing offensive or anti-Muslim in anything she said. She gave cogent reasons why this doctor should not be the "liaison" (whatever that means; advisor?) for the school district. She said her religion, which is opposed to masks, should be respected just like the Muslim religion's belief in opposing sexualization of children should be respected. (Of course, Muslims can hardly criticize anyone for "sexualization of children" when their chief prophet married a girl of six and began raping her when she turned nine.) More broadly, we must resist the tactic of calling anyone who criticizes Islam at all, or even refers to Islam, hateful and "Islamophobic," and this school board's behavior is a good example.

    1. Ahh the good old days when the left cancelled their own 1960s feminists, who railed against the oppression of their sisters in Muslim countries, because the left found out they got more mileage for raw power out of their sudden love for religion. Half a billion in oppression is less important than winning an election so a handful of people can continue to mysteriously get wealthy on a Congressperson's salary.

      1. Any word from the Study Group on Forming an Advisory Committee to Recommend Formation of an Investigatory Panel Into the Enrichment of Relatives of Sitting Congresspersons yet?

        Or is it still in the planning stages?

        1. Has Nancy Pelosi released her tax returns? Her net worth went from $80 million to $120 million after she became Speaker. And, please, do not say, her husband is a talented businessman. He was just as talented before her election to Speaker.

        2. No, Congress has formed no such thing. Last check, they asked these relatives how they got rich, and they all said it was because they were quality businesspersons with quality advisors, and that's where it ended.

    2. I can think of one reason the Doctor should be liaison for the board. He is apparently an MD and might better be able to interface with public health officials and understand and explain issues to his fellow board members.

  11. ‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’ - George Orwell
    "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell
    We have no liberty left in this country. Odd how the most hateful party posts signs "Hate doesn't live here" in their yards.

    1. You quote Orwell with approval. You know he was a socialist leftie, right?

      1. More like "had been" -- he returned from (memory is) Spain quite disillusioned with socialism and spent the rest of his life warning about its evils.

        1. He was into democratic socialism, and IIRC during World War Two supported some fringe party which I suppose was into his version of socialism. This has been less influential with the public than his exposes on totalitarianism.

          He himself thought you could do socialism the right way by being democratic and respecting civil liberties. His arguments on behalf of that position are less memorable than his other stuff.

  12. I stand, this Sconnie stands with Heidi Anderson as she echoes my thoughts, and reasons and culturism. I will pass this around my community with the smallest school district in the state.

    After seeing the lede, before reading the decision and comments, I thought, “they are really trying to make us unthink our xenophobia.”

    As to pantie-faces, Do Not Comply #Resist. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    1. Why don't you just get sick and die, if this is your wish?
      Or are you hoping to spread the pandemic as far as you can before doing so?

      My freedom is more important than anyone else's life!

  13. Separate from whether barring a person from school premises is a permissable sanction for defamation, separate from whether a school can issue such a sanction based on its own assessment with no judicial involvement, and separate from whether disagreeing with someones religion can constitute definition in our system, it doesn’t seem like the speaker actually said anything that was defamatory. What was quoted doesn’t seem insulting even by ordinary criteria without taking into account legal privileges. Ill-advised, but not defamatory.

    The school here might have been relying on its own prejudices and failed to carefully parse, objectively what was actually said.

    This is perhaps a reason why its important to go through courts in defamation cases rather than letting government bodies do do-it-yourself sanctions, especially when it is the government body that is judging its own case. In politically charged contexts, and particulary when dealing with someone from a distrusted or discavored group, it can be easy to perceive insult where objectively there doesn’t seem to be any.

    1. Saying a policy is 'Pagan ritual of Satanic worshipers' is pretty insulting, if perhaps too out there to be defamatory.

      The Islamic stuff doesn't seem too bad as written, on that I agree. But then I wasn't there.

      1. Who is insulted by the Satanic stuff? If there are any actual Satanists. I know a few people call themselves Satanists, but that's mostly rhetoric to attract attention to their cult they don't usually indulge in the kinds of activities usually attributed to such beliefs like the not discredited McMartin preschool allegations.

