------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1: The new Obama administration is swiftly undoing some of the damage George Bush's administration completed over the past 8 years. For starters, Obama has unsealed documents showing how the Bush administration came to the conclusion that it had unfettered power to unequivocally:
"Wiretap the Internet and telephone calls with virtually no limitations, restrict free speech, and use the U.S. military domestically against suspected terrorists" and "the president must be able to use whatever means necessary to prevent attacks on the United States; this power, by implication, includes the authority to collect information necessary for its effective exercise."Big brother was watching you. If you said anything over a phone call (that was being tapped to "protect our country") that could be construed as potentially "terrorist", then you could have the FBI knocking on your door.
The development of the term "terrorism" presents an easy vehicle for creating a persistent state of war. You're always watching your back because you can't tell who is a "terrorist". Maybe they have dark skin. Maybe they speak a funny language. But the point is, with "terrorism" the war is never over. That gives the President perpetual unlimited powers since it is generally recognized that the President can do a lot more during "wartime". So you have this term (similar to Communism from the early 20th century) that is used to elicit fear in people and convince them that their civil liberties are not important. You end up with a situation where speech really isn't free. Going against the "war on terrorism" ends up being treason. There's nothing wrong with criticism. Squashing it is against very fundamentals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 2: In a recent development, the United Nations is considering adopting a proposal that will effectively make it illegal to make "blasphemous" remarks about religion -- particularly Islam. Christopher Hitchens said it all when he called it totalitarianism. Islam advocates a certain theory of the world and if you don't accept it by questioning it or doing anything that could be CONSIDERED questioning, then that's wrong. Have I been caught in a time machine? Is it really the year 2009? Are they serious?
It's very similar to the "hurt feelings" argument that is continually being propagated around the world and here in the United States. If I say anything that hurts your feelings -- especially in a religious context, then that's wrong. That's blasphemous. But here's the implicit and incorrect assumption -- my feelings don't matter. I can just as easily say that any of your beliefs are offensive to me -- even if they're not. Just because something is offensive to a group of people, doesn't make it wrong.
Imagine a group of people in Europe back in the 1500s (around the time of Galileo). Let's imagine that this group had a core fundamental belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now if Galileo comes along and proves that the Earth in fact revolves around the Sun, if you accept the "hurt feelings" argument, then it would have been blasphemous for Galileo to make such an outrageous claim. Think about all the people's feelings who could be hurt!
It ends up being plain ridiculous to say that if something might hurt someone's feelings, then it shouldn't be heard. And look at this gem -- an editor of a Indian newspaper was ARRESTED for REPRINTING an article that was critical of Islam. Apparently he violated the Indian Penal code with his, "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings". Wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 3: Richard Dawkins' recent trip to Oklahoma University almost didn't happen if it were left up to one of the Congressmen from the state. The is the actual text of a piece of legislation that Todd Thomsen advocated:
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and
WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
This is censorship defined. To say that Richard Dawkins "demonstrates an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking" and then try to limit what he has to say, is exactly INTOLERANT in itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom of Speech" is increasingly being encroached upon. If you don't let your voice be heard about your Constitutionally given rights, then they will disappear. Speech cannot be limited. Everyone has to be heard. Otherwise, we would live in a nation where people are actively persecuted for their dissent with the popular beliefs of the time. Do we want Big Brother to tell us what to think and do we want to call each other comrade?
No comments:
Post a Comment