One last buzzword I'm going to put into this series conserns Freedom of Speech.  Like the other words in the Pantheon of Liberalism, Freedom of Speech is often applicable only selectively.  Only those who speak the philosophy of Liberalism can be protected by this freedom.  Intolerance is certainly not allowed.

Freedom of Speech

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press… (Amendment I, United States Constitution)

Freedom of Speech and the related Freedom of the Press are perhaps the most severely abused freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The original purpose of Freedom of Speech and the Press was to prevent the government from harassing citizens who disagreed with some policy or other. In many un-free countries (Communist or Islamic dictatorships, for example) speaking out publicly against the government can incur prison time or even death. A classic example of this was the incident at Bejing's Tiananmen Square in 1989. Thousands of Chinese protesters were speaking out against corruption in the government, and the Communist government decided on a military crackdown. The number dead was unclear, but fair estimates sit in the 300-800 range and some are as high as 2,500 or more. The Chinese government denied the incident for years, despite hours of footage – some including the deaths of many of the protesters – being available worldwide.

In this country, Freedom of Speech is often taken for granted. It is also usually mistaken for the right to be heard, which does not exist. Most frequently, abuses in freedom of speech occur in academia and the entertainment industry. In September of 2001, Ward Churchill, a professor of Native American studies at the University of Colorado, published a now infamous article in which he disparaged the victims of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks (calling them "little Eichmans") while praising their murderers, calling them brave. He declared that America had it coming with regard to the attack. The day of the attacks, Leftist film producer Michael Moore wrote an article on his website lamenting not the attack on America, but the attack on the "blue" states of New York and Washington, DC (in the interests of fairness, Moore did not claim DC to be a state as far as I am aware.) There are other examples of Americans who have praised the terrorists who have vowed to destroy the Great Satan, just as there are Americans who have praised the brutal, murderous, Communist regimes in China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and the old Soviet Union.

One example of the Liberal view of Freedom of Speech comes from the country music group "The Dixie Chicks." One member of the group, Natalie Maines, made a disparaging comment about President Bush during a 2003 concert in London. As a result a number of her fans (country music fans being a largely conservative group) stopped buying the group's albums and at least one sponsor pulled its support for the group. At that, the group and their Liberal allies complained about infringements of their right to Free Speech. The expectation of Liberals is not simply that they have the right to say what they will without being put in prison (the penalty in many countries for saying the wrong thing), but that they have the right to say what they will without any penalty at all. They believe Freedom of Speech protects them from any negative response generated by their saying something disagreeable. Their idea of Freedom of Speech is to accuse those who dissent from their views, no matter how outside the mainstream, of violating their rights to free speech. It's worth noting that Liberals often caterwaul loudly when they are the target of venom from harsh, conservative, satirical writers. Often in their condemnation of the likes of columnists Ann Coulter and Mike Adams is "they have no right to say that."

College campuses often employ "speech codes" to regulate and stifle "hate speech." This normally has the effect of sanctioning students who raise reasonable religious objections to homosexuality or other Liberal agendas, while still allowing favored groups like homosexuals and feminists to speak out against conservatives and devout Christians. These same university administrators who attempt to quell "hateful" religious expression (calling homosexuality or abortion a grave sin) say nothing when their professors make public, hateful comments about the United States, or conservatives, or Christianity. And even Liberals aren't immune from punishment. It is not the persuasion of the person, but the content of the speech that must be suppressed by the true followers of Liberalism. Former Harvard president Larry Sommers, not a noted conservative by any stretch of anyone's imagination, is only the "former" Harvard president because he made a speech suggesting that there might be a difference in the mathematical and scientific ability of men and women, and that the difference might, possibly, be inherent. One female professor claimed to have nearly "blacked out or thrown up" upon hearing these remarks (calling to mind old cartoons of women fainting when they hear something shocking). After numerous apologies and explanations that he was simply bringing up a topic of discussion, he was still forced to resign his post for daring to speak something that didn't fall under the realm of tolerance and Diversity.

Freedom of the Press is essentially the same, but there is one additional point that can be made here. The Liberal view of Freedom of the Press includes the right to publish any classified material they can acquire, regardless of its effect on national security, criminal investigations, and so forth. Numerous articles in the New York Times and Washington Post have detailed accounts of intelligence gathering techniques used to find and capture terrorists, usually calling those techniques draconian and claiming that they are used against wide segments of the American population. Calling such publications irresponsible or illegal (which is true) often sparks outcries of "suppression" of the free press. There is also an expectation among the press that they should have access to publish anything they wish, regardless of the sensitivity of the information, and that information should be made readily available to them on request. 

