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

Hi S, An opinion that a black person is inferior to a white person and that the white person has a right to call a black person a fucking nigger is acceptable to you?Free speech is fine, but to have free speech that makes another human being feel worthless is disgusting.There are ways to voice an opinion in a proper fashion. If you want coloured people out of America then there are peaceful ways of putting your opinion across. There are official channels for voicing your opinion.How do you think Scotland brought in her laws against racism? We didn't acheive it by calling people niggers and Paksis. Decent people complained about the dehumanisation of others by racist abuse and the laws were passed. This is obviously where a decent moral society varies from America. Americans do not see a problem with being free to call someone a black bastard, yet other societies are horrified by this. They are all victims of verbal abuse.What damage do you think could be done to a child who is continually being called a fat useless bastard? Is this a good thing for their self-esteem?Do you think a kid being called pizza face all the time would just laugh it off and not feel abused?I am sure you know that verbal abuse can have long term psychological effects on a child.I would also like to think that if a parent heard their child calling another child 'fatty' that they would horrified and punished their child accordingly.Unless it was America of course, where the child would remind the parent that it is their right to be able to call another kid a fat bastard.No wonder there are so many divisions in American society.Brian.

You must be beating your head against the wall, if you think that response answers my question at all.I get that if the event occured, then Washington is shown to have some beliefs which are along the lines of Xianity. Indeed I will totally grant that he did have beliefs along the lines of Xianity. He was a deist which sprang from Xian roots.Okay, so what does that have to do with the subject? How does it show that the US GOVERNMENT is influence by Xian beliefs, and/or that the Xian beliefs that Washington had were anything like the Xianity you participate in.Hell, at this rate he could have been an anabaptist and you'd tell me that meant Xianity had some influence on the US gov't?Or maybe I am making a mistake here. Are you suggesting that the influence was God personally saving some of the high ranking members of the people that created this nation?

---

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

It two different situations, the precise same words might be directly aimed at one person by another. In one context they might be harmless, even friendly chatter. In another context, they might rightfully be considered a harmful threat. And these two contexts might well blur into each other.Moose

Something is seriously missing from all of this... If you start badgering someone in the US and calling them really rude names then you can be arrested. There is such a thing as verbal assault, harassment, and public nuisance.I think we have strayed a ways when we move from the KKK saying white power at a game, to shouting all blacks should die at people attending the game. I think a decent person can agree that verbal statements can be made which are very offensive and yet no one gets punished. There is a difference between someone saying something offensive and hounding a person.I think a person that cannot take hearing things which are offensive from time to time is a bit thin skinned.I think the US is a better place for being as lenient as it is.Indeed, once people start jailing people for saying something offensive all sorts of laws come out of the woodwork that I think no decent person should allow. Unfortunately the US does have this.As long as communication is not in a consistent abusive manner, then what is the harm? Are you seriously saying that you don't feel superior to anyone else? Maybe not because of race, but some other arbitrary characteristic? Of course you do, and if its sexually offended then you have many laws at your disposal. After all we can have the KKK saying white power if we want, but Janet Jackson cannot bare a nipple.Yes there are some problems with free speech in america. Would you really want no right to offend others? That sounds like the beginning of the end of any society.So if your being offended by Xians being open about their faith at a football rally can mean they get booted, you are then fully prepared to allow gays to get the axe from pride marches in the street, or participating in the St.Patrick's day parade?That would of course be the result.

---

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

I'll try to reply to you and Justin's message here. Although freedom is a Christian (and non) value, that is not what I am talking about.A nation is founded on more than mere laws. It is founded by lots and lots of people working, living, eating, learning, and in times of war fighting together. Many of these people's beliefs belonged to some form of Christianity and as such their communities reflected their beliefs, and the wisdom written by the founding fathers also reflected their beliefs (I realize some were deists). Not all communities were founded by people of the same denomination or religion, but within those communities religion meshed in smoothly throughout the society and the public square and no judge would have demanded otherwise.

I see a problem with it, and if myself or some of my friends heard someone saying it we can speak out against it. This actually happens on occasion. I have seen a production on the History Channel about neo-nazis and it showed a neo nazi rally and right next to them were a crowd of jews and christians shouting right back at them with the police watching to make sure it didn't turn violent. As the saying goes: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Freedom means the responsibility goes to the people rather than the government. It also means there is more diversity and less mediocrity and yes, more division. But the hope is that as long as people can talk, then we will be better off for it, and we are.

