Freedom of Speech (Part II)

A judge in Texas has granted a temporary restraining order against schools in Plano Texas which had implemented a policy preventing a student from handing out candy canes with religious sybolism on them. This means that, for the time being, the student can pass out the religious candy. This, depending on your viewpoint, is either a victory for free speech or it marks The Dawning of the New Cultural Onlslaught of the Religious Right and the First Step Toward a Christian Theocracy!

I exaggerate, but only a little. We live in a society where half the country thinks that freedom of speech also means freedom from hearing anything that makes them uncomfortable. Don’t say anything religious. Don’t say anything homophobic. Don’t post the ten commandments in a courthouse. Don’t wear a veil or yamayarkayahma — Jewish hat. Give me a break! None of these things mark the Rise of a State Sponsored Religion and none of these things interfere with another student’s ability to complete their classwork. A reasonable person would not find a religious symbol to be as disruptive as, say, a swastika. Only an unreasonable person would, and that’s not the litmus test that’s supposed to be applied by US courts. It’s the reasonable person test.

Ok, make the argument that school is not the place to proselytize and I will buy that. But obliterating all references to anything religious in school is an unecessary assault on free speech and that is in effect an assault on thought. And lest anyone think I’m weighing in on the side of religion on this one, I will tell you that I would fight just as vociferously for your right to blaspheme. It is not a particular group’s freedom I am defending. It’s supposed to be freedom for all.

A similar thing happens with hate crime laws. If you beat somebody down, you get a year in jail. If you beat them down while calling them gay or a racial slur, you get more time in jail because suddenly it’s a hate crime, as opposed to the normal beat down which presumably had an element of love in it. It’s not the assault they’re punishing. It is the speech which is the verbal manifestation of thought. And no matter how repulsive the thought, there is one commandment which is even more vile and that is: Thou shalt not think.

How about this? Why don’t we just enforce the laws we already have. Assault is assault, no matter what you thought or said while you did it. A Jeebus candy cane is just a candy, albeit with a religous symbol on it. It’s not the end of this world or the dawning of the next. Having the ten commandments posted in a court of law does not mean Leviticus applies. Any reasonable person would know that and if a judge actually applied Mosaic law as opposed to state law then that decision should be brought to the court of appeals. But the very fact that the ten commandments were posted should not or that a candy cane happens to be Catholic should not.

20 Responses to “Freedom of Speech (Part II)”

  1. R says:

    Damn yeah, bitch. That’s what I’m talkin’ about. Mexigogue is the bizomb!

  2. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I was reading an article in the Detroit free press where some drug guy shot and killed his drug dealing partner in a money dispute. In the process the shooter told the shootee that he loved and that the shooting was only business. The shooter even took care of the dead guys kids. That is a crime of love…

  3. Mexigogue says:

    That story gave me a warm feeling inside!
    😀

  4. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Speaking of confusing theocracies what is up with this

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm

  5. Phelps says:

    I think that yarmulkes are properly referred to as “Jewish Beanies”, not hats.

    As for the religion question, I think we should encourage prophesying in society. Think about it. If you are so gullible that a candy cane gets you to suddenly become a Born Again, then… you probably need a church to keep you from doing shit like whacking off until you go blind and drinking yourself to death. Otherwise, you might as well take the candy, jab them in the eye with it, and then eat it in front of them while cackling madly.

    I’ve got no problem with taking the candy and then telling to shove off. Like they say in the Texas legislature: “If you can’t drink their whiskey, eat their steak, screw their whores and still vote against them, you don’t belong in the lege.”

  6. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    But they can give out a candy cane with a nike swoosh on it

  7. Mexigogue says:

    Now I’m all hungry for steak, whiskey, and whores!

  8. The "D" says:

    The guy that the drug dealer in Detroit shot was a cop that was dirty. He even kissed him after he shot him while the cop was dying. Now this guy was one of the biggest gangstas since the Chambers brothers. YBI!! You remember the 60 minutes piece.

    Mexi you out did yourself today!! Very good job!

  9. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Not the YBI! I remember hearing about those guys when I was in high school. They were bad ass dangerous MFs.

  10. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    this is more related to your post a couple of days ago but I still found it funny
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4150893.stm

  11. mexigogue says:

    Mr Aitken, who lives in Cleveland, said that after becoming light-headed, he ran towards the bedroom and knocked his head in a doorway.

    What I’m hearing is: “I’m suing you because I’m too stupid to know how to run!”

    Conntecting that story and Phelps’ earlier comment, if I beat off until I go blind can I sue the porn industry?

  12. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    No you can only sue if you start growing hair on your hands!

  13. The "D" says:

    Hey someone owes me some money fro cracking jokes similar to mine. That become $3.50 — You would have to be a South Park fan to really enjoy that joke.

    Why come everybody always picking on me!! Sorry peopl ebut I am almost done with this report and I am very, very happy!!!

    that become $3.50!! That is funny as hell!

  14. Chef's Mom says:

    That Lochness Monster said Tree Fiddy!

  15. TB says:

    While workin in the CA legislature I watched time and time again these legislators who would rather die than fall short of 40 bill per session limit. This caused me to believe that there should be a new rule.

    Before you propose ANY bill, you must first research and make recommendations about 5 current bills that could be done away with or repealed. Then you can introduce your bill mandating all state buildings are “feng shui” complient.

  16. Mexigogue says:

    Hey TB, I concur! Have a burrito on the house!

    (that’s gonna be my new thing, to hand out burritos when people say smart things, only I don’t have any burritos)

  17. TB says:

    …oh what trouble times we see when a passing ruffian can offer burrito without the adaquate supplies necessary..

  18. The "D" says:

    Chef’s Mom was right on point!

  19. Brian says:

    And technically, a swastika is kind of a religious symbol, although backwards. Do you think when Charles Manson looks in the mirror he thinks he’s Buddhist?

  20. Phelps says:

    I think Charlie Manson looks in the mirror and thinks about puppies and chocolate.