The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: April 25, 2017
Hate speech is free speech, Gov. Dean: Glenn Reynolds – USA Today – USA TODAY
Posted: April 25, 2017 at 4:48 am
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 1:48 p.m. ET April 24, 2017
Howard Dean(Photo: Thomas P. Costello, Asbury Park Press)
I tell my constitutional law students that there are a couple of statements that indicate that a speaker is a constitutional illiterate who can safely be ignored. One is the claim that the Constitution views black people as the worth of white people (actually, it was all about power in Congress, with slaveowners wanting black people to count 100% toward apportionment so that slaveowners would get more seats in Congress, and abolitionists wanting them not counted at all so that slaveowners would get fewer seats in Congress; the compromise was just that, a compromise).
The other hallmark of constitutional illiteracy is the claim that the First Amendment doesnt protect hate speech. And by making that claim last week, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and Democratic presidential candidate, revealed himself to be a constitutional illiterate. Then, predictably, he doubled down on his ignorance.
In First Amendment law, the term hate speech is meaningless. All speech is equally protected whether its hateful or cheerful.It doesnt matter if its racist, sexistor in poor taste, unless speech falls into a few very narrow categories like true threats, which have to address a specific individual, or incitement, which must constitute an immediate and intentional encouragement to imminent lawless action its protected.
The term hate speech was invented by people who dont like that freedom, and who want to give thecompletely falseimpression that theres a kind of speech that the First Amendment doesnt protect because its hateful.What they mean by hateful, it seems, is really just that its speech they dont agree with.Some even try to argue that since hearing disagreeable ideas is unpleasant, expressing those ideas is somehow an act of violence.
The suicide of expertise: Glenn Reynolds
France's dark horse from the far left: David Andelman
There are two problems with that argument. The first is that its idiotic: Thats never been the law, nor could it be if we give any value to free expression, because theres no idea that somebody doesnt disagree with.The second is that the argument is usually made by people who spend a lot of time expressing disagreeable ideas themselves, without, apparently, the least thought that if their own rules about disagreeable speech held sway, theyd probably be locked up first. (As Twitter wag IowaHawk has offered: I'll let you ban hate speech when you let me define it. Deal?)
The response to Dean was merciless: First Amendment law expert Eugene Volokh responded, "No, Gov. Dean, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.If there were, neither the Westboro Baptist Church whose hateful speech the Supreme Court recently held protected nor the many people referring to Trump supporters as Nazis and deplorables would enjoy free speech.
As Volokh writes, if people want hate speech to be unprotected, theyre calling for a change to the First Amendment, and its a big one. They should not only admit that, they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected and how judges, juries and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. And claiming that hate speech is already 'not protected by the First Amendment,'as if one is just restating settled law, does not suffice.
POLICING THE USA:Alook atrace, justice, media
Of course adults sneer at Millennials: Christian Schneider
Dean then doubled down with the constitutional illiterates usual fallback, that you could ban hate speech as fighting words under the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which allows a ban on fighting words.(Journalist Dan Gillmor commented: Disappointing, to say the least, to see Dean digging the hole deeper on his flatly incorrect original statement.)
But fighting words arent hate speech.Fighting words are direct, person-to-person invitations to a brawl. Expressing political or social views that people dont like isnt the same thing,even if people might react violently to those views.
And thats good.If, by reacting violently to views they didnt like, people could get the government to censor those views as hate speech or fighting words, then people would have a strong incentive to react violently to views they dont like. Giving the angry and violent the ability to shut down other peoples speech (the term we use for this in constitutional law, Gov. Dean, is hecklers veto) is a bad thing, which would leave us with a society marked by a lot more violence, a lot more censorship, and a lot less speech.
Is that really what you want?Because thats what wed get, if we followed the advice of constitutional illiterates.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, aUniversity of Tennesseelaw professor and the author ofThe New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY'sBoard of Contributors.
