Advice Goddess Free Swim
It's Wednesday night, and I've just arrived in Columbia, Missouri, for the big annual ev psych conference -- where -- drum roll...I will actually be speaking.
As for here in blogland, you pick the topics. I'll post more on Thursday morning.
P.S. One link per comment or my spam filter will eat your post.
Well, I guess someone's got to do it...
Marco Rubio whipping up antigay fear.
Two points:
1) Gays can already accuse their detractors of being homophobes and haters and can denounce Christianity as hate speech (and many of us do). Gay marriage/rights do not have to be in place for gays (or anyone) to attack Christianity (or anything else). It's called free speech.
2) So what if gays and supporters call Christian teaching hate speech? Hate speech is still protected speech.
Patrick at May 28, 2015 1:17 AM
Right on, Patrick.
Amy Alkon at May 28, 2015 5:10 AM
Good luck to Amy!
re Patrick:
As long as "hate speech" is not defined as illegal go for it. I hope to see you in line defending the religious' right to spew "hate speech".
I believe Rubios' point is that we are seeing no tolerance for different POVs on all school campuses, in the MSM, and in blatant government actions (see the IRS). Both your POV and mine (where different) should be acceptable in all of these arenas.
For example from a WSJ piece (below), some points are true and some are false but the students will not be told which are presumed and which are factual. How will they "know" when they are being deceived and by whom?
"The National Research Council framework for K-12 science education recommends that by the end of Grade 5, students should appreciate that rising average global temperatures will affect the lives of all humans and other organisms on the planet. By Grade 8, students should understand that the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels is a major factor in global warming. And by Grade 12, students should know that global climate models are very effective in modeling, predicting and managing the current and future impact of climate change. "
Bob in Texas at May 28, 2015 5:35 AM
Trust me.
"Anthrax spores were accidentally shipped from a U.S. military laboratory in Utah to labs in nine states — and an air base in South Korea, officials said Wednesday."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-army-lab-utah-accidently-ships-anthrax-samples-article-1.2238249
Bob in Texas at May 28, 2015 5:46 AM
"students should know that global climate models are very effective in modeling, predicting and managing the current and future impact of climate change. "
Yeah, this one is not just provably false, it's laughably false. Climate models, when fed past data, consistently fail to "predict" the conditions that exist today. That's because they are all designed to produce a particular answer, and it doesn't matter what data you put in.
Remember, James Hanson assured us that Manhattan would be under water by 2007.
Cousin Dave at May 28, 2015 6:30 AM
So, when a same sex couple shows up at a, say, Roman Catholic church and demands they perform their wedding ceremony, the state will allow the church to refuse them service?
They don't allow the baker, the candlestick maker, or the jeweler to refuse...so...
And of course there are people busy trying to instill a "hate speech is not free speech" exemption. So, what happens then?
I R A Darth Aggie at May 28, 2015 7:10 AM
One of the points that gets overlooked in this whole discussion on forcing people to craft things against their religious beliefs is that we already do this.
Wedding cake makers, photographers, etc. are already forced to accommodate weddings they do not believe in.
There are a number of people who don't believe in interracial marriages for religious reasons. (I was stationed in Ft. Bragg. NC. I know tons of people like that.)
If an interracial couple goes to a Christian baker and requests a wedding cake, and that baker refuses due to religious objections to interracial marriage, he will have his ass handed to him in court.
So please stop talking about forcing business people to do things against their religious convictions as if it were unheard of, and the big bad gays are the first ones to do this.
Patrick at May 28, 2015 7:56 AM
And for something completely different, Dick Van Dyke, now 90 years old, dances up a storm in this new video.
Patrick at May 28, 2015 8:55 AM
Bob in Texas: As long as "hate speech" is not defined as illegal go for it. I hope to see you in line defending the religious' right to spew "hate speech".
There is some debate as to whether hate speech should be illegal, which I am very much. You can't defend free speech by femaning you opposition be silenced. So, yes I will defend even the Westboro Baptist Church's right to speak.
Patrick at May 28, 2015 9:52 AM
I dont know as I recall anyone claim the gays were the first to do it, just that it shouldnt be done.
I recall an article about a church that refused to let two of its black congregants get married in the church becuase no black people had ever been married there.
The only thing I found more disgusting than the attitude of the church goers was the fact this couple continued to attend.
