buckeye
2008-09-18 09:56:05 UTC
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-summer/religion-vs-free-speech.asp
[excerpt]
Religion vs. Free Speech
Craig Biddle
In the midst of the Cartoon Jihad, much has been said in defense of the
right to free speech, especially by those on the religious right (such as
Jeff Jacoby and Michelle Malkin). This effort is remarkable because, on the
premises of religion, the Islamic militants are correct: There is no right
to free speech.
Rights are principles specifying the kinds of actions that a person should
be able to take. The right to free speech, if it exists, is the prerogative
to express ones ideas, whether in spoken, written, or artistic
formregardless of what anyone else thinks, believes, or feels about those
ideas. If there is no right to offend God, as the Islamic militants
insist, then there is no right to free speech. And whether or not we have
the right to offend God depends on the source and nature of rights.
Where do rights come from? Do they come from the natural world or from a
supernatural dimension? And how do we know that we have them? Are rights
rationally understandable facts of reality or mystically intuited articles
of faith? The answers one gives to these questions determine how one holds
the concept of rights in ones mind, how one uses the concept in
practice, and whether or not one is able intellectually to defend rights
when they are attacked.
On the religious worldview, quoting Alan Keyes: Our rights come from the
will of God.1 President George W. Bush concurs: We received our rights
from God.2 Newt Gingrich challenges anyone to cite another source for
rights: If you are not endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable
rights where do they come from?3 In other words: If there is no God, there
are no rights.
This idea is not only wrong; it is exactly backward. The fact is that if
there were a God (which there is not), there would be no rightsand as long
as people believe that rights come from God, they will be unable to
understand rights or to properly defend them. . .
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
[excerpt]
Religion vs. Free Speech
Craig Biddle
In the midst of the Cartoon Jihad, much has been said in defense of the
right to free speech, especially by those on the religious right (such as
Jeff Jacoby and Michelle Malkin). This effort is remarkable because, on the
premises of religion, the Islamic militants are correct: There is no right
to free speech.
Rights are principles specifying the kinds of actions that a person should
be able to take. The right to free speech, if it exists, is the prerogative
to express ones ideas, whether in spoken, written, or artistic
formregardless of what anyone else thinks, believes, or feels about those
ideas. If there is no right to offend God, as the Islamic militants
insist, then there is no right to free speech. And whether or not we have
the right to offend God depends on the source and nature of rights.
Where do rights come from? Do they come from the natural world or from a
supernatural dimension? And how do we know that we have them? Are rights
rationally understandable facts of reality or mystically intuited articles
of faith? The answers one gives to these questions determine how one holds
the concept of rights in ones mind, how one uses the concept in
practice, and whether or not one is able intellectually to defend rights
when they are attacked.
On the religious worldview, quoting Alan Keyes: Our rights come from the
will of God.1 President George W. Bush concurs: We received our rights
from God.2 Newt Gingrich challenges anyone to cite another source for
rights: If you are not endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable
rights where do they come from?3 In other words: If there is no God, there
are no rights.
This idea is not only wrong; it is exactly backward. The fact is that if
there were a God (which there is not), there would be no rightsand as long
as people believe that rights come from God, they will be unable to
understand rights or to properly defend them. . .
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************