Mike Warnke and Marriage Equality – “Warnke controlled most of the market selling scary stories about a conspiracy of satanists, but there’s a lot more competition in the marketplace among the fraudsters selling lies about the Big Gay Menace. The audience eagerly buying those lies, however, is much the same. And that audience is still seeking the same things — excitement, simplicity and pure, uncut indignation.”
Bryan Fischer, Dolt and Christian Whacko, argues that Christian Whackos that he claims to disagree with can and should be silenced by the government.
Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are all wrong in their ruling on the reprehensible Westboro Baptist Church protests at military funerals.
For the record, I confess that I FULLY AGREE that the WBC’s protests are reprehensible.
Alito alone is right.
That should be about all you need to know.
As he says, the First Amendment is “not a license for vicious verbal assault.”
Actually, yes, it is. I can call you a dolt, Bryan. You, Bryan, can call gays and Muslims demonic, evil, awful, treasonous, eaters of babies and kickers of kittens.
And, remarkably, neither of us can be silenced by the government.
Isn’t the First Amendment grand?
The gay-haters at Westboro have plenty of free speech avenues open to them – books, articles, video, audio, TV, radio, public forums, internet postings, emails etc.
Yes, if only they used your various media outlets, gay-hater Bryan.
But they do not have a right to “intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons.”
If their intent is solely do so, I’d be inclined to agree.
But, then, the basis for the SCOTUS ruling was that their protest was making a political/ideological statement (“THE US IS CURSED BECAUSE WE DON’T KILL TEH GAYZ!!”), something I’m sure you can appreciate, Bryan. Sure, some folks might be offended, even emotionally injured by that. But if we jailed folks who offended or emotionally injured others, Bryan … where would you be?
The Supremes in this 8-1 decision have taken ugliness off its leash, turned it loose, and legitimized the most vile forms of public verbal attack. They have cried havoc and let slip the dogs of vitriol.
If the First Amendment does not protect the most objectionable and (subjectively judged) vile public discourse, what does it, in fact, protect, Bryan?
The free speech plank in the First Amendment was intended to protect robust public discourse, not vulgarity, profanity, obscenity or pornography.
Well, there’s the trick, Bryan — what’s “vulgar, profane” etc., and what’s public discourse. Frankly, I consider much of what you write to be vulgar … even profane … and, yet, I would never suggest that what you write should be censored or subject to civil penalties. Mockery, rejection, “vulgar and profane” rebuttal, certainly. But that’s public discourse for you.
Every state at the time of the Founding, for instance, had laws against public utterances of blasphemy, and no one considered for a moment that these laws were contrary to the First Amendment.
Yes. Every state, I believe, allowed slavery, too, Bryan, without considering it contrary to American principles and the Constitution. Would you agree with that, too?
Most states at the time of the Founding had established churches, Bryan. Many vigorously argued that the First Amendment only applied to the Federal Government establishing a church. Yet, within a few decades, most states disestablished their official denomination. What’s your take on that, Bryan?
Such utterances weren’t for one second considered to be protected forms of speech.
And today they are. So were people wiser in 1789 or in 2011? On what basis, other than personal preference, would you say so?
And there were enforceable laws against slander and defamation of character. Those weren’t considered protected forms of speech either. This latest and egregiously misguided ruling is wholly out of phase with the Founders’ intent.
Slander and defamation of character aren’t considered constitutionally protected today, either, even by SCOTUS. What’s your point?
The only upside here is that if the Supreme Court says it’s okay to say “God hates fags” …
Note that there is a difference between saying something is legal, or Constitutionally protected, and saying it’s “okay.”
… – something that’s not even true, since the truth is the God loves homosexuals enough that he sent his only Son to die for them – …
Which is, oddly, the most positive thing you’ve ever had to say about homosexuals.
… then it certainly must be okay for students in a classroom, for public officials, and for radio talk show hosts to express reasoned and rational criticism of homosexual conduct without any kind of penalty whatsoever.
It certainly is. Nobody’s suggested censorship against or legal penalties against a person expressing their opinions about homosexuality being wrong or sinful or harmful (“reasoned and rational” or not). And, by the same token, expressing “reasoned and rational criticism” of such doltitude is, similarly protected from legal interference.
Similarly, I might say that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or Atheism is reprehensible and socially unacceptable. And, similarly, people can call me an asshat and not invite me to parties.
We just need to tell heterophobes and Christophobes to get a grip, lighten up, back off, and read the Supreme Court’s Westboro ruling and go away.
“Heterophobes”? Pray tell, Bryan, who’s actually advocating a heterophobic position. Really, I want to know.
Christophobic, perhaps, to the extent that Christians position themselves as opponents of a particular group or belief.
But, then, SCOTUS would certainly suggest that the law or public officials cannot discriminate against personal political expression, as an individual. By the same token, they have upheld that, when speaking or acting as an agent of the state, discriminatory public expression (whether against blacks, gays, Christians, left-handers, the elderly, etc.) is not protected.
I understand it’s difficult to distinguish between “public” and “private” or “personal” and “government” actions, Bryan, but think about it a bit.
And it certainly must be okay for students in counseling programs to express their moral disapproval of homosexual behavior without getting bounced out of counseling programs and having their professional careers torpedoed before they even start.
Again, Bryan, it depends. A private counseling program can choose what it decides to adopt as a moral basis for whatever it wants. If it is public, though, or publicly funded, discrimination — based on gender, religion, race, national origin, or even, yes, sexual orientation (all of which have been defended by people on religious grounds) — is not acceptable.
If you are seeking to serve the public, you need to put aside moral approval or disapproval of the public’s actions.
—
Despite what you’ve heard, DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) is perfectly constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 (Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident) that “the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute…the conflicting statute of another state.” Q.E.D. States cannot be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state if their own constitution and law prohibit recognition of such unions. http://ow.ly/47b2p
Note that DOMA has two components:
First, it says that states don’t have to follow what other states assert represents marriage (from a gender mix standpoint), even with the Constitutional “full faith and credit” clause. That’s kind of interesting, since it also suggests that if state X disagrees with state Y on the age of consent or of consanguinity, it can similarly decide that state X can declare a married couple as not-married for purposes of their state law.
Of course, that never happens in most cases. It did happen in the case of inter-racial marriages. And DOMA gave coverage for it to happen regarding same-gender marriage.
Frankly, whether it’s a full-faith-and-credit suit, or an equal-protection suit, I think such state laws are indefensible.
