US constitution- freedom of religion and speech

[Athena]

Legally - the situation has been discussed. From as far as I can see there is complete freedom of opinion and views are not censored (other than under rule 1 against prejudice/plagiarism/vulgarity). what can lead to moderation is the way that arguments are phrased, a refusal to enter debate, a reliance on logical fallacy

 

 

Many threads are closed in speculations (which have no connection to religion) because the OP insists on preaching/soap-boxing an idea and does not enter the debate with members who question his or her assertions. Unless I have missed deleted threads - the last post to be locked in the Religion forum was last month and was locked because it started with an un-necessarily aggressive stance against religious believers. The last one in speculations was 7 days ago and was due to a refusal to engage with questions asked by members. So yes - I believe if one were to preach about the evils of wheat, rather than question and discuss the evils of wheat, it would be against the rules.

 

There is no mention of religion in the rules about preaching and soapboxing nor I do not believe there was ever any intention that there should be, nor that this is implicitly the case due to the actions of the moderators.

 

 

 

I am not going to engage in this discussion if people are going to get defensive. Sorry everyone, many really good things have been said here, and I really wanted to explain what God has to do with democracy and liberty, but continuing a discussion that makes people defensive just is not a good idea.

[Moontanman]

I am not going to engage in this discussion if people are going to get defensive. Sorry everyone, many really good things have been said here, and I really wanted to explain what God has to do with democracy and liberty, but continuing a discussion that makes people defensive just is not a good idea.

 

 

Athena, i wish i could understand what you are saying, or asserting, but in all honesty i have tried now for several years and I am no closer to understanding this X-factor you keep talking about. In fact your ideas seem, to me at least, to be under mining the very concept of liberty. I don't mind admitting I would be very hesitant to move to a society where your ideas were expressed as law.

 

For me the idea of some mysterious something that rules everyone but is unfathomable could be used to justify anything, pretty much the same way god has been used through out history to justify anything the ruling class deemed as correct in the eyes of god...

[D H]

The freedom of speech is an absolute, and should not be curtailed.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are limits. You do not have the right

 

• To create a clear and present danger such as by falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Schenck v. United States (1919).
  
• To incite an imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). (This restricted the Schenck ruling to some extent).
  
• To provoke a reasonable person to the point of fighting with your words. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).
  
• To be extremely crude and vulgar. Miller v. California (1973).
  
• To protest in front of someone's house. Frisby v. Schultz (1988).
  
• To falsely accuse someone of some heinous act. You can be sued, and on some occasions, put in jail.
  
• To have your views expressed in a private forum such as this website. Freedom of speech is a restriction against the government, not a restriction against individuals.

Edited April 21, 2012 by D H

[zapatos]

I am not going to engage in this discussion if people are going to get defensive. Sorry everyone, many really good things have been said here, and I really wanted to explain what God has to do with democracy and liberty, but continuing a discussion that makes people defensive just is not a good idea.

You lost me here. Basically you want to make a point, but not allow someone to make a counterpoint. Seems like your own version of limiting freedom of speech...

[Athena]

You lost me here. Basically you want to make a point, but not allow someone to make a counterpoint. Seems like your own version of limiting freedom of speech...

 

I am having a very difficult time physically for the last 24 hours, and can not trust my judgment nor do I have the energy for detailed explanations. However, I will say it was never my intention to discuss if the moderators have been fair or not. My thoughts and concerns are about changing culture in the US, not the moderators.

 

In a history forum, people are arguing about the best ancient culture, and China's bureaucracy was highly advanced long before Europe developed effective bureaucracy. Is this a plus or a minus? The ancient Athenian understanding of metaphysics gets in the way of such bureaucratic efficiency, and this is tied to our relationship with authority and understanding of law.

 

The female lead of "The Reader" had a technologically correct understanding of authority. Germans were Christians and authoritarian. Christianity without education for democracy, can be authoritarian.

 

Why prevent someone from expressing what s/he believes about God by labeling it preaching, and saying you can't express yourself like that here?

