He draws the conclusion that the reason why Stephen Boissoin was convicted and he wasn't, is that he is a Jew and the good pastor is a Christian.
That's nothing that we Christians didn't know.
On my blog, a commenter remarked of Evangelicals:
But where does that leave the people who embrace evangelical faith and accept no other authority, and subject all of their intellectual thoughts and explorations to that faith and interpretation?
The logical conclusion would be that it leaves them with a philosophical weakness - no matter how "intelligent" they might be, their thinking is stunted.
A whole group of people are essentially deemed stupid.
If that's not liable to cause contempt, I don't know what would.
Now, I don't begrudge the commenter in question. She says this is based on her experience.
Her experience had led her to believe that all Evangelicals are to one degree or another deficient in their ability to reason.
You can't argue with experience. If that's what you encountered, then it's natural that you have that view.
However, if some other group had been the target of that remark-- let's say gays, blacks or aboriginals-- to name three "pet" minority groups in the current system of political correctness-- my blog could be subject to a Section 13 prosecution.
Even if I don't support those remarks.
Try saying that blacks are intellectually deficient because of poor schooling or the culture of victimization; or that gays-- the militant ones-- are deficient in their reasoning because their minds are blinded by sin.
Don't go there.
I think it's very useful to have calm exchanges even in the face of very distasteful statements. I thought the comment Sarah Palin being unintelligent was prejudiced. My commenter did not.
So we had a calm exchange about intelligence, education, faith, Evangelicalism, evolution, science and so on.
I thought it was interesting and profitable.
But if the statements about Evangelicals had been suppressed, perhaps our discussion would not have gone in that direction.
Now if the same statement is made about blacks, aboriginals and gays, you could go down all kinds of interesting alleys in challenging those (or supporting) those statements.
What business does the government have in regulating our conversations on the net?
None. An offensive comment was made. It was challenged. We talked, no one's minds was changed, no one got hurt.
What the behaviour of the CHRC reflects is that their behaviour is not driven by a sense of justice, but by ideology. Freedom is not for everyone in their perspective. Only for certain groups. The rest have to atone for their transgressions against the dominant identity-driven and victimist ideology of the day.
If everyone was treated the same, that would at least indicate the Commission was somewhat sincere (although the HRC's would still be illegitamite). As it is obviously biased, it is not sincere in its quest for equality. It is a tool to impose thought control on the masses.
