Tag Archives: hate speech

Thugs and Intolerance

Most of the friends I made in graduate school would probably be placed on the liberal wing of the American political spectrum. They’re awesome people and I like them a lot.

But I often struck by how intolerant and hate-filled many liberals are. Certainly, more so than conservatives that I meet, or see on the news.

For instance, take this thug, Mona Eltahwy. After seeing speech she disliked, Mona’s response was to vandalize it. When someone attempted to place her own body between Mona’s spray-paint and the speech Mona despised, Mona sprayed her too.

And now on CNN, there is a puff piece support Mona, talking about how she “brought attention” to an important issue, blah blah blah.

So why are so many liberals hate-filled and intolerant, when explicit rejection of hate and intolerance is generally seen as a “liberal” virtue?

My assumption is that people generally self-select friends, co-workers, and opinion leaders who they are already politically agree with. So political intellectual diversity is rare in almost everyone’s life. But the high-visibility media clearly shares more of the world-view, perspective, and priorities of “liberals” than “conservatives.” This means that it’s rare for liberals to hear any serious voice with a fundamentally different perspective (outside the existing liberal political coalition). It’s very common for conservatives to do so.

Therefore, when a thug like Mona Eltahwy encounters speech she disagrees with, of course she reacts violently. And her friends in the media likewise are very sympathetic: who wouldn’t censor speech they dislike?

Elena Kagan wants to criminalize criticism of Elena Kagan

I don’t mind that Elena Kagan is a lesbian. I do mind that Elena Kagan wants to criminalize criticism of her lifestyle:

“We should be looking for new approaches, devising new arguments,” Kagan declared, according to video of the event reviewed by POLITICO. She seemed to count herself among “those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation” and told participants that “a great deal can be done very usefully” to crack down on such evils.

“Statutes may be crafted in ways that prohibit the worst of hate speech and pornography, language that goes to sexual violence. Such statutes may still be constitutional,” Kagan assured the meeting. She pressed for “new and harsher penalties against the kinds of violence against women that takes place in producing pornography, the use of pandering statutes and pimp statutes against pornographers…perhaps the initiation—the enactment of new statutes prohibiting the hiring of women for commercial purposes to engage in sexual activities.”

My view of freedom is much closer to that described in a recent post of The Metropolis Times:

At my local college campus, we have a man who visits and tells students that wearing the color pink will send them to Hell, and that God hates homosexuals, Catholics, Mormons, liberal Christians, Buddhists, sororities and fraternities and a large number of other things.  Invariably, a group of students will spontaneously form and argue with him.

This is the only country in the entire world where none of the people involved are breaking the law.

…. unless Elena Kagan gets her way.

Seven Social Sins?

With apologies to Subadei who blogged this story, reporting on it has been awful:

Soob: The Vatican’s Seven Social Sins
It’s been about a millenia and a half since the subject of that which renders the souls of sinners to a fiery eternity was last visited upon by Pope Gregory I.

Today the Vatican released something of an update to the seven deadly sins; The Seven Social Sins:

…Despite being baptized Catholic I’ve always engaged dogma from either a dismissive direction (my childhood) or one of suspicion (now.) Suspicion because, for example, it’s not at all hard to triangulate recent political events, recent Vatican commentary and some of this latest bit of church edict. There’s a certain amount of convenience present here which seems to defy much of what I’ve read of the Christian doctrine. There’s a fine line between piety and punitiveness; between faith and judgment. The latter of which, if I’ve read correctly, is reserved solely for God and yet…

I do not know what is going on with the story.  I doubt it’s dogma.  Was this released by an Office?  A Vatican office or a Holy See office?  Which one?  Is this draft, or final?  The bureaucracy of every modern nation-state’s is arguably based on the Church’s, but there’s no analysis or description on what’s going on.  Even supposedly good sources of information, like Foreign Policy, are filled with ignorant and hateful derision.

Anti-Catholic Bigotry in Nebraska

Hoegh, P. (2007). Senator criticized over move to restrict alcohol in church. CNSNews.com. January 19, 2007. Available online: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200701/CUL20070118a.html.

The news is so incredible that I thought it was fake:

Democratic State Sen. Lowen Kruse has introduced a bill that would eliminate two provisions to Nebraska’s underage drinking law which allow in their own homes or at places of worship during religious ceremonies.

While saying the primary goal of the bill was admirable, Catholic League President Bill Donahue worries about the implication for Mass. Catholics and some Protestant denominations use wine in their communion services.

