Re: REFLECTION 1: RIGHTS CONTINUED
anonymous
August 24 2005, 14:58:13 UTC
On the other hand, “conservative” American people try to limit people’s freedoms, but what is their basis for doing so? They already have subscribed to freedom of speech, press, religion…all of which implies approval of the “liberal thesis” of freedom above, yet these same conservatives, without basis, try to quash or hold back the fruits of the very system of “liberty” that they have accepted and often say they’d die for!
Another related question: What makes people believe the US Constitution is some sort of “infallible document” that cannot be questioned? What if the founding fathers were wrong, or at least wrong in some aspects? After all, conservative Americans, they were only mere men, not God!
Conclusion: The system of “freedoms” and “rights” to which we are accustomed in the USA is seriously flawed. I submit to you that whether there is or isn’t a God, there really is no basis (other than perhaps what makes a number of people “feel good”), neither in Christianity nor in atheism, for “freedom of expression,” freedom of speech, freedom of press, or freedom of religion (or freedom of “lifestyle”) to be sanctioned as “objective rights” by the State… even if toleration of said speech, press, religion, lifestyle, etc. is considered by some to be the “best policy” for the State. In other words, both the liberals and conservatives we know are wrong!
Why do conservatives (usually Protestant Christians) even except the principle of “liberty” of action and religion in the first place? It is because Protestantism itself is based on “liberty of conscience” and “private interpretation” of the Scriptures. Since Protestantism already assumes this “liberty” for the individual to basically “create his own truth,” then why not extend this to non-Christians, homosexuals, etc?
Answer: The Protestant religion is seriously flawed. But then, so is the liberal ideology which is totally without any REAL basis (to my knowledge)!
REFLECTION 2: DIE TO DEFEND WHAT?
anonymous
August 24 2005, 14:59:09 UTC
REFLECTION 2: DIE TO DEFEND
Many Americans, particularly (and ironically) the conservatives, often cite the following statement: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die to defend your right to say it.”
However, my response to this statement is that it is one of the most absurd statements ever penned. You may at first think I am unpatriotic or off my rocker, but I’m not: if you really examine the statement and think about it seriously, you may just change your mind!
Going back to Reflection 1, what gives any man the right to propagate whatever he pleases?
But even moreso, why should you and I be expected to lay down our lives so that people can propagate things which we not only disagree with, but which we also cannot accept in conscience?
If I am going to have to leave home, don military gear, suffer, have to enter combat and harm perfect strangers, and risk dying myself, it had better be for a good and worthy cause-a cause that will truly benefit humanity for many years to come. I cannot conceive of laying down my life to defend, for example, a Ku Klux Klansman’s so-called “right” to promote bigotry, hatred, and lies! This may seem an extreme example to you, defying logical limits, but then, who can logically set any limits once “anything goes” (freedom of speech, press, expression, lifestyle) becomes the norm?
Here are 2 more examples to try to illustrate my point:
1) Can a devout Roman Catholic logically be expected to die to defend someone’s “right” to make a movie which depicts Jesus as a fornicator, or which depicts Jesus’ Mother as a harlot? (Such movies have been made, and are considered sacrilegious by Catholics.) 2) Can a husband, who is faithful to his wife, be expected to die (leaving his wife a widow and his beloved children fatherless) to defend the “rights” of so-called “swingers” to promote a lifestyle of adultery-a lifestyle he finds repulsive and immoral?
I say, again, if I’m going to lay down MY life, it had better be for a good cause! I cannot see how enabling a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas, proliferating a zoo of immoral behavior, or insuring the survival of a cesspool can be considered “worthy causes” for you and I to fight or die (neither can, for that matter, since we’re on the subject, padding the well-lined pockets of already-wealthy oil czars!)
Re: REFLECTION 2: DIE TO DEFEND WHAT?lordalfredhenryAugust 25 2005, 09:35:06 UTC
Free speech has limits. Defending someone's right to say something you disagree with holds a paradox with actual exceptions not explicitly expressed. The exceptions are of course a person's right to say "anything". ie: what if they want to expose troop positions and movements? That is not free speech but a breech of national security. Laws already limit free speech for the safety of all. That concept is not so new and not as absurd as what many conservatives (taking on some libertarian aspects will say) as yo noted.
