Worldnetdaily Discovers Another ‘Muslim Plot’ »« Police Harassing Carlos Miller Again

Ben Kinchlow: Idiot or Liar?

Ben Kinchlow, the former longtime co-host of the 700 Club and now a weekly columnist for the Worldnetdaily, has a column about the Supreme Court case involving legislative prayer that forces one to conclude that either he is a first-class moron or he assumes his readers to be (a safe assumption, to be sure). He proves this in the first couple paragraphs:

How would this work for you? Two vegetarians are offended by meat eaters, so they sue. Any restaurant, club or public facility where the public is invited to attend meetings that would involve any subject germane to the community cannot serve meat dishes. That would mean any meeting involving the public, including political meetings, meetings involving veterans, schools or any other public gathering held in a facility where the public was invited and dinner was served would not be allowed to serve meat dishes. Understand what this would mean; Lions Club, Rotarians, American Legion, VFW and even Little League and Boy Scout meetings would be affected.

A case of vastly greater freedom-restricting impact than the above hypothetical is being debated before the U.S. Supreme Court as we speak:

“[T]he continuance of public prayer and the public acknowledgment of God is in jeopardy, literally, not figuratively … our friends at the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom are arguing the case Town of Greece v. Galloway before the U. S. Supreme Court. The Court will then decide whether or not public prayer will be allowed to continue in America.

Let me ask the obvious question: Is he really too stupid to understand the distinction between prayer at a government meeting and prayer at an event hosted by a private organization? Or is he just lying with the knowledge that his readers are too stupid to understand it?

Why? Because two women, who were “offended” and felt they were “being discriminated against” by prayers, sued in court and a federal appeals court agreed with them. Keep in mind, these two people, with full knowledge that every session opened with prayer, of their own free will and at times and dates of their own choosing, voluntarily attended meetings that were open to the public.

Exactly! Just like those kids protesting in Oakland attended that protest with full knowledge that the cops would be using pepper spray and they went of their own free will, voluntarily! Because it’s totally okay for the government to break the law as long as you know in advance that they’re going to do it. And your participation in local government should be completely dependent on your willingness to participate unwillingly in someone else’s religious exercises. Christian privilege FTW.

Of course, the moment someone offers a Muslim prayer before a legislative session, Kinchlow will be screaming about that outrageous violation of the First Amendment and all his blather about religious freedom will disappear faster than an 8-ball at Lindsay Lohan’s house. Because his definition of religious freedom is Christians having the right to force you to sit through their religious exercises, but no one else having the right to force them to do the same. It’s not religious freedom, it’s Christian privilege.

Comments

  1. says

    His bit about the vegetarians is just dumb. Has he not read the 1st Amendment?? His point is exactly opposite of what it says!

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of vegetarianism, or prohibiting the free consumption of meat…

  2. John Pieret says

    Any restaurant, club or public facility where the public is invited to attend meetings that would involve any subject germane to the community cannot serve meat dishes.

    Oh, wait a minute! Here I thought Town of Greece was about a town board meeting, not an American Legion meeting. Silly me, I’m so embarassed! Anyone who got the case so wrong must be a moron.

  3. eric says

    Yet another problem with his vegetarian analogy is that the town of Greece doesn’t just want to serve prayer, its asking everyone to bow their heads and eat it – or else possibly be discriminated against by the meat-eaters.

    If that were in fact the case with serving food at BOE meetings, then serving food would likely be seen as illegal too. The analogy would hold but both would be illegal, rather than neither. Serving food – okay. Having government officials watch who eats what and then treat different eaters differently – not okay.

  4. scienceavenger says

    How would this work for you? Two vegetarians are offended by meat eaters, so they sue

    Again with the “offended” canard. Not. About. Offense. Was. Never. About. Offense.

  5. Mr Ed says

    How would this work for you? Your neighbor wants to add on to his house and needs a zoning variance. You go to the zone board to argue against the variance because you think it will negatively impact your property. After the meeting starts the board members, a few people attending the meeting and your neighbor stand and recite the Moose Lodge Credo. Your neighbor gets his variance, did he have a sound argument or did he have the inside track. Government should be like a high school click.

  6. Nathair says

    disappear faster than an 8-ball at Lindsay Lohan’s house.

    I am soooo stealing this.

    Hells yeah! There’s nuthin funnier than watching someone with mental health and substance abuse problems publicly self-destruct, amirite?

  7. bahrfeldt says

    “Ben Kinchlow: Idiot or Liar?”. Deceitful, flock-fleecing, thieving con-artist. Lies about his own and others’ beliefs, motivations and actions. Adopted lying as a life-long profession and is rather good at it. Apparently not an idiot.

  8. Pen says

    I don’t actually think prayer hosted by a private organisation is ok, unless the organisation is specifically dedicated to a religious activity. How would it be if my company insisted on prayers as team-building exercises? That would be unacceptable discrimination.

  9. says

    Why is it that these idiots can never construct a proper analogy? Not only isn’t this about prayers hosted at a private organization’s meeting, but the whole “vegetarian” angle is constructed so as to completely elide the relevant issue. It’s not about the damnable vegetarians preventing people from eating meat, but rather about whether or not the government, as a price of bringing an issue before them, can force vegetarians to eat a steak (in a venue in which food consumption shouldn’t even be an aspect of the procedings).

    And I think we’re all aware that the right is totally against the government forcing people to do things against their will– except when those things are seen as “good” by those same hyperventilating, slack-jawed idiots.

Leave a Reply