I’m not laughing with you…

I’m not going to sugarcoat it. The Editorial and Letters to the Editor pages at the Daily Oklahoman are just fucking pathetic. It’s just sad that the largest newspaper in my home state publishes such utter dribble. To me, they’re rarely good for anything more than a laugh. So I figured, I might check in and see what kinds of things make them laugh

Ten Commandments critics’ claims laughable

Ha ha! Those silly people who think we should have to follow the Constitution! It’s so laughable! Who needs the Constitution when we have totally non-laughable things like the Bible, which says important things like this:

2 Kings 18:27

But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Serious shit, people.

We’ve raised questions about the wisdom of installing a Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma Capitol — not because we disagree with the commandments’ content, but because limited taxpayer dollars will likely be wasted on an unsuccessful legal defense.

You don’t disagree with the commandments’ content? Not even this one?

Exodus 20:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

So you’re totally cool with slavery and men treating their wives like property? ‘Cause the author of that verse clearly is.

The U.S. Supreme Court has sent mixed signals, upholding some Decalogue monuments but ruling against others. Monuments passing court review have been components of larger, long-standing historical displays. The Oklahoma monument is a stand-alone item, likely undermining state arguments for its constitutionality.

A perfectly sensible paragraph. If only everything you wrote were like this. But the sense and rationality bus comes to a screeching halt and explodes in a ball of fiery pettiness and bad logic from here on out.

Even so, the claims of some critics are laughable. This week, New Jersey-based American Atheists Inc. and Oklahoma residents Aimee Breeze and William Poire filed a lawsuit challenging the monument. Breeze regularly travels to the Capitol during legislative sessions. As a result, the complaint claims that she’s “confronted” by the Ten Commandments display, which she finds “hurtful and exclusive.”

Seriously? The monument is on the north side of the Capitol. The main parking lot is on the south side. The main pedestrian entrances are on the south, east and west sides. To actually see the monument, you’d have to go looking for it. If Breeze is being “confronted” by the display, she’s deliberately going out of her way to experience this allegedly “hurtful” situation.

Where the hell do you get the balls to call other people’s arguments laughable when this is the putrid shit you spew?

“We put the monument on a side of the building where there are fewer people. If there are fewer people, then there are no people, and no one ever has a reason to go to it. Therefore, I get cupcakes!”

That’s the best I can do to parse out the illogical dumbfuckery on display here. Hey, Daily Oklahoman, how the fuck to you know which side of the building she goes to while she’s there?  Were you there? Do you know her? Do you know her routine? Did you ask her? If the answer to these questions is No (and I’m sure it is), then that last sentence came directly from somewhere between Saturn and Neptune. You have abso-fucking-lutely no way of knowing what her reasons for being on the north side of the building are.

Besides, even if she did go out of her way to see it, how the fuck does that undermine her argument? Rosa Parks got on that bus deliberately looking to get kicked off when she refused to go to the back. Does that make her claim that she was discriminated against “laughable”? Whether she was deliberately looking for it or not, she was discriminated against either way. Why she was there is god damn irrelevant.

And do you seriously expect people to buy this obviously fallacious “If it’s on a side of the building where fewer people go, then the complaints must be illegitimate” crap? If ANYBODY can see it then it’s in a public place and such complaints have at least some legitimacy. A ten year old could see the fucking holes in your logic. I fucking dare you to try an argument like that in court. The judge will likely find it, well, fucking laughable.

The lawsuit also claims the monument establishes a “thought crime” against coveting your neighbor’s wife, and restricts free speech rights through prohibitions on worshipping graven images and taking the Lord’s name in vain. Nonsense! There are no actual state laws against those activities.

Those are their italics. I didn’t put them there. They really want  to emphasize that last point. So here, let me use some italics of my own to emphasize the only rational conclusion any sane person should reach from this:

The Ten Commandments have precisely fuck-all to do with American law.

They came from a society where thoughts COULD be a crime. They came from a society that practiced slavery and traded women like they were fuckable action figures. They came from a society that had no religious freedom at all, no Bill of Rights, and you were taking your life in your hands if you said anything indicating you don’t believe in the Magical Pervert in the Sky.

They. Are. Not. Our. Laws. So what the fuck are they doing at our capitol? And why the fuck are you so confused when someone points out that putting them there is offensive?

Want to “worship” a statue you made in wood shop? Knock yourself out. Want to lust after married women or men? You can do so, although we wouldn’t recommend it.

Want to go to the capitol without being told that you’re inferior and this capitol isn’t really for you? Well too bad, unless you’re Christian or Jewish.

An individual’s actions can be immoral without being illegal, just as a monument can be a bad idea without validating the overwrought claims of its thin-skinned critics.

I really wish the right wing would get that first part through their glacially thick skulls. That would end every single argument against gay marriage.

But the latter half of that sentence is just fucking dumb. The monument at the capitol isn’t just a bad idea. It’s ILLEGAL. And, more importantly, its actual purpose is very, very clear. Apparently, the editors at the Oklahoman don’t read their own letters column, or else they’d already know what the bigots who read their pathetic rag think this monument is for:

The First Amendment doesn’t mandate the Christian faith for each person; however, it does mandate the freedom to worship as one chooses — or not at all. Ten Commandments monuments on public property are a tribute that recognizes our historic, constitutional commitment to the principles and values that the Ten Commandments provide. Other faiths not based on and committed to honoring the Ten Commandments don’t truthfully represent this Christian nation and its commitment to these civilizing principles and values. Neither can their monuments.

Got that? Only Christianity–with its “civilizing” principles–can represent the USA #1 RAH RAH RAH. So we can only put up the 10 commandments. Not, say, the Five Pillars of Islam, or something from Hinduism, or a fucking awesome Satanist statue. Nope, just Christians. They get special treatment. The rest of you don’t even have civilizing principles, you heathen barbarians!

So, no, their claims are not overwrought. The obvious purpose of the monument is to promote Christianity while denying that promotion to every other religious belief, thereby demeaning everyone who isn’t Christian. It’s not laughable for someone to claim to feel hurt by that.

The monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by elevating one religion over others and thereby creating an establishment of religion. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing Christians to put up monuments but not Satanists or Muslims or Humanists. Hell, it might even violate the  No Religious Test Clause in Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, if you consider “Guy who puts the monument up” to be an office or trust. That last one’s quite a stretch, I admit. But it’s still better reasoning than the laughable shit the Oklahoman comes up with.

