Protestantism

» pink101 - Answer

In response to Answer posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Are you saying that if someone called someone else a nigger that there wouldn't be a question about Civil Rights?
.
In fact, might I get in trouble for spelling out the "n" word here?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Answer

In response to Answer posted by pink101:

I'm saying that we need to be careful at censoring speech. When we redefine civil rights to mean that we can't or shouldn't be allowed to offend others, I think we get into shaky ground.

Now, I'm talking SPEECH here - and not behavior. Calling someone the 'n' word and burning a cross in the yard are two different things, in my view.

» pink101 - Natural Rights Are Inalienable

In response to Answer posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Court decisions have given behavior the strength of speech. Money is seen as a form of speech when we say, "Money talks." The idea that actions speak louder that words says a great deal about what it means to speak.
.
This is an area where Americans need to spend a great deal of time and effort. We have a need to encourage each other to think about our rights in depth.
.
Any good discussion should start out explaining the meaning of Natural Rights as they are the Inalienable Rights endowed on us by our Creator. What are they?
.
Is there an easy answer?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Bills of Rights

.
In order to understand our Bill of Rights that are guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution as it is amended, it is necessary for us to get a good handle on the opposition to them at the time the Founding Fathers were considering them.
.
At least, I think that is so.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Victory For Bill of Rights

.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?s...
.
Watch this one.
.
A land mark decision.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Free Speech

In response to Answer posted by BrianTubbs:

I'm saying that we need to be careful at censoring speech. When we redefine civil rights to mean that we can't or shouldn't be allowed to offend others, I think we get into shaky ground.
.
Its true there are a lot of grey areas when it comes to trying to determine what might be offensive to another. And I will also grant that sometimes political correctness can lead to foolish excesses.
.
Now, I'm talking SPEECH here - and not behavior. Calling someone the 'n' word and burning a cross in the yard are two different things, in my view.
.
On the other hand, if we sincerely believe that civil rights includes "the pursuit of happiness," then I believe we need to take more responsibility for how we choose to express ourselves. Calling someone the "N word" infringes on his/her right to the pursuit of happiness.
.
The thing is, we often tend to downplay the power that words have. We say something mean to someone and then taunt them with "Sticks and stones ..." or "Where's your sense of humor?" Well, names DO hurt people, and the damage they do *can* last an entire lifetime.
.
And if we say that we have a right to freely express ourselves because to do otherwise impedes our ability to become all we can be, well, I have to wonder, just WHO do we want to become--AND why should our right to become whatever be more important than any one else's?
.
If we clamor for the right to express hateful or hurtful thoughts, are we not claiming for ourselves the right to become hateful, hurtful people? And are we not also encouraging others to follow this poor example?
.
I think sometimes we make such a god out of free speech that we forget each right implies specific responsibilities, and we need to be as concerned about the rights of others as we are our own.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Free Speech

In response to Free Speech posted by paper_turtle:
.
Free Speech is one of the main points of the problems our Founding Fathers saw.
.
It wasn't a matter of concern that a person might call another by some nasty name. If you're so vulgar that you decide it is okay to speak in gutter terms, I guess that would be your business and everyone else could decide whether or not they wanted to hang around with you.
.
The problem our Founding Fathers found with Free Speech was in a concern they held about any government. It is important to realize those people had lived for several generations under a monarchy that had repeatedly maltreated the people with every form of abuse. That is something we don't really have much of a handle on; but, if we don't protect what we have, we might put ourselves right back into the hands of tyranny. That was a fear the Founders discussed--the tyranny of a popular majority opinion over an unpopular minority opinion. Those damned slippery liberals, for example, just after the 9-11 attack.
.
During the 1780s, when our society was just beginning to form independently from the British monarchy, there were many concerns every one of which were about freedom from a repressive government.
.
The Founders had created a great form of government with the Constitution--the one we are working with today. That part of the work performed was accepted a a done deal with the exception of the pervading concerns that the government might abuse the people and a bill of rights that limited any government's powers to do that--period. The Constitution did not include a broad based bill of rights.
.
Those early Americans had nasty mouths and they could call a spade a spade without any concern other than they might get a good smack in the mush with someone else's fist. So, that part of polite speech was not their concern. It was if someone were a persona non-gratia to the majority, they could be abused by some act that threw them in a holding tank where they would have no charges laid against them and where they would have no access to any assistance or contact with their family or any other person. They were concerned that an act of law could cause a "Wanted--Dead or Alive" warrant to be issued against them. That was a real concern--very real.
.
We are fooled into being concerned about such thiings as thinking free speech migh invovle the idea of a person with a bad mouth.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Free Speech