There are really no such things as rights besides what is agreed on by a group that founds a nation or a state. Early states were posses and military groups that eventually recognized a leader and pledged to that leader as a wise one, often a general. EVen more advanced countries can change via military coup. ie: Napolean, another general king. A military coup is not impossible anywhere. They then determine the "rules" and enforce. The fairness of such is only individual opinion with only as much effect as there is to enforce them.
Your military example is one good question. It raises the question of what kind of coup might need to be raised.
There are some who are JW's who do actually refuse to join military for these very reasons (after talking to them, they cite similar reasons you posit) of defending "swingers" and "sacrilege" movies.
The thing though that is being defended is something more basic and that is basic freedoms. I do think that freedoms in a country promote it's wealth and health. But they must be prioritized and the people must reject those who promote the smut and abominations. When a society rots from decadence, few things can save it...even the best rules. The internet will be our destruction I fear before it becomes our "great boon" to technological advancement. The porn to science ratio is too high. The best we can do as individuals is to speak up and try to spread good by convincing others. The Word is mightier....
Re: REFLECTION 1: RIGHTS CONTINUEDlordalfredhenryAugust 25 2005, 09:26:06 UTC
Conservatives often misprioritize rights for the rich economic entities above the rights of the individual. The rights of the individual should be most specific and protective, the rights of corporations second and governments last. The rights of government are designed to be "limited" and "checked" in the US for example.
The Constitution is inspired by extremely wise men IMHO. Several geniuses if you read the biographies of the writers. The Constitution has provisions for amending and is not 100% static but I feel it is a "baby" one doesn't want to throw out with the bath water if it serves well. I've heard some say that the constitution hangs in the balance right now and that we are losing the "baby" as we speak...erosion from both sides really. Hate crimes encroach on speach, privacy intrusion encroaches on the "right to be free from unlawful seizure and interference from government on personal communication". Although, I do agree that security and survival are paramount but a really good question here might be, how much do we really need now? As much as we're being told we need? Maybe...experts in military etc I can trust a little to know but not to act on based on recent events.
You bring up a point with Christianity. It hasn't always been so "unified" in the past. Today, there is the nondenominational movement or the "unchurch" out there that seeks not to be some "organized religion". It is pretty much reactional to political criticism rather than anything inspired AFAICT. I think eventually though, there should be some agreement amongst the large group of Christian following peoples.
I have to think more about what you mean by the Protestant flaw and the liberal ideology to answer completely.
Re: REFLECTION 1: RIGHTS CONTINUEDidunnOctober 14 2005, 01:10:02 UTC
What fascinates me is that the framers of the American constitution didn't have much of an education. Ben Franklin started out life as a printer before becoming a statesmen. We have politicians today with much more education under their belts yet who seem to make less informed decisions in matters of state.
You raise an interesting point, that there is "erosion from both sides". I think the problem is that for all their genius, the framers didn't foresee where the world would be in the 21st century. Who would ever imagine hate crimes to begin with, or security breach problems due to technology?
Another related question: What makes people believe the US Constitution is some sort of “infallible document” that cannot be questioned? What if the founding fathers were wrong, or at least wrong in some aspects? After all, conservative Americans, they were only mere men, not God!
Conclusion: The system of “freedoms” and “rights” to which we are accustomed in the USA is seriously flawed. I submit to you that whether there is or isn’t a God, there really is no basis (other than perhaps what makes a number of people “feel good”), neither in Christianity nor in atheism, for “freedom of expression,” freedom of speech, freedom of press, or freedom of religion (or freedom of “lifestyle”) to be sanctioned as “objective rights” by the State… even if toleration of said speech, press, religion, lifestyle, etc. is considered by some to be the “best policy” for the State. In other words, both the liberals and conservatives we know are wrong!
Why do conservatives (usually Protestant Christians) even except the principle of “liberty” of action and religion in the first place? It is because Protestantism itself is based on “liberty of conscience” and “private interpretation” of the Scriptures. Since Protestantism already assumes this “liberty” for the individual to basically “create his own truth,” then why not extend this to non-Christians, homosexuals, etc?
Answer: The Protestant religion is seriously flawed. But then, so is the liberal ideology which is totally without any REAL basis (to my knowledge)!
I await your thoughts on this.