Advertisements

Religion vs. Reality

WingNutDaily has a story out of Washington about a woman who has made a very poor career choice.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson recently sued a Richland florist, Barronelle Stutzman, for alleged violations of state law authorizing same-sex “marriage,” but now he is finding himself a defendant for allegedly trying to violate the state and federal constitutions’ religious freedom provisions.

Bit of advice: If you don’t want to be around gay people, DON’T BECOME A FUCKING FLORIST.

But how exactly did she violate the “state law authorizing same-sex marriage”? How is that even possible? Here’s what voters in Washington voted on:

The ballot title reads as follows:[4]

The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be:

Approved [ ]

Rejected [ ]

The ballot measure is accompanied by the following summary:

This bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnerships are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement.

There’s nothing in there to break. There are no penalties mentioned. How could anyone “violate” this law?

Stutzman has served homosexual clientele with a wide range of floral products over many years, and also has employed those who portray themselves as homosexual, with no issue. But she decided she could not, without violating her faith, give the appearance of endorsing same-sex “marriage” by creating special services for such an event, according to legal documents in her case.

A few things here.

  • The same sex marriage law in Washington says nothing about fucking floral arrangements, so WND is clearly misrepresenting which law she’s alleged to be in violation of.
  • They’re likely doing this on purpose in order to create the illusion that legalizing gay marriage somehow harmed someone.
  • So if you provide floral arrangements, that means you endorse said wedding? Who made that fucking rule? If a serial killer eats a McRib, does that make Ronald McDonald a proponent of axe-murder?
  • There’s that word “special” that we see again and again from the dumbass wingnuts who want gays to be second class citizens. If a florist provides THE EXACT SAME SERVICE that a straight person gets to a gay person, that service suddenly becomes “special”.
  • She has Gay Friends. So it’s not like she hates gays. It’s all about Jeeeeeebus.
  • And you just gotta love the way WND insists on putting scare quotes around “marriage” whenever it’s a gay doing it. Note that this is not an opinion piece. They do this even in their articles which are supposed to be straight news. (See what I did there?)

Moving on, what in the great gobblin’ shitbuckets is this countersuit based on?

The countersuit asks for a declaration that Ferguson’s actions are “unlawful” and to enjoin similar future actions, reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and “such other relief that the court deems just and equitable.”

The countersuit was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys on behalf of Stutzman, whom they already were defending from the attorney general’s complaint.

If there were a Bad Legal Advice Hall of Fame, this countersuit would have its own wing. I’ve already pointed out that there’s nothing in the law legalizing gay marriage that has anything to do with fucking flowers.  The law she actually violated is this one:

RCW 49.60.030

Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

That’s right. Washington prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. News articles about this issue clearly state this:

“Because she refused to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding,” the ACLU’s website states, “defendant Barronelle Stutzman aided Arlene’s Flowers in violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination by discriminating against the Plaintiffs on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

Maybe the ADF and WND should have paid a little more attention. And by a little more I mean any at all. She clearly broke the law. This countersuit has no hope of succeeding whatsoever, and is only going to be a big waste of money for them. Oh, and get this:

“He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told KEPRTV News.

How does a sentence like that even exist? How could anyone possibly utter something so nonsensical and imbecilic without her brain giving up, shutting down, and putting her body into a permanent catatonic state?

“Everyone knows that plenty of florists are willing to assist in same-sex ceremonies, so the state has no reason to force Barronelle to violate her deeply held beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt.

Do these guys really think that argument is going to fly? I’d love to see them try that in court.

“Your honor, I hearby submit that it is okay for me to break the law because there are other people who don’t break it.”

*Lawyer permanently enters catatonic state. He is placed on the courthouse lawn as a warning to others. He is later murdered by Mayor McCheese, who is exonerated on the basis that there are other people who wouldn’t have murdered him.*

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions. Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

Boiler, meet plate.

It’s especially amusing that they refer to our “cherished diversity” while defending a woman against a discrimination charge. Cherished by whom, exactly? Certainly not by any of the god-humpers. But they do have a worrying penchant for heaping praise the very things they fight against. The praise freedom while fighting to restrict it. They insist on the importance of equal rights while doing everything in their power to preserve inequality.  They babble about how much god loves women while carefully inserting as much government as they can into every vagina that walks the land. They love the Constitution, but try to violate it every chance they get. Jesus loves the poor and sick so much that he wants them to stay that way! It’s more to love, right?

Dumbshits.

More Oklahomans make fools of themselves

I already looked at one idiotic argument against gay marriage from my home state of Oklahoma. That particular bit of stupidity was from just some random schmuck in Edmond. Today’s bit of drooling inanity, however, comes from people with actual power. Three state legislators, to be precise.

Young Oklahoma Republican lawmakers: Sanctity of marriage must endure

BY STATE REPS. ELISE HALL, JUSTIN WOOD AND JOSH COCKROFT

Note to bigots: If you want people to represent your position on gay marriage, you should not get guys called “Wood” and “Cockroft” to do it. You’re basically just inviting assholes like me to make fun of you.

As the three youngest members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives Republican caucus, we continue to believe that the push for a new definition of marriage is an attempt to carve out a special right that has no basis in the traditions of our country.

Since when do rights need to have a basis in tradition? Did women’s right to vote have any basis in tradition? Did equal rights for blacks have any basis in tradition?

We believe that all Americans deserve to be treated with dignity…

Okay. I’m not playing bullshit bigot boilerplate any more. Just move on to the obvious contradiction of this statement that you will inevitably make…

but that equal treatment has no bearing on the question of how marriage is defined.

So we can just throw out Loving v. Virginia and start banning interracial marriage again. Because the definition of marriage has nothing to do with equality. Nothing at all.

You see this thing I’m doing here? It’s a rare (on the right wing) form of thinking called “following a sentence through to its logical implications.” You might want to try it some time. Because I don’t think equality having nothing to do with marriage is anything you would ever actually want to stand by.

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. It’s not defined as a union between a man and another man nor a woman and another woman.

Don’t you just love how right wingers suddenly turn into strident lexicographers whenever the prospect of people they don’t even know having a relationship they don’t approve of comes up? We can’t redefine marriage! Think of the damage it will do to our dictionaries!

Doing so would represent creating a new right, not adhering to any previously understood right.

Bullshit. Giving women the right to vote didn’t “create a new right”. It took an existing right and extended it to a new group of people. That’s how this whole “equal rights” thing works.

