Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
I wonder why the state consitututions a majority of the orginal members states to the constitutional convention and the supreme court of the united states prove the contrary.
Stu I have given quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court. I have explained that a majority of the states to the constitutional convention had established religion in their states, and that the reason why the U.S. govt was not allowed to establish a particular religion was because the states did not want the feds to trump their choice.
I have also cited you to numerous state constitutions which required men to profess a belief in God or be Christian before they were eligble to hold office.
How on earth can you hold fast to such delusional beliefs when they are so obviously proved wrong by an objective review of history.
which is kind of tangential
the 1st amendment (the right that the people in the subject of this thread) right to express speech, even if SOME view it as intolerant is the very essence of the 1st amendment right to free speech
calling speech "intolerance", problematic as that it is - is (and should be) irrelevant when it comes to free speech issues
one person's intolerance is another person's "social justice"
but seriously, it doesn't matter whether or not i agree with said "intolerant speecH'
to paraphrase voltaire - i defend to the death the right to speak it.
this is america. not speech/thought control countries like the UK, Canada, Germany and France
we have a 1st amendment
it protects the right to speak intolerantly, realizing that perception is in the eye of the beholder
the title of this thread is disingenuous.
they are SUING for their CIVIL RIGHTS
civil rights matter
and there is a reason why the FIRST AMENDMENT comes first
it's *that* important
the 1st amendment (the right that the people in the subject of this thread) right to express speech, even if SOME view it as intolerant is the very essence of the 1st amendment right to free speech
calling speech "intolerance", problematic as that it is - is (and should be) irrelevant when it comes to free speech issues
one person's intolerance is another person's "social justice"
but seriously, it doesn't matter whether or not i agree with said "intolerant speecH'
to paraphrase voltaire - i defend to the death the right to speak it.
this is america. not speech/thought control countries like the UK, Canada, Germany and France
we have a 1st amendment
it protects the right to speak intolerantly, realizing that perception is in the eye of the beholder
the title of this thread is disingenuous.
they are SUING for their CIVIL RIGHTS
civil rights matter
and there is a reason why the FIRST AMENDMENT comes first
it's *that* important
Didn't read through the whole thread, but this poster has, either knowingly or unknowingly, exemplified the problem with the Christian right. Note the use of the phrase 'alternative lifestyles'. This presumably applies to homosexuality, bisexuality and other forms of sexual expression that aren't biblically condoned. These are 'radical agendas[sic]'. Indeed.
The writer goes on to suggest that teaching kids that these forms of self-expression aren't deviant is a form of 'moral indoctrination'.
Not much more needs to be said. Put a bow on it and call it a moral philosophy.
I read some of whit's posts and whit, I respect your opinion. Both you and jem suggest that these things should be left to the parents. However, I don't know how one goes about separating the moral component out of the educational process. I think that moral education is implicit in most of what goes on in a secondary shcool, or should be. However, I mean a secular morality, not a specifically Christian or Muslim one. What's that, such a thing doesn't exist? Ah, we disagree. If educating a kid about birth control or the most highest risk forms of sexual behaviour vis-a-vis HIV transmission helps save a few lives (which it undoubtedly would; how many households exist where there's a gay kid who can't speak out about his sexuality), what's the harm? Surely, mentioning homosexuality in Grade 10 sex ed won't result in a wholesale conversion? Sex Ed which addresses homosexuality does not need to de designed to celebrate it in any way. It can be purely informational, can't it?
What a fucking joke. For white, straight Christians it did.
AAA, I would nominate you the most myopic ET member... if I didn't believe with every fibre of my being that you are as aware as anyone of the fallacies in your brutal, barbaric views. If there is a reason that America has lost its way, it is exemplified in fundamentalists like you. The real world is screaming by and you guys are unable to cope or adapt. This quoted bit above is just too much to believe.
