Political Vandalism

I make no bones about my views on political vandalism. I think it is engaged in by cowards and the penalties should be a felony. I would have no problem if it was classified as acts of terror. From stealing lawn signs to outright vandalism it all is designed to intimidate the subject into silence for the simple reason of having an opposing political viewpoint.

Let's start in the state full of faux tolerance, California. By faux tolerance I am talking about preaching tolerance while practicing intolerance. What happens in Alta Loma in the San Bernadino County when you live at a house that shows support for Romney? You get the name Obama keyed into your car and your seats slashed.

Someone keyed the word “Obama” into two cars and slashed seats in another outside a residence that had Mitt Romney campaign signs.

[Ken Slown] estimates the damage to both of his vehicles at about $3,400.

In addition to both cars being keyed, his wife’s vehicle had her seats slashed, as well. Said Slown, “They pretty much cut the backs of all of the seats.”

A neighbor, who also has a Romney/Ryan sign in their front yard, were also hit. “Obama” keyed in the hood and on the black gate of an SUV.

The vandalism-terrorism is not limited to just residences. A church marquee was vandalized in Indiana. For this one you have to give credit for creativity. They rearranged the letters on the marquee.

One side of the sign read “Christ voted Democrat” and the other read “Romney hates women”.

In the end it is still vandalism and theft (the cretins stole the remaining letters).

I love what Luke Jackson, the pastor of the church, said.

"One community member in particular had said, 'I don't believe a church should be promoting anything like that in a political way,' and I agreed 100 percent," he said.

Which is why I believe this church should lose its tax exempt status.

Bishop David Ricken, the leader of the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, noted in a recent letter to parishioners that voting for candidates who support what he calls “intrinsically evil” positions, such as abortion and gay marriage, could “put your own soul in jeopardy.”

Ricken’s letter, dated Oct. 24, notes that the church has a responsibility to “speak out regarding moral issues, especially on those issues that impact the ‘common good.’” It goes on to note principles to keep in mind in the voting booth on Nov. 6, including abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and gay marriage.

“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals,” Ricken said in the letter. “Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy. (Emphasis added)”

But I digress. Back to political vandalism.

Elsewhere in the state of Wisconsin more tolerance. In an effort to do physical damage for the simple offense of having a different political belief some thugs poured nails in the parking lot of a political rally. Keeping it classy.

The Racine Tea Party's "Rally for Jobs" kicked off at 2:30 p.m. Saturday inside the old Sam's Club at 6200 Regency West Drive. Before the event could get under way, though, organizers say a truck affixed with "Obama" stickers drove through the parking lot and dumped quantities of nails.

It seems that the vandalism is decidedly heavy against one side of the political spectrum...and this matches my anecdotal experience in my years both living in Hennepin County and at the University of Minnesota.

Muslim insensitivity?

At Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, 6:30pm last night, 6 Muslims were kicked off an American Airlines plane for standing up and praying, and as of yet, American Airlines is not allowing them on another one of their airplanes.

MSNBC Reports

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed anger at the detentions.

Omar Shahin, one of the 6 men, said

“They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way,”

Ok. Has anyone reading this ever been arrested? Or perhaps thrown in the back of a squad car for anything? Perhaps kicked out of a building for being loud and obnoxious? I have not experienced all three of those, but of the two I have experienced, I would assume being kicked off of an airplane would be close to the same experience, and when you get kicked off or out of something, or locked up, being treated “Respectfully” or in a non “humiliating” manor by The Man is the last thing on his mind. Am I right here or what? The fact that someone would report about someone’s feelings being hurt as their taken away by authorities is bizarre to me… but then again, anything reported that isn’t Christianity seams to be given a little fluffier a treatment.

