All groups of people are entitled to their rights under law.
However, Islamists are not well-meaning idiots. They are smart, and they know full well liberal democracies protect their speech and assembly, so they take full advantage of it.
Here is the crux: the Islamists will use every liberal freedom available in order to advance a mission that would undo all the liberal freedoms they are using. But that can’t possibly be right - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Using our laws as a shield to protect them while they plot to overthrow our laws is a clever machination - and one completely contradictory to a right for a free nation to defend the freedoms it provides.
Utilizing free speech to end free speech - only a fool would be so doctrinaire to let it get that far. Is the line difficult to draw? No question. But that doesn’t mean that we, if we are truly interested in defending our values, our way of life, and our liberal democracy, shouldn’t look about drawing one. Without it, there is no viable way to defend yourself from within, and no democracy is safe.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In order to be a loser, you have to lose.[/quote]
Ahahahahaha. What pedantry! You are certainly a loser, so you’d best reexamine your catchy little rejoinder.
Thunderdolt, what you seem to be missing, is that I have argued my interpretation of rights, as accruing to citizens unless denied by laws, and then taken that to it’s logical conclusion with respect to the gay marriage issue. This is perhaps how the judge in question ruled, I’m not sure since I wasn’t the judge, but it makes logical sense to me.
This doesn’t mean that people can’t work to enact laws prohibiting gay marriage.
However, people who are incredibly upset and are screaming “judicial fiat” sound like bigots. Sorry, but that is the truth. I haven’t heard good reasons to disallow gay marriage, other than pure simple emotional preference, which again, may signify bigotry.
Boohoo.
With respect to Islamic fundamentalism, there are clear and present dangers. I think everyone understands these dangers. We can look to New York to get a clear view of such dangers. Even so, we still have the rule of law to follow, the rights of citizens (all citizens) to protect and so on.
If someone were to work to change laws to protect society from the dangers of fundamentalist Islamic groups, such as the anti-terrorism laws enacted by most western civilizations, I don’t think many would consider it bigotry. I’ve even suggested further changes for consideration a few posts back.
Don’t confuse the fact that we are on the different side of some issues with the silly notion that I don’t have principles in place that I follow. I think they are the ones that I say they are… and you apparently think I’m lying.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why any of this matters…
All groups of people are entitled to their rights under law.
However, Islamists are not well-meaning idiots. They are smart, and they know full well liberal democracies protect their speech and assembly, so they take full advantage of it.
Here is the crux: the Islamists will use every liberal freedom available in order to advance a mission that would undo all the liberal freedoms they are using. But that can’t possibly be right - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Using our laws as a shield to protect them while they plot to overthrow our laws is a clever machination - and one completely contradictory to a right for a free nation to defend the freedoms it provides.
Utilizing free speech to end free speech - only a fool would be so doctrinaire to let it get that far. Is the line difficult to draw? No question. But that doesn’t mean that we, if we are truly interested in defending our values, our way of life, and our liberal democracy, shouldn’t look about drawing one. Without it, there is no viable way to defend yourself from within, and no democracy is safe.[/quote]
About time you got down to the actual issues.
Now, the next step, since western societies are nations of laws, is to find ways to protect ourselves that don’t violate our own principles (as outlined or defined in our constitutions).
Oh, fine then, please do carry on. I am sure this will be amusing. I am already amused that you think I am not someone who believes in the rule of law and the protection of rights.[/quote]
No, just some rights for some people.
Yes, and done poorly. Six years into the war on terror - where is the police state? The Patriot Act gulags? The criminal punishment of dissent?
Oh, I see them just fine, and I reiterate - you have holes in your thinking. I think you are a creature of your own arrogance and you have reached the point that you really don’t defend your ‘principles’ all that well from people who challenge them - instead, you chastise them for not ‘getting it’. Again, you don’t make a defense of your principles - you state them, and if people differ or have a problem with them, you sanctimoniously inform them there is no way your ‘principles’ could ever be assailed.
