April 6, 2015

"The problem with free speech is that it’s hard, and self-censorship is the path of least resistance."

"But, once you learn to keep yourself from voicing unwelcome thoughts, you forget how to think them — how to think freely at all — and ideas perish at conception. Washiqur Rahman and Avijit Roy had more to fear than most of us, but they lived and died as free men."

The last paragraph of George Packer's New Yorker essay titled "Mute Button."

ADDED: I looked at the blog after publishing this post and saw that it sat atop a post about an American law professor who insisted that it was necessary for him to hide his Christianity in the United States.

Here's a Bible verse for timid Christians: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

159 comments:

Jason said...

Easy for you to say with a tenured professorship. You don't have a business for the flying monkeys to destroy, and you're not trying to make a payroll every other week so your employees can work, too.

Jason said...

Even from a position of economic shelter, you've been silent in the assault on liberty coming from the GLBT advocates and their allies.

So, uhh, thanks for the encouragement.

chickelit said...

Jason said...
Even from a position of economic shelter, you've been silent in the assault on liberty coming from the GLBT advocates and their allies.

That's not completely true. I recall Althouse throwing some shade at fifth columnist Dan Savage's attempts to redefine monogamy in marriage. But that's about it.

EMD said...

This was written by George Packer. THE George Packer? The go-to man-on-the-street quote guy for the New York Times? That George Packer?

Hmmm.

Sebastian said...

"The problem with free speech is that it’s hard, and self-censorship is the path of least resistance. But, once you learn to keep yourself from voicing unwelcome thoughts, you forget how to think them — how to think freely at all — and ideas perish at conception."

Though I disagreed with the AA people-want-to-be-comfortable hypothesis, this is follows.

Most people don't want to "think freely" or have "ideas." Progs want to have the right ideas. They want other people to have the right ideas. They will use "free speech" as a weapon when needed, discard it when not. Self-censorship is good because it makes the task of our Prog overlords easier.

Ann Althouse said...

"Even from a position of economic shelter, you've been silent in the assault on liberty coming from the GLBT advocates and their allies."

I say what I have to say, not what you have to say. I'm only "being silent" if there's something I want to say and I suppress it. Your accusation is Orwellian.

damikesc said...

I guess the argument for the first few commenters is that the genie is out of the bottle. Censorship is the only option as the lynch mob (for tolerance, of course) won't allow tiny deviations from their preferred narrative.

I wonder how many of them would condemn the 1950's for its conformity and not notice the irony.

Anonymous said...

Then you might go back and edit your "Why should a woman cook" post-- because it sure comes across as an explanation of how you have something to say and are suppressing it.

Unknown said...

It may well be that keeping silent about one's Christianity is a better starting point for messaging, from a "political" perspective.

1 Corinthians 9: 19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Jason said...

I'm sure Martin Niemöller would be impressed with your position, Professor.

Gahrie said...

you've been silent in the assault on liberty coming from the GLBT advocates


That's because the GLBT etc etc etc can do no wrong.

Bob Boyd said...

"Two of the killers were captured by a transgender Bangladeshi beggar who lived nearby and handed over to the police."

That's the story I want to read!

Who is this guy? The Chuck Norris of transgender Bangladeshi beggars?

Jason said...

"First they came for the Christians, and I said nothing, for what I felt was... Exquisitely distanced amusement."

rhhardin said...

We need more misunderstandings too.

MayBee said...

Isn't that the whole idea behind trying to make certain thoughts and opinions shameful?

Saying, in response to valid points, "That's just ugly", to tell people they sound racist to get them to shut up.

There is some free speech that is hard, and some that is incredibly easy, and some aimed at shutting up the other person.

We all need to choose what kind we want to participate in.

BrianE said...

Shorter Althouse version:

'Identify yourselves so someone else, who I will with cruel neutrality disavow, can pick you off.'

Big Mike said...

Whenever I feel pressure to bite my tongue and go along with things I know are wrong, I think of this quote:

"I am the strongest man in the world, for the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone."

-- Henrik Ibsen

It helps to remember that you have to live with yourself for the rest of your life.

rhhardin said...

Gay marriage can't be civil unions because ... ?

Ann Althouse said...

"Then you might go back and edit your "Why should a woman cook" post-- because it sure comes across as an explanation of how you have something to say and are suppressing it."

Nope.

That post is about my realization that something I've tried to explain REPEATEDLY is not understood by other people. I've tried over and over, on line and in real life, and I see how people cannot grasp the concepts, and they can't keep things straight and fall back into their political and emotional instincts.

And you apparently didn't even understand THAT. I'm not saying I'm too timid to speak. I'm saying I'm frustrated about the limitations of communication where the issue is complex and contentious. I'm trying to tell you the truth about that, and I'm further frustrated that you don't (or won't) understand.

robother said...

Ironically, the cultural triumphalism of the secular Social Justice Warriors within Western Civilization reinforces the primitive extremists of Islam.

If religious tolerance is only a temporary expedient in the dissolution of all religious traditional belief and customs that oppose an absolute ideal of autonomous individual hedonism, then are the radical Islamists correct that Islam is in a death struggle with the West?

Is it all reduced to a simple power struggle, with law and reason reduced to mere tools more or less useful in particular contexts?

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Perhaps too much is made of the religious angle. Suppose a pizza parlor owner wants to discriminate against gays in general, not just gay weddings.

Suppose they are non-religious, they just find gays annoying and don't want to serve them. They don't have to even find them annoying or have any reason at all.

In Indiana, before and after the RFRA law, they don't have to.

What is morally wrong with that?

Seems to me like any business, unless a govt sponsored monopoly like the power company, should be able to choose who they want to do business with.

Regardless of religious beliefs.

John Henry

Jason said...

The French at Renceveaux: "ROLAND, BLOW YOUR HORN!"

Roland ( In a state of exquisitely detached amusement at the corpses of his comrades piling up around him): I won't. It's... Complicated.

Kirby Olson said...

A professor at Marquette spoke up against gay fascism on his campus. He had had tenure for 39 years, but is being canned for publishing a single blog post that stood up for the right of a student to be against gay marriage. Campuses are now the central battleground for freedom of speech, and we've largely lost against the Stalinism of the Democratic Party. At Duke, there are only three Republicans within a faculty of more than 500. We stand about the same chances of survival as someone in a Khmer Rouge holding center. Ann, in liberal Wisconsin, is doing more than almost anyone else in this area, but anti-gay activism can't be her thing because her son is gay.

Still, she holds the door open for Christians to speak. I think it's admirable.

When Pilate asked Jesus, "What is Truth?" Jesus did not respond directly.

However, two thousand years later, many Christians are still answering that question, in countries all around the world, and even in places like North Korea, where there are 70,000 Christians, although the penalty for being found out is death.