Also, another problem I have with this. While not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists have been Muslims. This is where I will support the crap out of “Racial Profiling” or whatever you want to call it. Without naming any races, it's not my fault that 12.8% of the population is responsible for 30.2% of the crime I the United States, but unlike the color of one’s skin, more specifically, the religion one has seams to have a much higher ratio of those who have committed the crime of terrorism. So, because of these blaring facts, (and I am not sorry that the facts are the facts) I would be worried if any Muslims were praying on an airplane… Especially after Sept 11th, the thwarted attempt out of England, and… oh yea, the fact that Muslims Terrorists have mentioned that they will stop at nothing until we are all dead. Perhaps Muslims need to be sensitive to the feelings of those around them and not pull moves that have been witnessed in conjunction with terrorist attacks... like standing and prying in groups on an Airplane.

Where are the news articles about the Muslim insensitivity shown by repeatedly committing acts that scare the US public?

Religion on the sleeve of pols should be a flag

http://newpatriot.org/2006/10/meet-real-michele-bachmann-vote-for-me.html

FROM LINK ABOVE

I have often said that Bachman is the most dangerous candidate in Minnesota. Folks, we don't want people who believe they are ordained by God to make the laws. We don't want a fasting Michelle Bachman with her fingers on any buttons. It couldn't be clearer: The GOP is the party of Michele Bachmann and that's a dangerous thing for the nation and for Minnesota.

MY COMMENT

"we don't want people who believe they are ordained by God to make the laws."

I agree, but not out of anything against those religions. I agree because of those people I have run into. More often than not they are of the mentality that the Bible should be our law...in other words, our laws should be non-secular. And the kind of government that steps towards (theocracy) is, in my view, as oppressive of individual freedom as socialism or communism. Also, is in conflict with the founders intentions and words.

What makes it more scary is that in order to make laws that are based entirely (or predominately) on a religious doctrine means you must be of 1 of 2 mindsets. Either the Bible (or whatever doctrine is the source) is to be taken literally OR the Bible is to be taken literally in some spots and figuratively in others. The former...not a good world to live in. And there would be too many conflicts to enact that with any harmony. The latter is impossible to agree upon and would result in different religious factions fighting for not only their interpretations but in essence their religious beliefs in whole.

Either way...not a good place to be in.

Some suggestions please

I need some assistance and ideas on two things...

There is someone with whom I have frequent discussions on many topics. Recently a recurring theme is the study of religion. Now, those who know me understand better the truth about what I'm going to say. I do not subscribe to a particular religion but continue trying to learn about religions. For me the quest is two-fold. Personally I think that each of the religions has kernels of truth...and of falsehoods. Eventually the whole story will come together to me (either in a church or across many churches). The other reason for the pursuit of learning about religions is an intellectual pursuit. It is that latter one I think should be important to everyone.

So, this person believes that there is no reason to learn about any religion beyond their own. "Why?" "I have no reason. I'll never be a part of those so I have no need to learn anything about them."

How can I demonstrate the benefit of understanding that which you disagree?

Another person is deeply religious. His faith is being shaken right now. The path of his issue is the following. 1. Most Americans are Christian. 2. Morality in America is sliding at a breakneck pace. 3. Morality in the lands of the Islamo-fascists is not failing in as many areas as quickly. In other words, at least what they do is in the name of their religion (though erroneously) while America's depravity is in spite of religion, against religion. Thus, they are not knowing hypocrites and we are.

So, he is wondering if too much of the Christian leaders have failed so badly that religion is hurting Western civilization.

I understand his logic and am having problems helping him through his shaken faith.

While I am not religious I do want to help him either refind his faith or help him find a new faith...get him through his internal conflict.

So, ideas are requested. Keep in mind that the arguments against Isalmo-fascists will not help...he already believes them to be evil. That is not the question. The question to him really is about the failure of religious leaders here.

Thank you.

When is a religion actually a religion

What makes a "religion" a religion? Why do I ask? This guy's defense for his crimes is, well, it is part of his "sacred religious rituals".

Admitted pedophile Phillip Distasio offered a bizarre defense Wednesday to 74 charges of rape, drugs and pandering obscenity to minors.

Distasio, 34, told a Cuyahoga County judge that his Rocky River apartment was a religious sanctuary where engaging in sex with boys and smoking marijuana were considered sacred rituals and are protected under civil rights laws.

"I'm a pedophile. I've been a pedophile for 20 years," Distasio said during a pretrial hearing in Common Pleas Court. "The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms."

No. It is not that we do not believe a child can CONSENT to sex. It is that we do not trust their cognition on such matters. It is that we do not believe they are capable of making responsible decisions.

In fact, it is also partially based on the idea that there are not "rights" for children. They are not adults and do not get "rights". They are protected under "potential rights" (and not in the bastardized sense that pro-abortionists state).

"Rights" come hand in hand with "responsibilities" and "obligations" toward society. Since we do not hold children to be able to be either "responsible" or "obligated" to society we can not afford them "rights". However, because they will potentially get those rights they are protected under the most basic rights. This is the reason children cannot enter contracts. This is the premise the wipes clean a juvenile's criminal record.

Now understanding that distinction in society's trust of children's ability to make decisions you should understand why Distasio is completely off base in his quote, "The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex".

The next parameter in that statement is the abdication of his own responsibility to 'right' and 'wrong'. He is choosing 'wrong' (which is rape, sex w/ a minor, etc.) but then putting the onus of the decision making process on the children. This is the same as the "hot" teachers that have sex with their students. There people defend the teachers by saying, "the students enjoyed/wanted it". But they are the children and not expected to make those decisions. The adult is expected to make those decisions.

Judge Kathleen Sutula warned Distasio, a self-appointed friar who compares himself to St. Francis and St. Ignatius, to confine his arguments to secular laws at his trial, scheduled to begin Sept. 11.

"If you want to challenge the law, that's your right to do so," Sutula said. "But we're going to follow the laws of Ohio in this courtroom."

I am glad to see that the judge recognizes Distasio's right to 'challenge the law'. That IS everyone's right. Most people tend to miss the fact that to challenge the law you must suffer the consequences of the law until the law is overturned.

Police arrested Distasio in September on charges he molested two disabled boys he was tutoring at his home and of raping seven other autistic children at a Cleveland school for special-needs students. All but one of the boys was under 13, which carries a mandatory life-in-prison sentence if he is convicted.

Police found journals at Distasio's Wooster Road apartment in which he described his activities, plus child pornography and videotapes of him engaged in sex with boys.

Vigilantism has hardly seemed more called for than here.

Distasio tried unsuccessfully in June to fire his court-appointed lawyer, Thomas Shaughnessy, who refused to go along with his religious-freedom defense.

A lawyer who has some morals? The world truly is coming to an end!

"Not all pedophilia is bad, and sex [with boys] can be healthy," Distasio said. "It's an argument that I'm willing to make, but my attorney is not."

I'm trying to keep it clean here, so what really is there to say about that?

Hey, Distasio...ALL pedophilia is bad. ALL sex with boys is unhealthy. At least wait until they are adults. At least stay away from the disabled, autistic and special needs people. "Pervert" is not harsh enough. Pond scum? Something else...a little help here.

Here is why I ask someone to articulate the moment a "religion" becomes a religion. A religion is granted certain freedoms for their practices. If noone can articulate how a "religion" becomes a religion then eventually there will no way to tell someone their "church" is not protected. Why does this exercise in semantics matter? Because without a clear articulation, well, read this first.

In motions filed with Sutula, Distasio accused prosecutors of threatening to dismantle his church, which he calls Arcadian Fields Ministries.

He described his apartment as a sanctuary, a place of worship, and a safe alternative to prison for a congregation of social dissidents.

Distasio said he and his congregation consider the justice system to be corrupt and addicted to punishment, and should be abandoned.

He complained to Sutula that prosecutors are preventing him from writing to his "congregants" and of calling them as defense witnesses because they are among the victims in the case.

Without a clear articulation insanity like this eventually will be legally legitimate and "churches" like this will eventually get protection for their practices, rituals, etc.