 

Can you explain why you say this?

 

 

Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What has Christianity got to do with German/USA relations. In the reader the female lead was a concentration camp guard who was tried for war crimes, her alleged crimes had little to do with her inability to read.

 

This is a rediculous interpretation of what has happened in England.

 

 

 

 

Once again, a misrepresentation. The church was controlled and financed by the landowners and was part of the state apparatus. The revolution was more about inequality than religion. However, why is "god" essential to our liberty? As far as I know most wars have been fought with "god" supposedly on both sides. God and Liberty are two words which can rarely be used in the same sentence.

 

I know I don't feel well and that that could effect my judgment, but today, I perceive you as attacking me in an insulting way. What do you know of the classics and the revolution in Russia? Is it enough to judge me wrong?

 

I know folks aren't getting it, so I will clarify there is a relationship between the classics and our understanding of God and authority.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Athena

[Athena]

Can you explain why you say this?

 

 

Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What has Christianity got to do with German/USA relations. In the reader the female lead was a concentration camp guard who was tried for war crimes, her alleged crimes had little to do with her inability to read.

 

This is a rediculous interpretation of what has happened in England.

 

 

 

 

Once again, a misrepresentation. The church was controlled and financed by the landowners and was part of the state apparatus. The revolution was more about inequality than religion. However, why is "god" essential to our liberty? As far as I know most wars have been fought with "god" supposedly on both sides. God and Liberty are two words which can rarely be used in the same sentence.

 

Wow, I feel so much better. Now I am ready to answer questions. Let me say, I have often given a lot of thought to how we might disagree with each other without being offensive.

 

What has Christianity got to do with Germany and the US and may add Russia? All these nations and more were Christian. Now they were different flavors of Christian, but the basic mythology is the same. This mythology is about supernatural beings, includes a God who has favorite people, and who gets directly involved in people's lives, punishing and rewarding them as He see fit. A God who also approves of slavery, and led to justifying slavery, and the serf system. Mostly a religion that supports autocratic authority over people, and the notion that someone like Bush junior is doing the will of God when being militarily aggressive and invading countries that God doesn't favor. Like all this has a strong impact on culture.

 

Something else that had a strong impact on cultural is the Greek and Roman classics. Here you have metaphysics instead of religion. The God is unknown, and also called by other names such as prime mover. This God does not have favorites and can not be influenced with sacrifices, burning of candles or prayer, and there is no holy book for this God, but science and a million books that reason why we are as are. Literacy in this God, led to the Enlightenment and rise of democracy, in all the Christian countries.

 

The Enlightenment was more realized in the US than else where, because there was no establishment in the US at the time of the Enlightenment. The people of the US were free to manifest their own establishments, without having to tear down an already established one, and until 1958 the people were educated for this purpose. Now we have to know something of Greek philosophy to grasp the importance of this education. Can ethics be taught? Well, yes and no. The answer really depends on the age of the individual, and liberty depends on mass education for good moral judgment. Why? Well this just is as the laws of nature have made it so, and democracy is suppose is supposed to based on those laws. This is different from laws made by autocracies or say in China where authority set the laws, without citizen participation.

 

What I said of the holy wars is not a misrepresentation of anything, although it is not a complete truth. Complete truths mean huge post that no one reads, and because the guardians of truth are paradox and confusion, not even the best efforts can produce a complete truth, but only a slice of it. Christianity mixed with barbarism lead to warrior cultures and a lot of warring.

 

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are limits. You do not have the right

 

• To create a clear and present danger such as by falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Schenck v. United States (1919).
• To incite an imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). (This restricted the Schenck ruling to some extent).
• To provoke a reasonable person to the point of fighting with your words. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).
• To be extremely crude and vulgar. Miller v. California (1973).
• To protest in front of someone's house. Frisby v. Schultz (1988).
• To falsely accuse someone of some heinous act. You can be sued, and on some occasions, put in jail.
• To have your views expressed in a private forum such as this website. Freedom of speech is a restriction against the government, not a restriction against individuals.