Christians are still speaking, but we still have Neros and Caligulas among us who are trying to silence us. The pizza shop in Indiana has now gotten over a million dollars in income I was told yesterday at church. The family and their staff had to go into hiding, but at least they weren't killed outright, as they would have been in North Korea.

Kirby Olson said...

Here's a link to the blog post at Marquette that got a tenured professor canned:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html

I Callahan said...

I say what I have to say, not what you have to say. I'm only "being silent" if there's something I want to say and I suppress it. Your accusation is Orwellian.

The LGBT brigades are the ones who actually shut down a business, and brook no dissension from their preferred view. Other than your inside change-up to Dan Savage, you haven't addressed that at all.

Your response here is a bunch of gobbledygook. Nothing of any substance whatsoever. Address the valid point, or admit that you don't care that free speech is under assault by a lobby that you agree with. At least it would have the advantage of being straight-out honest.

Up your game, professor.

Jason said...

"Do whatever you want to the girl... leave ME alone!!!"

William said...

Here in the anonymity of the Internet I can observe that the parents of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were deficient n parenting skills. There is no way that anyone in public life or the academy could voice such an opinion and professionally survive......The thought is there, but it's just not worth the trouble to express. And, anyway, if you express it, what would change for the better? Silence, cunning, and exile.

I Callahan said...

The thought is there, but it's just not worth the trouble to express. And, anyway, if you express it, what would change for the better? Silence, cunning, and exile.

Then the right side has officially lost. Because the only way to counter the types of attacks you'll get is to attack back, and twice as hard (as someone of importance once said).

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?"

rhhardin said...

I daresay those religious bigot cake store owners would be happy to cater a civil union.

The objection is saying it's marriage, which to most, and certainly the bakers, means something else. That's what's being profaned.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I'm only "being silent" if there's something I want to say and I suppress it.

I'd be interested in some examples of this, if indeed there are any.

Kirby Olson said...

Some do speak in academia. The result can easily be a loss of tenure or be taken off of every committee and consigned to the lower level of classes. You can even be fired, as John MacAdams was at Marquette.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/10/talk-on-north-korea-tonight-on-campus.html

Many in the business community here agree with the positions I took on my blog, and also with positions I take on Facebook, but they are too afraid to speak. If they do speak, they are almost certain to be met with a boycott, and a national outcry against them.

Still, the conditions are not as bad as they are in North Korea.

There, with the government controlling all commerce, it is very easy to starve to death unless you are in tight with the government. They control everything. Obama is tending that way, and Hillary (Stalinism in a skirt), will be even worse, but we still have a legal alternative party. That's a luxury no communist country has ever afforded its citizens.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/10/talk-on-north-korea-tonight-on-campus.html

William said...

We go through life and form different opinions about different things. One thing we all have in common is that we wish everyone share our views on the really important issues. I think the Jacobins on the left have pursued their ideal of ideological purity and conformity with greater fervor and ruthlessness than those on the religious right. Compare the relative body count of the Jacobins versus the Spanish Inquisition or that of Pinochet versus Pol Pot.

Jason said...

I reject that premise. There are multiple possible motivations for being silent. Apathy is one of them. Or as you put it... "Exquisitely detached amusement."

If you are silent in the face of attacks on liberty, it doesn't matter much why.

Cowardice?
Apathy?
Secret Allegiance with the tyrant?

I don't think you, a law professor (TM) who just lectured us on how unfathomably complex an nuanced the issue is just a few minutes ago, get to plead ignorance.

None of the options impress me much, though.

Mick said...

If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything, or something along those lines.

Æthelflæd said...

Maybee said...
"Saying, in response to valid points, 'That's just ugly', to tell people they sound racist to get them to shut up."

I believe the preferred jargon for the New Progressive Fascisti is,"That's just creepy."

Jason said...

"I. Can't. Even."

EMD said...

One must ponder where the blog begins and where the classroom ends.

Balfegor said...

Self censorship is not only the easiest approach -- it is often the appropriate approach. There's a strain of thought that holds that rights need to be exercised vigorously in the most extreme fashion to safeguard them against being hemmed in. I think, rather, that it is easier to maintain our rights when they aren't always rubbing people the wrong way. Officials are permitted wide discretion until they abuse it in some way and public outcry forces Congress to rein them in. It's the same thing -- every time the exercise of an ancient liberty prompts a voter to cry out "there ought to be a law!", those ancient liberties grow more precarious.

Balfegor said...

That said, there are also times to speak up, obviously. All I'm saying is that people take the first amendment as license to be offensive and in-your-face and this is unwise. Better to exercise a bit of self-censorship.

n.n said...

Whether it is individual dignity or intrinsic value, Christians will either take a stand on moral principles (i.e. religious) or defer to pro-choice "secular" policies.

Æthelflæd said...

Balfegor said...
"That said, there are also times to speak up, obviously. All I'm saying is that people take the first amendment as license to be offensive and in-your-face and this is unwise. Better to exercise a bit of self-censorship."

That doesn't bother progressives in the least. They talk openly of psych wards and pretend sky gods. Politeness has not availed much in this battle.

Jason said...

Ok, I'll bite... Actively Picketing a gay marriage would be "In your face" I suppose (but we've long established that the libtards are fine with practices like that).

But quietly declining to cater a same sex wedding, or provide custom work in support of what they believe is a perversion of a sacrament, is extremely limited in scope, and couldn't be more passive.

How in the world does that qualify as "in your face?"

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to tell you the truth about that, and I'm further frustrated that you don't (or won't) understand.

Not making yourself understood is an occupational hazard for a writer, which is why I allowed for the possibility that the earlier post didn't come out the way you'd intended. The paragraph about the things you've already REPEATEDLY said would have added a lot of clarity had it been included in the earlier post, which was all about the things you're planning not to do in the future.

Jason said...

Balfegor: I want you to attend my orgy so all my friends can have sex with you.

Christian: Meh. I'm sorry. I can't. I'm married. Thanks, though.

Balfegor: RAPIST!!!!!!

Fernandinande said...

Bob Boyd said...
"Two of the killers were captured by a transgender Bangladeshi beggar who lived nearby and handed over to the police."

That's the story I want to read!


Betcha a dime it's fiction.

Greg Hlatky said...

All I'm saying is that people take the first amendment as license to be offensive and in-your-face and this is unwise. Better to exercise a bit of self-censorship.

There's a big difference between exercising self-restraint in your expression from your own standards of politeness and being cowed into silence because of the potential outlash from social-justice terrorists.

Bob Boyd said...

"Betcha a dime it's fiction."

Genderphobe!

Bob Boyd said...

UPDATE:
The transgender Bangladeshi beggar turns out to be Haven Monahan hiding out in disguise.

Jason said...

"It was me! It was me all along! And I would have gotten away with it, too, if you wasn't for you MEDDLING TRANSGENDER BANGLADESHI BEGGARS!!!!"

madAsHell said...

GLBT??

I thought it was LGBT....cuz you know.....ladies first!!

Balfegor said...

Re: Jason:

Ok, I'll bite... Actively Picketing a gay marriage would be "In your face" I suppose (but we've long established that the libtards are fine with practices like that).

But quietly declining to cater a same sex wedding, or provide custom work in support of what they believe is a perversion of a sacrament, is extremely limited in scope, and couldn't be more passive
.

I quite agree!

How in the world does that qualify as "in your face?"

It doesn't -- on the contrary, I think the backlash against them is "in your face" and most unwise. It's also deeply uncivil.

Jason said...

Balfegor: Ah! I seem to have inverted your intent!

CWJ said...

For me, the self censorship is personal. I have friends (amazing right?). Many of those friendships are decades old. I value them and more important the shared experiences and the people themselves. I don't want to lose them, and have long recognized that I have grown politically apart from many of them. But politics is asymetrical. From the right, the left is primarily viewed as simply wrong, as in incorrect. From the left, the right is not merely wrong, but morally wrong as well. My left friends have no reticence inserting their politics into our friendship. I have no desire to insert my politics into our friendships. But if I did, I have no doubt that many of those friendships would end.

Shorter version. I have twice in my life received the shocked and censoring reply, "Oh my god, you're a Republican!" Whereas, it would never occur to me to respond in kind.

CWJ said...

The funny part of my previous post is that when my left friends insert politics into our friendship that they are so assured that they are speaking self evident truth that they almost never bother to check whether or not I agree with them. I'm sure that's why I've only twice heard "Oh my god, you're a Republican."

kentuckyliz said...

Duke is going to beat Wisconsin.

I'm rooting for Wisconsin. I hate Duke.

There, I said it.

Skeptical Voter said...

CWJ--is it self censorship or good manners? If you live on the west side of Los Angeles; or anywhere in the Bay Area, you are a fish (of whatever political persuasion) swimming in a progressive sea. If there were a chance of changing any convictions or opinions of your "average" progressive, it might be worthwhile to engage them. But King Canute had a better chance of stopping the tide than I do of changing one progressive's opinion. Facts are not Kryponite to a Super Progressive. They're only pesky little things.

I've got better things to do with my life than to go peeing into that particular wind.

EMD said...

My left friends have no reticence inserting their politics into our friendship. I have no desire to insert my politics into our friendships.

Yeah. They're pretty nonchalant about inserting political commentary into any work-related subject. I abstain. The problem is that it never really feels connected to what the subject matter at hand is. It's forced.

The worst part is the assumption that you, too, must automatically feel the same way, since you are either cool, or interesting or work in the same profession.

I relish my libertarianism because I don't have to worry so much about what "team" I'm on.

I Callahan said...

There, I said it.

HERESY!!!! BURN HER!!!

(Just kidding - and I hope you're wrong, as a Spartan fan...)

I Callahan said...

Oddly enough, I haven't lost one friend announcing that I am a righty. I'm thinking that if there is an even mix (I live in Michigan), then you can feel safe about it.

I don't actively bring it up, but if a liberal in my group of friends brings something up, I am quick to give my opinion to the contrary. Usually, that is enough to stop them from bringing up politics again, for the most part.

Fritz said...

EMD said...
This was written by George Packer. THE George Packer? The go-to man-on-the-street quote guy for the New York Times? That George Packer?

Hmmm.


No, that would be Greg Packer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Packer

Alex said...

I Callahan said...

The LGBT brigades...

That's hate speech right there.

Also Ann is not obligated to say anything she doesn't want to say.

Oh and free speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to shout hatred towards vulnerable groups.

Alex said...

I Callahan said...
Oddly enough, I haven't lost one friend announcing that I am a righty. I'm thinking that if there is an even mix (I live in Michigan), then you can feel safe about it.

I suspect you don't know any gay people and if you did you wouldn't dare say "LGBT brigades" to their face.

Todd said...

Alex said...

Oh and free speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to shout hatred towards vulnerable groups.

4/6/15, 3:16 PM


Why? Oh, and who's opinion of the speech counts as to if it constitutes hate and why do they get to decide?

Alex said...

Todd said...
Why? Oh, and who's opinion of the speech counts as to if it constitutes hate and why do they get to decide?

Society at this point in time has decided which speech is hateful and needs to be outlawed. That's how it works.

Todd said...

Alex said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Todd said...
Why? Oh, and who's opinion of the speech counts as to if it constitutes hate and why do they get to decide?

Society at this point in time has decided which speech is hateful and needs to be outlawed. That's how it works.

4/6/15, 3:40 PM


Society doesn't do squat. People do. So are you saying judges get to decide?

At a point in the not too distant past, the main position in America was "the cure for hate speech is more speech". At some point this has been perverted and now everyone is a special little snowflake that has to be protected from "wrong" talk.

The country is worse off as a result of this change. It is a shame that you don't see that.

YoungHegelian said...

@Alex,

I suspect you don't know any gay people and if you did you wouldn't dare say "LGBT brigades" to their face.

Oh, like that notorious right-wing, teabagger Betty Friedan, who coined the phrase Lavender Menace. 'cause, she never knew no gay people, that's fer shure.

Most groups, ethnic or otherwise, really overestimate just how sweet & loveable they are. Gays are no different, e.g. Alex.

Alex said...

YoungHegelian...

I challenge you to spout your hate speech with your real name on Facebook. I double dog dare ye.

No I triple dog dare ye!

damikesc said...

Oh and free speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to shout hatred towards vulnerable groups.

I know you're doing your usual devil's advocate schtick...but, yeah, free speech is very much that.

If I wish to yell slurs at people, there is literally no law that can prevent it or punish me for doing so criminally.

Howard said...

Jason: spot on. I also didn't hear her professor doctor shout down NAACP advocates and their allies when private business were assaulted when they had to serve Negroes.

I don't get it either, why would they want to drink from a fountain/eat at a lunch counter/sit in the front of a bus when they are not wanted.

This old world is getting more uppity every stinking day. Thank G_D we still get Leave it to Beaver reruns to remind of of a simpler time where folks naturally knew their place.

Fen said...

Althouse, its not unreasonable for people who have followed you over the years to have an expectation you will champion free speech. Its what you are known for, especially among those on the right who are usually moderated or banned on other blogs run by liberals.

There is a constitutional principle that we cannot be forced to promote something that violates our moral conscience.

Homosexual activists just engaged in a little online Kristallnacht against Memories Pizza. Their family business has been ruined. They have been subjected to death threats. The owners are in hiding.