Is gay marriage gaining traction with young people? Yes. But that is because of the moralistic relativity that is constantly being promoted by Hollywood and in many areas of pop culture today. The idea that is too frequently becoming the norm is that everything is allowed and nothing is off limits.

It’s pop culture’s fault! If we censored movies and made it harder to have this conversation, then we could be bigots all we want without ever having to worry about public exposure!

Whenever there’s some kind of moral panic, people often target some aspect of pop culture as the supposed cause of all our problems.  In the 20s it was jazz music and dancing. In the 30s it was movies.  In the 50s it was comic books. In the 60s it was rock music. In the 70s, heavy metal. Pornography, video games, horror films, gangster rap music, reality TV–all have found themselves in the cross hairs of sanctimonious culture warriors who want an easy target to solve all their problems. The reason is simple: pop culture is an easy target. It’s highly visible, and there’s always someone out there who finds some aspect of it offensive (usually because it depicts something unfamiliar to them). And, as any rational person might suspect, there is little evidence that pop culture actually has the power over people’s minds that the culture warriors say it does. Pop culture reflects us much more than we reflect it.

But culture warriors rarely care about facts. They care about airy principles and vaguely defined “values”. The myth of American “moral relativism” is a perfect example of this. Whenever right wing douche-nozzles like these guys talk of “moral relativism”, replace the term with “moral system different from my own” and you get their real point. I doubt there are very many Americans who believe “everything is allowed and nothing is off limits.” If there were, the murder and rape rates would be MUCH higher than they actually are because of all the people who just kill and take whatever they want. But the vast majority of Americans do in fact realize that these things are wrong, and don’t do them. They’re not moral relativists–they just have a moral system that differs from the Evangelical system, which is good, since the Evangelical system is based on bigotry, ignorance, superstition, venality, hatred, and pervasive stupidity.

God intended one man and one woman to be tied in holy matrimony for their entire lives.

No. God intended for Evangelicals to shut the fuck up and leave gay people alone.

I have just as much evidence to support my hypothesis as you do yours.

Proponents of gay marriage will point fingers at straight couples getting divorces, but that’s not the fault of traditional marriage — that’s an issue for each individual couple to deal with and answer to God. Humans are flawed individuals and fall short of the grace and glory of God. That, unfortunately, includes marriages that end. It is a straw-man argument.

It’s still better than “God says so.” Unless you’ve got a good solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma, your divine command ethics is up shit creek without a god-paddle.

And, no, it’s not a straw man. Bigoted douchenuggets repeatedly argue that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because children need both a mother and a father. Pointed out that divorce results in children being raised without one or the other–but we still don’t outlaw straight marriage–is entirely relevant.

Gay marriage proponents argue that long-term gay couples deserve the right to marry so they can maneuver certain legal matters dealing with things ranging from wills to being put on life insurance policies. There are alternate ways to address legal issues. A widespread acceptance of nontraditional marriage is not the way to go.

Not there aren’t other ways. Oklahoma has a frickin’ constitutional amendment which specifies that there not be any. Not only is gay marriage outlawed, but so are domestic partnerships and civil unions. There is no legal recourse, and assholes like your are precisely the reason why.

This is like putting someone in a cage, locking the only door, then saying, “It’s your fault for not finding another way out.” And it confirms one of the most important lessons we can draw from this whole gay marriage debate: The Religious Right is made up of a bunch of assholes.

We feel young Republicans and conservatives are open-minded and, in some ways, are very different from their parents’ generation. That doesn’t mean we are ready to stand for allowing the legal definition of marriage to be stretched into areas it does not belong for the pursuit of convenience or social pressure.

Go fuck yourself.

Is the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital a matter of “convenience”? If you think it is, then you really are a completely inhuman piece of shit. And the state legislature of Oklahoma is starting to fill up with these. I keep hoping that the next election will give it a good flush, but find myself disappointed year after year.

Sigh. Why do you do this to me, Sooner State? Why?

America: Teabagged by God

Over at the WingNutDaily, legendary deep thinker Pat Boone has copiously spewed forth once again on gay marriage, and gifted us with yet another nuanced and erudite rumination on sexual politics in America.

LAW OF THE LAND

Still one nation under God, or not?

Exclusive: Pat Boone prays for ‘9 humans who will decide future of America’

When WingNutDaily calls an article “exclusive”, it can mean only one of three things:
  1. It’s not actually exclusive, and a dozen other websites are reporting it.
  2. It’s actually a thinly disguised advertizement for some charlatan “natural” cure or survivalist claptrap.
  3. It’s an op-ed so stupid, crazy, malevolent, incoherent and/or pointless that no one else would dream of publishing it.
This is definitely an instance of case #3.
Would you allow a doctor, no matter his credentials, to infuse you with pig blood?
Wait, I thought this was about gay marriage… Is pig blood code for dick?
My mother, herself a trained registered nurse, received a pig valve in her heart in her ’80s, and it apparently extended her life to almost 91.
So your mom’s gay? What the hell are you babbling about, Pat?
But pig blood? In her veins, mixing her human blood with that of a pig?
You’re fine with tissue, but incredulous about blood. Okay. Where is this going?
Never! And no doctor worthy of his certificate would ever suggest it.
Fine. I won’t infuse you with pig blood, or dick, or whatever it is you’re going on about.
Why? Because human beings are created different from other animal forms. While we can accept blood from other humans, we dare not corrupt or pollute our human blood with that of any other life form.
A few points:
  1. Ever heard of blood types? You can’t take just any human blood and put it in anybody else.
  2. You can’t put walrus blood in a yak, either. And I don’t see sharks being very receptive to a pig blood transfusion. The immune system would reject it. The fact that you can’t put just any blood in our veins doesn’t exactly make us special.
  3. What the fuck exactly is your point?

Our DNA forbids it, and it’s not negotiable. Messing with our created state is deadly.

Then why are the pig valves okay? Did the DNA just get sloppy?

What is America’s DNA?

An overplayed, Ur-Fascist and essentialist metaphor abused by self-righteous nationalists to disenfranchise those who supposedly aren’t American enough?

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Catch that word, their “Creator”? Our founders knew – and publicly proclaimed – that our rights, and life itself, flowed directly from the power and benevolence of our Creator!

Actually, it’s just a bit of rhetorical flourish that you’re reading way too much into.