I wish someone would explain something to me in terms that make sense in context. The Bible says in numerous passages, in both the Old and New Testaments, that homosexual activity is “wicked.” From Sodom and Gomorrah to Paul’s letter to the Romans the word wicked is always attached to either the inference or direct mention of homosexual activity. That’s not something in dispute. That’s not something that modern Christians just made up to persecute gays, nor is it something made up by gays to persecute Christians. It’s always been there. (The idea that the bible doesn’t explicitly condemn that activity, however, is a product of the modern pro-gay movement.) As homosexuality is “wicked” and marriage is considered holy by Christians (hence the term “Holy Matrimony”) the idea of “homosexual marriage”, to a truly believing Christian, is a non sequitur, it doesn’t make sense. All of that is established fact. (Consider, by the way, that I’m speaking strictly from a Christian theological view, not the view of Western society, which is often, unfortunately, quite different.)

A clergyman’s job, whether his title is pastor, priest, minister, reverend, or whatever, is to preach the Word of God to his congregation and to be a moral authority to them as well. If you are a Christian and you have a moral question, the best person to ask that question should be your minister, priest, or whatever title your religion uses. It’s actually a very simple job. It is not, however, an easy one and it takes a special type of person to do that job, and the moral standards on that job are very high.

I will reiterate, now, my point that this post is based on Christian theology, Christian beliefs, and Christian clergy. I’m not commenting on society as a whole or its views on gays, gay marriage, or anything like that. It’s not important for this discussion. I am solely concerned with the Christian, Biblical view on the matter.

Yesterday, I came across yet another gay clergy article. In this particular story, an openly, but heretofore celibate (so far as I can tell), gay man, Rev. Bradley Schmeling, has been a pastor at a Lutheran church in Atlanta, GA, since about 2000. Last year he announced that he had found a “partner” and thus inferred that he was no longer being celibate. His bishop immediately asked for Schmeling’s resignation which request was refused. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) has stepped in and its Disciplinary committee has decided to remove Schmeling from his post effective 15 August 2007. So far, so good. A left-leaning protestant church has abided by its own rules and by the Bible itself in recognizing the wickedness of homosexual acts and acted accordingly in moving to remove a clergyman from his post because he is living an overtly and gravely sinful life.

If the story ended there, however, I might not have bothered with a post. I generally try to post stories that irritate me, not ones that make me happy (not always the case, but that’s the idea). The problem is that the story does not, unfortunately, end there.

An astute reader will note that the effective date of the removal is some 6 months after the story broke (which was 8 February 2007) rather than being immediate. Well it turns out that the ONLY reason that the ELCA is removing this pastor is because of its bylaws, not because of the sinfulness of homosexuality. As a matter of fact, the ELCA’s disciplinary committee, which handed down the removal, “said that the church document that bars practicing homosexuals from the clergy is ‘bad policy’ and encouraged church leaders to abandon it.” Let me make this perfectly clear: The disciplinary committee of the American Lutheran Church stated in a ruling removing an openly and actively gay pastor that the policy of barring practicing homosexuals from the clergy is bad policy. In other words it is “bad policy” to demand that your clergy be held to a high moral standard. In fact the reason for the six month delay is to push it past the ELCA’s August meeting in the hopes that this “bad policy” will be changed, rendering the removal moot and allowing a man who apparently lacks any self control over his sexual urges to remain pastor of a church.

Let’s review: According to Christian theology (to which the Lutheran Church claims to adhere) homosexuality is bad. Clerics are there for the expressed purpose of being a moral authority to their congregations. The ELCA has expressed an opinion that homosexuality, and more importantly, homosexual sex are acceptable in its clergy. So here’s my question: How can a preacher have any moral authority to instruct anyone in what is right and what is wrong when he, himself, is openly and actively living a lifestyle that is condemned as wicked in the very Bible from which he claims to be preaching? And for those of you who are going to accuse me of gay bashing, let’s take homosexuality out of it for a moment. Fornication (sex outside the bounds of marriage) is also gravely sinful. If a preacher is straight and has a different coed in his house every night, or is living with a woman to whom he is not married, that’s also wrong and it also should disqualify him from being a cleric. One of the most common themes in the Gospels is Jesus saying “Go forth and sin no more.” How can a preacher who is living a sinful life say that with any authority to his congregation?

