Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Okay For Agencies to Criticize Harmful, Irrational Policies, Courts Say

San Francisco didn't cross into constitutionally forbidden territory of government hostility to religion when the Board of Supervisors denounced a Vatican order to Catholic Charities not to place adoptive children with same-sex couples, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

Religious organizations (Scientology, CAIR, the Vatican, etc.) typically regard any criticism as violations of their rights, hate speech, you name it - whatever overheated terminology matches their disbelief that someone would dare call them on their B.S. It's going on three centuries of Enlightenment now, and these jokers still seem constitutively unable to understand secular government and freedom of speech. Two words guys: "boo" and "hoo".

On the other side of the coin, I would ask Brian Rooney with Thomas More Law Center (which was the group that sued San Francisco) if all I need in his eyes to be legally protected from criticism is to be part of a religion. You think my mama dresses me funny? You can't say that! I'm a magic-stick worshipper so that's hate speech! That's oppression of religion!

I would ask Brian Rooney if he thinks my magic-stickism is valid grounds for such claims. I would guess not. But would it be because Rooney's faith is the only true one, and the only one that should be protected? (an honest answer for a Christian, if not one publicly palatable to most people in the U.S., theist or otherwise.) Or is it because I'm the only magic-stickian and as such my religion doesn't count - that is, the majority is always sane? While I would probably disagree with arguments made by those in Rooney's camp, I'm genuinely interested in what they might be.

No comments: