Apparently it's (barely) OK if black conservatives criticize black culture. Even blacks who are not committed conservatives (such as Bill Cosby) can do it. But woe betide a white man who quotes those "black" words -- as Colorado Rep. Jim Welker has been finding out.
He quoted words to the effect that New Orleans blacks were too dependant on welfare. And that was condemned as racist.
But who is the racist there? Why are the words of blacks unable to be quoted? Is what blacks say second-class speech that does not count and which polite people must not quote? Whether or not Welker is a racist, it seems clear that his critics are.
Local Debate about Illegals Continues to Seethe
I have mentioned a couple of cities where local ordinances have been enacted that penalize landlords who rent to illegals. It seems to be a growing movement. The idea is however -- perhaps predictably -- encountering stiff resistance in Oregon. A local councillor who did not use any kind of racial term was -- again predictably -- accused of being "racist" for advocating such a law.
What Springfield City Councilor Dave Ralston said was:
"We cannot continue to absorb the flow of illegal immigrants, many of whom benefit from government services that our citizens provide ... They want to invade and not assimilate ...
"This is MY country and I have a right to stand up for it," Ralston wrote. "Illegal immigrants are breaking OUR laws and getting away with it. Just try to go to one of their countries and do what they are doing here and see what happens. This is `America' and we speak English, love it or leave it."
Source
Perhaps most interesting, however, was the comment in his local paper about the matter:
"Ralston's outspoken comments are political dynamite at a time when illegal immigration is being debated intensely across the nation.
Source
That's a pretty clear claim that debate on immigration should be restricted only to certain "correct" thoughts: No robust and open debate in Oregon, please!
More on the Bible as Homophobia
Homophobia means FEAR of homosexuals (from the Greek "phobos", meaning fear) so using the word is a form of propaganda. That you can dislike or disapprove of homosexuality without being afraid of it is not admitted. And there is no evidence that the Bible texts express fear of homosexuality.
The Old Testament tells you that you should stone homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20:13) and the New Testament tells you that God will judge homosexuals adversely (Romans chapter 1) but to say that such ideas are the outcome of fear is a mere assertion without proof. I think it would be more accurate to say that normal people feel an instinctive revulsion against homosexuality and the Bible reflects that.
But one thing that is clear is that Christians follow the New Testament and leave penalties to God. They endeavour to warn those who practice sodomy of the doom to come in the afterlife but they do no harm to those who practice sodomy. To the contrary, they try to draw them into the love of God.
So when Britain's "Gay Police Association" published an advertisement linking the Bible with spilt homosexual blood, they were simply lying.
The advertisement was accompanied by the claim:
"In the last 12 months, the GPA has recorded a 74% increase in homophobic incidents, where the sole or primary motivating factor was the religious belief of the perpetrator."
Source
And how many of those "homophobic incidents" involved bloodshed? I am sure we would all know about it if even one did. The advertisement is clearly just an hysterical attempt to suppress free speech about homosexuality -- because you can bet your bottom dollar that the "incidents" involved nothing more than speech
No comments:
Post a Comment