It doesn’t bother me as a personal matter, but if someone were that solid in principles, they could defend them without resorting to such condescension, smugness, and sensitivity. But alas - you don’t, and it makes you look weak.
Fantastic! On a second read, it really is there!! You actually called someone else verbose!!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, and done poorly. Six years into the war on terror - where is the police state? The Patriot Act gulags? The criminal punishment of dissent?[/quote]
Nobody said it would happen overnight. However, just wait, eventually another Nixon will come along to abuse authority and use it for personal gain.
Your lack of vision does not mean that the danger does not exist.
Welcome to the politics forum. It’s where we pick on each other and throw insults all around.
By the way… this describes you very well, “condescension, smugness, and sensitivity.” I really do recommend buying that metallic coated flat glassy thing one of these days. I’m not sure any of us don’t show those qualities in here from time to time.
Try not to let your opinion of me cloud your view of what it is I’m saying.
Ahahahahaha. What pedantry! You are certainly a loser, so you’d best reexamine your catchy little rejoinder.[/quote]
I fail to understand the name-calling. How do you find that I am a loser? Did I lose the debate? Am I a failure professionally? With the women? Again, name-calling is really what you do best. So when I start to call you names, are you going to snivel and tear up like you normally do?
That is because you are ignorant of the issue - marriage is a positive right. If no one creates it, you can say you are married in spirit all you want, but there is no legal recognition or benefit - there is no institution. You say no one is denied gay marriage, but no is afforded it either, as a matter of law - it is simply silent. So you can have two gay people saying they are married because that right exists until someone takes it away, but there is no positive law, so really there is no right at all - you get no tax benefits, no social security benefits, etc.
Absolute nonsense - and here is where you expose not only your lack of intelligence on the matter, but that you don’t listen. Everyone who was screaming “judicial fiat” on the matter was making the same damn argument that you are doing for the Islamists - that the group, whether we like it or not, has democratic rights that no judge can monarchically waive away just because he may think gays should get married.
See? You are too motivated by political sensitivities to see the issue as it has been presented to you over and over. You conveniently brand those that claim “judicial fiat” as bigots, but you see what you want for therapeutic reasons. Everyone in that thread was trying to explain to you that it was a matter of democratic rights - Boston, me, Pookie - but you put your head into the sand and ignored the democratic argument - the same democratic argument you think so fantastic for the Islamists.
You are a fool. You hear what you want because it makes you feel better. The “judicial fiat” crowd was all about the importance of the democratic process being observed - something you want to champion now - but you ignored all that argumentation and replaced it with the cheap slur that we all sound like our motivation is bigotry. It was there for you to read - but it’s better to call us all bigots, aye? Certainly easier. But then easy is what you want - having to legitimately defend your ideas doesn’t comport with the mindless worship you crave.
Look up the phrase “judicial fiat” - and educate yourself by listening to what people are saying.
[quote]I haven’t heard good reasons to disallow gay marriage, other than pure simple emotional preference, which again, may signify bigotry.
Boohoo.[/quote]
Good, and I haven’t heard good reasons for it. Cheers.
Not you.
No, not lying, just without depth.
Honestly, I do after reading nearly very post by you. Extra instructions not necessary.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If this post wasn’t a ROYAL REAMING of Vroom (and modern rubber-definition liberalism), then I don’t know what is!
[/quote]
Headhunter, I hope you’ve been reading along carefully.
You are another person that needs to learn to discern what is being said instead of simply making assumptions based on who is doing the speaking and whether or not it is aligned with your own viewpoint.
Just because he’s attacking me, that doesn’t excuse his sloppy logic nor his wild assumptions. You however, show your normal propensity to swallow such shit whole and cheer it on.
I guess this is like your favorite infotainment channel? It says things that sound good and attacks those you don’t like, so you don’t bother to actually do any thinking for yourself to figure out what principles are actually involved…
Just because he’s attacking me, that doesn’t excuse his sloppy logic nor his wild assumptions. You however, show your normal propensity to swallow such shit whole and cheer it on.[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I fail to understand the name-calling. How do you find that I am a loser? Did I lose the debate? Am I a failure professionally? With the women? Again, name-calling is really what you do best. So when I start to call you names, are you going to snivel and tear up like you normally do?[/quote]
LOL!
