What this highlights for me more than anything else is just how LITTLE these lawmakers know about their own precious holy book. Certainly, the passage I cited earlier from Ezekiel is among the most egregious, but any book with the kind of blind violence, misogyny, and slavery, among too many other negatives, utterly disqualifies the bible as any kind of "sweetness and light" tome. I should mention as well that Jesus is no better, with his talk about not bringing peace but a sword and insisting that those who would not be ruled by him be slain before him.
Those who reacted angrily against the banning of the bible likely knew NOTHING of those verses or multiple others. Their reaction was purely knee-jerk, without understanding the details or seeing any point of view other than their own. I'd say we have the opportunity of a teachable moment here, but my impression is that they don't want to be taught.
I suspect they know full well it's there, and the mental distinction they are drawing is "we want our kids to learn about good sex/violence, but not bad sex/violence." With good = their values and bad = not their values.
Reminds me of that Ugandan "Minister of Morality" (or whatever the hell his title is). When Stephen Fry interviewed him about the country's "kill the gays" bill, he asked the minister why he wasn't concerned about the widespread rapes that were practically an epidemic in the country. The minister's serene reply was "Those are the right kind of rapes."
How about reading this to the Fundies. This will make them squirm.
Judges 19:22-30, NIV
"22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!”
Then afterwords the people rose up and almost wipe out the Benjamin clan to where the male survivors started grabbing young virgins for their brides as thy were dancing in the Tabernacle worship area. That's in Judges 20, the last chapter in the book.
Lot being drunk enough to not recognize his own daughters and being able to have sex with with them to orgasm seems unlikely. I've been drunk enough that I couldn't get it up and I could still recognize people I know.
You need to understand the 'hidden message'. The girls had a bottle of angel supplied roofies which is why 'drugs are bad... mmkay' . Or sumtin sumtin mysterious ways.
That is an excellent "gotcha," in the sense that it's one single passage they will want to argue is clear and explicit when they want to promote their bigotry, but will need to argue is vague and not explicit to avoid the ban.
He was fairly open about his, er, "favorites." At one point, to silence his critics, he even made a speech to Parliament defending his right to love men. Dame Antonia Fraser discusses it in some depth in her biography of James.
"This is offensive," added Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo."
Your book certainly is offensive, Senator. Its contents prove that. And I find your outrage rather laughable. You are a self-described proponent of the 2nd Amendment. You proudly brag about being awarded an A Rating by the NRA's National Victory Fund as well as being grateful for their endorsement. I'm thinking that you're nowhere near as offended by the massive gun violence in this country, even when it involves children.
Oh, this wrinkle in the law needs to be trolled too. Demand the 2nd edition of some 'banned' book be put back in the children's section when the complaint against it is about the 1st edition (or vice versa). And if lawmakers say that a complaint covers all editions...enforce it. :)
Of course they didn't. The "no explicit references in the bible" is not only a common knowledge howler, but it is directly countered by the quotes listed in the complaint.
Seems the ones who are crying the most about cancel culture are the ones actively canceling and boycotting everything. And when they create the BS rules and get some of their own books canceled as a result of the policies they enacted they cry about it.
Those idiots like to display the Christian flag and the confederate flag on their vehicles, trucks, windows and where ever, but god forbid they see a pretty rainbow flag they start convulsing.
Same mentality as sports fans. After every sporting event on TV--every one, without exception--some sportscaster has to come one the air for an additional half hour and explain to the fans what they've just seen. Duh. Who sez Murricans is reel dum?
What’s embarrassing is that there are people getting elected to local, state and federal office who think banning books is what the good guys do or a good idea. Special pleading is a logical fallacy. And most people who learn to read through the Bible tend to be barely literate anyway, there’s so much bad English in the Bible because it’s translated from a translation from a translation. “The wages of sin is death” is bad grammar.
Banning books is unconstitutional, the first amendment protects the books as free speech. It’s also unAmerican, we fought the Nazis over this type of overstepping.
