When does the desire for diversity supersede the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
The answer to you is:
Never. Period. End of story.
P.S., and not to worry MarkO. I don't think that being a Catholic bishop is (or should be) a crime. ... Really. ... Truly. ... Why, some of my best friends are Catholic.
So you can come to the front of the bus now. Being Catholic is still legal (at least in most states and principalities. Check your local listings).
It was just a few years ago that I realized that freedom of speech doesn't exist in much of Europe like it does here. Your example is one that would appall most Americans had that been done here. Americans have defended the right to say outrageous things since the conception of the country. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre is about as close to abridging speech rights that we allow, right?
We had a long discussion on speech rights in Germany a while back because there it is a CRIME to deny the Holocaust. That kind of speech law is repugnant to (most) Americans, I'd think. Belgium obviously thinks the same way Germany does.
Would you like to see this kind of thing (i.e., charging a religious leader with a crime for expressing his religious views) happen in this country?
No I would not support charges for freedom of religious views, or for being Catholic. I would like to see charges for other crimes that have been committed though, as opposed to moving clergy around in a shell game hoping that no one notices.
My European visitors are astounded by the proliferation of overt religious display over here: billboards, car stickers, large crosses and so on. Such would simply not be allowed in their counties. Period.
Watch closely, because Europe often represents our future...
I think anyone should be allowed to say almost anything.
All the regulations against open speech do is cause those who THINK that way to HIDE it better.
If everyone says straight out what they think, it's easier to tell who is a bigoted idiot and avoid them, or point them out to others as a bad example.
And it is easier to have a frank discussion about the issues surrounding such topics... look at the Don Imus situation. He said something completely stupid, and it was OBVIOUS, and it got people talking about the right and the wrong and the what now... I think that's a very good thing.
I think anyone should be allowed to say almost anything.
All the regulations against open speech do is cause those who THINK that way to HIDE it better.
If everyone says straight out what they think, it's easier to tell who is a bigoted idiot and avoid them, or point them out to others as a bad example.
And it is easier to have a frank discussion about the issues surrounding such topics... look at the Don Imus situation. He said something completely stupid, and it was OBVIOUS, and it got people talking about the right and the wrong and the what now... I think that's a very good thing.
THIS brings up an interesting point.
In the USA, exercising one's freedom of speech is NOT without consequences.
That's correct. People who make outrageous statements -- whether it's a teenager just trying to get attention or challenge authority, or someone who seriously believes some generally accepted belief, idea or notion needs to be challenged (for example, by organized protest, or letters to editors, etc.) -- SUFFER CONSEQUENCES for doing so.
In most cases, however, those consequences revolve around social pressures rather than state sanctioned legal problems.
Personally, I think the expression "political correctness" is OVERused as an excuse to ridicule things people say that we see are absurd or otherwise outrageous.
We do have laws in this country that curtail freedom of expression- the crimes they address are called libel and slander. Libel for the written word and slander for the spoken word.
If you deliberately cause a persons reputation to be damaged to such an extent that they suffer economic or social harm by declaring things, you know to be false, to be true you can be prosecuted and face monetary fines or jail time or both.
I don't think that stating that a group of people, defined by a certain behavior, to be abnormal as a group rises to the level of either of these crimes. Definitely not the nicest thing one could say but then a lot of what is said about of lot of people isn't nice.
THe whole point is that this is a foreign country with their own set of laws. I have to believe that a person in the position that this gentleman holds would be aware of those laws when he spoke as he did. Maybe he didn't think that the governement would take much notice of his comments, maybe he was trying to provoke the very reaction he got, I just don't know.
I seriously doubt that this country has reached that level of political correctness even though many people would like to see it happen.
FOr example
Many people would love to see "talk radio" banned. Wny? because talk radio tends for the most part to lean toward the right and is often critical of the lefts positions. So on nighttime talk show last week one of our leftist government leaders announced that "talk radio" should be called "hate radio". Is it because these right leaning stations preach a "doctrine of hate" on a consistant or even semi-consistant basis?--No-- its because they don't agree with the left most of the time. So here we have a group of people consisting of some radio announcers, their staffs and their listeners branded with the word "hate" for daring to hold different political beliefs. Nothing to date, that I am aware of, has been done by "the system" to chastise the speaker.
Ditto for Ms Coulter--I find some of her comments to be equally outrageous, but she isn't behind bars either.
There is a backlash, gaining momentum, in this country against the PC doctrine that has attempted to herd us into at least an appearence of spoken and written conformity to what has been decreed by the nebulous "them" as being "correct". In my opinion that backlash is long overdue.
quote: There is a backlash, gaining momentum, in this country against the PC doctrine that has attempted to herd us into at least an appearence of spoken and written conformity to what has been decreed by the nebulous "them" as being "correct". In my opinion that backlash is long overdue.
I like that you use the word 'doctrine'. Politically correct is 2 things:
1) it is a subtle attempt to function as America's 'state religion'. People of the PC faith believe they are morally superior to those who are not. Sounds like a religion to me.
2) it is a blatant attempt to attack the free speech of white, male, Christian, and conservative people. IMO, the attack is mainly directed at Christianity. PCers believe that conservatives are Christians involved in politics, so let's attack conservatives. PCers believe that Christians are racists and sexists, so let's attack men and white people.
The main difference between the PC religion and traditional religions is that the clergy of traditional religions are found in churches and seminaries, while the clergy of the PC religion are found in the journalism profession and the schools that spawn them. This puts a whole new spin on Bernard Goldberg's book 'Bias'; he's not just talking about journalists, he's talking about self ordained clergy. Two of the chapters of that book are titled "Targeting men" and "Liberal hate speech".
It was just a few years ago that I realized that freedom of speech doesn't exist in much of Europe like it does here. Your example is one that would appall most Americans had that been done here. Americans have defended the right to say outrageous things since the conception of the country. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre is about as close to abridging speech rights that we allow, right?
We had a long discussion on speech rights in Germany a while back because there it is a <B>CRIME</B> to deny the Holocaust. That kind of speech law is repugnant to (most) Americans, I'd think. Belgium obviously thinks the same way Germany does.
<center>sudo</center>
Question: WHO are the people responsible for Holocaust denial being legislated as a hate “crime” in the first place? Not a difficult question when you consider the legal and economic force being used to create such laws.
Since the ‘70’s I have lived in one European country or another. No question for me. Being politically correct in my experience is less of a subject here than in the USA. The reason might be because there are less “foreigners” living in European “culture” states as a whole. It is not a “melting pot” mentality. The idea of culture being handed down for more than a thousand years from one generation to the next, is not an American social trait. (Maybe that’s why the old “WASPY” system gets repeatedly attacked by the newbies?)
Also, people in general don’t go around suing each other when they feel they can make some money on petty issues like that guy in NYC with a Chinese laundry problem.
Another Question: What would have happened in LA that night if OJ had been found guilty? I don’t think too many caucasians would have been found walking the streets that night debating the legal issues!
As for religion, northern Europe is generally Protestant Lutheran and the southern part Catholic. It’s been that way for a long time. Cults are for the most part an American phenomena. That in itself should tell you something about being “Politically Correct”?
Final Question: What would it have meant to be “politically correct” in a cult atmosphere like twi?
It's raining in Zarko country and the Tour de France has begun!
Final Question: What would it have meant to be “politically correct” in a cult atmosphere like twi?
That would be TWI-II... the era of Craig Martindale in the 1990's.
You didn't DARE speak up if you didn't want to work at an event, didn't agree with a policy, didn't think a teaching was right-on...
You didn't DARE mention a weakness or need in your prayers, or let slip to your leadership that you had a problem at work, or felt 'down' sometimes and didn't know why...
You didn't DARE disobey your leadership unless you were willing to have your life, your marriage, your children, and your beliefs placed under a permanent microscope, or just get booted outright...
THAT is what PC ends up being... the thought police end up policing your actions as well...
Can you say, "Big Brother? ... Sure, I knew you could."
How this happens is that it is included in anti-terrorism legislation. Canada has a similar law. Any clergyman who speaks against homosexuality in his Sunday morning sermon is a domestic terrorist and can be arrested and his church is closed down. Members of my family found this when they visited Prince Edward Island a couple years ago, and there was an article a few months back in the news about a similar situation in another provice.
I do agree that it's mainly aimed at getting conservative Christians to shut up and stay shut up. I can see that we may have a similar law in this country someday, unfortunately. It would be unconstitutonal as can be, but I don't think that would bother those who put more private interpretation on the Constitution than VPW did on the Bible.
... but I don't think that would bother those who put more private interpretation on the Constitution than VPW did on the Bible.
Guess what? Anytime judges, lawyers, etc., give their rendering on what the Constitution says, it's always 'private interpretation' on the Constitution, a practice that isn't forbidden in that document.
