The Issue Is Should One Destroy Another For What They Say

You know this whole thing about Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty is really a matter of free speech – that is allowing someone to express themselves without being muzzled. More and more the Left will boycott businesses, order people to lose their jobs and come to your house and job with bull horns to scream at you that you are intolerant.

But it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Martin Bashir can publicly say that he thinks that we all ought to defecate and urinate in Sarah Palin’s mouth without a whimper of protest from the Left. Conservatives expressed their disagreement with what Bashir said but practically none called for him to be fired or wanted to muzzle him or showed up at his house with bull horns.

And here lies the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives will politely disagree with what you have to say if they don’t like it. Liberals will try to destroy you for what you say. They will trash you and harass you if they don’t like what you say.

Hence we get “Hate Speech” laws which are absurd. While one man’s junk may be another man’s treasure, one man’s hate speech is just another man’s disagreement. The problem here is that the Left tends to label everything Conservatives say as hate speech while Conservatives label nothing that Liberals say as hate speech, mainly because they don’t believe in the concept. Its way too subjective and way too easy to manipulate public discourse and free speech by attempting to delineate what is acceptable and what is not.

Just ask Mark Steyn. He will tell you.


Last week, following the public apology of an English comedian and the arrest of a fellow British subject both for making somewhat feeble Mandela gags, I noted that supposedly free societies were increasingly perilous places for those who make an infelicitous remark. So let’s pick up where we left off:

Here are two jokes one can no longer tell on American television. But you can still find them in the archives, out on the edge of town, in Sub-Basement Level 12 of the ever-expanding Smithsonian Mausoleum of the Unsayable.

First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

For Hope, this was an oddly profound gag, discerning even at the dawn of the Age of Tolerance that there was something inherently coercive about the enterprise. Soon it would be insufficient merely to be “tolerant” — warily accepting, blithely indifferent, mildly amused, tepidly supportive, according to taste. The forces of “tolerance” would become intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.

Second joke from the archives:

Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra kept this one in the act for a quarter-century. On stage, Dino used to have a bit of business where he’d refill his tumbler and ask Frank, “How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Sinatra would respond, “I dunno. How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Dean would say, “Be nice to him.”

But no matter how nice you are, it’s never enough. Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, in his career-detonating interview with GQ, gave a rather thoughtful vernacular exegesis of the Bible’s line on sin, while carefully insisting that he and other Christians are obligated to love all sinners and leave it to the Almighty to adjudicate the competing charms of drunkards, fornicators, and homosexuals.

Nevertheless, GLAAD – “the gatekeepers of politically correct gayness” as the (gay) novelist Bret Easton Ellis sneered — saw its opportunity and seized it. By taking out TV’s leading cable star, it would teach an important lesson pour encourager les autres — that espousing conventional Christian morality, even off-air, is incompatible with American celebrity.

Some of my comrades, who really should know better, wonder why, instead of insisting Robertson be defenestrated, GLAAD wouldn’t rather “start a conversation.” But, if you don’t need to, why bother? Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups such as GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.


Political Correctness Increasingly Eats Every Independent Thought In Its Path

By MARK STEYN, Investor’s Business Daily

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

One thought on “The Issue Is Should One Destroy Another For What They Say

  1. Reblogged this on Trutherator's Weblog and commented:
    Here’s another view, wrapped around some insightful comments on the increasing intolerance of the left-fascist arms of the intolerant Christ-haters, who want to suppress Christian speech. This is nothing new, this kind of hate of Biblical perspectives has been going on for 6,000 years.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s