A couple of recent articles demonstrate just how off-track this august body has become.

First, an opinion article from USA Today that speaks out against UN efforts to criminalize the criticism of religion.  This is as clear-cut a free speech issue as you can get, and the cure is worse than the disease.

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

You don’t destroy free speech in order to save it.  There are clear exceptions to this rule, but "offense" isn’t one of them.  Thank you, UN

Second is a special report submitted to the UN by its Human Rights Council that has in it a definition of gender that the UN itself has been trying to get enough nations to agree with.  In a report entitled, “Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism” (which clearly involves genders, right?), we find this:

Gender is not synonymous with women but rather encompasses the social constructions that underlie how women’s and men’s roles, functions and responsibilities, including in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, are defined and understood. This report will therefore identify the gendered impact of counter-terrorism measures both on women and men, as well as the rights of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. As a social construct, gender is also informed by, and intersects with, various other means by which roles, functions and responsibilities are perceived and practiced, such as race, ethnicity, culture, religion and class. Consequently, gender is not static; it is changeable over time and across contexts. Understanding gender as a social and shifting construct rather than as a biological and fixed category is important because it helps to identify the complex and inter-related gender-based human rights violations caused by counter- terrorism measures; to understand the underlying causes of these violations; and to design strategies for countering terrorism that are truly non-discriminatory and inclusive of all actors.

Emphasis mine.  Is the UN really unaware of biology?  No, they’re just trying to bend it to their will in order to mainstream behaviors that they deem okey dokey.

This is way beyond a big diplomatic table where nations can work out their differences.  As with any political body, they expand to fill any area they wish, not being otherwise constrained.  This is a body badly in need of remaking from the ground up.

Carrie Prejean, who was essentially fired as Miss California after a politically incorrect answer to a Miss USA pageant question, insists she did not break the conditions of her contract, and is going to court to prove it.

Miss Prejean was fired from her role as Miss California USA in June of this year, following several months of controversy over her answer at the Miss USA pageant regarding same-sex marriage. Lewis claimed Miss Prejean’s termination was due to a violation of contract.  Miss Prejean’s complaint will refute that allegation, and demonstrate that both the chronology and factual evidence clearly show she lived up to all her contractual obligations, but was fired, harassed and publicly attacked solely due to her religious beliefs.

Shire Network News #166 has been released. The feature interview is with Bruce Bawer, the Oslo-based US author of "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within" and Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom about his experiences as a gay man in what he thought would be a more tolerant European society, and what happened when he ran into radical Islam on the streets of Amsterdam one night. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News asking you to "Consider This!"

I’ve heard this sentiment many times.  "Why do we pay pro athletes millions of dollars a year, but pay teachers so little?  Which is more important?"  Indeed, it is true that occupations like teachers, fire fighters, and police aren’t paid in accordance with their importance in our society.  Instead football, basketball and baseball players, who strut and fret their hour upon the field and then are heard no more, are lavished with huge salaries and signing bonuses.  Who decided that was how society should remunerate people?

Frankly, we did.  We pay the athletes when we pay big ticket prices at games, when we watch the Super Bowl commercials, and when we buy sport memorabilia.  And we pay our teachers when we give their jobs over to the government, when we vote for politicians who waste our tax money on pork barrel projects instead of salaries and when we cheer while spending ourselves into huge debt.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying professional sports, but if you want to know why the disparity, there it is.

Here’s another, similar sentiment.  When Private William Long was gunned down by a Muslim who was upset about US military actions, it garnered a bit of coverage.  The Commander-in-Chief did come out with a statement on the incident, 2 days after the fact.  But aside from some conservative blogs, it was soon forgotten.  Here was essentially a kid, who’d hadn’t yet seen combat, killed in his prime.  He was willing to lay down his life for his country, and he wound up doing just that soon after finishing basic training.  This was a kid worthy of having the country hear his story; worthy of mourning.

When singer Michael Jackson died…well, you know what happened.  Here was essentially a man who was obsessed with his appearance to the point of overindulging in plastic surgery, and was taking a cocktail of pain killers as a result (and a cocktail of mood enhancers, hinting at the cause of the indulgence in plastic surgery).  Here’s a guy who dangled his child over a balcony, although the lineage of his children is now in question.  Speaking of children, here’s a guy who has had very questionable relationships with young boys.  And, oh yes, he had some hit songs in the 70s and 80s.  Since his death, there’s been non-stop coverage of it and its aftermath.  Who decided this is how news coverage should be doled out?

