Mon 26 Feb 2007
Unanimous among the Founding Fathers was the belief that all are endowed with fundamental, basic human rights. Primary among those is the Freedom of Speech*. Truly, the liberty of expression of opinions and ideas is a sacrosanct cornerstone of our constitutional identity.
In order to protect the rights of minorities, it is illegal to discriminate based on gender, race or sexual orientation. Because of this, promoters of alternate lifestyles routinely classify anti-gay speech as hate speech in an effort to control critics, suppress opposition and advance a political agenda. It has therefore become difficult to express a dissenting voice to their views.
As an illustration, in 2004, a sophomore at a California High School wore a tee-shirt with the words “Homosexuality is shameful, ‘Romans 1:27′” during a “Day of Silence” observance sponsored by the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance. He was summarily suspended for violating a school policy against “hate behavior including derogatory connotations directed against sexual orientation.”
Where words cannot be misconstrued as hate speech, character attacks are a common second line of offense. Wildly inaccurate name calling is frequently used to intimidate proponents of traditional values. If you don’t agree with an aggressive, liberal, feministic viewpoint (if, for example, you happen to think that there are distinct differences between men and women or if you think that an unborn child ought to have rights) you’re called a misogynist. If you believe that the most stable model for society is marriage based between a man and a woman, if you don’t think that sexual deviancies like homosexuality should be celebrated, then you’re a labeled a homophobe. If you’re crazy enough to believe in God, then you’re a dangerous, right-wing nut-case.
What an ironic circle we’ve come! The same people who historically have complained of suppression have now become fully employed in the work of censoring the voice of others.
“Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”
– Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”
– Voltaire, Essay on Tolerance
* Of course, you don’t have the freedom to say whatever you want: you cannot (without consequence), for example, threaten the President of the United States, “create an imminent lawless action”, speak supportively of terrorist groups, share top secret government information, scream “fire” in a crowded theater**, be publicly obscene and lewd, or spray paint the N-word on someone’s lawn.***
** This comes from Schenck vs. United States in 1919: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) Actually overturned by Brandenburg vs. Ohio in 1969
*** Virginia v Black 2003 where cross-burning was found to be a “particularly virulent form of intimidation” and Wisconsin v. Mitchell 1993 which imposed stiffer sentences for racially-motivated assaults
February 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
SO TRUE!
The liberal biased folk simply WON’T let someone have a dissenting opinion. If you don’t agree with then then they are most intollerant. They scream of tolerance until you tolerate THEIR opinion.
How ironic and stupid.
Isn’t a ‘Democracy’ the rule by voice of majority? Even in our representative republic/democracy, it is still rule by majority vote. Unfortunately it has become rule by monority voice convincing the majorty vote. How sad…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Here you goes again… just trying to stir the pot.
However, I agree with you in principal. You are saying that there needs to be not just a balance, but the balance needs to go both ways. There can be no double standard.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Conan… we do have a democracy where the majority rules, but that doesn’t mean that the majority has the right to stomp on the minority.
The majority has a moral obligation to take care of the minority make sure they are not ignored just because they are the minority.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I completely disagree with you, Ryan. Actually, I agree, but most of your readers would assume me to disagree.
–Will
February 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
M. Ryan Byrd for President, 2008!
Beau
February 26th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Now let’s not jump the gun -that- far, Beau….
–Will
February 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Will Byrd be old enough by then to run for president?
Reluctant: No. The Majority does not have the ‘obligation’ to take care of the minority. That’s not the point. What you believe is minority intrest should over-ride the majority decisions. In a Yea/Nay voting system there is always a winner and a loser. That’s just the way it is. Just because the minority is not able to get enough people to agree with them does not mean that their ‘agenda’ should take precedent over the majority so that we don’t hurt their feelings!
February 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Reluctant:
And what you are saying about not having the ‘…right to stomp on the minority…’ is a different topic. Do minorities have the ‘right’ to ’stomp’ on majorities?
February 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I completely disagree Conan. The majority does have an obligation. That doesn’t mean that the majority gets over-ruled, it means that the majority should respect the desires and wishes of the minority.
A few years ago, there was a big uproar in a town in Utah because a majority (greater than 50%) of the citizens wanted the city’s municipal pool closed on Sundays. There was a minority that really wanted it open on Sundays because they knew that it was a more relaxing day for them to swim (fewer people).
A study was done to determine if it was profitable (or at least break-even) to keep it open on Sundays and it was. It was also determined that there were enough employees willing to work on Sunday so as to not force individuals who wanted the day off to work that day.
So does the city have an obligation to have that pool open on Sundays? The minority pays taxes just like the majority. It didn’t affect their actions or beliefs. It wasn’t a danger to society. But still there was a backlash and I believe (can’t remember) the majority won out and closed the pool on Sunday.
I’m one that would prefer the pool closed on Sundays, but I also recognize that there are situations where my beliefs aren’t held by others. Unless it encroaches on my beliefs/principals or puts the public at risk (whether that’s financial or actual public safety or whatever), I always try to appease the minority.
What if you are the minority? And you are losing a city service that is rightfully yours (you pay taxes)? Would you feel the same?