And that a democratic republic, unprecedented in human history, must be comprised of, and governed by, individuals who would diligently endorse and obey the rules laid out by that Creator for the continuance of that free society.

Again, a few points:

  1. America was not the first democracy or the first republic or the first mixture of the two. There are these things called Greece and Rome you might want to look into.
  2. If you actually read what the founders such as Jefferson and Madison wrote (rather than just regurgitating fake or out-of-context quotes you get from frauds like David Barton), you’d realize that they were keenly aware of the fact that the will of the “creator” differs depending on whom you ask.
  3. Again, is there a point to any of this?

There was no other way to perpetuate our new liberties, including equality for all citizens.

Yes, all the citizens get equally butt-fucked by the patriarchal Christian tyrant in power.

That way was based completely on the Bible, and on the precepts God had revealed unmistakably in His Book. Without the Bible, we would never have had our Constitution.

In fact, the Bible is so important to the Constitution that it is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and the drafters of the Constitution actively resisted attempts to put religious language in the document.

The signers of the Constitution knew that full well. Has anybody ever informed you that virtually all the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution of 1787 were members of Christian denominations?

Has anybody ever informed you that literally all of them were wealthy white males, and many of them owned slaves? If the fact that most were Christian means that Christians should dominate everything, then the fact that they were also wealthy white male slave owners should mean that we should role back rights for women, blacks and the poor, right?

Some revisionists today want you to believe otherwise. When I talked about this with Bill Maher, a cynical unbeliever, he sent me an Los Angeles Times article declaring that all the framers were deists or outright atheists, not Christians.

I responded, drawing his attention to the byline, attributing the distortion of facts to a member of an atheist organization who deliberately lied, ignoring the historically recorded truth.

It’s by an atheist, so it must be false!

The truth is that the Founders were much more diverse than either Maher or Boone realize. There probably were very few outright atheists, but they certainly weren’t uniformly orthodox Christians. Many were Deists or very liberal Unitarians. Many rejected the divinity of Christ and the reality of miracles. Many viewed the Bible as a collection of useful moral tales rather than actual truth. However, it is also true that many really were devout Christians who believe all the stupid dogshit that Christians believe.

The point is that no one can claim that The Founders were a monolithic group that is totally in line with exactly what anyone believes in 2013. No one gets to claim the Founders as their endless allies.

I also sent him a quote from John Jay, appointed by President George Washington as the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, who helped form the Constitution itself:

“Providence (God) has given to our people the choice of their rulers,
And it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our
Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Why? Because it was Christians, guided by the Judeo-Christian Bible, who created the profound document guaranteeing liberty and equality to all, including atheists. They were – and are – the veins through which the blood of freedom flows!

First off, let’s look at some of the context for that quote, from Wikipedia:

Religion

Jay was a member of the Church of England, and later of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America after the American Revolution. Since 1785, Jay had been a warden of Trinity Church, New York. As Congress’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he supported the proposal after the Revolution that the Archbishop of Canterbury approve the ordination of bishops for the Episcopal Church in the United States.[27]He argued unsuccessfully in the provincial convention for a prohibition against Catholics holding office.[28]

Jay believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel. In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, “Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”[29]

[Emphasis added]

We can learn a few things from this.

  1. The attitude which John Jay was expressing failed to prevail, since the Constitution explicitly prohibits having any religious test for office.
  2. John Jay had a rather naive view of history, seeing as Christian rulers have provoked war over and over and over throughout the entire existence of that noxious religion.
  3. John Jay seemed to have a view of “equality” similar to Boone’s, which boils down to “Christians are better than everyone else, so all non-Christians get to be equally pushed around and disenfranchised by Christians.”
  4. The mere fact that John Jay said something doesn’t make it law.

And the blood of freedom is the Word and will of God.

No. Whenever someone brings up the “word of god”, it is almost always something along the lines of “Believe this, without evidence, or else.” That is not freedom.

So what’s my point? I hope it’s obvious.

That’s some funny shit right there.

Just as your body, and mine, is created to run on one fuel – and only one – so our America was created to operate on only one set of principles. They are our very DNA. And those principles are found only in the Bible. Yes, the Bible.

Yes, the Bible. Where God orders his chosen people to commit genocide, slavery, rape, polygamy, torture, and a host of other things that are part of our principles.

And can we at least start circling around something vaguely resembling a point at some juncture in this article?

“Separation of church and state?” Take the “church,” the institution that promulgates Bible principles, out of the “state” – and you will not have the “state” called America. It will be something else (and some today seem to prefer it), but it will not – could not – be the America that became the greatest nation in history.

Except for the part that that’s exactly what it would be. It wasn’t the Bible that created our vast industrial system, our scientific excellence or our gradual march towards expanding civil rights to more and more Americans.

Our Supreme Court is faced right now with its greatest challenge, ever.

Because whatever topic I’m discussing at the moment is, in my goldfish-like mind, the most important thing that ever happened!

By June, concerning the very definition of marriage, nine human beings will decide whether we remain “one nation under God,” governed by the God who created us and them – or take on a new fuel, the treacherous, fickle, amoral “popular opinion,” a synthetic mixture of poll results, ignorance of unchangeable biblical principle and outright hedonistic rebellion.

Yeah, fuck democracy!

Don’t you right-wingers usually say that the Supreme Court is evil because it (sometimes) overrules the popular opinion? But now it’s evil because it might reach a decision that’s in line with popular opinion?

Why don’t you assholes just admit it? You hate the concept of an independent judiciary. You hate the concept of Americans reaching their own conclusions about other Americans rather than just accepting what your church tells them to think about others. You hate the fact that most people don’t give a flying fuck about your superstitions. You hate the fact that the things that are most important in your lives don’t mean shit to the rest of us. You hate the fact that you’re losing the so-called “culture war”. And you hate the fact that the very constitutional republic you pretend to idolize is your #1 enemy in all of this. You just hate the fact that the American people have a voice, and your voice is a tiny, screechy, obnoxious minority in it.

Already this court has ruled against equality, dictating that innocent babies still in their mothers’ wombs have fewer rights than their mothers. And in so doing, they’ve ruled against life itself – at least for the near 60 million babies aborted since their infamous decision in 1973.

Actual living, breathing, feeling, thinking women should be beholden to undeveloped fetuses that don’t even have higher brain functions yet. You know. “Equality”.