The second component is more interesting, as it says that the Federal Government will not recognize state-recognized marriage, in this particular instance, as marriage. As it currently stands, the Federal Government always recognizes marriage as whatever a given state recognizes. Age, consanguinity, racial makeup, whatever, the Feds respect a given state’s marriages.
Except in the case of same-gender marriage, in which case the Feds apparently are willing to disregard what a given state allows marriage to be.
Not very state-friendly, wouldn’t you agree, Bryan?
More confirmation that the Bible is right when it says that homosexual sex is “contrary to nature,” …
Which I’ve never quite understood as an argument. Are humans not part of nature?
… and that those who engage in it “receive in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Rom. 1:26, 27). There has been a rash of new HIV infections in Idaho, primarily among men having anonymous sex with men in city parks, highway rest stops, university libraries, and bookstores. In a park, you signal availability by how you park your car or what path you walk. There are websites and GPS phone apps devoted to arranging anonymous encounters. A health official says, “I don’t know what the future holds…if we don’t do something to help educate our people.” How about educating men to stop having sex with men? How about educating them that every act of homosexual sex could give them a death sentence? How about educating the public that we should not grant special rights and privileges based exclusively on sexually deviant behavior? That would be a logical, rational place to start. http://ow.ly/47cHH
Well, gee, Bryan. Maybe, alternately, if men who were seeking sex with men has the same social outlets as men seeking sex with women, you wouldn’t end up with a ton of anonymous, dangerous sex, either. There’s nothing about gay or lesbian sex that I’m aware of that is intrinsically promiscuous, save that it’s pushed to the shadows by our heterosexual culture. Anonymous, promiscuous heterosexual sex is pretty dangerous, too, even fatal. But we have paths that we socially encourage heterosexuals to pursue thatencourage responsible sexuality. If the same were true for gays, I suspect we’d have much less of a public health problem there, too.
—
Got your Religion of Peace update right here: a blond-haired, blue-eyed 13-year-old girl in California had to run away to escape a forced marriage arranged by her Pakistani father – to a dude in Pakistan. Her father wanted to take her on a two-month vacation to Pakistan, and I’m guessing he wasn’t planning on having her come back. Islam is flatly, utterly, totally and irredeemably in conflict with the values of a Christian nation. It must not be allowed to take root and flourish here. http://ow.ly/47bhj
Well, that’s certainly what she claims.
I’m certainly not going to defend a forced arranged marriage. But neither am I going to claim that this is a case of “Islam” (unless you’re willing to posit that arranged marriages have never taken place in Christian families).
—
We’ve had to deal with Muslim pirates for 227 years. Jefferson finally stopped paying blackmail money and sent in the Marines “to the shores of Tripoli,” as the Marine hymn reminds us. It’s time to get tough on Muslim pirates again. Right now Muslim pirates from Somalia are holding more than 30 vessels and more than 600 hostages. They made hundreds of millions of dollars last year in ransom payments. International law permits us to execute them on the open sea when we capture them, and even pursue them into port. (Two UN resolutions, 1851 and 1897, allow “hot pursuit” of pirates right into port and onto land.) The Romans, by the way, used to crucify pirates and the Carthaginians used to flay them alive. Let’s just shoot ‘em in the head and dump ‘em in the ocean. http://ow.ly/478y7
Allow me to point out that piracy is not now, nor historically has been, a Muslim pursuit. Indeed, ostensibly Christian pirates were as much a threat in the early days of the Republic as those of Tripoli.
I hold no truck with pirates, but calling them “Muslim pirates” is no more appropriate than calling them “African pirates” or “Northern Hemisphere Pirates” or “Indian Ocean Pirates.” Sorry, Bryan, your Islamophobia is showing.
—
If you want to see where we’re headed: Canadian doctors are now doing end-of-life discussions with patients in coffee shops because there’s no place else to do them. They’ve got gurneys double-parked in hospital corridors. More of the wonders of socialized medicaine. Answer? Repeal ObamaCare in its entirely. Don’t even attempt to reform it – it’s not possible. As C.S. Lewis said, no arrangement of bad eggs will make a good omelet. Repeal and replace. http://ow.ly/4787n
Um, the article you link to, Bryan, is so frelling ideological that it’s impossible to make any coherent sense of it unless you are already bought into its proposition.
And I’ll counter that in the American system, end-of-life discussions aren’t nearly as likely to occur, because ideologues such as yourself have made them tantamount to death panels and killing grandma. Instead, the discussions are held with insurance companies denying further services, doctors scared of law suits, and families unable to pay for further care. Not a very good trade-off, Bryan.
—
Focal Point update: My interview yesterday with Gov. Mike Huckabee got some media mentions and a lot of traffic from the wingers in the blogosphere. For instance, the Washington Post referred to the interview. Salon mentioned it while calling me a “prominent conservative,” the nicest thing wingers have said about me, maybe ever. On the other hand, Little Green Footballs called me “the religious right’s most crazed fanatic.” Guess you can’t please everybody.
Would that be the one where you supported Huckabee’s proposition that Obama was fundamentally un-American, had an un-American, Kenyanesque, anti-British childhood? Yeah, I agree, nothing there newsworthy to cover, except that Huckabee (no matter how charming he is on The Daily Show) is a dolt, too.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Cambridge university refuses to censor student’s thesis on chip-and-PIN vulnerabilities – “Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values.” Good show, sir (and a good poke in the eye toward “If you embarrass us over our known security lapses, then the terrorists and crooks win” types of weasels).
5 Downright Silly Sales Taxes – I wonder if that, beyond the environmental aspect, is why some local coffee shops I visit in Colorado (Ink! comes to mind) don’t automatically put a lid on the coffee they serve.
ACLU bristles over terror list | Chattanooga Times Free Press – If you create an information-gathering apparatus with no checks or balances or oversight, then it will gather all the information it can, including politically-driven information. It’s been demonstrated in this country, among others, time and time again.
Faking It – I would argue there is no value in faking respect for the validity of others’ opinions; the respect (fake or not) is for others to have their own opinions. Yes, there are in fact times when false claims, especially harmful ones, need to be challenged. But there are other times when we’re called to simply smile and nod and be polite and kind (and that applies to most all opinions on things religious and non-). But the key here is not respecting a “lie” or an “error,” but the person making it.
