|
| Thread: Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas] |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted February 04, 2012 04:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The point is that he happened before something happened to him. So it's not like you are immune.
Who said the US was immune? In fact, my post implied otherwise.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted February 04, 2012 06:34 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 18:38, 04 Feb 2012.
|
Quote:
If we just ignored them, the kids would get the opposite effect: Nothing is attempting to supress the religion, and yet the religion asks for unreasonable demands. So they leave it, with time and age. Most of the entire western atheism has been caused by robbing the religon of its blackmail powers, but otherwise leave it entirely alone.
Of course, this never solved the "highly religious communties" problem, such as the Bible Belt in USA, or certain parts of the Norwegian south, and similar places in a lot of countries.
People in Europe have transitioned from religions to non religious in a long process. Islam is alien in Europe.And as much as we want them to become secular,they are changing europe to the very thing it was before.
Cultural dissent,racism and whatnot.
I dont think ignoring this will fix this and I am pointing my finger at religious freedom. You cant really give religious freedom to some lunatics. That is why regulating religion is the first step to stop this madness.At least so I think.
edit:
I do think that this strays from the topic" Free speech",however free speech and Islam is mutually exclusive. I might aswell say that freespeech and religion is mutually exclusive. Saying gays are ok, is not ok in religious views.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 12:11 AM |
|
|
The problem is, in my opinion, no the ability to freely practice religion. People should be allowed to hold whatever opinion they want, no matter if it concerns a diety or what it does. Though I am aware this is not something opinion based in this case. I would like to point out that I don't think it's a problem with practicing religion freely, but a problem with assigning certain actions which are against the laws which is included in practicing said religion. As a crude example, no one is allowed to stone people in most modern societies, yet we don't consider it a limitation on the ability to practice religious freedom.
So all in all, it's a case by case.. case. I personally really dislike the burqa law, I honestly think people should be allowed to wear what they want. I understand the problem with people who might be forced into wearing burqas, and that's a problem, but banning burqas is similar to when my country allowed death penalty, because people would otherwise go around killing a minority. The point is, they should not have acted in accordance to the desire to kill the minority, but protected the minority, despite what they might have done in the past, and maybe even have arrested the majority who wanted to kill people from the minority, because it was the majority who was the problem.
It doesn't mean I'm not aware of the problems with burqas which go beyond practice of religious freedom, the problem of people wearing masks. Again, I think people should be allowed to wear masks if they want to, yet I have no solution to the problem of people wearing masks aren't identifyable on camera's, though I don't think it's something which should be within the "right" of the law enforcement to be able to identify anyone on a camera, that's how the law sadly is and the only way to get rid of these barbaric trends, I'd think, is to focus on developing technology which solves these problems attempted to solve (poorly) through law.
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 09:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
German weekly magazine Focus has gone on trial in Athens over a satirical cover of Ancient Greek goddess Venus raising her middle finger to European leaders, symbolically presenting recession-hit Greece ignoring other Member States.
The Focus February 2010 cover, titled as “Cheats in the European Family” depicted the famous Venus de Milo statue, draped in a Greek flag, making the insulting gesture.
As mentioned in the indictment, the Focus-cover “displays photos of the ancient statue of Aphrodite as deformed, i.e. dirty, a torn flag of the Greek state covering the body of this statue from the waist down, thus altering the meaning of the flag as a symbol of the state. ”
According to AP, the German magazine˘s publisher and another twelve journalists have been charged with defamation and insulting a national symbol but none of the defendants appeared in court on Tuesday after denying the charges made by a group of Greek lawyers. The charges carry a maximum two-year sentence.
What do you think about this?
Focus Magazine surely just exercised Free Speech when it decided to attack Greece in this way.
Now they're going on trial for it.
Does it matter if the article was a propaganda piece or their honest feelings on the issue at hand?
If it was propaganda, is free speech supposed to include lies?
If it was the way they really felt and thought that Greeks are like, is free speech supposed to include insults?
Whatever the case, do you think that Focus should go on trial for it?
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 09:53 AM |
|
|
I think, that these problems are very simple to explain.