Frankly, we did.  We decided when people flocked the Apollo Theater and Neverland Ranch.  We did when we conferred on him the title of "King of Pop".  We did when we did all this while ignoring or brushing off his Howard-Hughes-like behavior, becoming no better than the codependent Yes-men and Yes-women he surrounded himself with.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying a song on the radio or buying a vintage copy of the "Thriller" album.  But if you want to know why the disparity, there it is.

I don’t know, maybe I’m turning into my dad, who didn’t quite get the whole deal made over the death of John Lennon.  Or perhaps I’ve always been him; I didn’t quite get it either.  Yeah, the Beatles were music legends, but really.  You see video of girls crying when the Beatles came on stage, but just recently, as news of the release of Michael Jackson’s last rehearsal tape leaking hit all the evening cable news outlets, one channel was replaying a concert that the Jacksons did just a few years ago.  Yup, crying girls. 

This isn’t a generational thing; it’s a celebrity thing.  It’s image and packaging, and it’s ignoring what’s important to elevate that which is, essentially, a facade.

It’s kind of like electing a President who promises change, and then doesn’t, or who promises fiscal responsibility while spending us into a level of debt previously unimaginable.  But he says the right things and makes a good speech, and the Left in this country just drools over it.  You can almost hear the teenage girls crying in the audience, and the teenage boy on the old "American Bandstand" show saying, "Well it’s got a good beat and you can dance to it; I give it a 95."

If we don’t watch it, we might look right past obvious problems, buy into the image and elect a Michael Jackson, or a John Lennon…or a Vladimir Lenin.  Some might say we already have. 

Oh, and as a public service, and in case you missed it while watching the Michael Jackson coverage; there are reports that North Korea will be testing an ICBM and more nuclear devices soon.  Y’know, you may want to consider this.

You’ve may have heard by now some of the fallout from Miss California’s answer to a same-sex marriage question from one of the Miss USA judges, Perez Hilton.  If not, it’s probably because, like me, you didn’t watch the Miss USA pageant (or because, also like me, didn’t even know it was on).  What happened there has put on display for all to see what happens when you stand up for beliefs which are contrary to the liberal line.

Perez Hilton asked Carrie Prejean, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage," he said. "Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not."  Prejean answered:

I think it’s great Americans are able to choose one or the other.  We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.

While starting out with a little fumbling for words, she ultimately comes to her honest answer.  And that, in what is now a pageant fully engulfed in liberal dogma, was her downfall. 

According to this ABC News article, the initial boos were ultimately overcome by applause.  However, Hilton was taken by surprise.

"I was floored," Hilton told ABCNews.com Monday. "I haven’t said this before, but to her credit, I applaud her for her honesty. However, she is not a politician, she’s a hopeful Miss USA. Miss USA should represent everyone. Her answer alienated millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their families and their supporters."

Instead, I suppose, he wanted an answer that alienated tens of millions of those who do not support same-sex marriage.  If it’s about the numbers, Hilton is currently on the down-side of that.  If it’s about not alienating people, Prejean’s answer, no matter what it was, would alienate some, so she actually did well on that front, if that’s what you’re going to judge her by.

So what answer would Hilton have preferred; one that would be less political and represented everyone?

Hilton said Prejean could have chosen an answer that he believed would have been less political. When he asked Miley Cyrus the same question on Twitter after the show, he was surprised by her response: "I believe that EVERYONE deserves to be happy. That’s all I’m saying."

Comparing Cyrus and Prejean, Hilton said, "A 16-year-old gave a better answer. If she [Prejean] had said those two sentences, that would have been a better answer."

On his video blog, he offered another alternate answer. "I would have said, ‘Hmm, Perez, that’s a great question, that’s a very hot topic in our country right now. And I think that’s a question that each state should decide for themselves."

He was looking for politically correct (i.e. liberal) and / or one that is, in fact, more political.  Not to mention, what if you don’t actually believe that answer?  The truth, to these left-wing elites, means little.

It wasn’t just this gossip columnist that was irked by her answer.  This aversion to a truthful answer extends to the Miss California organization itself.

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, released a statement to the media in response to Prejean’s answer last night.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

Co-director Shanna Moakler, the 1995 Miss USA, told the media that she fully supported Lewis’ statement.