And while such an attitude is disheartening it should be allowed, and people should be allowed to be as openly racist and small minded as they want.
lujlp at May 28, 2015 9:52 AM
re lujllp:
"The only thing I found more disgusting than the attitude of the church goers was the fact this couple continued to attend."
You missed that both the denial of marriage and continued membership was based on total acceptance and love by both parties.
Freedom to be sad about saying "We don't think that is right." along with the freedom to say "We love you and welcome you here." Freedom to say "We disagree on this issue but love you as well."
Times change. People change. Acceptance that both take time takes both wisdom and unconditional love.
Bob in Texas at May 28, 2015 10:42 AM
Here's a bit of good news about Title IX from Harvard.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 28, 2015 1:42 PM
Patrick, I didn't see this as "whipping up the anti-gay fear" as much as warning that we're on the verge ("at the water's edge") of declaring anything that doesn't conform to the lefties' doctrine of political correctness as "hate speech" using gay marriage and Christianity as examples.
Rubio seems to be warning that, in today's political climate with its politicization of religion and anti-religion, centuries-old religious doctrines run the risk of being declared hate speech because the followers won't abandon them to conform to today's lefties' tolerance doctrine.
That could extend to books other than the Bible, too. Is Huckleberry Finn hate speech? It uses the N-word. How about The Maltese Falcon with the now-outdated limp-wristed caricature of Joel Cairo (even though Cairo was based on an actual criminal Hammett had arrested)? Books that dealt with African-Americans as a lesser race or gays as limp-wristed weaklings are rife throughout the canon of Western literature.
Things that passed unnoticed in the past are now being singled out as intolerant and declared to be hate speech. While some adjustment to our casual potrayals is good, per Rubio's warning, we could lose several canonical works of Western literature and thought if we continue blindly down that path.
Conan the Grammarian at May 28, 2015 2:03 PM
In case you can't laugh enough at hijinks of those idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/westboro-baptist-church-ireland-gay-marriage_n_7444756.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
"The hate group posted images of the Irish flag with angry text overlaid to condemn the 60 percent majority who voted for same-sex marriage on Saturday. However, Westboro Baptist couldn't seem to get the flag right and ended up dissing the Ivory Coast."
Conan the Grammarian at May 28, 2015 2:24 PM
As I said before, so what if they do call it hate speech? The term is fairly subjective in it's definition (for now). Moreover, hate speech is not a crime.
His diatribe prompts the question, a real and present danger of what? They're going to call you haters? So what? Christians have worn that label (in different terms) for centuries. And oftentimes it's deserved. That they're going to call Christian teaching hate speech? So what? That does not criminalize it.
Simply put, what exactly is Rubio afraid of? Surely there's more to it than being called nasty names. Is he afraid that they're going to criminalize Christianity?
Patrick at May 28, 2015 5:04 PM
Conan the Grammarian at May 28, 2015 7:50 PM
Yes
Conan the Grammarian at May 28, 2015 8:18 PM
Conan: It will be if they convince enough people to pass a law.
Wouldn't survive a First Amendment challenge.
Conan: Yes
Ditto.
Patrick at May 28, 2015 10:16 PM
Wouldn't survive a First Amendment challenge.
Similar things were said leading up to Kelo
lujlp at May 29, 2015 2:12 AM
If only that were true. Given enough justices like Sotamayor, who favors a broader consideration of foreign and international law in U.S. judicial opinions and said "international law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about the unsettled issues in our own legal system," it may hold up. Many of those foreign laws hold that hate speech is a legitimate reason for restrictions on free speech.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission put Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine in the crosshairs for "hate speech" when the former wrote and the latter published an article that the Canadian Islamic Congress complained was hurful. Our neighbors to the north support restricted speech. If we're not careful, we will, too.
Conan the Grammarian at May 29, 2015 7:57 AM
Many nations claim free speech, but only the U.S. protects it as an individual right. In other words, we have the freest in the word. However, you're right that the liberal half of SCOTUS is being most illiberal on this point. And liberals are supposed to be the champions of individual rights. Not so much lately.
Patrick at May 29, 2015 9:47 AM
And liberals are supposed to be the champions of individual rights.
That may be their brand, but it aint what they do.
The only real difference between republicans and democrats are the types of science they choose to ignore and the areas of your life they with to control
lujlp at May 29, 2015 2:27 PM
Leave a comment