Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Intolerance by the Tolerant

Lawrence Torcello, a professor of philosophy from Rochester Institute of Technology, has called for 'deniers' of anthropomorphic climate change to be imprisoned.  He said 'science misinformation' should be considered a crime.  Professor Torcello is spouting intolerant, opinionated declarations as if man-made climate change has been proven scientifically.  It hasn't.  Man-made climate change (global warming) is a theory which has been politically propagandized to the point of putting undue pressure on the scientific community.  Torcello admits that his proposal would violate the first amendment. Well what a reasonable guy he is. Wait!! Wait!! Just when I thought there was a glimmer of sensibility the professor said “We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions.”  He believes governments need to update their free speech laws.  No man has the authority to take away free speech! 

It looks like a good many Americans disagree with the professor. 

The atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that Gov. Scott Walker delete a tweet.  On Sunday Scott Walker tweeted "Philippians 4:13."  In a letter the co-presidents wrote: "This braggadocio verse coming from a public official is rather disturbing,"wrote Gaylor and Barker to Walker.  You know what is disturbing?  Atheists with hutzpah who are clueless about free speech. Atheists who try to stifle free speech. These intolerant atheists need to take a course on the first amendment.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation strikes again.  The radical atheist Gestapo-like organization sent a letter demanding the removal of The Ten Commandments monument on public property in Idaho.  Around 500 people gathered in Sandpoint, Idaho to protest the monument's pending removal, to support the Ten Commandments display staying right where it is. 

"I don't like this at all," said Gladys Larson to the Bonner County Daily Bee, "There's no way someone can come into our town and dictate what goes on here."
"The Ten Commandments monument was donated to Sandpoint in 1972 by a local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and was placed in Farmin Park."
I am sick of spineless city officials giving into the offended while not giving a damn about local citizens constitutional rights. I am highly offended by this atheist supremacy that is happening all across our country.


Woodsterman (Odie) said...

"Global Warning" ISN'T science!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Atheist supremacy"?

Thanks for the chuckle today. Is this when I'm supposed to start feeling pity for the dominate religion in America?

Can anybody actually tell me what tangible benefit the faithful get out of seeing their symbology on Government property? Is it simply the smug knowledge that the State shows preferential treatment of your belief system?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

BTW, while I think the FFRF are generally dicks, they go above and beyond that by trying to demand a citizen remove a tweet.

Teresa said...


Yep. Science is not politically engineered.

Teresa said...


You can laugh but I call the FFRF searching throughout the country for cross memorials, Ten Commandment monuments and other religious symbols just to complain and demand the removal of these memorials of remembrance atheist supremacy.

Preferential treatment? There is symbolism and honoring victims or the Fallen. No other religion or secular body has been denied putting up monuments in the various places. If they tried and the local government said no then that would be showing preferential treatment.

There are more places where Christianity is represented than other religions/groups with no religious affiliation that is because around 85% of people who live in the U.S. are Christians.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

You then have an odd definition of supremacy, given your own statement at the end. You also, ironically, have seemingly no issue with Christian supremacy.

Having ten ancient edicts by an approvable deity on government property not only has logical value, the lack of such does not impact your religious liberty in the least. State preference for a religion is not religious liberty.

Teresa said...

There is no state preference for Christianity or any religion.

For you to call having monuments of The Ten Commandments on pieces of government/public land Christian supremacy is absurd.

You like bringing down religion to be equal with atheism?

That's like taxing the wealthy excessively to bring them down to the level of the less wealthy average American.

Communism here we come. Yes, one of the hallmark's of Communism is to be hostile to religion in the public sphere.

The Constitution says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Legally, there is indeed no State preference for Christianity...though you wouldn't know it from Christians who whine about not having enough religious symbology on government property.

Cries of Communism are the standard canard employed, because for religious preferentialists, nationalists and dominionists....their position can only be defended from a zero-sum paradigm.

Religious belief exists in the individual, not the State. Not having the pageantry displayed everywhere you might like, is not bringing down religion.

I will note, that like have declined to answer the question I posed. No 'tolerance' for logic I suppose?

Teresa said...

What you consider a "canard" is reality. Secularism and Communism go hand -in-hand.

This nation was founded on certain precepts, Godly or moral precepts which may not necessarily be Christian but a number are in line with Judeo-Christian values.

For me and probably many more, the removal of these religious monuments represents secularism's hostility toward religion in the public sphere, the decline of traditional morality or Godly values, and is representative of the coercive nature of the government with regards to secularism encroaching on religious beliefs, treating those who hold certain religious beliefs as 2nd class citizens.

The monuments represent our Founding, our Founding Fathers who were moral people who advanced religious freedom in both public and private life.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Right...because religion isn't coercive....

This nation was founded on equality under the law...not a preference for one sect over another.

And again with the victimhood, of the dominant religion in the nation? The 'faithful' have made a long history of deciding who was 2nd class citizens. It's an interesting twist of irony that this meme would now be employed.

Still no answer to my question.

Teresa said...

Actually I DID ANSWER your question. Open your eyes CI. You obviously don't give a crap and mock people of faith losing religious freedom but yes I did answer your question.

Teresa said...

"This nation was founded on equality under the law...not a preference for one sect over another."

That is a very, very narrow view of this nation's founding. Equality is one bit of it. Not the way it is distorted today. Religious freedom is a big chunk along with freedom of speech.

There is no preferential treatment of Christians or Jews under the law.

"Right...because religion isn't coercive...."

Nope..... You are clueless about religion and the meaning of coercive.

"The 'faithful' have made a long history of deciding who was 2nd class citizens."

When,what, and how? Example? The faithful are being targeted consistently and often in recent years. I doubt that what you said is true other than a few isolated cases.

So you think it is okay to treat people as 2nd class citizens. Lovely..... Since you are defending religious freedom of Christians and Jews being under assault.

Cause like we know two wrongs make a right. NOT!!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Nope..... You are clueless about religion and the meaning of coercive."

I know quite a bit about both, but your comment shows that care nothing for the perspective of your fellow citizens who are non-believers...or non-Christians. Who's being a supremacist, eh?

So you go on about religious freedom, and claim that you answered my question. You did not, but perhaps I need to rephrase it. How is it an 'assault' upon your [or anyones] religious liberty, for there to be a lack of preferential treatment by the State? Do you pretend that as a Christian, you have a right to have your creed displayed on the property of a government that is by law, required to treat all creeds and none, equally?

I asked what 'tangible benefit the faithful get out of seeing their symbology on Government property' with the obvious corollary of 'what assault is there upon your religious freedom, by not having them present?

Are you restricted or denied the aility to worship and practice your faith as you deem fit? Is your house of worship being denied the preferential treatment of tax benefits?

I have in no way mocked your beliefs. I'm asking that why you would mock the offense some people take at the presence of such symbology, yet you take offense at their absence?

"So you think it is okay to treat people as 2nd class citizens."

This doesn't bear any relation to anything I've said.