Posted by
Patrick Henry on Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:55:01 PM
Bill O'Reilly has an interesting piece on Townhall discussing the fact that religious people in America are
angry -- fed up with profane secularism, government encroachment on religion and blatant affronts to
their most deeply held beliefs, some of which are reflected in actual or proposed government policy. Even
more interesting are some of the root causes of this growing anger.
Bedrock in the creeping discrmination against the religious is the doctrine of political correctness, a mind
set esposused by the liberal establishment, propagated in the leftist media and deified by Hollywood and
the administration of Barack Obama. The doctrine of political correctness holds that it is socially unacceptable
to publicly say or display anything that might prove offensive to others, especially protected groups such as
minorities. It is therefore necessary to cleanse the public vocabulary of words and phrases to which some groups
attach offnse. For example, La Raza argues that use of the term "illegal alien" is "hate speech." This makes
talking about almost anything publicly increasingly precarious since almost everything is offensive to someone.
But that is where the gross inequity of political correctness raises its ugly head, because public scorn, media
disdain and, in some instances, even legal sanctions are reserved for those holding traditional or majority\vuews,
and are seldom or never enforced against those holding non-traditional or minority views or status. In other words,
it is okay to offend one group, but not the other.
And when such offense is taken, the minority employs an effective three-pronged strategy to silence and
thereby control the majority. First, they blitz the airwaves with whining complaints of discrimination and personal
attacks on those they consider representative of the other side. A good example of this was the verbally vicious
and vulgar attack of homosexual blogger Perez Hilton on the former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for simply
stating that she believes that marriage is for a man and a woman. Since such attacks are controversial in and of
themselves and make juicy copy, the media is only too happy to spread them on the airwaves and in print. And
it's intersting how in nearly every instance the facts are manipulated to make the whining offended look like a
rightoues martyr and the so-called offender like a heartless neandethal.
A second line of attack is sometimes violent civil disobedience. When gay marriage was rejected by citizens of
California, the election was followed by days of "gay rage," in which homosexuals marched, attacked innocent
bystanders and destroyed property, both public and private. There was, of course, no media coverage on whether
and of them actually did jail time for their offenses.
Finally, the offended resort to legal action. Gays are suing the state of California claiming it is their constitutional
right to marry (guess I missed that amendment) and that citizens had no right to vote otherwise. Does anyone
seriously suppose that it would, conversely, have been well within the rights of Californians to approve of gay
marriage and that no one would have sued to say otherwise.? If the very process of the people deciding the
issue was uncnonstitutional, then why was it allowed on the ballot in the first place. And if one outome is
constitutional and the other not, then Californians never really had a choice. The American Civil Liberties
Union is fond of pursuing just such suits on behalf of the whiners who lose. Would they have been willing
to represent the citizens of California who won? Guess!
If ever a group had a right to be angry due to discrimination, it is today's American religious community.
They have been deprived of public prayer, public nativity scenes at Christmas, crosses on their own
property and virtually every right to speak of their faith outside their home or place of worship. They have
been lampooned by the media, force fed abortion on demand and gay marriage, treated to nonstop obscenity
on television topped off this week with ABC's American music awards in which Janet Jackson grabbed a
male dancer's crotch and homosexual Adam Lambert simulated oral copulation on stage. If it's filthy, obscene,
perverted or an attack on tradition, then it's just fine. All others shut up!
It's time for a revolution in this country, and the rumblings are beginning. The next installment on this blog
will discuss what is being done, and how those of us who are tired of being silently offended can be heard.