Reference: "Green Bigots vs Human Beings

[YellowSub1962]

CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Green bigots versus human beings
Thomas Sowell
May 28, 2001

THE red-legged frog is only the latest of many supposedly endangered
species whose habitats may be kept off-limits to human beings, even if that
means stopping the building of much-needed housing. We have grown so used
to having the interests of millions of human beings sacrificed for some
allegedly endangered species that we no longer stop and think about how
outrageous that is.


Too often we even buy the notion that the shrill and self-righteous people
who push this stuff are some kind of noble crusaders, thinking only of the
higher things, instead of as the selfish and arrogant bigots and bullies
that they are.


The essence of bigotry is claiming for yourself rights that you would deny
to others. The green bigots who call themselves environmentalists do this
all the time. They also lie a lot, as self-anointed idealists often do.


Some species that have been said to be endangered have turned out to be
very abundant and other creatures that may in fact be endangered are not
species. Frogs are a species, but every conceivable variant of a frog is
not a species.


How many people have ever seen a red-legged frog? Or even want to see a
red-legged frog? The green bigots may be horrified that there are people
who don't have the slightest interest in red-legged frogs. But those people
are just as much American citizens as any life-long member of the Sierra
Club and are entitled to equal rights under the Constitution. There is
neither a legal nor a moral reason to over-ride what they want because the
green bigots want something else.


Like others who seek special privileges, the green bigots claim to be
speaking for others -- "future generations," for example. But this is just
shifting the argument to a different venue, without changing it in the
slightest. Those people who don't give a darn about red-legged frogs are
going to have future descendants, just as much as the environmental
extremists will. What the green bigots really want is for future
generations of green bigots to be able to over-ride future generations of
other people who do not share their views.


Fuzzy words and apocalyptic visions are stock in trade for the green
bigots, who are forever referring to "fragile" environments -- but with no
definition of "fragile," much less any evidence to fit a definition. I
should be so "fragile" that I could survive thousands of years of
earthquakes, forest fires and mountainous glaciers rolling over me.


What some consider to be idealism could more accurately be called
self-exaltation. What could be more exalting than to take on the God-like
role of adjudicating between animals and people? You cannot be a judge
handing down edicts for others unless you are placing yourself above those
others. We know how judges are appointed or elected. But who elected the
green bigots to play G-d?


Election is the last thing they have in mind. Instead, they infiltrate
coastal commissions, zoning boards and other federal, state and local
bureaucracies, from which they can impose their edicts on others, without
being accountable for the consequences. A large part of the blame for
California's electricity crisis is due to green bigots who have conducted a
scorched earth policy against anyone trying to build power-generating
plants there.


A new cult of pagan nature worship has sprung up, in which the slightest
inconvenience to any toad or bug is enough to call a halt to even the most
urgent human needs. A new mythology has been created, in which wildlife can
only survive in their original habitats. Spotted owls supposedly can live
only in "old growth" forests, though there must have been a time when the
old growth trees were new growth trees. Surely they have not been there
since the dawn of time or even throughout the whole history of spotted
owls.


When you see birds nesting in metropolitan skyscrapers, you have to
acknowledge that wild creatures do have some adaptability -- unless you
think these are "old growth" skyscrapers. Species could not have survived
the evolutionary changes of the earth if they didn't have some
adaptability. But now, everything is to be frozen where it is by the green
bigots -- and at unlimited costs to others.


Nature worship is fine for those who want it. I have nothing against
faith-based organizations. But a theocracy imposing its will on others is
something else, even when it is a theocracy of nature-worshippers.*

[Berzerker]

Oh god!, the ignorance and stupidity just pours out from the writing. I don't even know how to respond to something so unbelieveably off the wall and out there as that crap. Whatever.....

[YellowSub1962]

<font color="yellow">the truth hurts that much huh?? <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

I realize this is a extreme viewpoint but I posted it to get people thinking about how silly it is that a frog or a fairy shrimp are of greater concern than the health and well being of the human race....after all the gags are all out for power and control...What makes people so sure they have the right to exert their environmental beliefs on everyone? Where do we draw the line? When does it become "ok" to kill a frog so that a human can survive?

just throwing some thoughts out there, I do however for the most part agree with ideas and examples presented in the article, though it is quite extreme....</font c>

[DRM]

No really Berzerker, please point out the many flaws you see... I think it is a rather direct and hard hitting look at the green extremists at work today...

Like YellowSub said - does the truth hurt that much? <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

[Curtis]

Nature worship is fine for those who want it. I have nothing against faith-based organizations. But a theocracy imposing its will on others is something else, even when it is a theocracy of nature-worshippers.

I'd bet everything I own this person sees no problem with governments putting up nativity scenes or a city erecting a 10' granite slab with the Ten Commandments on them that boast "I am thy lord they God." Isn't that "imposing its will on others" as the author seems to deplore? I'd bet that's some of the problem Berzerker has with it.

[DRM]

Originally posted by Curtis:
[QBI'd bet everything I own this person sees no problem with governments putting up nativity scenes or a city erecting a 10' granite slab with the Ten Commandments on them that boast "I am thy lord they God." Isn't that "imposing its will on others" as the author seems to deplore? I'd bet that's some of the problem Berzerker has with it.[/QB]

Completely different.

You are comparing putting up religions items (which is completely legal based on the Constitution - if you you care to read it <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0"> ) to trying to lock people out of the land they own (as has been done with the spotted owl and others)?

But - you reading a few words on some stones is "imposing" someone's will on you? Just how weak a person are you that reading a few lines will affect your "will"? <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

Lets look up the root word here...

im·pose (m-pz)
v. im·posed, im·pos·ing, im·pos·es

To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.
To apply or make prevail by or as if by authority: impose a peace settlement. See Synonyms at dictate.
To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others.

Are you sure "imposing" is the word you want to try to work with there?

Come on Curtis, I know you have a better arguement than that <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

[Curtis]

Originally posted by Birfield King:
<STRONG>Completely different.

You are comparing putting up religions items (which is completely legal based on the Constitution - if you you care to read it <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0"> ) to trying to lock people out of the land they own (as has been done with the spotted owl and others)?

But - you reading a few words on some stones is "imposing" someone's will on you? Just how weak a person are you that reading a few lines will affect your "will"? <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

Lets look up the root word here...

im·pose (m-pz)
v. im·posed, im·pos·ing, im·pos·es

To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.
To apply or make prevail by or as if by authority: impose a peace settlement. See Synonyms at dictate.
To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others.

Are you sure "imposing" is the word you want to try to work with there?

Come on Curtis, I know you have a better arguement than that <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

Um, I believe I was using HIS word when I said impose. Don't twist what I wrote to try to make me look like I don't know what I am saying.

However, if you want to really look at it, look at the definition of obtrude:
1 : to thrust out : EXTRUDE
2 : to force or impose (as oneself or one's ideas) without warrant or request

By placing the Ten Commandments, which is part of the Christain religion ONLY, and the saying "Lord thy God," then yes, a city government is IMPOSING Christianity on everyone. Because the city is then "forcing" its belief on the non-Christains citizens of that city without their request because EVERYONE'S tax dollars, Christains and non-Christains, are used to erect and maintain the granite slab. Remember, you and your ilk do not like the idea your tax dollars go to those environmental causes you deem extreme or leftist. What makes you think us non-Christains like our tax dollars going to things that promote Christianity?

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Curtis ]

[DRM]

Originally posted by Curtis:
Um, I believe I was using HIS word when I said impose. Don't twist what I wrote to try to make me look like I don't know what I am saying.

If you don't want it applied to you, don't use the words in your arguement. Seems simple to me.

By placing the Ten Commandments, which is part of the Christain religion ONLY, and the saying "Lord thy God," then yes, a city government is IMPOSING Christianity on everyone.

Wrong. If you are not a believer, then they are simply showing you words from a quaint old book... You can't have it both ways <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">
As far as "just" being the Christian religion - wrong again. They are actually the basis for most of our European law systems... you still complain we are forcing them on people?

Because the city is then "forcing" its belief on the non-Christains citizens of that city without their request because EVERYONE'S tax dollars, Christains and non-Christains, are used to erect and maintain the granite slab. Remember, you and your ilk do not like the idea your tax dollars go to those environmental causes you deem extreme or leftist. What makes you think us non-Christains like our tax dollars going to things that promote Christianity?

People are forced every day to have the government make them pay for things they don't want or like. I have to help fund sex education in elementary schools. I have to help fund all manners of things I don't like - what is the difference?

Don't ever come crying to a Christian about being "forced" to deal with things they don't like - we deal with it every day with the perversions liberals force through our government <IMG SRC="smilies/pissed.gif" border="0">

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]

[Curtis]

Wrong. If you are not a believer, then they are simply showing you words from a quaint old book... You can't have it both ways <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

I tke offense at any form of government telling my "thy Lod thy God." Sorry, perhaps that is YOUR lord and YOUR god, but don't try to push it on me.

As far as "just" being the Christian religion - wrong again. They are actually the basis for most of our European law systems... you still complain we are forcing them on people?

Hmmm, I thought this country was formed by people who left European systems. I guess I was wrong.


People are forced every day to have the government make them pay for things they don't want or like. I have to help fund sex education in elementary schools. I have to help fund all manners of things I don't like - what is the difference?

Um, isn't that exactly what I said. You tell me the difference.

Don't ever come crying to a Christian about being "forced" to deal with things they don't like - we deal with it every day with the perversions liberals force through our government <IMG SRC="smilies/pissed.gif" border="0">

There you go again David. Please calm down and show some respect. Stop with the crap of belittleing. Saying I come "crying" about anything is wrong. I was stating FACT. Our constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and court cases through our history have determined that the term "Congress" applies to all lower forms of goverment through states and cities. Therefore, a city that pays to erect something that has to do with Christianity using tax dollars is establishing a religious belief on its citizenry. Would you like your tax dollars to go toward erecting something that has to do with satan worship or another religious belief you abhor?

And, the "perversions" you claim to hate so much does nothing as to the establishment of a religion nor do they violate the Constitution. You just don't agree with them.

[DRM]

Originally posted by Curtis:
I tke offense at any form of government telling my "thy Lod thy God." Sorry, perhaps that is YOUR lord and YOUR god, but don't try to push it on me.

And as I said, I take offense when gov't tells me I have to accept homosexuality, or pay to support welfare women who can't keep their legs together. I guess it looks like neither of us want gov't FORCING things on us <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

Hmmm, I thought this country was formed by people who left European systems. I guess I was wrong.

Come on... they weren't leaving european LAW you knucklehead <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0"> you know that <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

Um, isn't that exactly what I said. You tell me the difference.

To a point - we agree on this. But the difference is simple. If they FORCED you to accept Christianity - it would be the same. See, I am FORCED to acept homosexuals and the like (can't fire them, gotta hire them, can't tell them they are wrong, etc.) . If I just had to read about them on a big stone beside the road, I wouldn't be complaining like you are about the 10 Commandments. I hope you can see the difference.

There you go again David. Please calm down and show some respect. Stop with the crap of belittleing. Saying I come "crying" about anything is wrong.

First off - you misread that. the <IMG SRC="smilies/pissed.gif" border="0"> was not directed at you - but at the liberals mentioned. Like I said in the other thread - stop looking for a fight, I am not trying to insult you here <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

I was stating FACT. Our constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and court cases through our history have determined that the term "Congress" applies to all lower forms of goverment through states and cities. Therefore, a city that pays to erect something that has to do with Christianity using tax dollars is establishing a religious belief on its citizenry.

Ah man, how wrong can you be. First off - you NEVER inprepret the Constitution based on case law. That is the most assinine thing to do. It would be like me basing my Christian beliefs on a book someone else wrote about the Bible - You have flawed data from the very nature of it. I won;t blame you though - it seems far too many people today have bought in to this absurdity.

I won't get into the mis-inprepretation of the Constitution as you have shown here, but the stretch of applying that wording to state and local government's is complete bunk.

Would you like your tax dollars to go toward erecting something that has to do with satan worship or another religious belief you abhor?

Come on Curtis - you know how I am on the law. If the people vote on it and decide to do it - GO FOR IT. All I can do is try to get new people in office to have it MY way.

And, the "perversions" you claim to hate so much does nothing as to the establishment of a religion nor do they violate the Constitution. You just don't agree with them.

That was not the issue - the issue was being forced to endure thing you don;t agree with.

And please stop with the incorrect interpretation of what "establishment of religion" is. If you have studied history at all, you would know it refers to a National Religion, not the liberal definition you would apply.

[Curtis]

SImply put I am FORCED to accept Christianity in the same way you claim to be forced to accept homosexuality. I cannot fire them for their beliefs, etc. And, you know good and well it's not the stone but the fact TAX dollars are spent to put it up and maintain it. For instance, I object to the nativity scene my current city puts up on city property. It's OUR tax dollars spent to do so. However, I could care less what a church does on its property with its money. See the diff?

[DRM]

Originally posted by Curtis:
<STRONG>SImply put I am FORCED to accept Christianity in the same way you claim to be forced to accept homosexuality. I cannot fire them for their beliefs, etc. And, you know good and well it's not the stone but the fact TAX dollars are spent to put it up and maintain it. For instance, I object to the nativity scene my current city puts up on city property. It's OUR tax dollars spent to do so. However, I could care less what a church does on its property with its money. See the diff?</STRONG>

You still miss the difference. You are not required to hire them BECAUESE they are Christians, are you? You know as well as I do that religions beliefs are in no way protected by our government to the level that sexual orientation is today... come on <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

As to what your city does - they spend money on MILLIONS of things I am sure you don't like. Shoot, our little critters are trying to cram a state income tax down out throats right now - and even though most of us don't like it - we vote them into office and if they can pass it, it will be - whether I like it or not.