Ah, so when others disagree with you, they are ignorant of the issue. However, you want to label me as condescending? People have different views, interpretations, which do not equate to ignorance.
Yes, I should not insult, or I should only insult in the manner you choose to throw insults, right?
No, you once again make something up because you either don’t see or don’t agree with what others are saying.
Another view of the matter simply has the judge affirming rights based on a higher law, the constitution.
Now, we can argue all day about whether or not such a right exists, or whether it should exist, and so on. However, for those with such a view, your little argument falls flat.
Your view seems to imply that people have a right to impose laws that appear to contradict the protections afforded to citizens via the constitution. Again, the debate is arguable, but your disagreement with the opposing side does not dismiss the principles that they are standing upon.
No, I disagree with where the rights stem from, and what level those rights originate at.
The fact that you disagree with me, is fine, but unfortunately, your own judicial system seems to have come up with an interpretation somewhat similar to mine.
Deal with it.
This is where I think you got your feelings hurt. The fact that people are following a democratic process does not stop them from being bigots.
It just turns out, in this case, that the local legislature got slapped for enacting a law proposed by bigots and put in place to protect the sensibilities of bigots.
Now, this judges decision may very well be overturned. However, I’ll stop thinking the people worried about this are bigots when they can come up with good reasons to deny gay marriage.
[quote]Look up the phrase “judicial fiat” - and educate yourself by listening to what people are saying.
[/quote]
I’ve also seen a recent sitting member of the supreme court (of the US) talking about the current agenda by many to decry legislating from the bench.
This judge went to great lengths to say that this was untrue and harmful. Go and educate yourself. Again, you complain that I am condescending? We have different views… it does not mean that mine are baseless.
In a society where rights are there except where taken away (and yes, I saw your little infotainment diatribe on the topic) there don’t need to be good reasons to allow something.
For example, I could dye my hair blue tomorrow. There is no good reason for it, but that doesn’t mean society should outlaw it. Your little statement seems to imply that anything that hasn’t been approved should thus be outlawed.
I really doubt you mean that, but I must say I am certainly for the rights and freedoms of people over the blatant outlawing of actions by citizens for no particular reason.
I serious think you should consider the implications of this area. Why should citizens be restricted from lawful actions for no reason, simply because they haven’t been explicitly approved?
Am I really the one that is inconsistent?
Oh, did you ask why you were a loser earlier?
Oh, and I suppose I am at error for thinking the word “sham” suggests a deception?
Perhaps I should spend an entire thread talking about how you changed your intended meaning from “sham” to “shallow”?
Now, the next step, since western societies are nations of laws, is to find ways to protect ourselves that don’t violate our own principles (as outlined or defined in our constitutions).[/quote]
Not unusual for you, this is a throwaway abstract sentence. There is no one, regardless of politics, that doesn’t think that in the Age of Terror, we need to find ways to protect ourslves that don’t violate our own principles.
That is meaningless - there is nothing useful about that statement. You might as well said that grass is green, but then, you seem to specialize in taking common knowledge and presenting it as deep thinking. It never works, by the way.
The problem, of course, is that there irreconcilable problems, because the Islamists know about the law and how to do what they need to do to technically stay within the law. It would different altogether if a line could be drawn between free assembly to discuss political ideology and meeting to draw up plans to run into the Capitol building with guns and strap-on bombs. Those are easy, discernible.
The problem is the Islamists know that everything they do must be couched in the image of ‘just meeting to talk politics’ to enjoy the privileges of the law, but they are plotting all the same as the most obvious battle plan meeting to overthrow the government. A gray area emerges, one that Islamists plan on exploiting.
There will be gray areas because of this terrorist learning curve, so a presumption will have to be made when there is imperfect information. Because of the First Amendment, we will often never be able to know if there is an outright plotting going on or just political-type speech.