There is no problem with religious freedom, free speech and other individuial rights, as long as we are talk of single, anonymous individuals. John Smith can go everywhere and start talking any kind of nonsense, whether Hitler was a great guy or whether aliens have landed in Texas or whether God wants everyone to stone homosexuals.
It becomes a problem, when the disconnected rantings of an anonymous individual are organized. Religious organizations are influence groups, and strictly spoken, if any organized social entity - a state - and it's rightful government are, for example, making an effort to encourage people to use condoms when having sex, because this will be a practical solution to a serious problem, an influence group that DIScourages the use of condoms should be forbidden to say so and if it would continue to teach so, it should be banned.
It's that simple. In this example it is the Catholic Church, and this organization has other means to present its point of view than that one. They could simply ENcourage to have no sex before marriage. The Bible doesn't say anything about the use of condoms.
I can make the point more pronounced and say, that any organization that is discriminating homosexuality, for example, should also be banned, religious or not, because it is, in essence, anti-constitutional.
Forbidding an ORGANIZATION is not the same than forbidding a religion, mind you.
Forbidding an ORGANIZATION to say that a genocide didn't happen is NOT forbidding free speech of individuals.
So, simply speaking, as soon as people "band together" to "lobby" for something that is against the constitution and/or "spirit" of any society, I would think, that said society has the right to declare said ORGANIZATION illegal, if it insists on teaching things that are unconstitutional.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 09:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
German weekly magazine Focus has gone on trial in Athens over a satirical cover of Ancient Greek goddess Venus raising her middle finger to European leaders, symbolically presenting recession-hit Greece ignoring other Member States.
The Focus February 2010 cover, titled as “Cheats in the European Family” depicted the famous Venus de Milo statue, draped in a Greek flag, making the insulting gesture.
As mentioned in the indictment, the Focus-cover “displays photos of the ancient statue of Aphrodite as deformed, i.e. dirty, a torn flag of the Greek state covering the body of this statue from the waist down, thus altering the meaning of the flag as a symbol of the state. ”
According to AP, the German magazine˘s publisher and another twelve journalists have been charged with defamation and insulting a national symbol but none of the defendants appeared in court on Tuesday after denying the charges made by a group of Greek lawyers. The charges carry a maximum two-year sentence.
What do you think about this?
Focus Magazine surely just exercised Free Speech when it decided to attack Greece in this way.
Now they're going on trial for it.
Does it matter if the article was a propaganda piece or their honest feelings on the issue at hand?
If it was propaganda, is free speech supposed to include lies?
If it was the way they really felt and thought that Greeks are like, is free speech supposed to include insults?
Whatever the case, do you think that Focus should go on trial for it?
Complete nonsense. They could have had that Focus (or the whole magazine) banned in Greece, and that's it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 09:58 AM |
|
|
There's a problem with that argument, JJ. Organizations are made up of individuals. If you let one individual exercise their right to free speech, it's inconsistent to not let two individuals do it. If each individual in the organization has free speech, then restricting the free speech of an organization is the same as restricting the free speech of each individual.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 03:14 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 15:15, 05 Feb 2012.
|
Quote:
Who said the US was immune? In fact, my post implied otherwise.
True, with the "yet" part. But what I'm saying is that the US has its history of blatant censorship and that the current situation with lack of (blatant) censorship is - most likely - temporary (of course I'm not talking about "edited to serve the national interests" reports from Iraq and other lies like that - every state applies censorship, hypocritical propaganda and misinformation when it decides that they will serve a greater purpose). Right now, for example, the US is one SOPA away from making a big anti-free-speech step back to the McCarthy times, only that this time not only the alleged "communists" will suffer.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 04:23 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:28, 05 Feb 2012.
|
Quote:
It becomes a problem, when the disconnected rantings of an anonymous individual are organized. Religious organizations are influence groups, and strictly spoken, if any organized social entity - a state - and it's rightful government are, for example, making an effort to encourage people to use condoms when having sex, because this will be a practical solution to a serious problem, an influence group that DIScourages the use of condoms should be forbidden to say so and if it would continue to teach so, it should be banned.
