But

witchSeems a self-proclaimed witch is offended by a Halloween decoration depicting a hanging witch. Any shred of credibility she might have had is out the door with this little statement:

“I know it’s his constitutional right, but…”

Now, I’m going to leave aside the woman’s contention that this is the same as burning crosses or nooses in the South. I’m going to leave aside her claim that this is offensive to the “entire community”. I’m going to leave aside the question of whether or not this is a “hate crime.” I’m going to leave aside the discussion about whether Halloween decorations are protected by the US Constitution.

What’s important in this particular case is the fact that the woman herself thinks it is a Constitutionally-protected right but that it should still come down.

Any time you argue “I know it’s a Constitutional right but [anything],” you have already conceded the point.

Comments

  1. Witches: the next designated victim group. NAAWP. NOW. WCLU. Its coming, people! I would contend that this is a sign of the times. Since gays should have the right to be married, witches should have the right to not be offended, and Mormons should have the right to marry however many wives they want, too. Soon the Satanists will declare their right to bath in blood and sacrifice animals in public, so long as it is done peacefully. Just whatever you do, don’t put the ten commandments in a court room, or say ‘one nation, under God.’

  2. You forgot to mention the ‘Islamic’ footbaths installed in some colleges at the taxpayer’s expense Nadnerbus.

  3. Oh, we had one this morning on the radio that had to take down a black hooded dummy hanging in the tree in a noose because ‘its racist’. Last I heard it didn’t matter what color you were, they put a black bag over your head when they hung you… I’d have just told them ‘Its not racist, its meant to be scary…its Saddam Hussain!’ Of course the hanging witch would engender comments of ‘Its Hillery!’ (I know, joke in bad taste, so sue me)

  4. Any time you argue ‘I know it’s a Constitutional right but [anything],’ you have already conceded the point.’ No, although I grant that most people who state that sort of thing have a problem. All that that pairing logically requires is to face up to the implication, that on that point the arguer fels that the Constitution is wrong. Taken to a logical conclusion, the arguer would want an amendment (if he or she felt that the Constitution was itself desirable), or something more revolutionary. No doubt prohibitionists would have expressed themselves in just such terms – and they amended the US constitution to get their way.

  5. PM Lawrence: Okay, I stand corrected. If the point of the speaker is ‘I know it’s a Constitutional right but the Constitution should be changed because it’s wrong‘, then they haven’t conceded their point. The burden would be on them, of course, to prove why they think it’s wrong and why it should be changed, and even if they could they wouldn’t have any legal standing until such changes were enacted, but my blanket statement did not cover every possibility even though I acted like it did. Thanks.