        1. Plenty of Christians would be insulted by being called Satanist.

          1. Who was called a Satanist?

            1. Everybody who wears a mask.

        2. "not discredited"
          Acquitted of most charges and the only allegations of Satanic rituals being from a schizophrenic woman who claimed a teacher could fly and children after being exposed to now-discredited psychologists financially invested in the moral panic and subjected to badly conducted interviews.

          1. Sorry, typo should be "now"

      2. "Saying a policy is ‘Pagan ritual of Satanic worshipers’ is pretty insulting"

        Methinks the lady is a bit too familiar with Pagan rituals of Satanic worshippers. Where does she come by this knowledge of the Satanists and their rituals?

      3. But that’s an opinion on the policy, not the board member. An opinion that a proposal being contemplated at a public meeting is bad policy can’t be defamatory.

        Sure, the opinion is based on religious reasons. But while it may be ill-advised to base ones opinion on a public policy question solely on a religious foundation, there’s nothing illegal about it.

  14. Just another example of the democrats suppressing the vote.

  15. Half-educated, superstitious, backwater, conservative bigots have rights, too.

    Let's hope this loser's children leave her home the day of their high school graduation, never to return, and find the education, opportunity, and modernity that must be found beyond White Bread, Wisconsin.

    1. It's hard to appease the rev. The government of "White Bread, Wisconsin" had a Muslim doctor they consulted, and they went so far as to censor one of the local residents for not being enlightened enough - but that doesn't stop the rev from spewing venom on the whole community.

      1. The important point is that every competent adult should wish those children a quick escape at the earliest sensible opportunity. They deserve better.

  16. "Anderson gave a variety of reasons for opposing the mask proposal. Some reasons related to her faith. Anderson is Christian, and she believes that wearing masks is inconsistent with the Christian faith."

    It's right there in the Bible. One of the commandments is "thou shalt not show any interest in protecting the health of other people."
    You'd have to be a Satanist to believe any of that nonsense about Jesus caring for the sick or infirm.

    Alas, the first amendment protects even people who badly misunderstand their own professed religion.

    1. It’s not as implausible as that.

      The Bible, for example, prohibits tattoos. A requirement that would get a tattoo could raise a religious conflict. So could school uniform requirements (consider some of the cases arising in France) So this isn’t completely out of line with the sorts of things religions tend to do.

      The belief here doesn’t seem to be based in any traditional understanding of Scriptures. But as Professor Volokh regularly points out, people are entitled to roll their own and come up with their own stuff.

      This woman appears not only to have rolled her own but to have lit up and inhaled (spiritually speaking of course). But she’s entitled to do that.

      1. "But she’s entitled to do that."

        Which is what I said. Try reading all the way to the end before you start writing your response.

      2. What, French schools require anti-Christian clothing??

  17. A standard "rights of people we disagree with" case.

    Enforce the two-minute limit and move on. If you let the public speak, you run the risk that some members of the public will say nutty things - though the nutty stuff, to my mind, wasn't the Islamic references, but the other material.

    And I suppose that if parliamentary bodies can enforce standards of decorum on their own members, they can enforce similar standards on members of the public - e.g., be relevant, no personal attacks, and the like. But I don't know if the courts see it that way or not.

    1. They can apparently arrest you for violating unwritten rules.

  18. Upon reading this woman's comments, it would seem she's more of a Christianphile than Islamophobe. Were the religions reversed and a Muslim spoke at the meeting in favor of currently mandated face masks to additionally lend modesty to at least the female students who are typically Christian or Jewish, would that person be called out and punished as a Christianphobe or anti-semite, be tolerated as a Muslimphile, or welcomed as a diversity speaker?

    Just wondering aloud, as a really lapsed Protestant who doesn't support mask wearing on health grounds and who deplores fashionable superior/ secular-think and the regularly updated PC scales of social justice deciding just who shall be castigated or catered to based on the current progressive or patriot hysteria.

    What's so illegitimate or declasse about sincere* citizen Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindis, pagans, atheists, etc., publicly addressing public policies as they may pertain to their faiths? A forum is free to set its rules, of course, but those rules should be consistently applied, and an audience is always free to roll eyes during a statement of personal or ideological concern.