Reply
Many Americans, particularly (and ironically) the conservatives, often cite the following statement: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die to defend your right to say it.”
However, my response to this statement is that it is one of the most absurd statements ever penned. You may at first think I am unpatriotic or off my rocker, but I’m not: if you really examine the statement and think about it seriously, you may just change your mind!
Going back to Reflection 1, what gives any man the right to propagate whatever he pleases?
But even moreso, why should you and I be expected to lay down our lives so that people can propagate things which we not only disagree with, but which we also cannot accept in conscience?
If I am going to have to leave home, don military gear, suffer, have to enter combat and harm perfect strangers, and risk dying myself, it had better be for a good and worthy cause-a cause that will truly benefit humanity for many years to come. I cannot conceive of laying down my life to defend, for example, a Ku Klux Klansman’s so-called “right” to promote bigotry, hatred, and lies! This may seem an extreme example to you, defying logical limits, but then, who can logically set any limits once “anything goes” (freedom of speech, press, expression, lifestyle) becomes the norm?
Here are 2 more examples to try to illustrate my point:
1) Can a devout Roman Catholic logically be expected to die to defend someone’s “right” to make a movie which depicts Jesus as a fornicator, or which depicts Jesus’ Mother as a harlot? (Such movies have been made, and are considered sacrilegious by Catholics.)
2) Can a husband, who is faithful to his wife, be expected to die (leaving his wife a widow and his beloved children fatherless) to defend the “rights” of so-called “swingers” to promote a lifestyle of adultery-a lifestyle he finds repulsive and immoral?
I say, again, if I’m going to lay down MY life, it had better be for a good cause! I cannot see how enabling a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas, proliferating a zoo of immoral behavior, or insuring the survival of a cesspool can be considered “worthy causes” for you and I to fight or die (neither can, for that matter, since we’re on the subject, padding the well-lined pockets of already-wealthy oil czars!)
Reply
There are really no such things as rights besides what is agreed on by a group that founds a nation or a state. Early states were posses and military groups that eventually recognized a leader and pledged to that leader as a wise one, often a general. EVen more advanced countries can change via military coup. ie: Napolean, another general king. A military coup is not impossible anywhere. They then determine the "rules" and enforce. The fairness of such is only individual opinion with only as much effect as there is to enforce them.
Your military example is one good question. It raises the question of what kind of coup might need to be raised.
There are some who are JW's who do actually refuse to join military for these very reasons (after talking to them, they cite similar reasons you posit) of defending "swingers" and "sacrilege" movies.
The thing though that is being defended is something more basic and that is basic freedoms. I do think that freedoms in a country promote it's wealth and health. But they must be prioritized and the people must reject those who promote the smut and abominations. When a society rots from decadence, few things can save it...even the best rules. The internet will be our destruction I fear before it becomes our "great boon" to technological advancement. The porn to science ratio is too high. The best we can do as individuals is to speak up and try to spread good by convincing others. The Word is mightier....
Reply
The Constitution is inspired by extremely wise men IMHO. Several geniuses if you read the biographies of the writers. The Constitution has provisions for amending and is not 100% static but I feel it is a "baby" one doesn't want to throw out with the bath water if it serves well. I've heard some say that the constitution hangs in the balance right now and that we are losing the "baby" as we speak...erosion from both sides really. Hate crimes encroach on speach, privacy intrusion encroaches on the "right to be free from unlawful seizure and interference from government on personal communication". Although, I do agree that security and survival are paramount but a really good question here might be, how much do we really need now? As much as we're being told we need? Maybe...experts in military etc I can trust a little to know but not to act on based on recent events.
You bring up a point with Christianity. It hasn't always been so "unified" in the past. Today, there is the nondenominational movement or the "unchurch" out there that seeks not to be some "organized religion". It is pretty much reactional to political criticism rather than anything inspired AFAICT. I think eventually though, there should be some agreement amongst the large group of Christian following peoples.
I have to think more about what you mean by the Protestant flaw and the liberal ideology to answer completely.
Reply
You raise an interesting point, that there is "erosion from both sides". I think the problem is that for all their genius, the framers didn't foresee where the world would be in the 21st century. Who would ever imagine hate crimes to begin with, or security breach problems due to technology?
Reply
Leave a comment