So what do we presume them to be doing? We have to presume something, and that choice matters to our security.
Now, the next step, since western societies are nations of laws, is to find ways to protect ourselves that don’t violate our own principles (as outlined or defined in our constitutions).
[/i][/b]
Not unusual for you, this is a throwaway abstract sentence. There is no one, regardless of politics, that doesn’t think that in the Age of Terror, we need to find ways to protect ourslves that don’t violate our own principles.
[/quote]
Oh please. Try not to let your hatred get in the way of common sense. There are plenty of knee-jerking people who don’t care whether or not we violate our own principles.
Just look at the issue of torture. Torture, in and of itself, violates all kinds of principles that many people purport to hold, whether or not those principles are enshrined in the constitution.
Yes, of course, we can argue back and forth as to how to define torture and whether or not what is being done constitutes torture. We can even argue about whether or not in some cases it could be justified.
If nothing else, my statement is a defining statement that will help some people, obviously not yourself, understand where my own viewpoints will be originating from.
You would do much better to argue the issues instead of looking for ways to point me out to be stupid, ignorant and lacking intelligence. That seems to be an important theme or motive for you in this thread.
Does the term blowhard mean anything to you?
[quote]The problem, of course, is that there irreconcilable problems, because the Islamists know about the law and how to do what they need to do to technically stay within the law. It would different altogether if a line could be drawn between free assembly to discuss political ideology and meeting to draw up plans to run into the Capitol building with guns and strap-on bombs. Those are easy, discernible.
The problem is the Islamists know that everything they do must be couched in the image of ‘just meeting to talk politics’ to enjoy the privileges of the law, but they are plotting all the same as the most obvious battle plan meeting to overthrow the government. A gray area emerges, one that Islamists plan on exploiting.
There will be gray areas because of this terrorist learning curve, so a presumption will have to be made when there is imperfect information. Because of the First Amendment, we will often never be able to know if there is an outright plotting going on or just political-type speech.
So what do we presume them to be doing? We have to presume something, and that choice matters to our security.[/quote]
LOL! Bwahahahahahaha! The grass is green indeed. Ahahahahahaha. Priceless.
Substitute “bank robbers” and “money” for “islamists” and “politics/idealogy” in your little gem above.
[quote]The problem, of course, is that there irreconcilable problems, because the bank robbers know about the law and how to do what they need to do to technically stay within the law. It would different altogether if a line could be drawn between free assembly to discuss money and meeting to draw up plans to run into the bank with guns and strap-on bombs. Those are easy, discernible.
The problem is the bank robbers know that everything they do must be couched in the image of ‘just meeting to talk money’ to enjoy the privileges of the law, but they are plotting all the same as the most obvious battle plan meeting to rob the bank. A gray area emerges, one that bank robbers plan on exploiting.
There will be gray areas because of this bank robber learning curve, so a presumption will have to be made when there is imperfect information. Because of the First Amendment, we will often never be able to know if there is an outright plotting going on or just money-type speech.
So what do we presume them to be doing? We have to presume something, and that choice matters to our security.[/quote]
Have you considered buying that little flat glass thing with a metallic backing yet?
[quote]vroom wrote:
[About his principles] I think they are the ones that I say they are…[/quote]
Is that per thread? Per week? How does your revolving principles scheme work? Depending on the topic of the thread, you favor various principles differently.
On gay marriage, opponents are labeled bigots, and do not get the curtesy of having their right to free speech wordily defended; but when Islamic groups wish to replace a modern country’s constitution with their favored theocratic model (in which you’ll lose a lot more than gay marriage) they are not decried as bigots, but are defended as being allowed free speech.
I don’t know how it can be explained to you any clearer.
Just answer this: Why are fundamentalist Christians opposed to gay marriage labeled bigots and decried by you; while fundamentalist muslims opposing the Australian constitution have their right to free speech championed?
In both cases, a minority group wishes to curtail the freedoms of others. Why is your reaction almost diametrically opposed?
