 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 30, 2023 - 4:14 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OctoberDog
(Member)
|
Bob, make up your mind, amigo.
Do you want to discuss freedom of speech as it pertains to the law, or as it pertains to religion?
Both aspects are a fascinating proposal for the discussion, but neither direction will get this thread very far!
You are the one that brought up the dichotomy, not me. I believe they are inextricably intertwined, given the beliefs of our founding fathers. The framers of the Constitution were creating a legal document that embodied principles of God-given rights.
I'm not American, but I'm fairly sure that the framers of the constitution never wrote God into it.
That was added later.
And just because the founders of the USA did that, does not mean other countries followed suit.
So are you limiting the scope of the discussion to just the USA?
I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just looking for clarity on the where the goalposts are.
And the other point I made that I want to reiterate is that if we are going to bring legality into it, it will lead to politics and that's a big no-no..
If we bring religion into it, that's another no-no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 30, 2023 - 7:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
I'm not American, but I'm fairly sure that the framers of the constitution never wrote God into it.
That was added later.
And just because the founders of the USA did that, does not mean other countries followed suit.
So are you limiting the scope of the discussion to just the USA?
I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just looking for clarity on the where the goalposts are.
And the other point I made that I want to reiterate is that if we are going to bring legality into it, it will lead to politics and that's a big no-no..
If we bring religion into it, that's another no-no.
If one is to discuss freedom of speech (or many other "rights"), and if one believes that such rights exist (or should exist, if they currently don't in some places), one needs to ascertain from whence the rights come. The two schools of thought are (1) that certain rights are granted from one person to another by mutual consent, or (2) certain rights are endowed upon all persons at birth, but some people are subsequently deprived of them by other people, without consent.
You seem to fall into school #1. My main point is that the drafters of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution fell into school #2. The problem with school #1, as I see it, is that no one has any rights until they are awarded to them by the actions of others. The U.S. Framers had, in my opinion, a more egalitarian and expansive view of human rights--that everyone has them from the outset and should be able to enjoy the full panoply of human rights without having to negotiate for them or take them from others by force. The purpose of government, as they saw it, was not to award people rights but to protect the rights they naturally had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 30, 2023 - 10:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OctoberDog
(Member)
|
If one is to discuss freedom of speech (or many other "rights"), and if one believes that such rights exist (or should exist, if they currently don't in some places), one needs to ascertain from whence the rights come. The two schools of thought are (1) that certain rights are granted from one person to another by mutual consent, or (2) certain rights are endowed upon all persons at birth, but some people are subsequently deprived of them by other people, without consent.
You seem to fall into school #1. My main point is that the drafters of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution fell into school #2. The problem with school #1, as I see it, is that no one has any rights until they are awarded to them by the actions of others. The U.S. Framers had, in my opinion, a more egalitarian and expansive view of human rights--that everyone has them from the outset and should be able to enjoy the full panoply of human rights without having to negotiate for them or take them from others by force. The purpose of government, as they saw it, was not to award people rights but to protect the rights they naturally had.
You can see me as falling into any school you want.
I already made my position clear right in my very first post, Bob--that I find the moral implications of free speech to be more interesting as a discussion.
But you appear to keep guiding the topic in a direction that I haven't the faintest interest in, merely because my position seems unsatisfactory to you.
If you want to discuss the "governmental" aspects of the question of free speech, that's a fair and worthy pursuit.
There are others here that may want to follow you down that road and they are probably far more qualified to do that than I am.
So how about it, gentlemen, does Bob have any takers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are others here that may want to follow you down that road and they are probably far more qualified to do that than I am.
So how about it, gentlemen, does Bob have any takers?
Sure, I agree largely with Bob on that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That '.' thread is the most vile I've ever witnessed. I had to pour bleach into my eyes after reading through it. I now have PTSD, and it will remain with me for the rest of my life. I have no idea why the thread went on for as long as it did before getting shut down. Everyone who participated in it should be deeply, deeply ashamed of himself.
