December 04, 2008
Gregoire's and McKenna's Weenie Response to Nativity Display
The press release issued by Governor Gregoire and Attorney General Rob McKenna concerning the anti Christian hate poster allowed in the capital rotunda is a pitiful and misleading attempt to place the blame elsewhere...
"Last year, after a federal lawsuit was filed against the state of Washington by the Alliance Defense Fund, the state's Department of General Administration set forth a policy allowing individuals or groups to sponsor a display regardless of that individual's or group's views."
They would have you somehow believe that the courts forced them to allow the hateful crap they refer to as freedom of speech. Yes there was a lawsuit filed by Washington resident Ronald Wesselius who was represented by counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. Why? Because the director of the Capital Campus Facilities refused to allow him to place a nativity display in the rotunda while at the same time allowing the display of a Jewish Menorah. Wesselius was told that religious exhibits could not displayed on public property. Wrong. The Supreme Court already ruled years earlier that religious groups can not be denied access to public facilities. As Chief Legal Counsel for the State of Washington, McKenna should have stepped in and told them to allow the display. His office did nothing nor did the Governor. Only after the lawsuit was filed did they quickly sign off on an agreement before it ever made it to trial. No Judge ever issued an order telling them they had to allow anti-religious attack displays in the capital Rotunda. A new policy was written outlining the requirements for displays in the Capital Building.
Does the Attorney General and Governor truly believe that a printed message on poster board attacking someone's religion a display? If the atheists want to exercise their right to equal access, then post material or a display relevant to their own beliefs, not an attack on someone else's. The logic currently spewing from our Governor and Attorney General apparently allows anyone with an opinion to put up anything they want.
Should a group promoting the reinstatement of slavery be allowed to put up their hate posters on Martin Luther King's birthday? What about a poster promoting the lynching of homosexuals during Gay Pride Week? Perhaps a group of pedophiles can weigh in with their display during National Child Care Worker Appreciation Day.
Our Governor and Attorney General were elected with the mistaken belief that they possessed some common sense and leadership ability. Not two little weenies in desperate need of a testosterone injection. Stand for something or you will soon stand for anything.
Posted by MyTwoCentsWorth at December 04, 2008
04:15 AM | Email This
1. Oh look, it's a person that thinks freedom of speech only applies when they approve of the person's speech.
Personally, I welcome attacks on my faith.
2. So, Andrew, tell me. Are you now professing that hate posters on MLK holiday, etc. are now fair game? Are you now professing that people ridicule (if not a hate poster) the MLK holiday or what it stands for. The example from 2 cents was extreme, but would a less than extreme protest be good. Where is your standard of what is and what isn't appropriate?
3. Why shouldn't hate posters be fair game? I would never post one myself, so don't try to muddy the waters with an argument like that, but yes, I think they should be fair game.
As long as you don't violate the property rights of another person, why should it matter? I thought that this nanny state anti free speech stuff was the realm of liberals... but here we have self professed conservatives trying to support their own version of free speech infringement.
Such folks should be ashamed.
4. Frankly, I would find those postings quite disgusting and disgraceful for a civilized society.
Andrew, you seem caught up in the libertarian ivory tower view of the country. More power to it, but I am a traditionalist. Christmas has always been a holiday and hate posters against groups or religions are uncivilized.
5. Good on ya, swatter. Andrew is too busy being overly legalistic to think about how his view would play out in reality. Either that or he really would be okay living in some Nietschian version of the world.
Andrew, remember, all of our rights also come with responsibilities. Our freedom of speech does not allow us to shout fire in a crowded theater and it does not allow us (except in the world of activist judges) to denegrate others to such an extent. (And if you think it does I dare you to go up to someone, perster them insesintly with hateful epithets, get taken to court for your actions and not lose.)
Furthermore, even if you were right then where does it stop? Eventually the Capitol Building will run out of space for these "displays" and while you might be able to argue with the law of man you can't argue with the law of physics.