Comcast + NBCU approval likely in January with some strings attached – The problem with putting one-off regulatory bounds around the proposed merger is that they are subject to change and revision by future administrations, Congresses, and business conditions. I don’t see the value to society and the consumer of creating this kind of vertical oligopoly, vs. the potential risks, and that, to my mind, is enough to say No.
Scientists say extreme winter a result of climate change – This is why the term “global warming” is misleading (if, in aggregate, accurate). It’s not just that everything everywhere gets slowly, gradually warmer, but, in the short term, weather patterns get disrupted and, yes, you can get massive fronts of unusually cold (or hot) weather. Weather is not the same as climate, but when you have a lot of weather that is different, over a long period of time, then you have a climate that’s different.
Reid pushing ahead with filibuster reform – I hope this goes forward. The filibuster does provide a safety net at the extremes, but when it is so easily and repeatedly threatened (as it has been by the GOP this year), resulting in widespread obstruction of any governance, it clearly needs reform. And, yes, I say that realizing that someday it will be the Dems again the minority in the Senate.
Study: No one cares about your tweets – Holy Kaw! – Okay, all the play here is over folks actually reading their Twitter feeds. The actually study indicates 1/3 of Twitter users check the site regularly, and 1/3 check it once every couple of weeks. That’s hardly surprising.
The indignation of the persecuted hegemon: An illustration – “It’s a sad thing. The sadness of it is qualified somewhat by the harm it does to others, but it remains sad enough that one wishes there was something one could do to help those trapped inside this self-inflicted misery.”
Even Greater Moments – Glad to see this is back, and looking forward to attending next time we’re at Disneyland.
Anti-drug groups protest RTD bus ads for marijuana convention – The Denver Post – So a legal organization, promoting a legal gathering at the Convention Center, related to something that (with stringent limits) is legal … is a Grave Danger to Our Society, according to law enforcement. “You keep using that word ‘law’ — I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Cheering a victory over their own idea – “In case there are any doubts on this, Republicans are cheering today’s ruling, but it’s not because they have a problem with the mandate. It’s not even because they have a substantive problem with the Affordable Care Act itself. This is about cheap politics.”
Right Hails Health Care Ruling As Victory For the Constitution – “Amazing, isn’t it, how when a judge rules in a way the Religious Right dislikes, it is unadulterated judicial activism but when a judge rules in their favor, it is a heroic stand for the Constitution?”
The War on Cameras – “Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. ‘Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes’ (‘Who watches the watchmen?’).” Indeed. And remember, when security cameras and other privacy intrusions are put into the public square, the answer from authorities is always, “The innocent have nothing to hide.” Strangely enough, they stop saying that when the cameras are turned on them.
“Semper Fi Parents”‘ blog is supposedly about chronicling the Marine career of their daughter, which I think is an awesome thing to do. Apparently it’s also occasionally about screedifying about “those Liberals.” (That the underlying Blogspot site is called “RightWingWizKid” might betray a certain bias). So join us on this journey to discover why I (as an avowed Liberal) don’t believe in God. Which is the actual headline of the post: Why Liberals Don’t Believe in God:
Somehow I don’t think this is going to be a “fair and balanced” appraisal
There is a reason why many liberals don’t believe in God. It’s because he has been unfair to them. He gave something to the rest of us that liberals don’t have. It’s the only conclusion I can come to. In thinking over some basic liberal beliefs, the only logical conclusion is that liberals are missing a few brain cells, mainly the ones that give the rest of us common sense and prevent us from being hypocrites. Otherwise, how can they believe the following?:
So, just to be clear, the reason Liberals don’t believe in God is because they’re idiots, so they’re resentful of God for treating them unfairly. I’ll assume this is going to be part of the “writing about Constitutional and political events that I feel not only affect the men and women of America’s Armed Forces, but the freedoms the rest of us enjoy due to their sacrifice” and, in fact, meant to be … um … humorous. (Ah, wait, “political satire” is included in the list of things written about here — except there’s very little satirical in the rest of the post, unless it’s to be a satire of standard Conservative blogging points.) Ahem.
Note that accusing Liberals of being atheists and Not True Christians and the like is a fairly common calumny on the Right. They take horrible offense if anyone questions their piety, or their beliefs, but take it for granted that anyone to the left of Glenn Beck is probably suspect in their orthodoxy. That makes this a “ha ha funny” moment that really isn’t, because it’s joking about Liberals all being atheists (which I resent as a Christian and Liberal) in a way that goes right along with the libel that Liberals are all atheists.
Or, maybe, I’m just an overly-sensitive Liberal.
That Al Gore is a hero for speaking out against global warming. As he leaves his home, which has the highest energy consumption in the state, boards a private jet, and then takes a limo to wherever he is promoting his dogma.
Ah, let’s start off with Al Gore, who has the burden of being That Clinton Guy’s VP, The Guy Who Ran Against Dubya, and That Global Warming Dude. Al Gore is a favorite target of the Right, and, in the grand tradition of shooting at the messenger when the message is bothersome.
As far as the whole “Al’s House is an Energy Hog,” I’ll point to this Snopes article on the subject.
Liberals applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of the average American.
Actually, I applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of all Americans. If we only fight for the rights of “average” Americans, or “majority” Americans, or “the ones who think like we do” Americans, we weaken all Americans’ rights.
While they overlook the fact that the ACLU wages war against such traditions as the Boy Scouts of America, the NRA, Christmas, and numerous other decent and moral things.
This makes it sound like the ACLU is particularly targeting the institutions involved just becuse they are “traditions” and “decent and moral things.” Which, of course, is just goofy. In the specific cases involved, the ACLU has fought for actual Constitutional principles. They’ve also defended a variety of conservative / traditional institutions on those same principles. The ACLU understands what “liberty and justice for all” means.
The fact that the ACLU lobbies for the “rights” of terrorists and provides legal representation to such groups as the North American Man-Boy Love Association doesn’t bother a liberal in the least.
And they defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie, too. And it bothers me, insofar as I detest the Nazis. And NAMBLA. And (actual) terrorsts.
But if we only extend those “inalienable” Constitutional rights to the folks we agree with, then they aren’t rights, are they? They’re just majority privileges. Which means that any time the majority thinks that you or I are on the fringe and undesirable or embarrassing, we can have our privileges taken away, too.
Liberals support abortion on demand.
There’s this odd meme on the Right that Liberals looooove abortion. That they relish seeing how high they can push the abortion numbers. That they throw abortion parties and abortion picnics and hold abortion competitions. They want “abortion on demand” delivered to their doorstep as fast as movies on demand are — and they want you to pay for it, bwah-ha-ha! Ugh. Most Liberals I know (self included) aren’t particularly fond of abortion. We don’t particularly like it. We really don’t like the circumstances that cause women to think of it as the least worst alternative. While I am sure there are some Left Fringers who see abortion as a casual birth control method, that’s not how most Liberals see it. That’s not how most women who’ve had abortions see it. We’re with Bill Clinton’s desire to make it “safe, legal, and rare.” But as much as we dislike abortion, we’re also reluctant to make that decision for a woman, or to get between a woman and her doctor over whether it’s necessary or desirable. And we’ve very aware of how abortion restrictions (and the birth control restrictions that too many on the far Right are also covertly in favor of) have been used to oppress women in ages past, intentionally or just effectively.
And they oppose the death penalty.
So, somehow it’s okay to say “Liberals love abortion, but hate the death penalty” and not note the converse of “Conservatives hate abortion, but love the death penalty.” I give kudos to the Catholic Church for, on principle, opposing both.
Now I can understand an argument that “the unborn are innocent; the condemned are guilty.” That does draw a distinction — but many Liberals object to capital punishment, less over the idea of taking a life (though some folks’ eagerness to do so gets a little creepy), than over the idea that our justice system (especially when it comes to capital crimes) is so flawed that we can have little confidence that, in fact, the condemned are guilty. Anybody who claims they are against the killing of innocents would have to be willfully blind to think that doesn’t happen on Death Row in this country. Not everyone executed, certainly, doesn’t deserve it. But not everyone does — and that’s an unjust killing that’s done on behalf of all of us.
Liberals feel that it is fine for such experts as Danny Glover, Sean Penn, George Clooney and the like to air their views on American political policies. But when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck share their thoughts, they should be restricted by a “Fairness” Doctrine.
I am not a particular fan of the “Fairness Doctrine,” but, regardless, there are no actual effort from the Left to re-impose it. Even if there was, it cuts both ways. It means that if Sean Penn gets to blather on the air for an hour, then Glenn Beck does. And, frankly, Sean Penn gives me hives. But I don’t think he’s any less intellectually, educationally, or tempermentally unqualified to shoot off his mouth than Limbaugh, Coulter, or Beck.
Honestly, I wish they’d all shut up — but I defend their rights to bloviate as they see fit and/or profitable.
Liberals openly support gay rights parades. Yet feel that Christmas Nativity scenes should be illegal.
Um … no. If any organization wants to apply for a parade permit — be it the Ultra Gay Leather Boys of Downtown Denver, or the Devout Christian Nativity Reenactors of Our Lady of Perpetual Motion — that’s fine. As long as everyone gets the opportunity and everyone abides by the rules, that’s what makes this nation great. My objection (and that of such whacko groups as the ACLU) to Nativity Scenes only involves their display on public land with public funding, and in circumstances where other religious (or irreligious groups) don’t get the same opportunity. In other words, where Christianity, exclusively, is being supported by the taxpayer.
My family has a nativity scene. We have it in our house. My church has one that it will display by the altar. Heck, if my church decided to display it on their front lawn (as some of my neighbors do), that’d be fine by me. But why should I be asking people who don’t believe in the Nativity to fund, through their taxes, the display of a nativity scene on government property?
That “racial profiling” of Muslims is wrong. But that returning war vets are “potential domestic terrorists.”
Again, a lovely mix-and-mismatch of different issues. Profiling of Muslims and/or Arabs (or Semites other than Israelis) is “wrong” because (a) it sweeps up a whole group of people based on the actions of a tiny minority (e.g., why not, then, profile Caucasians or Gun Owners based on the terrorist activities of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the Huttaree?). (b) it’s ineffective (it assumes that all Islamicist terrorists are swarthy Middle Easterners, ignoring the various cases where that has not been the case), let alone the opportunity that such a profiling regime would provide actual terrorists to bypass security by coming up with fellow-travelers, mules, and others who would not trigger the “OMG HE’S AN AYRAB!” profile. (c) it encourages group prejudice, something we all (except for the proverbial WASP) have fine historical reasons to reject.
As to the whole veteran meme — yeesh. The DHS, after having issued a report about possible left-wing extremist groups in the US posing a domestic terror threat, has a report in the pipeline (initiated under the George W. Bush administration) about possible right-wing extremist terror … and the Right, once Obama is in office, goes ape-shit. It’s worth noting that the report suggests, as one element, returning veterans, as combat troops, might be targeted by right-wing extremist groups for recruitment. It didn’t suggest that all veterans were possible terrorists — it simply said that right-wing terrorists might see combat-trained veterans as possible recruits. Duh.
That it’s fine for a kid to bring a book about Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx to school. Yet that a kid carrying a Bible should be expelled.
I’m not sure what’s wrong about a kid bringing a book about Hitler or Marx, as historical subjects, to school. A kid obsessively reading books about Hitler would be more disturbing. I doubt any kid (or most adults) would be interested in reading much by Marx. The Bible-carrying kid expulsion does sound pretty outrageous. And, um, unrealistic. If someone would actually point to a case of the latter, I’d be more than happy to condemn it.
That Fox News is nothing more that an offshoot of the Republican Party.
Never mind that pretty much the entire active list of potential Republican candidates for President in 2012 have gigs with Fox. Never mind that Fox has openly declared itself “the voice of the opposition” to the Democratic Administration. Never mind that Fox’s owner, News Corp, contributed under orders of its president, Rupert Murdoch, significant sums to to Republican causes in this last election, and that Murdoch made significant personal contributions to GOP leaders’ campaigns.
And that Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, etc. simply report the news without any personal bias.
I don’t know any Liberal who would make that statement about Keith Olbermann. They may like him (or not), but he’s clearly got a Point of View. And, in fact, he’s not actually hired as a newscaster, but as someone with a personal opinion. As is Chris Matthews. (And, for that matter, as is Bill O’Reilly.) Criticisms about Katie Couric are mostly because she managed to point out, through her interviews, that Sarah Palin is a dolt. And she did it by letting the subject’s words speak for themselves.
Liberals will cite the U.S. Constitution when they speak about the “separation of church and state. Despite the fact that that phrase is not included in the Constitution.
Well, no. I don’t know any Liberal who will claim the phrase “separation of church and state” is actually, word for word, in the Constitution. Really, can we have a citation here?