To be perfectly honest, if a gay man is a preacher, but he remains celibate, I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, a gay man who remains celibate because he recognizes the wrongness of homosexuality and exercises a positive restraint on his drives in that arena should be praised. The problem isn’t homosexual tendencies or thoughts, it’s homosexual (or any other gravely sinful) acts. Clerics are rightly held to a much higher moral standard than other people. They have to be. They have positions of trust and confidence and authority, all of which are severely compromised when they commit grave sin, especially when they live a sinful lifestyle. An actively gay preacher has two options. First, he can preach correctly: Homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc. are all gravely sinful. The problem is that he obviously (to the congregation) does not believe what he is saying because his actions show he is living the life he is condemning. So why should they listen to him on matters of faith and morals when he doesn’t believe them himself? The second option is to preach how he actually believes, that homosexuality, fornication, adultery, or whatever are perfectly acceptable behaviors and we must follow the idea of tolerance in other people’s moral choices. For a cleric to preach that is far, far worse than the acts themselves. He is not only leading himself down a path to Hell, but he’s bringing his congregation with him in the proverbial hand basket.

And for the cleric, the ignorance plea won’t fly here. Sexual misbehaviors of all sorts are expressly prohibited in the Bible. A cleric, of all people, should accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If God says it’s wrong, then He’s probably right, and I’m not about to argue with Him.

The ELCA should seriously consider what is actually in the Bible before they allow themselves to be duped by Satan that the Holy Spirit would lead them to a decision that active gays make good clergy. Churches should be bending men to God’s will, not trying to bend God to man’s will. God didn’t make suggestions on what is right and what is wrong. He said it pretty much outright. The Law He laid down was not for our convenience, it was for our salvation. We can’t go around changing the Law and expecting to end up in Heaven. It doesn’t work like that at all. Jesus didn’t say “as long as you don’t hurt anyone at the moment, whatever you want to do is OK with me.” He said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John, 14:15)

Finally, I will close with the following passage (Mark, 7:1-13)

“1 Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, 2 they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands. 3 (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders. 4And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).) 5 So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, "Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?" 6 He responded, "Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' 8 You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition." 9 He went on to say, "How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.' 11 Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is qorban"' (meaning, dedicated to God), 12 you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. 13 You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things."

Consider now the tradition of “tolerance and Diversity.”

HJG

Constitutional

Adj. Provided by, in accordance with, or not prohibited by, [the C]onstitution [of the United States or an individual state] (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

Politically, Liberalism and conservatism now refer to differing philosophical views on the Constitution. To a conservative, the Constitution is a living document, with its words having real meaning and real force and real applicability to modern government. If the words are not applicable or are archaic, then there is a set process for changing the Constitution, elaborated within the document itself. The Constitution has been changed 27 times, though one of those changes was later rescinded by another, each time by following the rules set out for its amendment. To a Liberal, the Constitution is also called a "living document." The Liberal definition of "living" is very different. To a Liberal the words of the Constitution have no lasting effect or meaning. They adhere to a very loose definition of the "spirit of the law" when reading and interpreting it. Thus, Liberals are far more capable of extracting rights out of the Constitution than are conservatives. Liberals believe, for example, that the Constitution requires a complete divestment of all religion from the State (more on that later). They also believe in a number of rights that are not expressly provided for such as privacy, work, health care, sexual perversion, and so forth. Liberal judges commonly declare laws that do not promote the Liberal agenda as being unconstitutional. The most famous of these was the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade that discovered a right for a woman to murder her unborn, unwanted child. In that decision, the majority opinion cited the right to privacy, which is never actually stated in the Constitution. More recently laws expressly defining marriage (something the State DOES have the power and responsibility to do) have been found unconstitutional (for example, in Massachusetts) as denying gays "equal protection of the law." That equal protection is in the Constitution is not in dispute. At issue is whether that protection extends to an intentional pattern of behavior as well as accidental traits by genetics (such as being black or left-handed). (Incidentally, for those of you who believe without question that homosexuality is an inborn genetic trait and there's nothing they can do about their feelings, fine, I'll accept that so long as you accept that they still have a choice whether or not to act on those feelings. Just because you're sexually attracted to someone doesn't mean you have to go to bed with them.)

Another good example of the Liberal use of "constitutionality" was the issue at the Harvard Law School a few years ago. The school, being a typical Ivy League den of ultra-orthodox Liberals (is that a contradiction?) was dead set against allowing military recruiters talk to students during career-day events (for, among other reasons, the military's stance against active homosexuality). A Federal Law, commonly known as the "Solomon Amendment" requires that schools receiving Federal funds allow military recruiters access to students on campus. The punishment? The loss of Federal funding. That's it. No fines, no jail time for the president of the school, no other sanctions, just the loss of Federal support. Of course the school (and other like-minded law schools) sued the government saying that the law was a violation of Freedom of Speech. The Supreme Court struck down the suit and upheld the law noting that the schools are neither denied the right to say something nor are they forced to say something. But, all the same, the Liberals believe it to be unconstitutional mainly because it forced universities to admit recruiters from an organization they find distasteful rather than obstructing that organization's rights to free speech.

A more general example is the Liberals' belief in a Constitutional freedom from offense. Of course, like all doctrines in the church of Liberalism, such freedoms are not universally applicable. Everyone is offended by something, and a great many are offended by Liberal policies such as abortion, affirmative action, and the support for homosexuality. The freedom from offense doctrine does not apply to those offended by Liberal positions. If an Atheist is offended by the placement of the Ten Commandments in a public building, civil rights lawyers sprint to the courtroom to declare that display unconstitutional as a violation of the Separation of Church and State (see below). But if a Christian is offended by the display of a blasphemous or sacrilegious work of "art" (such as the Crucifix sitting in a jar of urine, a painting of the Blessed Virgin Mary smeared by elephant dung, or a plagiarized version of DaVinci's The Last Supper with the artist (female) standing nude in the position occupied by Christ in the original) any attempt by a museum to exclude that piece from its displayed collection is declared by those same civil rights lawyers as a violation of free speech (see below, also). Liberals who declare offense at conservative ideas are protected by an army of lawyers citing all sorts of constitutional precedents for the suppression of the offensive idea. Conservatives who declare offense at a Liberal idea are disparaged as being "ignorant", "backward", "theocratic", "intolerant", "un-enlightened", "stupid", "bigoted", or "oppressive" and the lawyers try to prevent them from offending Liberals.

HJG

Tolerance

n. A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own. (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

Tolerance is another word, like Diversity, that doesn't mean what you think it means. To a Liberal, tolerance means conservatives being more accepting of "progressive" ideas. Christians are routinely blasted in the press for being "intolerant" of gays because Christians accept the fact that morality is not simply what you make it to be. Conservatives are called intolerant for disagreeing with just about any social reform put forth by Liberals. And yet, when a Liberal complains about a Christmas display that has anything that might be confused for being a religious symbol, no one remarks on the intolerance of the complainant. Tolerance to a Liberal doesn't mean accepting different viewpoints, as it might mean to a normal person. It means accepting the Liberal viewpoint. If you speak out against gay marriage, you are called intolerant. If you censor Christian expression you are praised as spreading tolerance by quashing an intolerant opinion. Because, at the heart of it all, Liberal politicians campaign on group rights and their policies are usually geared toward supporting some "oppressed" segment of the population (Blacks, gays, the poor, etc.), it is easy for them to dismiss any contrary argument, no matter how well formulated, as being intolerant and, therefore, unworthy of consideration. Thus they can quash any opposition to their views by simply using ad hominem attacks calling dissenters intolerant.

Another problem with tolerance is that there can be too much of it. It is possible (and, in fact, it's done quite frequently) to be tolerant of things that should not be tolerated. This sort of thing has the effect of establishing a moral equivalence between ideas that are not morally equal. Homosexual activists compare their present position to the civil rights struggle that blacks went through in the 50s and 60s. This, of course, ignores the simple fact that (A) homosexuals were never enslaved as a group; (B) homosexuals in modern times have a richer lifestyle than the average; (C) homosexuality is a behavior, not a physical or physiological trait; and (D) one cannot choose to be black or white, whereas one can choose whether or not to act on homosexual impulses regardless of whether those impulses are chosen. We are also lectured on tolerance for Muslim clerics who preach violence and hatred against America in American mosques. And for the floods of illegal immigrants that clog our welfare offices and demand their rights as Americans. And for criminals like Mumia Abu-Jamal and the late "Tookie" Williams who are (or were) unrepentant for the murders they committed but demand leniency because they are black.