 

 

Or course there are restrictions on freedom of speech and all our freedoms, because we must live by morals. This is universal law. A moral is a matter cause and effect. Something is moral when the effect is good and immoral when the effect is bad. This, by the way, leads to why God is important. God is a point of view that is not limited to our personal point of view. Personally, I think it would great to eliminate many people. By that, I mean kill them. However, I understand if we agree that it is okay to kill based on our personal judgment of who to kill or not kill, there could be some problems with that. So would be there some problems with allowing people to say whatever they want to say. Always, we need to be aware of morals, but how can that happen?

 

Something is immoral because it is destructive. Racism is destructive to democracy, and I personally believe democracy is the way of God, and therefore must be defended. The list of reasons for limiting freedom of speech is excellent. But do these apply to speech regarding our freedom of religion? If someone wants to claim a mountain is sacred ground, what is the harm of this person saying so? If someone wants to say God is a she and wears dresses, what is the harm of saying so? If someone wants to say, God has favorites and rewards of punishes people as He sees fit, what is the harm of saying so? I have a big, big problem with that last one, because those who believe this prevent us from understanding what morals have to do with democracy, but I would not go so far as denying these people freedom of speech. Debate is essential to developing our consciousness, and it also gives us a chance to change what people believe. However, changing what a person believes instead of strengthen it, depends on our approach.

 

What seriously matters is, does the person feel responsible to God or not? To feel responsible to God and hold false beliefs is different from not feeling responsible to God and being without virtues. This is the core issue of this thread. Being wrong in what we believe is not the same as being without virtue. A person who was suspended gave me vitally important information, that might mean I can avoid having days like I had yesterday. How many people have done the college exercise of deciding who to through out of the life boat? When I did this in a college class, the person best suited to increase everyone's chance of survival was among the first to be thrown out of the life boat. Being wrong and being without virtue, are importantly different things. We makes laws against immorality, not against being wrong.

[Sergeant Bilko]

Wow, I feel so much better. Now I am ready to answer questions. Let me say, I have often given a lot of thought to how we might disagree with each other without being offensive.

 

I am please to hear that you are feeling better, life's a bitch when you don't feel well.

 

 

What has Christianity got to do with Germany and the US and may add Russia? All these nations and more were Christian. Now they were different flavors of Christian, but the basic mythology is the same. This mythology is about supernatural beings, includes a God who has favorite people, and who gets directly involved in people's lives, punishing and rewarding them as He see fit. A God who also approves of slavery, and led to justifying slavery, and the serf system. Mostly a religion that supports autocratic authority over people, and the notion that someone like Bush junior is doing the will of God when being militarily aggressive and invading countries that God doesn't favor. Like all this has a strong impact on culture.

 

Athena, this really makes no sense to me, I have read it and tried to understand where you are coming from, but you dont actually say anything tangible. You talk of God but I dont understand how you connect Nazi Germany with the USA and christianity. Unless you are saying that the fact both countries believed God was on their side is proof that God is a made up concept?

 

 

Something else that had a strong impact on cultural is the Greek and Roman classics. Here you have metaphysics instead of religion. The God is unknown, and also called by other names such as prime mover. This God does not have favorites and can not be influenced with sacrifices, burning of candles or prayer, and there is no holy book for this God, but science and a million books that reason why we are as are. Literacy in this God, led to the Enlightenment and rise of democracy, in all the Christian countries.

 

Why the bold text, when you overuse it so it ceases to have the desired impact. There is no doubt that Greek and Roman culture had strong impacts upon our civilisations, as did Egyptian, ancient Chinese and many others. Please can you explain what you mean, by "This God", which God? You do know that not all democracies are in Christian countries, and that not all Christian countries are democracies don't you? Indeed, my own, the UK was an absolute monarchy for 1651 years from the birth of Christ until a man called Oliver Cromwell replaced the monarchy by a partially elected system. It was almost 300 years later that it became a true democracy. Where was "This God" all of that time?

