Wednesday, December 25, 2013
What Is the Price of Free Speech?
No, this isn't a post about Duck Dynasty, or Phil Robertson. This post is about the value of free speech. In April of this year, a University at Buffalo Student, a Students for Life; a Pro-Life student group at the University of Buffalo was charged $650 in "security fees" to hold a debate on abortion on campus, and are in the midst of a lawsuit against the school for placing unfair burdens on their rights to free speech. So, what is the price of free speech? What is the price of holding on to an ideal or view you hold dear? What is the price of defending what you believe is right and true? If this case is any indication, we're about to find out.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
I Support Phil Robertson.
"Freedom of opinion, and Freedom of Speech." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
I personally do not have ANY problems with homosexuals, but I do have a problem
with ANYONE that wants others to accept their lifestyle by force with their threats.
But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
Phil Robertson was censored and being punished (no, it wasn't by the government, but it was still censorship) and that's no laughing matter. And that is why the far left is dangerous.
Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a FREE pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us
I personally do not have ANY problems with homosexuals, but I do have a problem
with ANYONE that wants others to accept their lifestyle by force with their threats.
But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
Phil Robertson was censored and being punished (no, it wasn't by the government, but it was still censorship) and that's no laughing matter. And that is why the far left is dangerous.
Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a FREE pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson
I am trying to cover a broad range of issues here that don't necessarily relate to the suspension of Phil Robertson, but cover the issue of religious freedom and expression. And expose the crazy lefty liberals with radical anti-American agendas!
I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.
Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.
More intolerance from the crowd that always demands tolerance...!
There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.
I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.
Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.
More intolerance from the crowd that always demands tolerance...!
There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)