DOES THIS COLUMN OFFEND YOU? GOOD!

Are you easily offended? Does your little ego bruise easily? Do you think everyone else in America ought to give a darn about your self-esteem? Do your eyes fill with tears every time you perceive someone is being insensitive to you? Do you live under the delusional belief that you should be protected against being offended? Do you believe that anytime you are offended someone should be fired; have their life ruined or character trashed?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions you need to shut up, grow up, stop throwing your little pity parties and get a life! Frankly, you and those like you are a major part of what is wrong with America today. Your constant carping and whining are adding nothing positive to this great nation. Instead, the climate of perpetual offendedness and hypersensitivity you are creating is sapping the great spirit of rugged individualism that made America the greatest nation to ever exist in this world’s history.

Think for a moment if the Founding Fathers had been the type of wimpy whiners so many Americans are today? There would be no America would there? Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and the rest would have been so busy filing discrimination suits and attending counseling sessions that they would have never gotten around to the business of creating a new nation.

How very pathetic these maddening wimpy attitudes are! So many in America think every thing and everyone should bend, change and alter their standards and rules so as not to exclude or offend them. How else do we explain the phenomenon of those who want to join the Boy Scouts, but ONLY if the Scouts change their rules to accommodate their over inflated sense of self-importance? Look if you are an Atheist and saying the Scouts pledge bothers you, you have a choice. You can either say the pledge and not believe a word of it, or you can start your own scouting group.

Yes! Yes! Yes! You could actually stop feeling sorry for yourself, start a scouting organization, and leave the Boy Scouts alone. Oh but that is not good enough. You, the offended feel an insatiable need to force your views onto the Boy Scouts. After all, it is all about you, your ego and your little feelings isn’t it.

If you happen to pass by a Confederate cemetery in a sleepy Southern town and see a Confederate flag or a statue of a Confederate soldier and are offended by it what do you, the offended do? Drive on, thinking that you disagree with those symbols but recognize that the descendants of those soldiers deserve their piece of history? Oh no, not you! You begin ranting about racism and lynchings, start threatening lawsuits, and demand those symbols disappear!

Why would you take such an absurd stance? Well because you are offended, that is why. It should not matter that by ripping down those symbols you are spitting on the graves of those heroic soldiers and their families. It should not matter that you are erasing history and fomenting ignorance! To Hell with history you are offended and nothing else matters does it?

You, the easily offended, see a manger scene, or possibly a monument with the Ten Commandments on it. A mentally well-adjusted person, even if they were an Atheist, would pass by and think nothing of it. Not you though! Oh, no!

You are just looking to get offended so off you go. You dial your local ACLU attorney, who of course you have on speed dial, and start crying like the spineless jellyfish you are.

How dare any mention of anything even remotely resembling anything religious enter your hypersensitive field of vision? Someone has to pay for this act of treason against your all-important ego. Let the lawsuits begin! Christmas parade? Not in your presence by George! Is that an angel you see? Better not be, lest someone suffer your wrath! Moreover, Heaven help anyone who dares to even think about singing a Christmas carol in school! You are Offendedsauras and you will crush them under your hypersensitive feet!

Let some teacher dare to teach a child what the word niggardly means. Just let them try that! You and your egomaniacal cohorts will never allow that! Never mind the fact that the word niggardly means nothing racial at all. It means stingy or begrudging, but that does not matter a bit does it?

It sounds like another word, the infamous “N” word! So because it sounds like a racial slur children may not even be taught about it! How very brilliant you easily offended types are. You would rather have children grow up ignorant and offended than educated and not offended. You would rather erase words from the dictionary than explain their meanings to children.

So let us be very clear here. The hypersensitive folks who we always hear bellyaching about how someone or something has upset their emotional applecart have an agenda -- to force their delusional, twisted and intellectually bankrupt ideals upon the rest of us. Are we going to put up with that? Are we willing to have every word we utter controlled by their standards? I don't think so!

Now then, to any of the easily offended sorts who are currently pulling their hair out, hyperventilating and pounding out the ACLU phone number out while reading this -- a very heartfelt message from me...

If my column has, in any way offended you, or hurt your feelings, or caused you emotional duress or has forced you to seek therapy, let me say: "GOOD!"

"...Just like at the response any time somebody expresses doubt about W's spending policies or his choice of Miers"

Oh you'll pay for that! So what if it's true, you're sure to have already offended hundreds of them by the time I read this.

:-)

Really? How does this violate the establishment clause? How is this going against Congress shall pass no law?

As the Constitution is and has been interpreted, it is a violation because state funding implies state approval for an organization's practices. The BSA favors Christians over non-Christians, therefore by providing state facilites and funding to the BSA, the state condones this favoritism.

I am not religious but I recognize constitutional violations when I see them and this ain't it!

I'll add you to my list of Constitutional scholars, 5-star generals, and professional scientists and historians that I've come into contact with here on FR.

You sound much like a Dem or any other socialist, marxist, communist, liberal, progressive(I hope I got the name you prefer, else you might feel offended, like I give a crap). Have a nice day.

Ad hominem attacks: The ~~last~~ first bastion of the ignorant.

I see. So from your point of view it should be perfectly possible for me to ban Jews and Catholics from my country club if that's what the majority of my "community" wanted. Tell me that I wouldn't lose my shirt in court.

If you own a country club, you have every right to make rules regarding who can attend. This is not violating any constitutional clause, establishment or otherwise. If you lose your shirt in court you either drew a very liberal judge or your lawyer sucks, and to elaborate, just because a judge, especially a liberal judge, rules it doens't make it true or reflect the real meaning of the constitution.

Any ruling that prohibits private property owners from espressing there views or making rules to run their establishments is unconstitutional, as long as the rules don't embrace physical violence etc.