I also disagree with the concept that there is always a winner and loser. There are almost always win-win solutions. If not win-win, then someone can at least compromise.
The philosophy that winner takes all is the main problem with government these days.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
There’s that liber word again…compromise. Allow me to translate for those who went to public schools:
Compromise = give in to what I want because what you want is stupid.
And the problem with today’s Government is certainly NOT winner takes all. The problem is that the liberal biased MINORITIES use the courts to circumvent the legistative process and thus remove something from a public vote. e.g. Roe vs. Wade. They don’t want to ‘compromise’ and they certainly don’t like it when someone talks back to them. They can’t stand on anything because their viewpoint changes depending on which audience their talking to at the time.
In reference to your Sunday Pool issue. The majority spoke. (Majority being community tax payers) The majority thought that is was ‘best’ for the community to not open the pool on Sunday’s. Probably because of religious beliefs. Doesn’t matter. Majority rules. Were they stomping on the minority? No. This is not a God given ‘right’ they have, like breathing. It’s a privledge they enjoy in the community. If they don’t like the way the community runs itself; find a different community to live in.
Compromise is something that a liberal will say when they can’t get their way. It’s conniving, underhanded, and selfish. In a perfect world everything is above board, straight up and to the point. No hidden agendas or sneakiness. We don’t live in a perfect world do we. So we have to live with certain ‘necessary’ evils. Comprimise being one of them.
I think the point you are getting at has nothing to do with what you are saying. By saying that the majority shouldn’t ’stomp’ on the minority what you are really saying is that the elected officials have a responsibility to ‘take care of’ the community. Listen to all voices when making decisions. I agree. I think elected officials have a responsibility to their respective constituents. They should have a grave seriousness when it comes to their job. They don’t have a ‘right’ to be flippant, vindictive, petty, or self-serving. They should be allowed to be somewhat biased to their own principles.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I totally agree with you on this point. There is far too much use of the courts to establish law. But that wasn’t my point. My point was there is too much extremism in politics today.
The majority of Americans are near the center. While the majority of the elected leaders are either extreme left or extreme right.
Just to be clear, I consider myself a Republican and have almost always voted Republican. I believe in most conservative ideals. I lean slightly left however, on many social issues.
I find it interesting that you see the word compromise as something “conniving, underhanded, and selfish.”
Perhaps we are speaking of a different word, because that is the opposite meaning of compromise [1].
It’s very obvious that you are not even close to a minority. You are a multi-generational Caucasian American with a relatively comfortable lifestyle in that you have never experienced anything close to poverty. Nor have you ever been the minority.
But let’s turn the tables a bit and be a bit hypothetical….
What if you were born into a Caucasian family in a middle-eastern country. Let’s say that country is now the great power in the world and the best economic and social opportunities are only available in that country. Would you appreciate it if by law you were forced to have a beard, not cut your hair and wear a turban? And what if your wife was required to never show her face in public and your little girls were not allowed to attend school?
Would you want the lawmakers to ignore the needs and desires of the minority in that situation?
The key to any type of communication (which is at the core of politics) is understanding all points of view. If you only go into a conversation thinking “how can I win”, you will only cause strife, hard feelings and eventually, you will be on the losing end of things. But if you enter the conversation with an attitude and belief that both parties can get what they want, then an understanding takes place and both parties realize respect for each other and a renewed desire to help make _everyone’s_ lives better.
I know exactly what you are saying thought… I was there about 5 years ago. I thought the same way you did and was actually on the other side of that municipal pool issue. But I’ve tried very hard in recent years to try to see the world in a different light. To see the good in all people and try to help wherever I can.
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compromise
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 am
I tend to stay out of subject such as this, and the primary reason is that, somehow, you are both pulling two very touchy subjects into this: religion and abortion. Even if they are by extreme examples to make your points crystal clear yet so, so fuzzy.
Conan (?) - Compromise is not a way of one person winning and another losing. Compromising is coming to a mutual agreement on what two or more parties are able to comfortably accept from and about each other.
Reluctant (?) - Try to stay with non-religious based examples. I understand the reasoning behind the pool being closed is probably tied into the communities religious beliefs about Sunday activities, but you’re taking a small community and moving it into a world power where the country abides by the religion, not just the community. The middle eastern countries are not large world powers, and a reason could be their tight ties with their religion. I agree with Conan. If a community wants it closed, and the majority votes it so, then closed it shall be. Those who have a hard issue about it can find a new community. I’d say the same thing for your made-up country, too.
Can we use names on here that, in real life, we go by? It makes it easier to understand who I’m typing to.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
Compromie in politics is NOT the dictionary definition.
Hypothetical (hypotheoretical?) situations always ‘happen’ to fit one side of a discussion. (And just to complete the idea, they lost the war.)
March 4th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Conan, I agree that “Compramie” is not a dictionary definition in politics, nor is compromise. Politicians twist a lot to try to achieve their goals, outside of what we would consider ethical, moral, and right. However, if you take the people out of the equation, it is still a compromise between politicians, and fits the dictionary definition, it’s just not to our expectations.
I think this topic died…