We've witnessed a curious trend in recent years. Some would say it's unprecedented. I know that term gets thrown about with great abandon these days, but still, this seems to be something new.
I'm speaking of the trend of attacking displays of American institutions by being "offended".
Michael Newdow comes to mind first. Recall that it was he who found the grounds for a lawsuit against money. Specifically, money that said "In God We Trust" on it. Which is all of it.
He claimed that his daughter was offended by the phrase. (She wasn't, by the way.)
Several students wearing various T shirts sporting the American flag were ordered home to change clothes in California because it might offend Hispanic students. In California.
And if you've ever wondered why there aren't any more Nativity scenes outside during Christmastime, you can thank the minority who are offended by the message of peace, harmony, and love for your fellow man.
Somehow, the nebulous concept of "being offended" has been turned into a legal tool to remove formerly innocent displays of national pride and Christian belief from our lives.
Someone can do me a big favor: please point out to me when this Offense Law was passed and who the sponsors of this bill were.
I somehow managed to miss that and would really like to become better informed.
It works every time it's used against traditional displays of patriotism or Christianity, so it must be a really big law. Thousands and thousands of pages, covering things that nobody's ever heard of before.
Because of this law, a cross in the desert must be covered up, lest it offend someone.
Because of this law, a police officer stopped a group of kids from singing Christmas carols lest the songs offend someone.
Because of this law, crosses memorializing fallen State Troopers in Utah are under attack.
There are many more instances, but you get the point. Just being offended is grounds for the elimination of many displays of American life
Well, now the entire country is offended by the Ground Zero mosque. 70% of the country in fact.
So why is this mosque still being considered?
We're offended, so they should stop, right? That's how it works, doesn't it? Someone is offended and the offenders have to cease and desist. Isn't that what the Offense Law says?
Right?
Never mind the overall legality of the mosque. Last time I checked, the other things that were banned or prohibited were perfectly legal, but the Offense Law took precedence.
Why doesn't it apply in this case?
And if not, why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment