First, let me say Happy New Year. I hope you had a great Christmas and holiday season and that you have come back to reality and the rhythm of life whole and healthy.
I’ve been on vacation for a few weeks. While it was more like dropping off of social media and the web for a while than actually going on vacation, it was good to have some down time.
Unfortunately, the PC police and the hard-left loons didn’t take a day or even an hour off. They were and still are out in full force.
The first day back, I ran a piece about preachers in Canada being arrested for simply teaching Biblical principles as they pertain to homosexuality. There was nothing about hating the person. No comments about beheading the person. No comments about stoning the person. No reference to acting out in a violent way against anyone in the LGBTQ community. They were simply teaching what God said about homosexuality according to the Bible.
Yet that is considered “hate speech” because it calls the actions of another human being “sin.”
First I have to say: If you don’t believe in God, then you don’t believe in sin. So why are you upset? Next I would ask: How is it hate speech to say the actions of a person are against God?
Is it hate speech if I say I don’t like Mexican food? It gives me bad gas and I really just don’t like it. Does that mean I hate Mexicans? Because I think the Mexican border should be secured and people should come here legally, does that mean I hate Mexicans? How petty of you to think I want the border secured to keep out Mexicans when it’s been proven that people from all over the world come over the border illegally.
I posted this statement on social media: “It’s already happening in Canada – pastors being arrested for preaching against homosexuality.” A follower named Chris responded after I asked people to define “hate speech.” I got the usual low-IQ responses: “anything that comes out of your mouth,” “anything a Republican says,” “anything a conservative says” and so on. But at least Chris took an honest stab at it. Well, as honest as a left-leaning progressive can.
“Hate speech is anything that incites violence … also specifically it’s hate speech when you do things like compare gays to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals,” Chris wrote. “If they weren’t producing hate speech, there would be no problems.”
Well, I have never heard any preacher (except the Right Rev. Al Sharpton) advocate violence. Inciting violence in today’s society is easy. Make fun of someone’s baseball team in the parking lot after a game and you might get your head bashed in and end up in a coma, like what happened at a Los Angeles Dodgers game a few years back. Were the attackers charged with hate crimes? No.
A liberal professor tore up an anti-abortion display on campus while calling the young men and women there all kinds of names. Was she brought up on hate charges? Nope.
So, in all honesty, he should have said when a “conservative religious type” says something that offends, they should be brought up on hate speech charges.
According to Webster’s, pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. Not Joe’s definition. So are you saying that no gays or lesbians are pedophiles? And if that is what you’re saying, would you say the same about heterosexuals? Or do the same rules not apply?
This is classic: “If they weren’t producing hate speech, there would be no problems.” Where do we live – in Who-ville where we all eat rainbows and poop butterflies?
Wake up. Someone, somewhere will always be offended by something someone somewhere says. Why? Because they choose to be offended and intolerant.
What left-logic says is if I don’t accept the way you want to live, the things you want to do, and your belief system over mine, then I’m a hater, period?
If I believe abortion is wrong and that it actually takes a human life, I’m a woman hater. If I don’t believe in same-sex marriage, I hate same-sex couples.
According to left-logic, I hate my children. And so did many of you reading this. I have promised the kids I would not give away their deep dark secrets, and I won’t. But when one was dabbling in drugs, I said I wouldn’t support them. I even had them arrested for having drugs on them. OMG where is child protective services when you need them? According to left-logic, I hated them. When one decided they knew what and how they wanted to live and wouldn’t abide by the house rules, they were asked to leave the premises, and they did. According to left-logic, I hated them.
When one who usually made great decisions for their life made a few bad financial decisions after being told what the consequences were going to be for doing exactly what they did, we would not step in to save them. According to left-logic, I hated them.
Simply put, your real definition of hate speech is “anything someone on the Right says or does that goes against your way of thinking and irritates you.” How tolerant and fair of you.
I won’t be getting on that train. Happy New Year. everyone. Let the games begin.
Joe Messina is host of The Real Side (TheRealSide.com), a nationally syndicated talk show that runs on AM-1220 KHTS radio and SCVTV [here]. He is also an elected member of the Hart School Board. His commentary publishes Mondays.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
7 Comments
Based on your on words I think your children hate you far more than you hate them. Congratulations on successful parenting, conservative style. Its obvious how well thisworked for you, but at least you are presumably ideologically and financially intact.
Now he’s trying “shock” and entice readers with oh so “controversial” headlines. Insert YAWN here.
Where Joe goes off the rails are these huge leaps in logic he makes. Reading his articles feels like I am reading a child’s school essay. I generally don’t agree with what he says anyway but when it becomes hard to read because of the way he writes it compounds my disagreement. I also would love to see a piece that doesn’t just rail on why he doesn’t like liberals. At least Obama’s name wasn’t in this article which was his only target it felt like last year. I still say that whenever possible to make sure he doesn’t get re-elected to the school board we should take away his platform.
Hate speech does not mean you hate that person. Your logic is flawed, if you’re offended by the way certain people respond to your post, maybe you should find a different hobby. When you use your position to post opposition to a certain group of people (who are not affecting your lifestyle) and it causes anger towards that group, it can be construed as “hate speech” whether you hate that group or not. I would say from a Christian point of view, kicking your child out of your home is not a act of grace or love. I would say that based on your own words, you may not hate gay people, but you do not like them.
Tough Love is necessary. Bailing kids out teaches them that anything goes and I’ll be rescued. The
real world doesn’t work that way, except for those who live off the government, which means us!
Most of what is commonly believed about pedophilia is based on the presumption that all child/older person sexually expressed relationships are intrinsically pervasively harmful. But is this supposed harm intrinsic to the interaction, or does it instead result from the social hysteria that occurs when such a relationship is discovered? There are no legitimate data supporting intrinsic harmfulness, and no credible pathway or mechanism for such harm has been demonstrated. For further discussion, see http://www.shfri.net/mech/mech.cgi
There are indeed some people who trick or force children into unwanted sexual interactions. But there are vast differences between consensual sexually expressed child/older person relationships and unilateral “child sexual abuse” by an older person. For a scientific journal discussion of these distinctions as they apply to boys, go to http://www.boyandro.info
Vernon,
You misunderstand, and misunderstand severely. Children cannot legally, morally, or psychologically give consent to sex. There is substantial data supporting harm, contrary to your opinion. I am not sure if you are a pedophile, but what you are saying makes you sound like one. I hope you aren’t.