All because the daughter said that, while they serve gays, they would not participate in a gay wedding by catering it.

Yes, free speech includes the right for you to be silent on this issue. But this is one of those cases where silence speaks louder than anything you would say.

Fen said...

Callahan: Then the right side has officially lost. Because the only way to counter the types of attacks you'll get is to attack back, and twice as hard (as someone of importance once said).

Yup. There is still one alternative on the table - Islam. They don't put up with attacks on their faith. There won't be any issue about gay weddings because all the gays will be dead.

I don't think I've become radicalized enough by the left to join ISIS. But they are already in America, and if they come for the gays, I too can remain silent.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Alex: Society at this point in time has decided which speech is hateful and needs to be outlawed. That's how it works.

See Althouse? One of your principles is crumbling right before your eyes. Will you even correct Alex? Or will you let him infect others with his totalitarian nonsense?

Its like watching NOW all over again - proclaiming that sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace is "just about sex, MoveOn"...

Jason said...

Alex: oh and free speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to shout hatred towards vulnerable groups.

Sure it does, you under-educated little shit.

You should go back to whatever schools mistakenly passed you past fift grade and get a refund from them for letting you stew in your ignorance.

Fen said...

Next week, next month, next year. Or maybe even tomorrow:

"24 gays were massacred in Dearborn?!"

"[shrug] homosexuality is just a profane western provocation"

"Yah, liberty is one thing, but we should respect Muslim sensibilities"

"Do Burqas come in sizes?"

"Hey now, Islam is a religion of peace. Also, the Christians were just as bad during the crusades"

"Anyone seen Fen around?"

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7122/1469/1600/COX%20%26%20forkum%2006.02.07.WestDhimmi-X.0.gif

Jason said...

Society at this point in time has decided which speech is hateful and needs to be outlawed. That's how it works.

Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist. Every time.

JAORE said...

Alex said...
Society at this point in time has decided which speech is hateful and needs to be outlawed. That's how it works.

Yikes! Please tell me this is an attempt at a humorous post and the joke went WAY over my head. Pretty please.

YoungHegelian said...

@Alex,

I challenge you to spout your hate speech with your real name on Facebook. I double dog dare ye.

Alex, I am the very bane of my lefty friends' existence on FB.

And, you know what makes it the worst? I used to be one of them. I know my Marxists & my post-Marxists & I know the history of the Left. I know where the bodies, often in the literal sense, are buried.

If you think I pull my punches in person, you simply have no clue, which, sadly for you, is SOP.

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

@Howard,

I also didn't hear her professor doctor shout down NAACP advocates and their allies when private business were assaulted when they had to serve Negroes

Oh, so the equation is Black == Gay, izzit?

Back where I come from, where people actually had some idea of what logic is, that was called an analogy. Now, analogies may be useful things, but there's nothing about an analogy that commands immediate moral assent from a listener. Would you like to explain your analogy? Or, do you assume that because everybody on your side of the political debate just assumes it, it's now set into some sort of moral cement?

Not writing the name of God, are we, Howard? You're pretty picky about which parts of the Pentateuch you care to honor, aren't you?

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
damikesc said...

I don't think I've become radicalized enough by the left to join ISIS. But they are already in America, and if they come for the gays, I too can remain silent.

Indeed. Gays would likely be their first target.

And while my faith says I should help them, I can fall short in my faith and not always help as fervently as possible.

As far as FB, my friends actually call me in to unleash Hell on the SJW front.

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:
The LGBT brigades...

That's hate speech right there.


Nope.

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:
The LGBT brigades...

That's hate speech right there.


if the cap fits, let him wear it, chum.

jr565 said...

The LGBT brigades...

That's hate speech right there.


Since when does you being a protected class mean you can't be criticized for your totalitarianism? Gay rights must be so protected that even saying they are acting like facists to achieve their goals is hate speech.

jr565 said...

ALex wrote:
Alex: oh and free speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to shout hatred towards vulnerable groups.

SO when liberals call Christians all sorts of names alex's premise I'm sure is that they are not vulnerable groups. unlike the gays.
And who is saying anyone is shouting hatred? The guy who's being targeted with speech that they don't like. How is that necessarily hate speech?
Hate speech sounds like speech Alex doesn't like.
But his speech is not hate speech or those hes directing hate speech at are not vulnerable so it's ok.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RecChief said...

Here's a better one for timid Christians:

Ephesians 6:10-17 King James Version (KJV)

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

Balfegor said...

Re: Howard:

I don't get it either, why would they want to drink from a fountain/eat at a lunch counter/sit in the front of a bus when they are not wanted.

If the places that one is not wanted are the only places available or are by far superior to the places one is wanted, then that's a problem. Rather than simply providing a space for people who just don't like you, for whatever reason, they've gone further and squeezed you out. At least one of them ought to bend to accommodate you -- that's only decent. And if no one does, well "there ought to be a law" people will say in their cups, and those shops will lose that freedom. That's life.

On the other hand, if there's places where one is welcome and places where one is not, and places where everyone is welcome, then I am not so concerned. I might not be welcome in a Hasidic neighbourhood in NYC, but that's fine -- there's other fine neighbourhoods about. White men are apparently very concerned whether it would be inappropriate for them to go to a black barbershop because they would be unwelcome -- and that shows a neighbourly concern not to give offense.

I do not think homosexuals are going to have a problem finding pizzerias to cater their weddings (if for some reason, that was a thing anyone did), or bakers to bake them wedding cakes. Just not an issue -- in this case, they are the ones doing the squeezing out, not the ones being squeezed out. And it's not right.

Howard said...

YoungHegelian:
Back where I come from, the land of fruits and nuts, our logic is:
black = discriminated people
gay = discriminated people
therefore, gay = black in the context of civil rights discrimination.

You could make the argument that discrimination is acceptable because freedom of association and the right to privacy trumps civil rights. Courts (AFAIK) have sided against this view.

You could argue the gay are not discriminated against because marriage is only man-woman procreation contract with G_D and Rome. IM[ignorant of law]O, this is in conflict with the freedom of association and equal protection.

I concede several advantages of the gay over blacks including but not limited to they are lynched at a much lower rate, were not kidnapped into slavery, generally are more educated, wealthier, can "pass" much easier (no closet for blacks) and they are (mostly) white, therefore, their discrimination is at a lower level of impact.

G_D D_MN it, can't you logicians spot sarcasm?

Howard said...

Balfegor:

What the LGBTLSMFT activists are doing is exposing bigots and cheering on the crowd-sourced ostracization using their own "Army of Davids"

In the infotainment age of slut-shaming, the sausage is now made in public.

Howard said...

Alex regarding hate speech.

