Freedom of Religion and Speech Is for Everyone Except People With Whom We Disagree

Posted: September 24, 2013 in homosexuality, religion
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I had just posted my, “Forced Out of Business Because of The Gays,” when I realized that I had missed a second article from WND about the same subject: “Christians Facing ‘Hunger’ After ‘Gay’-Rights Battle.”

It’s the same drivel except goes into a few more quotes, such as this nice bit: “The Bulls told the Mail they are being forced to sell their nine-bed facility because last winter they “were actually shivering and were hungry.”” Either that’s hyperbole or they were stupid and didn’t find supplementary income. Or ask someone to come in and review the place to figure out why no one was coming (see my previous post on it).

At the moment, five days after it was posted, it has 214 comments. I was initially just going to post it as an “Edited to Add” to the previous post, but then I saw this WND story by Bob Unruh: “Facebook OKs ‘Jesus F–ing Christ’” and, knowing what WND is all about, I couldn’t resist the irony. So you get a tag-team post for today.

So let’s review: The first story is about how these Poor Innocent Christians® who were just practicing Christian Love™ by telling gays they couldn’t stay at their bed and breakfast but were fined over it and told they had to provide equal access are now going to lose their business because no one wants to stay with the bigots who don’t know how to clean. (That’s me paraphrasing the article.) Meanwhile, WND is clearly bemoaning the idea that religious freedom AND freedom of expression are dying out because they’re being forced to tolerate The Gay. (Someone from the UK please enlighten me — do you actually have guarantees of freedom of expression/speech and religion?) For example, the top-rated comment is from “Springdale” who wrote, “Another of increasing examples of not only the intolerance of the homosexual movement and their fellow travelers, but of their persecution of those who adhere to Christian values.”

I don’t think I’d get any argument by stating as a matter of fact that World Net Daily portends to value freedom of speech and (Christian) religion.

Which is why Unruh’s post is deliciously ironic, and it even contains an “Editor’s Note: The following report includes explicit language and links containing statements that may offend some readers.” Here are the first five paragraphs:

Just imagine, you have a family friendly Facebook page and are happy for others to join the conversation and interact.

Then someone comes along, creates a Facebook identity using the most filthy language imaginable – such as “Jesus F—ing Christ. Slut Mary’s Bastard” – and starts posting on your page as “liking” the various items.

Suddenly, children are exposed, adults are hurt and people question your own integrity and values.

Then you learn Facebook has approved the group’s name and refuses to remove its page.

That’s apparently what’s happening to the group called The Center for Marriage Policy, which believes the failure of traditional marriages in the United States “is the primary driver of America’s self-compounding intergenerational socioeconomic and governance problems.”

The horror! Oh, wait — weren’t you guys just posting an article where you were trumpeting an idea that freedom of speech was being squelched? And here you’re clearly angry that someone is exercising their freedom of speech? It just so happens that it’s against your religion, mocking it.

The comments are what you’d expect so are not worth going into. I just wanted to do this post because I think it displays, yet again, the hypocracy of screeching about how your “freedoms” are being trampled on because you’re having a harder time legally being a bigot, while at the same time you’re yelling about people using those very freedoms in such a way that offends you and you want those freedoms taken away from them. It’s a two-way street, suckers.

  1. Roz says:

    While what I wrote below is pretty obvious something you already know about, it helped me to put it down and straighten my thoughts up. Thought I would share it:

    Most religions I encounter are based upon a control structure where there is someone who can tell you what you are doing is punishable because of a certain definition of amorality. Being able to manipulate this control structure – especially when you are not the one in danger of being punished for something – brings its own power. People don’t like losing power or having their power ignored by anyone who don’t agree with it. It puts their panties in a right bunch.

    Their freedom of speech isn’t a freedom – but a cocoon that they are trying to be safe in.

    So it sounds like they are trying to push the amorality of Facebook onto the world because they feel like isn’t playing by their rules. I would think they need to redefine how they live their lives in a world where there isn’t the power they thought they had.

    But on the plus side, they would be able to play more Candy Crush!

  2. The Human Rights Act:

    Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion1Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.2Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 10 Freedom of expression1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s