The problem comes when free speech is outlawed for particular ideologies. Religion has been guilty of this as well, and now we have woke.
Soon to come in the USA
- Thread starter Faithoverbelief
- Start date
Well the Biblical testimony says that, but then people pick and choose what else of it they want to believe and what they choose to reject under the pretext of 'interpretation'
Temujin
Well-known member
There are laws restricting free speech, and rightly so. The restrictions are on what can be said, not on who can say it. There are no more restrictions on any particular person or group than any other. Unless of course all they want to say has been restricted. Holocaust deniers for example. Not many people, at least in Europe, would argue that their rights are being infringed.
You can be as vocal a Holocaust denier as you like in America
mikeT
Well-known member
That's an interesting fringe example. You might be surprised by how many people here in the US disagree with the idea of government censorship of that topic - by people on all sides of the political debate.
I'm not trying to open up the topic for discussion here. Instead, I'm pointing to an example of the kind of free speech which tests our (understanding of our) constitutional values.
Yes woke is hate speech and mentally deficient.
But you cant get someone's made up gender wrong in Canada.
And as we have seen here in the UK, a Police Commissioner can make a threat of physical violence against a gay man but people can get arrested for stating biological sex.
So good for America
Temujin
Well-known member
This is dangerous rubbish. In the time of James 1st, the interpretation in vogue was "the Bible tells us to burn witches". James is famous for his English version of the Bible. A generation before, people who translated the Bible into English were burnt to death. Do you think that those responsible for burning fellow human beings in the name of God were not sincere in their belief? Do you think that they had not read the scriptures and studied to find the meanings they did? Other examples abound throughout history and into the present. Zealots, convinced of their righteousness and prepared to kill or maim in its name. Every one of them would claim, as you do "but I am right. I am following the true gospel. Those over there mean well, but they've got the Bible wrong."
Christianity isn't alone in this, of course. Any form of ideology can be the same. It's clear that the Bible is not clear, whatever the zealots might say. Attacking other people on biblical grounds is not acceptable, however sure you might be. The only values that we can sure of, flawed as they may be, are the values of common humanity. It surely cannot be wrong to treat others with compassion and respect, even if you find their situation troubling. IF by any chance, you do find yourself in front of the judgement seat, which position would you rather be in?
" I'm sorry Lord. I thought that I was instructed to treat these people with compassion and respect. I see now that I was wrong"
Or
"I'm sorry Lord, I thought I was instructed to deny these people's existence, to call them sick, liars and bigots, to attack their politics, to accuse them of abusing children. I see now that I was wrong".
What sort of free speech should be restricted. I think yours should and mine shouldnt be
Temujin
Well-known member
Which is why I said Europe. The US escaped most of the adverse affects of WW2, and so don't have the same visceral reaction to fascism. A reaction that Europe is losing as the generation passes
What I like or dislike is irrelevant.
What's your definition of mob rule.
Name that logical fallacy.
There are differences.
The "expense" of not being granted special "rights"?
The "expense" of others not using your preferred pronouns?
What?
There is good example. Nowhere in the NT witness of Christ does it tell believers to burn witches, keep the slave trade or lgbt.. but some do. So its dangerous when people pick and choose like I said.
Oh and the only person calling people bigots is you lol
Temujin
Well-known member
I am well aware that there are very more restrictions on free speech in the UK than the US. What ever suits your own culture, I suppose. In any event, completely free speech, as Elon Musk is finding out, makes a better slogan than a practical application.
Well of course you would consider imposing your ideas, your shoulds, as "rightly so".
Restricted "freedom".....
Lastdaysbeliever
Well-known member
You can also be a politician that is an anti-semite like Omar.
The question is why don't you.
Temujin
Well-known member
Mob rule is the imposition of populist policies using force. Jan 6th last year was an attempt at mob rule . There are many examples of a minority imposing on a majority. Theocracy, plutocracy, autocracy to name but three.
What special rights? What expense are you put to in avoiding deadnaming, other than the expense of not being objectionably rude?
Lastdaysbeliever
Well-known member
I asked how you know.
As far as for me, you are making an assumption, aren't you. You'll find that type of comment in what is a fallacy.
Furion
Well-known member
Probably the only way to get mob rule is a mob, ruling. Like a democracy