The Rants of Issachar
Friday, February 04, 2005
Well this blog is called the Rants of Issachar, so you have been warned.
A couple of different things I've been reading have been pushing my "Free Speech" buttons. I'm not a "stripping naked in the street and screaming obscenities at the passers-by is how I express myself and you can't stop me because I've got free speech" nutjob, but I do believe in the principle. And I was under the impression that it was a widely accepted principal in western society. Is it? I'm beginning to doubt that.
First there was Father Raymond J. De Souza's column in the National Post on Jan 31st. (I stop reading the paper for a year and they suddenly get an interesting columnist). Sorry, I can't link to the article though because for some silly reason neither the Post nor the Globe will put their back issues online for people like me to link to. (Different rant for another day). Anyway... Father De Souza was criticizing Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew's recent remarks that religious leaders should not involve themselves in the gay marriage debate. (In fairness to Pettigrew I don't know the full context of his remarks, if De Souza had been writing a blog perhaps he might have provided links). That said, I suspect that Pettigrew is not be maligned if we say that he thought that religious leaders should keep their mouths shut on the debate.
Then there's the thread I was reading on slashdot. Yes I know it's slashdot and they're all "Linux cures cancer" nuts, but they're also supposed to be rabid free speech advocates. The topic was actually Canada's response to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in the US, but anything on Canada on slashdot seems to generate flame wars between Canadian Liberals and American Republicans, and somehow someone managed to segway into Canada's restrictions on free speech mostly as a result of the Human Rights Act. I ended up posting, (I post as issachar everywhere, if you're interested), and a lot of the Canadians I was conversing with seem convinced that Free Speech only extends to the point at which you offend other people. I'm rephrasing his statements, but you can read directly if you like.
Then there's our wonderful election gag laws. Now the government decides how much you can promote your ideas in an election. And this is acceptable to people?
What happened to "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it". What happened to meeting bad ideas with good ones? What happened to advocating what you believe is good instead of just trying to silence anything you think is bad?
Freedom of Speech means that you let people say what they like even if you despise what they say. Fred Phelps makes my blood boil and he maligns God. (I won't provide that bastard with a link, google him if you must). Michael Moore lies in "Bowling for Columbine" and fills "Farenheit 9/11" with childish insinuations of crackpot conspiracy theories and generally pisses me off. The pseudo-intellectual sitting in the Mayan the other day trying impress a couple of girls with his "Sure the holocaust was bad, but let's focus on the middle east problems are all Israel's fault" fantasy on the anniversary of the liberation of Auswitz irritated me immensely. And of chorus there's the regular posters on slashdot & K5 who compare my faith to believing "in the giant easter bunny in the sky". But I am not trying to force these people into silence. I'll argue their points, they do have the right to express those points. Free Speech is essential for a functioning democracy and I can't undertand how people can be so shortsighted as to sacrifice the idea of free speech to silence their opponents of the day.
And where does this idea that religion has no place in the political (or public) realm come from? That's not the separation of Church and State. The separation of Church and State exists so that the State cannot establish a state religion, and to ensure that religious authorities cannot dictate to the political authorities. It doesn't mean that religious authorities should stay out of politics. Just that religious doctrine can't over-ride our laws. Religious ideas can and should inform our laws? Why? Because people are religious and their deeply held beliefs will inform their political beliefs. And people's political beliefs will inform the laws we pass. You don't want religious ideas informing the law? The only way to prevent is to keep the religious out of politics. That's not a democracy and I'm not interested. When did the so-called tolerant secular left become so amazingly intolerant and how do they still manage to represent themselves as the beacons of tolerance to the world?
GARHG!!!
But I did say that I'm not a Free Speech nutbar, so here's the only restrictions I believe can be justified.
1) Advocating violence (not making people feel bad, actually advocating physical violence).
2) Restrictions on some limited kinds of expression to deal with the special vulnerabilities of children. So you can't hand out pornography to grade schoolers and restrictions on broadcast TV content for content inappropriate for children. Outlawing child pornagraphy. Things like that.