Bigot (Racist, Anti-Semite, homophobe)

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Bigotry is the most grievous sin against the pantheon of Liberalism. To be considered a bigot is to be considered something less than human by a good Liberal. In a normal society, bigotry is a major breach of civility and politeness. It is never a good thing to be a bigot. Bigotry hurts people by denying them the opportunity to prove themselves, or by penalizing them for belonging to a group. In either case bigotry is wrong. Having said that, however, the definition of bigot, or more importantly, of racist, anti-Semite, and homophobe (specific forms of bigotry) differ whether or not you are an adherent to the Liberal creed. One column I read a few weeks ago (and I can't remember who wrote it or exactly when) described it this way: Anti-Semites used to be anyone who hated the Jews. Now an anti-Semite is anyone the Jews hate. The same can be said for racists and homophobes. Most often, the Left will pin the bigot label on someone who opposes a popular Liberal policy. You are a homophobe, for example, if you oppose gay marriage. You are a racist if you oppose Affirmative Action. You are anti-Semitic if you buy Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ on DVD. Never mind that none of those require that you actively hate gays, blacks, or Jews. I fall into all three categories. I strongly oppose gay marriage and Affirmative Action, and I encourage every Christian to own a copy of The Passion. To the Left, I'm a racist, anti-Semitic homophobe because I think that way. It doesn’t matter to them that I've never discriminated against anyone, and that I find real discrimination to be detestable. Because I don't support policies that give one group a privilege or advantage over another, I am accused of hating that group. Real bigotry is still a problem in this country and it will never go away. People have always hated others for their differences. Muslim terrorists hate Christians and Jews so passionately that they will kill themselves in order to kill the infidel. There are blacks who are racist against whites, Jews who are anti-Christian, Protestants who are anti-Catholic, Catholics who are anti-Protestant, and gays who are "heterophobic". And, of course the stereotypes of racist whites and homophobic or anti-Semitic Christians aren't 100% invalid across the board. That doesn't make it right, by any means. But it doesn't make it universal, either.

Fair

Adj. 1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. 2. … proper under the rules. (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

Fairness is probably the one term that is most often misused by Liberals to advance their agenda. To real people who live in the real world, fairness means that in any sort of competition, one side can win based on its merit alone without having to resort to taking advantage of a poorly written rule. The rules apply the same way to both sides, and both sides are given the same opportunity for an advantageous outcome. The reason the National Football League's Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals have perennially resided at the bottom of the league since the league's inception in 1920, is not because the rules are written to favor the opponents of the Cardinals, but because the Cardinals have not been able to get that combination of players, coaches and "chemistry" required to win for an extended period of time. That's fairness. The outcome isn't always advantageous to everyone, and sometimes it is very rarely advantageous to someone who doesn't have the skill to win that particular competition.

Fairness works the same way in the legal world, which is where you often hear about it from Liberals. The defendant getting a "fair" trial doesn't mean the defendant will be exonerated for his crime, it means that if he did it, he is convicted and punished, and if he didn't, he is set free. Defense attorneys, who are by and large, rich Liberals, will often complain that because their client was caught while in the act of committing a high profile crime, he can't get a fair trial because the people will be biased against him. The Liberal media then gets involved to show their sense of "Social Justice" and side with the criminal, so long as that criminal fits their idea of an oppressed person, and the victim does not. Of course, the media was not screaming about fair trials during the prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse players. They had already convicted the players of the greatest crime of all to a Liberal: bigotry (which actually wasn't true, either). As such, the media took far too long to reveal that the prosecution was, in fact, trying to prevent a fair trial for political gain (see my piece on that subject in my blog).

The Liberal idea of fairness is an outcome that is advantageous to whatever party the Liberal favors. To a Liberal it is more fair to hire someone because they belong to a particular group that has a history of being "oppressed" than to hire a Christian white straight male based solely on talent. The claim is made by Liberals that past discrimination and still rampant bigotry (more on that later) has given (insert group here) so much of a disadvantage that they need the positive outcome regardless of their lack of ability to earn it on their own. If Liberals favored the Arizona Cardinals, they would change the playoff system to try to grease the Cardinals' way to the Super Bowl. And they would likely change it every year, in the interests of "fairness." (We shouldn't discriminate against the untalented football teams. They deserve a shot at the Super Bowl just like everyone else, perhaps even more so because they have been denied that right for so long. The Cardinals have only won one championship in 86 years because the playoff system unfairly rewards talented teams over those lacking in talent.)

