Sweet Jesus Ice-Cream

There is a fairly new ice cream seller in Canada, which is expanding beyond the border, named Sweet Jesus. I’ve never been there myself, so I can’t say if the ice cream is any good; although you can click here for one opinion.

charity picThe name, I’m guessing, is designed to be edgy and cool. “We’re not afraid of offending anyone! But we’re not bad people either. We give to kids’ charities! So if you’re offended, you can f#@k right off! Yeah!”

They state on their website…

Our name was created from the popular phrase that people use as an expression of enjoyment, surprise or disbelief. Our aim is not to offer commentary on anyone’s religion or belief systems. Our own organization is made up of amazing people that represent a wide range of cultural and religious beliefs.

Clearly they either don’t understand the nature of speech or care about truth in speech when they state, “Our aim is not to offer commentary on anyone’s religion or belief systems,” as is made obvious in some of their ads:

ad 001

ad 002

isis creamAnd I find myself wondering, if they really wanted to be edgy, why didn’t they name their business Magic Muhammad’s Isis-Cream: It’ll blow your mind, and the rest of you too! Something dangerous like that.

I wonder if it’s because they knew if they’d done that, they wouldn’t have had only to put up with a few inconvenient bomb threats from angry Muslims, but also the full-on insanity of the regressive diversity social engineering crew, which is much worse. It’s just easier to target Christians. And hey, not all Christians will get offended at the name; there’s plenty of Progressive Christians who are cool enough to play along.

A petition has been started, by Christians, directed at Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and (for some reason) American President Donald Trump. It states…

We, as Christians are deeply offended by the name of a new Ice Cream chain of stores calling themselves Sweet Jesus. This is a mockery of taking the Lord’s name in vain and also highly offensive to Christians. The imagery used to promote the brand is also anti-Christ and therefore anti-Christian, for example, using upside down crosses on the labels of the ice cream cups.

As a Christian myself, I understand why the name is offensive, and I will not be buying any ice cream from that business. However, if you’re a Christian and you are not just as upset by the Playboy magazine that’s been sitting on the shelf of your local convenience store for the last 40 years as you are by the name Sweet Jesus, then I’d suggest you don’t spend too much time and energy getting upset about this ice cream joint either.

If I were a military commander, I think that, when facing a superior opponent, I would want to force my enemy to engage in constant useless battles. This would distract him from his real goal, it would tire him out and waste away his resources, and it would cause division within his own forces. I think this is what Satan does a lot of the time with Christians. Look! Here is some inconsequential group of people doing something offensive towards Christians — go and get angry at them!  Seethe with soul crushing rage and demand that someone with power do something!

The best things for Christians to do when encountering a business like Sweet Jesus is, first, simply ignore it and don’t go there; second, write a letter to the company and intelligently and forcefully express your opinion; and third, continue on with the primary mission of the Church, which is to expand Christ’s Kingdom to cover the whole world — which Christians do indeed have the resources, authority, and ability to do, as long as we don’t continuously get distracted by pointless engagements.

Advertisements

Free Speech is for Jerks

Screen Shot 2017-06-16 at 11.36.04 AM
Screenshot of the blog “The Baconfat Papers”

Recently an Edmontonian man was charged with hate speech for a blog he wrote called The Baconfat Papers (www.sunrayzulu.blogspot.com). The blog has been removed, but I found some of his articles via Wayback Machine.

Now, while I hate racism and think it’s evil (and this guy’s blog was especially despicable — basically at the Westboro Baptist Church level), if a guy wants to write a racist blog, he has the right to do so. That’s free speech, and free speech is for jerks too. If you are offended, don’t read it.

If a guy writes a blog which physically threatens someone or calls for others to physically hurt someone, that’s different. That’s no longer free speech of course, since someone’s life may be in danger.

I don’t know if the author of Baconfat, Barry Winters, actually physically threatened anyone; maybe he did. If he did, yes he needs to be charged — but not with hate speech.

“Hate Speech” is one of those ambiguous terms that confuse the issue and leave too much room for abuse. If Barry Winters physically threatened someone, then let him be charged specifically for that. Or, if he called for others to physically hurt someone, let him be specifically charged for that. But if he just wrote a bunch of blogs about how he hates Natives and gays, so be it — that’s just his opinion. It’s evil and wrong, and you can either write to him and tell him why he’s wrong, or, more wisely, just ignore him. There are plenty of guys like Barry Winters out there. They pose no threat unless we give them a platform. And the way to remove their platform is to ignore them — not remove free speech for everybody. Because in the end, who will it be that defines “Hate Speech?”

~Further reading…

He may be Canada’s ‘ultimate troll,’ but should Edmonton blogger be charged for spreading hate?

Progressive Conservatism

This is What it’s Like to be a Race Baiter in Alberta

***

The Free Speech Trade-off

FT_15.11.19_speechAccording to this 2015 Pew Research article, 40% of U.S. millennials are in favour of the government having the authority to censor offensive speech about minorities.

Thomas Sowell has said: “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.”

It sounds like a good idea to limit “hate speech”. Who would be against that? But if we stop at only what sounds good we create future trouble for ourselves. We have to ask questions and thoughtfully follow through on what these “good” ideas would actually create. Questions like: Who decides what “hate speech” is? Given the government has the authority to limit hate speech, would the government abuse that authority in the future?

I am in an interracial marriage. I’m a white Canadian, while my wife is a brown Cambodian. (Are you offended that I called her brown?) Suppose, while planning our marriage in Canada, we went to a bakery which was owned by a white supremacist. And suppose he refused to bake our wedding cake because he is against interracial marriage. I would be annoyed and a little offended at that. But, the most I would do is tell my friends and family about it and stop there. I’m not going to call the media. I’m not going to sue. I’m not going to boycott his bakery (although I can understand why others would). I’m not going to fight to give the government the power to shut him down. As much I wouldn’t like what he had done, I wouldn’t fight to take away his right to run his business as he wants. Because, if I take away his freedom, I take away everyone else’s freedom too.*

If the KKK comes marching through your town’s public square spewing hate speech against blacks and Jews, you have two options: you can ignore them or you can speak against them. One option you don’t have is to silence them. Even the KKK is protected by free speech**. However, if the KKK comes into your restaurant and decide to hold an impromptu rally, you can silence them by kicking them out of your business.

Thomas Sowell also often says: “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.” What is the free speech trade-off? Do we want the government to silence anyone who might offend us now, and, consequently, give the government the ability to abuse that authority in the future when our children and grandchildren are adults? (And if you don’t think that will happen, you just need to study history. Right now in certain Asian countries a person can be imprisoned for criticizing the government on Facebook. Do we want that in western society?) Or, we can grow a thicker skin and allow everyone to speak freely, even when it offends us, and ensure future generations will not have to live in fear that if they say the wrong thing, arbitrarily decided by government, they won’t end up in prison for ten years.

*I realize that there are already anti-discrimination laws in place, and I am not necessarily against those laws. This is just an example. 

**Free Speech: The right to speak without censorship or restraint by the government.