Posted on 09/27/2013 7:56:14 PM PDT by don-o
I agree with him. Free speech is absolute. Nothing to do with gay rights, I just do not think government should have the power to ban a demonstration or any other form of free speech. A government that has that power can easily turn it around against Christians.
Serbs = Christians
You think you have to stand up for homos to protect Christians some day? That is the wrong way to go at it. See for yourself.
The hatred against the Serbs is inspired by much more than meets the eye. Clinton’s Sec State Maddy Albright let the cat out of the bag at a book signing.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=556_1351885225&comments=1
direct link to youtube Mad Albright saying “disgusting Serbs”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FaPuBUY558
I never understood why America, during the Clinton years was defending Muslims who hated Americans were fighting against Christians Serbs. I wish I knew about Free Republic at that time.
Should we move to Serbia, now that our once fine country has gone ALL GAY?
It's indeed a very difficult question. I don't have a ready answer to that. Nobody does. If history tells us anything, the societies oscillate between absolutism and anarchy, going through every stage in between. The oscillations are caused by the fact that none of those stages are stable; none are acceptable; none are so good that people want to keep them.
Self-rule, of which pure anarchy and more organized forms, like democracy, are part of, is hard. You'd better be good with your gun, or your sword, or your club. Maybe the Sheriff will eventually come to save you - like in a few days, if he even knows about your predicament, but your personal survival depends on you. How many modern men can accept that lifestyle?
That's how authoritarianism finds its way into hearts and minds. It whispers softly "you don't need to worry about big bad Bill the Killer, we will take care of him for you - just let us!" - and people eventually agree. Authoritarian regimes do not ask you to think. They ask you nothing. These days they don't even ask you to work! All they want in return is your silent approval of their authority. The citizen doesn't even want to know what they do in his name. It's an easy life this way; with enough entertainment on TV what else is there to ask for?
But if we end up with a hypothesis that "none of social schemes known to man are stable in the long run and in a large, unsorted population" then what do we have left? Nothing.
Who do you think should have the right to vote?
That question is part of the discussion above. In truest democracies everyone votes, and everyone's vote counts. In strictest authoritarian societies you may or may not vote, but your vote decides nothing, just as Joseph Stalin pointed out. The USA is already firmly at that stage; while it is still possible to eject a few politicians over a few clearly wrong decisions, most of them are safe and sound.
Note also that voting is a complicated process on part of the voter. City-states of ancient Greece were mere villages by today's standards. Everyone knew everyone else personally, for many years. Today we can only vote for people who say who they are. But people will say anything that gets them elected. Honest people will be at disadvantage, and the science of statistics is merciless. A voter must see through the lies; but how many are mentally equipped to do that? How many are interested in truth? How many have access to the information? How many are flooded with misinformation and think they know the truth now? Modern systems of political engineering are very advanced, and they allow sufficient control of the crowd to get the necessary results. Careful selection of candidates that are Twiddledee and Twiddledum's long lost brothers further limits the damage if the people don't get the message. Like in a shell game, you cannot win.
Freedom of speech is also exploited. Everyone is free to voice his opinion from a soap box. But not everyone is invited into TV studios to do the same to millions of viewers. Everyone can form a non-profit to do political work; but some of them get persecuted while others are allowed to function. Do we have freedom of speech then? Not the right to climb onto a soap box, but the right to be heard just as loudly as your opponent is heard?
This is exactly why celebrities can use their position in the society to be heard, whereas private persons cannot. Want to have a gay parade? The city rubberstamps your request. Want to have an anti-gay parade? No, you can't do that - it's hate speech, you raysis! Officer, arrest him!
Artificial attempts to fix the free speech by inverting the abuse are doomed to failure. The free speech is already conditionalized by powers that be. You don't want gays to parade in front of your home on Sundays? Too bad, they have that right, the street is public. Now you want to reverse that rule legally; but you cannot because laws don't allow that. The attempt to fix the injustice would be even more unjust. The only thing you can do is to say "I'm done with this freedom of speech, take it away from everyone" - and the government does just that, per your request... a nice move, isn't it?
We know that democracy requires an educated voter base. The voters must be also generally willing to cooperate. If that rule is not met then you have polarization of the society - exactly what we have today. I'd say democracy in the USA is already dead, just because the voters are unwilling to do their part. People are still going through the motions, but they matter less and less. The same old faces are in Congress, for decades. No new thinking, no new policies, no contact with the people. If the democracy is lost then what's the value of even having freedom of speech? Nobody will hear you; but even if you manage to speak, your words won't affect anything. Voting rights and the freedom of speech are quickly becoming relics of the past. In today's world only selected groups have those freedoms - and only as long as they say what their betters want to hear. That's a very sad state of affairs.
