The views expressed by the participants here are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of this media-organization.
How often have we witnessed TV networks preface religious and other programs with disclaimers that while they enable the airing of the ensuing show, they in no way endorse its content? It is not as if reputational concern for guilt by association is alien to the non-religious. How many of those on the Left were condemned as communists by Joseph McCarthy, simply for flirting with and having attended a socialist/communist meeting decades prior.
In the recent kick-off of Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign at Liberty University, how many liberal media organizations, pundits and commentators decried the forced attendance by Liberty’s students, (on pain of civic-style fines), which gave pubic impression of tacit support and endorsement of Cruz’s candidacy? And their critiques would be right. Many conservative entities likewise declaimed the hypocrisy of speaking for liberty of conscience while in the very process violating it.
Therefore, the desire of theists and like-minded moralists, who do not wish to endorse or appear to endorse an idea or ethical principle, ought not to be beyond comprehension. One may not concur with the substance of their objection. But the yearning not to be associated is not alien. Therefore, the social denigration and legal penalties, inflicted upon those who find same-sex marriage a conceptual travesty and same-sex eros an ethical travesty, emits of a suffocating stench of rational inconsistency, sophistry and hypocrisy.
And the drumbeats of civic conflagration approach ever closer and louder. Read more…
One year for the 22 Inuit children; 18 years for the dog.
My city has several “no-go” zones. People are literally banned from entering these neighborhoods and the government is complicit in arresting people that enter them without permission. The Arabic term for them is apparently “gated community.”
And they operate under Pariah Law, a strange set of rules unfamiliar to you and I. If you decorate your house the wrong way or become friendly with the wrong person, you become a pariah. The punishments for such breaches of the religion of wealth are severe and unforgiving.
They must always follow the great Profit, a piece of it be upon them always. According to their holy book, there are five pillars of their faith: (1) everyone must declare that there is no God but mammon, (2) everybody should do a line of coke five times a day facing the pool, (3) everyone should give to charity, provided the entire amount is tax-deductible and the bulk of it goes to pay friends and relatives as ’employees’ (4) all hired help should be paid a wage that encourages fasting and going without (5) everybody must make a pilgrimage to the plastic surgeon at least once in their lifetime.
I found the following script in the commentariat in an article by The Atlantic “Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die”. In three successive messages, a person with the label sweetjazz3 gave a pretty decent demonstration of apparently gentle, but derisively savage art of satire.
All hail sweetjazz3!
Should he/she ever wish to stand up, they are welcome to claim their prize, which is honorable mention in an obscure blog; because I believe in giving honour to whom honour is due.
It has been a working hypothesis since the late 1980s, and a firm assertion since the mid 2000s; that, to paraphrase Lord Chesterfield’s assessment of the French
In short, all the symptoms which I have ever met with in History, previous to great Civic Conflagrations and Wars, now exist and daily increase in America.1
This certainly comes to mind in recent talk of state nullification of Federal Government edicts and decrees by its executive branch, but more so from its judiciary. Nullification reaches back to Vice President John C. Calhoun (1825-32) who spearheaded use of this principle for South Carolina in the North-South tariff wars; one of the causes of the American Civil War, which has largely been forgotten. As the writer states:
But if some states can pick and choose laws, others will surely do the same—and in such a polarized national landscape, they’ll start picking and choosing increasingly contradictory options. Liberals states will start refusing to enforce laws they don’t like. (This happened with the Fugitive Slave Act, in fact; Wisconsin ruled the law unconstitutional; southerners who otherwise championed states’ rights objected; and the Supreme Court overruled it.) It’s a ticket to dissolving the union, all in the name of preventing same-sex unions.
The largest number of unthinking apologists for unlimited free speech and expression emanate from the United States; whose quasi-religious dogmatic devotion to a constitutional creed continues, despite widespread infractions of the principle sanctioned by their courts. For, in the minds of the adherents of these various religions, these Entities are real. But in America, corporations and corporate brands are knowingly fictional entities, constructs and concepts by their very creators and followers.
And yet the courts seem fit there and elsewhere to protect these alleged realities from defamation and libel, which are less scurrilous than those depicted of religious figures by Charlie Hebdo. Walmart does not actually exist as a flesh and blood, material and/or even conscious being. Yet the monkeys on the U.S. Supreme Court saw fit to classify these fictions as legal persons, just a few decades after denying that same designation to flesh and blood blacks (1857); a fairy tale, which continues to be aped to this very day.
If a mere untruthful and untruthfully held published opinion, which is deemed to cause damage to the reputation of these fictional non-entities, with ensuing loss of customers and revenues, is liable to civic suits; how is untruthful and untruthfully held published opinion about entities, which some hold to be true, and which likewise causes damage to reputation and ensuing loss of congregants and tithes/offerings any different? If the CEOs of the various Churches can be subject to such blatant editorial and pictorial infamies, then only selectivist hypocrisy prevents a similar defamation of corporate CEOs. If Charlie Hebdo can gratuitously display nuns masturbating; rational consistency demands that we can likewise flood the zone with generic depictions of computer code writers in Silicon Valley or Seattle, engaging in various acts of zoophilia.
© Copyright Johnny Hutchinson
I have respected Peggy Noonan in past, partly because, unlike other journalistic courtesans of the American elite, she sensed that the disturbing disquiet, which existed on the other side of her ideological and socioeconomic gated community, might threaten her community. But yet another talking head zombifies.
In her recent offering “On the Matter of the Pictures”, concerning those gratuitous cartoons against Mohammed, Muslims and other religions, she offers this gem of reasoning for their widespread release.