1st Amendment

Does Free Speech Offend You? (Greg Lukianoff)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Video Description:

Should offensive speech be banned? Where should we, as a society, draw the line where permitted speech is on one side, and forbidden speech is on the other? Should we even have that line? And should free speech be limited by things like trigger warnings and punishments for microaggressions? Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, answers these questions and more.

New Ruling Doesn’t Leave Room For People With Religious Objections

Published by Papa Giorgio

…If you look at the way the court ruled, then you see that it opens the door to broader discrimination against churches… I predict there are going to be staged same-sex weddings just to challenge churches to marry same-sex couples, to draw attention to themselves, to get something through the courts, eventually to erode tax exempt statuses…

~ Alexander Marlow, Breitbart’s Editor in Chief

  • [As you guys/gals may know… I am a fan of getting rid of LBJ’s strings attached tax-exempt status. Once a church goes LLC, the pulpit can be truly unleashed.]

Above video:

Gay marriage advocate and author of “Speak Now: Marriage Equality on Trial” said on MSNBC’s “Melissa Harris-Perry” on Saturday that religious people will not have much freedom to discriminate gay marriage due to religious purposes, which is an “important protection for gay rights.”

“With regard to the religious liberties defenses, Chief Justice Robertson pointed out that Justice Kennedy didn’t leave much running room for people of religious objections to same-sex marriages. That’s an important protection for gay rights, that there’s no religious right to discriminate.”

Again, Gay Patriot:

…Does anyone expect the activist left to be satisfied with their political victory?  If you’ve studied the history of the Civil Rights movement, you know they didn’t stop after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. There are plenty of new frontiers for the Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarians to pursue and keep the donations to the Sharptons and Jacksons of the HRC and other professional activist organizations rolling in:

  • Banning disagreement or criticisms of gay behavior through “anti-bullying” and “hate speech” legislation
  • Mandating school curricula to include “gay history” as well as museums and monuments to be demanded to gay heroes like Harry Hay, Larry Bruckner, and Harvey Milk
  • Forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriages
  • Churches must be forced to perform gay marriages or lose tax exempt status. (Mosques, probably not)

No, this is not the end. This is nowhere near the end. This is just another milestone on the road to our social Pyongyang. The Supreme Court has rejected the rule of law twice in two days in favor of the whims of a Judiciary Politburo….

Cathy Ruse likewise has a short list:

  • If your sincere beliefs prevent you from bending the knee, what recourse will you have to publicly speak out in defense of yourself, your family, your beliefs? Will your public protests come to be viewed as hate speech?
  • If you are a Christian baker, florist, banquet hall owner, printer – can you decline to participate in a same-sex wedding? If you are a Christian psychologist, is your license yanked if you help a client suffering because of unwanted same-sex attraction?
  • If you are a religious school, may you decline to house same-sex couples in your married student housing and keep your tax exempt status?
  • If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt? Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?
  • If the power to tax is the power to destroy, the Supreme Court has just given President Obama the power to destroy churches and institutions that do not support his “evolved” position on marriage.

The New Normal… Censorship (Plus: Family Guy) [UPDATED]

Published by Papa Giorgio

Censorship is the new norm, and this is with thanks to the left. See for instance Jerry Seinfeld talking about censorship in comedy.

To even write that Bruce Jenner is a man and not a woman is hate speech.

Pittsburgh ‘News’ Room, Lobbyists Demand Columnist Firing for ‘Jenner Still a Mister’ Piece

Stating an anti-transgender opinion is close to forbidden in today’s “news” pages and “news” rooms, especially after the Bruce Jenner fawning frenzy. Exhibit A? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist and associate editor Jennifer Graham (no relation to me) wrote a column truthfully titled “Caitlyn Jenner is still a mister.” 

JimRomenesko.com notes Jay Brown of the so-called Human Rights Campaign demanded in a letter that she be fired for “hate speech, plain and simple”: 

I am writing to you regarding a despicably offensive and inaccurate column by your employee, Jennifer Graham. Simply put, after submitting a piece so utterly lacking truth or decency, she should be relieved of her role as a columnist….

There is still time to make this right, but the solution involves taking action now. Ms. Graham has no business serving as a columnist at a publication with a reputation as sterling like yours. Instead, lift up a  Pittsburgh voice that has something meaningful to say on the issues of the day.”   

…read more…

I posted the above on my FaceBook and got the following response from a gal I adore… but who is just mimicking pop-culture:

How is it anyone’s business other than Caitlin Jenner’s to decide what/who to be called?

Here is my response to the above… and it is in the hopes to create sound thinking/reflection on how she, we, encapsulate thoughts… and thus meaning. (I AM HERE including slightly more information than in the original response):

You are making my point. So let’s change this around: “How is it anyone’s business other than ‘the Pittsburgh columnist to comment on Jenner’.”

You see, when a baker decides to not make a cake for a specific event, the power of the state gets involved. Likewise, we will soon see the state get involved in issues like these… like pastors being fined and even threatened with jail for preaching from Romans.

Also, there is a growing movement of people who had operations to become a woman speaking out against fellow “prospective” transgenders from getting the operation and deluding oneself into thinking they are the opposite sex (See my “Transgender Page” for some examples)

Again, using your premise said another way:

Self Refuting (Alvin Plantinga’s “Tar Baby”)

Again, relativism claims that all so-called truth is relative, that there really is no absolute truth, but that different things (whatever they may be) may be true for me but not for you.  This is at times called perspectivalism.

  • Statement: There is no such thing as absolute truth; [or alternatively, there are many truths.]

Is this philosophy of relativism making the statement that this is the ultimate, absolute truth about truth?  In that case, it actually asserts what it denies, and so is self-deleting, simply logically incoherent as a philosophical position[1] and in violation of the Law of non-contradiction (LNC), one of the most important laws of logical thought.[2]  I will show some common – everyday – rebukes that show how people contradict themselves, thus undermining what in fact they are trying to assert.

Some Examples ~ You Shouldn’t Force Your Morality On Me![3]

  • First Person: “You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”
  • Second Person: “Why not?”
  • First Person: “Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”
  • Second Person: “If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”
  • First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
  • Second Person: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”
  • First Person: “You have a right to you’re opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”
  • Second Person: “Is that your opinion?”
  • First Person: “Yes.”
  • Second Person: “Then why are you forcing it on me?”
  • First Person: “But your saying your view is right.”
  • Second Person: “Am I wrong?”
  • First Person: “Yes.”
  • Second Person: “Then your saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”
  • First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
  • Second Person: “Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like your telling me I’m wrong.”
  • First Person: “You are.”
  • Second Person: “Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me.  Why are you forcing your morality on me?”

Self-Defeating

  • “Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” ~ Dennis Prager

So lets unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris[4] put it, self-deleting. When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?”[5]

This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you.  Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?”  Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.

The “Who are you to say?” challenge fails on another account.  Taken at face value, the question challenges one’s authority to judge another’s conduct.  It says, in effect, “What authorizes you to make a rule for others?  Are you in charge?”  This challenge miscasts my position.  I don’t expect others to obey me simply because I say so.  I’m appealing to reason, not asserting my authority.  It’s one thing to force beliefs; it’s quite another to state those beliefs and make an appeal for them.

The “Who are you to say?” complaint is a cheap shot.  At best it’s self-defeating.  It’s an attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your moral judgments, but the statement itself implies a moral judgment.  At worst, it legitimizes anarchy!

[1] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46
[2] “…is considered the foundation of logical reasoning,” Manuel Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Readings (Wadsworth; 2001), p. 51.  “A theory in which this law fails…is an inconsistent theory”, edited by Ted Honderich, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (Oxford Univ; 1995), p. 625.
[3] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.
[4] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46
[5] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.

(See more at my SCRIBD)

I then mentioned that the first part of this “two-part import” from my old blog to my new one may fit the applications as well:

Agree or Not?

This is a combination of two posts, the first was a question I posed to someone in a forum. Below you see what that question was and where I led that person. The second is a bit of political science. Both repeat some of the same idea, but both are different.

So let’s highlight the first question by a court case that has, well, institutionalized the “post-modern” society. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996), the 9th District Appeals Court wrote:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

In other words, whatever you believe is your origin, and thus your designating meaning on both your life and body is your business, no one else’s. If you believe that the child growing in you – no matter at what stage (Doe v. Bolton) – isn’t a child unless you designate it so. You alone can choose to or not choose to designate life to that “fetus”. It isn’t a “potential person” until you say it is first a person. Understand? That being clarified, do you agree with this general statement:

“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”

Sounds really close to the 9th Courts majority view doesn’t it. The above is basically saying that your opinion is just as valid as another persons opinion because both are your’s and the other persons perspective on something is formed from influences from your culture and experiences. So someone from New Guiney may have a differing view or opinion on eating dogs than an American.

Let’s compare a portion from both statements:

  1. “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life…”
  2. “…the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”

Whether you’re an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Muslim, it doesn’t matter. Your reality is just that… your reality, or opinion, or personal dogma. I want to now complete one of the quotes that I left somewhat edited, not only that, but I want to ask you if you still agree with it after you find out who wrote it.

Ready?

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.

Seinfeld Comments on PC Colleges and Own Daughter (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

One commentator on my LiveLeak said:

  • “When the cleanest comedian out there complains about how overly PC colleges have become and will no longer perform there, we know we have a problem.” …. “Can you imagine if Bill Hicks and George Carlin were alive today?”

Another said:

  • Its all about narcissism…….everyone is a star with social networking and all of that stuff. Everyone is offended on someone elses behalf just so that their friends will think that they are a fantastic wonderful human being that wants to save the world. And everyone will love them and thumbs [them up] on Facebook.

Kirsten Powers Talks to Prager About Her Book, “The Silencing”

Published by Papa Giorgio

Kirsten Powers has written an important new book entitled: “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” In the interview are a couple examples given of ingrained bias. I excluded discussion of her recent column dealing with George Stephanopoulos, but THAT article can be found here.

Another great book by this evolving Christian where truth is winning out. See my previous “expose” of her faith:

➤ “From the Rational to the Relational ~ Kirsten Powers and Holly Ordway“

For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/

Here is the end of Kirstan’s article of George Stephanopoulos:

…While Stephanopoulos might be the piñata of the week, singling him out misses the point. Simpson is harkening back to an era of journalism that sadly no longer exists. After all, we have a mainstream news media that took a Democratic Party talking point — “the war on women” — and reported it as if it’s breaking news.

Presuming guilt among Republicans and goodness among Democrats is so reflexive and rewarded in today’s mainstream media culture, it’s not that hard to see how Stephanopoulos truly would not have understood he had an egregious conflict of interest as he faced down Schweizer. Like a fish doesn’t notice the water, today’s mainstream journalists are impervious to their bias in favor of Democratic candidates or liberal issues. They believe they are being objective because they have mistaken their ideological belief system for truth. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has noted repeatedly, “The facts have a liberal bias.“

This view has fertile ground in which to flourish, as the ideological and intellectual diversity of the nation’s newsrooms decreases. Per The Atlantic, “Among journalists who align with one of the two major parties, four in five said they’re Democrats.” While many of these people are able to account for their bias, too many aren’t. A friend recently recalled to me watching journalists at a mainstream media outlet erupt in cheers as election returns came in favoring President Obama. It must have been lonely for the few Republicans: According to an Indiana University survey, in 1971, almost 26% of reporters were Republican. Today, it’s 7%.

Expect the facts to keep getting more liberal.

…read it all…

For more on this topic, see “Deck O’ Race Cards (PJTV), and Dennis Prager.“

“It’s Not The Role Of The Government To Delegitimize Fox News”

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via Breitbart:

In the latest episode of the American Enterprise Institute’s “Banter” podcast, Fox News regular Kirsten Powers, author of the new book, “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech,” took aim at the Obama White House for the efforts it had made early in President Barack Obama’s presidency to delegitimize Fox News.

Powers explained this was just one instance of the regular occurring theme of some of the left side of the ideological spectrum trying to limit free speech.

“It’s been gradual,” she said. “It started out with the administration’s, what I call the war on Fox News, when they said Fox News is not a legitimate organization and started this really concerted campaign to delegitimize a news organization. That was the first time where I went, ‘Hmm, this doesn’t seem right.” You know, something is a little off here. This isn’t really the role of the government….

Cultural Marxism Key in Wedding Cake Fascism of the Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

I recently updated my defining of fascism here, reading that in total will help in understanding why gay men and women call these actions of laws against Christian bakers and photographers as fascism. To wit I wish to put in part here two posts by Gay Patriot and encourage you to click through to finsish the reading.

The first one is entitled, “The Gay Left Becomes a Hate Group,” it reads in part:

A pizza shop owner made the mistake of saying publicly that they didn’t care to be forced into catering a gay wedding. The left-wing MFM ginned up a fake story about a pizza shop that refused to cater gay weddings. Within a day, death threats… including a threat of arson from a public school teachers … forced the pizza shop to close.

And the gay left celebrated how effective they have become in their bullying.

[….]

Once it gets decided that certain people can have rights taken away from them by those who have power, violence follows inevitably.

Just imagine, for a second, if a gay-owned business had been forced to close because Christians threatened to burn it down and murder its employees.

The gay left has become the KKK, in 600 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets.

Here is the second article by GP that I recommend… IT is entitled, “Nobody Ever Died From Not Having a Wedding Cake“:

One aspect of the debate over whether Christians and others who don’t support gay marriage should be forced by the State (and threatened with violence) for declining to participate in gay weddings is … what’s the big deal with a wedding cake anyway? To the activist left, declining to bake a cake is no different than a lynching in the Jim Crow south. But does it really cause anyone any real quantifiable harm to send them to a different bakery? Or a different photographer? Or a different florist? Or a different wedding chapel?

If you really believe in liberty, then you have just accept that liberty means that people are going to make choices and do things that you may not agree with. And so long as they are not harming anyone else, they should be allowed to do so.

[….]

Bruised feelings do not rise to the level of actual harm.

Destroying someone’s livelihood through threats of violence —that is actual harm….

And this from the Canadian Free Press:

Bakers, photographers and florists are being forced to shut down their businesses unless they accede to demands that they join in the celebration of gay “marraiges,” but so far no one has faced jail time for putting commitment to the Word of God ahead of the demands of homosexuals and their cultural champions.

Until now. A couple in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho who own a wedding chapel there declined the request of a gay couple that they perform their “wedding.” They couple did what gay couples seem to do a lot in these situations. They didn’t just go find someone else. They complained to authorities, who are now threatening to throw the pastors in jail. That’s how out of control this has gotten:

The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

Note how the secular left is trying to create a fascimile of the civil rights movement in turning these pastors into criminals, and doing so very disingenuously….

[….]

The Christian who believes homosexual sex is an abomination in the eyes of God cannot perform a gay wedding ceremony, or take photos of Bob and Gary, or write “Congratulations Anna and Shirley” on a cake without compromising his or her devotion to God. That is not the same thing as making them sandwiches.

The left wants the state to use the notion of “public accommodations” to force business owners to do things that directly violate their faith. The state is complying….