Ace has a great post up that asks a simple question. They told us if we voted for Romney he would impose his bizarre religious beliefs on us…so why is the left imposing THEIR bizarre religious beliefs on us instead?
You know, some of us don’t join religions because we actually don’t want to have strange devotional rituals and forbiddances imposed on us.
But religion is voluntary. Government law is not. Why are thesemonsters — yes, monsters — encoding their bizarre religious devotions into law?
As I’ve said: God save us from those with no god but but bursting at the seams with Religion.
I do not want religion in my government. And that means the bizarre Leftist Cult of the State with all its priests and all its mysteries and all its devotions and dogmas and catechisms.
What religious devotions? How about this one:
It was only a matter of time. CBS’s San Francisco affiliate is reporting that Contra Costa County is taking steps to amend a county ordinance to include e-cigarettes in their Secondhand Smoke Protections provisions
Third-Hand Smoke?….bizarre
A high school banning AXE body spray….bizarre
High school principal calls off Honors Night because it could be ‘devastating’ to students who missed mark….bizarre
New rules for visitors to St. Mary’s County public elementary schools ban hugs and homemade food to anyone other than a parent’s own child….bizarre
Meanwhile the New York Daily News who today said if we don’t support a assault weapons ban we want dead children, has this to say about the soda and cigarette ban nanny Bloomberg wants:
By gently and cleverly combatting some of the more aggressive effects of addiction and corporate marketing run amok, they actually make it easier, not harder, for people to exercise the choices they really desire.
They REALLY desire?
So government is the one to tell us what we REALLY desire now?
Charles C. W. Cooke has an idea:
Perhaps it could argue that we should ban certain political parties in order expand our democratic options? Or, if it really wants to put its money where its mouth is, the editorial board could propose that we censor the press in order to extend freedom of speech. Today, the paper contends:
The drink ban, had it not been overturned, would not have prevented people determined to do so from drinking as much soda as they like. Rather, it would have introduced what psychologists call an “interrupt” — a signal that triggers conscious thought — before a consumer moved on to a second 16 ounces.
And it would have banned people from buying a 32-ounce soda if they wanted one. Still, I would heartily endorse the New York Daily News taking the same approach to its newspaper. First off, it could support Bloomberg in an effort to make sure that the Daily News is not visibly on sale everywhere. This will protect consumers from “aggressive corporate marketing run amok” and allow them to make a rational choice. Then, to aid us in our selection going forward, the paper’s editors might decline to put anything on the front cover that could feasibly attract our attention.
We don’t want your bizarre religious beliefs imposed on us but as is always the case with liberals….if they don’t like it they ban it
See author page