Wednesday, March 16, 2005

I'm from the Government, I'm here to endorse you.

Did anyone notice at what point the Liberal Loonies stopped using the phrase "a government establishment of religion" and switched to the watered down version of "a government endorsement of religion?" Perhaps this was the result of the fact that, after a while, even the wackiest moonbat had to sheepishly admit, if only to hisorher self, how utterly preposterous it was to suggest that a prayer before a football game or a religious icon on a government building equated to the establishment of a national religion, mandated by federal law.

On the other hand, this shift in terminology is perhaps even more insidious, because you can stuff a whole lot more stuff under the "endorsement" umbrella than you could the "establishment" umbrella.

Lost in the shuffle of all this terminological inexactitude, there is a very subtle and bizarre misapplication of a twisted, backhand logic. Let me break it down for you, Barney-style.

If allowing a display of Christian symbolism equates to a government endorsement of religion (a phrase with no historical reference), according to the Agnosticators, this is verrrrrbotten.

So, since the government cannot endorse relgion, and any link between govenment and religious displays, terms, or iconology (regardless of how tenuous or ridiculously farfetched) constitutes an endorsement or promotion of that religion's beliefs, it is therefore not allowed.

So then, doesn't it stand to reason that, by this logic, only those things that the government endorses are allowed? The government (rather than the public) determines what is or isn't okay to display on "public" ground, which by the way, was paid for with public tax dollars.

Apparently then, anything that the government, or its appointed representatives, cannot or does not endorse is impermissible.

In other words, I am only allowed to display those images, or engage in those activities that the ruling powers permit, and thus directly or indirectly endorse. More to the point, I have to ask my government if it's okay, and they, through judicial fiat, can allow or prevent any class of speech, activity or form expression as unacceptable.

And this is traditional American freedom how?

In fact, the Consitution clearly states that the government, with its ELECTED officials and DELEGATED powers, cannot, in any way, shape or form, impede the practice or free expression of religious beliefs. Why no one on the Loony Left can see this self-evident truth is beyond me.

However, under this Liberal Logic (an oxymoron, I know), our government is endorsing homosexuality, abortion, profane art, flag burning and body piercing...because it permits those.

Let's take this one step further into the realm of the Diversity wonks.

So, apparently it is morally wrong to be intolerant. It is also morally wrong to impose a moral judgement, or suggest that something is immoral. Uh, wait...yeah, anyway, moving on.

Okay, so it is wrong to suggest something is wrong. It is intolerant to suggest that promoting homosexuality to teens and preteens may actually harm their sexual development, rather than enhance it. Okay, got it.

So, in the name of diversity, I can only make statements, oral or written, which conform to a generally accepted median moral standard. In other words, only those statements (thoughts, idea, beliefs) which conform to the "permitted" viewpoint are allowed.

In other words, I must adhere to the party line. I must conform to a uniform standard. Any deviation from this is considered intolerant, and bears with it immediate and severe consequences.

So how is this diversity, when only one viewpoint is acceptable or allowed? Is not the inherent illogic of this position clearly evident to every rational person?

So this, then, is the liberal socialist Utopian vision. Only those things which the government expressely endorses are permitted. Only those viewpoints which adhere to the common standard are allowed. Violations of the aforementioned mandates will result in censure, loss of employment, lawsuits and fines. Even jail time under "hate crimes" legislation.

Hmmmm. Pop-quiz. What country does that sound like? Nazi Germany? Stalinist Russia? Communist China? North Korea?

We are headed there in a hurry folks, if we let the Loony Left have their way.

*** Welcome to visitors from Brainster! Thanks for stopping by. Coffee is on me. Donuts are a quarter.***