IMO

 

What makes this country great IS absolutely the ability to speak what you believe and be heard, free of fear of persecution.

:thumb:

IMO

 

What makes this country great IS absolutely the ability to speak what you believe and be heard, free of fear of persecution.

 

I believe that I may have to attend a game at Cam Field, Junky. :thumb:

 

 

Frances

hmm, as I sat hear reading the previous thread and then began reading this thread, one thought continues to haunt me. I am not positive what makes America great or gives it her strength (imo I would agree with Tocqueville), but given the direction the U.S. seems to be heading, what will be the undoing of the said strength? Will it be turning our backs on God? Is it our government's constant need to police the world? Is it that we don't know when to say "NO, enough is enough." I find myself put out when we bend over backwards to help other countries in need, in tragic loss of life, in tragic acts of God. Then we have difficulty organizing any aid for our own. (i.e. the Katrina victims, 9/11 families, the homeless that cville talked about in his post) Should we not be taking care of our own people before we go everywhere on earth trying to care/change the lives of others who, imo, will revert back to their old ways once we are gone? I've heard some say that we should make sure everyone in America has food and is warm with a roof over their heads before we go elsewhere.

 

I know this seems rambling; that just shows my confusion on the matter. On "John Boy and Billy" this morning, they read a letter written as if it were from a congressman and/or president. It said things like, "OK Iraq, we are giving you 30 days to get your act together. At the end of 30 days all troops will return to the U.S. and you will be on your own. For all of you countries that didn't aid Iraq or back the U.S. in their aid of Iraq, all aid is forfieted and you are now under sanctions. With the extra man power and armory that we have, we will be lining our Mexican border to keep out illegal aliens who come here and abuse our fought-and-died-for public aid system."

 

You know, the devil is powerful and has strength and can fool us into believing that his works are of God.

 

Now keep in mind, I am not saying I agree with any of this, but as my nephew's date of departure for Iraq approaches, I find all of these things worthy of some thought. I spoke to a neighbor boy (now 21) who was on leave last summer from his tour in Iraq. He said there are so many "tribes" fighting for control that we will be there for years to come! He said twice he was nearly killed in gunfire between two tribes he was there to protect! He said we gave them freedom from Saddam, and now they are fighting each other. How is he supposed to protect them from each other? Sadly he seemed to feel some failure in his mission. He felt his cause was hopeless in the long term. He is in debriefing now and will be out of the marines for good by the end of January.

 

Then of course my mind reverts to my christian training and upbringing and the verse the Lord lays on my heart is:

 

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

 

2 Chronicles 7:14

IMO

 

What makes this country great IS absolutely the ability to speak what you believe and be heard, free of fear of persecution.

I see no way that speaking and teaching hatred and even violence because of the color of one's skin makes a country strong.

I see no way that speaking and teaching hatred and even violence because of the color of one's skin makes a country strong.

 

You missed the point, LBBC.

 

It isn't WHAT someone says, it is their right to say it.

 

Look very closely at the statement made by CamFieldJunky: "the ability to speak what you believe and be heard, free of fear of persecution".

 

The key word in that statement is "Ability".

 

 

This is the same problem with people that attack the ACLU for defending the rights of some very unpopular defendants. The ACLU rarely defends the actions of a group or individual. Rather, they defend their rights.

 

HUGE difference.

 

 

 

Frances

You missed the point, LBBC.

 

It isn't WHAT someone says, it is their right to say it.

 

Look very closely at the statement made by CamFieldJunky: "the ability to speak what you believe and be heard, free of fear of persecution".

 

The key word in that statement is "Ability".

 

 

This is the same problem with people that attack the ACLU for defending the rights of some very unpopular defendants. The ACLU rarely defends the actions of a group or individual. Rather, they defend their rights.

 

HUGE difference.

 

 

 

Frances

I don't believe I missed the point. I see no way that it strengthens this country to espouse a view of hatred. NONE.

 

Even Christians who say homosexuality is wrong and sinful don't espouse a hatred message. (some say we do but that is inaccurate and more fits their purposes than the truth.) Over and over you will hear Christians say hate the sin, love the sinner. I don't hear KKK people saying, hate the color, love the person. THey simply say hate, hate, hate.

 

I don't see how that strengthens this country. It weakens and divides. It is that simple.

 

My view is that we should all be given these rights but we should also have the recourse to lose them. You speak hatred and divide this country, you are removed from this country. Espouse your hatred somewhere else.

 

I am NOT talking about a koolaid type mentality that thinks collectively. I believe those who espouse the rights of abortion are 100% wrong and should be outlawed, but I would also not believe that they should be prevented from speaking out. I believe Christians who say we should KILL abortion doctors are wrong and should be asked to move along. Go spill your message of hatred someone else.

 

I have no problem with Cindy Sheehen having the right to speak against the war. I have a HUGE problem with Fred Phelps and his ignorant flunkies doing what they do.

