Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 31 of 165 (173693)
01-04-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Silent H
01-04-2005 8:14 AM


Re: Matthew 6
It is right before he tells them HOW to pray, (The Lord's Prayer).
I haven't heard any common rebuttals, that is what I'm waiting for.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2005 8:14 AM Silent H has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 32 of 165 (173699)
01-04-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by nator
01-04-2005 8:15 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
Hi S,
although in the US one wouldn't be arrested for the racism, nor would one be banned from the grounds for life.
So, it is legal to verbally abuse a footballer with racist insults?
That is astounding from an outsider's point of view.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 01-04-2005 8:15 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 01-04-2005 9:49 AM Brian has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 165 (173711)
01-04-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brian
01-04-2005 8:37 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
Unless the racist insults contain the threat of violence, no, it is not illegal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 01-04-2005 8:37 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by CK, posted 01-04-2005 10:40 AM nator has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 34 of 165 (173723)
01-04-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brian
01-04-2005 6:43 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
In Scotland if you were preaching that homosexuality is an abomination and that all gay people are going to burn in hell, if anyone took offence at that you would more than likely be charged with a public order offence. You have the right to free speech, but you also have a responsibility.
And in the USA you can say just about anything you want to anyone you want. You would only be arrested for it if you are also disturbing the peace or commiting some other crime but the speech is protected by our primary piece of legislation. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
You cannot seriously be telling me that racism is legal in the USA?
Gzus, in Scotland if you are at a football game and you make racist comments to a coloured player then you are arrested and charged, and normally banned from the football ground for life. There are many examples of this happening in Scotland.
Yes racism is legal and I would fight to keep it that way. Not that I like racism but I certainly do like freedom and the freedom to have an opinion no matter what that opinion is.
Jazzns writes:
It would be a sad day in our country when feeling are outlawed.
It is a sad day when you can freely make racist comments without fear of punishment, how backward is your country?
You just don't get it. Don't you understand what legislating feelings and opinions would mean? It is called facism and I for one would rather die than have the USA become a facist nation. How backward are you for even suggesting that we try to outlaw thought and free expression?
The same rights that protect me from harm from assembling and speaking out about the Iraq War in this country also protect the KKK from harm for their assembly and protest. Those are our rights by the first amendment and I would hope that most Americans would fight to keep them that way.
What about discriminating against non-Christians at football games?
Now that all depends. If I don't let you into the public football game until you pray or agree to pray then I am discriminating against you. You hearing a prayer might offend you, but it does not discriminate against you. You don't seem to understand the difference between offense which is not illegal and discrimination which is denial of rights. Also, no matter how much you say it, you do not have the right to not be offended by someone or else we would all be in jail.
Oh, you can hate them, you just cannot tell them why and you cannot use derogatory comments towards them either. Why should someone be subjected to abuse by another person regardless of the situation?
Wrong again. You can not only hate them you can even tell them that you hate them. You just cannot not hire them based on your hatred because that would be discrimination. Someone subject to abuse always has the right to walk away. If they were abused in the process of applying for a job then they also have the right to get a lawyer and sue the crap out of the discriminating company. In either case it is not illegal for the employer to hate the applicant, just to act on that hate.
Once again, if our legislators thought like you then everyone in the entire country would have a criminal record because everyone has offended someone at some time in their life. Offense is not illegal.
I am speaking from a stance of decency and civility. I find it amazing that America is so backward in terms of equality.
Decency and civility is great. I am all for it. I am totally and utterly against legislating it though. If you think America is backwards because it does not make laws that tell people how to think then you may need to re-evaluate your own position on equality. Equality dosen't just mean equal for the people who think and act like you.
So why was this student arrested? To be arrested you surely have to break the law?
First of all, we don't even know if this story is true. Second, if it is true we don't know the circumstances. Last, unfortunate as it is people get arrested when they shouldn't all the time. That just means the implementation of the law is broken though not the law itself.
I think you really need to take time to consider the implications of the type of system you are condoning. The moment you try to protect one person from offense by law you offend all people. Protection of your feeling being hurt should never be a right and we would be taking a gigantic step backwards in human rights by doing so. That is why I have the right to display my "George Bush Sucks" sticker on my car and not have to worry about being arrested because some conservative loon is offended when they pull up behind me on the road. That is why I could stand on a street corner and hold up a sign that says "Jesus is Lord" while reading the Bible out loud if I felt that that was a useful way to spend my time. People might shout at me, call me names, honk their horns, but no one would be arrested because it is a free nation where your speech and right to peacibly assemble are protected by our highest order of law.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 01-04-2005 13:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brian, posted 01-04-2005 6:43 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Brian, posted 01-05-2005 8:12 AM Jazzns has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 35 of 165 (173724)
01-04-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Brian
01-04-2005 7:15 AM


