©2012 Ross Williams
Headline: Atheists Sue PA for ‘Year of the Bible’
Article Synopsis: Pennsylvania lawmakers passed a resolution in January declaring 2012 the “Year of the Bible” in the state. A group of atheists wet their panties about it.
Graven Imagery: The atheist weenies here, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, protest that the bible contains “violent, racist and sexist” imagery that they personally find repugnant; it becomes the equivalent of a “state-sponsored religion”.
They further believe that by declaring a “Year of the Bible”, Pennsylvania is encouraging individuals to act out those intolerant “models of behavior”. ...because all other commemorative resolutions passed like fart gas by legislatures around the country create similar waves of public arousal. National Irritable Bowel Syndrome Awareness Month is coming up; should we expect an April-long bout of constipation and diarrhea? What can we expect on International World’s Whore Day on June 2nd? and does it involve condoms?
Conclusion: It’s a good thing you don’t watch television, guys. There’s nothing like the secular media when it comes to popularizing racism, sexism and violence. Beats the bible flat.
Headline: 4 More Charged in Amish Bearding
Article Synopsis: The Amish of eastern Ohio are having a theological spat, and Amish families taking sides. Members of one of those families have chosen to punctuate their doctrinal ire by forcibly shaving and cutting the hair of members of other families. The shorn Amish have refused to press charges; federal prosecutors are seeking permission to treat this as a ‘hate crime’ thus side-stepping the need for an accuser as required by the Constitution.
Hair Care by Mennon-ite: Among the Amish it is considered shameful to have your hair cut and, for married men, their beards shaved. Who knows why. They once read two verses from two separate places in the bible and took it as a sign that hair was holy. It’s their religion, let them have it.
It is also their religion to shun official law enforcement methods for strictly internal issues such as whatever the hell it was that inspired one family with a surname of – and I’m serious here – Mullet to come unglued enough to send [at this time] 15 other family members on rogue styling raids.
Conclusion: Leave them the hell alone. They don’t want your help. They have freedom of religion, and that includes the privilege of avoiding you telling them when they should practice it and when they shouldn’t.
Headline: Catholic Student Group to Leave Vanderbilt Campus
Article Synopsis: The administration of Vanderbilt University has implemented a policy aimed at its student groups that prohibits exclusion of anyone, for any reason, from any group; the non-exclusion policy extends to the groups’ leadership positions. This year, the administration is requiring signed statements by student group organizers agreeing to abide by the rule. Every religious student group on campus is protesting; the Catholic group refuses to participate and will leave campus. Other groups plan to sign the statement and then immediately issue by-laws which violate that agreement, deliberately setting up further conflict.
The Inflexibility of Tolerance: University chancellors are “deeply disappointed” that they have been found out to be insufferably foolish for failing to comprehend what any potted ficus collecting dust in the corner of a dentist’s office intuitively knows: a dedicated group of antithetical ideologues can overwhelm any group of benign theme and modest intent and commandeer it.
Witness the “democracy” of the Arab Spring: every nation which has held their first “free democratic elections” in Greater Arabia in the past year has elected anti-democracy islamists who are ideologically contrary to the purpose of the democracy which gave them power.
To claim that setting the stage for Protestants to infiltrate the Catholic group and vote themselves into leadership is “not ... incompatible with religious freedom” is not simply absurd, but it is irresponsibly demented. The stupidity transcends religion. The campus [ironic term] “progressives” could take over the student Republican group; male campus rowdies could abscond with the feminist Take Back the Night crowd; homophobes could make off with the GLAAD group.
Conclusion: In a comforting spasm of ecumenicalism, every student group of religious persuasion is opposed to this rule. While it might be satisfying to offer up a futile deliberate defiance to punctuate the disagreement, it will accomplish nothing. The only thing which will succeed will be an object lesson in the manipulation that Vanderbilt chancellors are too hidebound to acknowledge. Presuming that Muslims are the minority religion on campus, a backdoor agreement between them and the Baptists [e.g.,] wherein the Baptists stage an electoral coup and redefine the campus Muslim student group to be an outlet for born-again Christianity needs to be undertaken. Then the Muslims need to complain about it [and let’s face it: only Muslim complaints are likely to be heard today], and the idiot administrators will need to peek out of their ivory towers to see what folly their foolishness hath wrought. There ya go!
Headline: Preacher Arrested for Reading Bible
Article Synopsis: A California evangelical minister was arrested in February for reading from his bible on a public sidewalk over 50 feet from the Department of Motor Vehicles where a short line had formed waiting for it to open. He was charged originally with preaching to a “captive audience” and “impeding an open business”. Those charges have been dropped, and a charge of trespassing has replaced them.
Grasping at Straws to Break a Camel’s Back: A loyyer who claims to practice constitutional law, Dan Conaway, has offered up all manner of laughable explanations as to why freedom of speech is hollow when the speech is religious. Mr Conaway was apparently on the Obamacare Legal Defense Team, judging by how well he comprehends our Constitution.
First was the “captive audience” malarkey. A cluster of people standing 50 feet away waiting for a business to open apparently cannot leave to avoid hearing something they may not wish to hear. Apropos of nothing, would a socialist extolling the virtues of Obamacare while standing in that DMV line, then, be given the same treatment under the law?
Next is that such religious speech is “intimidating”. Without knowing what passages were being recited, the worst intimidation possible from reading the bible to an unwitting audience is the prospect of learning you’d be sent to hell. Afterlife disposition is an extremely dubious platform for asserting a tangible threat. And going to hell is considerably less a threat than the prospect of losing our national sovereignty to China when they come to collect after fronting us all that Obamacare cash.
And finally, reading from a bible in public impedes the ability of passers-by to go about their “normal business activities”. ...in ways that carrying on a sidewalk cell phone conversation about Obamacare does not, apparently.
Conclusion: It’s pathetic that anti-religious desperation is so pronounced that their best and brightest thinkers are left to make legal arguments by something as effective as pulling random words out of the dictionary. ...and it is legally impossible to "trespass" on public property. The term you are looking for, and which is no more supportable, is "loiter".