It may be embarrassing but it's a pretty common human response to perceived threat; we can't let people hear this idea, it may cause them harm or cause them to come to a wrong conclusion and lead them down a destructive path. Some folks on the left have that attitude too...just about a different set of ideas. I'm not saying this to make a whataboutism argument, I'm saying it just to say that we should not necessarily think there is something wrong or ignorant with the folks who think that way, because it's well within "human normal" to think some idea is dangerous...even as we all disagree on what counts as dangerous. :)
I think indirect threats (like the government should line LGBT people up and shoot them in the head) and lies (all LGBT people are pedophiles) should come with consequences for the speaker. Those statements *are* dangerous.
There *is* something wrong or ignorant about people who want to ban information about people who don't hurt them, just because they don't like them. Even if it were true that learning about LGBT people would make kids LGBT, so what. It doesn't hurt anyone.
It may be normal to want to "ban" ideas that are dangerous, but some dangers are real and others imaginary and that is an important distinction.
I am trying to wrap my head around "Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion are okay to publish, but some other author's claim that LGBT are pedophiles is not". I'm not seeing a major distinction, frankly. And to your last point, historically there have been far more actual attacks that can be laid at the feet of the former than the latter. Yet modern liberals want to restrict the latter but not the former. It doesn't make sense to me. Or do I have it wrong, and there's no contradiction here because you're advocating for removal of both from the public square?
As for some dangers are real and others imaginary, who decides that? We the people via our government? Conservatives will argue that that process is *exactly* the one they are using, and liberals just don't like the outcome. Old school liberals generally take the position that *nobody* should decide that, and thus end up at the position of let it all get published. But if newer/more progressive liberals want some authority to be empowered to remove material from the public square based on a danger/nondanger criteria, then you're going to have to tell me what authority gets that power and how much power they get. And how you think that plan will work when someone like Trump is elected to wield it.
Threats and Lies, that's the criteria. Both can be objectively proven. Allowing those has gotten us into the present mess. Government officials are pronouncing these lies without consequence. Civil or Criminal. Threats and Lies are what allowed Nazi Germany to form.
I also didn't say removed. I said consequences. Not the same thing.
Real dangers can be demonstrated, imaginary ones can not.
Anytime someone suggests that the line between restricted speech and permitted speech should be reconsidered, the 'Oh, you can be censored too' argument is trotted out. If I'm spouting threats and lies then I should face consequences.
Okay so you want an office of the government that imposes consequences (not removal!) on people who publish threats and lies. So when Trump is President, you see this power of government working for positive social change? This is the future of your progressive vision? Government power is like the old 'cut the cake' lesson. You can cut the cake (i.e. decide what powers government has), but then you don't get to pick the first piece (i.e. decide who it's used on). I personally see putting the power of "consequences for threats and lies" in the government's hands as something that will quickly backfire on all you hold dear. Want to know who gets the consequences of threats and lies when the government has that power? Blacks. Gays. Immigrants. Women. Rape victims don't just lose in court, now they go to jail for 'telling lies.' And so on. Yes yes, I hear you agreesing that if you spout threats and lies you should face consequence. But "threat" is subjective. And "lie" vs. "wrong" and sometimes vs "opinion" is very hard to distinguish. What if your statement "x should face consequences" is viewed by the new conservative prosecutor as a threat? Do you think it's fair to go to jail over it? Because that's the power you're talking about. The guy who decides if you're threatening? Lying? You're assuming they're going to be a liberal. You can't make that assumption. You shouldn't even make the assumption that their objective or neutral. When deciding whether you support a legal-consequences-for-threats-and-lies position, it's more realistic to assume that the person deciding whether a liberal issued a threat or lie is an arch conservative. Under THOSE conditions, does your change really sound like a good idea?
More on lies: slander and libel laws already cover it. I take it you're not happy with the way they work right now, so clearly you want to make it easier for those crimes to be prosecuted. Lower the standards on what counts. Like Trump, who would love to prosecute everyone and their brother for slander. Do you honestly think that some new, laxer standard for what counts as slander (i.e. illegal lying) is going to work in the favor of liberal causes?
