Protestantism

» paper_turtle - One more thing (free speech)

In response to Two Sides posted by paper_turtle:

Yesterday while channel surfing I happened to catch a woman talking about the situation with Imus. She made some very interesting points.
.
She said listening to shock jocks is like ingesting poison, little by little. You might not notice the effects at first, but eventually you become ill from the effects of the poison.
.
She said the person giving out the poison doesn't realize he is also poisoning himself.
.
She said a truly free person does not seek to infringe upon the freedom of another--because if one man is not free, none of us are. Hateful words eat away at the freedom of others. They threaten the ability of another to pursue happiness.
.
Laws are enacted in part because we refuse to be responsibile. Recycling in mandatory because some people persist in wasting the earth's resources. If we do not use our words responsibly, what else can we expect than someone else forcing us to do what we should have--voluntarily and willingly--done in the first place (as an exercise in the golden rule, if nothing else).
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - One more thing (free speech)

In response to One more thing (free speech) posted by paper_turtle:

.
She said listening to shock jocks is like ingesting poison, little by little. You might not notice the effects at first, but eventually you become ill from the effects of the poison.
.
I wonder if we're really exposed 'little by little'. I think we receive daily mega doses through the media and casual conversation (if we aren't discerning). And I wonder... have we (society) built up a tolerance to it? Worse yet, have we developed a dependency on it?
.
She said the person giving out the poison doesn't realize he is also poisoning himself.
.
Even if he does realize it, in his arrogance, he thinks he's superhuman and immune to it.
.
I couldn't help but see the obvious truth in this wisdom:
"He will turn their own tongues against them and bring them to ruin; all who see them will shake their heads in scorn." Psalm 64:8

-- posted by Migisi

» paper_turtle - One more thing (free speech)

In response to One more thing (free speech) posted by Migisi:

I wonder if we're really exposed 'little by little'. I think we receive daily mega doses through the media and casual conversation (if we aren't discerning). And I wonder... have we (society) built up a tolerance to it? Worse yet, have we developed a dependency on it?
.
This isn't true for me or the people I know--'cause we limit our media exposure. But I think it is true for society in general.
.
Even if he does realize it, in his arrogance, he thinks he's superhuman and immune to it.
.
True--and I think those who listen also seem to think they can escape the influence.
.
I couldn't help but see the obvious truth in this wisdom:
"He will turn their own tongues against them and bring them to ruin; all who see them will shake their heads in scorn." Psalm 64:8
.
very true indeed.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - One more thing (free speech)

In response to One more thing (free speech) posted by paper_turtle:
.
It took a long time for our society to get to be where we are today.
.
It grew like stalagmites, little by little and drop by drop.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Caution here

In response to One more thing (free speech) posted by paper_turtle:

PaperTurtle, there's wisdom (as usual) in what you're saying here. The Founding Fathers warned about this. Many of them talked about how people must police their own moral conduct. If they cannot, then government will get bigger. You're making the same point here.

HOWEVER...I want to draw a line of distinction. Citizens organizing to pressure a media company to fire a shock jock is one thing. I think it's fine to do that. It's all part of corporate accountability. But it seems like you're opening the door here for the government - the GOVERNMENT - to start passing laws to regulate what citizens can and cannot say. Now, to some extent, that is already done. We can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, etc. And there are noise disturbance laws, public disturbance regs, etc. BUT...

Let's be careful. We need to use caution. There's a slippery slope here that we need to avoid. I do NOT like the idea of the government deciding the content of my speech. Nor do I like the idea of its shadow hovering nearby, threatening to step in, if I don't clean up my act. (I am using the personal pronoun even though I'm pretty sure I can safely say that I've never engaged in hate speech or anything like it - but what happens when definitions change, and who makes those definitions?)

We just need to be careful here. Real careful.

» paper_turtle - Caution here

In response to Caution here posted by BrianTubbs:

I agree, we DO need to be careful.
.
My point is that the negative logical consequence of civic irresponsibility is the curtailment or abridgement of rights.
.
We need to be constantly aware of how our exercises of freedom might affect the rights of others (express or implied).
.
Words of hate or denigration threaten the freedoms of those to whom the words are directed. We need to hold the speakers of those words accountable to protect the freedoms of ALL people, not just some.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Doesn't Mean A Thing If It Doesn't Have The Sting

In response to Caution here posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"... it seems like you're opening the door here for the ... GOVERNMENT ... to regulate what citizens can and cannot say. ...There's a slippery slope here ... I do NOT like the idea of the government deciding the content of my speech."
.
Of course, I'm sure that you're well aware of the fact that the "GOVERNMENT" has been bought by those monied interests who lobby our congress and elect our presidents. It's common knowledge that they donate to all major candidates on all tickets just to make sure they control the legislation that gets passed. And, this case with Imus is not outside that framework. Imus was out of control--he had to be removed sooner or later. When he made the fatal mistake, BAM!! That was it--he turned into history. No matter who you are, you--TOO--can be replaced. That is the ultimate test of power. It doesn't mean a thing if it doesn't have the sting. It's how the players get to know who is in control. Don't rock the boat.
.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Money and Imus

In response to Doesn't Mean A Thing If It Doesn't Have The Sting posted by pink101:

Money definitely is what undid Imus. It's when the big advertisers, like American Express, began pulling their money from CBS - that the network caved and fired Imus. Money talks and...well, I'm a Baptist preacher, so I can't say the rest of that saying.

» Brian Tubbs - Accountability

In response to Caution here posted by paper_turtle:

PT, I agree, and I'd rather the marketplace hold people accountable - which is what happened here. CBS cancelled Imus' show (they fired him) because they were pressured by consumers and advertisers. It's legitimate accountability.

But what constitutes "words of hate and denigatrion"? Imus' words DEFINITELY qualify - as most people agreed (including Imus in the end). But...what about the Bible saying homosexuality is an abomination? Is that denigrating? Should the Bible be banned or at least heavily edited? Should churches and/or religious institutions be required to jettison certain doctrines of the Bible in order to 'get with the times"?

We're on a slippery slope here.

» paper_turtle - Accountability

In response to Accountability posted by BrianTubbs:

I'm talking about words--original words--which spew forth from human beings. I'm not talking about words which wewre written long ago.

Jesus said it is what comes out of the mouth which defiles us. It is words which *clearly* convey haterd, intolerance, and disregard for the rights and feelings of others.

I'm also talking about *personal* responsibility. We all have an obligation to use words responsibly. All of us.

Winston Churchill knew how to say negative things about people in a way which was witty and, in a very strange way, polite. Any person of average intelligence can find another way to speak his or her mind without resorting to epithets. insults, and downright slander. And those who speak in the media should be held to higher standards, I believe.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle