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

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

This is a reply to another post, and is my last on the topic as I am bored to tears with it. It is a basic human right not to be abused because of the colour of
your skin!! You can express a political opinion, but you need to be polite about it. You wouldn’t be arrested for that. Why is it fascist to ban people from calling others a black bastard?
You are still free to think that they are, or even talk about it with you other racist friends. What you cannot do is call someone a black bastard to their face, no one should be subjected to that. No I wouldn’t, because you are fucked up. You would have to prove that you aren’t fucked up in order to make the charge stick. You would have difficulty doing that. Why should George Bush be subjected to abuse? Why can’t you have a sticker that says George Bush is not my favourite person? Why do you have to insult others all the time? You can have your opinion, and the racist can have theirs, there is no law against that. But the objects that you both hate shouldn’t be subjected to personal verbal abuse.Look at George Bush, the guy looks completely vacant and almost every time he speaks he speaks he makes a howler of some kind, the guy is an embarrassment (and US president ), but why should he be subjected to personal abuse? You can still voice your opinion without being abrasive. They aren’t legislated against in Scotland either. The legislation is against verbally abusing others and there is a particular law related to racial abuse.There was an example earlier of a football game in America where it is okay to call players things like useless black bastard and, unless a riot broke out, or a physical threat accompanied the racist comments, then there was no crime committed. In my example from Scotland, someone shouting racist comments was arrested. Has his opinion changed? I don’t think so, was he forbidden to shout the comments? No, he was free to shout them, he just had consequences to deal with. They aren’t legislated against. You are free to think that whites are superior, you just aren’t free to tell a black person that to their face in an insulting manner. They aren’t forced, they can do what they want, they have a penalty to pay for that though. You mean at the moment you cannot be arrested for that? Is it obvious that you mean the President? They should be arrested for that, how ignorant can a person be? People who have abortions have enough suffering to go through without clowns making comments like that. You would be done under the trades description act over here for that one. I actually could be. But, at court I could cite many examples that would get me a not guilty verdict. So? Learn to be civil then and complain politely. If the clothes are offensive then why not? You would get done for indecent exposure for nudism here, except for resorts. I don’t know about that one. They are free to think what they want, I haven’t said that opinion is outlawed. So, what about the American footballers who are being abuse because of their skin colour, have they to pack in their jobs so they don’t have to hear the abuse? I could be arrested if you complained, but you would have trouble making it stick. I want everyone to be protected by the law, including verbal abuse. But the result of what someone says has an effect on whoever it is said to. An American footballer gets called a black bastard and because there is no repercussions then that’s fine. What about the effect these comments have on the footballer’s self esteem and well being? You don’t know what it could do to some people. But it is okay to force non-Christians to listen to this nonsense? It is true, I posted an example of it for you.If I hear one of my students racially abusing another student I ave to fill in various forms that will be passed on to the police who will decide if they prosecute or not. So, offending someone is a crime, simple as that. Maybe it is time that America caught up with the more civilised countries. The opinion isn’t the crime, the racist comment it another person is the crime. You can rest assured that no one is stopping you from thinking that someone is inferior to you. You have no idea how serious verbal abuse can be do you? Do you know what continuous verbal abuse can do to a person? In any decent society you wouldn’t get away with calling a shop that. You are having a laugh surely?The black footballers who were called racist names have no right to be protected under the law?We are oppressing people’s basic human right to call someone a black bastard, you need some serious help. That is terrible. How many people have suffered from lack of protection from verbal abuse? Everyone should be able to walk around freely in society without being verbally abused, that’s what it has to do with society. That’s the beauty of a nation that thinks every one is equal, maybe America will catch up some day. Yep, I should be. But, you are fucked up so i have done nothing wrong. Yes, you can abuse as many people as you like, it must be great. LOL But what about people who have the ability to leave, such as the footballers?You seem to think that hurting someone’s feelings cannot lead to serious problems. You should do some research on this. So what is the difference? To call someone a black bastard is to abuse them, and surely they would be offended by this. You think that everyone is capable of shrugging off stupid comments, but they don’t. I couldn’t care lesswhat others think of me and I would shrug it off, but not everyone has this outlook. Many people take personal comments very seriously and it can have a long term affect on their life, this is abuse.DO you think that everyone who is called ‘fatty’ by other kids just laugh it off? Get in touch with reality. Police can be wrong here too, and frequently are. But when they arrive at the scene of an alleged crime they aren’t just going to arrest someone if there is no POSSIBILITY that a crime has been committed.In America, what do police do when they receive a phone call or someone flags down their car? Do they not ask what the problem is? Do they arrest someone without enquiring what the complaint is? If the girl was arrested then she was arrested for some reason, there must have been some dialogue surely. It wasn’t my example, you would need to ask HD for the details. I was responding to what he wrote. You mean they just turn up and arrest people for no reason? In the land of the free? They don’t even make a charge up? They dont say we are arresting you for xyz? It isn’t thought legislation, it is protection from verbal abuse that can have harmful long-term affects. It wouldn’t be destroyed, you would just have ot be more selective over the words that you use. Anyway, if the majority of a society want racial comments to be a crime then the government is duty bound to bring in laws to support that. I am not asking you to share my moral system, decent people already share it. That is because you are so self centred that you do not think that personal comments have long term harmful effects. Just because you and I are strong enough emotionally to not give a shit what others think doesn’t mean that everyone is like us.Some people have committed suicide because their ‘feelings have been hurt’. Try putting yourself in the place of others and then think about what you are saying. SO, you are happy to allow others to have a bumper sticker that says ‘I hate filthy stinkin niggers’Are you happy that people can drive around with stickers that say this? In the free world you cannot abuse people. In crazy America it seems that racial abuse is great as long as no one is seen as being immediately affected by the comments. That ten years down the line a person takes their life because they have been dehumanised by racist comments over a long period of time seems to be okay with you. I am commenting on what Americans here have said.Americans at this site said that you can call footballers ‘Niggers’ at a game and nothing would happen to you unless there is a threat along with the comment. That is not the same protection that they have here at all. Yes you can, just don’t sing and dance about it at the same time. But you do not have the right to abuse others, it is not a basic human right to racially abuse another person.

For the record, I have just modified this topics title, adding the "(In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)" part. This topic title change has also been noted at message 1.This new version of the title preserves the original more restricted theme of the topic (which I think is an important thing to do), and also indicates that the discussion has also broadened into one of wider scope.Of course, it is a gray area thing, of if this "wider scope" is or is not acceptable topic drift. Personally, I think it is acceptable, but I may be wrong.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

Oil for food?

---

What does the Oil for Food program have to do with these statistics?

quote:

---

And interesting case. In fact Farrakhan was barred from entry to Britain to preach on the same grounds as the Sex Pistols: speech likely to provoke public violence.

​

That said, I'm underwhelmed by the allegations against Farrakhan, and opposed BritGov in the above incident. I don't think he is a saint but I feel that the charges levelled - like those at Sharpton - have much more to do with American anti-black racism than anything else.

---

So, when Farrakhan says that the Jews are an evil race and should be blamed for the slave trade and are solely responsible for all of the Middle East problems, you don't think this is worthy of arrest?Wow, what a double standard you have.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-07-2005 14:47 AM

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.

I don't trust the U.N.'s statistical data. It is run by a bunch of corrupt thugs who are lining their pockets, partially with US taxpayer's money.Oh, and the UN is completly, utterly, and in all other ways absolutely worthless.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Tal writes:

quote:

---

Oh, and the UN is completly, utterly, and in all other ways absolutely worthless.

---

So the eradication of smallpox from the face of the earth was a "completely, utterly, and in all other ways absolutely worthless" thing?The projected eradication of polio by 2006 is a "completely, utterly, and in all other ways absolutely worthless" thing?Seems you don't know the first thing about what the UN actually does.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