Here is an interesting flash about Tocoqueville's quote.

 

Politicians also frequently quote Tocqueville. But the most commonly used quote may not have been said by Tocqueville at all. Scholars have been unable to locate the lines "America is great because America is good ..." in Democracy in America or in anything else that Tocqueville wrote. This frequent misquote was the subject of John J. Pitney, Jr.'s article, The Tocqueville Fraud.

 

Here is a great website that shows a synopsis of a lot of things he wrote.

 

http://www.tocqueville.org/

It isn't WHAT someone says, it is their right to say it.

 

This is the same problem with people that attack the ACLU for defending the rights of some very unpopular defendants. The ACLU rarely defends the actions of a group or individual. Rather, they defend their rights.

 

HUGE difference.

While I am 100% in favor of full freedom of expression… that does not necessarily mean that I agree with, (nor should I have to agree with) the ideas being expressed.

 

One of the costs of freedom—in a battle of ideas—is that the good must not only endure the degenerate, but must ultimately overcome the abysmal if our culture is to survive.

 

It must be recognized that while we do ensure the freedom to express truly wretched ideas, there’s no reason whatsoever we are compelled to embrace or provide protection for the ideas themselves.

 

More bluntly, there are simply some messages that are (and should be) indefensible in a civilized (much less an enlightened) culture. The fact that the ACLU cannot seem to distinguish between messages worthy of defense and those which should be condemned for the ages, nullifies any nobility one might assign to their cause IMO.

 

NAMBLA (The North American Man Boy Love Association) leaps to mind. I realize that in a totally free culture, if Christianity (a message I embrace) is to have full freedom of expression, it may be necessary to allow ideas of horrible consequence to also be expressed. The fact that the actions of the ACLU have provided traction for those espousing homosexual pedophilia as an acceptable lifestyle eliminates any legitimacy they might otherwise hold IMO.

 

I’m all for having an open mind, but hopefully not a mind so open that one’s brains fall out. :thumb:

Here is an interesting flash about Tocoqueville's quote.

 

Politicians also frequently quote Tocqueville. But the most commonly used quote may not have been said by Tocqueville at all. Scholars have been unable to locate the lines "America is great because America is good ..." in Democracy in America or in anything else that Tocqueville wrote. This frequent misquote was the subject of John J. Pitney, Jr.'s article, The Tocqueville Fraud.

 

Here is a great website that shows a synopsis of a lot of things he wrote.

 

http://www.tocqueville.org/

I appreciate your quest for historical accuracy Hatz, but whether de Tocqueville actually originated the words I referenced in Post #12, or some other enlightened soul assembled them does nothing to minimize the legitimacy of the words and the concept they express IMO.

 

I wish I had come up with them. :thumb:

I appreciate your quest for historical accuracy Hatz, but whether de Tocqueville actually originated the words I referenced in Post #12, or some other enlightened soul assembled them does nothing to minimize the legitimacy of the words and the concept they express IMO.

 

I wish I had come up with them. :thumb:

 

 

I too think it's a great sentiment. :thumb:

 

As you noted my quest for accuracy (and I've been wrong more times than right) is important when we read quotes. Otherwise they receive a validity that is not true.

 

Thanks for the response Fastbreak and more than that, thanks for putting that quote out for all of us to read and reflect.

Here are some other Tocqueville's comments on the strengths and weakness' he observed:

 

MONEY

"...I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men's hearts or where stronger scorn is expressed for the theory of permanent equality of property."

 

REVOLUTION

 

"If there ever are great revolutions there, they will be caused by the presence of the blacks upon American soil. That is to say, it will not be the equality of social conditions but rather their inequality which may give rise thereto."

 

 

CONSTITUENTS

 

"The electors see their representative not only as a legislator for the state but also as the natural protector of local interests in the legislature; indeed, they almost seem to think that he has a power of attorney to represent each constituent, and they trust him to be as eager in their private interests as in those of the country."

 

 

NEWSPAPERS

 

"I am far from denying that newspapers in democratic countries lead citizens to do very ill-considered things in common; but without newspapers there would be hardly any common action at all. So they mend many more ills than they cause."

 

 

That website is a very good thumbnail of his observations and journeys (read about the Louisville interview and the Cincy experience) in the mid 19th century US. Some things have changed, some haven't. :thumb:

The two biggest things are our natural resources and our adoption of the Anglo-Saxon buisness sense/leadership. The combining of the two without the limitations of a "truly" class based society have made the country excell over the rest of the world.

While I am 100% in favor of full freedom of expression… that does not necessarily mean that I agree with, (nor should I have to agree with) the ideas being expressed.

You are exactly correct, Fastbreak. One should be able to examine an idea, and be able to to embrace or reject it base upon it's merits (or lack thereof).

 

One of the costs of freedom—in a battle of ideas—is that the good must not only endure the degenerate, but must ultimately overcome the abysmal if our culture is to survive.

Again, we are in complete agreement.

 

 

It must be recognized that while we do ensure the freedom to express truly wretched ideas, there’s no reason whatsoever we are compelled to embrace or provide protection for the ideas themselves.

Precisely. Of course, the ability to reason is based upon a solid understanding of logic and rational thought - which come from an unrestricted educational process. The exposure to ideas that we might find distasteful will not cripple us, but the censorship of ideas will surely do so.

 

 

More bluntly, there are simply some messages that are (and should be) indefensible in a civilized (much less an enlightened) culture. [/Quote] ... and our society establishes rules that designate acts or messages which are indefensible, and those acts are punished according to our laws.

 

 

The fact that the ACLU cannot seem to distinguish between messages worthy of defense and those which should be condemned for the ages, nullifies any nobility one might assign to their cause IMO. NAMBLA (The North American Man Boy Love Association) leaps to mind.

The ACLU does not defend the message of NAMBLA. It IS defending the rights of an organization (however reprehensible we find their message) to speak freely.

 

In the case that is being referred to, the ACLU is defending our freedom of speech. Specifically, the lawsuit says that the crime in question is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted material (that you and I both find to be highly objectionable) on the Internet. I know that (like me) you are a strong proponent of individual responsibility. In light of that stance, I find it odd that anyone would not hold the people that committed the crime responsible - rather than someone that merely speaks about it.

 

Over the years, the ACLU has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Oliver North, and the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. The ACLU is not "right" when they defend the rights of a popular institution or individual, nor are they "wrong" when they defend the rights of an unpopular one. In both instances, they are defending OUR rights that are granted to us in our Constitution.

 

 

I realize that in a totally free culture, if Christianity (a message I embrace) is to have full freedom of expression, it may be necessary to allow ideas of horrible consequence to also be expressed. [/Quote] And again, we agree. I find many of the things in print and on electronic television to be almost beneath human dignity.

 

 

The fact that the actions of the ACLU have provided traction for those espousing homosexual pedophilia as an acceptable lifestyle eliminates any legitimacy they might otherwise hold IMO.

The ACLU is not providing traction for people that espouse homosexual pedophilia - it is the misunderstanding of their actions is the culprit.

 

 

I’m all for having an open mind, but hopefully not a mind so open that one’s brains fall out. :thumb:

And I am all for reading the entire story, digesting it, and fully grasping the issue at hand, prior to forming an opinion and shooting myself in the foot, by supporting an uninformed hysteria which will ultimately strip away our right of free speech if allowed to go unchallenged.

 

 

Frances

I don't believe I missed the point. I see no way that it strengthens this country to espouse a view of hatred. NONE. ... I have no problem with Cindy Sheehen having the right to speak against the war. I have a HUGE problem with Fred Phelps and his ignorant flunkies doing what they do.

 

You ARE missing the point, LBBC.

 

The value of the content of any message is open for debate. The right to speak one's mind is not. THAT is the point.

 

You and I are in complete agreement on the value (or lack thereof) of many of the messages being discussed on sites like this (i.e. the KKK, Fred Phelps, etc.). We may disagree on other messages (i.e. someone's stance on abortion, snakehandling in churches, the value of our war in Iraq), but that is to be expected. The very fact that we can discuss any disagreement between us (I am speaking in the collective) is empowered by our right to free speech. That right MUST NOT be compromised - regardless of how distasteful we find the other side of the issue at hand.

 

 

Frances

You ARE missing the point, LBBC.

 

The value of the content of any message is open for debate. The right to speak one's mind is not. THAT is the point.

 

You and I are in complete agreement on many of the messages being discussed on sites like this (i.e. the KKK, Fred Phelps, etc.). We may disagree on other messages (i.e. someone's stance on abortion, snakehandling in churches, the value of our war in Iraq), but that is to be expected. The very fact that we can discuss any disagreement between us (I am speaking in the collective) is empowered by our right to free speech. That right MUST NOT be compromised - regardless of how distasteful we find the other side of the issue at hand.

 

 

Frances

I am not sure I agree with that. Words too many times lead to actions and for things that across the board this country can overwhelmingly agree (how many issues would that be?) on, I would have little problem on telling that person (Fred Phelps) they could move on. They want to come back to reality and respectful of people, please come back and join us.

 

But tell me, the youth of this country to hate a person because of the color of their skin or to promote having relations with little boys. I don't think this makes a country stronger but divides it.

 

I understand your point but do you honestly think allowing the KKK to have a right to speak their hatred to the youth of this country makes this country stronger?

 

I fully believe there are certain issues that we as a country can say, don't want to hear it. You want to speak that trash, okay but not here, not now.

 

We say you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house because it is dangerous. I see no difference with the danger that comes with allowing a KKK to speak their hatred except that the KKK is more dangerous.

 

NEVER should we not allow people to call out our elected leaders. Let me point out that I am not talking about blanket censorship but there are issues that divide this country.