And on threats: look at how stand your ground laws are already being used against minorities. You want to make it *easier* for some bigot racist to get away with self-defense by claiming they shot because they were threatened? Because that's how it's going to be implemented. I don't say that out of paranioa, that is actually how it happened with stand your ground laws.
I don't oppose your position merely out of some self-interested thought for my free speech. I oppose it because I consider it a naively massive mistake that will set civil rights back 50+ years, by handing retrograde bigots exactly the governmental power they want to take the speech of civil rights advocates and "consequence" it as a lie. Because I think it is a naively massive mistake that will allow white racists to get away with murder even more than they do now because you're widening what is legally considered a "threat", and you laughably think this wider definition of threat will be used by the court system to protect black people and LGBT people and other minorities. But that is never how it actually works. I oppose your position because free expression has always been the best defense of liberalism, and "consequences" for lies and threats has always been the best tool of regression and authoritariansm that opposes exactly the causes you support.
Slander and libel can't be prosecuted by a group. No one has standing. Otherwise, Ron DeSantis wouldn't have time to fuck up Florida because he'd be spending all his time in court defending the slander/libel cases against him by drag queens, trans people and other LGBT individuals. As it stands, he gets to repeat his lies on a national platform and face no consequences. But LGBT people face consequences for his lies. You apparently consider this injustice acceptable, I do not.
Threats. Yes if you are in a position of authority and repeatedly say the government should kill Jews and someone hears you and goes and kills Jews, then yes, you should face criminal charges. You propose that the person who said it was right to kill Jews bears no responsibility for the Jews that were killed.
You free speech "absolutists" always spout the same dystopian nightmare anytime someone suggests that maybe our definitions are not as good as they could be. With almost religious fervor and about as much thought. Other countries have moved the line between restricted and permitted speech without turning in to the nightmare scenario you propose as inevitable.
It's always the same slippery slope argument. We've all heard it before. And stand unconvinced that accepting such injustice is the only path to freedom. You're so used to the status quo that you can't even consider if we can do better.
The government already has the power you fear and has had since it's inception. The government already draws the line between permitted and restricted speech. I'm suggesting that there are objective definitions that allow us to move that line to cover harmful cases that are currently allowed. Yes, they have to be decided by judges who we hope are objective, but that is the case with the current line.
You bring up Trump. His lies are provably false, but he has been allowed to spout them for years and has nearly brought our democracy to a screeching halt. The freedoms you insist allowing anyone to utter threats and lies will insure, are in serious danger of disappearing because of threats and lies.
You claim I haven't thought through the possible consequences of my stance, but I'm living the consequences of yours.
At this rate the GOP will need to have their bullet-riddled feet surgically removed. But then they'll move on to destroying their own kneecaps by passing laws that come back to bite them.
I see they’re mostly designed by men. That crap leads to Mensez LipStick. Completely asinine and useless. Just plating something in gold does not necessarily add luxury, which was the point of King Midas. Adding jewels to a product like that only invites infection and isn’t very comfortable.
Why are the politicians — Democrats and Republicans — so afraid of Donald Trump? What does he know about the swamp they do not want revealed?
They have gone to great lengths to destroy Trump and his followers, and it seems, as William Shakespeare said, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Is it that members of Congress have gotten very rich off the backs of American taxpayers and will do anything to protect their wealth? (Wealth that should belong to the citizens of this country.)
Trump doesn’t need the money because he made it the American way. He owes nothing to special interests or “good old boy” politics.
I am sticking with Trump because I want to know what they are so afraid of.
One wonders if Ms. Atkenson cares much if at all for the democracy for which her hero seems to have so little regard. As for needing money, between E. Jean Carroll and lawyers' fees, Donnie is going to be dipping DEEP into his reserves by the time this is over. Oh, and I'll bet that any representation he retains is going to insist on deposits UP FRONT and not after the fact!
He doesn’t need the money? Then why is he constantly begging for handouts from his supporters to pay for his campaign and legal fees and then surreptitiously switched one-time donations to monthly? Why does he come up with all these tacky bs NFTs to sell?
