I recently read that the “California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism” promulgated by the California State Bar provides that “an attorney should avoid hostile, demeaning or humiliating words”. In addition, “an Attorney’s communications about the legal system should at all times reflect civility, professional integrity, personal dignity, and respect for the legal system.”
On the surface this seems reasonable enough. But then what words are considered hostile, demeaning or humiliating? Is “homophobia” one such word? What about “Christian extremist”?
What if the California attorney is offended by a legal system that does not recognize marriage between an individual and multiple partners regardless of their sexual orientation? Is it improper for that attorney to communicate either orally or in writing – such as in an editorial – that the attorney does not respect the legal system for taking this position? What if this California attorney described those opposing his or her view as being homophobic Bible thumping Christian extremists?
What if the California attorney believes that a legal system that permits terminating the life of the unborn, whether as a matter of family planning “choice” or for embryonic cell research, is a repulsive and disgusting system that is no different from the system that permitted the butchering of humans in Nazi Germany? Is it improper for that attorney to communicate this personal opinion?
What if the California attorney believes the judge hearing a case exhibits bias and bigotry toward Muslims or Mexicans? Or, opines that one of the lawyers he or she is dealing with on a case cannot be trusted? Perhaps the California attorney opines that the other party is dishonest, lazy, or perhaps is an entitlement minded “bottom feeder”. Is it improper for that attorney to communicate such opinions?
It appears that the California State Bar is of the opinion that communicating such opinions is improper. It appears that in order to practice law in the State of California the individual must give up his or her first amendment protection for freedom of speech. Or do so at least as to communications that the California courts might consider to be hostile, demeaning or humiliating, or show a lack of respect for the legal system. It is the courts who would answer these questions because it is the California courts that the California attorney would ultimately answer to.
According to the framers of the United States Constitution an individual’s right to freedom of expression is one of the rights protected “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It appears the California State Bar doesn’t fully share this view. The California State Bar is clearly trying to limit an attorney’s right to freedom of expression.
It is my opinion that the California legal system is a perverse misguided biased system that deserves no respect for many of its legal opinions including those embracing the sexual perversion of same sex relationships, or the slaughtering of human life in the name of choice or “scientific” research. And, in my opinion some of the litigants and some of their legal counsel are individuals lacking personal integrity. Now that I have “communicated” these opinions, should my ability to express these opinions be treated differently if I am a California lawyer or someone else such as a California union employee? The California State Bar apparently believes so.
Now, what does this have to do with “the Beast”? To comment on this, let me tell you a little about what the future holds. This is not a hypothetical. This is not a story. You too can read about the future. And, whether you want to accept it or not, believe it or not, scoff at it or not, the future as described in a book commonly known as the Bible - is going to take place exactly as the Bible says it will.
There is coming a point in time, space and history where one individual is going to be given authority over every nation and every individual. This individual will suffer and survive what is perceived to be a fatal wound. In order for any man or woman to be able to buy or sell (i.e. participate in one’s financial livelihood and ability to survive) will be conditioned on receiving permission from this ruler. At some point this individual will demand to be worshipped. This individual is described in the Bible as the “Beast”.
I use to find this picture of the future a difficult concept to believe. If you have been paying attention not only to President Obama, but also to some of our prior Presidents including Carter, Clinton and “Bush 1”, you will have heard them refer to the “International Community” as a worthy goal toward which the United States would go. Now President Obama clearly looks to the “International Community” for guidance.
It is clear that the world is undergoing dramatic political and economic change. Globalization is taking place all around us. If you are open minded and want to hear what a leading Christian teacher suggests is taking place, then listen to Dr. David Jeremiah’s series entitled “The Coming Economic Armageddon – What Bible Prophecy Warns about the New Global Economy”. After examining that series I believe you too will find the Bible’s description of the future as not being that farfetched.
As for the California Attorney, I suggest that freedom is often lost in small increments. Telling a California Attorney that he or she should avoid what a judge might consider to be hostile, demeaning or humiliating words or communications that reflect a lack of civility, professional integrity, personal dignity, or disrespect for the legal system, is clearly a step away from permitting unabridged freedom of expression and one step toward obedience to whatever those in power impose.
“Hate crime”, “Muslim-phobia” (a phrase used by a recent news caster), “Homo-phobia” are all examples of terms used to cast in a negative light those that opine that same sex relationships are not consistent with human flourishing, and, contrary to some opinions, Islam is a religion that is inconsistent with the values that gave birth to this nation. There is a reason the values the U.S. Constitution seeks to advance are not values present in the Muslim countries. There is a reason protestors in Syria, Iran and other Muslim nations are shot or disappear. There is a reason why Christian churches in Egypt, Iraq and other Muslim regions are burned and Christ followers are murdered. The worldview that will give rise to the Beast, is already in place. It is a worldview that is intolerant there – as here.
For this writer, I intend to communicate my view whether the State Bar likes it or not. At least for this fleeting moment – it is called freedom of expression and it is indeed one of the pillars that has enabled this nation “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. I don’t intend to give this up. Nor should you.
The Whitehouse