You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2pe5pI2
See more here:
Hate speech is free speech, Gov. Dean: Glenn Reynolds - USA Today - USA TODAY
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Hate speech is free speech, Gov. Dean: Glenn Reynolds – USA Today – USA TODAY
Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech | By Nozomi … – Common Dreams
Posted: at 4:48 am
Common Dreams | Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech | By Nozomi ... Common Dreams US authorities are reported to have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. |
Continued here:
Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech | By Nozomi ... - Common Dreams
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech | By Nozomi … – Common Dreams
Campus Free Speech Is The Least Of It: What I Learned From My Visit To Bard – Daily Caller
Posted: at 4:48 am
5613355
Inthis past weekends Wall Street Journal, Heather McDonaldwrites the following about the ongoing problem of American universities shutting down speakers whose views dont match their own:
Campus intolerance is at root not a psychological phenomenon but an ideological one. At its center is a worldview that sees Western culture as endemically racist and sexist. The overriding goal of the educational establishment is to teach young people within the ever-growing list of official victim classifications to view themselves as existentially oppressed.
McDonald is 100% correctI came face-to-face with this fact just two weeks ago when I spoke at Bard College in New York.
First,a bit of background. In October 2015I was invited by Williams Collegethen disinvited, and then re-invited (I declined)to speak on behalf of its Uncomfortable Learning program. After the dis-invitation, Fox News publishedthe speech I had planned to give, and from therenews outlets across the country began to chime in.
Since that time, there has been continual coverage on the insanity that so-called controversial speakers are forced to endure upon agreeing to talk about Things That Are True But Should Never Be Said.
After learning about the Williams College fiasco, a student at Bard College began a similar program to the one at Williams and labeled it Tough Talks. Upon asking me to speak, this student assured me the invitation would not be withdrawn. Bard students are better than that, he wrote in an email.
And hewas right. There was no dis-invitation, and there were no protests. No one was hurt, nor did anyone cause a fuss while I was speaking. It was all very civilized.
I wish that was the end of the story, but it isnt. It cant be. For while I commend Bard College for inviting me to speak and for being civil, that alone isnt worthy of applause. The purpose of having a speaker is for students to learn something, and I dont believe the students learned a thing. Not because I didnt argue a good caseI spoke about the failures of feminismbut because of what McDonald wrote.
The educational establishment and their impressionable lackeys view Western culture as inherently sexist. Thus, everything I said in favor of America, and in particular, of American men, fell on deaf ears.
I suspected from the moment I walked in the room this might be the case, for therewere more students of color than there were white students. And feminism is a white womans game.
In any case, I soldiered on. What else could I do?
My overall message aboutgender equality was that its futile for one reason: it ignores biology. I even quoted the dissident feminist Camille Paglia and showed the students this video of her and Christina Sommers delivering this same message.
Yet somehow, the Q&A morphed into a discussion about race, white privilege and gender fluidity. And rather than redirect the students, I made a snap decision to answer their questions head on.
When Itold them its impossible for ones sex tobe changed, that sex is not a feeling but a biological fact, there was a collective gasp in the audience. After all,its trendy to believe that being male or female is an arbitrary label that forces a person into a box. The students believe this so emphatically it was I who appeared off my rocker.
It was no different when the conversation moved to the trendy concept known as toxic masculinity. This is the theory that young men carry a demon seed within them that only feminists know how to remove, writes Chris Beck in Feminism In Now Toxic.
That is the exactly what the students wanted me to accept. One young woman wasmatter-of-fact in her claim that parents teach their boys not to express their emotions and, as a result, masculinity becomes toxic.
After implying her argument might be better received if she were a parent herself, I told this student that boys and men tend to be stoic by natureand that this trait has benefits since there are times whenit is betternotto be emotional. Fighting our nations wars is but one example, I said.
This was met with even greater shock. It was as though I were an alien from another planet who couldnt understand the way things work on earth. It was the students job to enlighten me, in other words, rather than the other way around.
And so I find myself conflicted about my time at Bard. Yes, the silencing of speech is a huge problem on campuses todayand Bard did indeed rise above the fray. But as McDonald adds, and as my visit to Bard proves, the silencing of speech is just a symptom of a much larger phenomenon on college campuses: a profound distortion of reality.
At the end of the day, then, it doesnt matter whether speakers are silenced or not. Because American universities are so divorced from reality they cant fathom a word of what those speakers would say.
Follow this link:
Campus Free Speech Is The Least Of It: What I Learned From My Visit To Bard - Daily Caller
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Campus Free Speech Is The Least Of It: What I Learned From My Visit To Bard – Daily Caller
How To Restore Free Speech on Campus – The Weekly Standard
Posted: at 4:48 am
The recent campus rioting against unpopular or conservative political views is awful, but I have discovered the solutionby accident.