If you have any knowledge at all of our Founding Fathers’ intentions and guiding principles, can you seriously imagine their considering marriage, even for a second, as anything but the union of a man and a woman?

I can seriously imagine them thinking that it’s okay to own another human being. I can also seriously imagine them thinking that a marriage is only between a man and a woman of the same race. Because that’s exactly what they did. Why should I have to align every belief I have with theirs?

Were they stupid or naïve or ignorant about human inclinations?

No, but you are. They were a product of their time. You are a sad, pathetic twat trying desperately to pretend you don’t live in yours.

And as true now as then, our concepts of morality and virtue come directly from God, through His Bible. That’s undeniable.

It’s totally deniable. “Deniable” and “Morals come from the Bible” are so close they might as well be gay fuck-buddies. Every Christian on Earth, including Holy Pat himself, denies it every day. No one has ever actually derived their moral system from the Bible. They instead adopt the moral system of those around them, and then shoehorn Bible verses into it.

His love is universal, for all of us.

God loves you. And he created a place of eternal torment where you’re destined to go if you don’t believe in him. Because that’s how love works.

But His blessings are promised only to those who honor and obey His Word.

Because that’s how you treat people you love!

When a society decides to substitute its collective will for His, it changes its spiritual and moral DNA – like pumping pig’s blood into human veins.

Again, a few things:

  1. The collective will is this thing we call democracy. Get used to it.
  2. “His” will always seems to coincide with the prejudices of whatever old white male happens to be speaking. Can’t help but notice that “He” doesn’t actually pipe up very often.
  3. Putting the blood of another species in your body won’t change your DNA, you fucking dumbshit. Your analogy sucks.

People, we must pray, and pray very earnestly, for the nine human beings who will soon decide the future of America. Only if we remain “one nation under God” will we long survive.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Anyways, let’s take the obligatory look at what the commenters at WingNutDaily have to say on this topic.

nolejoea day ago

Decent NORMAL people don’t get sexually excited over people who are of their same sex. Mentally deranged perverts do.

BobCactusFlower William Wilson5 hours ago

You mean those NORMAL people, who, when constantly confronted by a deviant sexual behavior, find anal sex between perverts ABNORMALLY disgusting?

Nope. That’s as normal as (blechh) apple pie. It’s just that the perverts are still PERVERTS and rather than be legalized, they should be caged and retrained like the filthy animals that they are.

No need to thank me!

Equality! Biblical morality! Universal love!

proclaimingGodsTruth12 hours ago

I think judgment has already come to America; only now the judgments are increasing. The fabric of America’s Christian heritage is coming apart at the seams. We are on the verge of a huge financial collapse that will devastate this land.

It’s time to get right with God, it’s time to proclaim Him in the streets, in the churches, among family – everywhere! God means business – He doesn’t joke, kid around or play games.

We’ve got over 3,000 years of people saying this shit. The well’s gotta run dry at some point, right?

Nottolate buzz13195011 hours ago

When the framers of the Constitution spoke of freedom of religion, they were referring to Christianity only. How do we know? First, the majority of them were Christians (some deist mixed in). Second, other religions were not present in the land at the time. Third, what does that have to do with what I wrote? I spoke on the issue of gay marriage and not freedom of religion.

Can’t argue with that non-reasoning!

BobCactusFlower buzz1319505 hours ago

Brilliant assessment of American founding principles notwithstanding, this country remains OURS and when you try to take it from us, you’re going to find out just how much freedom of worship costs to create and keep.

You’re going to find out that it takes a lot more than a couple of filthy communists in the White House to make God’s people accept sexual perversion, murder, and open worship of satan and your other pals….lol

Freedom for all, as long as you recognize that this country is OURS and you can fuck off!

Larry Bohannon Michael Leone11 hours ago

I can tell that you are ignorant public school student. [sic] You don’t even know the difference between “you are” and your. [sic] Why should we even listen to foolish talk. [sic]

There’s this thing you should look out for when correcting the grammar of others…

Chris Farrell Michael Leone5 hours ago

Where did you gather that the Christians only argument against so-called “gay” marriage is that “Jesus doesn’t like it?”

Marriage, to a Christian, is a covenant in which one man and one woman enter into with God.

I couldn’t possibly have gathered it from exactly what you’re saying.

BobCactusFlower Michael Leone5 hours ago

lol…….get MARRIED to a pervert homosexual? (yeah, you call them gay, but I have YET to see one even marginally cheerful)

That’s probably because they’re stuck being around you.

02word6 hours ago

As one judge said, the gay rights/same sex marriage people haven’t even been around (I mean come out) for but a few years. It’s a made up excuse to push their beliefs into society.

Yeah, fuck them! Only an asshole would do that! Now let’s get back to that part where freedom of religion only applies to Christians and America’s laws all have to be based on the particular Biblical exegesis of a small number of self-righteous bigots.

Gun Glurge

CNN has been making a big deal about an open letter from a former Marine to Sen. Dianne Feinstein about the evils of gun control. So I bet this letter has some kind of groundbreaking new argument, some refreshing insight into the subtleties of gun violence in America that makes it worthy of getting a headline on the front page.

Oh, wait, no, it’s just a bunch of glurgy crap regurgitating the same tired pro-gun claptrap we all grew sick of hearing 20 years ago. I hope no one reads this and is surprised that CNN is spreading around crap so trite and thoughtlessness-provoking that it could be a chain letter forwarded around by Granny’s women’s group at the local Baptist church. It’s pretty sadly typical of the quality of “journalism” one often finds at CNN.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own.

Doesn’t matter what you believe, Gomer. It matters what’s the law and what ain’t. And the government already requires you to register things you own. For instance, just the other day I renewed the tags on my car. So the government knows the make, model, year, and color of my car. And if I didn’t register it and get a tag, I could get pulled over and have my license revoked.

The thing is, you currently aren’t required to register your guns. But maybe someday in the future you will be. That’s really all there is to it, and you’ll comply just like every other law abiding citizen, no matter what kind of empty bravado you sputter in your iReport letter.

Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.

They’s gonna take our guns, y’all!

No, dumbshit. Nobody in Congress is trying to take away your precious penis substitutes. Pull your paranoid head out of your ass and look at the facts. If you register your gun, it’s still your gun. The purpose of registration is that guns, like cars, are dangerous, and it’s helpful to law enforcement if they have a database to work with when a crime happens. So long as you don’t murder anybody, you should be alright.

You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain.

