*** CONTENT WARNING THE CONTENTS OF THIS RANT CONTAIN WORDS THAT ARE VULGAR AND OFFENSIVE. WHILE I USUALLY KEEP MY POSTS CLEAN, AND RATHER ‘PG’ RATED, I FELT I COULD NOT RANT ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, AND MAINTAIN THAT COMPOSURE, SO I AM GIVING WARNING NOW. IF THE READER IS OFFENDED BY WORDS, PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER – YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED ***
This is disturbing to me. Back in March the Guardian Unlimited reported the New York City council voted unanimously to ban the word ‘nigger’ from New York City. Yes, I know, it was a symbolic ban. And there is not teeth in the ban, and even if there were, there is no way to enforce the ban. And frankly, banning the word nigger is not really a problem. But what is coming out of that ban is a problem.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.” – Billy Shakespeare
Using this timeless quote as a starting point, I paraphrase it a bit;
“What’s in a name? that which we call censorship By any other name would smell as foul.” – Bigsibling (by way of Billy Shakespeare)
Preachers, Reverends, and other ‘men of the cloth’ are getting nervous. And they have good reason to be nervous. Before the Senate, right now, is a new hate crimes bill. The bill would give stiffer penalties for anyone who injures or kills a person based on their gender, homosexuality or disability.
The men of God are nervous because, what if they preach that homosexuality is a sin? The Bible says it is a sin. The Torah says it is a sin, the Koran says it is a sin. In fact, I don’t know of any religion that condones homosexuality. Granted, I’m not any type of religious scholar, and I’m certain there is some fringe (i.e. non- mainstream) religion out there that promotes homosexuality. But the “Big 3″ so to speak, all condemn it.
What Mr. Preacher man is nervous about is that if he gets up on his pulpit, and preaches the evils of homosexuality (as related in the Bible), and one of his flock goes out later and kills some fag, will he be held liable for that? Can he be punished as inciting this action because he gave a sermon condemning homosexuality?
Many are believing that this will happen – in spite of the assurances by those fag loving dems like Kennedy. Personally? I think it will happen as well. Also, I don’t think the federal government should be getting into this business in the first place. This is a local issue. This is an issue for city, county and state lawmakers to deal with. I believe that the vast majority of states already have hate crimes laws on the books (I still can’t see why, if this beaner knifes a gringo, it is more hateful than if he knifes another beaner – go figure).
I fear there is something more insidious in this hate crimes bill that just making it more criminal to kill a fag than a straight, a person in a wheel chair than one walking around, or a woman than a man. I fear that this bill – like many that have been passed before it – is just another way for the federal government to rip away the rights of the states. This is the federal government making more and more laws that it should not, and really, has no right to make. Currently, if i kill another beaner, no problems with the feds. I am tried and incarcerated by the state. But, if I kill a gringo, suddenly it is a federal offense, and not only do I get state time for the crime I get federal time too. Granted, I do live the by adage “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”. But it seems to me, that soon enough almost all crime will be federal crime. Then we would not need the state courts any longer, and the states would not need their lawmakers and everything will be run from a strong federal government. Kinda like…oh…China, or the USSR.
This kind of thing just makes my blood boil. This is what Sharia Law brings to the western world. This is why we can’t allow Muslim communities to start their own Sharia courts to deal with problems internally.
Banaz Mahmod was a beautiful 20 year old woman. Just look at her picture (stolen for Reuters – thanks for not suing me!). Go ahead look into her dark eyes.
She was twenty years old. At 17 she was forced to marry a man whom she did not love. A man who regularly raped and beat her. She left this man in 2006 for another man. One who would presumably treat her as a human being.
Being Muslim, this brought shame upon her family. So, according to the laws of Islam, they brutally raped her, beat her and finally, after two and a half hours of pure brutality, killed her. 2 1/2 hours. That is longer than most people will sit in a movie theater watching a movie. That is FIVE episodes of Hannah Montana. That is a damn long time!
This is what Sharia Law brings to the west. By all accounts, the perpetrators are not fanatics. They are not extremists or terrorists. By all accounts they are normal, everyday Muslims living the everyday Muslim life. One of peace and understanding and love and tolerance. They are so tolerant, they brutally rape, beat and murder a woman because she leaves her Iraqi husband, and falling in love with an Iranian man.
In the recordings, transcripts of which were relayed to the court, [Mohamad] Hama and his friend are hearing laughing as he described how she was killed with Banaz’s uncle “supervising”. “I was kicking and stamping on her neck to get the soul out. I saw her stark naked, only wearing pants or underwear,” Hama is recorded as saying.
And these people actually took joy in the torture and murder of a
woman. For what? This disgusts me to no end. This…this is from their
so-called ‘religion of peace.’ The religion which is a peaceful one,
which only seeks to co-exist with everybody and respects everybody’s
rights.
This…this is your religion of peace, open and for all to see. Sure, the men were captured and convicted. Sure they will spend a long time in prison (cannot be executed because they are in England). But that does not, and will never, bring back the life they so joyfully and callously brutalized and exterminated.
A lawn care company in Memphis, TN has a twist on service. Instead of sending just anyone to cut your lawn, they’ll send a shapely female type person to cut your lawn…while wearing a bikini. I’m sure the illegal aliens who used to cut the lawns in Memphis will be screaming and crying about Americans taking away their jobs.
