Comments on: Freedom of Speech and Religion http://www.mandikaye.com/2006/02/09/freedom-of-speech-and-religion/ Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:55:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ontheedgeofmyseat http://www.mandikaye.com/2006/02/09/freedom-of-speech-and-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5 ontheedgeofmyseat Fri, 10 Feb 2006 05:44:36 +0000 http://mandikaye.com/?p=4#comment-5 Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both items in the US Constitution which are very often mis-interpreted. You need to understand the history behind the formation of the US and the reason for writing the constitution.<br/>The reigning monarch in England controlled the church. King Henry VIII, for instance, had the church change its doctrine in order to allow him to divorce his wives. The government's control over the church was absolute, to the point where when reformists charged the leadership to repent from the areas they strayed from biblical doctrine, they were persecuted for their "treason."<br/>When the new world was settled, a lot of the population consisted of people who wanted to practice biblical Christianity-not the resemblance of Christianity that they had left in England-freely and without fear. The Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State were created to allow people to practice their religion without fear of persecution.<br/>Freedom of Speech follows the same lines, where the early leaders of our nation wanted to be sure of the safety of the individual. While I was in high school, there were lots of kids whose language was laced with profanity. Their excuse? Freedom of Speech. However, they were abusing this right. The Freedom of Speech our Founding Fathers envisioned was a freedom from political or religious persecution for the individual who felt the need to hold the government/church accountable.<br/>These freedoms are very vital-I thank God that I live in a country where its leaders are able to be held accountable by the population. (I don't know how well we, as a people, are holding our leaders accountable, but the power is there if we choose to use it.) Also, as far as the comic strip that was referred to, I don't know of anything about Freedom of Speech outside the US.<br/>Thanks for letting me post my thoughts. I know I didn't address the issues such as tolerance, or whether or not the cover offended me, but I feel that this is long enough for now. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both items in the US Constitution which are very often mis-interpreted. You need to understand the history behind the formation of the US and the reason for writing the constitution.
The reigning monarch in England controlled the church. King Henry VIII, for instance, had the church change its doctrine in order to allow him to divorce his wives. The government’s control over the church was absolute, to the point where when reformists charged the leadership to repent from the areas they strayed from biblical doctrine, they were persecuted for their “treason.”
When the new world was settled, a lot of the population consisted of people who wanted to practice biblical Christianity-not the resemblance of Christianity that they had left in England-freely and without fear. The Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State were created to allow people to practice their religion without fear of persecution.
Freedom of Speech follows the same lines, where the early leaders of our nation wanted to be sure of the safety of the individual. While I was in high school, there were lots of kids whose language was laced with profanity. Their excuse? Freedom of Speech. However, they were abusing this right. The Freedom of Speech our Founding Fathers envisioned was a freedom from political or religious persecution for the individual who felt the need to hold the government/church accountable.
These freedoms are very vital-I thank God that I live in a country where its leaders are able to be held accountable by the population. (I don’t know how well we, as a people, are holding our leaders accountable, but the power is there if we choose to use it.) Also, as far as the comic strip that was referred to, I don’t know of anything about Freedom of Speech outside the US.
Thanks for letting me post my thoughts. I know I didn’t address the issues such as tolerance, or whether or not the cover offended me, but I feel that this is long enough for now.

]]> By: velut fortune http://www.mandikaye.com/2006/02/09/freedom-of-speech-and-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-4 velut fortune Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:01:05 +0000 http://mandikaye.com/?p=4#comment-4 the word "tolerance" seems to have more than just one meaning. Is tolerance of a belief or in this case, a whole nation, just the ability to ignore them and let them do their thing, or is tolerance necessarily agreeing with their views? i think we've lost the true meaning of tolerance over time... Britain, for example, has a complete tolerence policy. There were Muslim extremists protesting earlier this week, holding up signs for an islamic theocracy, etc. One was ever wearing one of the belts that the suicide bombers wear. Of course the newspapers put his pic up on the front page, and he later got arrested for breaking parol, but i digress; the gov't did nothing to these protestors, no matter how extreme the measures they called for were. although the gov't did arrest those people handing out copies of the comic strip as a counter-protest. "inflammatory" actions, as they called them. and they were; but that is where the whole level of tolerence issue comes in. what is the line between tolerance and danger? between just an offense or a threat to national security? definitely an ambiguous argument, i'm going to be giving it quite a bit of thought. Nice post btw =) the word “tolerance” seems to have more than just one meaning. Is tolerance of a belief or in this case, a whole nation, just the ability to ignore them and let them do their thing, or is tolerance necessarily agreeing with their views? i think we’ve lost the true meaning of tolerance over time… Britain, for example, has a complete tolerence policy. There were Muslim extremists protesting earlier this week, holding up signs for an islamic theocracy, etc. One was ever wearing one of the belts that the suicide bombers wear. Of course the newspapers put his pic up on the front page, and he later got arrested for breaking parol, but i digress; the gov’t did nothing to these protestors, no matter how extreme the measures they called for were. although the gov’t did arrest those people handing out copies of the comic strip as a counter-protest. “inflammatory” actions, as they called them. and they were; but that is where the whole level of tolerence issue comes in. what is the line between tolerance and danger? between just an offense or a threat to national security? definitely an ambiguous argument, i’m going to be giving it quite a bit of thought. Nice post btw =)

