Reading the article regarding Bridget Fleming trying to restrict free speech [“Fleming Seeks To Solidify Rules Regarding Religious Speech At Public Sessions,” 27east.com, February 22] struck me as odd during a time when we’re presently watching fascism run amok in Europe.
Was Fleming really surprised that a priest would pray for the unborn? Or that another clergy would do the same? I guess her premise is that the hidden message is abortion. But is it? Or is it just her spin on it, that she needs to now outline how invocations go in the future. Setting guidelines sounds like restricting free speech.
I didn’t realize our esteemed legislator is a constitutional scholar. What are you trying to protect us from? Is it your premise that free speech and thought is only protected if it’s your speech not others’? Inviting a priest and being surprised that love and life might be part of the invocation seems to only surprise you, not the other members — why is that?
Of all the pressing issues confronting us right now, this is where your energy is going? Good luck running for Congress; you will once again lose if you play to this worn-out woke-ism.
She additionally brags about bullying “a wonderful nun from Hampton Bays” by reminding her of the values that Fleming stands for and the proper way, according to Fleming, she should conduct herself. Maybe just hand them an outline that you want purveyed instead of leaving it up to the individual clergy — you know, just the voice of the state. Sound familiar?
Sorry if you find it offensive that anyone might pray for the unborn, but here’s to remind you that thousands of your constituents pray every day for the unborn without thought whether they are pro-life.
Thomas M. Jones
One fine body…