Category Archives: morality

More Progressive-Democratic Party Racism

Posted on by
Reply

This example is breathtaking in its explicitness. California Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D, 59th District) has proposed a piece of openly racist legislation:

Whenever the court has discretion to determine the appropriate sentence according to relevant statutes and the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council, the court presiding over a criminal matter shall consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised and system-impacted populations.

Because the way to eliminate racial discrimination in sentencing is to engage in racial discrimination in sentencing.

This is how steeped in victimhood Party has become. Its members no longer can…discriminate…right from wrong, can no longer discriminate being racist from not being racist.

These Special Ones cannot even perceive the “disparate impact” on crime victims or discriminate the criminal from his crime’s victim.

A Step in the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

The 6th Circuit overruled a Tennessee federal district court’s injunction, lifting it, and allowing a Tennessee law barring gender-related child abuse “gender-affirming” “care” for minors to go into effect. Per the AP, the appellate court ruled

[i]n a 2-1 ruling, the majority opinion stated that decisions on issues such as transgender care, which is considered an emerging policy issue, is better left to legislatures rather than judges[.]

This is a good start, and a strong step in the right direction. It’s also important to keep in mind the fact that the matter is still in the courts: the appellate court lifted an injunction; it did not uphold the law itself.

Decisions on issues such as transgender care, though, are even better left—are best left—in the hands of the parents. Government—at any level of governmental hierarchy—has no legitimate business inserting itself into a family’s internal affairs beyond protecting family members from abuse. Which “treatments” to alter a child’s gender away from his or her biological gender most assuredly is.

Un-American

Posted on by
Reply

And cynically contradictory. That’s the new Inclusive Writing Guide just published by the Portland, OR, government’s Office of Equity and Human Rights.

[C]ity staff members are being told to adopt a more “culturally conscious” vocabulary that includes not using words such as “women,” “Caucasian” or “citizen.”

There’s nothing at all inclusive about erasing women from the city via erasing them from the city’s approved Newspeak lexicon.

And

The staffers are also told to capitalize the word “Black as an adjective in a racial, ethnic, or cultural sense,” while under the definition of “white,” they are told to “not capitalize when referring to one’s race.”
The guide defined “white and whiteness” as “a social construct that serves to reinforce power structures” and suggested avoiding use of the synonym “Caucasian” entirely.

Because “black” isn’t at all a social construct, especially one that serves to reinforce—in the Left’s fetid imagination—victimhood structures. Not at all.

Nor is there anything inclusive about erasing American culture from the city’s Newspeak vocabulary. Immigrants and most illegal aliens alike come to our country explicitly for the benefits of American culture: the concept of limited government, the ability (not just the legal right) to think and speak and worship (or not) freely, the equality of economic and political opportunity, and above all, the very idea of these benefits as the center of American culture.

And this:

According to the guide, the term “citizen” is also “not inclusive” and should not be used by staffers.

It’s especially non-inclusive, and outright unamerican, to deny the essentiality of American-ness: erasing the term “citizen” from their edition of the Newspeak dictionary.

Giving Up

Posted on by
Reply

Our Father, a prominent, if not the prominent, Christian prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) is…problematic. No less a light than Anglican Church Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell says so.

I know the word “father” is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us who have laboured rather too much from an oppressively patriarchal grip on life.

I’ll leave the theological argument to others, other than to note that there was demurral from Cottrell’s claim, for instance Dr Chris Sugden:

Is the archbishop of York saying Jesus was wrong, or that Jesus was not pastorally aware? It seems to be emblematic of the approach of some church leaders to take their cues from culture rather than scripture.

My beef is more secular. Cottrell seems to be saying that, for those victims of abuse at the hands of their fathers there is no hope, no chance for recovery, there is no possibility of meeting a better man, a suitable father substitute. Their eyes and ears must be shielded.

I disagree. Far from helping such victims, this sham protection only further weakens them.

Contrary to Cottrell’s claim, aside from the ecclesiastic content of the prayer, it’s also a statement of earthly hope, and fact, that there is a better father—and Father—available to these victims, if only the members of the Professional Victimhood Guild would get out of their way and let them proceed through their recovery.

Instead, Cottrell and his guild have given up on these unfortunates and are telling them not to bother—to give up on themselves.

“Not a Normal Court”

Posted on by
Reply

With the Supreme Court having struck down affirmative action as unconstitutional, a reporter asked President Joe Biden (D), on his way out from his Friday press conference in which he objected to the ruling, a reporter asked him whether he thought the Court was now a “rogue court.”

Biden answered:

This is not a normal court[.]

It’s not normal for Justices of the Supreme Court to adhere to the text of our Constitution. It’s not normal for Justices to adhere to their oaths of office in which they swear to support and defend our Constitution rather than amend it from the bench.

This is the view of Progressive-Democratic Party politicians: our Constitution is merely suggestive, and should be ignored at convenience.