We have all seen numerous campuses riven by violence and a refusal to permit speech that does not comport with the current lefty line. This has happened recently at Middlebury, the Claremont Colleges, and of courseand most violentlyBerkeley, which remains mired in a dispute over letting Ann Coulter speak.
Last week I spoke at Berkeleyand there was one protester. Actually he was more of a heckler, of the sort I've often encountered. He marched in the 1960s, his ponytail is now gray, but he still wants to interrupt and shout his views about Salvadoran "death squads" and unfair treatment of everyone from Fidel Castro to the Sandinistas. I would have been surprised, under normal circumstances, to find only one heckler at Berkeley.
Earlier on the day I spoke at Berkeley, I had spent an hour over at Stanford's Hoover Institution with my old boss in the Reagan years, George P. Shultz. Shultz is now 96 but still entirely with it, and he told me "if you don't get rioted at Berkeley today, your reputation is ruined."
But I have seen the future and it works. I spoke at Berkeley on April 20which turns out, unbeknown to me, to be famous as "420." For reasons that are hotly disputed, 420 is now code for marijuana. Each April 20, pot smokers on campuses across the land gather to celebrate. Wikipedia, which is never wrong about such subjects, tells us that "April 20 has become an international counterculture holiday, where people gather to celebrate and consume cannabis."
Weed Day was certainly a big deal at Berkeley. As I walked across the campus to the lecture hall where I was to speak, I crossed a vast field of pot smokers. You could get high just by walking through the crowd, and a smoky haze hung over the happy students. Of course no one showed up to riot!
It wasn't that, as Secretary Shultz was warning me, the commies had forgotten the great battles of the Reagan years, orGod forbidno longer recognized my name. It wasn't that foreign policy is now considered boring, and they only break up meetings when provocateurs like Ann Coulter show up. No, it was that they were Too Stoned to Riot!
This is the solution. There need be no more Claremonts, no more Middleburys, no more Berkeleys where free speech is prevented. Think back to Berkeley's "Free Speech Movement" of the 1960s, and you will recall that it was both actually for free speech on campus, and totally permeated with marijuana smoking. Was there ever a free speech rally in those days that did not have the telltale haze hanging over it?
This is the answer. Pusillanimous administrators and frightened faculty members need not bar controversial speakers nor court campus crises. Just announce a brief celebration of the benefits of cannabis and all will be calm, indeed even joyful. Too Stoned To RiotI can see the T shirt now.
The rest is here:
How To Restore Free Speech on Campus - The Weekly Standard
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on How To Restore Free Speech on Campus – The Weekly Standard
VA defends employee’s anti-Trump tweets, book plugs as ‘freedom of speech’ – Washington Examiner
Posted: at 4:48 am
The Department of Veterans Affairs is dismissing the actions of an employee who has written anti-Trump tweets and is promoting her own books on Twitter as someone who is simply exercising her "freedom of speech."
The VA has also promoted the employee's books on its website, which has some conservatives grumbling that this amounts to taxpayers helping a Trump opponent sell her books.
Kayla Williams is the director of the VA's Center for Women Veterans, and she has made it clear on Twitter that she opposes Trump. Earlier this year, she told Stars and Stripes that she would be attending an anti-Trump rally with her kids, "to show them that people should stand together for what they believe in."
She also retweeted a tweet that said women should get their IUD as soon as possible, "before Trump-Pence reverse the requirement for full contraceptive coverage."
Williams' anti-Trump views haven't stopped her from promoting her two books, or from getting the VA to help her promote them.
Her VA biography notes the two books she's written, and the VA has promoted them on two other occasions: once in a May 3 release announcing her appointment, and again in a December VA blog about a podcast featuring Williams.
The December blog post was written by Tim Lawson, who has also tweeted out several anti-Trump messages. One of those just after the November election said he hasn't "felt this bad since 9/11, and I was in the Pentagon."
Williams has also used her Twitter account to promote her work, and while her Twitter handle doesn't identify her as a VA official, several of these tweets may have been sent during her work hours, which could be another violation.
In just a single week in January, for example, she tweeted several times encouraging people to see her and three other co-authors of a book about veterans at a book event. On Monday, Jan. 23, she tweeted out the invitation at 11:10 a.m., and then tweeted it out at 12:10 p.m. on Wednesday, and again on Friday at 1:10 p.m.
Just after 1 p.m. on Monday, April 10, she tweeted out that one of her books was listed as one of the 10 "must-read" books on military women.
Despite these potential problems, the VA under President Trump has ignored the issue so far. The Washington Examiner asked questions about the matter for the last several weeks without a response.
The House Veterans' Affairs Committee also ignored several requests for comment from the Washington Examiner.
Late last week, the VA dismissed the matter with a three-sentence statement indicating that officials in the agency see anti-Trump messages and the promotion of their own books as "freedom of speech."
"Like other Federal employees, VA employees have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech in their private lives, including during non-duty hours (e.g., lunch break)," said Randy Noller, a spokesman for the VA.
"Unless otherwise authorized, such private speech should not be held out as being approved or authorized by VA," he added. "Moreover, employees should not provide information that may restricted by law."
Noller declined to offer more specifics related to whether Williams was tweeting during work hours, or if the VA was looking into the issue to answer more specific questions. On Monday afternoon, however, the VA followed up by saying it would examine some of Williams' tweets to see if any rules were violated.
But sources close to the VA and veterans issues say the VA should immediately stop promoting her books. They also argue that Williams' plugs for her own books could run afoul of ethics rules.
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics says officials cannot use their title or position to "further the employee's own private interests" or the interests of friends, relatives or other closely affiliated people.
Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, said Williams' tweets could draw ethics complaints against her, depending on whether they were sent when she should have been working.
"If Ms. Williams is promoting her book during work hours, she might have to answer a few questions from an ethics lawyer," he said. "Government officials must be aware that there are bans on conducting certain activities while working for Uncle Sam."
Eric Hannel, former staff director for the House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, told the Washington Examiner that while Williams' activities are "not uncommon," they are still a likely violation of those ethics guidelines, and federal law.
"The bottom line is it's against the law for a government employee to use her public office for private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which she is associated personally," he said.
He said at a minimum, Williams could be in trouble for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime, but could also be in violation of laws related to misuse of position, use of an official title, personal use of government property, and use of official time.
The question of Williams' anti-Trump tweets is likely something that will have to be handled politically, and conservatives have urged the White House to crack down on anti-Trump federal employees like Williams, who was appointed by President Obama and re-appointed by Trump.
So far, the White House has made it clear it wants all officials to support Trump. But in its most recent statement to the Washington Examiner, the White House said only that officials "should" back the president, not that they "must."
"Throughout his campaign, President Trump consistently reiterated his commitment to taking care of our veterans and reforming and modernizing the VA," a White House spokesman told the Washington Examiner in February. "Employees of the Trump administration should support President Trump and his agenda to improve the lives of all Americans."
Continued here:
VA defends employee's anti-Trump tweets, book plugs as 'freedom of speech' - Washington Examiner
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on VA defends employee’s anti-Trump tweets, book plugs as ‘freedom of speech’ – Washington Examiner
Dear Berkeley: Even Ann Coulter deserves free speech – CNN
Posted: at 4:48 am
What could have caused this rip in the space-time continuum? The so-called birthplace of the free speech movement, the University of California at Berkeley, has once again engaged in liberal censorship, this time of Ann Coulter, using the fear of violence as cover to suppress a voice it did not like.
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter was invited to speak at UC Berkeley by the Berkeley College Republicans. Given recent violence against conservative speakers in Berkeley, the college cancelled the speech. Coulter, to her credit, offered suggestions as to how to better deal with any problems -- to expel any students engaging in violence or trying to stop the speech from happening. That solution apparently was not good enough for UC Berkeley, which instead decided to reschedule the talk, but on a date when there would be no students on campus.
While all this was going on, where was the traditionally-free-speech-friendly moderate Left? The prevailing view was, "If you didn't say offensive things, you wouldn't be attacked." Shame on the Left for tacitly condoning this culture of violent suppression of views it disagrees with.
And praise to Maher and Sanders for standing up against it. I question whether Coulter would do the same for them, but that is not the yardstick by which we measure our commitment to freedom of speech. Standing up for the rights of those who would not do it for us demonstrates your commitment to liberty. We don't need a First Amendment for speech that neither challenges, nor offends. We need it as a good in itself. And, sometimes that very challenging and offensive speech fosters growth.