Discriminating is fine if you are a private individual, not so if you are a government institution. This is where you liberals and other whiners get lost. The only real seperation in this country isn't between church and state but between people and the government.

To you, that flag means some kind of heritage thing, to me (and to a lot of other people) it means slavery.

So that means that YOUR interpretation of this symbol should prevail to the determent of someone else's??

I as a believing Christian could never be a landlord in this society because I would not rent to unmarried cohabitating couples of any sexual orientation. Why should I have to put my religious beliefs aside and forfiet my 1st Ammendment rights to order to own rental property in these United States?

"So from your point of view it should be perfectly possible for me to ban Jews and Catholics from my country club if that's what the majority of my "community" wanted.'

If it is a private club you can exclude anyone for any reason.

"He often lamented that when he wore a swastika necklace around, people thought that he was some kind of Nazi."

The eastern version is reversed and not at an angle. It is seen in feudal Japanese and Chinese culture as well. Most, however, see it as a swastika. There was more to the Confederacy than slavery. Slavery was wrong, but many are now coming around to the idea of state's rights. (which was what it was all about anyway)

No, not an ad hominem attack. You are the ignorant one. You say that taking govenment money implies a law has been made. This does not compute. They have not violated any constitutional clause and any reasonable person knows it. You are a liberal or whatever, you are certainly no conservative, your views are to anti-freedom for you to be a conservative, I was merely telling the truth when I called you a liberal, progressive, etc.

Having a hate against other peoples religions or saying private organizations, whether they are partially funded by tht state or not, have no right to set up rules as they see fit is very un-conservative, and unamerican as the original term applies, type thinking. This is exactly what the article was talking about and the fact that you can't see it is even more proof you, and people like you, are the subject of this article. Thanks again for listening and have a good day.

Point of parliamentary procedure. The BSA does not prefer Christians over non-Christians. The BSA merely states a belief in God is necessary. If you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or whatever, that is good enough for the BSA, plain and simple.

Further, like other posters have stated, the 1st Amendment stipulates equal opportunity. It is not favoritism (nor against the 1st Amendment) if the state provides facilities to the BSA so long as the same opportunity is available to Atheist groups. Freedom of religion=equal opportunity. However, equal opportunity does not mean equal results.

Absolutely. Ban whomever you want from your organization, it's your right to do so. That you might lose your shirt in court is emblematic of the cultural shift this article is lamenting. Just because today's society will see you lose your shirt in court, does not make it right and it definitely should not be acceptable.

I think that our ideas of where the courts do and don't have the right to intervene are too different for us to find common ground on this one. I guess that we'll just have to amicably disagree. Thanks for the discussion

Again, your comments about the Confederate flag demonstrate your, and others, complete misunderstanding of history. Your dislike and misunderstanding of the Confederate flag should not prevent others from displaying it. Protests about it are just busybodies trying to impose their will on others.

I've read quite a bit about the Civil War, and that includes the Articles of Confederacy. I'm not a professional historian by any means, but I feel like I'm well informed enough to have an opinion.

I'm curious, what is your opinion of those who protest the American flag as either offensive or a symbol of hate?

Haven't met any myself, so they're tough for me to gauge. Unless you could prove that it's causing tangible harm or is otherwise a threat to good public order, it would be difficult for anyone to get much of anywhere in court.

Can you explain to me why a document written in english needs to be interpreted by people that speak english?

Because the law is a vast and sticky thing that covers millions of people and millions of situations. Since the Constitution is the basis for the laws of the US, it requires experts to interpret how (or if) it applies on a case-by-case basis.

Further, like other posters have stated, the 1st Amendment stipulates equal opportunity. It is not favoritism (nor against the 1st Amendment) if the state provides facilities to the BSA so long as the same opportunity is available to Atheist groups. Freedom of religion=equal opportunity. However, equal opportunity does not mean equal results.

That's very true, and good reasoning.

"Because the law is a vast and sticky thing that covers millions of people and millions of situations. Since the Constitution is the basis for the laws of the US, it requires experts to interpret how (or if) it applies on a case-by-case basis."

In other words, you believe that the constitution is a living document.

You obviously got your education at some Leftist school!
The SCOUTS DO NOT EXCLUDE NON-CHRISTIANS, ONLY THE GODLESS!
That is perfectly in agreement with the Constitution. The first amendment is about protecting the free exercise of religion (yes, in public!) As for establishment, while the founders wisely didn't make any one denomination of Christianity the national tax-supported religion, they did heartily endorse Christianity as a whole as being essential to our form of government. They did not abolish the official religions of the various states that had them, and they enacted laws and used government funds to spread Christianity to the Indians and provided circuit rider clergy to the frontier areas.
As for atheists, the founders' opinion of them can best be summed up by George Washington's remark: "An atheist cannot be considered a good citizen, much less a patriot." For the first 150 years of this great country, atheists were not permitted to hold public office, nor even testify in court because they were beholdened to no authority higher than Man! This "separation of church and state" nonsense only started in 1947, when the SCOTUS incomprehensibly elevated the private letter of a man who was not even involved in the crafting of the constitution to the status of an amendment to that constitution!

Frankly, you and those like you are a major part of what is wrong with America today.

Not really. These things are policies of the elite, they are engineered, they didn't just happen to happen. The grievance industry is a weapon in the culture war. People who pretend that it's just a matter of individuals straightening up are seeking to avoid reality, to avoid confronting the cultural establishment, avoid putting forward a vision of their own, and in most cases avoid the issues of race and multiculturalism. Ethnic politics are the inevitable result of multi-ethnicity, but authors like this don't want to deal with that fact, they'd rather pretend that it is just a matter of individuals "getting a life" because chiding individuals won't get you crucified by the establishment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.