Originally Posted By jonvn No, in fact the holy spirit came to me just a few minutes ago. I'm now a Christian of the highest order. Care for a pod?
Originally Posted By johnno52 If the conversation is swinging towards religion then I agree with ecdc, "freedom of individual thinking" is the first thing that is suppressed in religion. The Bibles Korans, Torahs etc stresses that its word is true and final they are the word of God! You must have the "Faith" and no other reasoning or thinking! Aren't two of the worst examples of this Faith is the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Jim Jones Cult Massacre in British Guyana! Wouldn't these have been voluntary alliances at conception?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo This is a very interesting thread, and Mrs Elderp thank you for the book references, I think I need to read this one. In my book, freedom is the ability to do as one pleases, unencumbered, so long as it does not infringe upon the liberties of others. Jean Jacques Russeau wrote - man is born free and yest everywhere is in chains. Locke wrote of the Leviathin, and the need for collected freedoms to be protected by an organisation. Marx and Engels shared the view that a distributed economy gave everyone the same freedom of opportunity. To me, one man's freedom could be another's erosion of potential freedom. Most of all Freedom tends to be an overused phrase by country singers, politicians and jingoistic americans that do no realise that there are greater freedoms outside the US than within.
Originally Posted By Mr X This just in, "Former Cult Members find New Life in Christ" (wonder if Jon is one of the lucky ones!?). <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2mym3l" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2mym3l</a> God Bless free thinking!
Originally Posted By friendofdd A significant freedom is the opportunity to praise or disparage religion. An adjunct to that is the opportunity to insult those who believe, or do not believe, in a religious faith.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Reading my Libertarian Party card, here's the Statement of Principles on the back: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <A significant freedom is the opportunity to praise or disparage religion. An adjunct to that is the opportunity to insult those who believe, or do not believe, in a religious faith.> I completely agree. A free nation enables people to decide their relationship with God on their own free will, not forced or influenced by others. It also provides the means to sin freely, and become more inspired to accept a relationship with God once that sin has magnified to an earthquake in their lives. People should, or should not, go to God on their own free will.
Originally Posted By Mr X Post 32, excellent. Post 33, much less so. Although as far as a nation that provides the means to sin freely, I must say America is sorely lacking.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Freedom is also the ability to own land, reign over that land, own a shotgun on that land, aim that shotgun at an intruder of that land and exclaim "Git off ma' land yooo varmint!"
Originally Posted By woody <A significant freedom is the opportunity to praise or disparage religion. An adjunct to that is the opportunity to insult those who believe, or do not believe, in a religious faith.> I would add that this is fine as long as there is no legal penalty to practicing your religion as you see fit. It is increasingly difficult to speak your mind with all the hate crime legislation being passed these days.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I would add that this is fine as long as there is no legal penalty to practicing your religion as you see fit.> Please give an example of someone facing a legal penalty for practicing their religion. Placing a creche or something on public property doesn't count; those people are still perfectly free to go to church and practice their religion. <It is increasingly difficult to speak your mind with all the hate crime legislation being passed these days.> That thought doesn't follow your first one. Hate crimes, whether you agree with the concept or not (and I'm VERY ambivalent about them, myself) only kick in if another crime has been committed. In other words, you can call someone the "n" word or the "f" word or whatever, and you cannot be arrested for it. But if you call someone that while you're beating them up, in some locales you can have an extra penalty added to the penalty for assault. So no one is stopped from merely speaking their mind, however ugly.
Originally Posted By woody You really should read both sentences together. It does make sense. If you don't understand, you should ask. The first sentence discuss legal penalty. The second sentence gives the example of hate crimes legislation. An example is a church where a pastor preaches against homosexuality. If a person hears about it and acts on it, he will be charged with a hate crime. With hate crimes legislation getting more severe, it won't be long for pastors to get drag into a crime for inciting the hate crime or possibly as an accessory. What happens to your religion? You lost your pastor. The religion gets penalized. It is already happening in Europe. It won't be long for it to happen here. As for race, you can be arrested for inciting a riot or crimes as well, but this cuts into freedom of speech. Nothing is spared with hate crimes legislation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You really should read both sentences together. It does make sense. If you don't understand, you should ask.> As so often, YOU understand what you mean, but you're not articulating it well. <The first sentence discuss legal penalty. The second sentence gives the example of hate crimes legislation. An example is a church where a pastor preaches against homosexuality. If a person hears about it and acts on it, he will be charged with a hate crime.> Please provide an example of this ever happening in the US. Scads of preachers preach against homosexuality every Sunday in this country; please name ONE who has ever been charged with a hate crime. <With hate crimes legislation getting more severe, it won't be long for pastors to get drag into a crime for inciting the hate crime or possibly as an accessory.> Number one, hate crime legislation (and as I've said, I'm ambivalent about them to begin with) seems to have peaked, if anything. Quite a few locales enacted them for a few years there, but they seem to have petered out. And two, it's only your assertion that "it won't be long" before pastors will be dragged into court for this. But that's based on your own paranoia, not anything that's actually happening here. Hell, there are some mosques in NY/NJ that were in the news here for some very hateful speech about Jews and gays, but they're protected under freedom of religion. And at least one of the towns in NJ where this happened had hate crime laws on the books. So even where you had demonstrably terrible things being said (it wasn't just "the Bible says this" or "the Koran says this," it was blatant "Jews are wicked and gays are subhuman" kind of stuff), nothing was done. <What happens to your religion? You lost your pastor. The religion gets penalized.> Well, no. Unless you can show me where this has happened. <It is already happening in Europe. It won't be long for it to happen here.> Many things happen in Europe that don't happen here. <As for race, you can be arrested for inciting a riot or crimes as well, but this cuts into freedom of speech. Nothing is spared with hate crimes legislation.> You should learn a little history. There's a longstanding doctrine of "fighting words," that existed long before modern hate crime legislation. Inciting a riot is one such example, and has LONG been such. In fact, after "shouting fire in a crowded theater," it's probably THE most commonly used example of longstanding limitations on freedom of speech.
Originally Posted By woody >>As so often, YOU understand what you mean, but you're not articulating it well.<< I think I'm doing fine. You're having the problem. You often quickly dismiss comments out of hand. >>Please provide an example of this ever happening in the US. Scads of preachers preach against homosexuality every Sunday in this country; please name ONE who has ever been charged with a hate crime.<< I gave you a hypothetical example. I said as long as this isn't happening, there would be freedom. I fear if we take hate crime legislation too far, this will happen. I made it clear that this was happening in Europe. I also said "It is increasingly difficult to speak your mind with all the hate crime legislation being passed these days." Europe is not an invalid comparison. The US is getting closer in legislation to Europe in some areas. Hate crime legislation has a way of making people censor themselves. You have a way of getting off the topic with the issue of race. Nice information, but not the topic I'm discussing. Then again, hate crimes is another infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the way it is going.
