Saturday, January 17, 2015

What's Good For The Goose

I wonder if those liberals who today clamor for "self-censorship" in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders, who say that we in the West mustn't mock, criticize, or antagonize religions or their beliefs or adherents--and who seem to imply that the French paper "had it coming"--I wonder if those same people are criticizing these two for doing this:
Now Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to be drafted into the NFL, has taken another leap of confidence - and likely controversy - by proposing to his longtime love from what is renowned as one of the holiest Catholic sites.

Sam confirmed his engagement to college sweetheart Vito Cammisano on Twitter on Friday and posted a photo of himself getting on bended knee at St. Peters Basilica - one of the largest church's in the world - in Vatican City.
From the article:

Looks like the Vatican has raised the bars (literally!) since I went in 2012:


13 comments:

maxutils said...

It's not just liberals, Darren -- I've heard many religious conservatives say precisely the same thing -- yes we CAN insult religion…but SHOULD we? Well frankly, yes. Not being religious myself, I find all religions equally silly. And, it's my right to be able to mock them. In general, I try not to hurt people's feelings, but the moment someone tries to impose an aspect of their religion on me, or even try to get me to won over to their faith, the gloves are off. As they should be.

If you can step aside from your partisan view, the common thread is that the people who are taking this position are not linked by party; they are linked by both a complete lack of knowledge of the first amendment, as well as a misunderstanding of it: popular speech doesn't need it; offensive speech does. I'll criticize anyone attempting to limit free speech, anywhere. Doesn't matter whether it's school newspapers or dress codes, who can speak at what event, 'obscenity', real or imagined, mockery of politics or religion, believers in 'hate speech' and users of racial slurs, and politically radical groups on either side. It makes it much easier for me to maintain my position, because I don't need to remember what it was, or which mitigating factors might alter it --because they won't.

That said, France does not appear to have the same rights we do, as they were able to ban wearing Burkhas in public --which I would also consider a first amendment violation had it happened here … and a legitimate rights violation.

Darren said...

If you see conservatives or Christians advocating self-censorship (it's still censorship), OK, but I'm not seeing it.

No, people in polite society don't go around intentionally insulting others. On the other hand, they shouldn't be forbidden to do so, either--that whole pesky First Amendment thing.

My point is that the liberals--and it *is* liberals--who think that everything will be ok if we just make nice with Muslim fanatics, and hence are willing to carry water for those Muslin fanatics by advocating censorship--those same liberals love to poke their fingers in the eye of the Catholic church. Why? Because they don't worry about the Catholics coming to cut off their heads.

And yes, the picture I posted is a poke in the eye at the Catholics. I'm pointing out hypocrisy here.

Darren said...

http://libertyviral.com/go-fk-yourself-you-communist-turd-senator-says-to-anti-free-speech-democrat/#

maxutils said...

The two I will cite are Pope Francis and whoever the Cardinal is in New York. There have been others.

I entirely agree with your position. My only point is that there is no real party distinction here…maybe the left is more prone to the hypocrisy, but I would rather focus on the larger issue, rather than who's saying it.

And, yes, i recognized that you were poking the church … which I fully support. That entity is full of hypocrisy, in my opinion. and even if they don't deserve it? You should be able to poke them or anyone else as much as you like without being killed for it.

Mike Thiac said...

Remember Darren, these are leftist insulting the Catholic Church, so it's different, you understand.

Ellen K said...

This may sound simplistic, but I was raised to respect other religions. This means that while I may not adhere to their rules, I can't tolerate them worshiping in their own manner as long as it doesn't limit my own beliefs. Where Islam makes a huge mistake-which has been made by Christians, Jews and countless other groups-that they can impose their beliefs on others. I'm not making any excuses for the Crusades or the Inquisition BUT that was hundreds of years ago and in the here and now to behead people for the perception of apostasy is barbaric.

What I can't understand is why the Left is so gungho on restricting Jewish and Christian celebrations while allowing Muslim holidays to be implemented in a disruptive and invasive manner, such as the strictures we had to have to allow Muslim students to reserve the entire library during all four lunches, making them inaccessible to the student population overall during Ramadan. When I was in a Catholic school we celebrated every saints day. We don't do that in public schools and I am glad.

Darren said...

Max, Catholics, in general, are not political conservatives--especially in this country. They're socialists.

And no, I'm not knocking the Catholics *at all* in this post. I'm knocking hypocritical liberals.

maxutils said...

Come on, Darren … Catholics are not socially conservative? So, they're cool with abortion, birth control, gay marriage, all that stuff? And, I'll dispute the socialist tag, too .. . they strike me as 'less government so we can help more' types. Now Jewish people … they inexplicably lean left … despite the fact that Republicans always have Israel's back …

Anonymous said...

The Crusades were a response to the Muslim military conquest of lands that had been under Jewish control and/or Christian control, for centuries or thousands of years prior to Mohammed's birth. Islam has been spread by the sword from the beginning and some of its adherents are still bitter about the Spanish taking back Moorish ares that had originally been taken from Spain.

Darren said...

Come on Max, I said "politically" conservative and not "socially" conservative. The Catholics in this country vote overwhelmingly Democrat, despite the abortion thing. They do believe in doing for others, but apparently they (mistakenly, in my view) think the way to do that is through government and not the charity required by the Bible. (Former) Reader MMazenko, who was himself a Catholic, and I used to debate that point quite heatedly.

maxutils said...

While the Catholics definitely have some Democratic enclaves, particularly New York -- a lot of them tend to vote conservatively as well based on social issues; particularly those of of highly religious Latin descent. But, social conservatism is the relevant factor here, as freedom of speech is a social issue.

Darren said...

Here we go again--you're twisting and contorting and not sticking with the subject.

Gallup is on my side: Catholics vote overwhelmingly Democratic in this country. Anything you say to the contrary is not supported by fact.

maxutils said...

How did I diverge from the subject? Your post was related to a freedom of speech/religion issue … which is a social issue. On which, Catholics are conservative. If anything, you diverted by bringing in that vague area of 'political conservatism' -- and that's actually one of my greatest pet peeves. We live in an era of "Democrat good Republican bad," or vice versa -- I just look at each issue individually. On this one, you would expect Catholics to come out conservatively, and they did: in defense of religion. The typical liberal view would be that religion didn't matter … I really think you're off on this one, and that sucks, because we're both on the same side of the issue, which is free speech. I want to blame everyone who wants to regulate it, regardless of religious, political, or ideological affiliation.