That said, the phrase was coined by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, and echoed by Founding Father JamesMadison, and is clearly the sentiment of a number of the Founders as to what the First Amendment was meant to do. The term “separation of powers” isn’t in text of the Constitution, either, but I don’t hear anyone protesting that as a bogus concept. Well, except for for the folks who dislike the judiciary.
Liberals believe that Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. In spite of the fact that he has done nothing to earn it, and he was only in office for a month or two when he was nominated.
Actually, most Liberals I know would agree that Obama had not done much to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize (except to be Not George W. Bush). In fact, that was my reaction when it came out. Ironically, many Liberals would think it even less deserved currently. (Personally, the Nobel Peace Prize is … of dubious distinction, in terms of some of the folks to whom it’s been awarded.)
They believe Obama and Pelosi when they say that universal health care will lead to a reduction in the federal deficit. They never ask how insuring the (supposedly) 45 million Americans without health insurance will make money.
Obama and Pelosi assert it because the Congressional Budget Office asserts it. Here’s why that works (hints: free competition, getting away from an “emergency room as baseline medical care” culture for the poor, seeking efficiencies in Medicare, taxation of “Cadillac” plans).
Liberals will repeatedly bash Judaism and Christianity.
Liberals dislike the assertive claims of cultural ownership and exceptional virtue and righteous dominance by Christianity in America. To the extent that Christianists claim “We’re Number One (and the government should give us money because of that, and, oh, our religious laws should be national laws, too), I will feel free to “bash” those Christian groups (while still being a regular churchgoer).
Liberals tend to support Judaism as a minority religion, though they also tend to reject American foreign policy knee-jerkingly supporting Israel no matter what it does. (As a Liberal, I support Israel’s right to exist and be secure; I reject its territorial aggrandizement and oppression of the Palestinian populations; I also reject the conservative elements of Israeli culture that seek to run it as a conservative Jewish theocracy).
But they become angry if they hear anyone say anything bad about Islam.
Nice blanket statement. I get angry when people assert that all Muslims are out to TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY AND CUT OFF OUR HEADS AND MAKE THIS THE UNITED STATES OF SHARIA. That’s just a xenophobia to go along with previous American cultural/immigration shifts (along the lines of “ALL IRISH AND ITALIANS ARE OUT TO TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY AND COMPEL US TAKE COMMUNION AND MAKE THIS INTO THE UNITED STATES OF THE POPE”).
On the other hand, I (and other Liberals) are more than happy to criticize theocratic Islamic regimes and societies that impose cruel punishment upon (e.g.) rape victims and homosexuals (and, for that matter, Christians). And we do.
Ironically, I feel that Liberals (at least as I consider myself one) take the concept of “Don’t Tread on Me” more seriously than many Conservatives. We believe in inclusion (don’t tread on anyone) and protection for all, not just for the people we approve of.
So the next time you hear a liberal spouting off with some stupid statement, try and keep in mind that it’s not entirely their fault.
Yeah. We’ve probably been goaded into it by some conservative telling us we’re liberal idiots who hate God.
Note: in response to a comment on his original post, the author posted a full-length “defense” — which basically just restates all the points he originally made above.
Random Book Blogging: Harry Potter, Pokémon, And The Danger of Psychics – Apparently anything that isn’t stamped with JESUS on it in bright shiny letters is, to Ms Jacobs’ lights, Satanic. That includes Pokémon, throwing a penny in a wishing well, Harry Potter (of course) and, probably comic books.
A Futuristic Nightmare Ideology of Computerized Greed and Unchecked Financial Violence – Scary. Disgusting. Appalling. The problem, as described, is not solely about people being unjustly hurt, and hurt maliciously for gain, but with the disassembling of a whole system of trust — trust that property deeds and loan papers and the entire financial system can, in fact, be relied upon, accounted for, proven to be real. That destruction of trust will, in the long run, do the banks more harm than the toxic loans they were so eager to buy and flip.
Schools ban bracelets promoting cancer awareness – USATODAY.com – Because breasts can only be consider sexual objects, even just by reference, and even if in the context of breast cancer awareness. Right? Therefore it is lascivious and/or shameful to refer to them as “boobies.” (Would it be okay if the bracelets said “breasts” instead? How about “bosoms”? Or “mammary organs”?)
Antisemitism still thrives – “I’m not a fan of Israel’s policies — they’re becoming what they oppose — but there’s clearly no possibility that they could simply stop fighting for their existence and live in peace and tolerance with neighbors who promote the kind of hate shown above.”
Picture Books Languish as Parents Push ‘Big-Kid Books’ – NYTimes.com – While I’m sure there’s an element of academic paranoia on the part of parents (ignoring the difference between reading a “chapter book” to a kid and buying one for them to read), I’d say that at least as large a factor is that picture books are freaking expensive, almost prohibitively so.
Gropec*** Lane – “Warning: This post contains repeated uses of words that many people will find offensive.” Though it’s interesting from the perspective of how acceptable language changes over time.
They Hate Us For Our Freedom? : Dispatches from the Culture Wars – “I know that many Americans believe in ‘American exceptionalism’ but we are not granted exceptions from the most basic laws of behavior, and one of those iron laws is that when you oppress a people and commit massive violence against them, you radicalize them. And this counts for both sides. Just look at how much more radicalized we are in response to 9/11 than we were before, how we reacted with such a massive and violent retaliation — even against a country that had nothing to do with that event. But we somehow cannot bring ourselves to acknowledge that the same thing is true of other people.”
Recipes from Valabar’s in Colorado – De notes the recipes from our Big Fancy Dragaeran Dinner the other weekend. It was great food, and good company. Even the trout (not something I’d normally leap at) was fabulous. Thanks, De!
Why Fred Phelps’s Free Speech Rights Should Matter to Us All – Another example why the calumny that the ACLU is a “liberal/radical/leftist” organization is profoundly untrue. And, as loathesome as I find Phelps and his Gang of Family Idiots, if they don’t have the right to speak, nobody does.
The Original King of Irony Lives On – And yet, he seems to have made an amazing come-back in the GOP. what that says about the GOP I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Lou Dobbs’ Little Meg Whitman Problem – “The Nation also editorialized today that this latest revelation only adds more fuel to the arguments that immigrants, legal and undocumented, are so thoroughly integrated into our economy that those politicians who seek to scapegoat and demonize their work are almost alway engaging in hypocrisy. The piece argues that we must legalize and regulate this work, instead of demonizing the workers our society is thoroughly dependent on.” But … but … but … without evil, lazy, Welfare-sponging, American-decaptitating, job-stealing, anchor-babying illegals to demonize, we’d have to find someone else to demonize!