I am grateful that nobody tried to shut him down. Had they done so, I would like to believe that I would have done whatever I could to let the man speak. The kind of people who supported him that day would not likely do the same for Charles Murray or Milo Yiannopolous or Ann Coulter. I am certain that anyone cheering Jeffries that day would have joined in the violence in Berkeley -- smug in the belief that their ideas were "right" and their opponents were "wrong," thus justifying the violence.
When anyone tries to shut down speech with violence, all decent Americans should band together against the violence, regardless of their political "tribe." Does Berkeley stand for freedom of expression, or is it so captivated by its infectious one-party rule that it cannot possibly stand up for expression that challenges its liberal sensibilities?
Coulter has a right to her views. Just as important, we all have a right to hear her speak.
Those who disagree have a right to oppose her, but to use violence cuts against the principles that our entire Constitution rests upon. The First Amendment stands for principles like those articulated in the case, New York Times v. Sullivan: "Debate on public issues ... [should be] ... uninhibited, robust, and wide open."
You may think Coulter's speech is offensive. I certainly do. I think she is a mental midget and an intellectual snake oil salesman. I do wish she would shut up, dry up, and blow away. But even so, I am outraged that her political discussion must go through an on-again, off-again process because either violent thugs control the streets or effete and weak university presidents and the City of Berkeley lack the spine to defend the First Amendment.
Violent trash should never stop Ann Coulter (or anyone else) from speaking. Let her ideas flow forth into the stalls in the marketplace and let the market reject (or embrace) her. My ideas can stand in opposition to hers. And a bunch of cowardly children playing revolutionary dress-up with bandanas over their faces should not be permitted to destroy freedom of expression. Despite my politics somewhat aligning with them, I consider them to be my enemy -- not Ann Coulter.
In these times, when political violence is becoming the norm, it is your responsibility to stand up for freedom of expression, even expression you dislike. Stand against the violence, even when your tribe does it. Stand for freedom of expression, even when you abhor the words and ideas.
If you don't stand up for Coulter's liberty today, someone will come for yours tomorrow. And, more importantly, the Enlightenment will die a violent and pathetic death.
Read more here:
Dear Berkeley: Even Ann Coulter deserves free speech - CNN
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on Dear Berkeley: Even Ann Coulter deserves free speech – CNN
Mayor Taylor Says Poverty is a Symptom of Atheism | The Daily – San Antonio Current
Posted: at 4:47 am
At an April 3 mayoral candidate forum, Mayor Ivy Taylor shared her surprising views on systemic poverty in San Antonio. To her, the "broken people" facing poverty just have a bad relationship with God.
Now, weeks after the forum, a video of her answer has gone viral. The video shows Taylor and fellow candidate Councilman Ron Nirenberg answering a question fromMegan Legacy,the director of SA Christian Resource Center. She asks: "What do you see as the deepest, systemic causes of generational poverty in San Antonio?"
"To me, it's broken people...people not being in a relationship with their Creator, and therefore not being in a good relationship with their families and their communities....and not being productive members of society.
This comes from a mayor who's already on thin ice for using her religious beliefs to discriminate against the city's LGBT community. In 2013, when Taylor was still a councilwoman, she voted against a nondiscrimination ordinance that would protect LGBT San Antonians from being discriminated against by public and private business owners. Her reasoning? People shouldn't be forced to treat everyone equally if it goes against their faith or "moral values."It's the same excuse far-right conservative state lawmakers have used in writing bills to keep transgender kids out of public bathrooms.
This time around, the Democratic incumbent running for mayor has used her faith to chastise the city's poorest citizens weeks before election day.
In a statement sent to the Current, Taylor said that the video had been "intentionally edited to mislead viewers." However, it's hard to see how NOWcastSA's livestream video of the event could have been manipulated. The full video shows no obvious signs of editing.
"I have devoted my life to breaking the chains of generational poverty," she writes. "Ive done so because of my faith in God and my belief in Jesuss ministry on Earth."
