Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to The existing double standard
Re: FineYoungSinger - this time I found your comment rather humorous
I'm very concerned that you find my statement humorous. Freedom of speech includes the right to want an opponent censored. She absolutely has the right to state her opinion publically regarding Sherman's beliefs, so long as she does nothing to prevent his right to the same freedom.
Was her statement lacking tact? Yes. Was she "out of order" as far as the structure of the forum, as in interrupting her collegue to express herself? Of course. Does that mean that she's not entitled to her opinon, and her 1st Amendment right to state it publically? NO.
Look further at it: did she create legislation against Sherman? No. Did she act in any way, shape or form following the exercise of her 1st Amendment right that would deny him his right to freedom of speech? Nope.
If you want to express to the world that you're a hateful bigot, and believe that entire groups of people should be denied their constitutional rights, you're free to do so. That's your right according to the 1st Amendment. It's the same right that allows Keith Olbermann to his opinion that both Davis AND Sherman are "The Worst Person In The World" because of this circus of an issue.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on April 17, 2008 at 7:32 AM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - this time I found your comment rather humorous
Using Voltaire's quote to defend someone's right to freedom of speech when they were basically saying that someone else did not have the right to freedom of speech was meant to be funny wasn't it?
posted by
gomedome
on April 16, 2008 at 1:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Whiskey - it is reasonable to assume that if she had attacked any other
individual of any other group in the same manner, the backlash would have been more pronounced.
posted by
gomedome
on April 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM
| link to this | reply
I wonder whether
people would have been more offended is she had said: 'Frankly, I think Jews are dangerous, and it worries me that my grandkiddies even know they exist'? In context, such a statement is really no worse...
posted by
Antipodean
on April 16, 2008 at 7:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: FineYoungSinger - your comment surprises me
Actually, her right to freedom of expression should be upheld, even if it's a disagreeable statement.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on April 16, 2008 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - your comment surprises me
Actually, her right to freedom of expression should be upheld, even. Public officials are neither exempt from the law nor stripped of their rights. Yes, what she said on April 8 of this year was quite inflammatory:
"I don't know what you have against God, but some of us don't have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings... I'm trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois... This is the land of Lincoln where people believe in God... What you have to sprew and spread is extremely dangerous... It's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists... Get out of that seat! You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."
But, this is her opinion, nothing more. Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Whether we agree with her or not, whether we like her or not, this is what she thinks, and as a citizen of a society that still celebrates free speech, NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, she is entitled to speak her mind.
Furthermore: "On Thursday, April 10, Sherman reported on his website, and Olbermann reported on Countdown, that Assemblywoman Davis called him personally to apologize for her remarks, and that he accepted her apology." If Sherman can get over it in two days with a simple apology, certainly a week later we all can as well.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on April 16, 2008 at 7:26 AM
| link to this | reply
sintia56 - I don't dispute that much of the news we hear is filtered and
sometimes blatantly innaccurate but . . .
The case I'm referring to had an audio transcript, which we can assume was not edited. In any event, thanx for stopping in.
posted by
gomedome
on April 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM
| link to this | reply
I am a firm believer in not giving the news too much credence. . . Why. . .because the media is no longer independent and objective. . .large corporations and religion make the decision of what to cover and what "twist" to give a story. . .I too was raised a Catholic. . .Ran like hell the first opportunity I got and try not to look back. Good blog. . . I read several entries enjoyed them all!
posted by
Annicita
on April 15, 2008 at 6:59 AM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
yes...well said
You know it is the same in a lot of similar social constructs and such
I wonder if I have an "undesirable" default setting I am not aware of leading me astray
hmmmmm....
posted by
mysteria
on April 15, 2008 at 3:59 AM
| link to this | reply
mysteria - referring to it as a "default setting" is a good way to put it
The default settings are in both action and response. Some folks have been so conditioned that they will never see the inequity in what they impose on others, while the subjects of their impositions have been conditioned to accept a certain amount of inequity.
posted by
gomedome
on April 14, 2008 at 6:46 PM
| link to this | reply
The default setting of the general public in general, when accosted by
a religion peddler is one of submission and self-deprecation
The religion peddler knows this and utilizes it to a degree so great most never realize that they are under the spell of a sort of hypnotism
I shudder when I think just exactly how deep this runs in the public psyche
It is trulydiabolical
posted by
mysteria
on April 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - your comment surprises me
As a person holding a representative public office, there are certain opinions that Davis does not have the right to express, as they are in breach of her public service oath. That really is the issue. She does not represent only Christians, though apparently she thinks she does. An elected official simply cannot express opinions that are clearly prejudicial and insulting towards some of her constituents, while indicating a favorable bias towards another group of constituents. An outburst such as this should not be simply dismissed as an act that is distasteful, especially considering the context of a public hearing. She should resign.
posted by
gomedome
on April 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM
| link to this | reply
ZenMom, I'm with you. The more attention given to outbursts such as this
beyond expressing distate and disagreement is unnecessary. Simply pointing out the fact that she'd made a clearly uncharitable, unchristian statement is really all the press that this issue really warrants. She can think whatever she wants to think--so long as when she states her opinions, she has real facts to back them up.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on April 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
| link to this | reply
can't help it...i'm disappointed.
posted by
ZenMom
on April 14, 2008 at 6:11 AM
| link to this | reply
ZenMom - short of being a mass murderer, any transgression committed by
Rob Sherman is irrelevant.
posted by
gomedome
on April 14, 2008 at 5:40 AM
| link to this | reply
I understand what you are saying here.........but, I'm ready to let this one die a natural death, especially since Rob Sherman took the focus off Rep. Davis' outburst when he referred to her as a "Negro" on his website. (see my newest and LAST post on this topic) Seems it doesn't matter.....believer/non-believer....atheist/christian we're all imperfect and should work on being more tolerant of each other.
posted by
ZenMom
on April 13, 2008 at 5:34 PM
| link to this | reply