Note the following excerpt from the article link:
"Golden says the agenda item on the hotline is "extensive" and a "real dilemma" for the ACLU. There are some very "broad standards" laid out in the resolution.
There is, for instance, the policy statement condemning the usual individual or collective acts of racism and bigotry. Great. But it also condemns those who attack "personal beliefs and values."
"Well, for the ACLU, that goes over the line," Golden says. "You can object to free speech just because someone is a Republican or a Democrat."
What would happen to the bumper- sticker industry?
So, it seems that since purifying our thoughts is still beyond technology's reach, Boulder will now attempt to achieve politically correct speech codes in other ways."
This "hate speech" hotline demonstrates the possible far reaching effect of any kind of "hate-crimes law." It would go as far as to criminalize the free speech rights of millions of Americans. Do we really want that?
I dislike many of the ridiculous, vulgar and/or disparaging comments that are often hurled at Christians. But would I really want a law to shut them up? Once started, where does it end?
Of course, physical violence should never be condoned (unless the person is in a war zone or attempting to protect life, limb and family). But let's look at one case in point. The Matthew Shepard murder was awful and tragic...terrible in fact. Many TV movies and even a play was written to honor his life and untimely death. But as time went on, we found out that he wasn't beaten and killed because of his sexual orientation. He was actually killed so the perpetrators could get his money.
The article sites a similar case involving a physical assault:
Phillip Martinez beat up a 22-year-old African-American mechanical-engineering student named Andrew Sterling last year in Boulder. He was sentenced to the maximum of 16 years in prison. The jury wisely decided to drop "ethnic intimidation" charges.
Would a hate-line have helped Sterling? Martinez was from Lafayette, not Boulder. He was drunk. He may not have even cared that Sterling was black.
The article brings up a very important point:
Should everyone keep the hate-line number on their cellphone speed dial from now on? And remember, only call if your attacker uses racist or insensitive language while beating you to a pulp. After all, according to hate-law advocates, it's not genuine hate unless the perpetrator makes fun of your heritage.
Hate-law advocates. Sounds like a new buzzword for the intimidation, jamming, desensitizing, indoctrination and conversion crowd! That's the problem. Most (admittedly not all) hate-law advocates are from the liberal left side of the political spectrum.
Why is that?
Perhaps the Scott Savage case can shed some light on why this is so. In his latest rebuttal against OSU professor Christopher Phelps, Mr. Savage recommends:
As a librarian, I have a reading suggestion for the professor: The American
Association of University Professors' statement on academic freedom, which begs
to differ.
It says that, "Institutions of higher education are conducted for
the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition." That really says it all.
I was pleased to read that librarian Scott Savage is fighting back against those who attempted to brand him with bogus "hate speech" and "sexual harassment" claims just for recommending a conservative book for incoming freshman at OSU's Mansfield campus.
Finally, David Harsanyi ends his column with a short paragraph that tells us why criminalizing perceived "hate speech" by those on the opposite side of the politically correct crowd is just a disguised version of quelching the free speech rights of those who disagree.
"These things have come up with attempts to criminalize hate speech on campus, those kinds of situations," explains Golden. "Certainly, if it just provides an opportunity to call and have a welcome voice and some kinds of soothing response to their concerns, that would be fine. Speech is good."
Speech is good? Well, not always. But it should generally be free.
*******
Added on at 11:44 a.m.
David Limbaugh has a good article on the radical homosexual lobby aggressively pushing its agenda on society. He offers us a different perspective on Gay 'rights' – who is harassing whom?
Posts
5 comments:
Wow. I just read part 9 in Brent Gideon's homosexual propaganda series at Alain's Newsletter. Truly eye-opening (and documented) stuff!
It's ironic that there was also an ad on the page inviting members of the Ex-Gay Watch group to read these posts! I wonder if they did??
Whoops. That link was to the comments. You can access the article here.
I was called a "hatemonger" by someone who recently posted a comment here. I deleted it. Frankly, she should look in the mirror...
I guess she didn't bother to read Brent's article. If she did, she would have seen herself behaving in lock step with the typical pro-homosexual propaganda activist.
You have to wonder why she would label someone like me in such a derogatory way. I oppose the disparagement of ex-gay people and support their free speech efforts to share that homosexuals can change either through therapy or through faith in Jesus Christ. You have to wonder why she would be angry. Why should she care? The following quote from the article tells us:
"Heterosexuals must be made to accept the claim of homosexuals that they cannot change. Most of the sources I've looked into, however, state otherwise. Particularly damning in this regard are the poignant testimonies that come from ex-homosexuals themselves. These individuals are often disparaged by "gays" and lesbians still trapped in the "lifestyle" as liars, traitors, and stooges of the political and religious right. For a group of people who loudly and persistently claim to have been the victims of "mean-spirited" and "hateful" oppression, their persecution of those who have voluntarily left the homosexual “lifestyle” is astounding.
