There's a great new Carnival, certain to appeal to anyone who reads this blog (regardless of whether they agree with me).
It's called the "RINO Sightings Carnival," (a product of the Raging Rinos -- a group created by the Commissar):
for secular and moderate conservatives who don’t drink the party Kool-Aid on issues such as whether it’s legal for dudes to diddle dudes and all that God business. Republican, without all the crazy.
The RINO Sightings Carnival is hosted this week by a longtime favorite of Classical Values, SayUncle, and of course he does a great job of hosting.
While I am sure that the individual bloggers who've affiliated themselves with the Raging Rinos do not all agree with each other, I have noted a certain ability to view things logically instead of emotionally, as well as the ability to sort things out according to individual issues. This post on the ACLU is as good an example of any. Blogger Pigilito notes that contrary to the usual assumptions, the ACLU was supporting the right of a student "suspended at Liberty High School in Las Vegas in September for wearing shirts bearing religious symbols" -- in violation of a school dress code. Pigilito linked to the case because it dispels the popular stereotype, even though he agreed with the court's upholding of the dress code.
....this is not intended to support the ACLU's position in this case. I posted this news because the ACLU is often portrayed by the religious right as being a first cousin to the devil. I thought it nice to discomfit them, however slightly.
From the sketchy info available in the article, I happen to agree with the court's holding here. If the school district bans all messages on t-shirts, then I have no complaints. However, if only religious messages are excluded, then I 'm with the ACLU.
I hadn't heard about this case, but I also agree with the trial court. And like Pigilito, I would agree with the ACLU only if religious messages alone were excluded -- which it appears they are not. I'm not surprised that the case didn't receive much attention.
Things which defy stereotypes usually don't.
Speaking of stereotype smashing, don't miss Environmental Republican's fisking of the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial attacking the prosecution of the Bio2005 protesters:
Whether or not the protesters intended for a cop to die, the fact is that he did indeed die as a result of breaking up a scuffle that the protesters started and the police were forced to attempt to break up.
These are not college kids protesting the Dean because he decided to shut down a frat house. These are trained protesters who travel to every event and they have the goal of creating anarchy. They are worldwide as was evident in Genoa, Italy.
By inciting violence, they had a direct impact on a police officer's death regardless if the man was pumping sludge through his arteries and needed a quadruple bypass. It is not murder and Lynne Abraham is not prosecuting for murder, but they were criminally responsible.
I had two posts along similarlines, and I'm glad to find another kindred spirit.
With a touch of tongue-in-something satire, SayUncle also points to Bill Hobbs' link (via Donald Sensing) to these thoughts from Chicago Boyz on homosexuality:
... by calling a homosexual union marriage, and making it a Constitutional right, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and soon many like-minded courts around the country, are more or less intentionally making Christianity illegal. Repeat: Christianity is being made illegal. The teaching that homosexuality is a sin is embedded in Christianity. It is in the Pauline letters. There is no getting around it. I have heard the counter-arguments, and they don't cut any ice. The Christian teaching against homosexuality is organic, it was part and parcel of the attack on the pagan society of the Roman Empire and it is fundamental to the Christian conception of marriage and sexuality. So, again, if gay marriage is a Constitutional right, then anyone preaching the moral teaching of Christianity is committing a hate crime or otherwise attacking the exercise of a Constitutional right. I object to this as a Christian, obviously.
While I don't think Christianity ever should have been an "attack on the pagan society of the Roman Empire," much less bound today by such past mistakes, addressing this again right now is way beyond the scope of this post.
"So, again, if gay marriage is a Constitutional right, then anyone preaching the moral teaching of Christianity is committing a hate crime or otherwise attacking the exercise of a Constitutional right. I object to this as a Christian, obviously."
He has a right to object to anybody's exercise of a Constitutional right. He has a Constitutional right to object to an atheist being an atheist, since all the Pauline epistles he cites obviously presuppose a God. The atheist will, nonetheless, continue to be an atheist until he chooses otherwise. Both the atheist and the anti-atheist are exeercising their Constitutional rights in arguing against each other's premises. That's what it's all about. What a fool not to grasp that simple concept.
I don't want any federal courts establishing homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right. That's the surest way to get a Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment. I've concluded more and more that the definition of marriage must be left to the people of each state, and I would favor a Constitutional amendment to that effect. Or else, as some have suggested, leave the definition of marriage entirely to the churches.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
'tongue-in-something'
heh.