As much as I am for diversity and that includes allowing individual communities a very large flexibility in managing their affairs, I think you are making theoretical points rather than practical ones.While late 1700's allowed for very separate communities, these days everything is tied together much more and people move between communities readily. Community is a fluid thing.Perhaps what you want would have made more sense back then, but does it today?In any case it is pretty clear the founding fathers wanted religion kept as far from government functions as possible, regardless of the community.

---

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

quote:

---

Many of these people's beliefs belonged to some form of Christianity and as such their communities reflected their beliefs, and the wisdom written by the founding fathers also reflected their beliefs (I realize some were deists).

---

I'm not trying to make an all-or-nothing comment. I realize that Christianity had some influence on our Founding Fathers perspectives, but I don't see that as anything but a vague, common sense statement. Which principles outlined in our constitution have there roots in Christianity? One that comes to mind immediately is "all men are created equal," but it was also written by an intellectual deist. I'm not sure that principle is exclusive to Christianity either.If this nation was founded as a Christian Nation, then why wasn't this the national religion? Why wasn't it explicitly stated? Why was separation of church and state mandated?It seems to me, from my amateur studying of American history, that the major influences on the major players (Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Paine, Franklin, etc) of the Founding Fathers was a keen understanding of history, an understanding the fates of historical societies, and a desire to protect this particular society against despots. I see very little Christian influence, but I could just be unintentionally filtering it out.