What it needs to be however, is an accurate interpretation, as much as possible.
Recommended Posts
excathedra
i would not like to SEE anyone charged for expressing their religious beliefs
i meant to uppercase ANYONE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
The answer to you is:
Never. Period. End of story.
P.S., and not to worry MarkO. I don't think that being a Catholic bishop is (or should be) a crime. ... Really. ... Truly. ... Why, some of my best friends are Catholic.
So you can come to the front of the bus now. Being Catholic is still legal (at least in most states and principalities. Check your local listings).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Mark,
It was just a few years ago that I realized that freedom of speech doesn't exist in much of Europe like it does here. Your example is one that would appall most Americans had that been done here. Americans have defended the right to say outrageous things since the conception of the country. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre is about as close to abridging speech rights that we allow, right?
We had a long discussion on speech rights in Germany a while back because there it is a CRIME to deny the Holocaust. That kind of speech law is repugnant to (most) Americans, I'd think. Belgium obviously thinks the same way Germany does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No I would not support charges for freedom of religious views, or for being Catholic. I would like to see charges for other crimes that have been committed though, as opposed to moving clergy around in a shell game hoping that no one notices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
My European visitors are astounded by the proliferation of overt religious display over here: billboards, car stickers, large crosses and so on. Such would simply not be allowed in their counties. Period.
Watch closely, because Europe often represents our future...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
I think anyone should be allowed to say almost anything.
All the regulations against open speech do is cause those who THINK that way to HIDE it better.
If everyone says straight out what they think, it's easier to tell who is a bigoted idiot and avoid them, or point them out to others as a bad example.
And it is easier to have a frank discussion about the issues surrounding such topics... look at the Don Imus situation. He said something completely stupid, and it was OBVIOUS, and it got people talking about the right and the wrong and the what now... I think that's a very good thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
THIS brings up an interesting point.
In the USA, exercising one's freedom of speech is NOT without consequences.
That's correct. People who make outrageous statements -- whether it's a teenager just trying to get attention or challenge authority, or someone who seriously believes some generally accepted belief, idea or notion needs to be challenged (for example, by organized protest, or letters to editors, etc.) -- SUFFER CONSEQUENCES for doing so.
In most cases, however, those consequences revolve around social pressures rather than state sanctioned legal problems.
Personally, I think the expression "political correctness" is OVERused as an excuse to ridicule things people say that we see are absurd or otherwise outrageous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Doesn't it say somewhere that the world will wax worse and worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
We do have laws in this country that curtail freedom of expression- the crimes they address are called libel and slander. Libel for the written word and slander for the spoken word.
If you deliberately cause a persons reputation to be damaged to such an extent that they suffer economic or social harm by declaring things, you know to be false, to be true you can be prosecuted and face monetary fines or jail time or both.
I don't think that stating that a group of people, defined by a certain behavior, to be abnormal as a group rises to the level of either of these crimes. Definitely not the nicest thing one could say but then a lot of what is said about of lot of people isn't nice.
THe whole point is that this is a foreign country with their own set of laws. I have to believe that a person in the position that this gentleman holds would be aware of those laws when he spoke as he did. Maybe he didn't think that the governement would take much notice of his comments, maybe he was trying to provoke the very reaction he got, I just don't know.
I seriously doubt that this country has reached that level of political correctness even though many people would like to see it happen.
FOr example
Many people would love to see "talk radio" banned. Wny? because talk radio tends for the most part to lean toward the right and is often critical of the lefts positions. So on nighttime talk show last week one of our leftist government leaders announced that "talk radio" should be called "hate radio". Is it because these right leaning stations preach a "doctrine of hate" on a consistant or even semi-consistant basis?--No-- its because they don't agree with the left most of the time. So here we have a group of people consisting of some radio announcers, their staffs and their listeners branded with the word "hate" for daring to hold different political beliefs. Nothing to date, that I am aware of, has been done by "the system" to chastise the speaker.
Ditto for Ms Coulter--I find some of her comments to be equally outrageous, but she isn't behind bars either.
There is a backlash, gaining momentum, in this country against the PC doctrine that has attempted to herd us into at least an appearence of spoken and written conformity to what has been decreed by the nebulous "them" as being "correct". In my opinion that backlash is long overdue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: There is a backlash, gaining momentum, in this country against the PC doctrine that has attempted to herd us into at least an appearence of spoken and written conformity to what has been decreed by the nebulous "them" as being "correct". In my opinion that backlash is long overdue.