3) Slander & Libel. Of course accusing someone of either of these means having to prove that the slanderer actually said something that wasn't true (or they should have reasonably known wasn't true).
That's it. Did I miss anything?
Update: 7:30AM February 8th
One of the threads on slashdot continues. Why is it that when I try to make a point about Free Speech the issue morphs into some guy attacking a straw man characterization of what I believe on a different issue? So then I'm supposed to correct the implications about my beliefs about homosexuality, (and Christian beliefs on the subject in general), while separately arguing for Free Speech for people I don't agree with. I wonder if I've really got my point across...
Update: 1:00PM February 14th
Reasonable Restriction #4:) Restrictions on speech during time of war. See posting for comment.
A couple of different things I've been reading have been pushing my "Free Speech" buttons. I'm not a "stripping naked in the street and screaming obscenities at the passers-by is how I express myself and you can't stop me because I've got free speech" nutjob, but I do believe in the principle. And I was under the impression that it was a widely accepted principal in western society. Is it? I'm beginning to doubt that.
First there was Father Raymond J. De Souza's column in the National Post on Jan 31st. (I stop reading the paper for a year and they suddenly get an interesting columnist). Sorry, I can't link to the article though because for some silly reason neither the Post nor the Globe will put their back issues online for people like me to link to. (Different rant for another day). Anyway... Father De Souza was criticizing Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew's recent remarks that religious leaders should not involve themselves in the gay marriage debate. (In fairness to Pettigrew I don't know the full context of his remarks, if De Souza had been writing a blog perhaps he might have provided links). That said, I suspect that Pettigrew is not be maligned if we say that he thought that religious leaders should keep their mouths shut on the debate.
Then there's the thread I was reading on slashdot. Yes I know it's slashdot and they're all "Linux cures cancer" nuts, but they're also supposed to be rabid free speech advocates. The topic was actually Canada's response to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in the US, but anything on Canada on slashdot seems to generate flame wars between Canadian Liberals and American Republicans, and somehow someone managed to segway into Canada's restrictions on free speech mostly as a result of the Human Rights Act. I ended up posting, (I post as issachar everywhere, if you're interested), and a lot of the Canadians I was conversing with seem convinced that Free Speech only extends to the point at which you offend other people. I'm rephrasing his statements, but you can read directly if you like.
Then there's our wonderful election gag laws. Now the government decides how much you can promote your ideas in an election. And this is acceptable to people?
What happened to "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it". What happened to meeting bad ideas with good ones? What happened to advocating what you believe is good instead of just trying to silence anything you think is bad?
Freedom of Speech means that you let people say what they like even if you despise what they say. Fred Phelps makes my blood boil and he maligns God. (I won't provide that bastard with a link, google him if you must). Michael Moore lies in "Bowling for Columbine" and fills "Farenheit 9/11" with childish insinuations of crackpot conspiracy theories and generally pisses me off. The pseudo-intellectual sitting in the Mayan the other day trying impress a couple of girls with his "Sure the holocaust was bad, but let's focus on the middle east problems are all Israel's fault" fantasy on the anniversary of the liberation of Auswitz irritated me immensely. And of chorus there's the regular posters on slashdot & K5 who compare my faith to believing "in the giant easter bunny in the sky". But I am not trying to force these people into silence. I'll argue their points, they do have the right to express those points. Free Speech is essential for a functioning democracy and I can't undertand how people can be so shortsighted as to sacrifice the idea of free speech to silence their opponents of the day.
And where does this idea that religion has no place in the political (or public) realm come from? That's not the separation of Church and State. The separation of Church and State exists so that the State cannot establish a state religion, and to ensure that religious authorities cannot dictate to the political authorities. It doesn't mean that religious authorities should stay out of politics. Just that religious doctrine can't over-ride our laws. Religious ideas can and should inform our laws? Why? Because people are religious and their deeply held beliefs will inform their political beliefs. And people's political beliefs will inform the laws we pass. You don't want religious ideas informing the law? The only way to prevent is to keep the religious out of politics. That's not a democracy and I'm not interested. When did the so-called tolerant secular left become so amazingly intolerant and how do they still manage to represent themselves as the beacons of tolerance to the world?