Ah, so when others disagree with you, they are ignorant of the issue. However, you want to label me as condescending? People have different views, interpretations, which do not equate to ignorance.[/quote]
No, Vroom - you are ignorant not of my opinion, but of the general knowledge of positive rights. I didn’t make up the concept, it’s not an opinion - yet you don’t seem to understand how that works. Whether gay marriage is a positive right or not is not a view or interpretation - it is a matter of definition.
A definition you don’t know. No problem, but stop pretending that your “interpretation” somehow disqualifies it as such. It is not for you to intepret.
No, I just wonder why you begin with insults. Once the gloves are off, it is open season.
[quote]No, you once again make something up because you either don’t see or don’t agree with what others are saying.
Another view of the matter simply has the judge affirming rights based on a higher law, the constitution. [/quote]
Look at Vroom! Trying to change the subject! We were not talking about whether the the claims of “judicial fiat” was substantively correct or not just now, we were discussing motivation - and you said we were all claiming “judicial fiat” not because we thought we were substantively right as a matter of democratic theory, but…wait for it…because we were bigots and arguing in bad faith.
Don’t give some sniveling deflection that “other people think it was completely proper for the judge to do what he did” - that is not what you claimed. You claimed we were acting with bigoted intentions, I told you that you were out of your mind because we were all arguing on the basis of proper democratic process and that you conveniently believed whatever you want…
…and now you try and change the topic?
Nice try, ass - you really are a fraud.
What argument? I said we were arguing in good faith - why are trying to change the subject?
You are either dishonest or stupid? I say both.
We weren’t debating a difference of opinion on whether there was a “judicial fiat” - idiot.
Well, that debate was in another thread. And, no, my argument doesn’t contradict the protecttions afforded to citziens via the Constitution, at least not the written one I refer to. And the people’s right to impose laws on this kind of thing have always been there, why are they suddenly not?
No - you expressly said those that took the other side from you in the debate were motivated by bigotry, plain and simple. You said it. No chance to weasel out of it now.
[quote]The fact that you disagree with me, is fine, but unfortunately, your own judicial system seems to have come up with an interpretation somewhat similar to mine.
Deal with it.[/quote]
Actually, no, idiot - California and New York both take my position. The gay marriage as Equal Protection right finds it home in Massachusetts and New Jersey - you say your own [entire] judicial system: which one were you referring to?
Oops.
This is silly - you certainly didn’t hurt my feelings, and you likely haven’t hurt anything in years.
That said, bigots can pass laws - who said they couldn’t?
Why are they bigots? Once again, you have exposed your blind idiocy. The people who wanted to pass that legislation could have put plenty of thought into the matter and decided that a ban on gay marriage was the best choice. But wait - there are automatically bigots? Why - because they didn’t agree with you? Why assume they are prejudiced bigots? How could you know? Except…uh oh…they are because you don’t like the way they think?
You argued precisely the opposite earlier. Face it, Vroom - you are a hack.
And, judges don’t have plenary ability to slap down bigots if they want to pass legislation. Back to square one with your moronic contention - you want an Enlightened judge to strike down ‘wrong thinking’ as a personal matter. You have no interest in what the law says.
You have outed yourself on the exact issue I presented earlier - you can’t deal fairly with Christians. Everyone gets the usual democratic deference - oh, except for ‘bigoted’ Christians who don’t share your policy preferences.
Now we are getting inside Vroom’s real mind. You want a judge to slap down “wrong thinking” as a matter of principle. You have no interest in democratic rights, despite your whining. You think the law should be struck down unless there are some “good reasons” to satsify you.
News flash - if you believe in the democratic rights you claimed you did, you defer to the people passing the laws as to whether those “reasons” are “good” or not. This is exactly the contradiction I raised in my previous posts - the ones you never could explain.
Now, once riled up, Vroom has typed what he really believes - Islamists should get to pass their own laws regardless of whether we think they have “good reasons” to as a matter tolerance, but get a gaggle of Christians and the “good reasons” don’t get deference: they need to be slapped down, and deserve no respect.