And one other thing, Christine Gregoire should take a page from Laura Bush on the proper display of holiday decorations. (see story on main page about tree ornament).
6. Like I said - we have self professed conservatives here rationalizing YOUR viewpoint on when it should be ok to limit free speech... but when a liberal does it, well... all leftists are irrational and so on.
I too am a traditionalist, and a Christian to boot.
That said, if your idea of civilization is telling me what I can and cannot print or say in cases where there is no material damage to the property of someone else, then I'll pass on your civilization. Luckily there are judges out there that agree with me, until folks such as those in this thread manage to gain enough power to stomp out all the speech or press that they don't agree with.
Unfortunately, since you and the other liberals are all trying to stomp out your own personal ideas of uncivilized speech/press, the endgame is that everything will be illegal. GG
I value the extremists in our society on all sides - without them toeing the line and fighting the diminishing area of 'normality', soon the line would be at my doorstep - and yours.
7. If Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and Muslims had wanted to put up plagues stating why the other religions were "false" religions and sucky, would the AG and Gov. have allowed this display in the rotunda? (According to them, they had no choice.)
If they decided that a display of this sort was unacceptable, why would the Athiests plaque be any less acceptable?
The plaque becomes a government endorsement of non-religion. It allows one group to denigrate other groups based on their religious beliefs. Its acceptance for display implies government endorsement of the message - clearly not Consitutional.
Government should acknowledge and recognize the traditions and celebrations of its people, especially if they are traditions and celebrations practiced by large portions of its population. This may require "competing" symbols be displayed together.
However, government - being "totally secular" - should not be involved in denigrating one over another.
8. @2
"So, Andrew, tell me. Are you now professing that hate posters on MLK holiday, etc. are now fair game? Are you now professing that people ridicule (if not a hate poster) the MLK holiday or what it stands for. The example from 2 cents was extreme, but would a less than extreme protest be good. Where is your standard of what is and what isn't appropriate?"
Free speech is free speech. That means KKK protests on MLK day. It's called liberty and it is good. Freedom is hard, you have to tolerate those who piss you off the most. For you to be free, they also have to be free as well.
9. So will you guys be condemning the theft of the placard today or will you silently condone it?
10. Did you see that Seinfeld's secular joke, Festivus is being represented down there tomorrow, also a creche made of balloons?
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/35616504.html What a circus. The Christians' law suit started an annual tradition of idiocy with their insistence of placing their sacred symbols in the secular place of gov't. They're now the butt of the jokes more than ever.
11. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because of the weekend, but I'm hoping I'll have the chance to read your condemnation of the theft of this placard sometime in the near future.
After all, if we're going to demand that subjective law be enforced, surely we would want all of the objective law to be enforced as well, right?
12. Swatter - no one said the commentary was civilized. It's provocative and inflammatory and frankly more self-righteous and judgmental than *most* Christians I've met in my lifetime - being a so-called "theological offspring," I've met my fair share.
That being said, the lot of you are wholly misguided and/or have an immature perception of exactly what the First Amendment says. Andrew, blindman and SouthernRoots do not share the same myopic interpretations. They are, in fact correct.
Also, WFP - there is an obvious difference between shouting fire in a theater and calling someone hard-hearted via placard. One would hope you were intellectually honest enough to tell the difference between the two.
Else I fear for the future of my free speech rights altogether.
13. I am so glad to live in Texas, where we can be proud of our state & Governor Rick Perry.
Christine Gregoire is an absolute disgrace and an embarrassment.
I'm sure Washingtonians must be sooooo proud.
14. I don't see how anything I said violates "free speech" protection. Please enlightened this unenlightened soul.
It is uncivilized. Why do you think my saying something is uncivilized violates "free speech"? Someone is reading things into things that weren't said but thought as being said by said someone.
15. Interesting that none of you have condemned the theft of the placard. I'm not surprised.
16. Andrew Brown, the theft was inappropriate and unacceptable - get over it.
17. I'm glad at least you could condemn it, SouthernRoots.