 

 

The Enlightenment was more realized in the US than else where, because there was no establishment in the US at the time of the Enlightenment. The people of the US were free to manifest their own establishments, without having to tear down an already established one, and until 1958 the people were educated for this purpose. Now we have to know something of Greek philosophy to grasp the importance of this education. Can ethics be taught? Well, yes and no. The answer really depends on the age of the individual, and liberty depends on mass education for good moral judgment. Why? Well this just is as the laws of nature have made it so, and democracy is suppose is supposed to based on those laws. This is different from laws made by autocracies or say in China where authority set the laws, without citizen participation.

 

Sorry, I dont understand this at all, your points are lost on me.

 

 

What I said of the holy wars is not a misrepresentation of anything, although it is not a complete truth. Complete truths mean huge post that no one reads, and because the guardians of truth are paradox and confusion, not even the best efforts can produce a complete truth, but only a slice of it. Christianity mixed with barbarism lead to warrior cultures and a lot of warring.

 

Sorry to disagree, but you did totally misrepresent English history, and the causes of the Russian revolution in your earlier post, and I strongly recommend that you read up on it. There is absolutely tons of information freely available. Bolding your text also does not make it a truth, but if you would like to post exactly what you mean by Complete truths, with the associated facts I would be most grateful.

[Athena]

Athena, i wish i could understand what you are saying, or asserting, but in all honesty i have tried now for several years and I am no closer to understanding this X-factor you keep talking about. In fact your ideas seem, to me at least, to be under mining the very concept of liberty. I don't mind admitting I would be very hesitant to move to a society where your ideas were expressed as law.

 

For me the idea of some mysterious something that rules everyone but is unfathomable could be used to justify anything, pretty much the same way god has been used through out history to justify anything the ruling class deemed as correct in the eyes of god...

 

Can you explain how the X works in algebra?

 

What is the objection to laws based on our knowledge of nature and universal laws? How do you understand the bases of democratic laws?

 

Yes, I am also finding science is really unfathomable. I was really trying hard to grasp what was being said in the thread about orbiting electrons, but do not have a good understanding of all the theories, and then when I couldn't follow someone explanation because it was delete, I was so upset I could no longer focus on a question I have asking for many years. What determines the spin? It seems to mean the big bang could have resulted for a reverse spin, creating a yin and yang effect, resulting in everything coming out of nothing. This stuff is really hard for me to fathom. Something mysterious controls the whole of reality, and you don't have a problem with it. You only have a problem the word "God".

 

I am strongly opposed to the mythology of the God of Abraham, so why do you keep referring to this God's mythology when you argue with me?

 

When you think of right and wrong, what is your point of view? Do you come from your personal point of view, or attempt to imagine universal law? Is your time frame the present, or several generations in the past and future?

 

I am please to hear that you are feeling better, life's a bitch when you don't feel well.

 

 

 

 

Athena, this really makes no sense to me, I have read it and tried to understand where you are coming from, but you dont actually say anything tangible. You talk of God but I dont understand how you connect Nazi Germany with the USA and christianity. Unless you are saying that the fact both countries believed God was on their side is proof that God is a made up concept?

 

 

 

 

[/b]Why the bold text, when you overuse it so it ceases to have the desired impact. There is no doubt that Greek and Roman culture had strong impacts upon our civilisations, as did Egyptian, ancient Chinese and many others. Please can you explain what you mean, by "This God", which God? You do know that not all democracies are in Christian countries, and that not all Christian countries are democracies don't you? Indeed, my own, the UK was an absolute monarchy for 1651 years from the birth of Christ until a man called Oliver Cromwell replaced the monarchy by a partially elected system. It was almost 300 years later that it became a true democracy. Where was "This God" all of that time?

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I dont understand this at all, your points are lost on me.

 

 

 

 

Sorry to disagree, but you did totally misrepresent English history, and the causes of the Russian revolution in your earlier post, and I strongly recommend that you read up on it. There is absolutely tons of information freely available. Bolding your text also does not make it a truth, but if you would like to post exactly what you mean by Complete truths, with the associated facts I would be most grateful.