See, now you are making up things and putting words into my mouth. Forcing someone to endure verbal assault is extremely different from being offended by another's free speech. It is not legal for two big white guys to verbally abuse a small black girl. If this were to happen her parents could have the two men arrested for child abuse. What is not illegal is for the same parents to have a bunch of KKK members arrested for speaking at the street corner in a legal assembly.I also could give a damn about your opinion of my decency. I personally think racism is one of the filthiest qualities a human being can posses. I am not advocating racism. We are just using it as an example because it is the extreme end of the spectrum. I am protected in this country if I go out and say, "I hate fascism!" In your fascist fantasy world, you could be offended by me saying this and have me arrested. In a REAL free country, I can say this with absolutely no fear of legal retaliation by any individual or the government. That same law that protects me from harm also protects someone from saying, "everyone should love Jesus" or, "hail Satan" in public. I am not happy that people do this at all. You just don't understand what human rights are. I personally would rather live in a country where it is legal for someone to be called a bad name then in a country where I could be arrested for a bumper sticker expressing my political opinion or for not asking permission to pray over my food in a restraunt. What is disgusting is that anyone who lives in a "freecountry" would be in such obvious support of fascism. Talk about civility and decency. Now see, in your fascist world, you could be arrested because you just offended me by calling me fucked up. But in America, your opinion that I am fucked up is protected under the Constitution. I guess I should call the police over in your hometown and have your charged with abuse then?I hate racism. But I cannot outlaw it without also giving up my right to call George Bush a big jerk. I would fight for my right to hold and express the opinion the George Bush is a big jerk and by doing so am fighting for the right for someone else to be racist. Opinions are not legislated in this country lest it no longer be the America that our founding fathers designed. Whether you agree with it or not, racism is a personal belief and not subject to legislation. Beliefs and opinions do not get legislated. You seem to be completely missing this point because you are so tied up with your self-righteous civility and decency that you feel everyone should be forced under by the law. No. Because then I could be prosecuted for my bumper sticker that say George Bush is a big jerk. My catholic friend could be arrested for their bumper sticker that says that people who have abortions are murderers. Some of my Christian friends could be arrested for their Jesus Love You bumper sticker. You could be arrested for calling me fucked up. Pretty much everyone except the people who cannot speak would or could all have criminal abuse charges on their record. Except then they might wear clothes that offend someone so then they could be arrested. Then I guess all we would have left would be the speech impaired nudists except that nudity offends some people and maybe someone somewhere is offended by people who cannot speak. And 100% protected under American law just like it should be. You talk about equality yet you are displaying acceptance of the most dangerous form of inequality. The inequality of people who dont think like you. You want legislation to force everyone to adhere to YOUR standards of civility and decency. This is in no way equal or acceptable and should never be tolerated. It is called fascism. Fascist people often call fascism other things like education and equality when it really means oppression and subversion of human rights. No one is ever saying that you have the freedom to verbally abuse someone. You just seem to think that because you hear something that you dont like that it should constitute verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is when you are forced to endure verbal assault. No one is forcing people at a KKK rally to stay there and listen to it. If they were, it would be abuse. Yet you seem to be getting away just fine with calling America backwards, calling me fucked up, etc. If I consider this abusive should you be arrested? Does my moral opinion about what is offensive create law? If you want personal morality and idealism to be forced upon other people by their governing body then you may also need a serious look at yourself sir. No. What I am saying is that the KKK has the right to peaceably assemble as a body of citizens. They can say anything they want but any disruption they cause is a mandate for applying the law. If they induced a riot then they are responsible. The difference is that the crime is inciting riot rather than speaking racist remarks. You do not go to jail for what you say but you can go to jail for the results of what you say. The freedom of speech does not protect you from shouting falsely that a person is carrying a bomb in an airport. You are not carried off to jail because of the content of what you said. You are carried off to jail because of what you said, where you said it, and because it was with the intent to cause panic. A cold day in hell God willing. Primitive is also something that a fascist might call human rights. If it was my football game that I organized and opened up to the public then I have the right to say anything I damn well want to before the game. If I say something that causes people to riot then I have committed the crime of inducing riot. If all I do is hurt your feelings because I say a Christian prayer then you can go home and cry about it all you want but in no way should I be subject to provisions of the law. Trying to keep this slightly on topic, if I was a principle of a public school at a school game and announced that all the attendees were now required to pray then I would most certainly be breaking the law. If that is true then I have never been happier that I do not live in Scotland. If civilized means becoming a fascist nation where opinion is a crime then I dont want be civilized. If civilized means that I can be arrested and put in jail for hurting your feelings then I dont want to be civilized. The day America passes laws to enforce your brand of common decency is the day America is dead. In fascist land maybe. Not in America. Your faith can be abused all day after I open up my All Sinners Go To Hell Gift Shop and Travel Agency. As long as I am not abusing you by forcing you to shop at my store I am within my rights as an American. All your examples show is oppression and basic human rights violations. Where did you get this idea. You have the right to feel whatever you want in America. You DO NOT have the right in written law to bring criminal charges upon someone for the simple act of hurting your feelings. You can try to sue them and in some cases you might win. But no act that would go on someones criminal record would have occurred. Who said anyone though it was okay? What does any of this have to do with society? I personally think it sucks that people do this. I also think that you dont belong in jail for calling someone a name. Apparently in your world you are going to jail for calling me fucked up. If I was like you then I would personally think that that word is disgusting and you should be criminally charged for offending me. It is awesome to live in a country where I can express my political and moral dissent without fear of an oppressive fascist nation throwing me in jail. It has been said before in this thread. People who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. You also have no evidence that freedom of speech causes crime and I doubt you will find any. America has its problems but God willing fascism will never be one of them. In non-fascist land, hurting someones feelings when they have the ability to leave or ignore you is not considered abuse. You already have that right in America. It is illegal to abuse people no matter what the reason. It is not illegal to say something that might offend someone though. You just have a screwed up sense of the meaning of abuse. You feel that anything that is counter to YOUR personal morality concerning decency and civility is abuse. You see, in America, the police can be wrong and there are consequences for them if they are wrong. If they arrest someone where they was no crime committed then they are actually breaking the law and can be sued. It is unfortunate but this does happen and we are very lucky to be part of a system that can be held accountable for not following its own rules.Mentioning Jesus is not illegal therefore any arrest on those grounds would be an illegal arrest and the police force could be sued. The police might be involved because they were confused, misled, or misunderstood the law. In any case, the police are not lawyers and are not the perfect righteous hand of justice that you seem to think they are. In fact, you cannot even be arrested legally in the US without a warrant issued by a judge unless the police catch you in the process of committing a crime. There are lots of laws in place that protect the people from illegal arrest but it still happens once in awhile.Also, laws get broken not crimes. Crimes are committed. Before you call my country a crime filled, backwards, primitive stain on the world maybe you should be more careful. It is hard to say because we dont have details. Like I said before, police arrest people without cause all the time and it is wrong and they usually pay consequences for it. I think getting rid of hate and racism is a great goal. Abusing people is already against the law in this country, even verbal abuse. Your twisted desire for thought legislation is offensive though. Guess in your world you should be arrested for offending me. Yes it does because that would mean that basic human rights of free speech that all should have would be destroyed and that is offensive to everyone. Ignorance is lack of knowledge not lack of submitting myself to your moral system. Your ignorance of the use of the word ignorant is appalling. How you think it is okay to make it illegal to hurt your feelings is beyond my comprehension. The point is, George Bush cannot have me arrested for my bumper sticker. He can be offended all day and if he doesnt like it then he can choose to ignore it or look away. He cannot and should not have the power to arrest me for my bumper sticker though. If I create a bumper sticker that says Brian Sucks then you should not be able to press criminal charges upon me. Not in the free world sir. Certainly in fascist land. You have the same protection from abuse in America. You just dont know what you are talking about and think that the way things are in your head are what is real. Apparently you do not have freedom of speech because I cannot pray over my food without first asking permission from everyone in the room. No. You legislate some sense of civility which is an exception to the right of free speech. A fascist one where the rule of law is your own personal sense of morality?This message has been edited by Jazzns, 01-05-2005 17:09 AM