So you believe in the concept of the State-god. The State is supreme and is to rule over every thought, word, and action of each citizen. The State determines the facts of history, the facts of science, the facts of religion. No one must disagree with the State's declaration of facts. The State is free to criminalize expressions of beliefs that don't agree with the dogma oracled by the State. Today's "Deny the X genocide declared by the State to be fact and be jailed and/or fined" becomes "Speak against the State and die."
As mvassilev said, organizations are made up of groups of like minded individuals. It is natural for like-minded individuals to group together and speak with one voice about issues that concern them.
No, religious organizations are not primarily "influence groups." They are made up of individuals with common beliefs about God. People meet together to worship God as part of a community of faith and minister to each other and the broader community, to share their knowledge and experiences with each other, and to learn more of the spiritual side of life from those who they feel are set in the church as ministers of God. Religious people, whether theists or atheists, should be free to meet together and work together to try to advance their ideas peacefully.
If you believe all 10 year old menstruating girls should be having as much sex with as many people as they can so they can "meet Mr. Right" you should be free to express your beliefs and to band together with others who share your beliefs to try to advance those beliefs. The Catholic church believes condom use is sin and Catholics should be free to speak out collectively as well.
Quote:
It's that simple. In this example it is the Catholic Church, and this organization has other means to present its point of view than that one. They could simply ENcourage to have no sex before marriage. The Bible doesn't say anything about the use of condoms.
Catholics have their reasons for teaching against contraceptives, and you can't prove that they are wrong. And they base their teachings on their understanding of what the Bible says. Again, you can't prove they are wrong. What you seem to want is for the State to be the source of all doctrine, religious and secular, and for none to be allowed to oppose the teachings of the state.
Quote:
I can make the point more pronounced and say, that any organization that is discriminating homosexuality, for example, should also be banned, religious or not, because it is, in essence, anti-constitutional.
Again, it is your desire, seemingly, for the State to be god. The State says what is good and what is evil. The State declares homosexuality to be sin or to be good. Ect. Oh, Christianity teaches homosexual sex is sin, just as it teaches ALL sex outside the marriage covenant is sin. It also teaches that we should not discriminate against anyone, and I have previously quoted Bible verses that say not to discriminate.
A State that has the power to ban a woman from wearing a burqua is also free to demand that all women wear burqas. A State that is free to say that no one can say homosexual sex is sin is also free to say that everyone must say homosexual sex is sin.
A State operating by the policies you have said you desire is not a free system of government. In that State there is NO freedom of religion and NO freedom of speech. You can only dance to the tune of the State and you must follow the dance steps mandated by the State. Liberty does not exist in your ideal State. The citizens are puppets in such a state. I for one have no desire to be a State puppet.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 05:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There's a problem with that argument, JJ. Organizations are made up of individuals. If you let one individual exercise their right to free speech, it's inconsistent to not let two individuals do it. If each individual in the organization has free speech, then restricting the free speech of an organization is the same as restricting the free speech of each individual.
No, that's not true.
Two single individuals are something different than one entity consisting of two individuals.
The USA as a state is very different from 300.000.000 single Americans. If every American asked says, North Korea should be bombed to stone age, it's different from the USA saying that.
If Joe Smith says "god hates fags", it's different from the (hypothetical) Liga of Christian Truths saying it.
The right of free speech grants THE INDIVIDUAL a right, but it doesn't grant you the right to organize anti-constitutional pressure groups.
I mean, you can take another example as well: I would see no problem with an individual saying that all politicians are corrupt, that the constitution sucks and that it's high time to get rid of the government and shoot them all - but an organization that has THAT agenda?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 05:23 PM |
|
|
Oh, and Elodin... try and substitute the word "STATE" with the word "CONSTITUTION". The question isn't whether the state is for or against something, the question is whether something is constitutional or not.
Teaching discrimination is unconstitutional.
By the way - teaching that females have to cover their faces, but males do not, is discrimination as well.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 05:49 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 17:59, 05 Feb 2012.
|
Quote:
Teaching discrimination is unconstitutional.
I thought forbidding someone to teach discrimination is unconstitutional in the US?
