The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Immigration Watch, Food & Health Skeptic, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Dissecting Leftism and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site
****************************************************************************************



21 November, 2009

TN: ACLU attacks Christian practices in schools

"Prohibiting the free exercise" of religion?

"A lawsuit has been filed against the Cheatham County School Board alleging that school officials have promoted their own religious beliefs and allowed and encouraged public prayers at school events.

Civil rights attorney George Barrett and the Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit in federal court today on behalf of four students, listed under aliases. Two were students who graduated last year from Sycamore High School, one is a current student at Sycamore High School and another attends Cheatham Middle School.

The suit seeks an injunction against the schools to prevent them from continuing the activities mentioned in the suit, and nominal damages for the two students who have graduated.”

Among the allegations are that a planned prayer took place at graduation; that the Gideons International were allowed to speak to classes and distribute Bibles; that a cross hangs in a classroom; and that a history teacher taught that the United States is a “Christian nation” and decried the separation of church and state....

Attorney Allen Woods of Woods & Woods, which represents the school board, said they hadn’t yet examined all the allegations contained in the lawsuit but that there is no policy of religious behavior being tolerated or persecuted.

“We believe that all of Cheatham County’s policies are in accordance with the recommendations of the Tennessee School Board Association, and the court will find it legal and valid,” said. “The schools in question and all Cheatham County schools neither endorse any specific religion nor interfere with the religion of its students. That’s what the Constitution requires.”

Source

Terms "Mental Retardation" and "Mentally Disabled" now wrong

We read:

"U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski today introduced Rosa’s Law, a bill that will eliminate the terms “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” from the federal law books. U.S. Senator Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is the Republican sponsor of the bill.

Under Rosa’s Law, those terms would be replaced with “intellectual disability” and “individual with an intellectual disability” in federal education, health and labor law. The bill does not expand or diminish services, rights or educational opportunities. It simply makes the federal law language consistent with that used by the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization and the President of the United States, through his Committee on Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities.

Rosa’s Law replicates a law recently adopted in Maryland. Senator Mikulski first heard about the state law from Rosa’s mother during a roundtable discussion about special education held in Edgewater, Maryland. Due to requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), each student who receives special education services at public schools has an individualized education program (IEP) that describes the student’s disability and the special education and services that child will receive. Rosa has an intellectual disability – Downs Syndrome – and so was designated as a student with “mental retardation” in her IEP, giving way to people at the school referring to Rosa as retarded. Senator Mikulski promised Rosa’s mother that if the bill became law in Maryland, she would take it to the floor of the United States Senate.

Source

Leftists have a long history of belief in verbal magic. They believe that by changing the name for a thing you somehow alter the underlying reality and people's attitude towards it.



20 November, 2009

SCOTUS: Redskins can keep team name

We read:

"A group of native Americans have lost their bid to force the Washington Redskins pro football team to change its name because they consider it to be a racial slur. On Monday, the US Supreme Court, in a one-line ruling, refused to take up the case.

The action lets stand a decision by a federal appeals court in Washington that the native Americans had waited too long to bring their challenge to the Redskins trademark, and thus forfeited any right to sue.”

Source

Democrat wants to silence Christians

We read:

"Still lamenting the overwhelming defeat that she and her pro-abortion cohorts suffered in the House when the Stupak-Pitts amendment was attached to the health care bill, Rep. DeGette is now calling for religiously-affiliated groups to be shut out of the public policy process as the bill goes to the Senate.

“Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country,” she said. “I’ve got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn’t have input.”

In other words if a group of people who are in association with one another because of their Christian faith, they should not have a collective voice in the crafting of public policy. What she is asserting is that if your ideas and actions are a product of your faith, you’re a second class citizen and your voice should not be heard.

This is a far cry from what the Founders believed. Several months after the British surrender at Yorktown, George Washington, in a letter to the Reformed German Congregation of New York, wrote, “The establishment of civil and religious liberty was the motive which induced me to the field (of combat).” Sadly, Diana DeGette seems eager to smother these precious freedoms, neither of which can exist without the other.

Source

Climate censorship

EPA Employees Silenced for Criticizing Cap and Trade

"Laurie Williams and husband Alan Zabel worked as lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in its San Francisco office for more than 20 years, and they know more about climate change than most politicians. But when the couple released a video on the Internet expressing their concerns over the Obama administration’s plans to use cap-and-trade legislation to fight climate change, they were told to keep it to themselves.

