When I see something on the 'internet- news- blogosphere' that looks to be just outrageous, or unbelievable, I always try to find a link to a recognizable, albeit reputable, if not main stream news website before I post it or pass it on. This story: Obama’s Gestapo Arrest Catholic Priest For Praying Outside White House seemed to fit the bill of needing recognizable verification. It's an outrageous headline, with the word "gestapo" being used for effect, when actually it was the US Parks Police. But the story is about a Priest and 5 others being arrested for praying in a park in front of the White House, while the Occupy Wall Street crowd is apparently allowed to protest with little or no attention from the same police force.
A Google search reveals over 2.2 million hits, with most of the hits, on the first dozen or so pages, coming in the form of blogs, forums, obscure or religious websites. But I find nothing on FOXNews.com or the CBS News website. Is the media intentionally deaf to this story? Is it a real story? Did this really happen? When I found it on a site that I tend to believe, World Net Daily, I decided to post.
But the real question kicks in after you verify that this is a real story!
Again, I go back to the First Amendment to the Constitution:
“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.”
Now, it would seem to me that the media, also known as the press, would be all over a story about religious freedom, all over a story that is an apparent if not obvious violation of the First Amendment, because you see the amendment that protects the exercise of religious freedom ALSO protects the press! When one element of the amendment is allowed to be violated without outrage, how long will it be before the next element of the same amendment is no longer protected. And when the freedom of speech goes, does it not follow that the protection of the press will subsequently and necessarily be short lived? Never-mind that the last two elements of this amendment were violated along with this exercise of religious freedom, all in one fell swoop.