Socarides wrote, "There is at present sufficient evidence that in a majority of cases homosexuality can be successfully treated by psychoanalysis, or at least that its symptoms and suffering can be greatly alleviated (Socarides 1989, 3)." He also stated, "Homosexuals often express doubt about whether their condition can ever be reversed. The homosexual who attempts to extricate himself from a community of homosexuals is often tagged a 'traitor,' one who threatens to invalidate their claims of having been born that way and being 'special' (Ibid, 5)."
I have tremendous empathy for formerly gay people. They have been through the "ringer" so to speak; first as a gay person, and then, they are viciously labeled as "traitors", and are rejected and disparaged by the gay community who once claimed to love them. Why? Because they have successfully changed. That is the only reason. This change threatens the legitimacy for the need for any additional so-called 'gay-rights.' That's the crux of the matter, people.
As for this ex-gay watch blog person who wants to label me a 'hatemonger' perhaps she is correct. I will tell you what I hate about gay rights propaganda and advocacy. It was originally written in response to those who might call me "homophobic." "Homophobic" "hatemonger"...same difference. I wrote this several years ago, but it often serves as the best answer whenever someone hurls such accusations at me:
Homophobes and hatemongers are:
"1. People who believe that steering kids away from homosexuality is compassionate; promoting it under the guise of “fighting hate” is tragic and cruel.
2. People who object to the schools forcibly exposing their children to harmful sex instruction that conflicts with their values.
3. People (especially parents) who recognize that their rights are being eroded, trivialized and targeted for destruction by homosexual militants.
4. People who believe that schools can teach civility toward all without teaching that homosexual behavior must be accepted as normal and healthy.
5. People who recognized and are alarmed by the fact that the “hate crimes” curriculum is a tool by homosexual activists to advance their agenda of recruiting children. GLSEN’s “sexual orientation” theory presented to children is a blatant attempt to persuade those who are sexually confused to try the homosexual lifestyle.
6. People who recognize that leftist education elitists have no right to indoctrinate children with their immoral political or social beliefs. We need to ensure that school is about academics – not about immoral beliefs. Gay activists know that by undermining the values taught by parents, the hearts and minds of children can be changed. Therefore subversion, not tolerance, is their goal.
7. People who know that, “ there are powerful and convincing scientific and social grounds supporting our position that homosexuality is a harmful lifestyle that gays and lesbians can leave if they choose,” as stated by Jeffrey Satinover M.D. in his book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.”
8. Parents who discovered that some homosexual groups are leading the effort to lower or abolish “age of consent” laws which currently prohibit adults from having sex with children (pedophilia). This is what has developed over the years as a result of the now exposed fraudulent scientific basis of the 1953 Kinsey report. Did you know that in order for Kinsey to obtain his “data” nine pedophiles molested and raped children aged anywhere from infancy to age 10 for Kinsey, who, interpreted the tears, groans and violent cries from the children to be “sexual climaxes”?
Yet, despite all of this disturbing information, taking a stand against the gay agenda in public schools can lead to public vilification. “If you protest,” says Brian Camenker of the Parents Rights Coalition of Massachusetts, “be prepared to be stone-walled and sneered by public officials, smeared in the press, and denounced as a hate-monger and a bigot by gay activists.” Yet what choice is left to parents but to fight? “We’re facing an incredible evil here. It chills you to the bone.” Says Camenker, an Orthodox Jew brought closer to his faith by this struggle. “The only way we’re not going to get run over is if people wake up to what’s happening to our children.” “These people are bullies,” he continues, “People are afraid of them, afraid of being called homophobes. I don’t enjoy this, but this is America, and I’m not going to run away.”
My stand back then and now remains the same:
Christine: "I’m not going to run away either, Brian."
Speaking of Brian Camenker, just go to his MassResistance website and see what gross and disgusting things are being taught and pushed upon students by various radical homosexual groups. Warning...it's shocking.
*******
The Lord equips us with spiritual armor:
The Whole Armor of God
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of *the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints-- 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. (bold mine)
Ephesians 6:10-20 (NKJV)
An excellent related article written by Ben Shapiro called: The California Homosexual Activists' Assault on Children
Apparently, the "Day of Silence" wasn't so 'silent' after all.
Perhaps they should re-name it, "Day of Homosexual Indoctrination." At least that title would be more honest in describing what is actually going on...
Post a Comment