Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Morality Vs. Bigotry

mo•ral•i•ty
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company., Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

big•ot•ry
n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company., Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Since Bigotry is defined by the Bigot:

big•ot
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company., Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The left in general, and specifically leftist woman’s groups and leftist homosexual groups, have successfully created a campaign to change society by falsely equating traditional morality with bigotry. This practice is doing more than just eroding the unalienable rights of “We the People”. The result of falsely equating morality with bigotry will be the criminalization of Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, The Boy Scouts, and the dissolution of the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Case before the Supreme Court heard on April 19, The University of California Hastings College of the Law is denying recognition to a Christian Legal Society campus chapter because it does not allow atheists or homosexuals as officers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said “Are you suggesting that if a group wanted to exclude all black people, all women, all other forms of discrimination a group wants to practice, that a school has to accept that group and recognize it, give it funds, and otherwise lend it space?” implying that a college club that upholds rules about sexual morality and faith is racist or sexist.

How are faith and ideas about morality either racist or sexist? Those ideas transcend both sex and race. Justice Sotomayor seems to be saying that colleges shouldn’t be able to fund Greek Sororities, Greek Fraternities, NOW, the LGBT alliance, or any organization that requires membership based on any standard.

Imagine a university chapter of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) meeting. A typical university PETA chapter has a dozen or so people show up for regular meetings. Now imagine if a group 20 or so college aged hunters showed up to the PETA meeting; join; elected hunters as officers; vote into place pro-NRA, pro-hunting platform to the local PETA chapter’s bylaws; close each meeting with a wild game BBQ; and have a Ted Nugent concert as a fund raiser (you know he love to play that gig).

Saying that a campus Christian group must accept atheists as members and officers, is the same as saying PETA must accept hunters as members and officers, or that the Black Congressional Caucus in congress must accept white congressmen, or that NAMBLA must accept Catholic Priests as members (sorry that’s a bad example they do that already).

In Canada it is now illegal to publish or preach on certain sections of the Bible. Canadian law has criminalized the monotheistic faiths of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, since all three call homosexuality and abomination and morally corrupt. As a good libertarian, I firmly believe that all consenting adults should be free to do as they wish so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of another, so there should be no laws against homosexuality, or any number of activities that don’t infringe upon another person’s rights. That does not mean that those activities are moral or even socially acceptable, just not illegal. I would fight any criminalization of how consenting adults choose to tickle their orifices, but just as ardently protect the right of others to voice their opinion that certain sexual acts like homosexuality are amoral, abnormal, and an abomination. Such beliefs are not intolerant, bigoted or sexist, they’re just based on traditional morality.

Once morality has been criminalized, it will take very little effort to erode all our rights. If the left succeeds in criminalizing speech (of any kind), and is able to force associations, or criminalize associations, then no rights are valid and the Statist can and will end rule that is based on the consent of the governed, and institute arbitrary tyranny based on the will of whomever is in office. When the government argues that it can dictate who people must accept and can determine what groups are allowed or not allowed, clearly it no longer accepts the pretense of the Constitution or its limitations, and is arguing against the very purpose of our government.

When looking at a law or enforcement of a law, remember the purpose of our government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Any rule or law or enforcement of such, which goes contrary to the stated purpose of our government, should rightly be discarded.

No comments:

Post a Comment