I immediately tried to check this out by going to Senator Kruse’s webpage.


Nebraska: Equality, except for Catholics (?)

Kruse provided a link to the , where I found the proposed law. The strikethrough (like so) is the part of the law that Senator Kruse wants to revoke:

53-180.02. Except as provided in section 53-168.06, no minor may sell, dispense, consume, or have in his or her possession or physical control any alcoholic liquor in any tavern or in any other place, including public streets, alleys, roads, or highways, upon property owned by the State of Nebraska or any subdivision thereof, or inside any vehicle while in or on any other place, including, but not limited to, the public streets, alleys, roads, or highways, or upon property owned by the State of Nebraska or any subdivision thereof. , except that a minor may consume, possess, or have physical control of alcoholic liquor in his or her permanent place of residence or on the premises of a place of religious worship on which premises alcoholic liquor is consumed as a part of a religious rite, ritual, or ceremony.

It actually gets worse than this. Not that not only are the religious service excemption revoked, but other exemptions stay on the books.

53-168.06. No person shall manufacture, bottle, blend, sell, barter, transport, deliver, furnish, or possess any alcoholic liquor for beverage purposes except as specifically provided in the Nebraska Liquor Control Act. Nothing in the act shall prevent (1) the possession of alcoholic liquor legally obtained as provided in the act for the personal use of the possessor and his or her family and guests; (2) the making of wine, cider, or other alcoholic liquor by a person from fruits, vegetables, or grains, or the product thereof, by simple fermentation and without distillation, if made solely for the use of the maker and his or her family and guests; (3) any duly licensed practicing physician or dentist from possessing or using alcoholic liquor in the strict practice of his or her profession, any hospital or other institution caring for the sick and diseased persons from possessing and using alcoholic liquor for the treatment of bona fide patients of such hospital or other institution, or any drug store employing a licensed pharmacist from possessing or using alcoholic liquor in the compounding of prescriptions of licensed physicians; (4) the possession and dispensation of alcoholic liquor by an authorized representative of any religion on the premises of a place of worship, for the purpose of conducting any bona fide religious rite, ritual, or ceremony; (5) persons who are sixteen years old or older from carrying alcoholic liquor from licensed establishments when they are accompanied by a person not a minor; (6) (5) persons who are sixteen years old or older from handling alcoholic liquor containers and alcoholic liquor in the course of their employment; (7) (6) persons who are sixteen years old or older from removing and disposing of alcoholic liquor containers for the convenience of the employer and customers in the course of their employment; or (8) (7) persons who are nineteen years old or older from serving or selling alcoholic liquor in the course of their employment.

This blog has a “health mullahs” to point out over-zealous health laws. However, this isn’t a health law. It keeps the exemption allowing 19 year olds to sell and serve alcohol, it keeps the exemption that allows 16 year olds to handle alchol, it keeps the provision for people making their own moonshine.

This is not a health law. This is hate speech in legislative form, designed to harrass Catholics and criminalize Catholocism. Senator Kruse, a Methodist minister, should be ashamed of himself. Like all other bigots.

"Hate Speech" in a New Jersey University

On Campus, Only Some Free Speech Protected, by Wendy McElroy, iFeminists, 28 July 2005, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163705,00.html (from Brendan of I Hate Linux).

in the modern Academy:

The public notice (in full, with original formatting, from pdf original):

From: ANNOUNCEMENT
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: women’s studies Department – Women’s History Month
Expires: Saturday, March 19, 2005 5:00 PM

Please do not hit reply, click here. MAILTO:ScalaA@wpunj.edu
Women’s History Month
Film & Discussion: Ruth and Connie: Every Room in the House, a lesbian relationship story
Date: March 9, 2005
Time: 7-9 PM
Place: Library Auditorium
Sponsor: Women’s Studies Department

Contact person: Dr. Arlene Holpp Scala x3405
Dr. Arlene Holpp, Chair
William Paterson University
Department of Women’s Study’s

The private reply, to the requested email address:

From: Daniel, Jihad
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 6:59 AM
To: Scala, Arlene
Subject: Homosexuality

Do not send me any mail about “Connie and Sally” and “Adam and Steve”. These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned.

The debate of ideas in the modern University

On March 10, Scala filed a complaint with the university claiming Daniel’s message sounded “threatening.”

“I don’t want to feel threatened at my place of work,” she explained.

On June 15, university President Arnold Speert issued a letter of reprimand, to be placed in Daniel’s permanent employment file.