He has stolen more money as president than we even know about. He only once donated his salary (a monthly payment not his annual salary) to charity when he promised to give it all away. Not only that but he had the SS pay for being at his resorts to protect him plus the golf cart fees and green fees and any other fees he could get away with, and since he didn’t divest from his businesses, all that cash lined his pockets.
And then let’s talk about the money he stole from the charity organizations he pusses his name all over.
Trump is such a bad businessman that the just by investing his original cash his daddy gave him he would have been richer today than he brags about, but he lost it a long time ago and lost more and more, while not even paying for the shit he has.
What this highlights for me more than anything else is just how LITTLE these lawmakers know about their own precious holy book. Certainly, the passage I cited earlier from Ezekiel is among the most egregious, but any book with the kind of blind violence, misogyny, and slavery, among too many other negatives, utterly disqualifies the bible as any kind of "sweetness and light" tome. I should mention as well that Jesus is no better, with his talk about not bringing peace but a sword and insisting that those who would not be ruled by him be slain before him.
Those who reacted angrily against the banning of the bible likely knew NOTHING of those verses or multiple others. Their reaction was purely knee-jerk, without understanding the details or seeing any point of view other than their own. I'd say we have the opportunity of a teachable moment here, but my impression is that they don't want to be taught.
You know the vast majority of adherents to Bible-based religions have never actually read the Bible.
I suspect they know full well it's there, and the mental distinction they are drawing is "we want our kids to learn about good sex/violence, but not bad sex/violence." With good = their values and bad = not their values.
Reminds me of that Ugandan "Minister of Morality" (or whatever the hell his title is). When Stephen Fry interviewed him about the country's "kill the gays" bill, he asked the minister why he wasn't concerned about the widespread rapes that were practically an epidemic in the country. The minister's serene reply was "Those are the right kind of rapes."
The kkkatlik cabal under Pus XII claimed their hatred of Jews was pure and holy whi nazi hatreds were pagan and cruel. Kertzer "The Pope At War."
There is no right kind of rape.
Fucked up priorities:
https://www.zentaur.org/memes/hermione_priorities.gif
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑢𝑠,” ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑. “𝑊𝑒 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠. … 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦’𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒’𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙.
Oh, REALLY! "No detail," eh? Well, how about:
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑦𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑠.
-- Ezekiel 23:20
That seems pretty detailed to me ... and about as apropos for a holy book as a hole in the head!
How about reading this to the Fundies. This will make them squirm.
Judges 19:22-30, NIV
"22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!”
Then afterwords the people rose up and almost wipe out the Benjamin clan to where the male survivors started grabbing young virgins for their brides as thy were dancing in the Tabernacle worship area. That's in Judges 20, the last chapter in the book.
Ah, yes, yet another goodie that I've known about for a while. It's basically Lot's offer of his virgin daughters in Sodom, except actually executed!
The very virgin daughters who made their father Lot have sex with them after they got him heavily drunk and bore children through him.
Lot being drunk enough to not recognize his own daughters and being able to have sex with with them to orgasm seems unlikely. I've been drunk enough that I couldn't get it up and I could still recognize people I know.
And Lot gets both pregnant? He managed to accomplish all that without recognizing either daughter TWICE?
This doesn't just stretch credulity, it snaps it in two.
You need to understand the 'hidden message'. The girls had a bottle of angel supplied roofies which is why 'drugs are bad... mmkay' . Or sumtin sumtin mysterious ways.
If that excuse worked in real life the Orange One would have used it by now.
Good family fun.
But the size of those genitals and the volume of the emissions were signs of God's love. Shame on you for your blasphemous suggestion otherwise.
Ooooo, Yahweh as a size queen! What a concept! 🤣🤣🤣
Leviticus 20:13, the favorite of homophobes, something about 2 men lying down together.
So much so, they might even tattoo it on their arms. Which is in complete violation of Leviticus 19:28, just one chapter earlier.
I violated* a bible verse without knowing it. Yay me 😁
* Not that I care.