Vroom’s exposure - comical or tragic? Hmmm, both.
[quote]I’ve also seen a recent sitting member of the supreme court (of the US) talking about the current agenda by many to decry legislating from the bench.
This judge went to great lengths to say that this was untrue and harmful. Go and educate yourself. Again, you complain that I am condescending? We have different views… it does not mean that mine are baseless.[/quote]
This is hilarious, Vroom - think you are all boned up on the topic better than me? I can’t stop laughing. Wait a justice somewhere said such a thing was bad? Did you bother to see what any other justices might have said?
And, disagreeing on the topic doesn’t mean I think different views are baseless - I just happen to think yours are especially weak because of your inconsistencies.
[quote]In a society where rights are there except where taken away (and yes, I saw your little infotainment diatribe on the topic) there don’t need to be good reasons to allow something.
For example, I could dye my hair blue tomorrow. There is no good reason for it, but that doesn’t mean society should outlaw it. Your little statement seems to imply that anything that hasn’t been approved should thus be outlawed.[/quote]
Nonsense, and an illogical leap. Some cultural institutions have been with our civilization and some haven’t. There is a reason such things survive, the so-called “democracy of the dead”.
Now, there are plenty of good reasons to maintain those institutions (sometimes not), but to create a new one out of whole cloth is problematic. In other words, there are all kinds of conceivable reasons to leave the institution as is.
And in your world where every right exists unless taken away, that applies to the concept of negative rights - meaning I can’t stop you from doing that given thing till I outlaw it. No problem - I can’t stop gays from having a ceremony to say they are married, but there still exists no positive right that will recognize them as a married couple equivalent to a heterosexual union. Same goes for bigamists.
Here is your problem - you think there are no good reasons. But lots of other people do. And it doesn’t matter if you agree with their reasons or not - they have a democratic right to not recognize gay marriage if they don’t want to. Your amateurish discussion of rights ignores the fact that the franchise of marriage is and always has been an object of majoritarian preference - and nothing has changed.
Don’t like the reasons? Great political argument - call your Congresman.
Again you screw up - it isn’t Vroom’s pet reasons, it is the society at large. You have a tinsel libertarian approach to society and its freedoms - no problem, just stop pretending that everyone else does or, even better, people have in the past. It’s nonsensical.
I have thought on it - you must get over this notion that no one else considers these issues.
And again, you just don’t have a good grasp of the whole ‘rights’ game. People can couple all they want, but there is no positive right to enjoy the benefits and privileges of state-sanctioned marriage.
As for being restricted from a positive rights standpoint, i.e., denied gay marriage as a legislative matter, I can think of all kinds of good reasons, all been discussed before.
The biggest concern is that gay marriage will lead to the end of marriage. If you make the case that gay marriage should be a right because society has no right to tell people they can’t get married, then logically that applies to every conceivalbe consensual arrangement, and any restriction on marriage will be considered arbitrary.
So, extended out, what happens to marriage? It becomes a nullity. There is no way to confer rights and benefits in any meaningful way nor to have marriage provide society with the benefits of it provides by exploding it.
You should note, this is the argument of several libertarians who want to do away with marriage - they support this scenario precisely because it puts an end to the institution of marriage. I see their point, it’s just that I am on the opposite side.
Well, it means phony, even if not completely intentional.
And with that, I believe I am done with this thread.
[quote]vroom wrote:
“Bank robbers” analogy and other stuff[/quote]
One last thing - bank robbers do not use the political speech of the First Amendment to try and give themselves sanctuary, nor are the stakes in a bank robbery as high.
Use your head: which would do more to prevent, a bank heist or the murder of 1000 civilians?
Would you use the same means to prevent both events, knowing the prevention of one was more important than the other? Or would the possible trade-off be more worth it in the terror act?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One last thing - bank robbers do not use the political speech of the First Amendment to try and give themselves sanctuary, nor are the stakes in a bank robbery as high.[/quote]
His analogy is flawed in another way. Banks have a wide latitude in protecting themselves from bank robbers. They can use steel vaults, cameras, silent alarms, armed guards, etc. The bank basically has “carte blanche” to protect itself from unwanted visitors.
