No, this is not a joke


Melanie Phillips reports on what happens when multi-culturism and “diversity” are allowed to run rampant in a society (U.K.).

Pagan priests will be allowed to use wine and wands during ceremonies in jails under instructions issued to every prison governor. Inmates practising paganism will be allowed a hoodless robe, incense and a piece of religious jewellery among their personal possessions. They will also be allowed to have Tarot cards but are forbidden from using them to tell the fortunes of other prisoners. The guidance, issued by Michael Spurr, the director of operations of the Prison Service, makes it clear that Skyclad (naked pagan worship) will not be permitted. Prison staff have been told that pagan artefacts should be treated with respect…

Read more.

Friends, this is nuts! We have to get back to some semblance of sanity with respect to multiculturism. This is America. People in this country should “Americanize.” It is ok if people want to celebrate their differences with their ethnic group or family, but they have to assimilate into this country, as people have for hundreds of years. We have to have an American culture – the proverbial “melting pot,” not a group of different ethnicities and cultures each vying for their independence and cultural differences. What has made America great has been its unique culture and values. People have to respect that and fit themselves into that America.

11 thoughts on “No, this is not a joke

  1. Gary,I agree completely. Let’s put a torch to Manhattan’s China Town and Little Italy right away! What a disgrace!Ditto for all the Amish in Ohio. How dare they refuse to buy American cars! They should be shot!Gary, can you spell “xenophobia”?America is a “liberal” invention, a place that has always been and, one hopes, always will be the home of tolerance for all people, all creeds, all races, all religions, even scary ideas. Diversity is our strength, not our weakness.Yes, your cited example is over the top and ridiculous, but then I wonder how “Americans” reacted when they met their first Jewish neighbor, or their first socialist, or their first atheist. This is why Miss Manners has a job, to teach us all how to play well with others.Take a breather, and remember that what we take for granted today (say, a woman on the Supreme Court) wreaked havoc with mores in an earlier day (and not that long ago, either!).We’ll survive. Pagan artifacts and all.

    Like

  2. Howard, what we take for granted today can lead to even worse troubles tomorrow, i.e. Roe V. Wade, Affirmative Action, the removal of prayer from schools and yes, even brown vs. board of ed.All of these things have lead to a topsy turvy society where right is wrong and good is evil. All have had drastic, unintended consequences as well. So, while you are correct, we will survive in that this one incident is not the end of life as we know it, yet it is a symptom of a greater, more treachorous problem, the deterioration of moral absolutes in a society founded upon moral absolutes. When society gives a collective inch to a deviance from its core values then that deviance will inevitably take a mile or two, or three!Such is only possible due to good folks like yourself who say, ‘hey, it ain’t that bad’, ‘we’ll get over it’. Rationalizing that years from now we will look back and see how silly we were to resist change, to be so intolerant, to resist diversity. As the saying goes, the road to distruction is paved with good intentions.

    Like

  3. Hi Jerry,Nice to make your virtual acquaintance.Are you one of those “moral absolutes” guys? I imagine you’re having a tough time of it, what with all these relativists running around.Problem is, America is a nation founded by relativists. That’s part of our liberal tradition (read the Federalist Papers). (That’s liberal with a little “l,” by the way). All those Mayflower folks fled England because of religious intolerance, and came to the New World for a chance to live free. Millions have followed. Your family and mine.American citizenship, I think you’ll agree, is not easy. Living with the privileges that come with the Bill of Rights means you have to grit your teeth and look up and pretend you’re not paying attention when you hear someone (me perhaps?) say something that makes your blood boil.But you know the old saying: one man’s treasure is another man’s trash. Your moral absolutes will probably clash with someone else’s. Thank goodness for the First Amendment, and a system of check and balances that keeps it intact.I’ve had it up to here with absolutists of any stripe, left, right, purple or moral. They all want to impose something on someone else, whether it’s an ideology, a religion, a system of economics or a philosophy. They all want everyone to conform to their point of view. You sound like one of them. I’m not a conformist. I don’t believe in conforming. I believe in personal freedoms AND personal responsibility. You can’t have one without the other, and that, I’m afraid, has been lost on a lot of people.When I hear “return prayer to schools” I cringe. Because that’s just code for “teach fundamental Christian values.” If that’s what you want, send your kids to private religious schools. Don’t mess with Thomas Jefferson’s dream of a public education for all Americans. It’s a long way from being what he imagined, I know, but it’s an original American Dream.When I hear, “end affirmative action” I cringe again. That, too, is code for “I don’t want to live/work near THOSE people.” Your rant against Brown v. Board of Education makes me wonder about what’s boiling beneath the surface, Jerry. Brown reversed a shameful policy in this country, and if you don’t agree with it, you need to reexamine your moral absolutes.Roe v Wade is settled law. It shouldn’t be a matter for the government at all, in my opinion. It should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. The state has no business telling a woman, or anyone, what to do with her body.So what’s your thing with deviance, Jerry? Do you lead such a straight and narrow life that you feel it’s necessary to tell others how to live?I think you’d feel a lot better if you learned to live and let live. It’s the American way.

    Like

  4. “When I hear, “end affirmative action” I cringe again. That, too, is code for ‘I don’t want to live/work near THOSE people.'”This is such a backwards statement I don’t even know where to begin. Why would you cringe when someone states that race based preferences are wrong? If you truly believed in personal responsibility then it should follow that you would accept the notion of allowing others to be responsible for their own outcomes as opposed to allowing government to choose who gets the prize and who doesn’t. Isn’t the idea about equal opportunity not equal outcome? Government mandated quotas based on skin color undermines the very concept of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.“Your rant against Brown v. Board of Education makes me wonder about what’s boiling beneath the surface, Jerry.”Its called wisdom and insite, and I am boiling over with it. šŸ™‚“Brown reversed a shameful policy in this country, and if you don’t agree with it, you need to reexamine your moral absolutes.”Well, it did reverse a shameful policy by forced judicial rule rather than allowing the people to choose for themselves, ever heard of freedom of association? The B vs. B. of E. comletely ignored this law by forcing school integration. I thought you were all about being “non-conformist”? Well, this was forced conformity by judicial fiat, how do you justify that? My “moral absolutes” tell me this is completely wrong-headed.The same is true of Roe v. Wade, forcing a majority to accept an immoral practice through judicial fiat rather than letting the democratic process take place by letting the people vote, and it violated states rights as well by not letting the states decide for themselves. The same is true of Brown. This is wrong, regardless of the outcome. Just because it worked in favor of your beliefs doesn’t make it right. Just to avoid any attempts at race bating, as your previous comments seems to be implying, I am a Christian, American black man and I am the first to tell anyone that Jim Crow and the separation of the races based on color or class is flat out wrong and shameful, but just because I disagree with such principles doesn’t justify how I come to end the practice itself. The ends do not justify the means. Both of thes dicisions were decided wrongly and with wrong intent which makes the outcome wrong as well. The evidence of just how wrong and screwed up both of these cases are is blindingly obvious; i.e. well over 1400 black babies are aborted every day in the United States, well over 13 million since Roe, and gaping wide achievement gaps between black and white students in our public education system.I can cite a whole lot more but I am sure you get my point. In so far as deviance, I don’t propose to control any man, yet pointing out right and wrong is not only the duty of every man but it is mandatory for the presevation of justice, freedom and peace. Live and let live just don’t cut it, if you really believed that you wouldn’t have responded to this post or to my comment. Think about it.

    Like

  5. Jerry,Affirmative action is an imperfect response to a festering problem. I do believe in personal responsibility, but that alone often isn’t enough. Everyone needs a helping hand, and I believe the role of government, within reason, is to provide that opportunity. (I said opportunity, not hand out.)I agree that government by fiat is wrong. I agree that it would be better, more judicious, if state legislatures had passed laws against separate but equal, for a woman’s right to choose, for advancement based on merit. But they didn’t and they don’t. I think you would agree that if we waited for people to wise up, you and I would still be waiting. If nothing else, a representative democracy is supposed to encourage citizens to stand up and offer themselves as leaders. Leaders make us think and they take risks to promote ideas. That’s what lead to Brown v BofE.That’s also why we have a third branch of government, the judiciary, to PREVENT the tyranny of the masses. We live in a system where a majority of one can rule the day (Roe; Brown; and any other example of an individual who stood up and said No more!)Now before you blow a gasket, Jerry, let me add this: just because Roe is the law doesn’t mean you or anyone else who doesn’t agree, has to have an abortion. Just like no one is forcing you or anyone else to watch a movie or read a book or attend a play to which you might object. Call it relativism if you want, but that’s the way our system was designed. We’re not a “direct” democracy, which is what California’s system of ballot measures is foisting on its citizens (I’m an ex-LAer). That’s a different kind of tyranny. We elect our representatives to speak for us. Which means we get good leaders and bad ones. Demagogues and moralists alike.What you’re advocating makes no sense. To allow states to determine on their own what the laws will be creates a tangle of contradictory laws. The US constitution states explicitly that one state law has to be acceptable in all other states. So in 1973, when the Supremes decided Roe, one of the reasons they cited was the need for a singular interpretation of the many state laws. Roe codified focused language that guarantees a woman’s right to choose to end her pregnancy whether she lives in Maine or Mississippi.That doesn’t address the moral objection you have to Roe, and I understand that. I also respect it. I just happen to disagree.I do agree that it’s always better when legislatures do their jobs. But they don’t. Nor does Congress. So who’s left? The courts step in because there’s a vacuum. Someone has to act.Jerry, you’re the first black man I’ve ever heard speak against Brown. I don’t disagree with the principle of your argument. I just think it’s impractical.I couple posts ago, Gary (our host) included a link for a political quiz to determine your spot on the left-right-center spectrum. I took it. I’m a centrist, leaning slightly left. If you haven’t taken the quiz, you might find it interesting. Here’s the URL:http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.htmlI look forward to your reply.

    Like

  6. As a matter of fact, I did take it and I registered as a Libertarian, leaning more right ofcourse. “What you’re advocating makes no sense. To allow states to determine on their own what the laws will be creates a tangle of contradictory laws.”What I propose makes perfect sense within the proper context. I am not advocating that each state has its own set of laws based on whatever they want, what I am saying is that the government on the federal level is over stepping its bounds when it overrides the rule of law that is already established within individual states, especially when that override is not decided by the people of that state or even of the entire country. To allow the courts to interpret and establish laws that override individual rights is tyranny, plain and simple.Your point about Roe being decided based on having a universal code for abortion is not accurate, the entire premise for even hearing the cases had to do with protecting the rights of a doctor to perform an abortion when absolutely necessary but was twisted in the press to be about womens rights in order to gain public support. As with the death penalty, each state had its own premise for abortion whether it be legal, illegal or legal with limitations, this caused no conflict until the residing judge, being a physician himself, thought to protect doctors from being prosecuted under the laws against abortion in certain states, I believe it may have been Texas.“I do agree that it’s always better when legislatures do their jobs. But they don’t. Nor does Congress. So who’s left? The courts step in because there’s a vacuum. Someone has to act.”There is no vacuum sir, this is a weak argument. The only reason Roe and Brown had to be decided in the courts was because the people in general, to the mostly liberal activists involved, weren’t moving fast enough to bring the kind of change they wanted, even though in the case with B vs. B of Ed., The Civil Rights Act and other desegration laws were already in place. They just werent’ being inforced as quickly as these people desired, what should have taken place would have been a natural progression of integration through the free market. The more economically sound a community became the more it would have attracted business, enterprise, development and residents of all races and creeds to capitalize from it. It is almost ironic, we are more segregated now in ideology than ever before.

    Like

  7. Jerry,Where to begin?First, B v. BofE was decided in 1954. The Civil Rights Act was passed a decade later. Let’s get our facts straight.Second, it’s true that one of the overriding reasons why Roe was decided was, in fact, the argument to protect doctors against law suits. But that’s only part of it. Justice Brennan, and the concurring justices, also argued that too many conflicting laws in the many states constitute an undue burden on a woman necessitating a clarifying and overriding Federal law.Third, whatever the press did or didn’t do to “twist” the argument from protecting doctors to protecting women, it was and remains the courts who made/make the decisions. And that’s exactly what the constitution says they can do. If you don’t like it, get an amendment passed to change the constitution.Fourth, the government isn’t overstepping its bounds. No one is overstepping bounds. The Supreme Court is exercising its constitutional perogative to rule this way or that. I know you probably don’t approve of judicial activism, but let’s both be honest and agree that activism is practiced by both liberal and conservative justices, so in my opinion, that argument doesn’t wash.Fifth, if you’re arguing that “the people in general, to the mostly liberal activists involved, weren’t moving fast enough to bring the kind of change they wanted” as a reason to consider Brown illegitimate, I submit it’s specious and hyperbolic.As a white man, I find it incredulous that you, as a black man, can argue that you’d rather wait for the FREE MARKET to grant you the rights to which you are entitled and were “endowed by the Creator” (T. Jefferson’s words, not mine). You wanted to WAIT?Sorry. I don’t buy that. I don’t wait for that which is rightfully mine. Or yours. I avail myself of my constitutionally guaranteed right to petition the government (one of the five rights guaranteed you and me in the First Amendment). I’ll go out on a limb and say that were Dr. King alive, he would agree with me.Finally, I took the Political Quiz again today and ended up Libertarian. I guess I couldn’t remember how I answered the first time. Perhaps I chose too many “maybes.” I can’t figure it. You know the old joke: what do you get when you put two liberals in a room? Three opinions.I’m perfectly content to continue this conversation, Jerry. But I am interested to know your opinion on the subject of intelligent design and its place in the science classroom. But we don’t have to change subjects if you’re not through slaying me on this one.

    Like

  8. My mistake regarding the Civil Rights act, I knew that and yet still wrote it. I apologize, yet my point still stands that there were several laws on the books that could have and should have been used to uphold civil rights for blacks, President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation which freed the slaves, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment(equal protection under the law), and finally the Fifteenth Amendment(voting rights), and as I stated earlier, freedom of association and the right to assemble were also strong arguments.My contention with the courts isn’t on the grounds of liberal or conservative, it is on the grounds of right and wrong, period. Certain issues should not be decided by a small few when the majority ought to decide, such as abortion ( a moral issue, whether you are religious or not) and the freedom of association.“Fifth, if you’re arguing that “the people in general, to the mostly liberal activists involved, weren’t moving fast enough to bring the kind of change they wanted” as a reason to consider Brown illegitimate, I submit it’s specious and hyperbolic.”What makes this point specious or hyperbolic? Several black lawyers including Thurgood Marshall saw to it that Brown vs. the Board of Ed. came before the Supreme Courts for the very purpose of desegregating the schools. Yet then and now there is no real evidence that blacks suffered from a lack of quality education. Their premise was mostly based on perception rather than fact or real conclusive studies.One small group of men caused a great, possibly unnecessary change to occur, by force, in America based on specious studies on the perception by black youth of their white counterparts.“As a white man, I find it incredulous that you, as a black man, can argue that you’d rather wait for the FREE MARKET to grant you the rights to which you are entitled and were “endowed by the Creator” (T. Jefferson’s words, not mine). You wanted to WAIT?Sorry. I don’t buy that. I don’t wait for that which is rightfully mine. Or yours. I avail myself of my constitutionally guaranteed right to petition the government (one of the five rights guaranteed you and me in the First Amendment). I’ll go out on a limb and say that were Dr. King alive, he would agree with me.”You have it all wrong, no one grants anyone their rights, my rights as anyone elses is granted by the almighty Creator. That is what makes the entire notion of civil rights special and powerful. If my rights came from other men then those are not rights at all, they are priveledges granted to me at the whim of another. Being able to live and work as I please is my right that no one can give or take from me, period. I never said that I would rather wait, my contention is that the methods do not justify the result. I think, to a point, there is a great deal of misconception about the era of Jim Crow that is romanticized to the point where perception becomes reality. The Board of Ed. at that time did not deny me or any other black person their rights to an education, only their right to get an education at an all white school. That has to do with freedom of association, not necessarily civil rights. I am not saying such philosophies regarding denying access based on skin color is right, my point is that being denied access to something that isn’t necesserily needed isn’t really a denial of “rights” per se. There were an ample amount of black schools, universities and the like during that time and most were of exceptional quality in regards to their education. What Justice Marshall and his band of “heros” were fighting for wasn’t a better education but for a change in perception. The perception by black children of their white counterparts as being prettier, nicer, and superior. This perception has not changed even today, so in my opinion, they have failed.They failed because they fought the right fight in the wrong way and in the wrong place.As far as intelligent design goes, I do agree with teaching it in public schools. Logically, it is the same as teaching evolution since such is still a theory and in many scientific circles, even among atheistic scholars, it is being denied and debunked. If one does truly hold to the Jefferson’s original idea about how public schools ought to be run then you cannot deny the fact that at this point in time, the education system is working completely against what he intended. Currently the primary goal of our public schools is pure and simple, indoctrination rather than education.

    Like

  9. Jerry,I think your first paragraph basically makes the point I argued in an earlier post that until the Courts acted, we were in a leadership vacuum. No one was acting. No one was standing up and making the points you made here. That since Lincoln, laws have existed to protect minorities, that laws are on the books guaranteeing their rights. Laws of man and laws of God.BUT NO ONE STOOD UP TO DEMAND THEIR ENFORCEMENT!“My contention with the courts isn’t on the grounds of liberal or conservative, it is on the grounds of right and wrong, period. Certain issues should not be decided by a small few when the majority ought to decide, such as abortion ( a moral issue, whether you are religious or not) and the freedom of association.”But Jerry, a representative democracy means that we ask a few people to decide things for us. We send people to Congress to enact laws in our name. We ask those same people to appoint judges to interpret the laws our representatives write and enact. It’s all in our Constitution.“Yet then and now there is no real evidence that blacks suffered from a lack of quality education.” Very interesting point. I have a better understanding of your thinking. You may very well be correct. But that’s not what Justice Marshall and others were arguing. Quality education wasn’t the issue. ACCESS was the issue. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY was the issue. It was a moral thing, too. Separate but equal was and is immoral, and the sooner we got rid of it the better.Intelligent design. I’m always for teaching something rather than not teaching it, even if it’s to show the flaws in what you’re teaching.As a non-scientist, I accept evolution. But I also believe in God. The two are not incompatible. Evolution is not “just a theory.” In the world of science, “theory” is the highest ranking an idea can achieve. No one argues with the notion of gravity. Yet it is still referred to as “the theory of gravity.” Same with notions about the atom. We know today that atoms are the building blocks of all matter. All things are made of atoms, in one combination or another. Yet in the world of science, this idea is expressed as “the theory of matter.”So when you say of evolution: “it is still a theory,” you are paying it the highest compliment. I suggest you find a dictionary and look it up. Don’t trust my word.So, back to intelligent design. It’s an interesting idea, maybe even a theory. But the problem is, you can’t test it. And that’s the foundation of any theory. Can you go out into the world and find material evidence to prove it or disprove it?You can with evolution. Sure, there are gaps and things not yet explained. But that doesn’t disprove it. Should intelligent design be taught in science class? Absolutely not. It’s not science. Should it be taught in public schools? I’m not sure. Maybe in a class on religion or comparative religion. Or philosophy. But not science. Science is about what’s provable and testable and measureable. Okay, that’s more than two cents’ worth. But that’s what I think.

    Like

  10. Jerry and Howard, Great discussion. I will just throw in my 2 cents about intelligent design. I don’t think that evolution and intelligent design are inconsistent. Evolution can’t explain many things. For example, species don’t evolve into other species. Scientists now no longer believe that man evolved from apes or other primates. The theory is that every species is unique and did not evolve from another species. Now within a species, the process of natural selection might cause that species to evolve over time with certain characteristics that have proven useful to its success. Evolution cannot explain the origin of species, however, as Darwin would have us believe.One has the choice of believing that all this is just random, or, alternatively, that there might be some intelligence to creation.Bottom line, I believe in intelligent design along with evolution.

    Like

  11. Hey Gary,Glad you joined in.I think you’d discover that every scientist on the planet would go, excuse the pun, ape to read your post. In fact, the difference between humans and the highest species of ape is less than three percent of our DNA. That’s a fact. Proveable, documented, undisputed.One very big contention I have with I.D. and its advocates is the use of the word “believe.” As in “I don’t believe in evolution.” It’s not a faith like Christianity or Judiasm. It’s a science, which is based on the scientific method. You accept it or you don’t. I accept evolution. Enough of its most fundamental principles have been proven with existing fossils. The evidence is there for all to examine. No credible scientist contest these findings.You and others are free to believe or accept something else; that is your right. But if the question is, do we teach this in the science classroom, alongside other matters of science, I.D. doesn’t pass the basic test of science.But I’m with you in principle that evolution and believing in God (or an intelligent designer) are compatible. And there I go again, agreeing with you.H

    Like

Comments are closed.