Free Speech

[Zguy28]

Well, someone being religious does not equate bigotry.

In the example the criteria for derision was pretty broad,, people expressing religious views. (Which could be a "Jesus loves you" sticker.. haha,, look who believes this silly story.. or someone yelling "God Hates Fags".)

In the other thread i really agreed with what Popeman said, in that he doesn't personally agree with it due to his religion, but he's an American and recognize that gives people who he may disagree with the same rights. (paraphrased.)

Not everyone has to change their mind to be tolerant.

~Bang

This is more or less how I feel as well. While I do not believe same-sex marriage is right or a constitutional right, I also recognize that this is the United States and if that is determined to be the law, that is the law. What I was getting at is that I have noticed this "attitude" more and more during conversation, especially online. I'm not out on the streets preaching like Phelps, and I'm protesting or anything else. In fact I don't engage in this debate unless its usually started by somebody else.

It was just an observation. The laws of the land usually end up following the prevailing attitude of the population, and if the population begins to feel that being critical or disagreeing with others on moral issues is no longer a right, and the lawmakers respond, it is possible that amendments get repealed or laws enacted that circumvent them.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Jumbo]

The no-choice argument for gay rights is a bit sketchy. There's a subtle implication that it's bad to be gay, but since it's not a choice, we can't penalize them for it.

Let it be a choice. Society still has no right to treat them differently for making a choice about their own sexuality.

I remember mentally injuring someone when I asked them if black people could choose to be white, and they chose to remain black, would they be doing something wrong. I was just screwing around, but the twitching and spasms that followed were surprisingly energetic.

[SoCalSkins]

Well, someone being religious does not equate bigotry.

In the example the criteria for derision was pretty broad,, people expressing religious views. (Which could be a "Jesus loves you" sticker.. haha,, look who believes this silly story.. or someone yelling "God Hates Fags".)

In the other thread i really agreed with what Popeman said, in that he doesn't personally agree with it due to his religion, but he's an American and recognize that gives people who he may disagree with the same rights. (paraphrased.)

Not everyone has to change their mind to be tolerant.

~Bang

If they want to publicly express views regarding talking snakes, virgin births and eternal torment by not believing as they do, they deserve to be ridiculed.

[Jumbo]

And utlitize strict British libel laws' date=' yes.[/quote']

The end of civilization. I realize I don't even know where to buy a powdered wig (and I thought I was fairly well- informed).

[Zguy28]

I think this is a preview of the next few decades in America. You have the right to hold your religious views but the tide is turning where people holding religious views will be increasingly mocked, ridiculed and marginalized by a growing secular society as they should be in my opinion. You will have to retreat into a religious bubble with like minded people or accept the fact that your views will be viewed as increasingly absurd with each passing year by society.

Yes, but do you believe this will eventually be reflected in legislation? Do you believe religion will cease to be a "protected" classification in the decades to come?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think this is a preview of the next few decades in America. You have the right to hold your religious views but the tide is turning where people holding religious views will be increasingly mocked, ridiculed and marginalized by a growing secular society as they should be in my opinion. You will have to retreat into a religious bubble with like minded people or accept the fact that your views will be viewed as increasingly absurd with each passing year by society.

I saw Tom Wolfe give a lecture about 15 years ago and he made an interesting point. At one point, to be considered "a community leader" in a large American city, you would have to be an active member of the largest Episcopal Church in the city. In modern America, you would have to be a board member of your local Museum of Fine Arts. We are becoming a secularized society in many respects.

Still, we are by far the most religious Western nation.

[Predicto]

Yes, but do you believe this will eventually be reflected in legislation? Do you believe religion will cease to be a "protected" classification in the decades to come?

No. Legislation cannot override the First Amendment, and what you are talking about is a core free speech issue. It is not changing.

[dfitzo53]

No. Legislation cannot override the First Amendment, and what you are talking about is a core free speech issue. It is not changing.

Based on a couple of his posts above I think he meant amending the Constitution to nullify the First Amendment rather than passing a law through Congress. I could be wrong.

[pjfootballer]

The end of civilization. I realize I don't even know where to buy a powdered wig (and I thought I was fairly well- informed).

Bullocks, you don't have a powered wig store on every corner? They are all the rage here.

[Johns Bass]

I remember mentally injuring someone when I asked them if black people could choose to be white, and they chose to remain black, would they be doing something wrong. I was just screwing around, but the twitching and spasms that followed were surprisingly energetic.

Did you ever get an answer or did the poor thing have a mental shutdown and die unable to reboot itself?

[DjTj]

Yes, but do you believe this will eventually be reflected in legislation? Do you believe religion will cease to be a "protected" classification in the decades to come?

I can't see the United States repealing the First Amendment unless there is massive catastrophe that causes us to restructure our government. It would have to be on the level of a global natural disaster that decimated the population, a war where the United States is occupied by a foreign power, or a prolonged civil war that divides the nation. At this point, the First Amendment is probably more core to our identity as a country than any other part of our Constitution.

[SoCalSkins]

Yes, but do you believe this will eventually be reflected in legislation? Do you believe religion will cease to be a "protected" classification in the decades to come?

It will never cease to be protected. The state will never restrict your right to practice your religion. My point is that in my opinion, in the coming decades holding religious beliefs will hold a social stigma of having a lack of intelligence. No one will force a religious person to stop practicing, but society will see that person as an idiot for choosing to do so.

[Destino]

I could see hate speech legislation trying to gain a foothold in the US and being sold as not a overriding of the 1st amendment but simply adding some needed limits to protect certain populations from intimidation. There is too much willingness to compromise when it comes to the bill of rights these days, which really violates what Bill of Rights is supposed to be. The issue in this thread however is not an example of this.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 03:06 PM ----------

It will never cease to be protected. The state will never restrict your right to practice your religion. My point is that in my opinion, in the coming decades holding religious beliefs will hold a social stigma of having a lack of intelligence. No one will force a religious person to stop practicing, but society will see that person as an idiot for choosing to do so.

Different religious views have often looked down on others. Your insulting position is just the latest example of it continuing.

[SoCalSkins]

I could see hate speech legislation trying to gain a foothold in the US and being sold as not a overriding of the 1st amendment but simply adding some needed limits to protect certain populations from intimidation. There is too much willingness to compromise when it comes to the bill of rights these days, which really violates what Bill of Rights is supposed to be. The issue in this thread however is not an example of this.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 03:06 PM ----------

Different religious views have often looked down on others. Your insulting position is just the latest example of it continuing.

Britain basically did what you are talking about in 2006 with their Racial and Religious Hatred act. I don't think that would work in the US without a constitutional amendment. Mr. Bean actually had a great response to the act in Britain:

[Stadium-Armory]

This reminds me of the Chick-fil-a discussion.

I recall supporters of Chick-fil-a saying that their CEO was 'just exercising his first amendment rights'. They complained that people were persecuting him for his opinion and that doing so was a violation of the first amendment. Those people are confused. The first amendment gives him the right to express his opinion but it doesn't require that people who don't like it can't respond. Nobody's suggesting he isn't allowed to have an opinion. Its the content of that opinion that people have a problem with - and - just as Chick-fil-a is free to their opinion, so are consumers free to disapprove of that opinion and make it known by not purchasing the product. And none of it runs afowl of the first amendment or its spirit.

[SWFLSkins]

Speak you're mind, nobody else will.

[Destino]

Britain basically did what you are talking about in 2006 with their Racial and Religious Hatred act. I don't think that would work in the US without a constitutional amendment. Mr. Bean actually had a great response to the act in Britain:

I don't want the government in the business of deciding what ideas they would rather people not be allowed to share. Doesn't matter if it's race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality... or whatever you like.

[Stadium-Armory]

I don't want the government in the business of deciding what ideas they would rather people not be allowed to share. Doesn't matter if it's race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality... or whatever you like.

Like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater?

[Destino]

Like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater?

No. Nothing like that at all actually.

[TheItalianStallion]

Like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater?

FALSELY shouting fire. I know what you meant; it just irritates me that people tend to leave out the most important word.

[Zguy28]

I could see hate speech legislation trying to gain a foothold in the US and being sold as not a overriding of the 1st amendment but simply adding some needed limits to protect certain populations from intimidation. There is too much willingness to compromise when it comes to the bill of rights these days, which really violates what Bill of Rights is supposed to be. The issue in this thread however is not an example of this.

But this is where I was going with it. I realize the First is primarily about govt. my point was that I have witnessed lately a lot of people saying this person or that person (including myself in some cases) doesn't have the right to speak against certain things. In a representative govt this popular sentiment can lead to hate speech legislation like you write about above. The problem with hate speech is how do you define it? Is it like pornography where you can't define it, but you know when you see (or hear) it?

Now to everybody who misinterpreted my OP, I do not think free speech is being taken away right now. That was never my assertion, and I guess I poorly titled the thread. Just wondering about what seems to be a popular sentiment or belief these days and if anyone else was seeing it and thinking down the road. Guess not from the responses. Thanks for the reality check.

[skinsmarydu]

We're all free, by our Constitution, to say what we think. Doesn't mean we have to, but in most cases, the people's will usually wins.