You don't understand and/or failed to articulate that the speech (hate or otherwise, non-fighting words, non-slanderous despicable communication)is not outlawed, it is socially unacceptable and punishment is meted out by the private sector.

Jason said...

If the places that one is not wanted are the only places available or are by far superior to the places one is wanted, then that's a problem.

Not relevant. It's not a matter of "places." The caterer doesn't choose the venue. The customer does.

And if a vendor does a much better job than the other vendors in town at some service or other, that does not negate their liberties one iota.

By the way: Black Americans called. They'd like the gays to stop their valor thievery by equating themselves with the marchers at Selma.

Not least of which because this time it's you bastards with the dogs and hoses.

But then, it was Democrat mobs all along with the dogs and hoses, wasn't it?

SJ said...

Christ warns His followers that they will be despised and hated of men.

Christ also admonishes His followers to render to Caesar (or to legitimate government authority) only what Caesar requires.

On the one hand, the Christian response is obvious.

But on the other hand, the Christian who also cares about an inclusive, tolerant American society is on the horns of a dilemma.

After all, if it is not safe to publicly proclaim Christian teachings in America...then who will be able to honestly say America is a place where is it safe to be unpopular ?

Hugh Hefner and the KKK were defended by people who were worried about the rights of the unpopular.

Will Christians who teach that same-sex marriage is equivalent to calling an evil thing good receive the same kind of protection?

And if Christians don't speak up for themselves, who will defend the core American privilege of being unpopular, but not being subject to opprobrium?

It's a hard thing.

Howard said...

SJ Prostitution (Hefner) and lynching (KKK) are still illegal. However, you can legally look at dirty pictures and write books on the proper way to serve the mud people at a bar-b-que.

Christians are still free to spew all of the ignorance and hate they want on TV, Radio, Internet and the public square. They just can't legally discriminate against people in their public accommodation business.

Just stop the whinging from the blow-back when modern, civil humans ridicule your discredited superstitions.

YoungHegelian said...

@Howard,

Back where I come from, the land of fruits and nuts, our logic is:
black = discriminated people
gay = discriminated people
therefore, gay = black in the context of civil rights discrimination.


But, Howard, as you discuss in your posting, the level of "discrimination" suffered by gays in no way equals that suffered by blacks. There are likewise other "protected groups", such as "women", who have suffered I would say, much less, since women have filled the ranks of the very poor to the very rich. If the suffering is not equivalent, as you admit, then it's up to you to defend the proposition that the necessary government intervention is proportional & warranted. I'm seeing no such defense here. There's no one here who's claiming that it should be open season on discrimination against gays. We're claiming that the burden on e.g. people of faith, is far above proportional & warranted by the history of oppression.

I think that our position 1) puts your side on the defensive to prove P & W, & 2) is much harder to argue against than your side likes to warrant.

Jason said...

"in their public accommodation business."

You use that phrase "public accommodation businesses."

It does not mean what you think it means.

Fen said...

Bigot said: Christians are still free to spew all of the ignorance and hate they want on TV, Radio, Internet and the public square. Just stop the whinging from the blow-back when modern, civil humans ridicule your discredited superstitions.

You think that little diatribe makes you seem smart and sophisticated. But it just makes me wonder what you are compensating for.

I think the "Nibiru is coming soon!" crowd is bonkers. But I don't feel a need to spend time and energy taunting them. So what's your excuse? A suspicion that you really aren't as smart as your mommy told you?


They just can't legally discriminate against people in their public accommodation business.

They weren't. In fact, in the same journalistic ambush, they said that they have always served gays.

They just don't want to be forced to participate in a religious ceremony that violates their moral conscience.

And there it is, we've stumbled into your real issue - you are not capable of comprehending what a moral conscience is.

Dr Weevil said...

Funny how Howard accuses Christians of "spew[ing] . . . ignorance and hate" when they merely disagree on what constitutes a marriage, but still thinks of himself as one of the "civil humans"! The Indiana pizza-chefs were a Hell of a lot more civil in expressing their opinion of gay 'marriage' than he is about them and people like them.

I wonder if he treats Vegetarians the same way? Many of them, if you ask them, will quite openly accuse carnivores like me of being as bad as murderers. Should a vegetarian baker be sued out of business for politely declining to bake me a pork-bun? Or should they be treated the way I in fact treat them: as long as they don't try to physically stop me from eating meat, or shout "Meat is murder!" outside my bedroom window at 3:00 am, why should I worry that they find my carnivorous habits disgusting and inhuman? I may find their opinion silly, but I don't call them 'ignorant' or 'bigots' just because they disagree on what counts as appropriate food for humans and what does not. Is it too much to ask gays and their supporters to treat Christians the same way?

Sebastian said...

@Alex: "Society at this point in time has decided which speech is hateful and needs to be outlawed. That's how it works."

Ah, yes. The charming call for ideological Gleichschaltung: the telos of modern Progressivism.

@Howard: "Just stop the whinging from the blow-back when modern, civil humans ridicule your discredited superstitions."

A charming instance of "modern, civil" discourse. This must be an instance of the liberal desire for tolerance and diversity we keep hearing about.

Fen said...

Its all good. See, Howard is really really brave, standing up to those stupid Christians who keep turning the other cheek.

But he needs to Speak Truth To Power, and since those Christians just aren't in his weight class, I've introduced him to some of my islamic friends. And just changed the words around a bit.

Enjoy, Howard!

Howard said...

Sexual orientation is not a moral issue. It's a fact of life. The moral issue is that you think G_D fucked up and created some people to have an drive of love and connection that is immoral. I guess that's why they call it faith.

Balfegor said...

Re: Howard:

What the LGBTLSMFT activists are doing is exposing bigots and cheering on the crowd-sourced ostracization using their own "Army of Davids"

Well they certainly are exposing bigots, viz. themselves. I'll give them that.

Dr Weevil said...

Human omnivoracity is not a moral issue. It's a fact of life. The moral issue is that vegetarians (never treated as bigots by lefties) think God fouled up and created some people (most people, actually) to have a drive of meat-eating that is (according to them) immoral. I guess that's why they call it faith.

Jason said...

Howard. It's not your place to decide for Christians what they regard as a moral issue and what they don't.

Stay in your lane, bitch.

Howard said...

YH:

How does the degree of oppression matter? As society moves forward, the low-hanging fruit (first order problems) is picked clean and the focus becomes the second and third-order problems. Successful societies evolve, as the holy land regresses into the dark ages.

When is faith (especially faith derived from the a$$hole of the modern world) ever justified an excuse to discriminate in the public arena?

YoungHegelian said...