When the assault is on our laws and institutions, we do not have the same latitude in “locking them down.” We don’t want to make it nearly impossible to change a law, or pass a new one. We do not wish to carve our current laws into stone, so that they can’t be changed…
[quote]pookie wrote:
Is that per thread? Per week? How does your revolving principles scheme work? Depending on the topic of the thread, you favor various principles differently.[/quote]
Look, the fact that you can’t see into the minds of others to see the issues involved doesn’t invalidate their thinking.
It’s not the principles revolving, but the topic under discussion. In this case we aren’t talking about whether or not we agree with Islamic fundamentalism.
Why are some folks so quick to link the two together? It appears to be a tactic intended to discredit people who stick to their principles.
Bigotry is a label that implies a lot about the thought processes involved, not the end viewpoint itself.
I don’t see anyone working to deny those opposed to gay marriage their right to express that belief. They may be criticized while doing so, but as has been established in these parts many times, free speech does not protect one from criticism of it.
Bigots, or fundamentalists, also have the right of free speech.
I don’t agree with the views of fundamentalists nor do I want them to succeed. However, if they are citizens, they do have rights to express their desires or viewpoints.
[quote]I don’t know how it can be explained to you any clearer.
Just answer this: Why are fundamentalist Christians opposed to gay marriage labeled bigots and decried by you; while fundamentalist muslims opposing the Australian constitution have their right to free speech championed?
In both cases, a minority group wishes to curtail the freedoms of others. Why is your reaction almost diametrically opposed?[/quote]
In both cases I argue for the adherence to the rights of citizens.
If and when a fundamentalist group tries to curtail rights, I’ll argue against that. If they try to pass laws against gay marriage or the equality of women, I’ll probably call them bigots.
Yes, it’s only a matter of time, but they have to right to talk about their beliefs and wishes, even if I’m against them.
I don’t have to like someone or like what someone stands for in order to stand up for their rights. People are quick to draw their own conclusions about what others think, beyond what the evidence supports.
It’s that simple. Our societies are set up as a marketplace of ideas. Instead of limiting speech, or discussion of ideas we don’t like, I’d prefer to see the constitutions buttressed to make it much more difficult for religion to be used as a source of governance. This is similar to a business restructuring to make it less ripe for hostile takeover.
While some fundamentalists are upset by such ideas, it is possibly a necessary protection against any one religion being used to eliminate the rights enshrined in our founding documents.
There is another important principle underlying these points. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. If these groups want to “overthrow” a country, instead of use democratic means to make changes, then they will certainly have to make and communicate plans and acquire weapons. That is very different than expressing desires and is actionable.
It’s also possible, during a time of war or other emergency, to declare martial law, suspending the rights of freedom of citizens. I’d prefer not to see it happen, unless absolutely needed, but let’s explore legal ways to handle the threats we face.
That’s my viewpoint. We don’t have to sacrifice our principles to win this. We don’t have to sacrifice rights and we don’t have to sacrifice the rule of law. However, we may have to get a little creative to both allow the rights and freedoms that are important and protect ourselves from the use of those rights to subvert our systems.
The easy road is simply to throw out our freedoms and knee-jerk against something we don’t like… because we are afraid.
[quote]pookie wrote:
His analogy is flawed in another way. Banks have a wide latitude in protecting themselves from bank robbers. They can use steel vaults, cameras, silent alarms, armed guards, etc. The bank basically has “carte blanche” to protect itself from unwanted visitors.[/quote]
LOL.
I’d expect Thunderdolt not to get the concept, but I’d expected more of you Pookie.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The point isn’t the analogy itself…[/quote]
Well duh. That’s why it’s called an analogy, right? To illustrate another concept by borrowing more familiar settings… It’s not my fault it’s an bad analogy, I didn’t make it.