GARHG!!!
But I did say that I'm not a Free Speech nutbar, so here's the only restrictions I believe can be justified.
1) Advocating violence (not making people feel bad, actually advocating physical violence).
2) Restrictions on some limited kinds of expression to deal with the special vulnerabilities of children. So you can't hand out pornography to grade schoolers and restrictions on broadcast TV content for content inappropriate for children. Outlawing child pornagraphy. Things like that.
3) Slander & Libel. Of course accusing someone of either of these means having to prove that the slanderer actually said something that wasn't true (or they should have reasonably known wasn't true).
That's it. Did I miss anything?
Update: 7:30AM February 8th
One of the threads on slashdot continues. Why is it that when I try to make a point about Free Speech the issue morphs into some guy attacking a straw man characterization of what I believe on a different issue? So then I'm supposed to correct the implications about my beliefs about homosexuality, (and Christian beliefs on the subject in general), while separately arguing for Free Speech for people I don't agree with. I wonder if I've really got my point across...
Update: 1:00PM February 14th
Reasonable Restriction #4:) Restrictions on speech during time of war. See posting for comment.
11 Comments:
Posted by: 
SarahThe problem is that the separation of Church and State is beginning to become rather arbitrary, and returning to the non-existent in some States, sending them back to the dark ages. And I believe that part of that is because religious doctrine (by its own definition) doesn't allow for total freedom of thought...and there dies the free speech.
SarahThe problem is that the separation of Church and State is beginning to become rather arbitrary, and returning to the non-existent in some States, sending them back to the dark ages. And I believe that part of that is because religious doctrine (by its own definition) doesn't allow for total freedom of thought...and there dies the free speech.
Posted by: 
Sarah –
I wanted to address a couple of things your post above this. I think your post is arguing from several false premises.
1. “The problem is that the separation of Church and State is beginning to become rather arbitrary, and returning to the non-existent in some States” If you read the US constitution you’ll find that neither the words nor even the idea of “separation of church and state” appear in it. The idea of a wall of separation between church and state first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Congregation on Jan 1, 1802. The church in Danbury had heard rumors that the US government was going to instate the Congressionalist Church as the official state religion and Jefferson wrote to reassure them that the state would never dictate the terms of their worship. The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The state was not to corrupt or dictate to the church, yet the church was free to teach the state Biblical values and the state was assumed to operate under the morals taught by the church.
2. “And I believe that part of that is because religious doctrine (by its own definition) doesn't allow for total freedom of thought...and there dies the free speech.” This argument has historically been proven to be patently false. If you contrast governments and societies that have proven records of allowing and encouraging free speech, you’ll find that the Judeo Christian governments of the world have a far far better track record than the atheistic societies. For instance contrast the freedoms of speech that have been allowed since i
t’s inception in the United States, with the freedoms of speech (or lack thereof) in atheistic governments such as the former USSR or China currently. Historically you have a much better chance of not being shot, incarcerated, persecuted, or tortured for speaking your mind in countries founded upon biblical morals than in a country founded on atheism or the supremacy of man.
Caleb
www.bluereed.org
Sarah – I wanted to address a couple of things your post above this. I think your post is arguing from several false premises.
1. “The problem is that the separation of Church and State is beginning to become rather arbitrary, and returning to the non-existent in some States” If you read the US constitution you’ll find that neither the words nor even the idea of “separation of church and state” appear in it. The idea of a wall of separation between church and state first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Congregation on Jan 1, 1802. The church in Danbury had heard rumors that the US government was going to instate the Congressionalist Church as the official state religion and Jefferson wrote to reassure them that the state would never dictate the terms of their worship. The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The state was not to corrupt or dictate to the church, yet the church was free to teach the state Biblical values and the state was assumed to operate under the morals taught by the church.
