Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The Irony That Is Free Speech


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  I am not saying it's a good or bad thing.  I would probably agree with Canadians some times and not others.  

I hear more and more people wanting to remove rights for religions, for example.  I think it will happen at some point but it will be a test of our institutions and it should be.  It should not be a mob of people saying they want something, and having it pushed through without consultation or process.

Freedom of religion must always remain an essential right.  The Soviet Union tried to eliminate the idea of a higher power than the state.  The result was to turn Lenin into a Jesus figure.  Problem is, Lenin was highly imperfect and arguably a social menace during the Bolshevik revolution.  Matters of conscience and personal belief are sacrosanct and must be respected in a free society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

....and that sums-up things these days in a nutshell. We think we have free speech...but in reality, it has been disabled. Your content has been disabled. Now I know CBC comments section is a nes

As long as freedom FROM religion is also written into a charter. I don't want to be forced to respect or praise or ANYTHING...your silly mythology.

Freedom from religion is more essential.  No-one should be prevented from believing whatever they want, or from worshiping whatever they want, as long as such has no effect on anyone else. Accommodati

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Freedom of religion must always remain an essential right.  The Soviet Union tried to eliminate the idea of a higher power than the state.  The result was to turn Lenin into a Jesus figure.  Problem is, Lenin was highly imperfect and arguably a social menace during the Bolshevik revolution.  Matters of conscience and personal belief are sacrosanct and must be respected in a free society.

Freedom from religion is more essential.  No-one should be prevented from believing whatever they want, or from worshiping whatever they want, as long as such has no effect on anyone else. Accommodation should be a bare minimum, almost unnoticeable.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Freedom from religion is more essential.  No-one should be prevented from believing whatever they want, or from worshiping whatever they want, as long as such has no effect on anyone else. Accommodation should be a bare minimum, almost unnoticeable.

Well, people should be free to wear religious symbols, wear religious garments, and have accommodation of religious holidays in the workplace.  Canada has had no trouble making these accommodations. Quebec has had more social tensions with religious diversity, because there's a greater homogeneity of ethnicity, Quebecois (the descendents of New France), so differences of language and cultural expression stand out more outside of major cities  Even Quebec has toned down the rhetoric.  Usually it's the second generation after the immigrant parents that really integrates within the society.  There certainly must be a threshold of values that immigrants must meet to enter the country.  We don't want people in our midst who think that people who have different beliefs than they have should be abused or killed, for example.  Sadly, some of the people who think this way were born and raised in our country.  Every country has a few wolves among the sheep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well, people should be free to wear religious symbols, wear religious garments, and have accommodation of religious holidays in the workplace.  Canada has had no trouble making these accommodations. Quebec has had more social tensions with religious diversity, because there's a greater homogeneity of ethnicity, Quebecois (the descendents of New France), so differences of language and cultural expression stand out more outside of major cities  Even Quebec has toned down the rhetoric.  Usually it's the second generation after the immigrant parents that really integrates within the society.  There certainly must be a threshold of values that immigrants must meet to enter the country.  We don't want people in our midst who think that people who have different beliefs than they have should be abused or killed, for example.  Sadly, some of the people who think this way were born and raised in our country.  Every country has a few wolves among the sheep.

I don't think any employer should have an obligation to give religious holidays.  I want my days off like everyone else, but they don't have to be at Christmas or Easter.

There are too many religions to accommodate all of them.  Holidays should no longer be holy days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Freedom of religion must always remain an essential right. 

2. The Soviet Union tried to eliminate the idea of a higher power than the state.  The result was to turn Lenin into a Jesus figure.  Problem is, Lenin was highly imperfect and arguably a social menace during the Bolshevik revolution. 

3  Matters of conscience and personal belief are sacrosanct and must be respected in a free society.

1. Why 'must' ?  'Always' is a long time and if people want to remove religious rights, even freedom of expression they can do so.  A democratic country can opt out of having elections in the future.

2. Jesus wasn't exactly a peach either.  Remember his rampage in the market ?  Damn socialist...

3.  You and I think so, but the people can choose to reduce their options too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why 'must' ?  'Always' is a long time and if people want to remove religious rights, even freedom of expression they can do so.  A democratic country can opt out of having elections in the future.

2. Jesus wasn't exactly a peach either.  Remember his rampage in the market ?  Damn socialist...

3.  You and I think so, but the people can choose to reduce their options too.

 

On 1. and 3., I'm going to say that religious freedom/freedom of conscious/belief are non-negotiables in a free society.  They must be eternally embedded in a constitution/charter, unable to be altered by any future electoral outcome.