Equality

n. The state of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status (WordNet)

Equality goes along with fairness on the list of Liberal buzzwords. And to a Liberal it has a similar, though more accurate, meaning. Where equality is concerned, Liberals often directly follow the Marxist mantra "From each according to his talents, to each according to his needs." In other words those who choose to work hard and earn a living should be given no more than those who are too lazy to apply themselves and develop their talents. They want equality of outcome, which, like their doctrine of fairness, is patently unequal. Everyone cannot do everything. I'm a good instructor, a good computer professional, a decent Noncommissioned Officer, a good singer, and a lousy athlete and piano player. I don't have the coordination or dexterity to do well in sports or instrumental music, but I wouldn’t mind a career in either of those fields. I think it'd be fun to play wide receiver for the Redskins or shortstop for the Nationals, or left wing for the Capitals. But I'm not trim, fast, strong, agile, or young enough for any of those pursuits. Nor am I good enough at the piano to even think about doing volunteer work for a Church as a pianist, something else I wouldn't mind doing. But using the Liberal mindset, I should be granted the chance to do any of those because I want to, in the interests of equality and "social justice." Or, at least, I would if I were a member of a group that was favored by Liberals. What Liberals ignore when they talk about fairness and equality is that everyone has pretty much an equal chance to get anywhere, so long as they have the skill set required to do it. They complain when someone with one blind eye can't be a pilot, or when a gay man is excluded from a clergy position, or when a non-citizen can't read a ballot. They expect that the awarding of jobs, admittance to the university, or even the application of the death penalty should mirror the demographic makeup of the region or the nation, whichever more favors their favorite groups, rather than who actually deserves them on merit.

(Women's/gay/minority) rights

n. That which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc. (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

Rights are a commonly cited concept in Liberalism, and one of the most frequently abused. To a Liberal, rights extend to anyone who wishes to do anything regardless of how against the norm it is. A Liberal also believes that people shall not trample the rights of other people by pointing out something wrong. Liberals also believe that when they are exercising their rights, they can do so without regard to the consequences, and, in fact having to face the consequences is an infringement of their rights.

Many so-called "rights" that Liberals advocate aren't even basic human rights at all, but are privileges to be bestowed upon certain Liberally approved groups. Liberals do not believe in individual rights, but group privilege. To a Liberal, I do not have the uninfringeable right to own a firearm, despite the Constitution's guarantee to the contrary ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Amendment II, United States Constitution). The militia, by the way, includes "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." (10 USC Sec 311). The National Guard is the organized portion of the militia, but the whole thing includes just about every male between 17 and 45 (though Section 312 does include exceptions). They do, however, believe in the right of gays to "marry", of blacks to be preferred in employment or school admissions decisions, and women to have abortions. If you belong to a preferred group (and you are politically aligned with the Left) you can expect some right to be assigned to you.

What is more important than the Liberal definition of "Rights" is the Liberal complaint against people perceived as trampling rights. A person who is against abortion, for example, is not usually criticized as being against abortion, but is said to want to trample on women's rights, as though the desire to outlaw the murder of the unborn equates to forcing women to wear burkas and keeping them out of the driver's seat in a car. One particularly Liberal actress – Cameron Diaz, I believe, though it may have been Jennifer Anniston – claimed that President Bush wanted to "legalize rape" (her words, not mine). I suppose she thought this because he does not support abortion, or maybe just because she's a Democrat. I'm not really sure. Either way it's a bit of a leap from criminalizing one horrific act to legalizing another.

The same is said about opposition to affirmative action and gay "rights." Opposition to these major tenets of the Liberal creed is equated to a desire for the return to Jim Crow laws and the ancient practice of stoning gays. Affirmative Action, claimed by Liberals as a basic right to bring about Liberal-style "fairness", is little more or less than racial preferences and discrimination. With Affirmative Action, blacks are given the privilege of lower standards than whites. In oversimplified terms, if a white person must reach a score of, say, 100 to get a position, a black applying for the same position must only score an 80. Many times the weight placed on race is arbitrary and malleable. Applied to it's fullest extent, Affirmative action seeks to have a population balance with a percentage of blacks in an organization equal to no less than the percentage of blacks in whatever population is being measured, and not always the same population whence come the applicants. This application of rights follows the fallacious assertion that anything bad that happens to a minority is proof of racism.

Gay "rights" go even further than minority "rights." Where minority "rights" like Affirmative Action generally apply to job placement, gay "rights" work on the personal lives of gays and the preferences of other people. A list of gay rights will inevitably include: the right to perform sexual acts considered by devoutly religious people to be highly immoral, the right to cohabit with an unmarried partner, the right to receive the same employment and tax benefits as married couples, and the right to declare that a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women to be legal, valid, and binding. It's worth noting that these all used to be illegal throughout the United States. What gays are looking for here is the privilege to enter into a sexual relationship that is considered to be grievously sinful to most religions, and is on the face of it a selfish relationship, seeking sexual pleasure, only, without the desire to create children. Further they seek to have that relationship promoted as normal by the State. In other terms, they want State sanction for their aberrant behavior. Not acceptance or allowance, mind you, but sanction.

I’m a football fan. People who know me know that. While I’m a big fan of the Washington Redskins, my home team, I’m also seen hovering around a TV at playoff time, and I’ve only missed one Super Bowl in 24 years, regardless of who’s playing. The Super Bowl is an annual tradition among Americans, often with numbers of individual viewers often over 100 million. Even people who don’t usually watch football watch the Super Bowl, and the game is the biggest annual sporting event in the world, despite it’s being uniquely American. (The World Cup, for you soccer fans, is a quadrennial event.)

Traditionally, owing to the extraordinarily high viewership and the correspondingly high per-minute cost of advertising time (usually over one million dollars a minute), the companies that advertise often take special care to produce the best commercial they can, and the game sometimes has a secondary competition to see which advertisers put out the best commercials. Last year’s Super Bowl, for example, had a very funny commercial for Federal Express with a prehistoric and slapstick theme. And usually, immediately after the game there is one that sticks out as being the best of the lot.

Unfortunately, this year, the commercials were anywhere from fair all the way down to abysmal. It was a pretty thin crop this year, and there was also a fairly disturbing trend. It seemed the Democratic National Committee hijacked the Super Bowl advertising blitz. Because this was the first Super Bowl in which at least one of the head coaches was black, and, as both were black, in fact, it would also be the first Super Bowl won by a black head coach, and because the game is now played in February, which, as everyone knows, is Black History Month (a concept I’ve always found somewhat distasteful, but that’s for another day) there were a number of commercials either directed at the black population or written to address the historical issues of segregation and racism. And those were the ones for Coke.

Then, there was an ad that really turned my stomach. Looking back on it, it may not even have run nationally, so the vast majority of you may have no idea what I’m talking about (And if anyone outside Virginia did see the commercial, I’d like to know). The add – whose sponsor I do not know – ran in the third quarter of the game and right before a spot for the local news broadcast to follow later that night. It featured a number of people reputed to be veterans of the Iraq war imploring viewers to contact Senator John Warner (R-VA) to come out against the planned surge in troops in Iraq. Claims that 2/3 of the country, a majority of congress, and a majority of veterans oppose the surge were made. I don’t know much beyond that, because I had my friend mute the TV about 10 seconds into the 30 second spot.

This is not the sort of thing we need to see during a football game, and especially the Super Bowl. It’s something that is more appropriate to a public service announcement on PBS or a midday commercial on CNN Headline News. Networks and times when no one is actually watching to see the Left making so plain an effort to harm the morale of our troops and our people. Oddly, gone were the typical “CBS Cares” messages of support and encouragement for our troops. (At least, that I noticed. If someone caught one, I’d love to know about it.) It seems that with the election of a legislative majority that the big networks can actually agree with, they have abandoned all pretence at being non-political during non-political events (like the Super Bowl.)

Oh, and if anyone is awaiting my critique of that brilliant halftime show done by that great singer, songwriter, and performer Prince, I have one thing to say. Thank God there was Monster Truck racing on the Speed Network.

