Four conservative minds take on "discrimination"

I'm getting behind in some of my posts. I'll try to catch up on my finds by grouping them by broad topic. All of these deal with some aspect of "discrimination" as it is currently viewed in a PC infected world.

1) JB Williams sends his columns to me directly and I usually like what he has to say. This one in particular strikes me as good reading for conservative thinkers. I'm linking to the version published by my good friends at Michnews.com (hey, I'm on their favorites list so they deserve a plug).

The Lost Art of Discrimination
JB Williams, Michnews.com

"So what of those who discriminate against the homosexual behavior? While most would prefer to not know everything that happens in the privacy of someone else’s bedroom, most people believe the behavior is wrong. They also believe that it is their job to make such life choices for themselves and those around them. To the homosexual, they are being unfairly discriminated against. But what of the homosexual who discriminates against the pedophile, or the pedophile that discriminates against those who practice bestiality?

As crazy as it sounds, the only difference between these discriminating choices is where one draws the line between right and wrong. All draw a line, just not all in the same place. On one side of the line are those discriminating and on the other, those being discriminated against."

2) David Yeagley minces no words. Sometimes, reading his work reminds me of a Seminole Indian roomate I had many, many moons ago. This piece is dark and foreboding, but worth the time.

Cambodia: When Children Ruled
David Yeagley, BadEagle.com

"The Left encouraged disrespect, hatred, and violence. The pie-throwing at conservative speakers, as Horowitz says, is not a joke. It is symptomatic. I've encountered the same kind of disrespect at my college speeches, by youth following the example of adults. Basic cordiality, basic respect, is absent. Civility is condemned as weakness, and targeted for assault."

3) I love Cal. He rarely holds back. He's usually right.

Religious 'intolerance' cuts both ways
Cal Thomas, Townhall.com

"From abortion, to gay rights, the ordination of homosexual priests, same-sex 'marriage,' disarmament, peace movements, environmentalism, government programs and a host of other issues, any clergy or lay person who signed off on the agenda and objectives of liberals was more than welcome at the political table and was never thought to be a threat to the Constitution or accused of attempting to impose a theocracy.

But let conservatives organize to express themselves and suddenly we are told they are a danger to our way of life and religious storm troopers can soon be expected at the door to take us away in the middle of the night to dungeons where we will be brainwashed into accepting the religious and political doctrines of the uneducated fanatics.

For better, and sometimes for worse, 'people of faith' have spoken to moral and political issues since before the founding of the nation. Why is the republic in danger only when conservative religious people speak and act? Why are only conservatives seeking to impose a 'theocracy' and liberals are never charged with such motives?

The answer is that liberals fear their earthly power is slipping away. They are less able to impose a secular leftist world view on the country. "

4) Recently I had the opportunity to weigh in on another discussion board and was pleased when Paul Cella came in to back me up. Having been a reader of his for a while, it was a great feeling to have him in my corner. In the end, I felt the other side of the argument went home sulking.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Deliberate Sense
Paul Cella, The Claremont Institute

What the urban elite tends to overlook is that on an issue like gay marriage the most prominent feature is not disagreement or division but rather settled agreement. Though we are told incessantly that gay marriage is a "polarizing" or "wedge" issue, easily taken up by cynical demagogues, in fact it is not. It is only the lack of perspective among the urban elite that produces this confusion. Gay marriage is only a "wedge" issue between a faction (albeit a loud and ubiquitous faction) and the people themselves—between the urban elites and what The Federalist meaningfully terms "the deliberate sense of the community." The "division," such as it is, on gay marriage emphatically does not mirror the division designated by the red and blue states. Let it be noted that blue states by the plenty, while voting reliably for Democrats, even sending near-socialists to Congress year after year, have nonetheless passed prohibitions on gay marriage. Noting this, we are pressed with a pregnant question: Would any state, in the entire Union, act deliberately through its duly-elected representatives sitting in legislative bodies (which do not, mind you, include courts) to legalize gay marriage? We can push the matter farther: How many polities of any kind—federal, state, local—would legislate through their representatives to legalize gay marriage? Atlanta, Georgia votes 9-1 Democratic, yet it would be a close-run thing indeed whether the city would legalize gay marriage.