No subscription or hidden extras
Read through the most famous quotes by topic #reed
Like that breeder-woman sitting at the bar, who thinks it's a buzz to go into a gay joint and has no doubt heard somewhere that this is one. Her lurid get-up's a joke, ludicrous. She's the type who dons the camouflage-green combat trousers, wraps a bandanna around her head and paints herself with black lipstick, imagining all the lesbians in the joint'll have the hots for her. Not so much imagining as secretly hoping. Naturally, no one goes and sits with her. She's been here before, and everyone gives the ice-cold shoulder, yet she still turns up again and again. Someone might argue we're zoo animals for her. But I've another theory. For her, we're noble savages, a kind of grey area outside the respectable, minutely organized community, an untamed wilderness it takes a lot of guts to step into. But if you do dare, there's a glorious smell of freedom floating around your trousers and giving the finger to society, making whoever an instant anarchist. Certainly, for her, coming here is like putting a washable tattoo on your shoulder : there's the thrill of deviance with none of the dull commitment - and she'll never have to wonder whether she's too weird to be seen out before dark. ↗
#glbtq #herbert-lomas-translation #heteronormativity #lesbians #not-before-sundown
There may be some truth (atheists) do not need to believe in a god to be good, but then if they do not believe in a god, who do they believe gives the Universal Law of following good and shunning evil? Obviously, mankind. But then that is a dangerous thing, for if a man does not believe in a god capable of giving perfect laws, he is in the position of declaring all laws come from man, and as man is imperfect, he can declare that as fallible men make imperfect laws, he can pick and choose what he wishes to follow, that which, in his own mind seems good. He does not believe in divine retribution, therefore he can also declare his own morality contrary to what the divine may decree simply because he believes there is no divine decree. He may follow his every whim and passion, declaring it to be good when it may be very evil, for he like all men is imperfect, so how can he tell what is verily good? The atheist is in danger of mistaking vice for good and consequently follow another slave master and tyrant, his own physical and mental weakness. Evil would be wittingly or unwittingly perpetrated, therefore, to recognise the existence of a perfect divine being that gives perfect Universal Laws is much better than not to believe in a god, for if there is a perfect god, they will not allow their laws to be broken with impunity as in the case with many corrupt judges on earth, but will punish accordingly in due time. Therefore, to be pious and reverent is the surest path to true freedom as a perfect god will give perfect laws to prevent all manner of slavery, tyranny and moral wantonness, even if we do not understand why they are good laws at times. ↗
when your actions towards acquiring leadership in any country portrays blatant mischief orchestrated towards disregarding the concepts of the constitution, you do not only become guilty of hijacking power which rightfully belong to the people, but also, you are guilty of violation of the rights of freedom of the same people that you purport to want to lead. Like any match, elections is competition towards democracy, and all competitions have rules that set guidelines in that particular competition. Any violation of such rules renders that competition invalid. True democracy does not condone compromises. True democracy upholds and adheres to the rule of law, for it is the rule of law that can explicitly define democracy. ↗
To want something desperately, to be tested, to feel that life will be impossible if the object of one's desires is not achieved, is always dangerous for the soul. Some people attempt to climb Everest because, as they say, it is there; others want nothing but wealth and care little how or where they collect it; others still, with less avaricious tastes - perhaps desiring nothing more than freedom from fear - are blinded by the same personal sun that shines on all human ambition. At some time or another it burns most of us. ↗
Sometimes we need to feel bad to know what it's like to feel good... ↗
#feeling-bad #inspirational-quotes #life-and-living #reality #survivors
Michael Ledeen—a contributing editor of National Review and a Freedom Scholar at the influential neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute—wrote on the National Review blog in November 2006: 'I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy'. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place.' Ledeen, however, wrote in August 2002 of 'the desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein' and when he was interviewed for Front Page Magazine the same month and asked, 'Okay, well if we are all so certain about the dire need to invade Iraq, then when do we do so?' Ledeen replied: 'Yesterday.' There is obvious, substantial risk in falsely claiming that one opposed the Iraq War notwithstanding a public record of support. But that war has come to be viewed as such a profound failure that that risk, at least in the eyes of some, is outweighed by the prospect of being associated with Bush's invasion. ↗