    *except for politicians, bureaucrats, and religious and other institutional leaders who are more liable to posturing and manipulation

    1. Perhaps this is incorrect, but I thought civil secular society does not mean everyone and everything should be defenestrated of their particular spiritual identity, concerns, and practices in order to participate, only that churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and sacred stone circles can't be established by the State and rule over us.  

      Good decision tending to support the 1A, in this case.  But where's our everyday tolerance, curiosity, and resilience in support of genuine diversity, instead of having to involve the courts?  Diversity cannot mean that no one can offend another's beliefs and kowtow to all of the different thresholds of offense.

      1. An easy case on the 1A, but I would note that when your faith includes condemning everyone else as pagans and Satanists you're going to have a hard time in our pluralistic culture.

    2. "What’s so illegitimate or declasse about sincere* citizen Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindis, pagans, atheists, etc., publicly addressing public policies as they may pertain to their faiths?"

      When you make up your own rules and declare them to be "Christian", having someone point out "Jesus ain't said that." is one of the criticisms you may run into.

      1. James Pollock: "When you make up your own rules and declare them to be 'Christian', having someone point out 'Jesus ain’t said that.' is one of the criticisms you may run into."

        What's the problem? Criticize away. This case isn't about adjudicating what is perfect Christianity, Islam, Progressivism, citizenship, or whatever. The whole beautiful point is that individuals can have individual takes on their religions, philosophies, and politics and can freely speak about and debate them, in most part. Thank God for that, lest we be in lockstep with one another and the clerisy of Church and State.

  19. Sarcastro: "... when your faith includes condemning everyone else as pagans and Satanists you’re going to have a hard time in our pluralistic culture."

    My faith or one's faith? Not mine. Although there are people out there who belong to the Temple of Set or practice Santeria and other sectarian dark magic and blood rites, likely more than we politely would admit to, they have a right to expound upon policy per their convictions at school board meetings that don't prohibit such, along with Quakers and Sikhs.

    I am not a practicing Christian but would tolerate this woman's speech, no matter the limits of her faith-based tolerance. There are many, many speakers who abhor Christians and Jews and are not bashful about saying so in the public square. Some even constantly call them ignorant backwater pathetic superstitious clingers who will get stuff crammed down their throats by their State religionist "betters." Charming advert for Progressivism, that.

    Pluralism doesn't mean we all have to agree with or approve of each others' metaphysics and philosophies, and God forbid, except when it comes to the criminal commission of atrocity, such as human sacrifice.

  20. The public square is not a presentation to one's peers and fellow parents.

    Tolerance does not mean accepting abuse without avoiding the abuser.

    1. Not really understanding what you're saying here. Who, in this case, was abused-- the Muslim board member or parent who was banned from school district property? Can you define abuse and also public square?

      1. I'm saying it's not a great move to call a group of your fellow parents Satanists.

        No government sanction of course - this is absolutely an easy case - but doesn't seem a recipe for good vibes.

        1. "I’m saying it’s not a great move to call a group of your fellow parents Satanists."

          For the supposed crime of trying to suppress... a pandemic.

          1. Well-intended adults who suppress their own breathing on the diktats of State, stores, and schools will have to accept the consequences of depleted oxygen, rebreathing their germ-laden exhalations, and weakened immune systems. But children who have to wear masks all day in school don't deserve this abuse.

            An ironic image I saw recently comes to mind-- that of masked black BLM protesters wearing tees and holding signs saying, "I can't breathe." Ain't that the truth.

            Unlike the science and stats "verifying" this "pandemic."

  21. I wonder how many Good Christian Patriots know the origin of the Pledge.

  22. The Ritual Wearing of the Mask
    Have you ever wondered why, in Revelation 17:5, Babylon is called “Mystery, Babylon”?
    You already know that the word “Babylon” means “confusion.” But what does the word “mystery” mean? Here’s what the Strong’s Concordance tells us:
    G3466 Musterion — From a derivative of muo (to shut the mouth); a secret or “mystery” (through the idea of silence imposed by initiation into religious rites) — mystery.
    Don’t overlook that. The word “mystery” in the Bible has to do with shutting the mouth as one undergoes a secret religious initiation. Again, it’s: “the idea of silence, imposed by initiation into religious rites.” "Masking has traditionally played a very important role in occult rituals.
    Among other things, the wearing of the mask over one’s mouth is a token of submission…a gesture of your willingness to be subject to others who are not your usual Sovereign.
    But there’s more. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, mask-wearing is:
    “A form of disguise or concealment usually worn over or in front of the face to hide the identity of a person and by its own features to establish another being.”
    In other words, the wearing of a mask represents an occult transformation — a human alchemy, if you will — from one role to another. From one manner of being, to another. Indeed, in this case, from individual sovereign under God to collective subject under the children of the devil."