2. “And I believe that part of that is because religious doctrine (by its own definition) doesn't allow for total freedom of thought...and there dies the free speech.” This argument has historically been proven to be patently false. If you contrast governments and societies that have proven records of allowing and encouraging free speech, you’ll find that the Judeo Christian governments of the world have a far far better track record than the atheistic societies. For instance contrast the freedoms of speech that have been allowed since i
t’s inception in the United States, with the freedoms of speech (or lack thereof) in atheistic governments such as the former USSR or China currently. Historically you have a much better chance of not being shot, incarcerated, persecuted, or tortured for speaking your mind in countries founded upon biblical morals than in a country founded on atheism or the supremacy of man.
Caleb
www.bluereed.org
Posted by: pasivirtaAndrew, AMEN BROTHER! keep ranting, I finally put a link to you on my heretical site. I think you make a good point that many will try to ignore.
Caleb seems to know what he is talking about too, way to go.and sarah, I see your point, but I think you may have missed Andrew's, I will read it again to make sure though. K Markides makes a good point in his book, the mountain of silence, that when the western church became largely concerned with making sure 'this' world was run well, they began to get very involved in politics, whereas the eastern church was more concerned with 'otherworldly' (no they are not gnostic dualists) things, they did not have the same problem of government and church being in bed together. The church was so politicized as a result (in the west) that they introduced celibacy as a requirement of the priests so that people would stop buying and selling religious posts as political bargains (somewhere around the 8th century) this was not an issue in the eastern church, ergo married priests. I am not saying the answer lies in the eastern church, though I may say that too, but rather the western marriage of church and state is so old and complicated, maybe if we looked at pre-communist russia, or even communist russia, or other eastern christian countries and see how they separate their church from their state. I think its almost subconscious.
pasivirtaAndrew, AMEN BROTHER! keep ranting, I finally put a link to you on my heretical site. I think you make a good point that many will try to ignore. Caleb seems to know what he is talking about too, way to go.and sarah, I see your point, but I think you may have missed Andrew's, I will read it again to make sure though. K Markides makes a good point in his book, the mountain of silence, that when the western church became largely concerned with making sure 'this' world was run well, they began to get very involved in politics, whereas the eastern church was more concerned with 'otherworldly' (no they are not gnostic dualists) things, they did not have the same problem of government and church being in bed together. The church was so politicized as a result (in the west) that they introduced celibacy as a requirement of the priests so that people would stop buying and selling religious posts as political bargains (somewhere around the 8th century) this was not an issue in the eastern church, ergo married priests. I am not saying the answer lies in the eastern church, though I may say that too, but rather the western marriage of church and state is so old and complicated, maybe if we looked at pre-communist russia, or even communist russia, or other eastern christian countries and see how they separate their church from their state. I think its almost subconscious.
Posted by: SarahI see everyone's point, and I think everyone missed mine too.
SarahI see everyone's point, and I think everyone missed mine too.
Posted by: issacharSo if I'm adding things, should I post a comment or add an update to the original?
And Sarah... I don't know about the others, but I think I understand what you're saying. If you don't mind me rephrasing your words... You're saying that the wall between church and state is being at least partially pulled down in the US? And that religious doctrine isn't fully compatible with the idea of freedom of belief or expression?
To address the second part first, I'm only going to comment on Christian beliefs as that is what I'm most qualified to do. (Plus you're right if you're talking about some faiths). I think that Christian belief is completely compatible with the idea of free thought & belief. We're not compatible with the idea that all beliefs are equally valid, but that's not equivelent to being compatible with freedom. As I so impolitely phrased it once, "You're perfectly entitled to be wrong". That's a not terribly good way of saying it, but it's similar to the Christian position. Freedom of thought yes, but at the same time we take a strong stance against bad ideas.
