Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

11/16/2008 (5:51 pm)

It Starts

“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Often misattributed to Voltaire, this was written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall of The Friends of Voltaire, 1906.

Actually, this has been going on for quite a while already, but now it’s going mainstream. The national reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 has produced a wave of what can best be described as an attempt at mob rule. Pro-gay activists don’t like the outcome of the vote, so they’re attempting to force people to change by mob action and intimidation. This is not how a representative democracy is supposed to work, and let’s be frank, these folks are no longer participants in a representative democracy. If this is permitted to continue, none of us should consider that we live in a representative democracy.

Diana West, columnist for the Washington Times and author of The Death of the Grown-Up, reports on a meeting at a restaurant in Hollywood where the co-owner, a 72-year-old Mormon woman named Marjorie Christoffersen, was forced by a crowd of angry protesters to express regret for donating $100 of her own money to the “‘Yes’ on Prop 8” campaign. The crowd was not mollified by her regret because she stopped short of an apology; they booed, and she left her own restaurant in tears. Do not fail to read this.

In response to the crowd, another manager, who happens to be gay, announced that the restaurant (not him) would donate $5,000 each to the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund.

Let’s be clear: there exists a right to demonstrate in the US, but it was conceived as a right to protest the government. What we’re watching here is something very different; it’s an attempt to intimidate or punish individual citizens for their lawful advocacy. The protesters here not only disagree with this woman, but are assaulting her right to support the position of her choice. This is not legitimate protest, but an attempt at mob rule. The donation to mollify the crowd makes it a shake-down.

I lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of the Democratic Party, which has stood by silently and approvingly over the years as members of their party and defenders of their positions increasingly used these tactics in attempts to silence opponents. In fact, we’ve seen Democratic leaders in the US Senate use similar tactics in attempts to silence Rush Limbaugh and to stop the Walt Disney Corporation from airing a movie that was uncomplimentary to a former Democratic President.

Expect this sort of intolerance to become official. Instead of threats of boycotts and angry crowds, expect violence and the passing of laws against political and religious positions of conscience. Prepare yourselves now to stand firm in the face of these things, and remember that some things are worth suffering for, and that no act of the legislature can make an honorable man a criminal.

Change is indeed on the way. Welcome to the Age of Obama.

« « Leave the Manhattan Project in the Past | Main | Don't Say We Didn't Warn You » »

7 Comments »

November 16, 2008 @ 6:34 pm #

It’s somewhat amusing that you consider peaceful demonstrations to be ‘mob rule’. Admittedly there are exceptions to the peaceful demonstrators, as there are within any large group of dissatisfied people, but protesting against removal of a civil right is not quite the same as mob rule. America has a long history of free expression, for better or worse causes, and just because the cause here is something you disagree with does not make it ‘mob rule’. When the anti-abortionists march in their thousands, that does not constitute mob rule. When civil rights protesters march, that does not constitute mob rule either. When abortion clinics are bombed, that constitutes terrorism. When the weather underground bombs congress, that constitutes terrorism.

Some further things. It is telling that you describe the protesters as ‘pro-gay’ rather than ‘equal rights’, which is, after all, what this is all about. Was MLK and that movement ‘pro-black’? Additionally, you caution us to
Secondly, ‘Expect this sort of intolerance to become official’, but you don’t consider legality of marriage for one orientation and not the other discriminatory.
You also manage to portray civil rights laws as ‘passing of laws against political and religious positions of conscience’, an astonishing twist of language for which I must compliment your rhetorical skill, however this is astonishing when you think about it. Laws that mandate equality, to you, are laws ‘against positions of conscience’ and supporters of such legislation are ‘intolerant’.

Finally, you manage to stick this all to Obama, despite him not having yet set foot in the oval office. An equally, and perhaps more valid statement would be ‘Welcome to the legacy of Bush’.

November 16, 2008 @ 7:05 pm #

I’m curious, Tom. Were you given this blog as an assignment, or is this your personal, self-assigned participation in the general, Progressive “don’t ever let a conservative opinion go unchallenged” tactic? I guess I should be honored that my blog has grown influential enough to earn the attention of the Progressive Thought Police…

So, to defuse the usual flood of propaganda and disinformation (how do you guys live with your consciences?):

just because the cause here is something you disagree with does not make it ‘mob rule’.

