There are several reasons why this blogger is writing this blog. One reason is to resist those who misunderstand and/or attempt to violate the US Constitution. Several months ago, the following Facebook post made the rounds:
"The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Kansas based Westboro church, that they have the right to protest at military funerals, calling your sons, daughters, husbands, or wives inappropriate names, while you're grieving the loss of your loved one, a real true American, a real true Patriot. Westboro church members, I invite you to start your protest in my front yard and we can see if your 1st amendment right is better than my 2nd amendment right. Re-post if you have a pair!"
A few days ago, one of my Facebook friends posted it. Following was my response:
Me: ___, what part of the 1st Amendment do you not understand? They were on public property, had a permit and were peaceful. Also, I think it is inflammatory to use the threat of violence (2nd Amendment) and unreasonable to think that they would come on YOUR property, as they were on PUBLIC property here.
Friend: Tom, you fascinate me. Here you are, an activist atheist zealously spreading the word that human reason is supreme. Yet you defend a group of moral and intellectual furballs who'd destroy you for your beliefs if they had the chance. Sure, what Westboro did was legal but it was still wrong. They know it. The justices who wrote their legal opinion knew they were wrong. YOU know they were wrong. We don't need legality, Tom, we need decency. Somehow reason always falls through.
Me: ___, you still didn't tell me what part of the First Amendment you do not understand. This is a free speech issue PERIOD. Do I like the Phelps or what they do, or think they are good people? Of course not. The Constitution protects the MINORITY from oppression. If the majority thinks that Christianity is wrong and offensive, should the government stop Christian activities? I assume (and forgive me if I am wrong), from the tone and content of your comments on Facebook, that you are a Christian with firm beliefs. You probably are a Republican politically who wants the government to support the Constitution. Do you want the government to ONLY support what YOU like about this supreme law of the land? Peace and have a good day. Reason foremost, ___.
Friend: Funny thing about the Constitution......the Bill of Rights......(and yes, I understand the five freedoms of the First Amendment).......the Bible, contracts......and other laws, People have quite a penchant for finding ways around them or twisting them to make them say what you want. Now we have a world where right is wrong and wrong is right depending on how a judge "interprets" a law to make his/her "decision". It's a joke, Tom, and this joke is just not funny.
Me: ___, it is the attitude and ignorance that you are expressing that motivates me to speak out the way I do. Regarding this issue, you are conflating disgusting behavior with the rights we have under the Constitution. The Founding Fathers understood that our representative democracy was fragile and an experiment. They had their doubts whether future generations could keep it. NO ONE has the RIGHT not to be offended!! You should hope this country continues to exist under a Constitution that allows free expression of ideas that are offensive to some, or even the majority. The alternative is too scary for me to contemplate.
Friend: Ignorance, huh? I can deal without the insults, Tom.....oh I forgot, you have the Constitutional right to express yourself and offend people, so stick it.
Me: "so stick it." Nice, ___. Ignorance = lack of knowledge or understanding. It is not a personal slam, like your statement. That you are ignorant on this issue is a statement of fact. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge and understanding of the First Amendment. My only question is "Are you willfully so?" I am done on this post. If you wish to continue this conversation, please send me a message. Good bye.
My friend, almost immediately after my last comment, de-friended me and deleted the entire post, with comments, from his wall.
This blogger has some further thoughts on this issue. Why is it so difficult for some people to see that what we personally find offensive may not be offensive to others and, in fact, others may view the speech content as good and important? Why do these same people fail to see the danger of preventing free and legal (not inciting or obscene) speech of others, as it could also effect their ability to speak freely? Why do Christians fail to see that what the Phelps state during these protests is based on biblical teachings?
Following are some examples of signs and billboards that have been called offensive by some. One has to be willing to accept all of these so that your opinions are also able to be freely expressed. Any guesses which of these this blogger finds offensive and which are important opinions to state?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.