Thank you, Simon Vainrub (Politically Incorrect Libertarian), for your (non sequitur sed de asino) opinion!
After I posted my recent rant on Mormon.org’s assault, Simon Vainrub, or the Politically Incorrect Libertarian posted his own response rant. At first, I was delighted that a self-labeled Libertarian had responded. Libertarians predominantly share many of my views. Things such as the right to choose not to wear a motorcycle helmet rather than let the government impose the necessity to wear one. You konw, self-reliance, self-determination. Unfortunately, to my surprise, Simon had a few things to say that were at least unrelated or conflated, if not outright bullshit.
Here we go! (My response to the original post first.)
>Fine, as someone who supports free speech I know they have a right to do this. However, remember the following billboard:
>I do, I thought it was brilliant, yet the billboard company changed its mind after many people complained.
1. You thought it was brilliant to compare Hitler, a man either directly or indirectly responsible for a worldwide war of aggression and the systematic stripping of rights, then near-annihilation of a people, to an admittedly currently decreasingly popular standing president. I’m no Obama campaigner, but such a comparison is at least insanely hyperbolic and stupid. Hate Obama all you want. Feel free. But Hitler? Even in the darkest days of my having to put up with Bush’s staggering blunders, I never would’ve compared him to the 20th century’s most notorious dictator.
2. The billboard company can cave to outside pressure if it so chooses. It’s a private comapny.
> Progressives scream that this was hate speech,
>yet is it not “hate speech” to insult billions of Christians during the Christmas season?
1. Given that the billboard is in America, and given that there aren’t “billions” of Americans, let alone “billions” of Christian Americans, no. But I get your point. Yes, it’s a potentially offensive message. At the same time, not only is it ultimately Christians’ choice to take offense or not, but they also offend millions of their fellow Americans on a daily basis in the very least by telling us we’ll all go to a place of eternal torture after we die if we don’t join their little club and do what they say. In the end, you know which is the greater hate speech.
2. Sure, let’s call it hate speech. Good thing we have that awesome First Amendment.
3. Except it’s not hate speech. That’d be more like “God hates f*gs!” or “Convert or burn!” If expressing the doubt in a belief or even the assertion that a belief is false were hate speech, all political parties, candidates, officials, and pundits would be guilty of hate speech all the time. Expressing specific hatred or specific threat is “hate” speech, not expressing disagreement.
4. The atheists have it right. It’s only the “Christmas season” to the Christians. To Jews, it’s just another couple of weeks. Same for the Hindus. We are all not required to respect or observe a religious holiday that has nothing to do with us.
5. The atheists have it right again. The Christians don’t own winter. We’ve just pretended that they do. They decided to put the
“birthday” (I say that in quotes because the day, December 25th, was taken from the worship holiday of an earlier Roman god; look it up) of their god at the end of December. It wass’t always that way nor does it always have to be that way.
>Why didn’t American Atheists picked on the Muslims?
You know why not. Muslims have neither the numbers nor the money nor the power nor the influence that Christians have in this country.
>Maybe something like “Ramadam is a waste of time” or “Allah is dead” or “Mohammed was a pedophile who married a 7 year old.”
I think either or both of those would be fantastic.
>Come on, atheists, have some courage, pick on the Muslims, unlike the Christians they do not love their enemies nor pray for their salvation.
I’ve spoken to a few Muslims who do, but that’s beside the point. Whether Christians claim to love their neighbors or pray for our salvation is irrelevant and not necessarily admirable. They receive massive unmerited respect and support from the public and the government. That’s illegal and unethical. As long as that’s true, it’s the atheists and other non-religious’ duty to shake the tree and make a fuss until we can all be treated equally under the law.
And now to my response:
>I’m not religious, in fact, it’s the atheists who are offended all the time.
A blanket assertion! One of the many hallmarks of the petty, irrational, and pissed-for-the-sake-of-it! You got any evidence? Yes, we atheists are offended, but so many groups fall under that observation that singling us out for it is meaningless and biased. Fox News alone devotes hours every year to the so-called “War on Christmas.” That’s professional whining!
>You don’t like God in the pledge of allegiance,
Since you call yourself the Politically Incorrect Libertarian, you should not like the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance either. Or did you like the idea of the government telling you to swear allegiance to the Imaginary Invisible Magic Sky Man?
Would you like “under no god” or “under Vishnu” or “under Satan” or “under Odin”? If you have any reservations about any of those, then you must have a reservation about “under God.” Not everyone in this country is Christian. Not everyone in this contry believes in a personal god. Yet everyone is under the rule of the Constitution which forbids the establishment of a religion.
Additionally, contrary to popular sentiment (aka bullshit), the phrase “under God” has not always been in the Pledge. It was added circa 1954 during the Red Scare. It’s documented fact. Look it up.
Considering your conservative preferences, I’d imagine you’d want to conserve the original Pledge.
>you hate “In God we trust” in our dollar coins,
So should you! Would you prefer “In Odin We Trust”? Or “In Quetzalcoatl We Trust”? How about “In Brigham Young We Trust”? The phrase establishes a government endorsement of a religious doctrine! Are you one of those Libertarians who maintains the specific political stance of Libertarianism when it suits you? You’re Libertarian when it comes to your personal rights over how fast you can drive, but not when it comes to your religious freedom? Are you a cherry-picking, pissed-when-it’s-convenient Libertarian?
>you can’t stand Christmas or decide to have a “secular tree” (google that up).
I don’t give a shit if people want to celebrate Christmas in the privacy of their own homes. Or Chanukkah. Or Kwanzaa. Or Ramadan. Or fucking Festivus. I celebrate Christmas. Sure, it’s a
watered-down, non-religious version focusing on the food, presents, and more presents, but it’s still nominally Christmas. It’s a government endorsement that I have a problem with.
But frankly, when it comes down to it, I don’t have much of an issue with the government putting up a Christmas tree. I feel that at this point, it’s predominantly a cultural, rather than religious, holiday. But you do know that for years, the government operated on Christmas specifically because it wouldn’t endorse a religious holiday. Look it up.
>In America we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
You call yourself a Libertarian. I’ll extrapolate that that’s at least partially because you’ve examined the tenets of the Democratic, Repuglican, and other parties and have decided that, for whatever reason, they don’t work for you. I’ll extrapolate that further and suggest that you have a reasonable amount of skepticism and
critical-thinking skills. Let’s add to that the Libertarian notion of personal freedom and belief in ability to govern onesself rather than be told exactly what to do at all times on all issues by some faceless government entity. That all having been said…
That’s such a stupid, bullshit assertion. And you know it. The only people who ever seriously make that moronic claim are pandering politicians sucking up to the religious right. Just as they can’t, you can’t quote a law that establishes a freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.
And if you can, pleae point it out because…
By your idiotic reasoning, we’re all required to pick a religion. Which obviously isn’t true. Not “freedom FROM.” Fucking ridiculous. When Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on my door, I have to let them in because I don’t have a freedom FROM religion. When the Salvation Army rings their bell outside a store, I have to give them money because I don’t have freedom FROM religion.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
As interpreted by presidents, Congress, and the Supreme Court dozens of times over dozens of decades, I am free FROM religion. Period. You don’t like it, go to another country where you do have to pick a religion.
>If you don’t want to participate in a religion, fine, don’t participate, but don’t you dare demand that we all follow your example.
What the hell are you talking about?? Who’s demanding what of whom?? Do you have any examples or evidence, or is this just blind rage for its own sake??
When have I or any other atheist individual or group specifically ever “[demanded] that we all follow [our] example”?? Can you cite any single, specific example of a demand made to the general populace that they be atheist whose equivalent hadn’t already been committed by a religious individual or group?
Didn’t think so.
Your fake outrage is that and nothing more. Fake.
>Frankly, I’m sick of secular nazis
And I’m sick of conservatives hyperbolically equating my thoughts and actions with those of a political party responsible for a worldwide war of aggression and the near-extermination of an entire people. And yet your ridiculous hyperbole marches on.
>fighting wars against obesity, smoking, political incorrectness, people who want to protect the border, military recruiters, etc, etc, etc.
Smoking is a perfect example. I’ve seen it from both sides. When I was a kid, my parents smoked all the time, in the house, in the car, in the restaurant. I didn’t get a fucking choice whether I got to be a second-hand inhaler. Not once did anybody fucking ask me if I was okay with perpetually taking in their smoke. Sure, you can roll down car windows, but you can still smell it. Sure, there were non-smoking sections in restaurants, but smoke fucking drifts.
Now that I’m an adult, I’ve indulged in a cigar or two. I do it in the open air in an appropriate section. I make sure to consider other people and I don’t do it all the time or around kids who have no goddamn choice.
Look, eat all you want, smoke all you want, offend as many people as your tongue can cope with, carry a fucking Gatling gun and rip down as many Canadians as you want, grab as many poor kids you want to fight bullshit wars. Just don’t attempt to bend the law because you’re a sissy who whines and complains when the established law doesn’t go the way you want it to go. Work your grievances through the system like the rest of us have to do. And when the law demonstrates to you that your bullshit beliefs are not supported by the Constitution, stop whining. Or move.
>Mind your own fucking business!
Tell that to the religious who constantly attempt to legislate their bullshit agenda into my life, my family’s lives, and my friends’ lives! You call yourself a Libertarian, but do you piss and moan when the religious attempt to legislate whom you can fuck or what scientific facts your kids can learn in public school, or do you just throw a hissy when the atheists put up a billboard?
>If you don’t like God, don’t pray. Don’t like obesity? Don’t eat. Hate smoking? Go live in a cabin in the mountains, far away from smokers, gasoline, wood burning, farts, etc. Let freedom ring, goddammit!
I love farts and yes, let freedom ring for everyone, not just smoking, hunting, over-eating, anti-immigrant, Libertarian Glenn Beck fans!