Showing posts with label Brown Shirts on Parade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brown Shirts on Parade. Show all posts

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Read this.

Now.

In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this.
Now if one wants to change marriage laws to reflect something else, that’s obviously something that one can aim to do. We’ve seen the rapid, frequently unthinking embrace of that change in recent years, described one year ago in the humanist and libertarian magazine Spiked as “a case study in conformism” that should terrify “anyone who values diversity of thought and tolerance of dissent.”
Are we sure we need to accept that lie? Are we sure we want to?
Perhaps there should have been a bit of a burden of proof on those who wanted to change the institution — something beyond crying “Bigot!” in a crowded theater. Perhaps advocates of the change should have explained at some point, I don’t know, what singles out marriage as unique from other relationships under this new definition. What is marriage? That’s a good question to answer, particularly if you want to radically alter the one limiting factor that is present throughout all history. Once we get an answer for what this new marriage definition is, perhaps our media and other elites could spend some time thinking about the consequences of that change. Does it in any way affect the right of children to be raised by their own mother and father? Have we forgotten why that’s an important norm? Either way, does it change the likelihood that children will be raised by their own mother and father? Does it by definition make that an impossibility for whatever children are raised by same-sex couples? Do we no longer believe that children should be raised by their own mother and father? Did we forget to think about children in this debate, pretending that it’s only about adults? In any case, is this something that doesn’t matter if males and females are interchangeable? Is it really true that there are no significant differences between mothers and fathers? Really? Are we sure we need to accept that lie? Are we sure we want to?
And:

Far more than the political folks on either side, though, is the importance of what happened to the apolitical. In one sense, the most frightening aspect of the Eich termination was the message it sent to people throughout the country: Shut up or you will lose your livelihood. But in another sense, this dissident moment may spark something previously thought impossible.
The place for dissidents to fight for freedom is in the space where the complex demands of the system affect the ability to live life in a bearable way.
Havel says that party politics and the law are the weakest grounds on which to fight against group think. Instead, he says that the real place for dissidents to fight for freedom is in the space where the complex demands of the system affect the ability to live life in a bearable way — to not be fired for one’s views, for instance. “People who live in the post-totalitarian system know only too well that the question of whether one or several political parties are in power, and how these parties define and label themselves, is of far less importance than the question of whether or not it is possible to live like a human being,” Havel said.

And:


 It’s in this sense that Eich’s most important political work was not making a paltry $1,000 donation in defense of natural marriage laws. It was in refusing to recant.

Consider first the response of one of the activist’s calling for Eich’s head. After he resigned, activist Michael Catlin wrote that he never thought his campaign against Eich would go “this far” and that he wanted “him to just apologize.” So he was “sad” that Eich didn’t say the magic words that would have allowed him to keep his job. Yeah, he really said that.
We see in Eich a dissident who forces us to think about totalitarianism and our role in making society unfree.
And then think about how horrified people were that Eich lost his job for his views that men and women are different in important ways. Regardless of our previous views on marriage, we saw in Eich a dissident who forced us to think about totalitarianism and our role in making society unfree. Did we mindlessly put up red equal signs when we hadn’t even thought about what marriage is? Did we rush to fit in by telling others we supported same-sex marriage? Did we even go so far as to characterize as “bigots” or as “Hitlers” those who held views about the importance of natural marriage?


Thursday, April 04, 2013


Homosexual students at GWU try to get Catholic priest fired for being...

...Catholic and daring - daring! - to affirm two-thousand year old position on love the sinner, hate the sin.

But don't worry about same-sex marriage. That will never be used as another lever to deny faithful Catholics access to the public square.


Thursday, March 14, 2013


Tolerance is the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Secularist Canadian government censors philosophy and the Catholic Catechism at a Catholic school.

Here is the story:

Education minister Scott Kent told the CBC that he ordered the document to be immediately removed from Vanier Catholic Secondary School’s website since it did not meet his department's requirements. 
But bishop Gordon, religious education director for all Catholic secondary schools in the diocese, told the CBC that the education department approved the policy last spring. “It was vetted by the Department of Education, the policy people,” he said.

The policy, quoting The Catechism of the Catholic Church, states that “homosexual acts” are “acts of grave depravity” and that “tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’”  
The policy continues quoting the Catechism: “They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” 
While condemning homosexual acts, the policy makes it clear the persons struggling with same-sex attraction must be treated with the same rights and given the same respect as everyone else. 
“All persons, share the same rights and dignity and are called to live as God's children,” states the policy. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard to others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”  
Kent met with Bishop Gordon on the issue last week. The minister said that they both agreed the policy should be deleted from the school’s website.  
While Bishop Gordon agreed to remove the policy, he nevertheless stated that the policy will remain in effect for teachers at Vanier. 
Repeating the Church’s teaching on the issue, the bishop said, “Homosexual activity is always morally wrong”. He pointed out that Catholic school should be allowed to teach Catholic teaching on the issue.

Here is the secular newspaper story for those who don't trust special interests.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Anti-Gay Bullying Leader bullies Christian Students.

Dan Savage demonstrates the "inner brownshirt" of the pro-homosexual project:

As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.”

The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”

Savage, and his husband, were also guests at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception. He was also invited to a White House anti-bullying conference.

Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.

“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”

Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium.

“It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”

Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.

The conservative website CitizenLink was the first to report about the controversy. They interviewed a 17-year-old girl who was one of students who walked out of the auditorium.

“The first thing he told the audience was, ‘I hope you’re all using birth control,’” she told CitizenLink. “he said there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong. Right after that, he said we can ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

As the teenagers were walking out, Tuttle said that Savage heckled them and called them “pansy asses.”

Is this immature and offensive spewing of hate surprising?

Not if you know Dan Savage.

Savage is an "ethicist" and his ethics consist of doing what feels good so long as the one doing it is honest - it is an ethical system for psychopaths.

Thursday, May 06, 2010

On the Flag suspension case: to quote - "What the hell is going on here?"

From Pajamas media:

Are the United States and Mexico at war? Is May 5 some kind of “Hate America Day”? What the hell is going on here? Aren’t the U.S. and Mexico allies? Aren’t we friendly neighbors? What is the source of the friction? Isn’t the United States a melting pot where people of every ethnic heritage all live together in harmony as Americans — rather than being a collection of self-segregated ethnic enclaves seething with mutual hostility?
Also, if the United States and Mexico were at war, shouldn't "we" be on "our" side?

I also like this:

Let’s pause for a moment and peel back the layers. It seems that many of the Hispanic students at Live Oak High (and probably innumerable other high schools across the country) have been so inculcated with an “identity politics” curriculum that, under the rubric of instilling pride and self-esteem, they have been convinced that they are somehow distinct from and separate from the other American students; that “we” feel disrespected when forced to perceive an American flag.


The school administration then stirs in their own toxic contribution: An assumption (typical of the “soft racism” of leftist ideology) that Hispanic students will respond with violence when they feel disrespected (“the patriotic shirts could trigger fights” is the euphemism they used). Even worse, fearing violence from Hispanic students, the adminstrators solve the crisis by banishing the “offensive” items, rather than warning students that any violence will be severely punished. In other words, the racist administrators insultingly assumed that their Hispanic students would erupt in violence at the sight of an American flag, and the only way to prevent this is to cower at the presumptive violence and preemptively cave in to the mob’s demands that American flags be banned from campus.
As I said in the comments below, the pc/multi-culti presumptions seem to be that (a) the students are essentially "Mexican" and not American and (b) there is something hostile or contradictory to these "Mexican" students with respect to the American flag.


Simply put, if either of those assumptions are correct, then that suggests that school is failing in its basic public mission of integrating American students into American society.

That is just pathetic.  It's also unconstitutional as classic "viewpoint" discrimination.

Sunday, May 02, 2010

The Higher Intolerance.

An English streetcorner preacher is arrested, handcuffed and hauled off to the pokey by a homosexual Community Support Officer in England for engaging in the crime of free speech, to wit, asserting that homosexuality is a sin.

A Christian street preacher has been arrested and charged with a public-order offence after saying that homosexuality was sinful.


Dale Mcalpine was handing out leaflets to shoppers when he told a passer-by and a gay police community support officer that, as a Christian, he believed homosexuality was one of a number of sins that go against the word of God.

Mr Mcalpine said that he did not repeat his remarks on homosexuality when he preached from the top of a stepladder after his leafleting.

But he has been told that police officers are alleging they heard him making his remarks to a member of the public in a loud voice that could be overheard by others.
Heard by others????  Well, then, throw the book at him!  We can't have free speech going on where just anyone can hear it.