Williams and Zabel oppose cap and trade -- a controversial government allowance program in which companies are issued emissions limits, or caps, which they can then trade -- as a means to fight climate change. On their own time, Williams and Zabel made a video expressing these opinions.

"Cap-and-trade with offsets provides a false sense of progress and puts money in the pockets of investors," Zabel said in the video. "We think that these restrictions might not be constitutional," he said.

Their bosses in San Francisco approved the effort by Williams and Zabel to release the tape, but after an editorial they wrote appeared in the Washington Post, EPA Director Lisa Jackson ordered the pair to remove the video or face disciplinary action. Specifically, the administration's chief environmental official did not want Williams or Zabel mentioning their four decades with the EPA -- time spent studying cap and trade. "The people who understand the problems with the cap and trade with offsets bill are not being heard," Williams told Fox News.

Critics argue the action contradicts the president's support for open government. "It's censorship," Jeff Ruch, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told Fox News. "If the Obama administration believes in transparency it is precisely in these cases they need to prove it."

Source

19 November, 2009

Court turns down student over religious speech

What part of "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion do the judges not understand?

"The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a student who complained that high school officials violated her constitutional rights when they turned off her microphone during her religion-tinged graduation speech.

The justices said Monday they will not revive a lawsuit filed by Brittany McComb of Henderson, Nev. challenging the actions of Clark County school officials. A federal appeals court ruled previously ruled against her.

During McComb's speech at the Foothill High School graduation in 2006, officials turned off McComb's microphone when the school valedictorian strayed from an approved text to provide a graphic account of Jesus' crucifixion and credit God for her success in school.

Source

Moans in Australia about 'Hatebook'

We read:

"Social networking site Facebook has come under pressure to better regulate its content as racist and offensive groups continue to proliferate on the site.

Facebook has a ban on "content that is hateful [and] threatening" and a spokeswoman for the site told brisbanetimes.com.au that there was no place for racism “or any form of hate speech” on Facebook. “We will remove anything of this nature that is reported to us,” she said. “Facebook is highly self-regulating, and users can and do report content that they find questionable or offensive.”

But despite Facebook’s self-regulation, many offensive groups remain on the network. Some vilify Indigenous Australians and Muslims, others suggest glassing people is acceptable, and some deny the Holocaust. One anti-Islamic group alone has over 6000 members and many groups remain on Facebook long enough for opposition groups to be created in response.

Race Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes told brisbanetimes.com.au that cyber-racism was an issue that needed to be addressed. “I don’t think we’re a racist country, but Australia does have pockets of racism, and all of us need to challenge these pockets,” he said.

Representatives from Islamic and Jewish peak representative organisations have also called for tighter regulation of online content....

But Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Geordie Guy said groups should have the right to express their views, no matter how abhorrent or controversial they might be. “The ability to say what you want is a critical and important part of democracy and freedom,” he said. Mr Guy said that the open discussion of illegal activities, like abortion and euthanasia was “critical for a healthy democracy”. “The way that we change things is by talking about them. If we’re not allowed to talk about illegal things, how are we going to change anything?" he said.

Previous decisions by the Federal Court of Australia have required Australian sources to remove Holocaust-denying material from the internet.

Source

18 November, 2009

British Labour Party candidate who described the Queen as 'vermin' and a 'parasite who milks the country' is forced to apologise

We read:

"A Labour candidate has been forced to apologise after describing the Queen as 'vermin' and a 'parasite'. Peter White, who is standing in next year's local elections, posted the republican diatribe on the social networking site Facebook.

Last night Mr White was forced to issue a humiliating apology by Labour high command, and was threatened with deselection as election candidate.

The comments met with a furious reaction from other visitors to the web page, and Mr White later deleted his comments. But they had already been saved by Mr Rosindell.

Mr Rosindell said: 'People are absolutely furious that someone in such a position would publicly describe the Queen as vermin and a parasite. It is outrageous: a disgusting thing to say about the head of state. 'If he is republican, he has the right to state his case. But the use such foul and nasty language against the Queen is simply offensive. Even most republicans respect the fact that she has been an excellent head of state.'

Source

He has every right to say what he thinks but this was just plain dumb. The Queen is very highly regarded in Britain. He is just handing the election to his political opponents with comments like that. All British political parties support the Monarchy, even the Scottish Nationalists.