So that’s why Koch funded a major evolution exhibit – “The fact that we could be knocked back to a stone age level of technology without going extinct is not a point in favor of welcoming global warming.” But think of the money-making opportunities! Especially if you cunning corner the shell and bead market ahead of time!
Gabrielle Bell’s comic strip about ComicCon – Boing Boing – An interesting collection, but … well, one commenter put it best. “Comicons are like Star Trek conventions – they’re about the core values. Core values like comic books that are for kids, not those artsy fartsy 20-something angst-ridden disenfranchised white kids with ennui.” Bell makes it sound like the Worst Possible Experience in the World, even when she’s invited to attend and given a freaking per diem.
Keep Calm and Carry On – I actually have a copy of this poster up in my office. It’s a good reminder that, no matter the business brouhaha, flying into a tizzy isn’t productive.
BBC News – Last US combat brigade quits Iraq – A noteworthy milestone — though the many remaining US troops will still be in harm’s way, even if their mission is not explicitly for combat.
YouTube – Is Sarah Palin gunning for 2012? – This is certainly unfair, uncivil, inflammatory, mocking, and disrespectful. However it is just too funny (and creepy) not to share.
Google chief warns of Internet imperiling privacy – The question becomes whether this sort of universal public square will suppress behavior, reimpose more keeping of behavior private, or change what becomes (eventually) acceptable. In either case, I expect a decade or so for society to adjust.
Under fire, SBI blood analyst suspended – Agents’ Secrets – NewsObserver.com – “The criminal convictions or sentences of three people who have since been executed in North Carolina, and four more cases in which the defendants are now on death row, are may be in doubt because of flawed reports.” The more I know about the criminal justice system — and the human failures of judgment, objectivity, or even love of truth, that riddle it — the more convinced I am that capital punishment is inexcusable. Not because the state cannot have a compelling reason to put some individuals to death, but because the state cannot convincingly assert that its evidence for doing so is correct “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
New financial unit of measure: the “TDJ” – Big, inspirational art, cathedrals, stuff like that, do serve a purpose, so I can’t immediately hop on DOF’s bandwagon here (since obviously SOME Philistines out there were inspired by TDJ). But I’d suggest that before investing a quarter mil into rebuilding this eye-sore (and handwaving away any suggestion that, well, MAYBE THEY SHOULD CATCH A CLUE ABOUT WHAT THE ALMIGHTY THINKS ABOUT THIS MONSTROSITY), the church in question ought to very, very seriously think about what Jesus would actually suggest in this circumstance, and how much of this is to glorify themselves, not to do God’s work (whited sepulchres can be Jesus-shaped, too).
YouTube – Bistro Bordeaux – No Need For A Corkscrew – Not quite as funny as the guy on the street in an earlier video, but interesting to see. I would not do this with a good bottle, for a variety of reasons.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
High School Students Vote On Saying a Graduation Prayer; Judge Says No – Would it be “okay” if the student body voted on whether to segregate classes by race, or religion? No? Well, not much different here. Majority rule doesn’t trump minority rights — that’s what the First Amendment (and, fundamentally, the Constitution) is all about.
The Son Needed Blood, So What Did the Father Do? – I’m trying to think of an exception to the rule that “A religion that requires a child die rather than violate some element of dogma is not a religion I care to follow,” but I can’t think of one.
The Station That Censors Muhammad May Give Jesus His Own Show – I think there’s a lot of room for a very funny story about a modern-day “Christ in the City.” I suspect this won’t be it, but I’ll add to the predictions given here that there will, in fact, be some violent threats by anonymous (and humor-dead) Christians about the show, along the lines of, “If it worked for radical Islamicists …”
Titanic 2 Is Coming Soon | /Film – OMG — it’s like those cheap knock-off cartoons of Disney flicks that you can find at the grocery store. (Or, alternately, the pr0n adaptations of prominent movie titles.) The list of previous releases by the studio is, itself, a hoot. (Note to SyFy — you really need to get these guys on your payroll, if you don’t already.)
DVR Didn’t Kill The Commercial Star, Says Duke U. – I think the points given are fair enough — though since we got the “skip 30 seconds” button programmed on the remote, that does reduce some of the commercial bits. At most, though, it makes the first and last commercial slots in a break the most valuable, as they are the most likely to be viewed (which, I think, has always been true).
Radio Shack answering machine messages – WFMU’s Beware of the Blog – These are pretty darned awesome. It occurs to me, as more folks go to hosted voice-mail and as answering machines have become cliche, that there’s very little ingenuity among answering machine messages any more. When’s the last time you got one that made you chuckle (and, as a subset of that, wasn’t annoying long)?
Quote of the Day – I realize the “law & order” types have never been fond of the Miranda ruling (rubber hoses and the third degree, anyone?), but the current harping that nobody accused of terror — or at least nobody “foreign” (even if a US citizen) — should be Mirandized because it’s more important to just beat the truth out of ’em and then shove ’em before a firing squad, rather than shilly-shally about with “rights” and “trials” seems particularly despicable (and, may I say, anti-American).
DORK TOWER, Monday, May 3, 2010 – Oh, Lord — how this describes so many games I have been in. (It’s not necessarily a bad thing, unless you’re looking to actually get gaming done ….)
AFA’s Fischer: Any Muslim Unwilling to Renounce Islam Ought to be Denied Entry to the US – I think a look at crime statistics in the US, as well as a review of Western history, will indicate that Christians are guilty of most murders. I think we should force all Christians to renounce their religion or face deportation. (Just kidding, of course, but, yeesh.)
The United and Continental Airline Mashup – What I note most about the (ugly) logo change is that it finally drops any of the “United [States]” red-white-and-blue imagery. Which may well make sense from a global standpoint, but is still sort of sad. As well as (as noted) ugly.
Captcha Advertising – I’m appalled, but I have to applaud the guy who came up with the concept.
Right on cue, McCain starts complaining – So is McCain’s standard now that folks who are likely to face capital crimes should not be Mirandized until they’ve been compelled to state everything they know. Is he actually listening to his own words? Jeez — what lessons did he really learn from the North Vietnamese?