I'm not much of an international lawman and don't know whether different free speech rules apply to individuals and to organizations, but Illinois Nazis are probably an argument.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 06:12 PM |
|
|
Yup, you are right, but that's exactly what the problem is.
Sure, individually you can't change a lot. Parents can basically teach their children anything they want, and there is not much a society can do against that short of "big brother is watching you". But institutions, organizations, groups and whatnot articulate themselves PUBLICLY and with the full weight of the organization, and that's something a society can and should act against, when they are unconstitutional.
Sure, I know, there are dangers, etc., but what the hell? What is NOT dangerous?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 09:09 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:14, 05 Feb 2012.
|
Quote:
If Joe Smith says "god hates fags", it's different from the (hypothetical) Liga of Christian Truths saying it.
The right of free speech grants THE INDIVIDUAL a right, but it doesn't grant you the right to organize anti-constitutional pressure groups.
Of Course Christianity teaches one to love everyone, even his enemies so your hypothetical statement in no way is reflective of Christianity.
The Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to peaceably assemble. What is legal for an individual to say is legal for an organization to say. Thus you are free to say that it should be illegal for religious people to teach their children their religion (which you have said in the past.) It is also legal for hate groups like Freedom From Religion to say the same thing. There is nothing unconstitutional about getting together with other like-minded people to speak your opinions with one voice.
It is obvious that if people could not join together and speak freely as a group then the only legal political party would be the party in power. If the dems control the government they can simply make it illegal to express any idea that is counter to their dimwitted ideas.
As I stated before, without freedom of speech their is NO freedom.
Quote:
Oh, and Elodin... try and substitute the word "STATE" with the word "CONSTITUTION".
Sorry, but that would make no sense. Constitution refers to a document that forms the State and that limits the powers of the State. State and Constitution are two different words with entirely different meanings.
Quote:
Teaching discrimination is unconstitutional.
No it is not. The Ku Klux Klan is a legal organization. The Black Panthers are a legal organization. Other hate groups are legal organizations. Individuals are free to advocate discrimination. Organizations are free to advocate discrimination.
Quote:
By the way - teaching that females have to cover their faces, but males do not, is discrimination as well.
Of course I don't think anyone should be required by law to cover their face or required by law not to cover their face even though they believe their God told them too. France disagrees. France says the French State is god and demands that Muslim women follow its orders to not wear a burqa even if the Muslim women believe Allah requires it. Like I said, freedom of religion no longer exists in France and freedom of speech does not exist there either.
No one in France is required to be a Muslim. If a woman is a Muslim in France it is her choice. If she has believes Allah wants her to wear a burqa she should be allowed to. Not allowing her to means you are discriminating against her. French women can wear various head gear and masquerade masks. The burqa ban is an assault on Muslim women. It is religious discrimination.
Quote:
But institutions, organizations, groups and whatnot articulate themselves PUBLICLY and with the full weight of the organization, and that's something a society can and should act against, when they are unconstitutional.
Sure, I know, there are dangers, etc., but what the hell? What is NOT dangerous?
Yipeeeeee!!!! When the GOP wins the White House and both houses of Congress they have your full blessing to forbid the dimwitcrat party from expressing Marxist ideas!!! And certainly you'll agree with their right to declare atheists can't organize together into groups to advocate their dangerous policies.  And no voice shall be allowed from the soon to be illegal group "Planned Parenthood." Of course unions, being "pressure groups" which seem to heavily influence politics, will be gone as well. Ect.
Hey, Orwell wrote a book about the kind of government you seem to want. 1984 [Big Brother.]
Quote:
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 09:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When the GOP wins the White House and both houses of Congress they have your full blessing to forbid the dimwitcrat party from expressing Marxist ideas!!!
I'm certain they'll get right on to that as soon as they finish the moon base and bomb Cuba with the money they'll get from lowering the taxes by 130%.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 10:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and Elodin... try and substitute the word "STATE" with the word "CONSTITUTION".
Sorry, but that would make no sense. Constitution refers to a document that forms the State and that limits the powers of the State. State and Constitution are two different words with entirely different meanings.