She’s a fucking Senator. This is exactly her domain. She gets elected. She makes laws. That’s how it works. The Senate’s constitutional power to legislate doesn’t magically disappear the moment they consider legislating something that might affect you.

I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

You ever think that all the crazy gun nuts writing whacked out shit to her on a daily basis might be part of why Sen. Feinstein feels the need to own a gun?

And, again, when did Sen. Feinstein say you couldn’t have a gun? Unless presented with evidence to the contrary, I’m going to assume that we aren’t talking about real-world Feinstein right now. Instead, we’re speaking of Right Wing La La Land Feinstein, who wants to steal the precious, precious guns from noble Troops and melt them in the fires of Mordor.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free.

“I am also apparently rather lacking in humility.”

I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve.

Well, she’s the bitch who pays your salary, so you might wanna be a little more respectful, or those proposed military cuts might go just a little deeper.

I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

This is what happens when Gomer buys his own hype. I presume he wrote this with a straight face (I could never do that). I presume he has that special right wing lack of self-awareness that prevents him from seeing how arrogant, stupid, and childish he sounds. You know, that part of the conservative’s brain that allows him/her to think that he/she speaks for all “true” Americans, and that everyone else in the universe is just as deeply concerned with his/her petty, imaginary “issues” as he/she is? Yeah, that part. The dumb part.

The dumb part of the conservative brain also filters out the meaning of words. Take “peasant”, for instance. A peasant is an impoverished laborer whose hard work enriches the wealthy aristocrats who own the property on which he/she labors. We do have peasants in our society. We call them “poor people”. We don’t call them “paranoid, white, middle class gun owners”. The word for that is “privileged”.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned.

Learned what? How to write stilted prose and create imaginary problems to solve through self-aggrandizement? You don’t need 8 years in the military to learn how to do that. Just watch FOX News for a few minutes.

I am an American.

So is Sen. Feinstein. You ever think of that?

You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

But killing thousands in Afghanistan because of the actions of some evil man, that’s fine. Hoo – rah! Semper fi!

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

No one’s disarming you, you ignorant, simpering little fuck. Banning high capacity magazines or requiring registration will not disarm you. You’ll still have your stupid fucking guns and your stupid fucking smug attitude.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston

Joshua Boston, you are a whiny, ignorant, self-absorbed nincompoop.

Respectfully submitted,

Riffing Religion.

Here’s the thing. Not only is this guy going to be able to keep his guns (regardless of whether Sen. Feinstein passes a bill or not), but I wouldn’t want to take them from him anyway. I don’t oppose responsible personal gun ownership. This is actually an area where I find myself in disagreement both with those on the left and on the right (but more with those on the right).  Here’s the text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, many on the left frequently home in on the “militia” clause and say something stupid like, “The amendment just says the state can have a government-run militia. That doesn’t mean private citizens get guns too! Durrr, I’m a constitutional scholar!”

What they’re ignoring is the later clause, which uses the phrase, “right of the people.” Here’s another amendment that uses the phrase “right of the people”:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I’m pretty sure no one in their right mind would want to argue that this amendment doesn’t apply to private citizens, but only to those who work for some government-run outfit. But that’s why we need to respect the places where the constitution says “right of the people.” The phrase should not be taken lightly, and definitely should not be taken to refer only to people working for the government. If the constitution says “right of the people”, it means private citizens. So we should interpret the second amendment as guaranteeing the right to bear arms to private citizens, and the Supreme Court has said as such in the past. Simply put, as long as the Second Amendment is in place (and I don’t see it being repealed any time soon), Joshua Boston and the other frothing-at-the-mouth gun nuts have nothing to worry about. The government can’t take their guns.

That’s where the liberals tend to be stupid. But the conservatives can be quite dumb also, and this is no exception. Conservatives like Joshua Boston above insist that the government has no right to regulate their firearms. But this is obvious bullshit, as the Second Amendment explicitly states that the purpose of its existence is the necessity of a “well regulated Militia.” I mean, the word “regulated” occurs right there in the text of the amendment, so any claim that regulating guns is unconstitutional contradicts the very text of the amendment itself.

Congress (and the states) have the power to regulate guns all they want. They just can’t ban private citizens from owning them. So long as it’s still possible for a private citizen to purchase and own a gun, the constitution has not been violated. I have a few ideas for regulation that might actually be effective, which means, of course, that none of these ideas will ever actually be put in place. But I’ll share them anyways, because what’s the point of blogging if not to come up with futile, pointless ideas that few will read and no one will ever implement? Here goes:

  • Keep guns legal, but ban high-capacity magazines. Both the Arizona shooting and the Connecticut shooting involved a gunman using clips that held 30 rounds. I can’t conceive of a legitimate usage for a high capacity magazine. They seem to be specifically designed for murdering large numbers of people in a short period of time. There is absolutely no reason a law abiding, private citizen should ever need such a thing.
  • If anyone is convicted of a felony, any guns found on his/her property are seized and destroyed, and the person convicted is barred from owning a firearm for life unless he/she specifically appeals to a judge to have the prohibition overturned. This would do a lot to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The important part is that the guns be melted down, not merely seized and then put back into circulation at a later point in time.
  • Start a gun buy-back program, similar to Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program. Offer to buy people’s guns at above market value if and only if they sign a pledge not to purchase another gun for at least five years. All guns acquired by the program are destroyed.
  • Limit the amount of ammunition a person can buy in a short period of time. The killer in Arizona bought thousands of rounds in the months leading up to his shooting spree. This shouldn’t be that hard to prevent. If we can restrict the amount of pseudephedrin people buy, it shouldn’t be that hard to do the same with bullets.
  • Tax guns and bullets more heavily. This will force up the prices and make people think twice about buying them. It worked for cigarettes, as smoking rates have declined as prices have gone up. People said this would inevitably lead to a “black market”, but that never happened with cigarettes. As long as prices don’t go up too high, that shouldn’t be a problem.
  • Require a background check for any gun purchase. The goal here should be obvious.
  • Require a license to own a gun, and require a psychiatric test for anyone applying for a license. Again, the purpose should be obvious.
  • Require a multi-day gun-safety training course for a license. Again, obvious.
  • Make it a felony to provide a gun to anyone who fails the above requirements. If you provide a gun to an unqualified individual and they commit a felony with that gun, you are complicit.
  • Make it a felony to store guns unsafely. A person caught storing guns unsafely loses his/her license to own them at the very least, and must file an appeal to get it back.
  • Institute frequent and thorough surprise inspections of gun stores, gun shows, and anywhere else guns might be sold, to ensure that they are following the rules.
  • Reward private businesses that ban all guns on their property.
  • Increase the number of public outreach programs to educate people about the dangers of gun violence and how to avoid it.
  • Require insurance companies to cover psychiatric care and to share information about at-risk individuals (in cases where it would not violate their privacy).
  • If someone is involved in any kind of gun-related accident, their license is suspended and they must go through the above rigamarole to get it back
  • Make courses about the dangers of gun violence available in public schools and universities.

Now, a gun nut would interrupt to inform me that even if all these ideas were in place, it wouldn’t completely end gun violence. Well, of course not! I have no delusions about making violence go away forever, but we can at least reduce the amount of violence in our country, and I think these regulations would be a good step towards achieving that.

Or maybe I’m just trying to take your precious guns away. I’m sure that’s what at least a few tiny brains out there might take away from all this. We should just require our under-paid and unappreciated public school teachers to carry guns so they can shoot crazy people and turn schools into the showdown at the OK corral. That oughta solve the problem! And I’m sure the teachers would love having even more responsibilities foisted on their shoulders while the kooky right wing cuts their pay and benefits again.

Freedom for me, but not for thee

I saw Ed Brayton’s brief commentary on this article and had to throw in my two cents. The article is in WorldNutDaily, so you already know it’s gonna be goatballs crazy. But even by WND standards, it’s a whopper. The author, Erik Rush, calls his column “The Other Rush”, which one would think means that he’s happy being second fiddle to America’s most notoriously bloviating gas bag. But it seems rather that he’s trying to one-up Limbaugh in terms of just what a hateful right wing authoritarian he can be.

The title lets you know exactly what you’re in for:

How to disarm the Mainstream Media
Exclusive: Erik Rush wants ‘treasonous’ reporters prosecuted for misuse of free speech

“Misuse” of free speech isn’t very clearly defined in US law, Holmes’ overrated “fire in a crowded theater” standard notwithstanding. Regardless, if the purpose is to “disarm” the “mainstream media”, then it’s pretty clear that whatever this is about, it’s unconstitutional. The First Amendment explicitly protects the press from being disarmed. Kinda like how all those rednecks keep reminding us the Second Amendment does for American gun owners. Except in this case, the media isn’t actually gonna blow anybody’s head off.

Well, it’s Free Speech Week, an annual celebration of Americans’ right to free speech hosted by the Media Institute. Partnering organizations include media organizations across the political spectrum. What’s ironic is the extent to which Americans’ free speech is under assault at present. While this is more evident among the non-liberal, non-secular folks among us, this oppression is just part of a design that will ultimately stifle all of our speech and liberties to varying extents.

I think we need to start a Self Awareness Week. During Self Awareness Week, people will be encouraged to pay attention not only to what they’re doing but also to the context in which it’s done, and to notice things like the fact that you’re publishing this on the internet without any repercussions whatsoever so obviously no one has taken away your free speech you stupid fuck.

Since it is Free Speech Week, I can’t think of a more perfect time to clarify just what free speech is and, more importantly, what it is not.

Translation: I’m gonna make sure free speech only applies to “non-liberal, non-secular folk”.

I’m going to get ahead of myself here and presuppose a Mitt Romney victory in November. This is the only scenario in which America will be able to get her feet back under her, so to speak, and plot a course out of the bog in which President Obama has situated us. An Obama re-election will essentially mean a national bracing for impact, and all bets may be off with regard to preserving our liberties to any meaningful degree.

What liberties, exactly, has Obama taken from you? At least with Bush people could point to specific legislation, the PATRIOT Act, for example, which expressly curtailed certain freedoms. But what has Obama done that affects anyone’s freedom? Usually the “freedom” people accuse Obama of taking away is the “freedom” to take away other freedoms, such as the “right” to deny birth control coverage to an employee. And, as we’ll see, the “freedom” to take away other people’s freedoms is exactly the kind of “freedom” Rush wants to protect.

Yes, many Americans are now cognizant of the fact that progressives have “progressed” America dangerously close to being a Marxist-socialist nation and that we are collectively responsible for not having checked that progress.

Have you ever read the writings of Marx or any other socialist? America is nothing like the society they envisioned. It’s not even close. America is about as Marxist as Honey Boo Boo is talented.

…there are other widespread, organized threats to America’s ongoing concern as a representative republic with guaranteed personal liberties, free speech foremost among them.

Here, I am speaking of the press

Fucking First Amendment! It violates the First Amendment! Or something…

the conglomeration of national broadcast, digital and print media organizations that has been incrementally packed with ideological liberals and socialists, and so has disqualified itself as the impartial government watchdog it once was.

Okay, a few things here. 1.) If you think the media was ever impartial, I’ve got three words for you: William Randolf Hearst. 2.) Being liberal disqualifies you from being a government watchdog? I see what you did there. 3.) The existence of Fox News contradicts all such “liberal mainstream media” demagoguery. 4.) HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS AFFECT YOUR FREE SPEECH? You can’t have free speech so long as liberals have free speech? You do realize that free speech doesn’t mean freedom from being disagreed with.

Oh, wait, we’re operating on the right wing conception of “freedom”, which means “taking freedom from others.”

During my lifetime, I have seen the press become an advance force for social engineering and global socialism.

During my lifetime I’ve seen the press become an ADHD fever dream of sensationalistic headlines and flashy graphics that convey almost no information and perpetuate the “careers” of people like Paris Hilton far beyond their expiration dates. But, yeah, global socialism and all that.

In the matter of this president, the press largely facilitated the ascension of Barack Obama. The instances wherein they have promoted, shielded and aided him are beyond enumeration.

This goes beyond such things as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and his man crush on Obama – I’m talking about treasonous collusion.

You keep using that word “treason”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And how exactly is supporting the President “treason”? When people on Fox gushed about Bush, was that treason too?

One particularly scandalous incident occurred during the second presidential debate, when CNN moderator Candy Crowley made an interjection that appeared to have been as spontaneous as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ murder, and which led to a solid point scored for Obama.

Romney said something which was demonstrably false, and she asserted so. I don’t know if it’s flattering or frightening that you see “true” as meaning “a solid point for Obama”.

Most recently, after Mitt Romney brought up Obama’s 2009 “Apology Tour,” the press did their best to support Obama’s claim that this never happened, despite boundless reams of footage that exist chronicling the event.