@Howard,

The moral issue is that you think G_D fucked up and created some people to have an drive of love and connection that is immoral

You mean everybody? Everyone is affected by the sin of lust, and the same God that created gays created straights. The burdens of self-control Christianity places on straight sexual behavior is also burdensome, as evidenced by those few who fully live up to its teachings. Whatever was the reason that God created us like he did, it is far beyond our ken to discern so far. And that's the judgement of men far beyond our powers of intellect. "Where were you when I created Leviathan?" is a dictum you should really take to heart.

On what planet do you live that sexuality is not a moral issue? ALL Cultures have had severe strictures on sexual behavior, mostly because 1) women don't enjoy being raped 2) men don't like the women in their protection being raped by other men & 3) sex produces babies, and taking care of children uses up a lot of any society's resources. Have you never read Freud, Madame Bovary, or listened to any Italian opera? SEX is BIG TIME TROUBLE, and that isn't just Christianity's judgement.

Dr Weevil said...

My comparison to vegetarianism is actually an a fortiori argument. Many vegetarians sincerely believe that 'Meat is Murder', but somehow that's OK. Vegetarianism is cool. I'm pretty sure that even the Pope thinks gay sex, though 'gravely disordered' (I believe that's the phrase) is a lot less sinful than murder. Yet people who agree with him, however politely, are treated like scum by people who still manage to think of themselves as "civil".

Howard said...

Jason: Agreed. Christians are free to continue to play the devil's cards while wearing an armored cloak of phony morality.

Fen said...

Ignorant Bigot: Sexual orientation is not a moral issue. It's a fact of life.

No, its not a fact. There is some good theory that is biological, but its still speculation.

BTW, one new theory (that has as much credence as yours) is that male homosexuality has been influenced by the amount of hormones in the water supply. Apparently, treatment plants don't filter it out.

So again, it appears you are more ignorant than those "other" people over there, despite what your mommy told you.

Jason said...

When is faith (especially faith derived from the a$$hole of the modern world) ever justified an excuse to discriminate in the public arena?

The negotiation of a private contract between two private parties to cater a private event that happens to be a religious sacrament is not 'in the public arena.' Indeed, it's about as far from 'public' as you can get.

YoungHegelian said...

@Howard,

When is faith (especially faith derived from the a$$hole of the modern world) ever justified an excuse to discriminate in the public arena?

Always, Howard, always.

You share a warped view very common among your ilk: that outside of faith, there is a open receptacle of moral philosophy that, once not blinded by faith, we can all just dip our straws into.

There is simply no such thing, and to believe there is simply delusional. There are simply competing moral philosophies, all dependent on foundational metaphysical assumptions that no opponent will grant. Moral philosophy is a mess, Howard, and it is the thinnest of reeds to grasp at. That's why, in far too many regimes in the 20c, when faith was replaced the bayonet & the gulag became the guarantor of metaphysical certainty. Over 100 million people are fertilizer because of it. You don't want to go there.

Jason said...

BTW, one new theory (that has as much credence as yours) is that male homosexuality has been influenced by the amount of hormones in the water supply.

Ice cream, Mandrake. Childrens' ice cream.

Howard said...

Y-H: The great fallback into the mysteries of G_D is the perfect excuse to continue belief in a superstition bred in response to the huge climactic changes in a region that was one lush and turned to desert. It is no wonder that guilt and original sin is the foundation of middle eastern crowd control.

Jason said...

Howard: It's not your place to determine for anyone else whose morality is 'phony' and whose isn't. Know your place.

Fen said...

Ignorant Bigot: When is faith (especially faith derived from the a$$hole of the modern world) ever justified an excuse to discriminate in the public arena?

Moral conscience. Try to get over your fear and hatred of religion.

Here's an example you might be able to grasp - a feminist photographer can refuse to do a shoot that she feels promotes violence against women, because she doesn't want her art used that way.

She is justified in "discriminating" in the public arena.

Also, Achbar says "Hi, heathen bitch". He wants to meet up to discuss what you said about his prophet or something.

Balfegor said...

Re: Fen --

The thing about Christians is that when in centuries past we forced you to bow down and make sacrifices to the Roman gods, you refused, and were martyred for your troubles:

At length, exactly one year after Cyprian was first apprehended, Galerius Maximus, proconsul of Africa, received the Imperial warrant for the execution of the Christian teachers. The bishop of Carthage was sensible that he should be singled out for one of the first victims; and the frailty of nature tempted him to withdraw himself, by a secret flight, from the danger and the honor of martyrdom; * but soon recovering that fortitude which his character required, he returned to his gardens, and patiently expected the ministers of death. Two officers of rank, who were intrusted with that commission, placed Cyprian between them in a chariot, and as the proconsul was not then at leisure, they conducted him, not to a prison, but to a private house in Carthage, which belonged to one of them. An elegant supper was provided for the entertainment of the bishop, and his Christian friends were permitted for the last time to enjoy his society, whilst the streets were filled with a multitude of the faithful, anxious and alarmed at the approaching fate of their spiritual father. In the morning he appeared before the tribunal of the proconsul, who, after informing himself of the name and situation of Cyprian, commanded him to offer sacrifice, and pressed him to reflect on the consequences of his disobedience. The refusal of Cyprian was firm and decisive; and the magistrate, when he had taken the opinion of his council, pronounced with some reluctance the sentence of death. It was conceived in the following terms: "That Thascius Cyprianus should be immediately beheaded, as the enemy of the gods of Rome, and as the chief and ringleader of a criminal association, which he had seduced into an impious resistance against the laws of the most holy emperors, Valerian and Gallienus."

This is a paltry thing in comparison.

Howard said...

Y-H: All moral philosophies are essentially the same: the seven deadly sins and heavenly virtues are not unique to the believers in the burning bush.

Dr Weevil said...

Can Howard handle my question about vegetarians? Learn the difference between 'climactic' and 'climatic'? Understand that not all Christians are motivated by bigotry or ignorance or hate, and that many anti-Christians are seething with all three? We shall see.

YoungHegelian said...

@Howard,

The great fallback into the mysteries of G_D is the perfect excuse to continue belief in a superstition bred in response to the huge climactic changes in a region that was one lush and turned to desert. It is no wonder that guilt and original sin is the foundation of middle eastern crowd control

Whatever it was, Howard, doesn't mean that what I said about secular morality isn't the human condition. It is, and you know it. On the other side of Faith is the Nietzsche abyss, and he, unlike you was honest enough to admit it.

Moving past faith doesn't make you moral, Howard. It just means you've moved past faith. You think that believers can't face the harshness of The Truth. Clearly, neither can you.

Howard said...

Jesus, Fen. Even Jason thinks your a tool. No offense Jason. Anyone who can reflexively quote Col. Ripper can't be all bad.

YoungHegelian said...

@Howard,

All moral philosophies are essentially the same: the seven deadly sins and heavenly virtues are not unique to the believers in the burning bush.

Do you ever think in anything but trivialities? Why should scholars spend years trying to understand the moral philosophy of some great philosopher, when they have the great Howard to tell what's what?! And it can be printed on a fortune in fortune cookie to boot!

I'm done with you for this evening. You're a fool, and you've got a lot of reading to ahead of you before you'll be anything but.

Howard said...

Y-H: You are half-right, the other side of faith is eternity. One doesn't need to see it as an abyss. You are correct, faith or no faith has nothing to do with morals. Morals are like gravity (or porn): I know it when I feel it in my bones.

Howard said...

Y-H: I am a fool, that is the human condition. To think otherwise is the most deadly sin of pride.

Dr Weevil said...

The pagan Greeks and Romans thought pride was a virtue: so much for the idea that all moral philosophies are the same. Still no word on what Howard thinks of vegetarians - is he pretending not to notice arguments he can't find an answer to? That's what it looks like.

Howard said...

Dr. Weevil: Your vegi-baker scenario is an apples and hammers comparison. Please find an actual conundrum.

Howard said...

https://www.google.com/search?q=jesus+pride&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=proud+to+be+christian

sean said...

What Jason said at the beginning. I can't think of anything more hypocritical and revolting than professors urging other people to be courageous about expressing themselves.

I Callahan said...

Hey Alex,

Still butthurt?

Ooops!!! - Did I project hate again?

Jason said...

No. All moral philosophies are emphatically not the same. That's utterly stupid.

The ancient Romans and Greeks openly practiced infanticide and left very young children thought to be defective out in the wilderness to die of exposure or starve.

This would be unthinkable in any Christian moral philosophy, which values every human soul as a unique and beloved creation.

Communism is a distinctly different moral philosophy as well, as is any moral philosophy that denies the value of the individual in favor of the collective. Communism has slaughtered more millions per year of its existence than any civilization in the history of Man, averaging a million murders per year over the last century.

Imperial Shintoism and Christianity (with allies in Buddhism) had an epic and brutal clash in the Pacific Ocean in 1941-45. Theirs was the philosophy of the kamikaze, the comfort women, and the mass beheading of prisoners.

Finally, if you cannot discern the vast moral chasm between the philosophies of ISIS and the Christian minority in the region, you're too stupid to be breathing unsupervised.

I Callahan said...

I've said it before; I'll say it again - some people just have to be assholes for the sake of being assholes. Don't waste your time with this one.

Sebastian said...

"Over 100 million people are fertilizer because of it. You don't want to go there."

Don't know if he does, but many of his kind did and do. To my knowledge, few of the killers have expressed remorse.

"On the other side of Faith is the Nietzsche abyss, and he, unlike you was honest enough to admit it."

Partly depends on how you define faith. But some like the abyss. Being there means not having to care about honesty and other trifles. At least Nietzsche was still cognizant of, and indebted to, the culture he opposed. Howardian Progressivism reduces humans to moral dwarfs.

Howard said...

Jason: Nice try. You need to breathe rather than hyperventilate. WWII was a secular Liberal Democracy fighting against fascist dictatorship and a militaristic monarchy. Roosevelt was not a bible-banger. What was the christian nation reason for the Banana Wars? What was the christian nation justification for slavery? Every army in Europe for nearly 2000-years fought for money and power under the banner of Christ. History shows that people cloak themselves in religion to justify anything, including taking a dump on gays.

Howard said...

Sebastian: Going Godwin is not a win for God.

ken in tx said...

I have seen the LBGT Brigades. They are in my church. They wear their rainbow shawls and neckties on certain days, days known only to them. Some of them are in positions of authority and leadership. None dare question them. I suspect many people just leave and don't come back.

ken in tx said...

LSMFT, Loose Straps Mean Floppy Tittys, or maybe Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco, your choice.

Fen said...

Howard: " Going Godwin is not a win for God."

Try again. There are exceptions to Godwin's law, just like any other.

One being: gay Nazis launching a little online Kristallnacht against a pizza store.

SJ said...

@Howard, I may have mis-spoke.

When speaking of First Amendment cases protecting the noxious, I was thinking of Larry Flynt and the neo-nazis in Skokie, Illinois. (In their respective court cases.)

If those people have to be defended in order to protect the speech of all, then don't Christians also have to be defended to protect the freedom of conscience of all?

Jason said...

Howard:

You have a Romper Room understanding of history.

rcommal said...

"The problem with free speech is that it’s hard, and self-censorship is the path of least resistance."
"But, once you learn to keep yourself from voicing unwelcome thoughts, you forget how to think them — how to think freely at all — and ideas perish at conception.


Oh, bullshit, most--though not all--of that. Cant takes many forms, make no mistake about it.

Dr Weevil said...

How pathetic is she who shall not be named? She knows that her comments will be deleted as soon as our hostess sees them, so she posts at 3:00am so they'll stay up a couple of hours. The only result is that a few who get up early like me can see exactly why she's been banned. What a loser!

Rusty said...

Now I'm on the side of the Christians.
Why?
Because it pisses Howard off.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Have you ever noticed how quickly non-Christians start dropping scripture when they think it fits their narrative? Or progressives dropping Reagan?

Mark McNeil said...

I've enjoyed reading the discussion. It's beginning to dawn on American Christians, like myself, we're not likely to get out of here alive. Sir Thomas More's tried silence too. No doubt, the "flying monkeys" (h.t. Jason) in education covet your tenure and will not relent until the Christian's is available.

Douglas said...

I went to a workshop yesterday (Philosophy and Law) at which a Wellesley College philosophy professor made a pitch for interpreting the First Amendment to permit the government to punish racist comments. We could end up in that world, where everyone has to watch what they say, lest they say the wrong thing and end up fined, jailed or fired. The natural extension of that world is thought policing and re-education camps: we wouldn't want anyone to be subject to micro-aggressions that might hurt their feelings, so let's root out all the evil thoughts that lead to such bad conduct.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

The problem with Howard and his ilk is they don't recognize thst people can view things as sins. And so he doesn't understnd how making a cake for an activity that a Christian believes is sin means that they Christian is compelled to contribute to a sinful activity. Thats kind of a big deal to christians. They don't want to endorse or be part of sinful behavior. To be drawn in means they are contributing to the sin.
If YOU want to exist in sin thyr are not saying you can't. They just don't want to be a part of it or seem to be endorsing it. So, baking a cake for a ceremony they consider sinful would mean thst they are contributing to endorsement of the sinful act.
If gays went to a different baker they'd get a cake and the Christian will have no say as to how they conduct their lives. Why do gays feel like they are entitled to force people to contribute to their sinful behavior .

CWJ said...

jr565 wrote -

"Why do gays feel like they are entitled to force people to contribute to their sinful behavior ."