A point of contention then? I sure didn't see that one coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 1, 2023 - 7:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Robert P Jones, head of the Public Religion Research Institute has written several interesting books on culture and religion, this latest one is quite something, where he goes into the deep history of the christian church and the Doctrine of Discovery, which essentially said that white euro 'christians' were superior, and had special rights to indoctrinate or repress people that are not like them. It is quite a bombshell, and you can see this same philosophy in a very large swath of white 'christians' in the USA, who assert that they are superior, to the point of driving out and enacting violence against unlike people and faiths, and, if needed, enact violence to impose a theocratic white christian dictatorship. It is pretty darn ugly. As I guy who grew up as a white christian, i know it is all true. Here is a quite a statement on the Doctrine of Discovery below. January 6th, well, this is what that was all about.
https://time.com/6309657/us-christian-nationalism-columbus-essay/
"The return of Columbus in 1493 also precipitated one of the most fateful but unacknowledged theological developments in the history of the western Christian Church: the creation of what has come to be known as the Doctrine of Discovery. Established in a series of 15th-century papal bulls (official edicts that carry the full weight of church and papal authority), the Doctrine claims that European civilization and western Christianity are superior to all other cultures, races, and religions. From this premise, it follows that domination and colonial conquest were merely the means of improving, if not the temporal, then the eternal lot of Indigenous peoples. So conceived, no earthly atrocities could possibly tilt the scales of justice against these immeasurable goods"
Doctrine of Discovery
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/doctrine-discovery-1493
Here is the book by Robert P Jones, and lots of people should read it, especially Christians. You can stick your head in the mud and not understand this stuff, but, um, it is all true.
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Roots-White-Supremacy-American-ebook/dp/B0BTZ8P88P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 1, 2023 - 7:24 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OctoberDog
(Member)
|
Well, to get back to your very first post, you were the very first person to bring the idea of free speech as a "God-given right" into the discussion--and to declare that it is not, because it goes against the laws of nature. All of my posts have been in service of declaring that it is a God-given right because we "naturally" are blessed with it at birth. And that it is the laws of man, not nature, that deny it to some people.
The rest of your first post had to do with being respectful of each other. I find little to discuss there, as I can't imagine anyone who would disagree with that point. Can you be more specific as to the "moral implications of free speech" to which you are referring?
At this point you appear to be hoping for some sort of weird "gotcha" moment.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you won't achieve it.
I mentioned the "God-given right" phrase as a simple acknowledgement that many people fervently believe that concept.
I was not attempting to dissect its relevance and I think that just mentioning it is how your confusion started--my bad.
And, again, I've made my meaning clear about my references to the moral implications by floating the aspects of how free speech and hate speech differ.
There is also the aspect of free speech in which one uses flat-out lies in furtherance of one's agenda and disguises it as free speech--I think that is an important issue too.
You want to debate the religious aspects?
You can try, I guess, but it won't be with me because I'm not inclined to try and change your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you keep assuming “Creator” is referring to a “Christian” God.
I won’t get into the other amendments since they’re clearly not based on biblical standings.
As I noted earlier, I accept that one's "religion" may or may not have a God, a deity, a guru, or whatever. I don't assume that "Creator" refers to any person's "God" in particular and I don't believe the Framers meant it to. But obviously, by their use of the word "Creator," they believed that some supernatural force existed beyond the ken of man.
The fact that the "rights" in the Bill of Rights aren't also enumerated in the Bible (and here you are assuming a relationship with a particular religious text), doesn't mean that they don't emanate from the higher power referenced by the Founders.
Take free speech, for example. A child's speech is unbridled, until a parent or teacher tells them "Don't say that," or "You can't say that." Who gives children the initial right to say anything that enters their mind? No one. They were born with the right, "endowed by their Creator" as the Framers put it. Only later, do other people try to restrict or censor what they say. The Framers, of course, weren't concerned with the speech of children, but with the political speech of adults--and the insidiousness of the Government trying to restrict or censor what they say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Edit: we agree man’s grants or takes away rights.)
No we don't agree. There are many fundamental rights that man does not grant. But only man can take away those rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