Indeed. That's why it makes no sense, when you say "state" when I say "constitution". Jusst for one do not make up the tewxt you want to answer to, but answer to the actual text.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that the law allows organizsations with unconstitutional agendas to operate AS ORGANIZATIONS? I mean, the omly actually legal way to do this would be to put this on the agenda of a political party. So the only organization that should be allowed to express such views is the political party who would stand for its striving to change the constitution in the wished-for way.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2012 11:32 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Governments are not like the Catholic Church, because the Church is (in modern times) a voluntary association of individuals, whereas the government is neither voluntary nor an association of the individuals it governs. The government saying it wants to bomb North Korea has many problems (it would lead to major international relations problems, it's not what "the people" want, etc) but with that statement taken alone, there is nothing more wrong with it than with 300 million Americans saying they want to bomb North Korea saying the same thing - the only difference is that the US has the ability to do so, but if it's not actually bombing, there's not much difference. But if 300 million Americans are saying that, then the government will be saying it too.
If I can say "I hate black people", and my friend can say "I hate black people", why can't we get together and start an organization that says "I hate black people"?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 06, 2012 12:15 AM |
|
|
|
Except that this nation isn't run by majority opinion.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 06, 2012 02:22 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Am I the only one who finds it strange that the law allows organizsations with unconstitutional agendas to operate AS ORGANIZATIONS? I mean, the omly actually legal way to do this would be to put this on the agenda of a political party. So the only organization that should be allowed to express such views is the political party who would stand for its striving to change the constitution in the wished-for way.
Well, I'm pretty sure that not many people agree with your viewpoint. And why do you make a distinction between political parties and other groups? What is the difference between the Democrat party saying people should be free to kill unborn babies and Planned Parenthood saying the same? You apparently now say that Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to express their opinion on the matter, only political parties should have a voice. So basically no organization except for a political party could stand for anything at all under your ideal system of political party supremacy.
I find it bizarre that political parties should have the only voice, that all organizations should be illegal if they don't agree with the current law. So if I were to be in opposition to gun control you would say my only avenue of expression of that would be to give money to the Democrat Party even if I despise everything else they stand for or to start a new political party.
The founding fathers said government derives its powers from the people, not that government derives its power from political parties.
Also, you are incorrect that the only way to amend the Constitution is through a political party.
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment says citizens have to right to peaceably assemble and indicates they can speak as a group [they can "petition" the government.] There. The people have a right to organize and speak as one to influence the government. Freedom of speech is for both individuals and for groups. The reason people join groups that have an interest in changing laws or preserving current laws is because elected officials care about getting reelected. If I can show [though having a large group] that lots of voters share my opinion politicians are more likely to take note and realize that failure to act on the concerns of the group could lead to the end of their political careers. That goes both for groups that are not primarily political in nature and for groups that focus on politics.
____________
Revelation
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted February 06, 2012 06:40 AM |
|
|
In this argument, I find myself agreeing more and more with Elodin. Mostly because this:
Quote:
Am I the only one who finds it strange that the law allows organizsations with unconstitutional agendas to operate AS ORGANIZATIONS? I mean, the omly actually legal way to do this would be to put this on the agenda of a political party. So the only organization that should be allowed to express such views is the political party who would stand for its striving to change the constitution in the wished-for way.
Strikes me as incredibly wrong. So I can only get together with a group of people that says that the constitution sucks if I make a political party for it? I mean, not believing in the rightness of the Constitution/ following every single part of it is unconstitutional, is it not? Must I make a political party if I wish to amend this document? How about if I want to say that our government is corrupt, which would be (by extension) claiming that the constitution, where our government derives its power, is inherently corrupt. Must I make a political party to protest that?
under the constitution, blacks were 3/5 of a white man. Did they need to have a political agenda to protest that? To bring about change, yes, but to protest in an organization, was there a political identity or party specifically endorsing them from the beginning/ created by them for their cause? Absolutely not. Why should it be any different today?
And on the subject of busting unconstitutional organizations, please define an unconstitutional organization. What does it do, what God/ Gods does it follow, who is in it and what does it attempt to do? Remember as you make your list, the constitution allows you to assemble peacefully, gives you the right to say whatever you damn well please about anyone, and protects those rights to the grave.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
| |
|
|