Sie wollen pflanzen für die Ewigkeit, Und säen Tod? Ein so erzwungnes Werk Wird seines Schöpfers Geist nicht überdauern. Dem Undank haben Sie gebaut - umsonst Den harten Kampf mit der Natur gerungen, Umsonst ein großes königliches Leben Zerstörenden Entwürfen hingeopfert. Der Mensch ist mehr, als Sie von ihm gehalten. (...) Gehn Sie Europens Königen voran. Ein Federzug von dieser Hand, und neu Erschaffen wird die Erde. Geben Sie Gedankenfreiheit. (...) Sehen Sie sich um In seiner herrlichen Natur! Auf Freiheit Ist sie gegründet - und wie reich ist sie Durch Freiheit! Er, der große Schöpfer, wirft In einen Tropfen Thau den Wurm und läßt Noch in den todten Räumen der Verwesung Die Willkür sich ergötzen - Ihre Schöpfung, Wie eng und arm! Das Rauschen eines Blattes Erschreckt den Herrn der Christenheit - Sie müssen Vor jeder Tugend zittern. Er - der Freiheit Entzückende Erscheinung nicht zu stören - Er läßt des Uebels grauenvolles Heer In seinem Weltall lieber toben - ihn, Den Künstler, wird man nicht gewahr, bescheiden Verhüllt er sich in ewige Gesetze; Die sieht der Freigeist, doch nicht ihn. Wozu Ein Gott? sagt er: die Welt ist sich genug. Und keines Christen Andacht hat ihn mehr, Als dieses Freigeists Lästerung, gepriesen. (...) Weihen Sie Dem Glück der Völker die Regentenkraft, Die - ach, so lang - des Thrones Größe nur Gewuchert hatte - stellen Sie der Menschheit Verlornen Adel wieder her. Der Bürger Sei wiederum, was er zuvor gewesen, Der Krone Zweck - ihn binde keine Pflicht, Als seiner Brüder gleich ehrwürd'ge Rechte. Wenn nun der Mensch, sich selbst zurückgegeben, Zu seines Werths Gefühl erwacht - der Freiheit Erhabne, stolze Tugenden gedeihen - Dann, Sire, wenn Sie zum glücklichsten der Welt Ihr eignes Königreich gemacht - dann ist Es Ihre Pflicht, die Welt zu unterwerfen. (Marquis von Posa; 3. Akt, 10. Szene) ↗
The modern world, which denies personal guilt and admits only social crimes, which has no place for personal repentance but only public reforms, has divorced Christ from His Cross; the Bridegroom and Bride have been pulled apart. What God hath joined together, men have torn asunder. As a result, to the left is the Cross; to the right is Christ. Each has awaited new partners who will pick them up in a kind of second and adulterous union. Communism comes along and picks up the meaningless Cross; Western post-Christian civilization chooses the unscarred Christ. Communism has chosen the Cross in the sense that it has brought back to an egotistic world a sense of discipline, self-abnegation, surrender, hard work, study, and dedication to supra-individual goals. But the Cross without Christ is sacrifice without love. Hence, Communism has produced a society that is authoritarian, cruel, oppressive of human freedom, filled with concentration camps, firing squads, and brain-washings. The Western post-Christian civilization has picked up the Christ without His Cross. But a Christ without a sacrifice that reconciles the world to God is a cheap, feminized, colourless, itinerant preacher who deserves to be popular for His great Sermon on the Mount, but also merits unpopularity for what He said about His Divinity on the one hand, and divorce, judgment, and hell on the other. This sentimental Christ is patched together with a thousand commonplaces, sustained sometimes by academic etymologists who cannot see the Word for the letters, or distorted beyond personal recognition by a dogmatic principle that anything which is Divine must necessarily be a myth. Without His Cross, He becomes nothing more than a sultry precursor of democracy or a humanitarian who taught brotherhood without tears. ↗
Indeed, an astoundingly small proportion of arguments ‘for free speech’ and ‘against censorship’ or ‘banning’ are, in fact, about free speech, censorship or banning. It is depressing to have to point out, yet again, that there is a distinction between having the legal right to say something & having the moral right not to be held accountable for what you say. Being asked to apologise for saying something unconscionable is not the same as being stripped of the legal right to say it. It’s really not very f-cking complicated. Cry “free speech” in such contexts, you are demanding the right to speak any bilge you wish without apology or fear of comeback. You are demanding not legal rights but an end to debate about and criticism of what you say. When did bigotry get so needy? This assertive & idiotic failure to understand that juridical permissibility backed up by the state is not the horizon of politics or morality is absurdly resilient. ↗