]]> By: Amanda http://www.mandikaye.com/2006/02/09/freedom-of-speech-and-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Amanda Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:57:26 +0000 http://mandikaye.com/?p=4#comment-3 My intent was not to suggest that free speech be defined or ruled over. My post is a call--a challenge, if you will--for people to be wise about what they do or say. In essence, I'm asking you to not be hypocritical by asking me to do something you won't. My intent was not to suggest that free speech be defined or ruled over. My post is a call–a challenge, if you will–for people to be wise about what they do or say. In essence, I’m asking you to not be hypocritical by asking me to do something you won’t.

]]> By: GRIFFON NEWS http://www.mandikaye.com/2006/02/09/freedom-of-speech-and-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-2 GRIFFON NEWS Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:35:16 +0000 http://mandikaye.com/?p=4#comment-2 Thanks, Mandi, for your interesting article. <br/><br/>It seems to me that it is precisely when a freedom or a right is exercised in a way that makes us uncomfortable or angry that we discover how much we believe in it.<br/><br/>It is always easy to be tolerant when we agree with the right being tested. All of us love stories about the wonder of newborn babies, but almost none enjoy seeing the icons of our religions trashed. <br/><br/>Your implicit argument that we should not tolerate intolerance is a sticky wicket indeed. Who gets to decide what the criteria for "tolerant"? You? Me?<br/><br/>And anyhow, their is a critical difference between advocating for an idea and overt acts toward accomplishing it. In law, before a person may be charged with criminal conspiracy, they must make an overt act to accomplish the illegal end they have discussed. Free speech covers spoken or written words, but it does not apply to actions.<br/><br/>We may well take issue with the morons who intentionally insult a major medieval system of belief (most all religions, in my mind), but we should never get in the business of deciding what is, or is not, free speech.<br/><br/>Can you imagine how quickly authority would seize the opportunity to define free speech in a way that stifled it? Of course you can. I've found that free speech is like a shining light, and when it illuminates the corruption of the powerful, they scramble like the bugs you see skittling off when you turn over a rock.<br/><br/>We may well deplore stupidity in the press and its consequences. However, from where I sit, consequences are the price we pay for any freedom. And if you aren't willing to pay the price, you don't deserve freedom.<br/><br/>Thanks again for your article.<br/><br/>Will Walker<br/>griffon007@gmail.com Thanks, Mandi, for your interesting article.

It seems to me that it is precisely when a freedom or a right is exercised in a way that makes us uncomfortable or angry that we discover how much we believe in it.

It is always easy to be tolerant when we agree with the right being tested. All of us love stories about the wonder of newborn babies, but almost none enjoy seeing the icons of our religions trashed.

Your implicit argument that we should not tolerate intolerance is a sticky wicket indeed. Who gets to decide what the criteria for “tolerant”? You? Me?

And anyhow, their is a critical difference between advocating for an idea and overt acts toward accomplishing it. In law, before a person may be charged with criminal conspiracy, they must make an overt act to accomplish the illegal end they have discussed. Free speech covers spoken or written words, but it does not apply to actions.

We may well take issue with the morons who intentionally insult a major medieval system of belief (most all religions, in my mind), but we should never get in the business of deciding what is, or is not, free speech.

Can you imagine how quickly authority would seize the opportunity to define free speech in a way that stifled it? Of course you can. I’ve found that free speech is like a shining light, and when it illuminates the corruption of the powerful, they scramble like the bugs you see skittling off when you turn over a rock.

We may well deplore stupidity in the press and its consequences. However, from where I sit, consequences are the price we pay for any freedom. And if you aren’t willing to pay the price, you don’t deserve freedom.

Thanks again for your article.

Will Walker
griffon007@gmail.com

]]>