Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)

Totally irrelivent to our topic. I am adamently opposed to the war and the current administration any my right to be adamently opposed to the administration can never be taken away by any law as long as our Constitution is in place. I am a citizen who is in staunch opposition to the current actions of our administration. Therefore I start an organization speaking out against neo-conservatism. I make a bunch of t-shirts that "NEOCON = FACIST" and I wear them along with a bunch of people who are a part of my organization. Now the dignity of the neocons has been impinged adversely and harm has been caused to their ability to maintain their jobs because my movement might not allow them to get re-elected. This might affect their ability to take care of their families and causes them great personal stress. They might cry and be mad. Their bloodpressure might go up and they might have health problems. Because of all this I and everyone in my organization is arrested because of the harm and dignity has been impinged by my particular act of expression.There will always be groupings of people by things like ethnicity, politics, religion, geography, education, economics, morality, lifestyle, etc. The moment you consider denegration to be the act of speaking out against one of those things there is absolutly nothing that should prohibit you from extending it to all of those things. It is the slippery slope towards fascism.You can be as explicit as you want in law with what is and what is not acceptable but by the nature of change there will constantly be situations where you will slowly and predictably be adding to that list of things that are not allowed to be said. This is because some hundred years from now the kind of thing that divides people may no longer be race. Extending that, to think that there will be never something that divides people, while ideal, is asking for far too much out of humanity as a whole.

You have those same rights in the USA. The diffrerence is that it is only criminal when it becomes verbal assault. You cannot be arrested for saying something that might offend someone merely by its content. Which I freely admit. You however where implying that citizenship in the USA was still determined by land owners which is entirely false. This is in direct contradiction to the Consititution of the USA; in particular, the 14th amendment. Before you damnify a political institution you should make sure your characterization of that institution is correct. The point was that neither I nor scharf were trying to appeal to the authority of the founding fathers. Because we must reference them in a description of the origins of our system does not constitute an appeal to authority. I personally think that the founding fathers were not enlightened enough to establish enough freedoms to prevent future problems that we had such a slavery, and suffrage, to which much bloodshed occurred to ammend. There is no dichotomy here. Plain and simple, you cannot be arrested in the USA for the content of your expression. You can be arrested if that expression is used in the process of violating another law such as abuse, precipitation of violence, threats, etc.

While I agree that we are experience a time that has the potential to become the dawn of a new dark age I don't feel that it is due to lack of Biblical principles. I feel it is due to the widespread accepted and defense of a bastardization of institutionalized Christianity. We are try to pass laws that protect greed and someone else's sense of legalistic morals based on some kind of hybrid capitalism Christianity that in no way resembles the actual teachings of Christ.We can and should take this to another thread if you wish to continue.

Except for the mounds of legal precedent that says it does violate the Establishment clause.from http://fact.trib.com/1st.religion.html Also at the site are many examples of religious freedoms being protected when they were illegally restricted.

