When they offend you, they preach tolerance. Acceptance. Educate you on your small mindedness. Your bigotry. In fact, they go out of their way to bait you into a reaction with their actions. When you offend them, they attack you for your racist, radical ways. You must embrace everything of theirs to which you object. You must celebrate it. You must hide everything of yours you hold dear. I have never watched an episode of Duck Dynasty. I don’t plan to. The details of what caused this uproar aren’t even that big an issue. It is however being turned into one. Why? Because of the Radical left agenda. That is the larger point here. That is why it is so import to expose the radical left for what they are. A group that believes the First Amendment was designed to impose their will on you. Not to allow you to express your beliefs.
From Eric Erickson of Red State:
In 1987, Andre Sarano took a photograph of Christ on the cross in a jar of urine. It won the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition, which was sponsored in part by taxpayers.
Outraged Christians were told they didn’t have to see it. They did not have to go to the museum. Their money, of course, had to fund the National Endowment for the Arts, but they themselves just needed to ignore it. Christians needed to show tolerance to for the diversity of others’ thoughts.
Robert Maplethorpe spent many years touring the United States with artwork depicting, among other things, people drinking urine, bondage and sadomasochism, and a picture of himself with a whip inserted in that part of his body Phil Robertson does not find very attractive.
Conservatives offended by this were instructed to be tolerant, not go to the exhibit, and just turn the other cheek.
In 1996, Chris Ofili created a painting of the Virgin Mary. He pornographic images and elephant dung. Rudy Giuliani, then Mayor of New York City, tried to yank funding for the Brooklyn Museum because of the painting. Giuliani was pilloried in the press for doing so. Tolerance was demanded. Christians did not have to go to the museum if they wanted.
And now we’ve reach a new level.
Phil Robertson is an evangelical Christian. He called sin illogical, stated his preference for women, and lumped gays in with other sinners such as drunks and terrorists. It is that last one that has really caused all the problems. Nevermind that Phil Robertson said Christians are to love everyone and not judge anyone. Nevermind he made it clear he was not condemning anyone. He just stated his belief.
He did not make anyone convert. He did not attack anyone. He did not harass anyone. He answered a question. But the kids at GLAAD, now dominant, have gone from demanding tolerance for all to silencing good people.
Christians were once told they did not have to look or listen. The militant gay rights movement and the secular left will not abide by their own prescription. Those who dissent or think differently must be silenced.
The members of GLAAD, which also took it upon itself to tell America what Christians really should think and believe, could simply not watch Duck Dynasty. But the hysteric whiners can’t leave it at that. They cannot leave well enough alone. They must punish and destroy.
Evil must, when it is able, silence good because good serves as an ever present and ongoing witness against evil.
From his mouth to God’s ears… The interesting question is… would the democrats vote for this again… or would the SCOTUS vote for this again?
A former federal prosecutor claimed Tuesday that a new case challenging Obamacare in federal court is “a slam dunk” for opponents of the law.
Fred Tecce spoke to Fox News’ Jenna Lee about a lawsuit opening today in Washington, DC. Business owners are suing the government over one small clause in the law, arguing that the wording does not permit poor people in 36 states to obtain government-funded health care and would allow the IRS to saddle small businesses with massive penalties. (RELATED: Obamacare back in court Tuesday).
Lee asked Tecce if the plaintiffs challenging the law had a case. “Do they have a case?” he answered incredulously. “I’m going to tell you something. Before, as Dr. Krauthammer said, this ‘lawlessness’ began, this case would be a slam dunk.”
“It’s very simple,” he explained. “When you talk about interpreting a statute, Jenna, the words of the statute control. And the words of the statute define this exchange as set up by a state and they authorize subsidies for exchanges as defined by the statute. And — this is the irony of this — the law presumes that Congress knew what they were doing when they passed a statute. That’s the end of the conversation.”
Teece also pushed back against the government’s — and his fellow panelist Doug Burns’ — argument that the issue is simply “a mistake” and that the court should interpret what Congress meant, not what they wrote.
“When they wrote the section of the law that indicated who was going to get the subsidies, they specifically did not include the federal exchanges,” he said. “At the end of the day, even if it was a mistake — a typo, as my learned colleague is trying to say — it’s too bad, because mistakes are drawn against the drafters. . . If that’s what they meant, then that’s what they should have said.”
“This is what happens when you ram a bill through with no back-and-forth, no bipartisan support,” he later added. “Ultimately, because of the mistakes that were made, the irony is that the real, the legitimate, the lawful fix for this would be to send the law back to Congress and tell them to fix it.”