|
August 01, 2004
For love of hate!
More local politics. And First Amendment hatred. Regular readers may recall Michael Marcavage, a very talented young opponent of the "homosexual agenda" who I've predicted will go far. His latest project is to "reclaim" his town of Lansdowne, Pennsylvania from the homos and their supporters, and to that end, he has started an organization called "Reclaiming Lansdowne." According to Marcavage, Lansdowne is becoming "a haven for sexually deviant behavior, which is against state law, but most importantly, God’s law," and he's going to stop it. ....[H]istory clearly documents that the laws of our nation come from a Biblical foundation. It is this moral foundation, and the acknowledgment of God upon Whom our nation and our organic law has been established. Even earlier Congresses in 1776 and 1789, recognized that the acknowledgment of God lay at the very foundation of law and liberty in America.What fascinates me about this is that the reasoning confirms what I just posted about last week: the merest acknowledgment of God is being used by some as an attempt to bootstrap very specific religious laws and texts into the very founding of this country. The problem is, the folks in Lansdowne are not behaving in a terribly sophisticated manner, and at this point I'd say Marcavage is winning the game. As I've remarked before, he's an old hand at provoking people and getting arrested -- something he's recently done again at a Lansdowne City Council meeting. Here's the Philadelphia Gay News: Lansdowne is the only municipality in Delaware County to have an openly gay council member, Kevin Lee. But Lansdowne also happens to be the home of Michael Marcavage, an outspoken opponent of gay rights.I don't know what happened because I wasn't there, but you can't just drag someone from a public forum because you don't like what the speaker said. If they did that with Marcavage, they're helping him promote his agenda, which strikes me as stupid by any standard. What Marcavage obviously wants is to create a situation documenting and giving ammo to those who fear that the Bible itself will be declared "hate speech." And, wittingly or unwittingly the Lansdowne politicians seem to be helping him right along: "If he's going to use council to promote his hate speech, we don't wish to be a part of that," Council told PGN. "We don't want to infringe on the guy's First Amendment rights. But he was using the Bible to try to exclude a section of our population in Lansdowne."A content-neutral, ten minute limit is perfectly fair. But silencing a speaker during public comments because you don't like his remarks -- especially when he wants you to do precisely that in order to fuel his agenda -- that just makes no sense. Here's Elliot R. Borgman, the councilman accused of slugging Marcavage: "We're very open, and welcoming of diversity. We've done many things to put Lansdowne in a good light, and Marcavage comes along and raises questions about us doing that. He has a level of sophistication at pushing the envelope."Yeah, I'd say so. Right now he's looking more sophisticated than his opponents. He's skillfully playing a game of guerilla theater, while his opponents oblige him by acting more like gorillas. The Delaware County Daily Times characterizes this as a "lesson in civics": "I don’t desire anyone who is practicing homosexuality, fornication or any other unlawful behavior, speaking biblically, to be welcomed into the community," Marcavage said in explaining his views.The outcome will probably hinge on whether or not there was a clearly designated time limit on public comments. It strikes me as odd that the Council is only now getting around to announcing such a limit. If Marcavage can show that others were allowed to speak as long or longer than he did, I'd say he's got a good case. What hate has to do with any of this I am not sure. Marcavage has as much right to hate homosexuals and their supporters -- and demand that they not be welcomed in Lansdowne -- as his fellow citizens have to hate him. And they are just as free to demand publicly, say, that "anyone who is practicing fundamentalist Christianity or speaking biblically not be welcomed into Lansdowne." (Fortunately, neither side will win on the merits....) Who ever said that free speech means love?
posted by Eric on 08.01.04 at 05:27 PM
Comments
On the censorship issue, I'll say it again. I'll defend to the death Marcavage's right to express his views. I doubt that he would do the same for me or for you. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · August 1, 2004 10:07 PM I doubt he would. I think he's one of those guys who uses the First Amendment in order to destroy it. Whether he's working for the "Christian Reconstructionist" right, the left (as a covert agent provocateur), or his own ego, he strikes me as having nothing but contempt for American freedom.
Eric Scheie · August 2, 2004 08:45 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You're right. Marcavage is extremely sophisticated. That's another thing I've been thinking for a long time. The Left, liberals, even libertarians, are the ones who are unsophistocated and naive -- precisely in their constant characterizing of the Enemy on the Right as unsophisticated, uneducated, backward, dumb, etc.. And that's why they are always so shocked when they find out otherwise. The Enemy is extremely well-organized, extremely sophisticated in their propaganda, and, most important, they know what the real issues are.
I say that a Bible-thumping preacher in the middle of Mississippi has a clearer grasp of what the real issues are than do a hundred professors of sociology at Harvard. The Enemy know that the real issues are the spiritual issues, the moral issues, the ultimate questions of value, and they act on that knowledge.