This is technically not a segment of “The Wedgie” document but is a gemara written by my own hand (or, keyboard) as I say “Mazel tov atheist agenda!” in retelling three anecdotes that demonstrates just how successful “The Wedgie” strategy has been.
While such examples abound I wished to relate three occurrences:
In the first instance; I have been asked to give an invocation for a ceremony that is to take place on government property. I certainly knew that it was coming; yes the, thanks to “The Wedgie” atheist agenda, obligatory we don’t want to offend anyone so when you do pray, keep you references just to miscellaneous, generic, anonymous “god”.
I am not sure that I understand, exactly, how my praying in the name of Jesus constitutes the Congressional making of a law respecting an establishment of religion but could be persuaded that my free exercise thereof is being prohibited and that my freedom of speech is being abridged.
In any regard, what if I was now to argue that I am offended by being censored?
I thought that we made choices as to whether they will be offended by other people’s freedom of religious expression.
And what if there are some of those, you know, atheist types in the audience? What if they are offended by any prayer no matter how watered down? What about my atheist peeps? Who will stand up for them?
Well, let’s see: the ACLU, academia, the sciences, the media, pop-culture, pop-philosophy-but besides them; who, I ask, who???-actually I am being, mostly, serious.
I feel like Rabbi Saul of Tarsus, aka the apostle Paul, who “found an altar with this inscription: To The Unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Although, the good Rabbi was able to go on and reveal who this God was so-never mind.
Oh, indeed I get it; I should be glad enough that I get to pray in public and not in a squalid basement under a blanket in the dark. Yes, I know; I can pray in my private abode or in church. Yes, in a country premised upon the freedom of religious expression I should be content enough-I get it wedgites.
The second incident is a flyer for a children’s book drive which specifically stated that books of any religious nature would not be accepted. Makes me want to say, “You’re welcome.”
But why censor “religious” book in particular? In fact, why not list acceptable and forboden ideologies?
Are books premised upon relative values acceptable?
Are books that teach kids that they are nothing but glorified animals kosher?
What of books about having two mommies?
Or that life came from slime?
All acceptable, I am sure, just nothing with the “G” word.
Well, all of this is indicative of something that I learned firsthand when I was president of a diversity council and learned important lessons such as that we should not make reference to “Saint” Valentine’s Day because it may offend someone.
The tolerance de jour, the politically correct secular sort, declares and defines that “tolerance” means putting up with that which I already agree with. It means tolerating what is agreeable to me. It means enduring only those views and actions that are not different from my own.
Also, the diversity de jour means that we pretend that we are all the same and may somehow be different, you know-diverse-behind closed doors whilst in private quarters. Diversity means censoring expression of diversity. It means rewriting history and censoring ceremonies or the names of holidays because “someone may take offence.”
Here “someone” means an imaginary person who may or may not exist and may or may not be offended but if we can all but imagine that someone somewhere might take offence, that is enough. Modern diversity means uniformity.
I thought that tolerant diversity would mean that if someone was offended by “Saint” Valentine’s Day it could be explained to them that they were exhibiting intolerant and un-diverse characteristics and that tolerant diversity means that the point is not ensuring that no one is offended but educating the offended in tolerant diversity.
If they are offended hearing a public prayer on government property in general or to a particular god in whom they do not believe they should consider tolerant diversity and not intolerant uniformity.
Meanwhile, you have atheist activists like Michael Newdow who want to remove “One nation under God” and “In God we trust” from public/government view and wants to replace it with his religion-atheism. Imagine, a nation/government that declared its independence by referencing our “Creator_nature’s God” is now being steamed rolled by “The Wedgie” conspiracy into no longer acknowledging our “Creator_nature’s God” publicly.
Mazel tov wedgites! Mazel tov and keep acting innocent-surely, no one will notice.