Threatening words or protected speech?

We read:

"When Walter Carl Abbott Jr. posted comments last year on a Maryland government Web site saying he would "strangle" Gov. Martin O'Malley, he learned there's a difference.

The 45-year-old Pikesville construction worker was found guilty of threatening a public official. He is serving two years' probation for his rant against the governor, whom Mr. Abbott blames for personal financial problems that stem from business competition from illegal immigrants.

Mr. Abbott's attorney, Arthur M. Frank, said the comment wasn't a threat but a constitutionally protected criticism of state government. But he said he never got to make that argument at trial, so he took the case to a higher court.

After a hearing earlier this month before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Mr. Abbott is awaiting a ruling on whether a Baltimore County judge should have instructed a 12-member jury to consider whether he was exercising his First Amendment rights.

Mr. Abbott maintains his innocence. He says he just has strong opinions.

Source

17 November, 2009

Must be allowed to speak Spanish?

Which amendment is that, I wonder?

"Members of several civil rights groups are protesting in front of a Taos hotel where Hispanic employees have clashed with the new owner. Whitten Inn owner Larry Whitten forbade employees to speak Spanish and ordered some to Anglicize their Hispanic names when he started making changes at the hotel in July. Taos officials and organizers say the number of protesters on Saturday ranged from 60 to 75.”

Source

It seems to me that a private employer is entitled to run his business in any legal way he wants. If people don't like his conditions of employment, they don't have to work for him.



German secrecy busted by Wikipedia

We read:

"Two German men who murdered an actor in 1990 are suing Wikipedia, claiming its description of their crimes impinges on their privacy. The case pits the United States's first amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, against German privacy and criminal laws, which dictate that after a certain period a crime is spent and cannot be referred to. Britain has similar rules on the reporting of lesser crimes.

The two men were sentenced to life in 1993. They were released in 2007 and 2008. But their lawyer, Alexander Stopp, said German courts allowed a criminal's name to be withheld in news reports once a set period had expired. "They should be able … lead a life without being publicly stigmatised" for their crime, he told The New York Times. "A criminal has a right to privacy, too, and a right to be left alone." [Why? A Leftist opinion, I think]

The German editors of Wikipedia have removed the killers' names from the German-language version about the victim, Walter Sedlmayr. But Mr Stopp has also filed a suit in Germany demanding that the Wikimedia Foundation remove their names from the English-language article.

This has triggered intense online debate. Jennifer Granick, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online civil liberties group, said US law "takes it as an article of faith that people must be allowed to publish truthful information about historical events". "A foreign power should not be able to censor publications in the United States, regardless of whether doing so suits the country's domestic law."

The English-language Wikipedia article about Mr Sedlmayr notes that details of the killers' names are available from online sources in Germany.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent first amendment lawyer, said every judge on the US Supreme Court would agree that the Wikipedia article "is easily, comfortably protected by the first amendment". But Germany had come up with a different balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to know, Mr Abrams said, and "once you're in the business of suppressing speech, the quest for more speech to suppress is endless".

Source

16 November, 2009

Preacher Provokes Students at Humboldt State University (CA)

Students not used to hearing what the Bible says (Leviticus 20:13; Romans chapter 1):

"In a frenzy of buttons, handmade signs, and typed fliers, students hastily distributed material less than two hours after the arrival of Matt Bourgault and his controversial message.

The Quad, normally a place for music and bake sales, became the epicenter for Bourgault and his words this past Monday and Tuesday. Ashton Powers came to tears after repeatedly hearing that she must repent or risk eternal damnation. “You are here using God as an excuse to hate,” Powers, a freshman music major, told the preacher.

Bourgault, better known as Brother Matt, held a large sign that read, “God Abhors Homosexuality. Repent or Perish Sodomites” on the front, and “God is angry with the wicked everyday,” on the back.

Bourgault, A full-time, self-proclaimed “campus avenger,” has spent the last 10 years spreading his message from one college campus to the next. He tells students to accept his lord, or be lost eternally to Hell. “I’m trying to pull others out and bring them to the cross of Christ,” he told The Lumberjack. “Leave sin and live a life under God.”

Nearly 50 students quickly rallied against Bourgault as he preached from a rock, his King James Bible in hand on Monday. For hours, Bourgault read various scriptures from his Bible as proof of his beliefs.