As to the first part of your point, there will always be tension between people who want their ideas enforced by the state and those who don't. Since I'm apparently a free speech junkie I guess that has to be okay with me. But there's also the point that the wall between separation of church & state is not intended to separate religious thought from the state, it's intended to stop the state from enforcing a religion or a particular religious group from controlling the state. (Which is really the same thing if you think about it). Religious thought and spiritual belief should have a place in governance because spiritual thought is where our ethics come from. (Or at least many peoples come from there).
What do you think? Have I misrepresented what you're saying?
issacharSo if I'm adding things, should I post a comment or add an update to the original?And Sarah... I don't know about the others, but I think I understand what you're saying. If you don't mind me rephrasing your words... You're saying that the wall between church and state is being at least partially pulled down in the US? And that religious doctrine isn't fully compatible with the idea of freedom of belief or expression?
To address the second part first, I'm only going to comment on Christian beliefs as that is what I'm most qualified to do. (Plus you're right if you're talking about some faiths). I think that Christian belief is completely compatible with the idea of free thought & belief. We're not compatible with the idea that all beliefs are equally valid, but that's not equivelent to being compatible with freedom. As I so impolitely phrased it once, "You're perfectly entitled to be wrong". That's a not terribly good way of saying it, but it's similar to the Christian position. Freedom of thought yes, but at the same time we take a strong stance against bad ideas.
As to the first part of your point, there will always be tension between people who want their ideas enforced by the state and those who don't. Since I'm apparently a free speech junkie I guess that has to be okay with me. But there's also the point that the wall between separation of church & state is not intended to separate religious thought from the state, it's intended to stop the state from enforcing a religion or a particular religious group from controlling the state. (Which is really the same thing if you think about it). Religious thought and spiritual belief should have a place in governance because spiritual thought is where our ethics come from. (Or at least many peoples come from there).
What do you think? Have I misrepresented what you're saying?
Posted by: SarahI was going to back away from this conversation, but my cousin has reeled me back in. Thanks bunches 'Issachar'!
You may have guessed I'm not a subscriber to any religious organisation, but I would never impose that way of life on anyone. That said, here comes my opinion:
When I said Church and State, I wasn't specifying any particular religion or any particular state, and I am possibly not using the terms in the sense that they were historically defined. I hadn't realised that the proverbial 'separation' was only intended to be a one way affair, but I think in a perfect world it would be a two way separation. There are many many examples of places that could use some separation of 'church' and 'state' - would you agree that the 'state' of Afghanistan should be protected from its 'church'? And there's a place that doesn't get much free thought or speech.
I personally think the church should stay out of state business and the state should stay out of church business. But I realise that is completely unrealistic. To give an example, my point was, that in the last five years or so (dare I say, since Pres. Bush came on the scene), my idealistic separation of church and state has deteriorated. Lets face it the church played a big part in getting Bush elected in the first place, and the manner in which they did this was by indoctrination (that leads into my point about preventing freedom of thought)! As a result, we are seeing anti-progress in many issues, such as abortion and women's rights, gay & lesbian rights, voting rights, stem cell research, and human rights (e.g. Guatanamo Bay and Iraq prisoners). We are also seeing a bias in media reporting caused by interference from both church and state - I wonder if many Americans are even aware of what has happened/happening to prisoners of war in Guatanamo Bay and Iraq? You might be thinking that I'm mixing issues - possibly, but its a VERY complex issue, and difficult to separate them.
My other point was that religious doctrine prevents total freedom of thought. It doesn't matter which religion we're talking about. As Andrew said on behalf of the Christian view "Freedom of thought yes, but at the same time we take a strong stance against bad ideas." That in itself is what I'm talking about - who tells you what the bad ideas are, which you will make up your mind to take a strong stance against? If your preacher (and think about the definition of preaching) tells you something is wrong, do you question him? Would you ever win the debate? I'm not trying to lead an uprising, just pointing out that the time and place we live in, does not allow for *total* freedom of thought, and therefore freedom of speech will suffer. And I am sure that few people will agree with me because they would hate to believe that they are not thinking (entirely) for themselves.
There.
SarahI was going to back away from this conversation, but my cousin has reeled me back in. Thanks bunches 'Issachar'!You may have guessed I'm not a subscriber to any religious organisation, but I would never impose that way of life on anyone. That said, here comes my opinion:
When I said Church and State, I wasn't specifying any particular religion or any particular state, and I am possibly not using the terms in the sense that they were historically defined. I hadn't realised that the proverbial 'separation' was only intended to be a one way affair, but I think in a perfect world it would be a two way separation. There are many many examples of places that could use some separation of 'church' and 'state' - would you agree that the 'state' of Afghanistan should be protected from its 'church'? And there's a place that doesn't get much free thought or speech.
I personally think the church should stay out of state business and the state should stay out of church business. But I realise that is completely unrealistic. To give an example, my point was, that in the last five years or so (dare I say, since Pres. Bush came on the scene), my idealistic separation of church and state has deteriorated. Lets face it the church played a big part in getting Bush elected in the first place, and the manner in which they did this was by indoctrination (that leads into my point about preventing freedom of thought)! As a result, we are seeing anti-progress in many issues, such as abortion and women's rights, gay & lesbian rights, voting rights, stem cell research, and human rights (e.g. Guatanamo Bay and Iraq prisoners). We are also seeing a bias in media reporting caused by interference from both church and state - I wonder if many Americans are even aware of what has happened/happening to prisoners of war in Guatanamo Bay and Iraq? You might be thinking that I'm mixing issues - possibly, but its a VERY complex issue, and difficult to separate them.
My other point was that religious doctrine prevents total freedom of thought. It doesn't matter which religion we're talking about. As Andrew said on behalf of the Christian view "Freedom of thought yes, but at the same time we take a strong stance against bad ideas." That in itself is what I'm talking about - who tells you what the bad ideas are, which you will make up your mind to take a strong stance against? If your preacher (and think about the definition of preaching) tells you something is wrong, do you question him? Would you ever win the debate? I'm not trying to lead an uprising, just pointing out that the time and place we live in, does not allow for *total* freedom of thought, and therefore freedom of speech will suffer. And I am sure that few people will agree with me because they would hate to believe that they are not thinking (entirely) for themselves.
There.
Posted by: DreaLibertarians always argue that freedom of speech legitimizes a democracy. Is it possible that the opposite is true? Think of war time, is it benefical to criticize a war during the war itself? Possibly, or possibly it is not because it may lessen the morale of the country thereby lessening the chance of winning the war. Furthermore, if the people, in a complete hobbesian way, do not feel protected by the state, in terms of limits on free speech, (actually i am not sure Hobbes would agree with the point I am about to make) then the state looses its legitimacy, and in a lockean way we have no reason to sign into the social contract and we are screwed if we ever need our citizen's to fight for us in a war. Thus, the answer is, tyranny of the majority ;) Give people the amount of free speech that satisfies the most people, then you lack any sort of absolute morals and remain in power all the while ~ do I sound like a Federal Liberal or what?
DreaLibertarians always argue that freedom of speech legitimizes a democracy. Is it possible that the opposite is true? Think of war time, is it benefical to criticize a war during the war itself? Possibly, or possibly it is not because it may lessen the morale of the country thereby lessening the chance of winning the war. Furthermore, if the people, in a complete hobbesian way, do not feel protected by the state, in terms of limits on free speech, (actually i am not sure Hobbes would agree with the point I am about to make) then the state looses its legitimacy, and in a lockean way we have no reason to sign into the social contract and we are screwed if we ever need our citizen's to fight for us in a war. Thus, the answer is, tyranny of the majority ;) Give people the amount of free speech that satisfies the most people, then you lack any sort of absolute morals and remain in power all the while ~ do I sound like a Federal Liberal or what?
Posted by: issacharSarah: I'm not sure if I agree with Caleb's statement that the separation of Church & State was only intended to be a one way thing. But then I never took a US civics class so in the American context he may be correct. That said, the one-way protection essentially becomes two way protection. (Or rather it has to in order to actually work at all). Assume for the moment that a particular denomination managed to "take over" the state. If that occured it would be the de-facto establishment of a state religion which is exactly what the one-way protection seeks to prevent. So however we look at it we can't have a state religion established. Theocracy would work just fine if God was running the show, but it doesn't seem to work so well if you let people run things.
None of this means that you should (or even could) separate the ideas of faith from government. If a person is serving in the government, then their decisions will be based on what they think is the best course of action. This in turn is informed by their deeply held beliefs about life, the nature of existance, the nature of right and wrong and all that jazz. These are in turn based on their religious beliefs. I think this is true of absolutely everyone. Part of the problem with seeing this is that we insist on categorizing beliefs into religious, spiritual, philosophical etc., when they're all pretty much the same thing. I find it amusing and irritating when I bump into people who insist that they have no religion but have an intense (religious) fervour about their beliefs. It's even more irritating when they're really evangelical and/or dogmatic about their beliefs while they criticize you for the same.
But I'm ranting again, and I need to keep that under control. As to your questions about Christianity and Freedom of Thought.
If your preacher (and think about the definition of preaching) tells you something is wrong, do you question him?Absolutely! (I would be more emphatic, but it just looks stupid when I try to type explitives). I'd say I'm pretty much required to question preaching I think is unsound. Would I ever win? You mean I might lose a debate? :P But to be serious again, I don't think that "winning" or "losing" in that situation would be different from any other situation. I might show him something he missed, I might learn something I hadn't thought of, or we could end up disagreeing in the end. I'd say all are possible.
Of course you're right that complete originality of thought is not possible. My best ideas are stolen after all. I'm glad that I live in a time that allows for free thought and (mostly) free speech though.
issacharSarah: I'm not sure if I agree with Caleb's statement that the separation of Church & State was only intended to be a one way thing. But then I never took a US civics class so in the American context he may be correct. That said, the one-way protection essentially becomes two way protection. (Or rather it has to in order to actually work at all). Assume for the moment that a particular denomination managed to "take over" the state. If that occured it would be the de-facto establishment of a state religion which is exactly what the one-way protection seeks to prevent. So however we look at it we can't have a state religion established. Theocracy would work just fine if God was running the show, but it doesn't seem to work so well if you let people run things.None of this means that you should (or even could) separate the ideas of faith from government. If a person is serving in the government, then their decisions will be based on what they think is the best course of action. This in turn is informed by their deeply held beliefs about life, the nature of existance, the nature of right and wrong and all that jazz. These are in turn based on their religious beliefs. I think this is true of absolutely everyone. Part of the problem with seeing this is that we insist on categorizing beliefs into religious, spiritual, philosophical etc., when they're all pretty much the same thing. I find it amusing and irritating when I bump into people who insist that they have no religion but have an intense (religious) fervour about their beliefs. It's even more irritating when they're really evangelical and/or dogmatic about their beliefs while they criticize you for the same.
But I'm ranting again, and I need to keep that under control. As to your questions about Christianity and Freedom of Thought.
If your preacher (and think about the definition of preaching) tells you something is wrong, do you question him?Absolutely! (I would be more emphatic, but it just looks stupid when I try to type explitives). I'd say I'm pretty much required to question preaching I think is unsound. Would I ever win? You mean I might lose a debate? :P But to be serious again, I don't think that "winning" or "losing" in that situation would be different from any other situation. I might show him something he missed, I might learn something I hadn't thought of, or we could end up disagreeing in the end. I'd say all are possible.
Of course you're right that complete originality of thought is not possible. My best ideas are stolen after all. I'm glad that I live in a time that allows for free thought and (mostly) free speech though.