 

How well educated are you in the classics, the spread of them, and result of popular awareness of them? How did you go about gaining this knowledge? Was it college classes or a informal, personally directed education? Maybe you can give us some pointers on how to be well informed? Personally, I enjoy tapes from The Teaching Company, and books are also valuable. One of my favorite books is "The Great Political Thinkers" and one of my favorite thinkers is Cicero, although I do fault him for his failure to understand economic reality and its effect on social/ political conditions.

 

I bold my text for those who only skim, hoping they will notice the important points, and knowing they will not read all the explanations.

 

Can you explain your failure to understand why no one can write a book telling us everything we need to know. I think it would be easier for you to write that explanation, than for me to explain why it can not be done. For one thing, our logic is linear and reality is not. In the east it is known that whenever we speak of one thing, we speak of the opposite as well, but in the west this is not understood. Secondly, not even encyclopedias contain the whole truth.

[Sergeant Bilko]

Athena, please don't think that I am being rude, I do not wish to cause you any offence, but you have not answered any questions or explained what on earth you are talking about. We really are not getting anywhere unless you explain to us what you mean. It also seems to be a far cry from the original post about freedom of speech. I suspect that you actually wanted the post to be about this mysterious "God" you mention who is not the God of Abraham.

[Athena]

Athena, please don't think that I am being rude, I do not wish to cause you any offence, but you have not answered any questions or explained what on earth you are talking about. We really are not getting anywhere unless you explain to us what you mean. It also seems to be a far cry from the original post about freedom of speech. I suspect that you actually wanted the post to be about this mysterious "God" you mention who is not the God of Abraham.

 

Frankly, I am blown away by the communication problem. Yes, this did get far from constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion, and I am really disappointed about that. Thomas Jefferson wrote of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", and he picked this up from the Roman Statesman Cicero who studied in Athens. I did not realize this is so mysterious to everyone, or that a discussion of this would be so impossible.

 

Whatever, things are going badly, and I better take my leave before they get worse. I am curious if you all know of the Deist and that Jefferson edited everything out of the bible that is not compatible with science? Strange and mysterious God? I don't think so. It is perhaps the most part of our history and directly tied to our constitutional freedoms. Oh well, I better stay gone for while.

[CaptainPanic]

How does this absolve them of the responsibility for what they have said?

It doesn't.

 

But some people use their freedom of speech to offend. And when offensive comments lead to an argument, some people hide behind their freedom of speech, saying that people cannot be angry at them, because they did not break any laws, because after all, it's freedom of speech.

 

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are limits.

Yeah, I agree, as I already said in this post. I was wrong saying it's an absolute, and I don't remember what I was thinking when I wrote that down. I know that there are limits to the freedom of speech, and I agree with it.

[Athena]

Athena,

 

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but this "X factor" that you speak of is your idea of an objective standard that we can use for testing our actions against in order to build a future that is "good for us". Yes? Yet this idea you have has no substance as of now. It is something that you are wishing to find so that you "know" you are right, moral, sensible and forthright in your decisions towards the future that you seek. It would a tool that we could use to convince people of the legitimacy of various actions.

 

You have also created a target for action it seems, the target of liberty, and are convinced of its righteousness as a goal and believe there is this X factor that will prove to us that it was the true path of our race after all. I don't believe in the X factor i'm sorry. I think humans make their own standards and try and move in a direction that satisfies them. Even a standard such as happiness with its mundane chemical causes and gordian social causes is still a standard that various individual's [decide?] upon.

 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with arguing for liberty (or happiness), but this X factor is the weakest point of your argument. It is baseless at present and belongs in the realm of mysticism. Inciting it as a reason that people 'should' believe in it due to then being able to assent to the ideal of liberty more readily makes it more so. Solid arguments are built on solid foundations.