Well, the footage proves that there was a tour. But it’s the whole “apology tour” thing that the press is denying. And so they should, as the tour had nothing to do with apologies. But when exactly do you plan to get to the part where any of this is treason?

In perhaps the worst recent transgression, on Oct. 21, Phoenix, Ariz., CBS affiliate KPHO ran a lower-third graphic indicating that President Obama had won the Nov. 6 election over Gov. Mitt Romney. A technician’s cute stunt, or subliminal propaganda? In any case, it was technically a prosecutable offense the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission should be all over.

What’s that? Some low level techie at a local TV affiliate in Arizona made a dumb mistake? Kill him! Kill him!

You think I’m kidding about the kill him part?

It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies. If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes. Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply, and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe.

Still think I’m kidding? Treason is a capital crime, so Rush is in fact saying that people who support liberalism in the media should be killed. No joke.

And as for the “improbable” situation that Rush alludes to, something of this nature, in which people were saying “un-American” things in the press like “Let’s secede from the Union”, did in fact happen to our founders, culminating in the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. And SOME of them, such as John Adams, did support rounding up dissenters and jailing them. OTHERS, such a Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, opposed the act. The Founders weren’t a homogeneous unit that agreed on everything. They had disagreements just like everybody else. And, in the case of the Alien and Sedition Act, it would surely be ruled unconstitutional today, and it led to numerous problems for the people who supported it. In fact, Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican) pardoned those convicted under the act, and then turned around and used the act against the very Federalists who had originally supported it!

The lesson? As our founders learned, if you support laws to prosecute your enemies for their speech, it won’t be long before that law is turned around and used on you. So don’t support such laws. But learning this lesson requires self awareness and foresight, things which are entirely lacking in today’s right wing.

This is not likely to occur, however. Radio personality and nascent media mogul Glenn Beck…

*Snort* Just a sec. I gotta take a moment to laugh at even the suggestion that Glenn Beck is a “media mogul”. I’m better now, please continue…

…has the intention of putting the establishment press out of business. While I wish him every success, it doesn’t seem likely that he will accomplish this through his organizations alone. In addition to the advent of powerful alternative media sources, I believe it will be necessary to codify – or reaffirm – the nature of crimes against the Constitution and the American people. In this manner, we can thwart the designs not only of the press, but all global socialists operating in America.

Again, what are these crimes, other than the “crimes” of disagreeing with you and (allegedly) supporting a candidate that you don’t support? And who the hell are these global socialists? And what exactly is so threatening about the media?

Let me check up on our Illuminati Lizard People Overlords over at CNN just to see what dastardly plots are unfolding… Oh God. They have a headline on the front page of their website that reads “‘Dancing With The Stars’ Goes Country”. Rush was right! This truly is the end!

Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).

So God gave you the “liberty” of not having other people vocalize opinions that differ from your own? And how much of a fucking pussy are you if you can’t even handle people in the media saying things you disagree with?

The wingnuts, if we took them seriously, would have us believe that America is simultaneously the strongest country on Earth and so fragile that it could be taken down by puffy faced blabberers like Chris Matthews. And that the only way to protect liberty is to take it away. And that we should make government smaller by expanding its ability to control individual expression. And that our unbridled, exploitative capitalist economy is “Marxist” and should be replaced by unbridled, exploitative capitalism. And that Chuck Norris has interesting things to say.

This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.

They think they can effect change through free speech! How un-American! Don’t they know that here in America we effect change by shutting down people who suggest we might need to change something?

If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.

The right wing sure is getting bold, isn’t it? My guess is that ten years ago WorldNutDaily would never have published such an unambiguous call for all those who oppose them to be silenced by force. Fascism was indecorous back then. But now, as a lovely infographic over at xkcd illustrates, the far right has pushed itself into the mainstream by taking over a big chunk of Congress (especially the House), and as the mainstream becomes more looney, the looneys see this as an opportunity to push the boundaries of “acceptable” lunacy.

The Overton Window has shifted, and we’re now living in a world where right wing authoritarianism can rear its ugly head unabashed and unafraid. Tell rape victims that God wants them to have that child? Sure. Declare that corporations are people? Why not. Call 47% of Americans freeloaders and unapologetically praise the greed of the wealthiest Americans? Of course! Transvaginal ultrasounds? Disenfranchising black voters? More warmongering with Iran after two failed wars? Second Amendment remedies? Women who use birth control are sluts? Football players should be silenced when they express an opinion? Jail people for being liberal in public on the charge of crimes against the constitution? Hey, the sky’s the limit!

Ed (not Brayton) over at Gin and Tacos gave a rather bleak assessment of our current cultural dialogue. While I’m not as pessimistic as he is, I have to agree that we as liberals have failed at something basic. In our misguided attempts to be “fair and balanced”, we’ve let the meaning of terms shift (including the term “fair and balanced”), and we’ve allowed the looniest of the far right lunatics to control the tenor of the debate and say the most ludicrous things without fear of reprisal or scorn.

Of course, I’m not a lunatic like Rush, and under no circumstances should even lunatics being censored just for disagreeing (I say this even when it comes to “hate speech” laws in Canada and Europe that penalize people for spouting homophobic garbage). But allowing free speech should never mean failing to mock and deride people who says stupid or bigoted things. Just look at Rush’s article for an example of how dangerous it is to play the “respect people’s beliefs” gambit. Rush is so emboldened that he now believes it is a CRIME to disagree with him. He’s grown so accustomed to seeing the media put kid gloves on when dealing with creationists, global warming deniers, market dogmatists, homophobes, and all sorts of goatfucking crazy people that he now perceives the mere presence of liberals to be treasonous.

When somebody says something stupid, there should be a chorus of dissenters pointing out how wrong and stupid the claim is. Of course the stupid person will say that being called stupid is a violation of the First Amendment, but the fact that he or she believes this is part of what makes him or her stupid. The people with truly indefensible ideas can’t withstand scrutiny, so their only recourse is to silence those who would contradict them. Bad ideas need external, non-intellectual support. And as long as we have this mentality of “respecting beliefs” no matter how insane or demonstrably false those beliefs are, we are giving them that support, and opening a window for them to completely alter how our nation discusses important issues.

I say let the wingnuts like Rush have their word. But then I’m gonna have my word. And if the wingnuts don’t like it, they can go fuck themselves.