Best. Tattoo. Ever.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/leviticus-1928--406449935090075893/
Somebody was having a bit of fun at the expense of believers. :)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2aabae23144312ebc9382edb8862f6547295fcff01d857d5ae5306b3b0f07166.jpg
I love this one.
That is an excellent "gotcha," in the sense that it's one single passage they will want to argue is clear and explicit when they want to promote their bigotry, but will need to argue is vague and not explicit to avoid the ban.
This is how little they read it: I wasn't even the live in those days so what the hell are they talking about?
Hey! I have several holes in my head! They're all functional, however. ;)
"a move toward “accepting the religion of atheism and hedonism.”
Another jesus licking idiot who is wholly ignorant about atheism and whose christer religion is all about hedonism.
“didn’t find any serious literary value in the Bible?”
Duh, poorly written jumble of pilfered stories from other cultures with extremely unbelievable plots and mediocre characters.
And the KJV is particularly bad, what with all the thee's and thou's and shit.
And KJ being a closeted queen to boot.
I don't fault him for his homosexuality. I suppose even as a king you had to be on the down low in those days.
Oh, it's not his leanings we fault him for. It's his hypocrisy.
Preaching intolerance of gay people while rewarding his male lovers with positions of power.
Did he preach intolerance of gay people?
His name is on the book that called men having sex with one another an "abomination."
Bit of a double standard.
He also wrote a particularly vile book on "demonology." Some really horrific stuff in there (burning "witches," etc.).
He was fairly open about his, er, "favorites." At one point, to silence his critics, he even made a speech to Parliament defending his right to love men. Dame Antonia Fraser discusses it in some depth in her biography of James.
So he defended his right to love men while eliminating that right from others? Some King.. :-/
One gets the impression that he was not a very nice man.
"This is offensive," added Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo."
Your book certainly is offensive, Senator. Its contents prove that. And I find your outrage rather laughable. You are a self-described proponent of the 2nd Amendment. You proudly brag about being awarded an A Rating by the NRA's National Victory Fund as well as being grateful for their endorsement. I'm thinking that you're nowhere near as offended by the massive gun violence in this country, even when it involves children.
Spare us your faux outrage, Sen. Bumble.
𝐵𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐾𝐽𝑉 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑦 𝑢𝑝 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑤 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠.
Oh, this wrinkle in the law needs to be trolled too. Demand the 2nd edition of some 'banned' book be put back in the children's section when the complaint against it is about the 1st edition (or vice versa). And if lawmakers say that a complaint covers all editions...enforce it. :)
You can bet none of these "lawmakers" bothered to read the complaint, much less the list of problematic verses.
Of course they didn't. The "no explicit references in the bible" is not only a common knowledge howler, but it is directly countered by the quotes listed in the complaint.
Seems the ones who are crying the most about cancel culture are the ones actively canceling and boycotting everything. And when they create the BS rules and get some of their own books canceled as a result of the policies they enacted they cry about it.
Just like they complain about flag etiquette with the pride flag but then wear the murican flag on their ass.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSo-AX9K_iTg-iAR9xmdEW_y0CXzTqvhjkIptNCz531FDOq6o_iWaZ7oyNg3UIHyPcBZsM&usqp=CAU
Those idiots like to display the Christian flag and the confederate flag on their vehicles, trucks, windows and where ever, but god forbid they see a pretty rainbow flag they start convulsing.
They stick crosses on public lands while simultaneously vandalizing Adopt-A-Road signs by atheists.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds with such people.
Every accusation is a confession.
Utah republicans: "That's not what the church told me is in that book I've never read."
Be fair, they read the parts their leaders want them to. Well, after their leaders tell them what it means, just to be safe.
Same mentality as sports fans. After every sporting event on TV--every one, without exception--some sportscaster has to come one the air for an additional half hour and explain to the fans what they've just seen. Duh. Who sez Murricans is reel dum?
Hey! I like hockey. :)
Kraken fan. 🏑
What’s embarrassing is that there are people getting elected to local, state and federal office who think banning books is what the good guys do or a good idea. Special pleading is a logical fallacy. And most people who learn to read through the Bible tend to be barely literate anyway, there’s so much bad English in the Bible because it’s translated from a translation from a translation. “The wages of sin is death” is bad grammar.
Banning books is unconstitutional, the first amendment protects the books as free speech. It’s also unAmerican, we fought the Nazis over this type of overstepping.
It may be embarrassing but it's a pretty common human response to perceived threat; we can't let people hear this idea, it may cause them harm or cause them to come to a wrong conclusion and lead them down a destructive path. Some folks on the left have that attitude too...just about a different set of ideas. I'm not saying this to make a whataboutism argument, I'm saying it just to say that we should not necessarily think there is something wrong or ignorant with the folks who think that way, because it's well within "human normal" to think some idea is dangerous...even as we all disagree on what counts as dangerous. :)
I think indirect threats (like the government should line LGBT people up and shoot them in the head) and lies (all LGBT people are pedophiles) should come with consequences for the speaker. Those statements *are* dangerous.
There *is* something wrong or ignorant about people who want to ban information about people who don't hurt them, just because they don't like them. Even if it were true that learning about LGBT people would make kids LGBT, so what. It doesn't hurt anyone.
It may be normal to want to "ban" ideas that are dangerous, but some dangers are real and others imaginary and that is an important distinction.
I am trying to wrap my head around "Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion are okay to publish, but some other author's claim that LGBT are pedophiles is not". I'm not seeing a major distinction, frankly. And to your last point, historically there have been far more actual attacks that can be laid at the feet of the former than the latter. Yet modern liberals want to restrict the latter but not the former. It doesn't make sense to me. Or do I have it wrong, and there's no contradiction here because you're advocating for removal of both from the public square?
As for some dangers are real and others imaginary, who decides that? We the people via our government? Conservatives will argue that that process is *exactly* the one they are using, and liberals just don't like the outcome. Old school liberals generally take the position that *nobody* should decide that, and thus end up at the position of let it all get published. But if newer/more progressive liberals want some authority to be empowered to remove material from the public square based on a danger/nondanger criteria, then you're going to have to tell me what authority gets that power and how much power they get. And how you think that plan will work when someone like Trump is elected to wield it.
Threats and Lies, that's the criteria. Both can be objectively proven. Allowing those has gotten us into the present mess. Government officials are pronouncing these lies without consequence. Civil or Criminal. Threats and Lies are what allowed Nazi Germany to form.
I also didn't say removed. I said consequences. Not the same thing.
Real dangers can be demonstrated, imaginary ones can not.
Anytime someone suggests that the line between restricted speech and permitted speech should be reconsidered, the 'Oh, you can be censored too' argument is trotted out. If I'm spouting threats and lies then I should face consequences.
Okay so you want an office of the government that imposes consequences (not removal!) on people who publish threats and lies. So when Trump is President, you see this power of government working for positive social change? This is the future of your progressive vision? Government power is like the old 'cut the cake' lesson. You can cut the cake (i.e. decide what powers government has), but then you don't get to pick the first piece (i.e. decide who it's used on). I personally see putting the power of "consequences for threats and lies" in the government's hands as something that will quickly backfire on all you hold dear. Want to know who gets the consequences of threats and lies when the government has that power? Blacks. Gays. Immigrants. Women. Rape victims don't just lose in court, now they go to jail for 'telling lies.' And so on. Yes yes, I hear you agreesing that if you spout threats and lies you should face consequence. But "threat" is subjective. And "lie" vs. "wrong" and sometimes vs "opinion" is very hard to distinguish. What if your statement "x should face consequences" is viewed by the new conservative prosecutor as a threat? Do you think it's fair to go to jail over it? Because that's the power you're talking about. The guy who decides if you're threatening? Lying? You're assuming they're going to be a liberal. You can't make that assumption. You shouldn't even make the assumption that their objective or neutral. When deciding whether you support a legal-consequences-for-threats-and-lies position, it's more realistic to assume that the person deciding whether a liberal issued a threat or lie is an arch conservative. Under THOSE conditions, does your change really sound like a good idea?