Apparently, the Miss California organization can’t handle an honest answer that diverges from the liberal line without issuing a statement and denigrating their own representative.  At least Hilton had the guts to give Prejean credit for honesty before he tore her up.

And that honest also cost her more than just national scorn from the Left.

"She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that," Hilton said, adding that he’s "very happy with whom the judges chose," Miss North Carolina’s Kristen Dalton.

He’s a judge.  He would know.  He didn’t want her to politicize her answer, but he politicized the who event. 

From the Nobel Prize committee, who made past Peace Prize choices to tweak George W. Bush, to the Miss USA Pageant, the Left is showing just how much they tolerate dissent.  They don’t.  Oh the irony.

"Slippery Slope" arguments involve a bit of prediction.  If A happens, B will happen next.  It’s easy to dismiss these sorts of arguments are mere guesses.  However, when initial predictions become true, it’s time to take the arguments more seriously.

David Warren charts the course down the slippery slope in Canada.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005, I argued that polygamy would follow. This is now happening.

There is nothing much we can do about it — the Canadian Constitution has "evolved," so that the judges who interpret Pierre Trudeau’s Charter of Rights have the power not only to overturn Acts of Parliament, but to make new law from whole cloth, according to their whims and ideological commitments. "The people" — mere voters — need not be consulted.

A test case is already heading towards the Supreme Court, from Bountiful, B.C. Lawyers for the fundamentalist Mormon, Winston Blackmore, who has long been openly practising polygamy, will invoke the Charter. The old goat has actually boasted of his multiple teenaged brides: estimates run to more than 20 wives in total. (And you thought Brad Pitt was a chick magnet.)

That this test case will not only proceed, but succeed, almost goes without saying. Even the attorney general of British Columbia doubted his chances with the Charter, when he brought polygamy charges in January against Blackmore, and Jim Oler. This was after a delay of about half a century: for the polygamous cult has been established openly in Bountiful since the era of Peyton Place (the late 1950s). The very fact that the authorities had not found the guts to enforce Section 293 of the Criminal Code, in all this time, will now be counted against the law itself.

This is nothing very new, actually.  Here are posts from 2007, 2005, May of 004, and January of 2004, and that’s just my noting of the arguments.  Others have been warning of this for longer than that.  Things have moved (slipped?) faster in Canada, but they have a more liberal mindset.  If you think it can’t happen here, you’re just completely mistaken and/or you haven’t been paying attention. 

Another interesting story that came out about California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, and the effort to make public the names of donors who supported it, was this article from NPR showing how the Teacher’s Union and its own teachers were on different sides of the question.

As California’s legal and cultural conflict over same-sex marriage played out this fall, the state’s teachers union put up $1.25 million to advocate against the gay marriage ban.

But at the same time, individual public school teachers in the state were giving more money to enact the ban than to defeat it, according to an NPR analysis of Proposition 8 contribution data recently released by the California secretary of state.

Teachers, aides and counselors in California public school systems gave about $2 to support the marriage ban for every $1 they gave to oppose it. The educators gave some $450,000 in individual contributions to advocates supporting the ban and about $210,000 to those opposing it, according to the NPR analysis.

So the union went against the very people it purports to represent, and spent the dues money teachers are obligated to pay in a political cause that the majority of dues-payers opposed.  What a scam!  If you want to educate our upcoming generation, you must donate to political causes that you disagree with.  No wonder liberals love unions; it’s a cash cow for their pet causes.

Never mind the fact that an organization who’s purpose is to supposedly look out for the rights of teachers is giving money to a political cause completely unrelated to their charter.  Not only are teachers forced to underwrite this, it has nothing at all to do with their welfare as teachers. 

I say again; what a scam.

Can you be a Republican and a homosexual?  Bruce Carroll and Dan Blatt, who contribute to the blog GayPatriot, would say, "Yes", and I would agree.  Now, I believe that homosexual acts are a sin, I believe the Bible says this, and while I know that not everyone necessarily agrees with that assessment, I do.  Does that mean, ergo, that I hate Bruce and Dan?  No, it does not, and I do not. 

But what about Republicans in general?  We all know what Democrats think of social conservatives, so you’d think that venom against the GayPatriot blog would come mostly from the Right.

You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

Read the rest of this entry

Hanks did he right thing and apologized for calling Mormon supporters of California Proposition 8 "un-American". 

"Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as ‘un-American,’" the actor said in a statement through his publicist. "I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination."