Posted by: issacharDrea: You probably are one of those Federal Liberals. /shudder ;P Teasing aside, I'd say that Free Speech is required for a democracy. Is that what you meant by legitimizing? If you control a discussion you control the decision making. (That sort of makes a comment on that horrible meeting I had to endure). So controlled speech kills a free democracy.
I think that criticizing a war while it's still being prosecuted is required if you think the prosecution of the war is wrong. The thing is that if you believe that prosecuting a war is wrong shouldn't you be hoping "your side" loses? That's what I think is wrong with some anti-war protestors today and during VietNam. Many of them seemed to hope that the US would lose the war. Hanoi Jane (try googling that to see what I mean) certainly seemed to wish that, although in her case she seems to have the defence of willful ignorance to protect her). But they insist of portraying this fiction that they're still "on side". They're not. They're on the opposing side, and the state should see them that way.
So if I am saying something during a war that interferes with the state's ability to prosecute the war effectively what should the state do? Perhaps the state has the right to silence me? So I guess I missed that in my original list of exceptions to free speech. (Must update post). My grandfather was a conscientious objector during the Second World War. It's not what I would have done, but it's what he felt he had to do. Most importantly he had the courage of his convictions and accepted the consequences of his decision. He didn't try to pretend that the state should give him a pulitzer prize. Conscientious objectors didn't get a free pass, the state punished them for refusal to fight. I believe he spent the war in a camp.
issacharDrea: You probably are one of those Federal Liberals. /shudder ;P Teasing aside, I'd say that Free Speech is required for a democracy. Is that what you meant by legitimizing? If you control a discussion you control the decision making. (That sort of makes a comment on that horrible meeting I had to endure). So controlled speech kills a free democracy.I think that criticizing a war while it's still being prosecuted is required if you think the prosecution of the war is wrong. The thing is that if you believe that prosecuting a war is wrong shouldn't you be hoping "your side" loses? That's what I think is wrong with some anti-war protestors today and during VietNam. Many of them seemed to hope that the US would lose the war. Hanoi Jane (try googling that to see what I mean) certainly seemed to wish that, although in her case she seems to have the defence of willful ignorance to protect her). But they insist of portraying this fiction that they're still "on side". They're not. They're on the opposing side, and the state should see them that way.
So if I am saying something during a war that interferes with the state's ability to prosecute the war effectively what should the state do? Perhaps the state has the right to silence me? So I guess I missed that in my original list of exceptions to free speech. (Must update post). My grandfather was a conscientious objector during the Second World War. It's not what I would have done, but it's what he felt he had to do. Most importantly he had the courage of his convictions and accepted the consequences of his decision. He didn't try to pretend that the state should give him a pulitzer prize. Conscientious objectors didn't get a free pass, the state punished them for refusal to fight. I believe he spent the war in a camp.
Posted by: Dreayou definitely fit the mould of a classical libertarian for me ;)
btw - anti war doesn't necessarily connect with the hope of your country losing the war, i think that protestors hope their country will pull out, not lose.
Dreayou definitely fit the mould of a classical libertarian for me ;)btw - anti war doesn't necessarily connect with the hope of your country losing the war, i think that protestors hope their country will pull out, not lose.
Posted by: issacharHow is pulling out in the context of Vietnam or Iraq any different from losing?
There's no way that the US could conceivably lose the current war on military grounds and the historical consensus (as far as I know) seems to be that they were winning the Vietnam war militarily apart from the serious problems they had on the home front.
Given that isn't it reasonable to say that American anti-war protestors hope that their country will "lose"?
issacharHow is pulling out in the context of Vietnam or Iraq any different from losing?There's no way that the US could conceivably lose the current war on military grounds and the historical consensus (as far as I know) seems to be that they were winning the Vietnam war militarily apart from the serious problems they had on the home front.
Given that isn't it reasonable to say that American anti-war protestors hope that their country will "lose"?
