I am not so sure about the ACLU's commitment to free speech.
In retrospect, and given the current attitude of progressives towards civil rights, I think their defense of the Nazi's right to march was purely strategic. If they could say even the Nazis had civil rights, then nobody could deny that they themselves di too, right? Like everything else the left does, it's all a matter of power and who holds it.
Now that the Long March Through The Institutions has born fruit, the left no longer need pretend that we all are protected by the Bill of Rights. "Free speech" to them means they say what they please and we shut up, and if we demur, then they call on "the authorities" to shut us up. On campus it means the administration shuts down any activity to the right of Che. In corporation it means the HR department employs ESG and DEI to drive us out. The government partners with Google and Wikipedia and Apple and Micrososft to silence us. And if all else fails, then I'm sure there's some administrative ruling some bureaucrat has in a desk drawer that can justify a tactical team blowing down our door and shooting us in the face.
Absolutely. It's important to contextualize it, and analyze why behavior of a group might change. And ask if it actually has changed, or if the conditions driving it have instead?
Anyway, years ago I realized that in politics, one should disregard what people say, and watch what they do. Does their rhetoric match their actions? If not, why not?
I saw a reel with an added explanation of why Jesus healed and put the ear back on the High Priest, it was to save Peter from execution for the act. If the ear was back there was no evidence, so Jesus saved Peter even before his own execution. Did everyone realize this but me. Have I forgotten it?
This is a brilliant point. “Yet it was YHWH’s will to crush him.” Isaiah 53:10. “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all.” Romans 8:32. Sure, the Jewish leaders conspired and the Romans carried it out. But God orchestrated it. This law would criminalize the Bible itself, not to mention violate the First Amendment. It’s as though politicians wake up every morning and ask themselves, how can we violate the Bill of Rights today?
Irrelevant is a good word. Whether you believe any of what Spike says - and for the record like most other "beliefs" I strive to have none- in the end it makes no difference. Like the long argued final destination of Judas Iscariot, only the creator of the universe actually knows and it is demonstrably and specifically none of my business.
Jesus came to do a job. He did it. Nothing else really matters.
I am not so sure about the ACLU's commitment to free speech.
In retrospect, and given the current attitude of progressives towards civil rights, I think their defense of the Nazi's right to march was purely strategic. If they could say even the Nazis had civil rights, then nobody could deny that they themselves di too, right? Like everything else the left does, it's all a matter of power and who holds it.
Now that the Long March Through The Institutions has born fruit, the left no longer need pretend that we all are protected by the Bill of Rights. "Free speech" to them means they say what they please and we shut up, and if we demur, then they call on "the authorities" to shut us up. On campus it means the administration shuts down any activity to the right of Che. In corporation it means the HR department employs ESG and DEI to drive us out. The government partners with Google and Wikipedia and Apple and Micrososft to silence us. And if all else fails, then I'm sure there's some administrative ruling some bureaucrat has in a desk drawer that can justify a tactical team blowing down our door and shooting us in the face.
It's why I made sure to add the year.
Absolutely. It's important to contextualize it, and analyze why behavior of a group might change. And ask if it actually has changed, or if the conditions driving it have instead?
Anyway, years ago I realized that in politics, one should disregard what people say, and watch what they do. Does their rhetoric match their actions? If not, why not?
I saw a reel with an added explanation of why Jesus healed and put the ear back on the High Priest, it was to save Peter from execution for the act. If the ear was back there was no evidence, so Jesus saved Peter even before his own execution. Did everyone realize this but me. Have I forgotten it?
Thanks. I didn't think about that!
This is a brilliant point. “Yet it was YHWH’s will to crush him.” Isaiah 53:10. “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all.” Romans 8:32. Sure, the Jewish leaders conspired and the Romans carried it out. But God orchestrated it. This law would criminalize the Bible itself, not to mention violate the First Amendment. It’s as though politicians wake up every morning and ask themselves, how can we violate the Bill of Rights today?
Irrelevant is a good word. Whether you believe any of what Spike says - and for the record like most other "beliefs" I strive to have none- in the end it makes no difference. Like the long argued final destination of Judas Iscariot, only the creator of the universe actually knows and it is demonstrably and specifically none of my business.
Jesus came to do a job. He did it. Nothing else really matters.