Which is why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Congress has passed many laws which are/were unconstitutional which is unfortunate. Mostly the courts are good enough to strike these down in time. No system is perfect and the vigilance of the people is required even in a free country. I think much of this was addressed in my response to your challenge in my post Message 111. I will make no assumptions yet I will notice that you had not responded to that one which I feel was the more telling of the 3. In a hypothetical situation where the definition of "DEGRADATION" changes, you have the equivalent of fascism. We are unwilling to even entertain this possibility lest we cease becoming a free country.It is not that most Americans enjoy or condone hate speech. It is just that we feel it is the first step toward the limitation of all freedom by legislating the morality of a specific culture in a specific time. My purpose with all the examples I have been giving have been to show how in another context that is not so personal, the same train of thought leads toward the limitation of other speech that is only "degrading" by invoking a slightly different, less diametrically opposed opinion.Limiting freedom is not a black and white process. What may cause "DEGRADATION" today in the case of racial hate speech may case "DEGRADATION" in a decade for espousing a different religious preference. I am sure many Christians would feel "degraded" by the mere presence of a pagan or satanist or wiccan establishment across the street from their church. Now if most of us feel this is "degrading" enough now we can start arresting people based on a minority religious preference instead of a minority of people who use hate speech. The next step, which I use in my Message 111 example is that of political "degradation". If most of us feel "degraded" or "hurt" by the political opposition then we can just start arresting them. It is a gradient of morals where you cannot draw the line because morals don't make good laws most of the time.Ever more disturbing is the way in which you tell if someone is really breaking the law. The mere feeling of racial "degradation" has a quantifiable property that you cannot pin down in law. Let me give a few personal examples to illustrate.More than a few times, I have been in a public cafeteria where there was a news broadcast on TV. During particular times of high strife in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there were news stories about how someone killed someone and than the other side retaliated. At the table next to me, a person said how much they think the Palestinians are wrong and how they should all just learn to be civilized human beings. Me being of Palestinian descent I felt mildly hurt and offended by the fact that someone would group all Palestinian people as uncivilized. Now, should I be empowered by law to go find a police officer and have those men arrested for "racial degradation"?At UNM in the largest library on campus there is a mural on a wall that has been there for quite some time. It was painted with the intent to show cultural diversity. Of course this was the intent that existed prior to the civil rights movement so the white people in the picture are all doctors and businessmen while the dark people are all farmers and workers. They are all holding hands in a beautiful panorama of color and detail. Except for the faces of the dark skinned people. All of the white people have facial features like eyes and noses while the dark skinned people simply have an oval of a particular shade of brown as their head. Certainly it is a racial degradation if any but in the time that it was created it was a shining example of acceptance of diversity. Currently there are many groups trying to get it removed from the library and many groups who want to keep it because of its historical significance as a milestone to the progression of acceptance of cultural diversity. This is where this gets tricky. It can be argued successfully both ways that this art is degrading either by saying that it is not due to its original intent or that it is because of its current connotation. Should the artist be arrested today in a system that outlaws expression that is considered racially degrading? Here we also see the problem of how a very ambiguous law can change drastically with time. That being said, even if he created it today should it be considered racially degrading if his intent was still that of showing acceptance of cultural diversity? Someone else might think that it is degrading but as for him and people who think like him it is a monument to acceptance.The KEY of that example is that we are using racial degradation as our measure. Most of the time it is easy to tell what is racial degradation due to its extreme nature but sometimes it is not. Move the type of degradation to religious and then it is even harder to tell what REALLY is degradation and what is simply expressing your beliefs. Move that type of degradation to political and it is totally arbitrary what is considered degradation.Overall, my problem with laws that outlaw speech is that they are necessarily ambiguous. What is not a crime today may become a crime in a decade simply by the passage of time and the change in culture. Likewise, what is a crime today may become perfectly acceptable in the future because there is no way to define the law strictly enough to account for all cultural changes that may ever constitute an act of "degradation". You are mixing up your laws here. The Establishment Clause of the US Constitution makes it illegal for a government official to explicitly enforce a religious belief in the process of his position. A good example of this is a principle leading a prayer at a football game. The other is the freedom of speech which allows you to say what you want regardless of private of public property and not be arrested for the content of your speech. Respectfully, I think you are confusing the issue. The consequence is that there will be many things that are not disallowed that some or even MOST may not like. That is not an endorsement of anything. What you consider quite clearly the sanctioning of hate speech I consider quite clearly the universal protection of freedom exempt from the constraints of any one particular moral system. The venue, as I have shown, only applies in the case of a government official in breech of the Establishment Clause during the exercise of the responsibilities of their office. Please, respectfully, bash the US Constitution that is rather than the US Constitution that you think you know. Which is theocratic and fascist IMHO and potentially by definition. It is an endorsement only in your opinion and it has nothing to do with property rights. In reality it is a freedom that does not prohibit such action even in a public venue should they choose. In an attempt to combine the examples like you have, if a KKK member happened to be a principle of a school and was peacefully endorsing some twisted personal racial religion then it would be specifically be a violation of the Establishment Clause. If the KKK chooses to hold a rally on public or private property then this is not specifically restricted by the freedom of speech although they are responsible should they incite riot. In your opinion you consider this an endorsement. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion as law is explicitly unconstitutional in the USA. Hating racism is a good start. I don't consider being forcefully opinionated necessarily uncivil.

Let me clarify. I had been using the word "offense" as it is a word with a less negative connotation than "degradation" because it makes a point. What is considered mere "offense" to some IS considered "degradation" by others which points out the ambiguity of legislation that specifically outlaws "degradation". "offense" and "degradations" are degrees of severity on a subjective continuum that does not belong in law. My mistake. I read this: and misunderstood what you were saying. In any case I now see that is the first example of where you were erroneously mixing our discussion of the Establishment Clause with the freedom of speech. I will reiterate for clarity, freedom of speech does not only apply to private property. The property issue was only raised in relation to a public vs private event in which the public event contains a case of breech of the Establishment Clause.I respect your opinion of endorsement and at some level do share it with you. My only difference is, and which seems to be the focus of the discussion, is that no opinion based on a subjective ideal even as "degradation" should ever be law. The US Constitution was not created in a vaccum. Understanding the culture and reasons for the way it was created helps to understand it. Saying, "and our forefathers in their infinite wisdom set in stone this immutable law" is far different from saying, "and the reason they may have done it this was is because of this particular cultural influence which I agree with." I never said the US Constitution is above criticism. I am saying that your specific objections to the US Constitution are necessarily fascist even in their righteous nature. You can find anything you want unacceptable all day until you are blue but legislating that opinion is fascist. Where acceptable is subjective. Subjective things should not be laws.Part of the definition of fascism from Fascism (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