I suspect your question is at least partly rhetorical, but I'll bite.

First of all, we're talking about only the most militant SJW subset of the gay population. Those willing to picket, bully, threaten, or take to court their "enemies."

That said I suggest any combination of the following as likely.

Revenge.
Tolerence insufficient, endorsement required.
Business owner is the sinner, not themselves.
I can't be wrong if the courts say I'm not.
Insecurity.
Will to power through humiliating others.
Shame.

Or a variation on the Momma saying: "If gay ain't happy, ain't nobody gonna be happy."

Unknown said...

Ah, is that it Nameless? You're a dyke maybe? Had a letch on for the good prof and now evil male Meade threw water on you and you're melting, melting, melting?

People like you are why Alan Turing had to die. Unsuppressed, this is how you act. I don't want you killed, preferably fixed, but certainly you need to stay in your holes.

Jason said...

Sweet Cakes by Melissa, in Gresham, Oregon (a suburb of Portland) is facing a $150,000 fine for refusing to make a custom cake for a same sex wedding.

They were already forced to close their storefront and operate from a home kitchen, meaning they had to abandon retail operations and do only custom work (what has that already cost them).

After all, businesses don't support families, put kids through school, and fund retirement for people who don't have taxpayer-funded pensions to rely on.

But hey, Professor. Keep encouraging "timid" Christians to "stand firm."

LOL


Fen said...


The problem with Howard and his ilk is they don't recognize thst people can view things as sins

I once thought the same but no longer. See, I've tried to approach the angle from "moral conscience", using things like US V Seeger re conscientious objections to war.


I doesn't take. They are immune to reason. Which only leads me to believe this is about bigotry and hatred of Christians.

Pianoman said...

I'm a pianist who sometimes plays for weddings and receptions (played one last weekend, in fact).

There's a gay couple in our family that are SJWs. They're not married *yet*, but we think it's just a matter of time.

My question for the SSM supporters here: Would you put me in jail for refusing to play their wedding?

Jason said...

Over that? No. Over just vs tempered intonation? Hang, you bastard.

Jason said...

I'm going to go back and object to Althouse's characterization of my first couple of posts as "Orwellian."

I reject that characterization as not just unfounded but absolutely hypocritical, just like her closing remarks in the OP.

It's Althouse sitting on the sidelines, not me, watching a young woman and business owner turned into the Emmanuel Goldstein of the week, literally driven into hiding by a baying mob for wrongthink.

It's Althouse, not me, sitting on the sidelines allowing the slander that she discriminated against anybody in her restaurant. She has not. But Althouse is willing to let the flying monkeys destroy her and her family anyway without speaking a word in protest. They don't even cater weddings. It's purely a hypothetical. But the slander is not hypothetical.

It's Althouse sitting on the sidelines, not me, expressing "detached amusement" at threats of arson, robbery and death at a business owner who
has wronged no one.

If there were ever a clear case of a nationwide "Two Minute Hate" directed against an ordinary citizen Goldstein who has broken no law and harmed no one at all, it's this one. I've spoken out against it repeatedly and clearly, while Althouse continues to embrace her "detached amusement." And she dares accuse me, in a forum of intelligent and literate people who can read for themselves, of being "Orwellian" of all things?

That's ridiculous. Transparent and ridiculous on its face.

The left is hell-bent on infringing liberty, forcing compliance, compelling dissenters to reject value systems that stretch back millennia, and they're willing to go to any length whatsoever, including Draconian family destroying fines (Oregon) and death threats (Indiana) and slander (the media) to do so, and the underlying guilt or innocence of the citizen targeted is not a concern to them. Nor seemingly to you, since you cannot bring yourself to voice any kind of defense of the innocent and weak.

And you call me "Orwellian?"

You go on to encourage Christians to speak out, to be "bold" so they can be more easily identified and destroyed by the Pink and Lavender Stasi that you enable with your silence, so they can more easily be brought under the yoke of slavery to which the Bible passage you yourself cited refers, and you call me "Orwellian?"

If you cannot muster any kind of defense of religious liberty - or liberty itself, in this case, where a vendor is simply expressing her wish to be left alone, in this limited and entirely passive act of merely saying "no, I won't be a part of your wedding," then are there any instances where you would defend liberty on principle? If the government's capacity to compel action extends to forcing a Christian or Muslim baker to lend their imprimatur to a gay wedding, and to be forced to materially participate in a ceremony debasing a sacrament in violation of beliefs that have been in place for thousands of years, then why would any of us believe that you can ever be a reliable ally of liberty? Why would we believe that you recognize any limits at all on the reach of government into the spiritual lives of Americans?

If a pizza vendor doesn't have the right to be left alone, then they have no rights at all that you seem to be willing to articulate and defend.

Where does it end, professor?

I'm sorry, but one who remains silent while attacks on individual liberty are going on, and while they have the force of law and are even now landing Americans in court and driving them into bankruptcy and into hiding does not get to look at one who publicly defends liberty on principle and cry "Orwellian."

That dog don't hunt.

Seriously: Up your game.

Ann Althouse said...

Jason, I chose not to run with the pizza-shop story. If I had, I would not have been just adding my voice to what others are already saying. So don't attack me just for not signing onto what X set of bloggers is saying. You do not know what I would say if I had blogged it, and you are not considering whether I had good reason not to work out my thoughts on the subject in public. I don't know if you'll believe me, but my choice not to speak on that one was not out of timidity or fear of reprisal or because I was selfishly withholding my endorsement of some position that was already being said.

I might choose to write about the incident at some later point. You probably won't like what I say.

Jason said...

"First they came for the Christian pizzeria owners, and I did not speak out because my choice not to speak on that one was not out of timidity or fear of reprisal or because I was selfishly withholding my endorsement of some position that was already being said. But I looked at this young woman experiencing death threats and the threats of robbery and arson, and what I felt was, still, exquisitely distanced amusement."

Got it.

rcommal said...

I'm pondering the notion that the redefinition of freedom of speech to freedom of expression has come back to bite the ass of those who insisted on the redefinition but now won't follow through with it.

That's pretty damn intellectually shameful, say I.

(As ever and always: FWIW.)

rcommal said...

Oh my. I don't comment all that much anymore, and I try to keep it pithy, on point and at least somewhat useful to the general community of idea-sharing when I do--and even then, I do try to limit any sort of followup or interaction thereafter, under the theory of, "say what you most want to say and then let it be."

Now I see that my comment is out in limbo, somewhere, awaiting something, which makes the rarer effort hardly worth it at all.

*shrug*

Ann Althouse said...

@rcommal

I have to have moderation on all the time for posts older than 2 days.

Don't interpret that to mean anything at all about the content of what you've written.