The GOP’s emergency-room argument lives – Money graf: “Sue Lowden’s campaign and its Republican brethren oppose health care reform, but they’ve endorsed the most inefficient system of socialized medicine ever devised.”
Wash. Nuns Investigated By Vatican – Investigated for sexual abuse? Nah. Investigated for “feminism and activism.” Glad the Vatican has its priorities straight.
The American Family’s Financial Turmoil | – Scary Infographic. And, yes, I’m doing better than “average,” but it worries me a lot, as a society and an economy, that this is what the “average” is.
Jim David: Adam Lambert Loses, Homophobia Wins – I have done not a whit of following AI (ever), so I can’t comment on this knowledgeably. But it seems sadly plausible, esp. with Bill O’Reilly getting involved.
Two Series Review – Since we twisted BD’s arm into watching “Avatar,” it’s only fair I share his review of the first two series. As soon as he can get over to the house, we’ll get him S.3.
Your Blog is a Weapon? – See, this is the sort of thing that the Hate Crimes folks are actually (and, in this case, correctly) worried about.
Rampant boobies to reign at Disneyland! – Huh. Never thought of someone doing this (duh), nor that Disney would have folks watching out for it. I give this a month before rampant boobie-flashing forces a change back in policy. Hmmmm. Have they changed this at Walt Disney World, too?
I’ve usually found Dennis Prager to be an insightful and intelligent commentator on religion and society. I’ve listened to him on the radio, on and off, for years. I haven’t…
I’ve usually found Dennis Prager to be an insightful and intelligent commentator on religion and society. I’ve listened to him on the radio, on and off, for years. I haven’t always agreed with him, but I’ve usually respected what he had to say.
But the current gay marriage debate has sent him over the deep end. While I think it’s a tad — just a tad — unfair to claim, as others do, that he’s equating supporters of gay marriage with al Qa’eda, he manages everything but.
America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war — a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.
One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.
One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.
Okay, well maybe it’s not unfair. Certainly there’s a moral equivalency placed here. Supporters of gay marriage are no better (if no worse) than Islamofascist terrorists, and everything from terror bombings to the WTC attack is as the moral and functional equivalent of support for gay marriage. That seems to be what Prager is saying here.
The first war is against the Islamic attempt to crush whoever stands in the way of the spread of violent Islamic theocracies, such as al Qa’eda, the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs and Hamas. The other war is against the secular nihilism that manifests itself in much of Western Europe, in parts of America such as San Francisco and in many of our universities.
Secular nihilism? I certainly don’t consider myself a secular nihilist.
America leads the battle against both religious and secular nihilism and is hated by both because it rejects both equally. American values preclude embracing either religious extremism or radical secularism. As Alexis de Tocqueville, probably the greatest observer of our society, wrote almost 200 years ago, America is a unique combination of secular government and religious (Judeo-Christian) society.
To be honest, while de Tocqueville had some very interesting things to say about the US, it was 200 years ago. That said, I think Prager both overstates the historic record of our having a secular government, and doesn’t see the irony that it is in fact the secular redefinition of our government in the last half-century that has led us to where we are today (and I say that as a Good Thing).
Not only has this combination been unique, it has been uniquely successful. America, therefore, poses as mortal a threat to radical secularism as it does to Islamic totalitarianism. Each understands that America’s success means its demise.
To the extent that radical secularists — who I suppose we can define as folks who want to do away with all religious expression in the public, and, preferably, the private forum — and radical religionists, who want to impose a religious cast (of their choosing) on both public and private life, are threatened by the multiplicity of American social religious expression and by the rigorous walls that have been set up around governmental involvement with and sponsorship of sectarian religion, I’d agree.
This is a major reason why the Left so opposes anti-Islamism (just as it opposed anti-communism). In theory, the Left should be at least as opposed to the Islamists as is the Right. But the Left is preoccupied first with destroying America’s distinctive values — a Judeo-Christian society (as opposed to a secular one), capitalism (as opposed to socialism), liberty (as opposed to equality) and exceptionalism (as opposed to universalism, multiculturalism and multilateralism). So, if the Islamists are fellow anti-Americans, the Left figures it can worry about them later.
In broad strokes, I can see where Prager is coming from with this. That the Hard Left seems to spend more time spewing bile at George Bush than at Saddam Hussein, or the mullahs of Iran, or the nutcase running North Korea, is as deep an indictment of their moral standing as the insistence on personal liberty, but only as long as it doesn’t involve gays doing icky things with each other, stands as an indictment of the Hard Right’s.
That said, Prager seems to be lumping an awful lot of positions under the banner of “the Left” — everyone from puppet-toting transnationalist anti-globalization protesters to … well, since I’m in favor of allowing gay marriage, me. Which is kind of funny, given that a lot of folks would probably think I’m a lost closer to Dennis Prager than, say, Noam Chomsky.
Prager, though, seems to be drawing hard lines. If you’re in favor of gay marriage, is the message, then you’re in favor of a whole raft of other Lefty lunacy. Which seems to be a gross oversimplification.
All this explains why the passions are so intense regarding same-sex marriage. Most of the activists in the movement to redefine marriage wish to overthrow the predominance of Judeo-Christian values in American life.
No doubt there are some who do. There are others who think that, given the highly-touted-by-Prager secular nature of our government, how the government treats marriage should also be as secular as possible.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage understand that redefining the central human institution marks the beginning of the end of Judeo-Christian civilization.
It’s difficult to take with a straight face that proposition. It certainly speaks poorly of Judeo-Christian civilization to think it so feeble.
Let us understand this redefinition as clearly as possible:
Oh, let’s.
With same-sex marriage, our society declares by law that mothers are unnecessary, since two men are equally ideal as mothers and as the creators of a family; and that fathers are unnecessary, since two women are equally ideal as parents and as the creators of a family.
The reality of the world is that there are many, many more children brought up in single parent homes, or in homes with neglectful parents of one or another (or both) genders, than are every likely to be raised by those gay couples who want to raise children. The “ideal” — assuming it can be defined to everyone’s satisfaction — is just that, the ideal.
And, of course, we allow gay individuals already to bear children, should they choose to. And we’ve allowed them to have custody of children. Ought we outlaw both? It seems to me that the added security of marriage — with both its privileges and responsibilities — would be good for kids of a gay parent.
Do I think having a female and male role model is important for kids of both genders? Sure. I think there are a lot of other things that are important for kids to grow up healthy and well-adjusted, too, but I don’t see society forbidding childbearing (let alone marriage) to those who are unable or unwilling to provide them.
With same-sex marriage, our society declares that there is nothing special or even necessarily desirable about a man and a woman bonding. What is sacred to the proponents of same-sex marriage is the number of people marrying (two, for the time being), not that a man and woman bond.
I think what is sacred is the bonding itself, the reasons for it, not the genders of the folk who choose to bond. The majority of those cases seem likely to always be male-female, and that’s great (speaking for myself, that’s wonderful). I don’t see why, for those for whom it doesn’t float their boat, that should be the only consideration.
With same-sex marriage, when taught in school about sex, marriage and family, children will have to be taught that male-male and female-female sex, love and marriage are identical to male-female sex, love and marriage. And when asked, “Who do you think you will marry when you grow up?” thanks to the ubiquitous images of media, far more children will consider members of the same sex.
And the problem here is …?
If this were 19th Century England, I might write,
With cross-class marriage, when taught in school about courting, marriage, and family, children will have to be taught that love and marriage between the upper and lower classes is identical to that between those of the upper class, or those of the lower class. And when asked, ‘Who do you think you will marry when you grow up?” thanks to the ubiquitous images of media, far more children will consider mates regardless of class.
Heck, there are circles in the US today where that would seem an equally profound and dire prediction. I could change around the words a bit and make it say “color,” too. Or set it in India and make it “caste.” Or set it in various theocracies and put “religion” in there.
Most Americans, though, would reject those distinctions, would reject that the world and civilization will go to heck in a handbag if we let those people date us people. Why we should lend credence to the argument when it’s about gender, I’m not altogether certain.
With same-sex marriage, no adoption agency will ever be able to prefer a married man and woman as prospective parents. Aside from the tragedy of denying untold numbers of children a mother and a father, this will lead to a drastic diminution in women placing children for adoption, since most of these women will prefer something that will then be illegal — that agencies place her child with a man and woman, not with two men or two women.
In other words, the prospect of adoption by a gay couple will so distress a “drastic” number of women that they’ll never consider putting their kids up for adoption. That strikes me as wildly unlikely.
Nonetheless, for those who are so distressed, I believe there are plenty of private adoption agencies that may, as private institutions, screen applicants based on criteria that public institutions may not. For example, a Christian adoption agency may insist on adoptive parents being Christian, and a woman can put her child up for adoption there with the knowledge that it will be raised by Christians, as opposed to (gasp) Jews or Muslims or some other dreaded heathen group … should that be of paramount importance to her.
With same-sex marriage, any media — films, advertisements, greeting cards — that only depict married couples as a woman and a man will be considered discriminatory and probably be sued.
No more than greeting cards that show married couples as white folk get sued by the NAACP.
Will there be an increased number of same-sex anniversary cards? Sure. But, again, given the relatively small number of gays in the population, I don’t expect it to be a very big market.
But I mean, come on now — we should rally folks to oppose gay marriage for the sake of the greeting card industry?
With same-sex marriage, those religious groups that only marry men and women will be deemed beyond the pale, marginalized and ostracized.
What happened to the much-touted barrier between secular government (which is responsible for legal things like marriage law) and society? The corollary of Prager’s argument seems to be that because most churches don’t approve of gay marriage now, it should not be allowed by secular government … which doesn’t seem to make the government all that secular, if you ask me.
I would not expect most Christian denominations (or others) that don’t currently support gay marriage to do so merely because it’s legal. There are a lot of things that are legal that various churches (including mainstream denominations) do not officially sanction. I do expect that, over time, some denominations will do so, as a reflection of social changes amongst their membership, just as some denominations, as a reflection of social attitudes about sex and race, allow women as clergy, or folks of different races as clergy.
If churches are so weak, though, that they cannot take a principled moral stand on what they believe because some or even most people in society point and laugh at them, then they aren’t very worth saving to begin with.
There have been many Christian countries, and they are no longer. They have been replaced by secular countries, and they are weakening. Only American civilization remains strong, and it does so because of its unique amalgam of values rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.
What has kept the US from falling into the trap of many other Western countries that were once more ostensibly Christian than we are, is that, for the most part, we’ve avoided entanglement between Church Law and Civil Law. There has been no Official Church of the State. In those nations where the Church dictates how things should be, then it becomes embodied as the Old Political Order; when that order changes (as it inevitably does), the Church loses its standing, too. France has gone that way; so, to some degree, has England.
In the US, expression of religious law within civil law has come about largely because of a relative homogeneity of religious faith; when everyone more or less agrees on the basics, those basics become universals. Even then, we’ve seen systemic and legal discrimination by the government against some religious groups because their faiths were different — Jews, Catholics, and Mormons come to mind.
To the extent that we have strengthened the secular nature of government, and recognized the heterogeneity of religious and spiritual viewpoints, we’ve improved matters. Trying to make government adhere to religious law per se, though, for the sake of keeping a particular religious viewpoint in society strong, seems bass-ackwards. If Prager truly believes in Judeo-Christian values in society as a key to America’s strength, he should be pushing for those values in society, not in law.
This civilization is now fighting for its life — as much here as abroad. Join the fight, or it will be gone as fast as you can say “Democrat.”
In a changing world, all things evolve to meet the change, or die. Our recognition of personal liberties for our citizens without regard to gender or race or religion is an adaptation we’ve made in the ongoing evolution of our society — the idea of a black woman as a respected cabinet official to the President, for example, would have appalled or sickened or panicked many of our Founding Fathers (and, likely, de Tocqueville). Those adaptations have been driven in many cases by evolving religious and philosophical sentiment amongst the populace, by recognition that what was taken for granted, sadly accepted, or even joyfully supported by our forefathers was not always wise or just.
With each of these changes, there have been those who have warned of the end of civilization. Should women get the vote, some said, our nation and culture are doomed. Should blacks be given an equal place at the table, and be allowed to intermarry with whites, it will mean the mongrelization of our Great White Society. It is ironic that Prager, often a very intelligent and insightful commentator, should find himself echoing the same bankrupt cries of gloom and doom as have come before.
Ah, let’s start off with Al Gore, who has the burden of being That Clinton Guy’s VP, The Guy Who Ran Against Dubya, and That Global Warming Dude. Al Gore is a favorite target of the Right, and, in the grand tradition of shooting at the messenger when the message is bothersome.
