All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

ACLU fascists thwarted while trying to jail Christians for saying prayer

5 Comments

Story from CNN. (H/T My friend Ken)

Excerpt:

A judge has ruled in favor of two Florida school administrators who faced contempt charges for saying a prayer at a school luncheon, according to a group that helped represent them.

U.S. District Judge M.C. Rodgers ruled Thursday in favor of Frank Lay, principal of Pace High School in Pace, Florida, and school athletic director Robert Freeman, the Liberty Counsel said.

Lay and Freeman could have faced up to six months in prison and fines if convicted. They were accused of violating a consent decree banning county school employees from initiating prayers during school events.

[…]But the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawsuit led to the consent decree, has maintained students have a right to be free from administrators who foist their personal religious beliefs on them.

Fascism is the idea that the state suppresses the inalienable rights of its citizenry by substituting the values and duties of the government (the rulers) for the values and duties of individuals.

Here’s how it works:

  • Inalienable human rights are granted by the Creator
  • Only the Creator of the universe can grant inalienable human rights to his creatures
  • Freedom of religious expression is self-evidently an inalienable human right
  • Christians exercise their freedom of religious expression
  • Atheists in the ACLU don’t believe in a Creator
  • If there is no Creator, then “rights” are just social conventions that vary by time and place
  • So atheists in the ACLU cannot ground inalienable human rights
  • Without an inalienable right to freedom of religious expression, suppressing the religious liberty others is permissible
  • Atheists in the ACLU can use government to silence, suppress and imprison unwilling Christians
  • Atheists in the ACLU are offended by the free expression of Christianity in public
  • Therefore, atheists in the ACLU find it rational to suppress the human rights of their neighbors using state coercion

There is no such thing as human rights in an atheistic “survival of the fittest” universe.

Atheists in the ACLU prefer to use the state to suppress any public religious expression, because the public expression of religion makes them feel badly. The feelings of atheists is sufficient to justify silencing, suppressing, imprisoning and in even killing people who make them feel bad. They are not so much interesting in debating the merits of the cosmological argument – they just want to shut down dissent so they can feel comfortable about their atheism.

Here is my entire series of posts explaining why moral behavior is irrational on atheism. Their worldview just doesn’t ground objective moral values, objective moral duties, self-sacrifice and the significance of moral decisions. And when the chips are down, they show their fascist colors. Atheists want to dismiss the claims of objective morality so they can pursue pleasure, and they don’t want you using your freedoms to remind them of their own depravity.

UPDATE: Kreitsauce is from the panhandle and writes this comment below:

I’m from the Florida panhandle, and we thought this whole thing was ridiculous because:

1. Lay and Freeman have done an unbelievable amount of good for the school and the community. It’s real Christianity making a difference that has had such a profound impact.

2. The school already teaches a Bible elective.

3. The school meeting where the prayer took place was housed in a church.

4. The prayer was spontaneous, not a willful violation of criminal law.

5. All protests have been peaceful, even in the face of opposition. The believers have mostly been praying and singing hymns.

6. Lay and Freeman have strong student, community, and parent support.

He also links to this youtube video:

Share

Commentary

MUST-READ: The definitive catalog of left-wing media bias

Leave a comment

This American Spectator essay is required reading. (H/T ECM)

It is basically a list of the most egregious examples of media bias in recent memory. I am not old enough to remember some of these, especially the JFK ones. So this was a real eye-opener to me.

Here’s a summary of the points raised:

What’s particularly interesting is that the stories not reported about JFK were in the early 1960s, the effort to not report the story about President Clinton was in 1998, the story on John Edwards was hushed through the time it counted most, in the election cycle of 2008 when he was a serious presidential candidate, and the decision not to report on Van Jones was — well — two weeks ago, and ACORN but last week. Which is to say, September of 2009.

In other words, across five decades of American journalistic history, the instinct of many Old Media institutions — specifically including NBC and the New York Times — has been to deliberately withhold the truth. To quite deliberately use their journalism skills and tools to misrepresent those whose politics they do not favor.

Were this, say, the field of medicine, practitioners of this kind of thing would lose their license to practice, sued for and surely convicted of malpractice. As it is, the examples listed here are what might be termed “media malpractice,” evidencing a clear and convincing pattern of deceit.

The mainstream media is totally untrustworthy.

Share

Commentary

MUST-READ: Has the decline of chastity and courtship hurt young people?

2 Comments

Here’s an article by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. (H/T The American Thinker via ECM)

Excerpt:

The casual sex promoted in advertising and entertainment often leads, in the real world of fragile hearts and STDs, to emotional and physical wreckage.

[…]…having a series of low-commitment relationships does not bode well for later marital commitment. Some of this expresses preexisting traits — people who already have a “nontraditional” view of commitment are less likely to be committed in marriage. But there is also evidence, according to Wilcox, that multiple failed relationships can “poison one’s view of the opposite sex.” Serial cohabitation trains people for divorce.

I actually think that a series of sexual experiences outside of marriage poison’s one’s view of the opposite sex and trains people for divorce. I’ve put a lot of thought into the things that should be done during friendships and courtships in order to train the couple for marriage, and pre-marital sex is not one of those things!

There are a lot of people out there today who think that they can get the end goal of a fairy tale wedding, a long, stable marriage, and well-behaved children, by making moral decisions significantly different than their grandparents made. The blessings that our grandparents enjoyed were causally connected to many moral realities that young people seem to have rejected as old-fashioned and outmoded.

I think one of the major reasons why I value chastity so much is because I have come to realize that sex outside of a commitment really affects people, especially women. There is a real difference in the way that I am treated by women who are chaste – they are a lot more vulnerable and susceptible. They are also a lot more open, interested and engaged in our platonic friendships as well.

I think there is an awful lot of sex going on out there, but not a lot of chivalry and romance. I think one of the problems we need to face is that we need to be more cautious about tearing down the morality that was been in place for centuries in the Christian West. Before destroying the foundations, we should first ask ourselves what the consequences will be on other people’s incentives.

Share