I like that you use the word 'doctrine'. Politically correct is 2 things:
1) it is a subtle attempt to function as America's 'state religion'. People of the PC faith believe they are morally superior to those who are not. Sounds like a religion to me.
2) it is a blatant attempt to attack the free speech of white, male, Christian, and conservative people. IMO, the attack is mainly directed at Christianity. PCers believe that conservatives are Christians involved in politics, so let's attack conservatives. PCers believe that Christians are racists and sexists, so let's attack men and white people.
The main difference between the PC religion and traditional religions is that the clergy of traditional religions are found in churches and seminaries, while the clergy of the PC religion are found in the journalism profession and the schools that spawn them. This puts a whole new spin on Bernard Goldberg's book 'Bias'; he's not just talking about journalists, he's talking about self ordained clergy. Two of the chapters of that book are titled "Targeting men" and "Liberal hate speech".
Something to consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What's next, Johniam, officially declare Christian white men as an oppressed, protected minority?
Pal, you wouldn't know what being oppressed would be if oppression smacked you upside the head with a baseball bat.
Besides, something else to keep in mind is that Conservatives also have their own version of 'political correctness'. Yes Virginia, they do.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Question: WHO are the people responsible for Holocaust denial being legislated as a hate “crime” in the first place? Not a difficult question when you consider the legal and economic force being used to create such laws.
Since the ‘70’s I have lived in one European country or another. No question for me. Being politically correct in my experience is less of a subject here than in the USA. The reason might be because there are less “foreigners” living in European “culture” states as a whole. It is not a “melting pot” mentality. The idea of culture being handed down for more than a thousand years from one generation to the next, is not an American social trait. (Maybe that’s why the old “WASPY” system gets repeatedly attacked by the newbies?)
Also, people in general don’t go around suing each other when they feel they can make some money on petty issues like that guy in NYC with a Chinese laundry problem.
Another Question: What would have happened in LA that night if OJ had been found guilty? I don’t think too many caucasians would have been found walking the streets that night debating the legal issues!
As for religion, northern Europe is generally Protestant Lutheran and the southern part Catholic. It’s been that way for a long time. Cults are for the most part an American phenomena. That in itself should tell you something about being “Politically Correct”?
Final Question: What would it have meant to be “politically correct” in a cult atmosphere like twi?
It's raining in Zarko country and the Tour de France has begun!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Pal, you wouldn't know what being oppressed would be if oppression smacked you upside the head with a baseball bat.
But you do?
quote: Besides, something else to keep in mind is that Conservatives also have their own version of 'political correctness'.
I think the PCers have cornered the market on hate speech.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
That would be TWI-II... the era of Craig Martindale in the 1990's.
You didn't DARE speak up if you didn't want to work at an event, didn't agree with a policy, didn't think a teaching was right-on...
You didn't DARE mention a weakness or need in your prayers, or let slip to your leadership that you had a problem at work, or felt 'down' sometimes and didn't know why...
You didn't DARE disobey your leadership unless you were willing to have your life, your marriage, your children, and your beliefs placed under a permanent microscope, or just get booted outright...
THAT is what PC ends up being... the thought police end up policing your actions as well...
Can you say, "Big Brother? ... Sure, I knew you could."
Edited by TheHighWayLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Arrested for speaking out about scriptural matters offending the state?
If I were in that country, I'd be serving life or would have been executed.
But I can't claim that alone. All of GreaseSpot would at one time or another be arrested or flogged in one country or another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And not just for speaking out about scriptural matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
How this happens is that it is included in anti-terrorism legislation. Canada has a similar law. Any clergyman who speaks against homosexuality in his Sunday morning sermon is a domestic terrorist and can be arrested and his church is closed down. Members of my family found this when they visited Prince Edward Island a couple years ago, and there was an article a few months back in the news about a similar situation in another provice.
I do agree that it's mainly aimed at getting conservative Christians to shut up and stay shut up. I can see that we may have a similar law in this country someday, unfortunately. It would be unconstitutonal as can be, but I don't think that would bother those who put more private interpretation on the Constitution than VPW did on the Bible.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Guess what? Anytime judges, lawyers, etc., give their rendering on what the Constitution says, it's always 'private interpretation' on the Constitution, a practice that isn't forbidden in that document.
What it needs to be however, is an accurate interpretation, as much as possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.