So you think it’s appropriate for a mob to extort $10,000 in donations for their cause in exchange for permitting the restaurant to stay in business, all because one of the owners made a donation out of her own pocket to a cause the mob dislikes? This is what you call “free expression?” You think the purpose of free expression is to cause specific individuals to fear for their livelihood? Sounds more like a protection racket to me…

If it were my restaurant, I’d be swearing out a RICO complaint about now.

protesting against removal of a civil right is not quite the same as mob rule.

First, explain to me how threatening this one lady’s business constitutes a protest against a law. They weren’t demonstrating against the law, they were threatening her business because she made a $100 donation.

Then, explain to me how simply insisting on the proper English definition of the word “marriage” constitutes “removal of a civil right.”

That is all Prop 8 did, you know — clarify the meaning of the word “marriage,” to make it consistent with what the word has meant in every context in the nation’s history (not to mention the world’s). I’m really sorry if you don’t like the English language, but words have meanings, and laws rely on those meanings.

It is telling that you describe the protesters as ‘pro-gay’ rather than ‘equal rights’, which is, after all, what this is all about.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights, and everything to do with gays’ pathetic, emotional need to have the culture shout “You’re normal!” in their ears to counter their own, inner conviction that they’re not normal. The label “pro-gay” is accurate; the label “equal rights” is an outright lie.

you don’t consider legality of marriage for one orientation and not the other discriminatory.

There’s no discrimination; gay and straight men are equally permitted to marry any woman they choose, and gay and straight women may equally marry any man that they choose. A union between two individuals of the same gender is not, by definition, a marriage. Saying so is not discrimination; it’s simply accurate usage of words.

Where does one derive an inherent right of citizens to change laws by arbitrarily changing the meanings of words? Ours is supposed to be a government of laws, and not of men. If the meanings of words in laws can be changed arbitrarily, then laws have no meaning, and none of our liberties are safe.

Finally, you manage to stick this all to Obama, despite him not having yet set foot in the oval office. An equally, and perhaps more valid statement would be ‘Welcome to the legacy of Bush’.

We’ve been watching the Obama thugs doing this sort of thing throughout the campaign (see here and here for starters). It will only get worse. Feel free to post similar incidents perpetrated by supporters of the Bush administration, if you can. You won’t find any; we’re not neo-Stalinist thugs like you Progressives.

November 16, 2008 @ 7:13 pm #

[…] See the original post: It Starts […]

November 16, 2008 @ 7:42 pm #

Hey Tom,

I was trying to get this in before Phil responded, but I see he has. Let me jump in anyway.

Gays are perfectly within their rights to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Unions between gays does not constitute marriage. This is a cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian culture which founded this country. Corrupting the basic definition of marriage has been rejected by California voters, … all fair and square. Your position ” … but you don’t consider legality of marriage for one orientation and not the other discriminatory.” does not have any standing.

In terms of implying Obama isn’t complicitous in stifling free speech, your statement,

“Finally, you manage to stick this
all to Obama, despite him not
having yet set foot in the oval office.”

is remarkably naive.

See this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/08/29/barack_the_silencer_obamas_gangland_assault_on_free_speech

and this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/04/schumer-on-the-fairness-doctrine-just-think-of-it-as-regulating-pornography/

November 18, 2008 @ 10:08 am #

Phil,

As usual, you’ve said it all much more persuasively and eloquently than I could.

But I will mention that the idea of mob rule by the homosexual community, while extremely disconcerting, is nothing new.

See Genesis Chapter 19 (particularly verses 4 and 9).

November 18, 2008 @ 10:11 am #

As an addendum to my short post above, the idea of “mollifying the mob” is nothing new either. See Genesis Chapter 19 per the link above, verse 8.

August 5, 2009 @ 5:44 pm #

[…] Malkin has good videos of tactics being carried out by leftist activists, here, or you can recall this mob activism launched against a Los Angeles restauranteur in the wake of the Prop 8 vote, or this flood of filth […]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>