On 2., I'm not suggesting that people should ever be required to follow Jesus or any other religious figure.  I'm merely saying that we must never deify state leaders, as humans are fallible.  There are huge dangers in setting up a society to worship a totalitarian leader, such as an emperor or dictator.  Because homo sapiens has a tendency toward religiosity, there is a danger that by making worship of a God or gods illegal, humans will exalt state leaders to the level of a deity, as happened in the past with figures like Lenin, Stalin, Roman emperors, etc.. 

Political figures MUST be elected.  Certain rights and freedoms MUST be enshrined in law to protect citizens, especially minorities, from the dictatorship of the majority, as even in a democracy it is possible to elect a Hitler, who can then undermine the very underpinning of the democracy, not to mention human rights and freedoms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

On 1. and 3., I'm going to say that religious freedom/freedom of conscious/belief are non-negotiables in a free society.  They must be eternally embedded in a constitution/charter, unable to be altered by any future electoral outcome.

 

As long as freedom FROM religion is also written into a charter. I don't want to be forced to respect or praise or ANYTHING...your silly mythology.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Absolutely

 

That also means that if said religion condones hacking off clitorises or murdering non-believers...I'm gonna call a spade a spade and say I don't want that death cult anywhere near my wife and kids. No matter their precious right of religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well, people should be free to wear religious symbols, wear religious garments, and have accommodation of religious holidays in the workplace.  

Why? I believe people should have a right to private religious belief and practice. Public manifestations of religious affiliation and devotion are bound to generate resentment. Among the people with whom I've been acquainted over the years, the one who was most critical of tolerating the accoutrements of religious fundamentalism was a woman who'd fled post-revolutionary Iran. She noted that Westerners didn't understand the political and philosophical symbolism and messaging inherent in fundamentalist customs and practices. Further, she lamented the cultural trivialization practiced by some "progressive" women who accommodated religious customs on trite grounds, like complimenting the fabric of a woman's burka or niqab, when many of these self-styled progressives otherwise had little or no attachment to any of the religions or religious beliefs associated with their own culture(s). If accommodating religious customs boils down to fashion commentary rather than intellectual critique, how seriously should we take it?

Edited by turningrite
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Why? I believe people should have a right to private religious belief and practice. Public manifestations of religious affiliation and devotion are bound to generate resentment. Among the people with whom I've been acquainted over the years, the one who was most critical of tolerating the accoutrements of religious fundamentalism was a woman who'd fled post-revolutionary Iran. She noted that Westerners didn't understood the political and philosophical symbolism and messaging inherent in fundamentalist customs and practices. Further, she lamented the cultural trivialization practiced by some "progressive" women who accommodated religious customs on trite grounds, like complimenting the fabric of a woman's burka or niqab, when many of these self-styled progressives otherwise had little or no attachment to any of the religions or religious beliefs associated with their own culture(s). If accommodating religious customs boils down to fashion commentary rather than intellectual critique, how seriously should we take it?

Because in the end a garment isn't an infringement on your freedom.  It's not worth fighting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

That also means that if said religion condones hacking off clitorises or murdering non-believers...I'm gonna call a spade a spade and say I don't want that death cult anywhere near my wife and kids. No matter their precious right of religion.

Of course.  We have laws that protect personal safety, both in our Common Law of precedents and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So Ku Klux Klan "garments" that celebrate Canada's history with that organization would be just fine, right ?

No, because there is such a thing as a hate symbol.  If your parents, aunts, and uncles were gassed and cremated in Auschwitz, you would be deeply offended by a swastika flag.  If your brother was lynched by the KKK, seeing a KKK cloak would be offensive.  Obviously.  Deciding which symbols cross the line can be difficult, but in these cases it is easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Because in the end a garment isn't an infringement on your freedom.  It's not worth fighting. 

The relevant issue is not how they intersect with my personal freedom but how they intersect with broader societal objectives like gender equality. Admittedly, I'm a secularist. I believe that religious freedom, as well as the equal right to be free from religion, can only be achieved in a secular society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, because there is such a thing as a hate symbol.

 

No more than "garments" that are hate symbols for women's rights.    Or police uniforms.   Or military uniforms.    Or clergy uniforms.

It's a lot harder to pick than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, because there is such a thing as a hate symbol.  If your parents, aunts, and uncles were gassed and cremated in Auschwitz, you would be deeply offended by a swastika flag.  If your brother was lynched by the KKK, seeing a KKK cloak would be offensive.  Obviously.  Deciding which symbols cross the line can be difficult, but in these cases it is easy.

Might not fundamentalist religious garments be viewed as hateful and/or political symbols by some groups, including refugees who've fled religiously grounded persecution? And what about members of the LGBTQ communities, who've been and remain the targets of religiously grounded persecution in much of the world?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The relevant issue is not how they intersect with my personal freedom but how they intersect with broader societal objectives like gender equality. Admittedly, I'm a secularist. I believe that religious freedom, as well as the equal right to be free from religion, can only be achieved in a secular society.

I believe that is overreaching.  You would have a hard time pushing the gender equality argument to support a ban on the niqab for example, as some of the women who wear such garments proudly claim that it's their right to wear them, that they are exercising their right to freedom of expression under the law, and who are you to decide that they should not?  They are right.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's a ridiculous outfit, but that doesn't give me a right to tell a woman she shouldn't wear it.  To do so is borderline fascist.  It's equally inappropriate to bash a woman for walking around in a bikini.  It may offend your sensibility, but it's not a crime in any measure, nor does it infringe on your personal freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Might not fundamentalist religious garments be viewed as hateful and/or political symbols by some groups, including refugees who've fled religiously grounded persecution? And what about members of the LGBTQ communities, who've been and remain the targets of religiously grounded persecution in much of the world?

Again, you're overreaching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, because there is such a thing as a hate symbol.  If your parents, aunts, and uncles were gassed and cremated in Auschwitz, you would be deeply offended by a swastika flag.  If your brother was lynched by the KKK, seeing a KKK cloak would be offensive.  Obviously.  Deciding which symbols cross the line can be difficult, but in these cases it is easy.

You don't think people who have been oppressed by, who have been tortured by, had family killed by harshly religious Muslim groups would feel the same way? What about people like Irshad Manji or Ayan Hirsi Ali, who have been repeatedly threatened with death by Muslim extremists for campaigning against them? Shouldn't they feel offended or even endangered by being around such women?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Argus said:

You don't think people who have been oppressed by, who have been tortured by, had family killed by harshly religious Muslim groups would feel the same way? What about people like Irshad Manji or Ayan Hirsi Ali, who have been repeatedly threatened with death by Muslim extremists for campaigning against them? Shouldn't they feel offended or even endangered by being around such women?

A niqab and a KKK cloak are vastly different.  A wearer of a niqab may or may not harbor hate.  It's safe to assume that most do not.  It's a religious dress, albeit not mainstream.  KKK cloaks represent racism period.  It's no Shriner's hat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

A niqab and a KKK cloak are vastly different.  A wearer of a niqab may or may not harbor hate.  It's safe to assume that most do not.  It's a religious dress, albeit not mainstream.  KKK cloaks represent racism period.  It's no Shriner's hat.

 

Sure..."death to all infidels and kafir" does not harbour hate, it is just a healthy difference of opinion !

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

A niqab and a KKK cloak are vastly different.  A wearer of a niqab may or may not harbor hate.  It's safe to assume that most do not.  It's a religious dress, albeit not mainstream.  KKK cloaks represent racism period.  It's no Shriner's hat.

A KKK cloak represents a person with a given set of beliefs - which is also what a niqab represents. We know full well that the wearer of either of these is going to dislike Jews because the known beliefs of both fundamentalist Muslims and the KKK are anti-Semitic. Similarly, we know that the doctrine and beliefs of both groups is extremely hostile to homosexuals. 

The belief it is otherwise generally rests on the very conceited western notion that Muslims are just like secular western Christians, and don't really take their doctrine seriously. Yet the fact a woman is willing to wear this... shroud everywhere she goes her whole life tells you how completely devoted she is to her religion and its doctrine. And that includes severe and violently anti-Semitic and homophobic beliefs.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Again, you're overreaching.

I think I'm simply being cognizant of how some might perceive such garments. And it really is about how such garments are interpreted by others that's truly important here. You imply in a previous comment that people should be able to wear religious clothing anywhere, including in workplaces. Why? When I was still working, we were told to dress in a fashion that accommodated the sensibilities of our clients. In particular, we couldn't wear clothing or any other item that connoted a particular political, ethnic, religious or ideological agenda. Had I worn a button saying something like 'Christians are God's true children', I'm sure I would have been told to remove it, and rightfully so. I suspect most employers tend to be highly sensitive to respecting the views and sensibilities of their customers and/or clients. Sometimes it's not about the beliefs of those who insist their choices be accommodated. Rather, it's about integrating into and functioning in the real world, which in the West means respecting the customs of largely secular societies.

Edited by turningrite
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm old enough to recall the Klan & pals losing all their traditional power one day in Greensboro...on live TV.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

Do they still even wear those stupid Spanish hoods?

 

(edit: the Capirote...I learn.)

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...