It was simple a helpful hint and an fyi. The site owner is well known to take a very dim view of speech on his site that even hints at advocating the homosexual agenda.
To the question of free speech: Our current understanding is light years from what it would have been to Madison, Franklin et al, because the society has degenerated.
The "republic, if you can keep it" that we were given presumed a common morality that universally outlawed buggery in reflection of the received Judeo-Christian tradition. When buggery is legalized, that relation is broken.
The facile interpretation of what the Constitution actually intended in order to promote agendas has taken us to a Lewis Carrol Wonderland - up is down and inside is outside.
Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer had a rather interesting take on this very concept back when Indonesia was banning Lady gaga from entering, which addresses the exact same issues that have been discussed here. And to my understanding, Robert Spencer has traditionally been rather popular around here.
This might be worth reading too: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/robert-spencer-is-freedom-worth-defending.html
On the difference between Christian vs Islamic Shariah notions of fighting sin, in particular he notes:
” While many of us might deplore the depravity of today’s pop culture, we should not let Islamic moral critique put us on the defensive. In reality, the freedom at which the jihadists sneer is an essential component of any genuine morality. “Australian law guarantees freedoms up to a crazy level,” remarked the controversial former Australian mufti Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali—but without freedom, even “up to a crazy level,” morality is hollow. The secular West, with all its irreligion and debauchery, provides the only authentic framework for genuine virtue. Without the freedom to choose evil, choosing good is not a virtue. It’s nothing more than submitting to coercion. Islam’s moral critique likewise founders on the divine sanction given to violence in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition.”
I note - this has nothing to do with being pro gay agenda. I am as opposed to the gay agenda as anyone on FR. Especially since being in favor of free speech by nature makes you anti gay agenda, since we all know that the gay agenda is all about snuffing out free speech whenever it can.
Yes.
And you would not want homo rallies banned in America.
No, I would not want them banned. Otherwise, what argument could I make if the government wanted to ban my religion (Judaism)? If freedom of speech and religion are subject to majority vote, can I always count on being in the majority?
Since marches or protests though, tend to block traffic and impend movement, and therefore the freedom to do business...there is no automatic right to march or take over streets at any given time. Therefore municipalities (including DC) will issue permits to protest or march--in order balance one groups rights to speak, and peaceably assemble, vs. other peoples rights to move and do business.
If sodomy is illegal in Serbia (like it was in most-all civilized countries until very recently) I do not believe a group glorifying in and pushing for illegal activities...really has a right to protest or march...at any time.
Practically every homosexual parade or march in the USA and Europe is at least R-rated....with open displays of sadomasochism, sex acts, kissing drag queens and partial and full nudity, all of which are against public decency laws most places, so OF COURSE a city has a right to ban such a disgusting parade of perversion.
I believe Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams et al.--even all the Founders, would agree with me.
Under well-settled First Amendment law, any laws regulating the times and places of demonstrations must be content-neutral. Otherwise, the City Council in D.C. could ban all anti-Obama demonstrations and permit only pro-Obama demonstrations.
If sodomy is illegal in Serbia (like it was in most-all civilized countries until very recently) I do not believe a group glorifying in and pushing for illegal activities...really has a right to protest or march...at any time.
How do laws ever change if people can't demonstrate to seek changes? When segregation was legal in Alabama, people demonstrated against it. Should those demonstrations have been banned?
Practically every homosexual parade or march in the USA and Europe is at least R-rated....with open displays of sadomasochism, sex acts, kissing drag queens and partial and full nudity, all of which are against public decency laws most places, so OF COURSE a city has a right to ban such a disgusting parade of perversion.
I doubt the gays in Serbia were planning any such activities, and the government could have banned them without prohibiting the march altogether. And as for what goes on at gay pride marches in the U.S., I haven't seen many posts on FR seeking to ban Spring Break in Florida or Mardis Gras in New Orleans, both of which feature at least as much open sexuality as gay pride marches.
So your position is that freedom of religion applies only to religions approved by you?
There are already powerful groups that want your religion wiped out, and you want to defend the "rights" of such people, lest something bad happen to you in the future.
One day you will be in the minority. Muslims, homos, satanists and communists will be the majority. Count on them to respect your rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.