You are right in the sense that you are not protected by the law when you yell fire in a public crowded place. You are not right if you mean that saying something that offends another person is a criminal offense. That by definition is a limitation on speech not a freedom of speech. You are advocating restrictions on speech by your own admission. It is not legal in the sense that there is a law that specifically allows racist comments to be spoken. It is legal because there is no law prohibiting that kind of speech. It is called freedom. You should try it some time. If they are forced to listen or it is being endorsed by an agent of the government then yes it is abuse. If they are not forced to listen or it is not being endorsed by an agent of the government then they can get over it because it is not breaking the law. I am not the one advocating fascism. You are right. America will not and should not legislate someones personal idea of civility. I would not vote for you if you were running for office in this country. You are also patronizing me. Since that offends me should you go to jail now? I guess maybe we both should in your world since we are both offending each other. You call yourself civilized and you are telling me that you believe that saying a personal prayer without asking should be illegal! That is fascism of the first order and is just plain sick!It does not matter if he knows you will be offended before hand or not. You do not have the right to criminalize someone based on their behavior contrary to YOUR BELIEFS! I will teach my children right from wrong. Just because an authority figure does something doesnt make it right because they are an authority figure. I would want my child to defy an adult if they are being abused by that adult. I will teach my children to know the difference between proper application of adult authority compared to abuse of them and their rights. I will teach my children their rights and responsibilities under the laws of the Constitution of the United States of America.Once again you are ignorant of the use of the word ignorant. You are saying anyone who doesnt believe in your personal values and morals is ignorant when the word really means a lack in knowledge. Ignorance is not opposition to your beliefs. That is not the point. If something is against the rules and you have agreed to it that is very different from someone infringing upon your rights at a public institution. No public school can make the rule that prayer is illegal because that violates the Constitution. Schools dont make laws. No because my right to shit on your floor is not protected by law. You are digressing into unintelligible ranting that has no purpose for the conversation we are having. A myth is a story not a set of founding laws. The Constitution contains the primary laws of our country and I would be ignoring my responsibility as a parent if I did not teach it to my children. I also would not expect them to follow it blindly but rather learn WHY it says what it says and how important it is for citizens of our country to protect it at all cost. Your implication sir is both demeaning and totally irrelevant. Not idyllic for people who believe in oppression, fascism, groupthink, and seclusion. Civility is fine. Legislating civility is a sickness that would destroy this country. I should never have to ask anyone for permission to pray. Yes it is quite nasty! It sucks and I hope the police and the DA were sued and the arresting officer fired for not knowing and following the first amendment. I have no idea how you distilled this out of Schools dont make laws. Yes laws apply in these places but no laws were being broken except the schools perception of the law. You cannot be arrested for a law someone makes up on the scene. Congress makes laws, schools do not. My mistake. In either case it is still wrong and the school system should have been taken to court. Of course this is assuming these were public schools since they used the Establishment Clause as the basis. It is not what I think. It is what the Constitution of the United States of America says! Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What part of that is confusing to you? Just like your shitting on the carpet example this has absolutely no application to our discussion. Your right to use heroine is not protected by the Constitution. Your right to free speech and exercise of religion is explicitly protected by law. If she broke the law then yes she deserves to be punished. Since we have no details we cannot know except through speculation weather or not the arrest was legal.