I can't tell if McAlpine is loopy.  Apparently, that streetcorner thing is big in England.  He sounds like a solid citizen:

Mr Mcalpine, 42, who earns about £40,000 a year in the energy industry, was arrested and taken to the local police station in the back of a police van after preaching in the Cumbrian town of Workington on April 20.


After seven hours locked up in a cell, he was charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour contrary to the Public Order Act 1986.

Mr Mcalpine – who has delivered open-air sermons and handed out leaflets in Workington for years, and has never been in trouble with the police – said the incident was one of the worst moments of his life.
Apparently, in England as in the U.S., giving little people a little power is a sure-fire way of creating Brown Shirts.
Mr Mcalpine said he and his church colleague handed out to passers-by leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a ‘ticket to heaven’.


He recalled: ‘It wasn’t very busy, but within about five minutes I noticed two police community support officers in fluorescent waistcoats and blue peaked caps watching from about ten feet.’

Mr Mcalpine said a woman came up to him and they became engaged in a debate about his faith, during which he says he recited a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians in the Bible, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery, drunkenness and homosexuality, as well as talking about repentance and salvation.

He and the woman were standing close to each other and he said he did not raise his voice.

Mr Mcalpine says that as the woman left, one of the two officers, PCSO Sam Adams, approached her and had a brief chat before walking towards him. Mr Mcalpine asked Mr Adams if everything was OK.

According to Mr Mcalpine, Mr Adams said there had been complaints and warned him that if he made racist or homophobic remarks he could be arrested. Mr Mcalpine said: ‘I told him I was not homophobic but sometimes I did say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator, but it was not against the law to say this.

‘The PCSO then told me he was gay and he was the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender liaison officer for the police. ‘I said, “It is still a sin”, and our conversation ended. It wasn’t a loud or aggressive conversation.
Hence, the fluorescent waistcoats.

Mr Adams has been a member of Cumbria police’s LGBT staff association and last year represented the force at the Gay Pride festival in Manchester, marching in the parade with a police dog named Whistle.


On the social networking site MySpace, he describes his orientation as gay and his religion as atheist.
Perhaps it is time for the Workington police to hire some Christian CSO officers in order to reach out to that minority community.

Or send CSO Adams to "insensitivity training" until he grows thicker skin.

Peter Hitchens has an essay below the news story where he opines:

Revolutions do not always involve guillotines or mobs storming palaces. Sometimes they are made by middle-aged gentlemen in wigs, sitting in somnolent chambers of the High Court.


Sometimes they are made by police officers and bureaucrats deciding they have powers nobody knew they had, or meant them to have.

And Britain is undergoing such a revolution – quiet, step-by-step, but destined to have a mighty effect on the lives and future of us all.

The Public Order Act of 1986 was not meant to permit the arrest of Christian preachers in English towns for quoting from the Bible. But it has. The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was not meant to force public servants to approve of homosexuality. But it has.
And:

How long before Christians are being blackmailed by work colleagues, for daring to speak their illegal views openly?


Daily the confidence of the new regime grows. The astonishing judgment of Lord Justice Laws last week, in which he pointedly snubbed Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, and mocked the idea that Christianity had any special place in our society, is a warning that this process has gone very deep and very far.

The frightening thing is that it has not stopped, nor is it slowing down. What cannot be said in a Workington street will soon be unsayable anywhere.

And if Christianity has officially ceased to be the basis of our law and the source of our state’s authority (a view which makes nonsense of the Coronation Service) who, and what – apart from the brute power of the manipulated mob – is to decide in future what is right, and what is not, and what can be said, and what cannot?

This process, if not halted, will lead in the end to the Thought Police and the naked rule of power.

The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was not meant to lead to a state of affairs where it is increasingly dangerous to say anything critical about homosexuality. But it did.
Aye, there's the rub.  Repealing laws against homosexual behavior seems to have become synonymous with endorsing the homosexual political agenda.  Isn't it possible that people don't want to hav homosexuals discriminated against at work, but don't want to have the institution of marriage redefined into a device for distributing tax benefits for any odd assortment of individuals?  Can't people want to stop the cruel invasion into bedroom privacy that was the potential under sodomy laws without losing their right to say that they have moral objections to that behavior?  If the lesson here is that the slope is really as slippery as it seems, then is the conclusion that it is only a question of who gets to enforce their morality on whom?
 
That isn't a situation conducive to social justice and civil peace, particularly since the majority is the one being oppressed under the "new regime."
 
Who links to me?