More on lies: slander and libel laws already cover it. I take it you're not happy with the way they work right now, so clearly you want to make it easier for those crimes to be prosecuted. Lower the standards on what counts. Like Trump, who would love to prosecute everyone and their brother for slander. Do you honestly think that some new, laxer standard for what counts as slander (i.e. illegal lying) is going to work in the favor of liberal causes?
And on threats: look at how stand your ground laws are already being used against minorities. You want to make it *easier* for some bigot racist to get away with self-defense by claiming they shot because they were threatened? Because that's how it's going to be implemented. I don't say that out of paranioa, that is actually how it happened with stand your ground laws.
I don't oppose your position merely out of some self-interested thought for my free speech. I oppose it because I consider it a naively massive mistake that will set civil rights back 50+ years, by handing retrograde bigots exactly the governmental power they want to take the speech of civil rights advocates and "consequence" it as a lie. Because I think it is a naively massive mistake that will allow white racists to get away with murder even more than they do now because you're widening what is legally considered a "threat", and you laughably think this wider definition of threat will be used by the court system to protect black people and LGBT people and other minorities. But that is never how it actually works. I oppose your position because free expression has always been the best defense of liberalism, and "consequences" for lies and threats has always been the best tool of regression and authoritariansm that opposes exactly the causes you support.
Slander and libel can't be prosecuted by a group. No one has standing. Otherwise, Ron DeSantis wouldn't have time to fuck up Florida because he'd be spending all his time in court defending the slander/libel cases against him by drag queens, trans people and other LGBT individuals. As it stands, he gets to repeat his lies on a national platform and face no consequences. But LGBT people face consequences for his lies. You apparently consider this injustice acceptable, I do not.
Threats. Yes if you are in a position of authority and repeatedly say the government should kill Jews and someone hears you and goes and kills Jews, then yes, you should face criminal charges. You propose that the person who said it was right to kill Jews bears no responsibility for the Jews that were killed.
You free speech "absolutists" always spout the same dystopian nightmare anytime someone suggests that maybe our definitions are not as good as they could be. With almost religious fervor and about as much thought. Other countries have moved the line between restricted and permitted speech without turning in to the nightmare scenario you propose as inevitable.
It's always the same slippery slope argument. We've all heard it before. And stand unconvinced that accepting such injustice is the only path to freedom. You're so used to the status quo that you can't even consider if we can do better.
The government already has the power you fear and has had since it's inception. The government already draws the line between permitted and restricted speech. I'm suggesting that there are objective definitions that allow us to move that line to cover harmful cases that are currently allowed. Yes, they have to be decided by judges who we hope are objective, but that is the case with the current line.
You bring up Trump. His lies are provably false, but he has been allowed to spout them for years and has nearly brought our democracy to a screeching halt. The freedoms you insist allowing anyone to utter threats and lies will insure, are in serious danger of disappearing because of threats and lies.
You claim I haven't thought through the possible consequences of my stance, but I'm living the consequences of yours.
"Some folks on the left have that attitude too..."
Example?
My father blurted out, "You're not converting, are you‽‽‽" When he saw me reading 𝘈𝘯 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘡𝘦𝘯 𝘉𝘶𝘥𝘥𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮 by D.T. Suzuki
At this rate the GOP will need to have their bullet-riddled feet surgically removed. But then they'll move on to destroying their own kneecaps by passing laws that come back to bite them.
Eventually they'll get to their junk and learn a lesson. ;)
Or at least stop reproducing.
I read somewhere, but didn’t verify it, that Trump signed a law that increased prison time for someone convicted of mishandling classified documents.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpgDtCrqyQSYZz_2di_AK0x74-dGboMT-6-G0iXFNn0ulZnjp6v2CgGEhuponz99GPaacZYPooyhEbJcgkrVLpwDKtc4n9S8jVRDkKy-1lnJ4E6gaqJKh-75r8f-YEg7FTCGRaWNVtxzsP86L2zjgFoPRJl4S3Vv2mvMy5gTM0jh3aDFCM0Jg/s320/1the%20trump%20indictment%20is%20like%20the%20bible.jpg
Pre-CISE-ly!