The University of Utah has some scientists that work with primates (that means chimps and monkeys and animals like that for those of you who went to public school). They do different experiments (I don’t know what kind, but since they are scientists, I’m going to assume that they are some sort of scientific experiments). On the other side, there are animal rights activists who don’t like that the cute furry little primates are used for scientific purposes. These activists started protesting at the homes of the faculty members who are experimenting or are otherwise involved in experimentations involving the primates. After publishing their names, addresses and phone numbers on the internet.
The problem came that the private property of the the scientists have routinely been vandalized during these “peaceful protests”. Dousing their lawns with a salt solution (killing the poor, innocent grass – those bastiches), spattering paint on driveways, squirting glue in locks and breaking windows. The city’s response to this was to create a 100 foot buffer zone for private residences. Protesters may not enter within 100 feet of any private residence they plan to picket.
On the surface, we have to look at the freedom of speech issue, and the right to peaceably assemble. Does the creation of a buffer zone impede on the free speech of those that protesters? The protesters’ are not being censored or silenced. They are simply being moved farther away. There are several of these types of laws around the country. During the Clinton, and continuing with the Bush administrations, for appearances there are designated ‘protest’ zones (usually quite aways away from the actual appearance).
Many cities and states have enacted laws to limit the time and scope of protests at funerals (this is in response to the Phelps cult who protest military funerals for the sake of causing hardship to the survivors).
It seems to me that these people exceeded their right to peaceably assemble, when they started vandalizing property. When that started happening, their assembly was not longer peaceful, but criminal. This, IMO, is where all this can be traced back to. If they had not caused damage to the scientists’ property, this law would not have been enacted. It appears the law is there to protect the property of the protestees (without requiring a police line for every protest) than it is to silence anyone. And lets face it, 100 feet isn’t very far. It isn’t down the block. It is across the street. Still plenty close enough to get their point across.
I’m all for the right to free speech, whether I agree with it or not, and the right to peaceably assemble. But that line gets crossed when people start damaging property and threatening others.
There are those running around trying to intimidate and coerce web hosting companies to drop or censor blogs and websites they do not agree with. Case is point is “The Yes Men“. I had never heard of the Yes Men before reading this article over at CNet News. But in looking at their site, it seems a little like “The Onion” – only with more bite. The Yes Men created a satire about how Exxon Mobil has learned to make money by turning climate change victims into a new fuel called vivoleum. It is a ridiculous premise with roots in the movie “Soylent Green” where, in an over-populate, starving world with diminishing resources, Charlton Heston learns that a brand new food source called Soylent Green is more than what people might think.
The group’s web hosting company blocked their email the next day, and told them they had to take down the Exxon Mobil parody before they would be able to receive any more email. It seems that Exxon Mobile was quick on the uptake, and probably threatened a long expensive lawsuit, that even though they would lose, would cost the hosting company lots of time and money. [source]
With this type of thing in mind, I point you to the blog post by Jimmy Atkinson of The Dedicated Hosting Guide. He lists 11 Web Hosts That Won’t Dump You at the First Sign of Controversy. Good job there Jimmy! It is good to know that there are those of us who still believe in the freedom afforded us by the First Amendment!
Mr. [Bill] Whatcott writes, “I can’t figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all Muslims who practise Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals.”
This, according to Montrealier Ms. Marie-Line Gentes, is hateful and should not be allowed to be posted on a website hosted in Canada. The website, freedominion.ca (go ahead, click it, you know you want to), has the dubious honor of being the recipient of Gentes complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Council.
And Gentes isn’t even a Muslim. But in her complaint she states:
“even though I am not Muslim myself and I do believe in freedom of speech … I believe that these messages are threatening for Muslims who live in Canada, contribute to racial tensions and can exacerbate discrimination and hostility towards Muslims.”
Because he says that if Muslims who practice Sharia law have their way, gays would be beheaded. This is hate speech according to her?
Now, I don’t know what the CHRC does really, or what teeth they have or, if found guilty of violating the human rights of Muslims by stating truths and facts about their religion, what kind of fines might be imposed upon Connie Wilkens (owner of freedominion.ca). But I know this – thank God I am in the United States of America, where people like Gentes and her ilk (ahem ‘rev‘) have to hand-holding, nose-wiping, cry-baby government department to go to and try and censor those they don’t agree with.
It seems in Hammond, Illinois there was a festival of sorts, we’ll call it the “Festival of the Lakes” (mostly because… that’s what it is called). This festival is held on public grounds, and the general public are invited to attend. Enter Mr. Joel Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson is…well, I won’t go so far as to call him a nutball, but he does actively support the erstwhile libertine Dr. Ron Paul in his bid for the republican presidential nomination. One can do their own homework and Google this Ron Paul fellow. I’m not getting into his campaign here, but let’s suffice it to say that some of this ideas are pretty far out there. Far enough to be (by me at least) considered a fringe candidate. Heck, I think Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (who?) is even ranked higher in the polls than this Paul fellow.
Mr. Ferguson found out the hard way that if one is going to hand out political diatribe at the Festival of the Lakes, it ought to be from a mainstream candidate. Three different days he attended the festival, handing out his fliers urging people to put away their brains and vote for Ron Paul. And three times he was removed by the coppers.
Of course, Mr. Ferguson is now decrying that his First Amendment rights have been trampled. And rightly he should. This was a public function in a public venue. And because there weren’t any other people handing out political literature, does not make it wrong to do so. I am pretty damned sure if someone was handing out pro Obama, or Hillary, or Guiliani literature, they would have been left alone. But because this was a fringe candidate whom many see as kind of a kooky fellow anyway, it must be ok to trample on Mr. Ferguson’s rights.
Crescent of Betrayal Blogroll
Kansas Bloggers
Stumble it!
About