    1. "You see, the masking ritual is specifically designed to reverse the order of hierarchy set in place by God Himself. In the hierarchy of your heavenly Father, you are a sovereign representative of His Word on this earth. And your job is to speak His Word, on His Sovereign behalf to others.
      In other words, He’s the King, you’re a Prince of His kingdom, and your job is to carry His Word to others, so they too can get on board with it and return to the Father eternally, through Jesus Christ. As it’s written regarding our primary duty as Christians:
      II Timothy 4:2 — Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
      In short, your job is to teach your Father’s Word. And you must be ready and willing to do so at all times (i.e., “be instant, in season and out of season”).
      As such, you must always remain unmasked, because your job — in your earthly role as one of His faithful representatives — is to speak and explain His Word to others. And to do so, you must open your mouth. You cannot be muzzled. You cannot be masked.
      Wearing the mask is a powerful occult symbol indicating your submission to another power other than the Creator God who gave you the direct commission to preach His Word to the world:
      Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

      Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

      Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
      So, in God’s hierarchy, you’re a sovereign representative of His Word on this earth. And your job is to spread that Word to as many others as possible in the course of your adult lifetime. But in the hierarchy of the ritualists, it’s quite the reverse:
      The entire point of occult ritual mask-wearing is to hammer home to your subconsciousness — until it becomes completely true in your daily life — the idea that things are no longer the same, and will never be the same again."

  23. "It’s an initiation into a new order. But it’s also a transformation of the self into a new position in that new order.
    Under the sway of the occult ritualist, you, being mouth-masked, are no longer the person you used to be. You’re no longer a designated mouthpiece of God on this earth. You’re suddenly demoted and re-assigned to the position of obedient subject.
    Symbolically, you become a serf in the new order. That’s your new role…your new identity… as represented by the wearing of mask.
    The wearing of the mask is simply part of the initiation ritual used to visually and psychologically signal your consent to this new arrangement. Yes, by wearing the mask, you’re signaling your consent to accept a new and very different position in a new global order.
    Instead of being a sovereign representative of the Most High God and His Word on this earth, in essence, you agree to become a willing subject — a slave — to the very enemies of God and His Christ. Masked, you’re now willingly serving the enemy’s purposes, and no longer God’s.
    When you obediently put the mask over your mouth, you’re symbolically saying to the ritualists, “I admit my words no longer have any purpose or relevance in this life. My sole purpose now is obedience to your words and commands.”
    And in raising themselves to the position of your new sovereign, and muzzling you like a dog in the process, they alchemically create a new you in a new role under new rulers. That’s the alchemical transformational change involved in the ritual.
    They’re quite literally attempting to take the place of God in your life, and make you their willing subject. They’re becoming your instead-of-Christ. Your antichrist.
    And by placing the mask on your face, you’re becoming their unwitting faithful servant. You’re being ritually initiated into the new order. You may not realize it. But in occult magic, the victim doesn’t have to be knowledgeable of the meaning behind what he or she is being told to do. The performance of the ritual itself – on demand — is all that matters. "

  24. First, the powers-that-be deceive your neighbors into putting on the mask. Then your neighbors, thinking they’re doing right, work to push you into doing the same, using peer pressure and “virtue signaling.”
    And if you refuse to be deceived, as they are, they’ll slander you, turn against you, and work to supplant you.
    Does this sound at all familiar to you?
    "Tell me again, how many cities and states now have highly-publicized “snitch lines” in which your neighbors can call up and report you for not wearing a mask? One U.S. city alone is said to have registered an astonishing 200,000 “tip-off” calls on their snitch line in a single week.
    Yes, it’s just an updated version of what the book of Jeremiah tells us has happened before. Neighbor being turned against neighbor. In this case, over their failure to perform a prescribed ritual. "

  25. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments