I have sinned. Economically.
The used book store where I’ve been shopping for the last few years was doing fine, as far as I could tell, last January, the last time I was there. Then I lost my renter, things got tight, and I chose to re-read The Lord of the Rings. Then Dave Alpern sent me some books to read (Got to return those. Looking for the right box). So what with one thing and another, I didn’t buy any books for a while.
Today I dropped by the store after work, since I have a renter again and he just gave me his May payment.
They’re closed up. Empty. Dark and bare. Not a flyleaf left behind.
It’s my fault. I, personally, am solely responsible. I have no doubt that the owners lost their home and are now living on the streets, eating out of dumpsters, all for lack of my business.
I’m sorry. So very, very sorry.
Have you heard of HR 1592? It’s a bill now under consideration by the House of Representatives.
Its purpose is to expand Hate Crimes legislation. That’s bad enough, in my opinion, because the very concept of the “hate crime” amounts to punishing people for their thoughts. If a jihadist cuts off my head, I want him prosecuted for killing me, not for killing me for Islam. The motivation should be irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
But this bill expands the definition of Hate Crime in such a way that, in conjunction with Title 18 of the U.S. code, merely expressing religious opposition to homosexuality would be a prosecutable offense, in the case that some moron should draw the wrong conclusion and go out and commit a “hate crime.” Understand that? A pastor who simply repeats what the Bible says on the subject could be prosecuted and imprisoned, based on the reaction of one of his listeners.
Hat tip: Vision America.
This is what happened to the Revolution, kids. I always knew the hippies were lying when they talked about free speech. When they said “free speech,” they meant their own freedom from other people’s speech. When Paul McCartney sang, “Power to the people, right on!” he meant “Power to the people who are right on.” That is, people who agreed with him.
I don’t think a nation can survive without some kind of shared value system. It’s not enough to share a few symbolics, if the symbolics mean entirely different things to different groups. In America today, we can’t even agree on what the definition of “is” is. We’re so far apart we don’t even understand each other’s words.
I see a train wreck down the line. I wrote about this stuff in Wolf Time.
Right again, blast it.
This is statism at its most absurd; but I wonder if it will be an offense to speak in opposition to christianity?
How are the people so outraged at the Patriot Act passive about this? Do liberals fail to think outside of the perceived immediate benefits to one for their favored groups? This is a thought police bill. People should be judged for their actions, not their motives.
I heard that Rep. Mike Pence offered an amendment to this bill while in committee, saying simply that the legislation would not restrict religious freedom of speech. It was voted down.
“Do liberals fail to think outside of the perceived immediate benefits to one of their favored groups?”
Evidently. Besides, Europe has been carrying on this way for a while now and many liberals seem enamoured of European ways.
France is especially bad in this respect–the government has forbidden head scarves in school and recently considered forbidding the denial of the Armenian genocide (not that I deny it, but the government might simply have affirmed or memorialized it). It also hauled Brigitte Bardot–the most dangerous mind in France–into court on charges of hate literature.
Your information is NOT correct; the Hate Crimes revision/addition would NOT imprison anyone for thoughts, only actions, and violent ones at that. If someone screams out a racial epithet or religious/homophobic slur while stabbing another person to death, that person will earn a longer jail sentence b/c the crime was motivated by hate. If someone killed you primarily b/c you are a member of the radical Chrisitan right, wouldn’t you want that person punished longer than someone who kills for no reason? READ YOUR INFORMATION MORE CAREFULLY! Ignorance is NOT bliss!!!!!!!!!!!!
“If someone killed you primarily b/c you are a member of the radical Chrisitan right, wouldn’t you want that person punished longer than someone who kills for no reason?”
Why should they be punished longer or differently based on motive? I appreciate the difference b/w accident and decision, but all murderer should be punished/disciplined equally under the law, not filtered by perceived motive. Murder by any motive is hateful.
Someone, how clearly do I have to say it before you understand that I mean what I say? I said that if a Muslim killed me for my faith, I’d want him punished for the murder, not for his thoughts. His thoughts are between him and God. They’re none of the state’s business. The same goes for Communists, feminists and Earth Firsters.