Speaking at a meeting at Westminster of the campaign group Reform Section 5, Atkinson placed the freedom to offend people as second only to the right to the means of “sustaining life itself.”
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just read the piece on "insult" etc. in your link. I'm going to sound hopelessly old fashioned but I am old - at least old enough to have actually read some of the Popes of the past....error has no rights was/is the message.
ReplyDeleteTraditionally tolerance meant that while we would not kill those who spoke "error" in public we certainly did not allow them to spread their error.
I may be the only person on the planet who says: we must not allow those in error (those who do not speak Truth) from propagating their error.
This was the norm as recently at Pope Leo XII's time....of course the world has "moved on" from those halcyon days....but not for the better.
Now we spend all our time protecting the rights of people to say pretty much whatever they want, no matter how stupid, or WRONG, instead of teaching TRUTH and asking them to cease and desist in spouting error. This in my mind is true evil - mainly because it corrupts weak minds.
How this can be changed I don't know. Lots of prayer, fasting and almsgiving? Hey can I be charged with "hate" for saying these things?
This brings a different light to the game I think. My DH and I call these kinds of discussions "Alinski-isms." Saul Alinski taught that you can fool people into arguing about some aspect of a question while you go ahead and bring to fruition any damed thing you like.
So we now argue about what kinds of things we can say or not say. Instead the argument should be: there is Truth. Anyone who spouts "error" must be allowed to live - but that's about it.
I realize this is not a popular view - I'd be interested in hearing what you two lovely ladies have to say.
Barbara in Niagara (by the way I find it very difficult to type in your "anti-troll" numbers and letters - can't you find another way to screen?
Thanks, Barbara. I dislike those anti-spambot things too. Not sure we can change that, however, unless we shut off the screening altogether and open ourselves up to all kinds of spam, some of which is quite vile and pornographic (and it gets sent to our home email addresses too, not just the blog!) But I will check into it, with my limited internet acumen.
ReplyDeleteRe: "free speech" --no, you are not the only one on the planet who thinks this way. One priest friend used to say he did not believe in religious freedom for this very reason, since one does not (or should not) have a "right" to believe --and propagate--error. However, as we've seen for decades, it is impossible to define "truth" in a pluralistic and relativistic society. Everyone has his own truth, and they're all equal (NOT, but it's politically incorrect, hateful, and now in some countries illegal to suggest such a thing).
One thing is for certain: the power to curtail speech cannot be left in the hands of corrupt secular government bureaucrats; I think that's the only point I'm trying to make. I wish I knew how to solve the problem too: certainly fasting and praying is a good place to start, and yes, upholding TRUTH whenever possible. Speaking truth and living truth and hopefully converting others to truth. But legislating it? If we only knew how. We live in a society where learned doctors and judges proclaim (with straight and somber faces) that human life begins at birth. It's surreal.
Our old pal GKC said somewhere that we CAN go back....he wrote so much common sense - we could "go back" to an era when we DID legislate truth - heck, DH and I watch lots of really old movies and they had a quaint method of ensuring that "community standards" were upheld - they actually watched movies and a panel of thoughtful people decided what was good and what was bad...wonderful idea!
DeleteWe can't go back....how many times have I heard that. I always ask: "why not?" We simply don't want to. Freedom is a concept vastly overrated, and twisted so much that we as a people have forgotten what it really means - freedom to choose the good!
Anyway, I'm enjoying your blog. Sorry that you get so much spam without that annoying filter. Most blogs don't bother with this kind of filter though...I'll have to get used to it I guess.
Barbara
We evidently read different blogs. :) I would estimate that over 90% of the blogs I read use filters of some sort. I dislike them too. Necessary evil, I guess.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong: we certainly can legislate "right and wrong" --we do it all the time (some forms of murder are illegal and so forth). Unfortunately, law is based on concensus (think the blind leading the blind, in many cases), not truth.
When I advocate for free speech, it is in recognition that there are reasonable limits: libel, slander, etc. But practically speaking, how do we legislate truth? The statement "Jesus Christ is not God," is error. Should it be illegal for someone to say or print it?