HJG

Diversity

n. variety, multiformity (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

Liberals worship Diversity like Jews and Christians worship the Ten Commandments. It is more than simply Holy Writ; it is Divine Law. Everything in the Liberal mantra goes back to The Most Holy Tenet of Diversity. If you are against some crazy policy that Liberals want to enact, you are decried as being in violation of Diversity. We'll talk about bigotry in a moment, but let's look at Diversity (note the capital "D"). The idea is to start small. "Celebrate our differences," they say. And celebrating differences can be a good thing. The problem with Diversity, however, is twofold. First, the primary purpose of Diversity is to generate a politically acceptable mix of racial demographics in any population, most often by reminding people that whites are inherently racist, so everything whites do is naturally discriminatory against blacks. Whether it's hiring practices, college admissions or the SAT's. Diversity never includes the intellectual or political variety. In a Liberal utopia, there would be equal proportions of blacks, Hispanics, whites, Asians, Muslims, and whatever else strikes their fancy, so long as they all think alike politically. Anyone who violates the Most Holy Tenet of Diversity by disagreeing with any part of the Liberal dogma can and should be excluded from a group in favor of a more politically correct choice. The odd thing is that this is especially true for the so-called "oppressed" minorities. A black conservative, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, is often vilified as not only a heretic to the religion of Diversity, but as a traitor to his race. Apostasy away from Diversity is as bad as conservatism, and Liberals look upon apostates with nearly as much contempt as Muslims. Actors Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman (both black) incurred the wrath of the Liberal media for making the assertion that some problems in the black community are the fault of lazy blacks, not racist whites, and that blacks should do more to help themselves rather than relying on the government. When the Left talks about diversity, it has to be the "right kind" of diversity. Diversity in background is fine, diversity in thought is rejected and punished.

Multiculturalism

n. A social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Multiculturalism is an important segment of The Most Holy Tenet of Diversity. In truth, it is simply a more specific application of The Tenet. The idea of multiculturalism is that as a nation of immigrants we should respect the cultures of the people that make up this nation. As with "Celebrate our Differences" this philosophy is a good one on the surface, but its application in the Liberal mindset is where the goodness evaporates. America is a nation of immigrants; there is no disputing that. Unlike, say, England, where families can trace their roots back to "Time Immemorial" – often in the same town – the furthest that 99% of Americans can trace our American lineage is roughly 500 years to the earliest colonies in Jamestown, St. Augustine, etc. And the majority are far more recent. With all of that having been said, despite what Old Europe believes, there is a distinct American culture, with all the trappings one would expect: Language, art, literature, entertainment, a national identity, and even cuisine. We are, by and large, an English speaking country. Immigrants desiring citizenship have to be fluent in English, according to immigration law. There have been a number of American artists who were actually good. Not being a fan of art in general, I won't claim to be able to name them off the top of my head, but there are plenty (and I'm not counting dunking a Crucifix in urine). John Philip Sousa, George Gershwin, Adam Copeland, and John Williams are fine examples of distinctly American music, as are the innumerable modern popular musicians out there. Our literature ranges from the likes of Poe, Thoreau and Longfellow to modern writers like Clancy, Griffin, and Cussler. The modern form of Science Fiction was invented here (I know Jules Verne was French, but Asimov (an immigrant) and Bradbury made the genre what it is today). I needn't go into detail about entertainment, of which we are the world leader. A great many movies, television programs, sports, games, plays and a host of other pastimes originated here. Our national identity is one of freedom, opportunity, responsibility, independence (some would call it cowboy-ism), entrepreneurship, generosity, and a live-and-let-live mindset. The cuisine most easily identified with America is barbecue, but our restaurants and recipes Americanize many foreign dishes as well. And, of course, there's apple pie.

This is all not to say that our culture is better than anyone else's (though, I personally think it is). That's as much a matter of opinion as anything else. The point is that we do have a culture here. And it's something distinctly ours, not just a mish-mosh of random bits of cultures from other countries, as the Left would have you believe. Liberalism views American culture as inferior to all others, especially Old Europe. It teaches that we would be better off if we took the mindset of France, Germany, Russia, China or some other more "enlightened" society. Our culture of self-reliance, responsibility, and independence is antithetical to the Liberal belief in reliance on Holy Government, conformity, and Diversity (capital "D"). The idea of America is that immigrants come in, assimilate themselves into our culture, but preserve a bit of their own, especially religiously. The idea of multiculturalism is that immigrants come in, keep their own cultures, and make a conscious effort to avoid assimilation except where necessary: understanding how to vote Democrat, having one member of the family sufficiently familiar with English that he can communicate with the welfare office before being transferred to the bilingual operator, that sort of thing. To a Liberal preaching multiculturalism, it is important for us, the host, not to impose our own rules on our guests, but to allow them to follow their own. It would be like the government saying a non-smoker must allow a smoker to smoke inside their home, or a Christian family must allow a gay couple to fornicate in the Christian family's living room. Americans are (rightly) chastised when we travel abroad and expect everyone to speak English, and adhere to American customs, and we are (wrongly) chastised when we expect visitors here to at least make a show of deference to our customs, language, culture and laws. In a sensible society, politeness and civility are always expected of hosts and guests alike, but politeness and civility demand that the guest not make a positive effort to break the host's rules.

HJG