*EDIT* Forgot to say that all of the following is just my opinion. The UN merely wants us to give them the money, giving them the chance to steal 95% of it for themselves, then distribute the rest to those who need it. In the end, they'll get the awards, praise, and accolades for 90% of the work that we did. Nothing fancy, just simple human nature.The United Nations (UN) is a bureacratic non-necessity. It was designed after the World Wars to bring countries together to rely on a collected body instead of themselves. This was necessary during the first 10 years after the biggest war (World War II) because of massive destruction of factories and other industrial output (expecially in Germany). The UN gave the world a collective voice in rebuilding nations that were war-torn and in pieces.After the countries that were war torn and destroyed were able to pick themselves and get running, the UN lost any and all necessary "place" in the world. It has become a stagnant and a destructive forum for those countries that want to fillibuster and delay things within the world.And we all know how good they are at enforcing resolutions they set.Oh, and let's not forget the great track record of thier "peacekeeping missions," who in actuality don't do diddly squat or prevent anyone from being killed. While we are on the subject, the most successful peacekeeping mission in the world (Multi-National Force & Observesr, Sinai Egypt) is not run by the UN.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-08-2005 07:23 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Tal responds to me...well, no, he doesn't. He just gives a rant.I notice you didn't actually respond to what I said. You don't know what the UN does. You're obsessed with the blue helmets as if military action were the only thing the UN is involved with.You're obsessed with UN graft while completely ignoring US graft of the exact same type on an even larger scale. You do recall that the US was involved in trade violations with Iraq for $17 billion before the Oil for Food program (more than the $10 billion the UN is involved in). Should we do the same to the US that you would have done to the UN?I have never claimed the UN was perfect. I simply said that you do not know what they do. They accomplish things on a global scale precisely because they are a global entity and as such can do things that individual nations cannot. Like coordinate a global response to a disease in an attempt to eradicate it from the planet. Like trying to rid areas of land mines (which the US refuses to assist in). Like working for the rights of women and children.They're not the only game in town, but they're a significant one.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

It is very easy to throw claims like this out into the public arena. Would you mind showing one bit of proof for this patently false allegation? This is also inaccurate. It was not solely about finances and reparations. It also created a diplomatic body in order to provide an overarching support for addressing multinational issues. Part of this was giving smaller nations a greater amount of protection than they would have normally against larger nations.I suppose I am in agreement that Bush proposes to make it a nonnecessity by bulldozing diplomacy and replacing it with winner take all. Destructive? Delay "things"? Wars you mean? Oh my.If it is not as effective as it could be, why are we not discussing how to improve it, rather than just destroying it?Frankly all of your criticisms could be made for the CIA, FBI, the US government, any State government, the US military, etc etc.If something is not effective, maybe it is time to talk about how to make it better? Or do you feel there is absolutely no point in having a world diplomatic body? Agreed, Israel literally gets away with murder and only because the rules allow the US a veto over the rest of the world. Funny how we find it horrible when that protects nations we don't like, but think it's great when it is nations we do like. Wow, those "peacekeeping missions" we run really work. Just like the "drug war", and counterterrorism operations which resulted in 9-11 and now Iraq.Again, why are we not discussing how to improve a system instead of how to destroy it? Your criticisms can be placed against anything which involves organized effort.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oil for food scandalSome highlights I would like to point out. To reiterate: They weren't interested in the LEAST in "keeping the peace." I will concede that they were VERY interested in delaying the war (14 months was it?) because their pockets were being lined. I disagree. Source and elaborate please. The MFO is the most successful peacekeeping mission in the middle east to date (modern times). There has not been a shot fired in anger by Egypt or Isreal since at least 82, when the MFO was first established.UN in Bonsia = dead people
UN in Kosovo = dead people
UN in Rawanda = dead people