Hi Brian,
Schraf pointed out some of the differences in US law and (apparently) Scottish laws. In this context,
So, you have the right to stand on a street corner and shout ‘N*gg*rs are scum and should be thrown out of America’?
most of the anti-hate-speech statutes deal explicitly with threats of or incitements to violence. Even some of these are being challenged on freedom of speech grounds. So in your example, yeah, the individual could stand on a street corner and scream this out. And the forensic examiners and police that will investigate the resultant mutilated corpse found in a dustbin will do so because of the crime, not the speech. There ARE consequences.
In the US, at least, you are not protected from being offended. Only from threats of or actual violence. We have had experience with neo-Nazis obtaining official permission to parade through middle America. And lawsuits resulting from their ban. Mike White, former mayor of Cleveland, Ohio (and a good friend), was named in a suit when he banned a similar march through downtown Cleveland a few years back. The city was able to defeat the suit by making the case that the risk of civil disorder outweighed the rights of the marchers. They ended up holding a rally in a confined area - with just about every member of Cleveland's police force out protecting them. Freedom of speech CAN be a two-edged sword.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Brian, posted 01-04-2005 7:15 AM Brian has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 36 of 165 (173728)
01-04-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
01-04-2005 9:49 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
What? You can make monkey noises at players or shout stuff like "go home nigger!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 01-04-2005 9:49 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Brian, posted 01-04-2005 10:45 AM CK has not replied
 Message 39 by jar, posted 01-04-2005 11:01 AM CK has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 37 of 165 (173730)
01-04-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by CK
01-04-2005 10:40 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
Do you remember the outcry when Rangers signed Mark Walters and Celtic supporters were throwing bananas all over Ibrox?
It appears that this would be legal in America.
Didn't Dwight York have some sort of incident with a racist fan a few weeks ago?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by CK, posted 01-04-2005 10:40 AM CK has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 38 of 165 (173732)
01-04-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Brian
01-04-2005 7:15 AM


So, you have the right to stand on a street corner and shout *N*gg*rs are scum and should be thrown out of America*?
Yes. And that same right allows me to stand at the opposite street corner and shout, "The KKK are scum and should be thrown out of America!"
They are losing their privilege to discriminate against others who they see as inferior. It isn*t a freedom to offend other people.
Yes it is a freedom. It is called the freedom of speech. Howard Stern makes a pretty good living off of offending other people.
No way. The government has a responsibility to ensure that its civilians are not abused in any way and that law breakers are punished.
Hurting someones feelings is not abuse. You are not abused by listening to a prayer take place. The day that it becomes an abuse is the day I will no longer live here.
Now, before he began eating his sandwich he asked my if I objected to him thanking God for his lunch, I said *fine, go ahead*. This is how it should work, you can pray to God and be civil at the same time.
And it is also his right not to have to ask you. If he just went ahead and prayed he should not be arrested for offending you. We do not legislate civility in America and I am proud of that.
She is part of a school where it is forbidden to pray, she is part of a school where all pupils must do as they are told by their teachers.
Firstly, she broke the praying rule.
Then she broke another rule by not following teacher*s instructions.
Then she broke the prayer rule again!
Is this the type of attitude that you want to instil in youngsters?
Break the rules as much as you can, have no respect for the institution you are in?
If she wasn*t happy then go to another school, or get Desdamoaner to home school her.
If this was a public school then I would be damn proud of my child for standing up for their right to pray over their food. If my child was arrested I would fight the system for illegally arresting my child. Then I would sue the school for making it against the rules to pray and infringing on my childs first ammendment rights. Blindly submitting to authority is something I NEVER want my child to learn. That is not the attitude that made America what it is today and it is a sickness that will destroy America if we let it into our hearts.
Now, where is the irrationality in my statement. Nowhere, it is completely rational to conclude that if someone is arrested then they have broken the law.
You don't get it. She didn't break the law. Schools, public or private, do not make laws. If they did then it would not be America. It is not against the law to pray over your food and yet she was arrested. Even if the story is true this would be a travisty of a large magnitude for this to be allowed in the USA. I would hope that the ACLU would be involved in fixing the stain that is the violation of that girls rights should this story be true.
{Edit: Removed part of a response that was not to Brian.}
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 01-04-2005 11:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Brian, posted 01-04-2005 7:15 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 01-04-2005 11:21 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 67 by Brian, posted 01-05-2005 8:31 AM Jazzns has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 165 (173736)
01-04-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by CK
01-04-2005 10:40 AM


We are wandering far afield, but...
there really is a significant difference between the concept of Free speech in the US and in other Nations.
In the US Speech in protected by the 1st. Amendment to our Constitution.
Charles Knight writes:
What? You can make monkey noises at players or shout stuff like "go home nigger!"
Yes, you can. And you cannot be arrested or detained or even charged for saying such things.
If, because of what you say disorder breaks out, a fight for example, you can be arrested for the results of such speech. You can be arrested for actions, fighting, disruption, disturbance.
But not for the speech itself.
One of the key points is that it is the very speech you most oppose that must be protected. That is a cornerstone of Freedom.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by CK, posted 01-04-2005 10:40 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2005 11:32 AM jar has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 165 (173739)
01-04-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hangdawg13
01-03-2005 7:13 PM


If you don't think that's worth complaining about, well, you're no true Scottsman.
Yeah! And he puts sugar on his porriage, too!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-03-2005 7:13 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 2:24 PM crashfrog has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 41 of 165 (173744)
01-04-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jazzns
01-04-2005 10:52 AM


CAreful Jazzns. You guys are shooting past each other on this point:
Brian writes:
Now, where is the irrationality in my statement. Nowhere, it is completely rational to conclude that if someone is arrested then they have broken the law.
You're arguing from two different legal systems. Under British law, an arrest is de facto presumption of guilt. The burden of proof in a trial is on the defense to prove the accused DIDN'T commit (or couldn't have committed) the crime. Under the US system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
US: Innocent until proven guilty.
UK: Guilt presumed until proven innocent.
It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the gist. So Brian is correct: under the British system, it is rational to assume the individual is guilty of a crime if arrested.
/side comment

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jazzns, posted 01-04-2005 10:52 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Jazzns, posted 01-04-2005 11:35 AM Quetzal has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 42 of 165 (173747)
01-04-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
01-04-2005 11:01 AM


Obnoxious behavior at sporting events
quote:
Yes, you can. And you cannot be arrested or detained or even charged for saying such things.
I think I fully agree with Jazzns' position, however, I think it might be within the rights of the management of the sports arena to have the offender removed from the arena. Especially if there are rules of behavior posted, such as being printed on the ticket stub.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 01-04-2005 11:01 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 01-04-2005 11:40 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 43 of 165 (173748)
01-04-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Quetzal
01-04-2005 11:21 AM


Right. But the original intent of the example was to show that some Christians feel that many are taking the Establishment Clause too far. In the US, the arrest of the girl is illegal because she is practicing her right to freedom of speech and that was the point of the example. All Brian is doing is missing the point either by ignorance or malcontent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 01-04-2005 11:21 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Quetzal, posted 01-04-2005 12:50 PM Jazzns has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 165 (173750)
01-04-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Minnemooseus
01-04-2005 11:32 AM


Re: Obnoxious behavior at sporting events
I think it might be within the rights of the management of the sports arena to have the offender removed from the arena.
Certainly. If someone is causing a disruption they can be removed. That is particularly true when it comes to private property. We discussed this recently in regard to the Bush-Monkey painting.
Our Constitution, while a wonderous document, also often creates conflicts between rights. There is the right of Free speech. But that right may be limited to preserve safety of life and limb. Another example is the classic calling out "FIRE" in a crowd when there is no threat.
But beyond removing someone as a source of disruption, there is little recourse under law. You cannot take someone to court for simple speech. Yet you can take someone to court for inciting a riot or conspiring to commit murder.
Speech is protected, actions are not.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2005 11:32 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 165 (173766)
01-04-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jazzns
01-04-2005 11:35 AM


I understand your point. However, I don't think Brian was being deliberately disingenuous. He really does think, perhaps forgetting for the moment the differences in the legal systems, that
Brian writes:
You told me she had been arrested, if you are arrested then surely you have broken the law. What are they arresting her for if she has done nothing wrong? Whether you agree with it or not, she was arrested for breaking the law.
Now, where is the irrationality in my statement. Nowhere, it is completely rational to conclude that if someone is arrested then they have broken the law.
In the US, the above is not necessarily the case. You are generally arrested (unless caught in the act), on suspicion of breaking a law - whether you actually did or not. Then it's up to the prosecution to make the case. In the UK, they tend to be waaaay more careful about who they arrest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jazzns, posted 01-04-2005 11:35 AM Jazzns has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024