If you are a successful trader, thank God. It is the perfect business for those of your ilk.
the issue is that the free speech rights of christians (of whatever political ilk) are just as important as anybody else's civil rights - the 1st amendment right to state opinion
we have that. canada, UK, Germany et al do not
i disagree with many statements made by fundamentalist christians
i STRONGLY support their right to speak their minds, and strongly disagree with the orwellian speech codes implemented by many schools that suppress these people's civil rights
the constitution does NOT have a civil right to be "not offended" or "not made to feel icky"/
it has a right to free expression
on a PUBLICALLY funded campus, it is primarily the left that is violating people's free speech rights
i posted the story, for example, about the college professor who urged her students, and participated in, the destruction of a constitutionally protected monument erected in opposition to abortion
i happen to BE pro-choice. but it is disgusting that some pro-choicers would violate the right of the pro-life side to express their opinion in a public forum
it is wrong for those on the left to throw pies in the face of rightwing speakers (anne coulter comes to mind). i have yet to hear of a similar incident directed towards a leftwing speaker
other leftists have stolen entire issues of conservative college papers (dartmouth review) when same paper published something they didn't like
the 1st amendment means protecting the rights of free speech for ALL, not just those we disagree with
the constitution matters. and i will fight and protest encroachments on it, whether from the left or the right
and in the case of campus speech, it is invariably (in the last 30 years) the left that is suppressing speech and violating people's civil rights
we have that. canada, UK, Germany et al do not
i disagree with many statements made by fundamentalist christians
i STRONGLY support their right to speak their minds, and strongly disagree with the orwellian speech codes implemented by many schools that suppress these people's civil rights
the constitution does NOT have a civil right to be "not offended" or "not made to feel icky"/
it has a right to free expression
on a PUBLICALLY funded campus, it is primarily the left that is violating people's free speech rights
i posted the story, for example, about the college professor who urged her students, and participated in, the destruction of a constitutionally protected monument erected in opposition to abortion
i happen to BE pro-choice. but it is disgusting that some pro-choicers would violate the right of the pro-life side to express their opinion in a public forum
it is wrong for those on the left to throw pies in the face of rightwing speakers (anne coulter comes to mind). i have yet to hear of a similar incident directed towards a leftwing speaker
other leftists have stolen entire issues of conservative college papers (dartmouth review) when same paper published something they didn't like
the 1st amendment means protecting the rights of free speech for ALL, not just those we disagree with
the constitution matters. and i will fight and protest encroachments on it, whether from the left or the right
and in the case of campus speech, it is invariably (in the last 30 years) the left that is suppressing speech and violating people's civil rights
jem,
you are off topic, but I would just say yet again, the quotes you offered up from the Supreme Court did not support your position in rulings nor context .
whitser,
I understand your desire to protect free speech , but I suppose you draw the line somewhere?
Should there be no restraints on speech in campus whatsoever. Speech which is hateful or harassing to people on the basis of their race or sex should be allowed ?
Would it be acceptable for school campus to become the breeding grounds for expressions of a narrow-minded adherence to beliefs of particular sects or religions or denominations, such as Christian for instance, based upon on their own moral standards, without any controls? .All in the name of free speech?
Would it be acceptable for Malhotra to speak out about any intolerance her Christian faith compels her so to do, even were it in regard to people whose skin was not of the same pigmentation as her own ?
Is that the way you are suggesting free speech should be encouraging kids to get along with each other in school?
Surely free speech is not there to shield people who want to speak freely of intolerance on how another persons own being is composed.
In a public place of learning?
Is it?
you are off topic, but I would just say yet again, the quotes you offered up from the Supreme Court did not support your position in rulings nor context .
whitser,
I understand your desire to protect free speech , but I suppose you draw the line somewhere?
Should there be no restraints on speech in campus whatsoever. Speech which is hateful or harassing to people on the basis of their race or sex should be allowed ?
Would it be acceptable for school campus to become the breeding grounds for expressions of a narrow-minded adherence to beliefs of particular sects or religions or denominations, such as Christian for instance, based upon on their own moral standards, without any controls? .All in the name of free speech?
Would it be acceptable for Malhotra to speak out about any intolerance her Christian faith compels her so to do, even were it in regard to people whose skin was not of the same pigmentation as her own ?
Is that the way you are suggesting free speech should be encouraging kids to get along with each other in school?
Surely free speech is not there to shield people who want to speak freely of intolerance on how another persons own being is composed.
In a public place of learning?
Is it?
**whitser,
I understand your desire to protect free speech , but I suppose you draw the line somewhere?**
i draw the line at the same place the constitution draws it. realize that the entire point of the 1st amendment is so people can redress grievances and have OPEN debate without fear of GOVERNMENT intervention.
"Should there be no restraints on speech in campus whatsoever. Speech which is hateful or harassing to people on the basis of their race or sex should be allowed ?"
absolutely, "hateful" speech should be allowed. as soon as we let the govt. be the arbiter of what is hateful, we give them power to control the content of our speech.
countries like canada, the UK, etc. don't have that right. we do. the remedy for "bad speech" is GOOD speech. it is NOT quelling the ability or the right of the person presenting bad speech to speak his part. that is how our free nation works.
and this only refers to PUBLIC college campuses. private campuses is another issue, although those that accept public moneys and CLAIM to be open to free discourse need to walk the walk.
i suggest a trip to www.thefire.org for a lot of good caselaw examples.
"Would it be acceptable for school campus to become the breeding grounds for expressions of a narrow-minded adherence to beliefs of particular sects or religions or denominations, such as Christian for instance, based upon on their own moral standards, without any controls? .All in the name of free speech?"
what do you mean by "breeeding grounds". a public campus should not discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs, nor does it punish those who exercise that free speech - WITHIN THE PROPER VENUE. our 1st amendment rests upon the principle that a FREE SOCIETY recognizes the right of CITIZENS to make up their own minds about the validity of ideas. it is not the place of govt. to narrow the field of ideas that one can espouse.
obviously, the 1st amendment protection is not an issue if u stand up in the middle of economics class and start spewing about how much you hate (blacks, white, mexicans, japanese, etc.). that is not the proper venue. nor is standing outside somebody's dorm room. but when it comes to areas that are used for public discourse - e.g. commons areas, and areas for public display - absolutely.
the problem with letting GOVERNMENT be the arbiter of speech content is that it becomes the censor at the barrel of a gun, and many valid ideas fall under the 'harassing' or hateful umbrella to some people.
a perfect example is the college bake sale controversy.
read the link here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/25/smu.bake.sale.ap/
read a very good viewpoint article about it here
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105827,00.html
note also the hypocrisy here (below). it's not "hateful" to have a pay equity bake sale based on leftists perception of pay inequity between women and men, but it is hateful if a bake sale is run by college repubs to protest inequal treatment between the races. amazing:
The College Republicans immediately turned to FIRE for help. On March 8, FIRE wrote NEIU President Salme Steinberg, reminding her that ââ[a]ffirmative action bake salesâ constitute a form of satirical political protest, and therefore enjoy the fullest protection of the First Amendment.â On March 17, NEIU attorney Mark Dunn responded that the university was encouraging the students to explore alternatives to the bake sale protest. Dunn did not address NEIUâs threat to punish the students for their protected expression. FIRE replied to Dunn, insisting that the students be allowed to hold the protest of their choice. FIRE also pointed out that since the NEIU Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance apparently has held a âpay equity bake saleâ protest (in which men are charged more than women for baked goods to protest the âwage gapâ between men and women) on NEIUâs campus, it would be unlawful viewpoint discrimination to forbid the College Republicans from holding a similar protest. NEIUâs second letter to FIRE once again did not address FIREâs concerns
this is CLEARLY the exact type of political speech that the 1st amendment was DESIGNED to protect. notice also the incredible bias of the CNN article (like you'd expect anything different from CNN). the students were NOT protesting affirmative action. they were protesting RACIAL QUOTAS and PREFERENCES which is often, but is not necessarily - found in some Affirmative Action programs. i am totally for affirmative action. i am vehemently AGAINST racial preferences.
note the CODE LANGUAGE OF THE CENSORS (truly orwellian) from the article:
"This was not an issue about free speech," Tim Moore, director of the SMU student center, said in a story for Thursday's edition of The Dallas Morning News. "It was really an issue where we had a hostile environment being created." "
this is a political protest that was being quelled because it created a "hostile environment"
hey. dorkus. that's what POLITICAL SPEECH DOES
for pete's sake. upsetting the status quo is USUALLY hostile.
note also, that when FIRE www.thefire.org has responded to these illegal violations of free speech, usually they win...
see:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5503.html
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/672.html
again, the 1st amendment was DESIGNED TO PROTECT OFFENSIVE SPEECH. inoffensive and noncontroversial speech rarely NEEDS protection
"Would it be acceptable for Malhotra to speak out about any intolerance her Christian faith compels her so to do, even were it in regard to people whose skin was not of the same pigmentation as her own ?"
it would be LEGAL. acceptable is not the point. i don't think it's acceptable for fat people to wear spandex, for yoko ono to sing, etc. but it's LEGAL
i'm not talking about what is "acceptable". i am talking about what is firmly protected constitutional rights. i disagree with fred phelps (the preacher who claims that "god hates fags". that's his words. i disagree. but he has the right to say that, to protest politically, to hold up signs at protests that say that, etc.
that 's freedom. deal with it
"Is that the way you are suggesting free speech should be encouraging kids to get along with each other in school? "
speaking truth to power, and speaking one's mind often creates controversy. it's not about getting along. it's about free expression of ideas. that was true for the abolitionists (who were laughed at), the freedom marchers (who were attacked), etc. the 1st amendment is there to protect ALL viewpoints. PERIOD. and in the case of college students - THEY ARE ADULTS. *they* make the choice what speech they choose to listen to (and that goes for military recruiters as well - on campus)
govt. does not step in and say "this speech is icky, and you are too sensitive to hear it, so we will be your big brother and protect you from ideas..."
"Surely free speech is not there to shield people who want to speak freely of intolerance on how another persons own being is composed."
absolutely it is
"In a public place of learning? "
on a PUBLIC CAMPUS?
absolutely. i saw angela davis (far left communist. look her up) speak on campus. she proclaimed that capitalists were evil, that america was evil. was this "hate"? she even SAID she hated our capitalist system. is that HATE? sure it is. she said she hated fat white capitalist plunderers. is that hate? yes
SO WHAT? it is constitutionally protected. whether from leftwing or rightwing or any wing at all
that's how freedom works. in OUR country. im not aware of any nation on earth that protects free speech to the extent we do
it's part of what makes our nation great. the right to express controversial and disturbing ideas.
was "Common Sense" hateful? how about the communist manifesto? Earth in the Balance?
Is it?
I understand your desire to protect free speech , but I suppose you draw the line somewhere?**
i draw the line at the same place the constitution draws it. realize that the entire point of the 1st amendment is so people can redress grievances and have OPEN debate without fear of GOVERNMENT intervention.
"Should there be no restraints on speech in campus whatsoever. Speech which is hateful or harassing to people on the basis of their race or sex should be allowed ?"
absolutely, "hateful" speech should be allowed. as soon as we let the govt. be the arbiter of what is hateful, we give them power to control the content of our speech.
countries like canada, the UK, etc. don't have that right. we do. the remedy for "bad speech" is GOOD speech. it is NOT quelling the ability or the right of the person presenting bad speech to speak his part. that is how our free nation works.
and this only refers to PUBLIC college campuses. private campuses is another issue, although those that accept public moneys and CLAIM to be open to free discourse need to walk the walk.
i suggest a trip to www.thefire.org for a lot of good caselaw examples.
"Would it be acceptable for school campus to become the breeding grounds for expressions of a narrow-minded adherence to beliefs of particular sects or religions or denominations, such as Christian for instance, based upon on their own moral standards, without any controls? .All in the name of free speech?"
what do you mean by "breeeding grounds". a public campus should not discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs, nor does it punish those who exercise that free speech - WITHIN THE PROPER VENUE. our 1st amendment rests upon the principle that a FREE SOCIETY recognizes the right of CITIZENS to make up their own minds about the validity of ideas. it is not the place of govt. to narrow the field of ideas that one can espouse.
obviously, the 1st amendment protection is not an issue if u stand up in the middle of economics class and start spewing about how much you hate (blacks, white, mexicans, japanese, etc.). that is not the proper venue. nor is standing outside somebody's dorm room. but when it comes to areas that are used for public discourse - e.g. commons areas, and areas for public display - absolutely.
the problem with letting GOVERNMENT be the arbiter of speech content is that it becomes the censor at the barrel of a gun, and many valid ideas fall under the 'harassing' or hateful umbrella to some people.
a perfect example is the college bake sale controversy.
read the link here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/25/smu.bake.sale.ap/
read a very good viewpoint article about it here
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105827,00.html
note also the hypocrisy here (below). it's not "hateful" to have a pay equity bake sale based on leftists perception of pay inequity between women and men, but it is hateful if a bake sale is run by college repubs to protest inequal treatment between the races. amazing:
The College Republicans immediately turned to FIRE for help. On March 8, FIRE wrote NEIU President Salme Steinberg, reminding her that ââ[a]ffirmative action bake salesâ constitute a form of satirical political protest, and therefore enjoy the fullest protection of the First Amendment.â On March 17, NEIU attorney Mark Dunn responded that the university was encouraging the students to explore alternatives to the bake sale protest. Dunn did not address NEIUâs threat to punish the students for their protected expression. FIRE replied to Dunn, insisting that the students be allowed to hold the protest of their choice. FIRE also pointed out that since the NEIU Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance apparently has held a âpay equity bake saleâ protest (in which men are charged more than women for baked goods to protest the âwage gapâ between men and women) on NEIUâs campus, it would be unlawful viewpoint discrimination to forbid the College Republicans from holding a similar protest. NEIUâs second letter to FIRE once again did not address FIREâs concerns
this is CLEARLY the exact type of political speech that the 1st amendment was DESIGNED to protect. notice also the incredible bias of the CNN article (like you'd expect anything different from CNN). the students were NOT protesting affirmative action. they were protesting RACIAL QUOTAS and PREFERENCES which is often, but is not necessarily - found in some Affirmative Action programs. i am totally for affirmative action. i am vehemently AGAINST racial preferences.
note the CODE LANGUAGE OF THE CENSORS (truly orwellian) from the article:
"This was not an issue about free speech," Tim Moore, director of the SMU student center, said in a story for Thursday's edition of The Dallas Morning News. "It was really an issue where we had a hostile environment being created." "
this is a political protest that was being quelled because it created a "hostile environment"
hey. dorkus. that's what POLITICAL SPEECH DOES
for pete's sake. upsetting the status quo is USUALLY hostile.
note also, that when FIRE www.thefire.org has responded to these illegal violations of free speech, usually they win...
see:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5503.html
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/672.html
again, the 1st amendment was DESIGNED TO PROTECT OFFENSIVE SPEECH. inoffensive and noncontroversial speech rarely NEEDS protection
"Would it be acceptable for Malhotra to speak out about any intolerance her Christian faith compels her so to do, even were it in regard to people whose skin was not of the same pigmentation as her own ?"
it would be LEGAL. acceptable is not the point. i don't think it's acceptable for fat people to wear spandex, for yoko ono to sing, etc. but it's LEGAL
i'm not talking about what is "acceptable". i am talking about what is firmly protected constitutional rights. i disagree with fred phelps (the preacher who claims that "god hates fags". that's his words. i disagree. but he has the right to say that, to protest politically, to hold up signs at protests that say that, etc.
that 's freedom. deal with it
"Is that the way you are suggesting free speech should be encouraging kids to get along with each other in school? "
speaking truth to power, and speaking one's mind often creates controversy. it's not about getting along. it's about free expression of ideas. that was true for the abolitionists (who were laughed at), the freedom marchers (who were attacked), etc. the 1st amendment is there to protect ALL viewpoints. PERIOD. and in the case of college students - THEY ARE ADULTS. *they* make the choice what speech they choose to listen to (and that goes for military recruiters as well - on campus)
govt. does not step in and say "this speech is icky, and you are too sensitive to hear it, so we will be your big brother and protect you from ideas..."
"Surely free speech is not there to shield people who want to speak freely of intolerance on how another persons own being is composed."
absolutely it is
"In a public place of learning? "
on a PUBLIC CAMPUS?
absolutely. i saw angela davis (far left communist. look her up) speak on campus. she proclaimed that capitalists were evil, that america was evil. was this "hate"? she even SAID she hated our capitalist system. is that HATE? sure it is. she said she hated fat white capitalist plunderers. is that hate? yes
SO WHAT? it is constitutionally protected. whether from leftwing or rightwing or any wing at all
that's how freedom works. in OUR country. im not aware of any nation on earth that protects free speech to the extent we do
it's part of what makes our nation great. the right to express controversial and disturbing ideas.
was "Common Sense" hateful? how about the communist manifesto? Earth in the Balance?
Is it?
You vitrually lectured me about morals yet you know exactly what I am talking about. I agree teach age appropriate information about disease transmission and birth but do not celebrate or promote any lifestyles.
Apparently none of you are aware that in California they were promoting gay lifestyles in sex ed classes. And two dads and two moms. Hey if you got two dads great- just dont tell my kindegartener what to think about it.
---
Stu-- for anyone who even remotely thinks stu is telling the truth please search our thread about the supreme court and their ruling "we are a Christian nation".