Source

There were lots of moves to shut him up but he has won court cases in the past when that was tried so the police and other authorities weren't game to stop him. He seems to be a free speech warrior as much as anything else -- educating college administrations about their free speech obligations.

Most people have feelings of instinctive revulsion towards homosexuality so such people may well be glad to hear that the Bible supports that view



A SCOTUS judge attacking freedom of the press??

Only an "edited" version of what he said was allowed

"The school newspaper at Dalton, a private school in Manhattan, contained a cryptic note from its editors last Friday. "“We are not able to cover the recent visit by a Supreme Court justice due to numerous publication constraints,” the note said. It promised “an explanation of the regrettable delay” in the next issue.

It turns out that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, widely regarded as one of the court’s most vigilant defenders of First Amendment values, had provided the newspaper, The Daltonian, with a lesson about journalistic independence. Justice Kennedy’s office had insisted on approving any article about a talk he gave to an assembly of Dalton high school students on Oct. 28.

Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer, said Justice Kennedy’s office had made the request to make sure the quotations attributed to him were accurate. The justice’s office received a draft of the proposed article on Monday and returned it to the newspaper the same day with “a couple of minor tweaks,” Ms. Arberg said. Quotations were “tidied up” to better reflect the meaning the justice had intended to convey, she said....

The article itself, by Kristian Bailey, a Dalton senior and one of the paper’s editors in chief, is a straightforward account of Justice Kennedy’s biography and his wide-ranging remarks. The article is expected to be published in the paper’s next issue.

Source

That a SCOTUS judge doesn't "get it" is no surprise, I suppose. His verdicts are pretty erratic.



15 November, 2009

Homosexuals are free to express their views but Christians are not

We read:

"A manager at a Massachusetts retail store claims he was unjustly fired after he told a colleague he thought her impending marriage to another woman was wrong. Peter Vidala, 24, told FoxNews.com he was terminated in August from his position as second deputy manager at a Brookstone store at Boston's Logan Airport after a conversation he had with a manager from another Brookstone store who was visiting the location.

Vidala claims the woman, whom he declined to identify, mentioned four times that she had married her partner. He said he then left the store briefly to visit the airport's chapel before returning. "I found it offensive that she repeatedly brought it up," Vidala said. "By the fourth time she mentioned it, I felt God wanted me to express how I felt about the matter, so I did. But my tone was downright apologetic. I said, 'Regarding your homosexuality, I think that's bad stuff.'"

The woman, according to Vidala, then said, "Human resources, buddy — keep your opinions to yourself," before exiting the store. Two days later, Vidala, who had been employed for just a matter of weeks, received a termination letter citing the company's zero-tolerance policy regarding "harassment" and "inappropriate and unprofessional" comments...

Vidala said he felt "intentionally goaded" by the manager to comment on her relationship. "She knew how I felt about homosexuality," he said. "When you talk to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, 'I'm happy for you.' But I really couldn't feel happy for her.

Source

So, the Lesbian was OK to harrass the Christian, knowing how he felt - but the moment he voices his opinion he's fired. The store says "While you are entitled to your own beliefs, imposing them upon others in the workplace is not acceptable". What about the Lesbian who actually did harrass the Christian and try to force her beliefs on him?

(Via Contemporary Fundamentalist)



British police banned from saying 'gang rape' as it is 'too emotive'

We read:

"Politically correct Scotland Yard chiefs have stopped using the term 'gang rape' because it is too 'emotive', the Mail can reveal. Instead officers have been advised to use the long-winded phrase 'multi-perpetrator rape' when describing sex attacks involving three or more culprits.

Critics branded the move by the Metropolitan Police an 'affront' to the victims of appalling sex crimes and are preparing to launch a campaign on the issue.

Six years ago the Met was at the centre of a similar row over its choice of language to describe 'gang rapes' after a senior officer referred to them as 'group rapes' during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Some community activists had previously suggested the phrase 'gang rape' had racist connotations.

Details of the latest police terminology are contained in an official Scotland Yard report which reveals a sharp increase in the number of gang rapes in the capital.

Source

Posts from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).


"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."


Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."


The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.


A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.


Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.


Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?


Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862


The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand


Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.


It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."


"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica


Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response


Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech


"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper


Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts


Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt


When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.


The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.


The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."