 

Apologies if i offend, and like i said, forgive me if i'm wrong

 

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. Unfortunately, I am running scared. I pissed some mods off, and anyone can be banned when the mods are pissed, because if we are breaking the rules bad enough to be banned, or not, is a matter of opinion, and pissing mods off can lead to them justifying banning someone, so it is my intention to stay gone for awhile, until things cool down. But now I am in a bind because things really could look bad if I don't justify my argument and that this thread as political in nature. Like what happens between an individual and a forum is not earth shaking, but how we understand our freedoms, and how they are protected, for example trail by a jury of peers, can be an earth shaking matter. Especially today, we could plug trail information into a computer and save the cost of a jury. That may or may not get a more just judgment. Or just skip the trail and rely on Home Land Security. Anyway, I just found this and I think this is where the argument begins.

 

 

 

<b>http://www.spaceandm...oicism-Zeno.htm<br data-mce-bogus="1"></b>

 

 

God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. In one sense, every life is in harmony with Nature, since it is such as Nature's laws have caused it to be; but in another sense a human life is only in harmony with Nature when the individual will is directed to ends which are among those of Nature. Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature. The wicked, though perforce they obey God's law, do so involuntarily; in the simile of Cleanthes, they are like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes. In the life of an individual man, virtue is the sole good; such things as health, happiness, possessions, are of no account. Since virtue resides in the will, everything really good or bad in a man's life depends only upon himself. He may be poor, but what of it? He can still be virtuous. He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly, like Socrates. Other men have power only over externals; virtue, which alone is truly good, rests entirely with the individual. Therefore every man has perfect freedom, provided he emancipates himself from mundane desires. (Zeno of Citium, 300 - 260 B.C.)

<b><br data-mce-bogus="1"></b>

 

We all participate in asking and answering the questions. It is an on going process in a democracy, where there is rule by reason, not men ruling over men, and I feel betrayed by someone I considered a friend for so distorting my position on this matter. Without mods and gods, there is only our arguments until we have agreement on the best reasoning. Unlike the word of God, it is logos, our own reasoning of the reason something is good or bad. This depends on our virtue. Those without virtue can not be given unrestricted freedom of speech and those with virtues should not be denied freedom of speech. It frightens me when people argue in favor of ruling like the church of old, or a country that denies freedom of speech. Such denial of freedom of speech is also denial of the freedom to seek truth. It is so different to say you are wrong, and to provide better reasoning, than to say you can't say that, because it is really ignorant. The one advances knowledge and the other advances unequal power. What is our reasoning, and how do we make sure that reason has the power of our culture?

 

"If we want freedom, we must extend it to everyone, whether rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin." Wendell Willkie, did not say no matter what their religion, but the constitution of the United States does. That is, words can be said, so long as they do not violate human decency. But our technological society is moving towards technological correctness and this is equal to the control of the church of old. It is dangerous and we should not go there. Freedom, even when we disagree. And for darn sure I am preaching- as though my life, my country, and the future of the children I love, depends on this. I am speaking from my heart and feel the passion, and know this is preaching. God forgive me if I am wrong.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Athena

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. Unfortunately, I am running scared. I pissed some mods off, and anyone can be banned when the mods are pissed, because if we are breaking the rules bad enough to be banned, or not, is a matter of opinion, and pissing mods off can lead to them justifying banning someone, so it is my intention to stay gone for awhile, until things cool down.

You have my assurance that this (a) does not happen, and (b) will not happen in this case. Nobody is banned without several prior warnings, an explanation of what they're doing wrong, and the consensus of several staff members, and we really have no reason to ban you.

 

I'm offended that you think we're so petty, but my ego did not write the forum rules.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I appreciate this is off topic, but since Athena has decided to enter personal grievances in a thread and not to the people who are supposedly out to get her, I am posting this for clarification's sake:

 

The only bind you're in is the one you've constructed in your own head. Athena, none of the mods are or have been mad at you for anything that I am aware of and even if we were, we'd hardly stoop so low as to ban you on the basis of personal opinions of your character. However, it would nice all the same if you could extend us a courtesy and stop accusing us of things we've not done.

 

Edit: cross posted with the Cap'n. What he said.