Too bad. Because I am enjoying exposing your fascist idealism. Every word of your response is an indictment corollary to everything I have said thus far in this forum. Legislating politeness is fascism plain and simple. You are a perfect demonstration of this. Less recall shall we: Yet you seem to think by your previous admission that he should be arrested. Fascism. Apparently you do not like to perform the action of actually understanding what other people write down in communication to you. You have taken the position stretching from it should be illegal to threaten or verbally assault someone and also if you pray without permission or display political/religious bumper stickers.Let me repeat this again and try to read is slowly this time and internalize it. In America, it IS illegal for you to verbally abuse someone. If I walked up to you in the street and started shouting in your face that while calling you names I could be arrested. I could not be arrested for standing on the street corner and shouting to no one in particular that you are a dirty fascist. There is a difference and you seem to be quite content attacking this caricature of US law for which you have been told yet do not understand by demonstration. What a great defense of the legal system of your country. Part of me feels like I don't even have to say anything to point out how ridiculous your arguments are. You are doing a great job Brian I hope you decide to keep it up. Why would the sticker that say "George Bush is not my favorite person" still not be considered abuse in your civility legislated fascist nation? Who makes that decision? The person allegedly being abused based on their moral system and opinion? No one is now or has ever said that they should be subject to verbal abuse. Abrasiveness like civility is only legislated by the totalitarian, theocratic, and fascist. Maybe not in Scotland but in your fantasy nation they are. You would put the responsibility for defining what is abuse on the "victim" rather than on the law. This is called opinion. The same applies here. If you care to go back against your decision to leave (i.e. admission of defeat/inability to properly construct an argument) maybe you can show us exactly where anyone said that all speech was free without consequence. Yes a penalty. A penalty for anything you do that they may define as abuse. In your case this includes not asking before praying, expressing political or moral dissent, and displaying pride in your religion. Of course I cannot be arrested for that. At least not legally. A perfect example of how your interpretation of moral dissent would affect law in your fascist dream world. Your position destroys itself as it is necessarily contradictory. What if abortion really is murder? How you do you know it is not? Why should speaking out just because that I believe it is murder be a crime? You must enjoy making yourself the advocate for total self-contradiction. And do so because the law requires you to. Now we must all go to Civility and Politeness camp for indoctrination into the totalitarian rregime based on Brian's moral views. Ahh yes. The third example of your total self-contradictory, self-righteous perversion of freedom. No we have prayer, dissent, and choice of attire which are all illegal in fascism land. I guess all the conservatives in this country should be able to immediately arrest all the goths, metal heads, punks, transvestites, etc now that certain clothing is illegal. Really dude. It is not hard to show how ridiculous your sense of freedom is when you say stuff like this. While arguable that is not what I meant. What I am saying is that your opinion of morality and civility should not be turned into law. That is what I mean when I say that opinions should not be legislated. Which they are. I know you can read, you just seem to have a problem understanding the communication coming from people who don't agree with you. How you got that question of my response is bewildering. I am saying that it is illegal for a principal to force non-Christians to participate in a Christian ritual by the Establishment Clause. Notice, that this in particular was agreeing with your. It seems that you are just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing. Maybe that is why your whole argument looks like a contradictory to anyone with any modest intelligence.I am going to skip a bunch of stuff because it is based on the same misunderstanding of my position and your seemingly inability to believe that the US actually does outlaw abuse. I don't know why repeating myself one more time would have any effect on making you understanding this any better. And most of the time that is how it happens here too. But occasionally, corruption in a local police may cause someone to be arrested for either no charges or bogus charges. Also there many cases of when that does happen where that corrupt police system faces stiff punishment including potential arrest of the officers involved. You really seem to like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Sometimes they make a charge up. Sometimes they don't. It is rare and it is illegal. Yes the USA and its criminal justice system is not perfect nor do I expect it is anywhere in any country in the world. As soon as you used the phrase, "you would just have to be more selective" you have by definition removed the freedom of speech. Completely and entirely incorrect as it relates to human rights. The government is duty bound not to impose the will of the majority on the minority. The majority does rule but that does not mean that the majority gets to do whatever it wants. The point was that you were using the word ignorant without knowing the meaning of the word ignorant. It is a spectacular display of mental prowess on your part. You had assigned the word ignorant to mean "someone who does share the same sense of civility as me" then you called my hypothetical child ignorant. Therefore your use of the word ignorant is ironically ignorant.Oh yea, and you failed to address my point that children should defy authority when said authority is abusing them or their rights. If that makes me a bad daddy for teaching them to defend themselves and not to blindly submit to authority then so be it. Not happy no. I never said that. I don't like it at all. Just happy that the same protection that allows him to do that also allows me to express my political dissent. And happy that personally I think a person like that would get his someday regardless of law. More rebuttal toward a misunderstanding of what actually is in America rather than addressing the fact that your position on restrictions on free speech is necessarily fascist. Anyone else feeling like you are hearing a broken record? You are commenting on a caricature you have built in your head based on what Americans here have said. So what if I do sing and dance? Example number 4 of your desire to prohibit freedom while at the same time claiming that your perversion of freedom is more advanced then that of the USA. Once more and hopefully for the last time. No one ever said that you do have the right to abuse people. Enjoy your self-imposed censure.