Courts' Massacre Of Words.
The Constitution guarantees the
right of people to peacefully assemble. The operative word is
"ASSEMBLE". It does not just mean "TO GATHER".
The word, "ASSEMBLE", implies some intelligence in
putting together something. In so doing, it requires a process of
picking and choosing to include or exclude specific elements, ie,
"DISCRIMINATION". The proper use of the word,
“discrimination”, means to recognize one thing from
another. We want people to be able to discriminate. It is an
integral part of being intelligent over other species. We want
humans to discriminate between good and evil. If our educational
system fails to teach the ability to discriminate, then it ceases
to become anything more than a propaganda system. Jury selection
itself is "discrimination". Any person who says they do
not discriminate is either an idiot or a liar.
said, it is quite obvious that the courts' choice of the word
"discrimination" in attempting to quell civil conflicts
contradicts the original Constitution & is hypocritical. If
ever there was a word so abused, so maligned, so improperly used,
it is the word "discrimination". For a group of alleged
scholars, the court and its followers ought to be horsewhipped for
the misuse of this word. Why? Because the word “discrimination”
penetrates so deeply into the individual human psyche, which is a
place where no government or other human belongs. The only thing
that can and should be prosecuted in the courts is wrongful
behavior, not what is in a person's head. As time has progressed,
the word, “discrimination”, has become a tool of
alleged consciences that have no conscience , seeking to accuse,
slander & character assassinate, not on behalf of any real
justice, but only for the purposes of unearned reward.
Luther King was correct when he said “We should be judged by
the content of our character”. That does not mean we have
the right to condemn the character of others without it being
accompanied by a criminal act. Nor do we have the right to judge
and condemn the character of our loving Christian God as many
atheists and homosexuals are doing today. Slander is untruthful
accusation designed to assassinate an opponent. It is as criminal
as any other malicious crime. Name-calling using words such as
“homophobe”, “islamaphobe”, “xenophobe”
is tantamount to slander, inviting retorts of “Christopobe”.
It is SOCIAL VANDALISM.
What Word Should The Courts Have
The word that should have been used is
"DISPARITIZATION", that is if the courts truly intended
to solve the problem. The courts should have recognized this
problem in the mid 20th
where upon they began to find there were two types of wrong
1. DISPARATE TREATMENT
For those who do not know what "disparate"
means, it comes from the word "disparity" meaning
"disparate treatment" is a crime as long as the
treatment was truly unjust, there is no question.
"disparate impact" includes unintentional action that
results in a disparity.
Unintentional disparate impact is more
akin to manslaughter, not deserving of a full blown punishment.
matter, the court defined a new criminal act of "discrimination"
to have occurred in all cases of disparate treatment and/or
disparate impact. Why the court could not simply call the crime
"disparate treatment" instead of "discrimination"
reveals a lack of intelligence that imposes all to stoop to its
level. That word, "DISCRIMINATION", ought to be ripped
from every page of every law book and replaced with the proper
wording such as "DISPARATE TREATMENT", or "UNJUST
The road to insanity begins with
lack of clarity