In response to Free Speech posted by paper_turtle:

.
(This was intended as a response ot Phil's post, message #11, but I hit the wrong link and didn't discover it until later.)
.
I believe that what I do in my daily life--and what each person does in his or her daily life--is expremely important. I believe that the rights I exercise, and how I choose to exercise them are eaually important. If I call someone stupid, to his/her face, I invite an angry confrontation. I do not invite real and honest dialogue. If I use a term of prejudice in referring to another person, I tell those who hear me that its OK to be hateful.
.
If we do not use our rights responsibly, we risk losing them.
.
Talking about the theory of free speech, and its historical roots, is all well and good, but if we do not apply what we know to how we express ourselves, what good is it? (Spoken from the POV of a New England pragmatist)
.
We are fooled into being concerned about such thiings as thinking free speech migh invovle the idea of a person with a bad mouth.
.
.
Its about much *more* than just a bad mouth. Its about the effect words have. If I were to tell you you were a left-wing nut-job spouting propaganda, how would your feel--and, more to the point, how would you respond? I think I know how you would respond. (wink)
.
When certain politicians make disparaging remarks about, say teenaged mothers on welfare, just what purpose is really served? Sure, they have exercised their right of free speech, but have they advanced truth? Have they shed the light of understanding on the problems involved? Have they made any constructive comments which might help teen women, whether or not they are mothers)?
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Free Speech

In response to Free Speech posted by paper_turtle:
.
I do respect you and I do respect your point of view; so, how can I approach your response to my post with as much respect as I think you deserve and that I want to show?
.
It will be difficult.
.
There has been an almost unconscious framing of the First Ten Amendments to our Constitution to make them appear as though they are something that was never intended by our Founding Fathers. At least, it appears that way to me.
.
Their concern was what Brian put forward in another post that a Centralized Government would do away with the separate states and would then abuse the people as had been the rule under the monarchy. If a strong enough majority elects a president, the power of the majority will show itself to be a truly feared tyranny--precisely the Founders' concern!
.
THAT--specifically--is the concern many have today. There is fear that the Federal Government through the powers being assumed by an aggressive executive is beginning a process that will allow a popular majority to abuse an unpopular minority. THAT was what our Founding Fathers feared--plain and simple.
.
Whether it is true or not, remains to be seen; but, we must be vigilant. That was the warning we received hundreds of years ago by our Founders. Must blood be spilled to make the Tree of Liberty grow strong again?
.
We have not lost our right to bad mouth anyone except that we must be concerned that what we say is seen as giving aid to the enemy--have you noticed? You could be arrested under the Patriot Act and thrown in prison without notice or knowledge to anyone except yourself. Do you know if there are those in some locked room someplace because the President has put out an effective Writ of Attainder against them as as Enemy Combanant? Maybe you have heard of Ali Al-mari?
.
Check it out:
.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?s...
.
Yes, it isn't nice to slam someone for being a Welfare Mother who drives a Cadillac or for being a Welfare Cheat; but, that isn't the point of Free Speech. People in countries controlled by tyrants are held to polite behavior as well as people might be in our society.
.
Polite is not the issue; although, it is nice to be so.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Free Speech

In response to Free Speech posted by pink101:

Phil--I'm well aware of the implicit dangers in the Patriot Act. Vermont's Senators Sanders and Leahy are both very vocal and active opponents of the Patriot Act.
.
And I get what you are saying about the constituational roots of free speech. But I don't think you really get what I have been saying. Its not about politeness. Its about responsibility. Its about upholding the rights of all and not just one's own. Its about considering the conesquences of irresponsibility.
.
The questions I asked were not intended to be purely rhetorical; they deserve more than just being a cursory "yes but response."
.
And maybe I'm a bit touchy, but I didn't like your comment about "Welfare Mother who drives a Cadillac ." Very bad taste, and just the sort of verbal irresponsibility I was talking about.
.
BTW--did you know I was on Nixon's Enemies list? I don't quite know how I got there, but it was probably because I was an anti-war protester and was therefore giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (eye roll)
.
peace ands love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle