W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page     Volume  What is New





Oh but we must not SAY (think?) anything to embarrass or show difference from the novelty ideas of the Plebiscite ? Of course not! Then nor  must we say anything which could embarrass those who do NOT hold such views, or  practices. In that case, no language which might embarrass or imply acceptance of the other's viewpoint should be used. What use having highly paid zealots to prevent discrimination when unbalanced laws ENFORCE it!

You are not forced to call a priest 'father' or a pastor  'reverend' if you reject what underlies this. Freedom of thought, speech and expression was once a major attraction of our land.

"I felt that was critical of my view/conduct in life," says some prospective new-morals plaintiff. If however he/she spoke or acted as if another view or way were WRONG, say the traditional, then that would  have to be equally offensive.

Such NORMALCY for what was not voted in as a norm, is oppressive, disruptive, both discriminatory and abusive of liberty.

The best and constitutional answer is to have freedom to express, test, argue for your religion or viewpoint without legal ruffianism smashing selectively, any more than physical brutality.