Sure. I believe that the people who participate in deliberate hate speech are backwards and uncivilized. I also feel that their right to assemble and practice their backwards and uncivilized hate speech is and should continue to be protected by the Constitution.I am not an advocate for hate, just for freedom and the continuation of freedom.

quote:

---

An opinion that a black person is inferior to a white person and that the white person has a right to call a black person a fucking nigger is acceptable to you?

---

Personally, no.I deplore that kind of hate against any group and I have, on many occasions, countered such speech with my own.

quote:

---

Free speech is fine, but to have free speech that makes another human being feel worthless is disgusting.

---

Yes, it is disgusting.It should still not be illegal. I don't want the government telling anyone what to think or say, as long as there is no physical threat involved or intimidation. It is not the government's job.

quote:

---

There are ways to voice an opinion in a proper fashion. If you want coloured people out of America then there are peaceful ways of putting your opinion across. There are official channels for voicing your opinion.

---

That seems unduly oppressive to me.Anyway, if someone is so raqcist or hateful that they are willing to say it in public, then alls the better to know who the bastards are, as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

---

How do you think Scotland brought in her laws against racism? We didn't acheive it by calling people niggers and Paksis. Decent people complained about the dehumanisation of others by racist abuse and the laws were passed.

---

So, you passed very oppressive speech laws. I'd be very uncomfortable with that in America.It is not the government's place to legislate a homogeneous morality. It is the greater culture's job to change that.Tell me, have the laws against racism made people less racist?Remember, the US is made up of 50 states, and each state has many laws which are unique to each state. The Founders wanted the individual states to remain as independent from the federal government as possible.

quote:

---

This is obviously where a decent moral society varies from America. Americans do not see a problem with being free to call someone a black bastard, yet other societies are horrified by this.

---

Many Americans, probably most, are horrified by someone being called a black bastard.We just don't think the government has the right to legislate what people say, through words, or art, or music, or theater, or literature.If someone is angry at their black ancestors being enslaved by white slave owners, do they have the right to make a sculpture showing a white man being lynched by a bunch of black men? Wouldn't that offend and demean the whites?

quote:

---

They are all victims of verbal abuse.

​

I am sure you know that verbal abuse can have long term psychological effects on a child.

---

Of course.But should the name callers be arrested and prosecuted by the government?

quote:

---

I would also like to think that if a parent heard their child calling another child 'fatty' that they would horrified and punished their child accordingly.

---

Yes, I would hope so as well.Do you think that the bully should be prosecuted, though?

quote:

---

Unless it was America of course, where the child would remind the parent that it is their right to be able to call another kid a fat bastard.

---

Just because it is his legal right doesn't make it the right thing to do.With great freedom comes great responsibility.I guess the Founders didn't want the federal government to be a parental figure to it's citizens.

quote:

---

No wonder there are so many divisions in American society.

---

I would not want a homogeneous society, where I was told what I could or couldn't say.

Except that doesn't reflect reality. Mormons were attacked (and Mormons attacked) and driven from communities, none of the Native American religions were tolerated, and even among nominally Christian States, diversity was excluded. Virginia was Presbyterian, Maryland and Pennsylvania Roman Catholic, New England various Puritan sects. The Friends and Amish we excluded from many legislatures and often driven from their homes and forced to form new communities.The history of religious tolerance in the US is not some smooth synthesis, rather it is one of conflict and even micro-wars, and of absolute distruction of many faiths. In fact the closest a Jew has come to being head of state in the US was actually in the Confederacy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Tal,Thanks for your reply. I was unable to locate in the quote you provided the principles of the founding of the US that are uniquely Christian. I was hoping you might be able to clarify that.Thanks,
BG

Not only that but I think that it is clear from the history of Christianity that at the founding of the US all men were _not_ created equal. I think that this is another example of an American principle that occurred in spite of Christianity and not because of it. Many of the Europeans who first came to the North American continent came so that they could be religiously intolerant, not for liberty and justice for all. Christianity later appropriated the idea that all men are created equal because it is a good idea. And that didn't even take for a long time because look at how many racist Christians there are. "Equality" is not a uniquely Christian principle.ABE: Glad you like the comics. I found that the comic I used for my avatar was pretty typical of many of the graduate students I know and it kills me every time I read it.This message has been edited by bob_gray, 01-05-2005 20:49 AM