On the heels of Josh Claybourn quoting another blogger quoting a third blogger about the dangers of unrestrained liberty leading to chaos, I have 3 stories that illustrate that the impulse to control is still alive and well.
The first story comes from The Great Separation, a blog I took to task a few days ago for calling the city councilan who put up a 2000 pound Ten Commandments monument in front of city hall a “hero”. But this time, I’m in complete agreement with him on an issue. He has an entry pointing to a resolution that is being submitted to the UN by someone named Anthony Last, the founder of a fatuous and ridiculous website called formulism.org. That resolution would implement a global ban on religion. That’s right, read it again – a global ban on religion. The only thing I know about Anthony Last is that he appears to be a complete and utter moron who is incapable of recognizing even the most obvious contradictions. His resolution begins with a vow
*to reaffirm an individual’s right to freedom of belief, freedom of conscience and freedom of prayer, and
* to establish conditions under which these freedoms can be privately exercised.
and proposes to do so by implementing the following:
1. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the public expression of religious beliefs, including the use of symbols, clothing or markings which are synonymous with any currently or previously existing religions.
2. To outlaw, with immediate effect, public acts of worship or religious declaration.
3. To outlaw, with immediate effect, private gatherings of three or more people for the purposes of engaging in acts of worship or religious services.
4. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the publication of books, literature or articles which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine.
5. To outlaw, after a period of amnesty, the personal ownership of books or materials which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine. (Books of academic or social interest will be made freely available to schools, universities and public libraries).
6. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the celebration of religiously significant dates.
7. To begin, with immediate effect, the destruction or reassignment of predominantly religious buildings, such as churches, mosques and temples.
Yes, you see, he intends to “reaffirm an individual’s right to freedom of belief” by outlawing all religious expression in the entire world, banning all religious books, magazines and newspapers, and all public expressions of religious belief. Let’s not mince words. If you think this is anything but monumentally absurd and contradictory, you are simply incapable of rational thought. If you think this is a good idea, then you shouldn’t be making any decisions for anyone. You should be worrying about keeping the shake machine clean and keeping your paper hat on straight and let those of us with an IQ higher than meat make the decisions.
Joanna Grossman has an article on Findlaw about the Texas vibrator case that I reported on a few weeks ago. A woman in Texas has been arrested for selling a vibrator to two undercover cops posing as a married couple with a boring sex life. The title of the article is “Is There a Constitutional Right To Promote the Use of Sex Toys?”, but that title tells you exactly what is wrong with the way we tend to think about such things. The question is not whether there is a “constitutional right” to sell sex toys to someone. The question is whether the government has the constitutional authority to ban such a thing. The burden of proof should not be on the individual to show that they have a right to do something or say something, the burden of proof should be on the government to show that there is a compelling interest in prohibiting the individual from doing or saying something. I would love to hear the state’s attorney get in front of the Supreme Court and explain why the state simply must ban sex toys.
“Your honor, the butterfly vibrator and the strawberry joy jelly poses a clear and present danger to society and it must be banned. The very existence of American civilization is at stake if you do not throw this wife and mother in jail for willingly selling flavored lubricants and edible underwear to bored couples.”
Seriously, how pathetic is your life if you spend it going undercover to entrap housewives into selling you a dildo? Or if you think that doing so is a good idea? If this is what our police are doing, it’s time to lay off a whole bunch of them because we are obviously overtaxed and overpoliced to pay for such absurdity.
Here is a terrific website that keeps track of so-called “hate speech codes” on college campuses. Where did we get the idea that the first amendment can be limited solely on the basis of the words being spoken being offensive to someone? I’ll probably write more on this another time. It’s incredible to me that so many people who consider themselves “liberals” support such limitations on free speech.