See the article here:
Mayor Taylor Says Poverty is a Symptom of Atheism | The Daily - San Antonio Current
Posted in Atheism
Comments Off on Mayor Taylor Says Poverty is a Symptom of Atheism | The Daily – San Antonio Current
Racism is atheism – Avondale College News
Posted: at 4:47 am
When stated in such blunt terms the theological and moral urgency of the tasks of combating and overcoming racism cannot be ignored. It is as big and complicated as how we act and react politically and in our communities, and how our Church and its programs are structured, led and accessible and welcoming to all. Its as difficult and awkward as how we learn to listen better to people who are different and how we respond to that racist joke or social media post a friend makes.
Citing the transformation that a proper understanding of the gospel bringsas Paul set it out (Galatians 3:28)Ellen White also recognised the positive call to listen, to act and to care (and, no, to say our objection is to differences of religion does not let us squirm out of our responsibility): Whatever the difference in religious belief, a call from suffering humanity must be heard and answered. . . . They have been bought with a price, and they are as precious in His sight as we are. They are members of Gods great household, and Christians as His stewards are responsible for them.4
Racism might be the most common atheism among Christians today. When we dismiss, devalue, exclude, marginalise and oppress others, we deny our shared Creator and Saviour. This sobering realisation must change how we listen and speak, like and post, vote and worship, think and work.
No room for racism, Melbourne street art, Brunswick East, Melbourne Street Art Avantgarde/Flickr
Read more:
Racism is atheism - Avondale College News
Posted in Atheism
Comments Off on Racism is atheism – Avondale College News
Trump didn’t know ‘much’ about NATO when he called it ‘obsolete’: report – The Hill
Posted: at 4:45 am
President Trump admitted he did not know much about NATO when he first called it obsolete on the campaign trail last year, he told theAssociated Press.
They had a quote from me that NATO's obsolete. But they didn't say why it was obsolete. I was on Wolf Blitzer, very fair interview, the first time I was ever asked about NATO, because I wasn't in government. People don't go around asking about NATO if I'm building a building in Manhattan, right? Trump said to the AP, according to a full transcript published lateSunday.
So they asked me, Wolf ... asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO's obsolete not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO NATO is obsolete, and I said, And the reason it's obsolete is because of the fact they don't focus on terrorism. You know, back when they did NATO, there was no such thing as terrorism, Trump continued.
NATO also made a change to itsterrorism blueprintin 2012, when it stated that the Alliance strives at all times to remain aware of the evolving threat from terrorism; to ensure it has adequate capabilities to prevent, protect against, and respond to terrorist threats.
Trump first criticized NATO during an interview with The Washington Post's editorial board in March 2016, saying NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved.
Following the March 22, 2016, terrorist attacks in Brussels, where at least 35 were killed and more than 300 injured, Trump toldABC Newshe thought NATO was obsolete.
"NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger much larger than Russia is today, he said, adding that the alliance should be readjusted to take care of terrorism.
But earlier this month, at a joint press conference with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump said the alliance is no longer obsolete.
Trump said he will continue to work closely with NATO allies, particularly when it comes to fighting terrorism.
But he also said, I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change and now they do fight terrorism.
I said it was obsolete, he continued. It is not longer obsolete.
At the time, Trump also reiterated his call for NATO allies to meet their financial obligations and pay what they owe.
Trump will attend a NATO summit in Brussels on May 25.
Here is the original post:
Trump didn't know 'much' about NATO when he called it 'obsolete': report - The Hill
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on Trump didn’t know ‘much’ about NATO when he called it ‘obsolete’: report – The Hill
Quote of the Day: I Only Said NATO Was Obsolete Because I Didn’t Know Anything About NATO – Mother Jones
Posted: at 4:45 am
From Donald Trump, explaining why he said NATO was obsolete during the campaign:
I was on Wolf Blitzer, very fair interview, the first time I was ever asked about NATO, because I wasn't in government. People don't go around asking about NATO if I'm building a building in Manhattan, right? So they asked me, Wolf ... asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO's obsolete not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO NATO is obsolete, and I said, "And the reason it's obsolete is because of the fact they don't focus on terrorism."
This is not the first time Trump has said something like this. I wonder if he even realizes that it sounds bad when he admits he was just blathering during the campaign because he didn't know what he was talking about?
Go here to read the rest:
Quote of the Day: I Only Said NATO Was Obsolete Because I Didn't Know Anything About NATO - Mother Jones
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on Quote of the Day: I Only Said NATO Was Obsolete Because I Didn’t Know Anything About NATO – Mother Jones