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

You alleged that the UN was a worthless organization whose only purpose was to leach money off of member countries, keeping 95% of it to line bureacrat's pockets and passing on the remaining 5%, and then taking credit for what everyone else did.I asked you for evidence of that outlandish claim.What you gave me was this... In addition to that not even being a complete sentence, it only mentions a singular scandal that the Un is involved in, and does not suggest at all what normal UN processes are... much less proving them.Yet the problems do not end there. That not on topic nonevidentiary nonargumentative nonsentence was also a link to a FoxNEWS slander piece. As unbelievable as it is that someone would be using FoxNEWS as some sort of credible source for information, you did not even get a news story which supports your overall position.The "highlights" as you call them, contained no evidence whatsoever and instead were more allegations and innuendo. And despite the quote mining you used to get a negative portrait of the UN, you avoided perhaps the most pertinent quotes from the very people you were using to damn the UN... You also claim that the UN has been destructive. When asked what you were talking about you gave me an additional quote from that same FoxNEWS propaganda piece.Here it is again... This so insults my intelligence I am beside myself. Are you actually claiming that the US did not want to go to war with Iraq, and only had to because some greedy nations decided not to back the US in confronting Iraq and forcing it to disarm?That is in direct conflict with everything including the NEW REALITYtm we all have to buy on Iraq. I find it hard to believe that you cannot remember just a few years ago, not to mention what is being said today.The argument about forcing Iraq to comply with resolutions was the original argument the administration used. The argument from the nations Fox is currently slandering was that an invasion was not necessary to get them to comply, and would be counterproductive in the long run. In the end Iraq began to comply and then the US halted the processes called for by the resolutions in order to invade.That last fact reduces the argument that we were concerned about complicity with the resolutions to dust. Then as it turned out those "bad" nations turned out to be 100% correct. Iraq posed a threat to no one, and despite fantasies to eventually defy UN resolutions and a couple of actualized defiances regarding missile ranges, were not in material breach of anything and some of them (the most important) were fully complied with.That is when Bush trotted out the NEW REALITYtm. Remember, now the reason for the invasion had nothing to do with compliance with resolutions nor presence of WMDs, the current reason is that we needed to free the Iraqi people and form a democratic gov't there because that will cause other nations in the region to become democratic and thus end terrorism. If you check with UN resolutions you will note that none had anything to do with that.In other words Fox doesn't even care what mud they are throwing anymore and decided to use an argument which is no longer valid. You should set a higher bar than Fox. I can't believe you swallowed that.Moving on, when I pointed out that your criticisms of the UN could pertain to any bureacratic gov't agency, your reply was... What is the sound of one hand clapping?And to my pointing out that the UN has indeed let resolutions slide on some nations, which supports your position, you actually reverse your position and demand... Of course there is only one reason for this about face. The example I gave, which once again I will repeat SUPPORTED YOUR POSITION, was resolutions against Israel. Here is a page listing resolutions against Israel. It also includes a table at the bottom showing how the US has used its veto power in order to shield Israel from majority votes. This is exactly what France was criticized for doing with respect to the Iraq War. I wonder if we have a financial asset in Israel? I wonder if US politicians might have a financial interest in protecting Israel?I will point out that this information was easily obtained by googling Israel and UN resolutions.Moving on, I mentioned other failed missions by other organizations, pointing out that your logic would require shutting them down too.Your answer was this... The fact that the most successful peacekeeping mission is not UN oversighted would not mean that all UN missions are worthless.Neither does the fact that certain UN missions have failed, or resulted in some deaths, mean that all UN missions are worthless. Indeed sometimes deaths happen during armed peacekeeping missions... right? It is about preventing more death... right?Certainly the most worthless (failed) mission ever undertaken in recent history was the military mission against WMDs and terrorist organizations in Iraq. Neither even existed. Does that make all missions the US undertakes worthless?Please make your responses higher quality.(edited in: I forgot to provide you with a list of peakekeeping missions. Here is a page with a full list. You can determine which were successful or not. Clearly they weren't all failures.)This message has been edited by holmes, 01-08-2005 14:10 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Tal writes:

quote:

---

The MFO is the most successful peacekeeping mission in the middle east to date (modern times). There has not been a shot fired in anger by Egypt or Isreal since at least 82, when the MFO was first established.

---

Since Israel and Egypt had signed a formalized peace agreement brokered by President Carter in 1979, it is hardly surprising to find that there hasn't been any armed conflict between them.By the way, as part of that agreement, and I quote from Article IV, Section 1: [emphasis added]Seems the UN was there, too.

quote:

---

UN in Bonsia = dead people
UN in Kosovo = dead people

---

The US was there, too. Are we also responsible for the dead people? We even missed a target and blew up the Chinese.

quote:

---

UN in Rawanda = dead people

---

The US never showed up. What's our responsibility, then?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Bring the current theme elsewhere, or start a new Coffee House topic.BTW, what's MFO?Declaring terminal topic drift - closing down.Adminnemooseus