Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Watertown Declares Itself "Place for Hate" -- of Traditional Values

Reading about State Senator Jarrett Barrios' selection to head the Mass. Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation made us think about some of the bad programs it supports. Like the campaign to get towns to join the "No Place for Hate" network. Coincidentally, we were just referred to a hateful editorial in Watertown Tab, celebrating that town's admission to this "Limit Free Speech" club called "No Place for Hate". Hate is not defined, of course, by this campaign. As we wrote two years ago:

Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER! ... How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?

The "No Place for Hate" campaign is an imitation of the extra-governmental organizations ("Civil Rights Tribunals") that pushed the envelope for ultra-leftist and homosexual causes in Canada. These are community-based "Brown Shirt" clubs, and only haters of traditional Judeo-Christian values need apply. Ironically, a nominally Jewish group -- the Anti-Defamation League -- is behind "No Place for Hate"! But then, the liberal Jews threw out their Bible-based beliefs and values a long time ago. They're wandering in the desert again, ignoring the word of God.

While this will take up a lot of space, we believe the exchange below regarding Watertown's naming as a "No Place for Hate" community is worth preserving (and the local papers remove their links quickly). First, we reprint the hateful, irrational editorial by the Watertown Tab; then, a good response by Mark Charalambous, spokesman for the Fatherhood Coalition of Massachusetts.

Watertown Tab Editorial
Editorial: The left finally wins one in the culture war (5-10-07)
Bellevue Road curmudgeon Ralph Filicchia, to no one’s surprise, is “offended” that Watertown has declared itself “No Place for Hate.”
The Town Council voted unanimously in 2005 to adopt the “No Place for Hate” resolution, which says in part that “all acts of subtle or overt racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and ethnic bigotry substantially undermine our communities, schools and the promise of equal justice…”
Not exactly incendiary stuff. But Filicchia strode to the mic at Town Council on Tuesday to demand that the “No Place for Hate” sign be torn down and the resolution rescinded.
“The proclamation is discriminatory and a violation and infringement upon my civil rights as an American citizen,” Filicchia said. “I want the right to speak out without being guilty of a hate crime.”
There’s one way in which Filicchia makes an interesting argument. Labeling homophobia “hate” short-circuits debate over whether gay folks should be tolerated. After all, who could possibly be in favor of “hate?”
This paper has no sympathy for Filicchia and his right-wing fellow travelers, however few they may be. The right is simply reaping the whirlwind of years of its own highly successful debate-framing.
Let’s start with the term “pro-life.” How can anyone be against life? It’s a cunning coinage, though, that has done much to help the anti-abortion cause.
Or how about those on the right who proclaim or imply a monopoly on “patriotism?” Leftists are finally realizing they can reclaim the word in the name of virtues like peace.
Of course there’s also “family values,” which begs the questions “What kind of family?” and “Whose values?”
So the left’s successful conversion of the term “hate” to include opposition to homosexuality and diversity is a nice coup. It’s a joy to see the sour looks on the faces of right-wingers as they get a taste of their own medicine.

Mark Charalambous (Fatherhood Coalition Spokesman)
It comes as no surprise that the Tab editors consider the anti-abortion movement's use of "pro-life" as "cunning coinage" ("Editorial: The leftfinally wins one in the culture war," May 10). After two generations worth of politically correct indoctrination in our educational system, logical reasoning has become a rare commodity.
The word "choice" describes a countless number of events experienced daily in every single person's life, starting at the very beginning of the day with, perhaps, "Should I get up now or snooze for a few minutes?" Perhaps followed soon after with "Do I have time for a third cup of coffee?" Choices are made every moment of our lives. In fact, one could argue that consciousness itself is nothing more than a series of choices, constituting our very sense of existence.
The use of this neutral and innocuous word to describe the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child/fetus remains the single greatest example of the cultural left's corruption of language. "Affirmative action" as a euphemism for racial discrimination runs a close second. Somewhere George Orwell is smiling.
In comparison, it requires no stretch of the imagination or strained logic to recognize that "pro-life" is in fact a completely reasonable choice ofwords to describe the anti-abortion position. The issue at stake is life --human life, I might add -- and those opposed to abortion wish to prevent its taking.
So let's see now. I find rap music repellent, and I consider this "art form"and lifestyle representative of a degenerate culture. Under Watertown's "No Place for Hate" resolution, that would easily qualify as "hate speech." Similarly, I believe that homosexuality -- which is overwhelmingly learned, adaptive behavior -- is abnormal. (Once again, for the logic-challenged Tab staff and readers: "normal" is not just a word with some fuzzy, malleable definition; it means "that which functions according to its design.")
It is to me a no-brainer that any healthy society would draw clear distinctions both in custom and law between biological nuclear (heterosexual) families and homosexual "families" that require artificial means to produce or obtain their children. That, undoubtedly, also qualifies as "hate speech," and might cost me my job or even worse if the 'No Place for Hate' crowd continue to have their way.
I'm not sure if Mr. Filicchia is representative of a substantial proportion of the Watertown population who, except for him, have been mugged and muzzled by the PC thought police. I fear that he is the lone boy in the crowd of sycophants crying out that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps his example of "speaking truth to power," to borrow a phrase from the cultural left's history, will motivate others to follow suit.
-- Mark Charalambous, Leominster