"But everyone has a right to vote their conscience; nothing could be more American," the statement continues. "To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are ‘un-American’ creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use ‘un- American’ lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have."

Fair enough.  I hope the Mormons graciously accept it.

Tom Hanks called the Mormons "un-American" for opposing California’s Proposition 8 which "constitutionalized" the definition of marriage being one man and one woman.  So now, to the Left, changing the state Constitution via the proper process is un-American, but judges who unconstitutionally legislate from the bench are patriots.  Upside, meet down.

But here’s an interesting observation that LaShawn Barber made, and that I’d like to highlight on Martin Luther King Day.  There’s another constituency that voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8 that the Left hasn’t marched against.

Why were they focusing on Mormons, when 70 percent of black voters in the state voted YES on Prop 8? Curious, but not complicated. I made the observation, as did Thomas Sowell, that white homosexuals hadn’t dared and would not have dared “march” to black churches and harass black churchgoers, although it would have made more sense for them to head down to Watts or Compton or up to Oakland and express their disappointment. Can you imagine such a scenario? I’d pay good money to see that.

Now I’m wondering the same about actor Tom Hanks. Singling out Mormons for voting to protect traditional marriage, Hanks called them “un-American.” An overwhelming majority of blacks supported the measure. I suppose the same applies to them, yes? Perhaps Hanks is waiting until MLK’s birthday on Monday or Barack Obama’s inauguration on Tuesday to make his pronouncement. What do you think? I’d pay good money to hear that.

Save your money, LaShawn.  You and I both that that ain’t gonna’ happen.  It’s a dirty little secret of the Left (generally) that it’s still OK to bash the religious. 

What’s actually un-American, in my opinion, is this mashup of Google maps and public information to point out the addresses and locations of people who donated to the Prop 8 cause.  Legal?  Sure.  Petty, vindictive, inflammatory and McCarthy-ist?  Oh yeah, you got that right.  And sure enough, McCarthy was looking for folks who were un-American, too!  Scott Payne over at The Moderate Voice notes a bit of disingenuousness on the part of same-sex marriage advocates. 

I’ve thought for a long time that the African-American community has, in general, been a very conservative group, but have been sold a bill of goods by internal leaders to look to government to save them rather than themselves.  I think if they took an issues test showing which party or politician fits their values most, a lot of them would be surprised.  Bill Cosby has been a huge factor in getting the word out, not so much politically, but in the sense of taking ownership of one’s own situation and not waiting for someone else to fix it.  That shouldn’t be a left/right thing, but far too often the measure from the Left of how well things are going tracks with how many people are on welfare and how much money they’re getting.  Government dependency was most decidedly not MLK’s dream. 

President-elect Obama has invited Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation (i.e. opening prayer) at the inauguration.  While Obama and Warren disagree on some issues, Obama says he wants to "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable."  In fact, this follows in the footsteps of Bush’s choice in 2004, as the Huffington Post notes.

At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other’s company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in ’04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren.

Indeed, the "tolerant" Left side of the blogosphere didn’t seem to get the "disagree without being disagreeable" memo.

Americablog: “Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama?"

Markos himself at Daily Kos: “Yeah. Where is David Duke’s invitation? Or as Blue Texan notes, when do Phelps and Hagee get their invitations? Heck, throw up Tom Tancredo up there for good measure, so us Latinos can feel some of the hate!”

Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama."

Firedoglake: "President-elect Obama chose eliminationist hate preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s Inaguration. With this choice, Obama sends three destructive messages. Number one: In Obama’s America, equal rights and reproductive freedom aren’t for everyone. Number two: President-elect Obama likes sharing the national stage with hate. Number three: While Obama enjoys his equality before the law, LGBT Americans can go to Hell. Literally. Gee. Is this change we can believe in?"

Andrew Sullivan: "…pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."

Think Progress:  "…he laughs off accusations of being ‘homophobic’ because he ‘talks to’ gay people and served protesters water."

(A tip of the hat to Don Surber and John Hawkins, from whom I got much of this list, and who have even more examples.)

Once again, we have examples of liberals, who tout their "tolerance" and "acceptance", being wholly unable to handle any sort of deviation from the orthodoxy.  Additionally, as even the Huffington Post notes, the folks they claim are the intolerant ones actually were more accepting when they were in the same situation. 

Tolerance.  You keep using that word.  I do no think it means what you think it means.