“Traditionally, in America, the Bible is best taught, and best understood, in the home, and around the hearth, as a family.”
Might fit in with the other thing that Utahans do at home. Guess who is #1?
https://www.cnbc.com/2009/07/14/Top-US-States-For-Online-Pornography.html
"“There is no other book out there that has the same value as the bible."
That's true. Even "fun with dick and jane" is worth more
You can use a small portion of them as rolling papers, that's not much but it's not nothing. Heh.
And toilet paper in a pinch.
But watch out for any allergic reactions to the ink.
OT:
From the christerpost:
Church financial director charged with stealing $340K to pay for adult toys, vacations
https://www.christianpost.com/news/financial-director-charge-with-stealing-340k-from-church.html
That's a lot of dildos.
Have you shopped for sex toys lately? You pay for quality.
Don't ask and you will receive anyway
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankicookney/2019/10/27/the-most-expensive-sex-toys-money-can-buy/
I see they’re mostly designed by men. That crap leads to Mensez LipStick. Completely asinine and useless. Just plating something in gold does not necessarily add luxury, which was the point of King Midas. Adding jewels to a product like that only invites infection and isn’t very comfortable.
So I should pick out something else for your birthday?
You could, but I’d probably display it rather than use it.
Get me something with a decent motor that’ll last a while and nice soft durable cover, way more luxurious than sticking slave jewels over it.
That thing looks dangerous!
And uncomfortable. I wouldn't want that near my vagina.
Hmm. Don't know if I should insert that or launch it into orbit.
No more cheap thrills?
Stealing poor people's money to buy sex toys? What a prick.
340 grand for sex toys?! Boy, is he shopping at the wrong stores.
Solid gold?
Criminal charges? Isn't god's punishment enough?
Can't have your cake and eat it too. It's just that simple.
Anything is possible with Jesus. *insert very serious face emoji*
OT:
I present to you the output of the rancid cauliflower between the ears of a MAGAT:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Why are the politicians — Democrats and Republicans — so afraid of Donald Trump? What does he know about the swamp they do not want revealed?
They have gone to great lengths to destroy Trump and his followers, and it seems, as William Shakespeare said, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Is it that members of Congress have gotten very rich off the backs of American taxpayers and will do anything to protect their wealth? (Wealth that should belong to the citizens of this country.)
Trump doesn’t need the money because he made it the American way. He owes nothing to special interests or “good old boy” politics.
I am sticking with Trump because I want to know what they are so afraid of.
— Sue Atkenson, Frankfort
________________________________________________________________________________________
Chicago Tribune 6/13/23
Words fail; mind boggles; temptation to have a double shot of Wild Turkey 151 with an Everclear chaser for breakfast.
One wonders if Ms. Atkenson cares much if at all for the democracy for which her hero seems to have so little regard. As for needing money, between E. Jean Carroll and lawyers' fees, Donnie is going to be dipping DEEP into his reserves by the time this is over. Oh, and I'll bet that any representation he retains is going to insist on deposits UP FRONT and not after the fact!
He doesn’t need the money? Then why is he constantly begging for handouts from his supporters to pay for his campaign and legal fees and then surreptitiously switched one-time donations to monthly? Why does he come up with all these tacky bs NFTs to sell?
He has stolen more money as president than we even know about. He only once donated his salary (a monthly payment not his annual salary) to charity when he promised to give it all away. Not only that but he had the SS pay for being at his resorts to protect him plus the golf cart fees and green fees and any other fees he could get away with, and since he didn’t divest from his businesses, all that cash lined his pockets.
And then let’s talk about the money he stole from the charity organizations he pusses his name all over.
Trump is such a bad businessman that the just by investing his original cash his daddy gave him he would have been richer today than he brags about, but he lost it a long time ago and lost more and more, while not even paying for the shit he has.
I'm sure Ms. Atkenson ranks among the fools giving money to Agent Orange to help defray his expenses.
Why shouldn't she give him money? She's already given him her brains.