How large is the audience that believes this garbage? This Godwin-baiting meme of Hitler as a leftist is would be merely silly if it were not so sinister.
Claiming that the left is the source of political violence does not make it so. A quick review of history reveals the ignorance of this assertion. People are not motivated to violence by democratic collectivists. They are motivated to violence by authoritarian leaders who harness nationalistic and religious memes to further their own political power.
The characterization of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro as somehow representing democratic socialism only demonstrates the ignorance of the author.
Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Banning Burqas is Bad
So now, instead of a war on terror, we should start a war on Islamic fashion?
Is this really the current thinking in the shallow end of the pool?
This is an issue of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Banning the garb of a specific religious sect with no rational justification is a frontal attack on civil liberties.
I believe each and every person on the planet should have the right to choose what they want to wear - or not to wear. Banning the burqa is not the answer.
Religious garb should not be subject to discriminatory laws. If you don’t like the burqa, don’t wear one. But grow up and face the fact that some do choose it, and show some respect for that choice.
Is this really the current thinking in the shallow end of the pool?
This is an issue of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Banning the garb of a specific religious sect with no rational justification is a frontal attack on civil liberties.
I believe each and every person on the planet should have the right to choose what they want to wear - or not to wear. Banning the burqa is not the answer.
Religious garb should not be subject to discriminatory laws. If you don’t like the burqa, don’t wear one. But grow up and face the fact that some do choose it, and show some respect for that choice.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Marriage for Procreation, or Recreation?
Marriage vows don’t typically say anything about children. The purpose of marriage is the union of two persons in a legal bond. Regardless of the gender of the spouses, supporting long term relationships is the proper role of the government in sanctioning marriage.
There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.
Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.
There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.
Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Hate Speech and Conservative Vigilantism
The big problem is that so much of what passes for political discourse now depends on hyperbole. “Baby Killer” would be the recent pertinent example. Talking points and language are important.
The choice to use inflammatory, violent and hateful imagery is a conscious one, with predictable outcomes. It is possible to have civil discourse without so much frothing at the mouth, or at least without the deliberate provocation.
Violence in the service of religion or politics is a very dangerous tool. When in the service of both, it is decidedly deadly. I don’t see this dynamic as a significant part of the left wing - this violence is a conservative and reactionary response to liberal society.
So long as belief in imaginary omnipotents continues, the deranged adherents of such ideologies are likely to find cause to spread the word by the sword. The only long term solution is secular government and education.
The choice to use inflammatory, violent and hateful imagery is a conscious one, with predictable outcomes. It is possible to have civil discourse without so much frothing at the mouth, or at least without the deliberate provocation.
Violence in the service of religion or politics is a very dangerous tool. When in the service of both, it is decidedly deadly. I don’t see this dynamic as a significant part of the left wing - this violence is a conservative and reactionary response to liberal society.
So long as belief in imaginary omnipotents continues, the deranged adherents of such ideologies are likely to find cause to spread the word by the sword. The only long term solution is secular government and education.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
California Supremes Rule on Prop 8
The argument is now purely semantic. It means nothing to ban something in name only. Whether the term marriage is applied or not, gay unions are now part of the social landscape.
The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic - but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.
The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 - denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage - it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.
The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” - the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.
The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.
Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.
The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic - but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.
The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 - denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage - it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.
The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” - the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.
The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.
Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
