New Orleans, LA
Special Facebook Promotion!
Like us on Facebook and get 10% off your next order.
Do you have the right to demand that someone else defend your right to free speech?
When the founding fathers got to the point they couldn't accept anothers speech, they went 10 paces, turned and fired. You back up your own speech.
I was at Garland TX. when the muslins came and tried to kill us. One thing that never sat well with me is that we had someone else guarding us. While this was supposed to be an exhibit, and Pamela did everything to make it such, displaying works of art showing depictions of Muhammad drawn and painted throughout history, some of us entrants, such as myself, drew Muhammad in as unflattering a light as possible, and yes, I know this was mocking thier prophet, but I know the meaning of " God is not mocked." If you insult God, you will get your wish of not spending eternity with him. Mocking satan ruffles his feathers and he becomes vengeful and retalitory. Some fancy reporters ask," Don't you have any muslin friends?" They obviously don't have a clue what the word friend means and have never given any thought but this is a certainty," Friends don't let friends go to hell when they die." Some were more than happy to guard us at Garland, and some not so much. I fully support those who didn't think it was thier duty to stand on the front line of others beliefs. It's just not right. It's one thing to join a group with beliefs you hold sacred, it's another to be ordered to defend others beliefs.
If you don't have the ability to decide which beliefs you support and which you don't and someone holds something over you to take part in an event you don't support, that is coersion, and it's just plain wrong on every ethical level. The founders spoke of not getting involved in foriegn wars because of this. They knew each side would bring thier propeganda to you and have you involved, through deceit, in thier conflict. But then there is the other side of that," When one Christian bleeds, we all bleed." Most of the time the adgendas of 2 opposing sides aren't clearly spelled out and that is where the trouble begins. Some post articles and comments online insulting muslins and thier responded to, by the muslins and thier supporters, with death threats. They counter respond by giving out thier adress and fully explain step by step instructions to thier house where they can carry out said assasination attempts. These people clearly understand the 1st Ammendment and how to properly respond to it. If your speech is knowingly offending someone, then you'd better be prepared to back it up. This phylosophy is completely lost on modern day so called Christian preachers. When they say that abortion is forgivable, you'd better ask them how much thier willing to back that up. It takes nothing to spout pleasant comments that have the ability to prolong injustice when you have no skin in the game. If they are not willing to back up thier claims, then you know it's time to never listen to anything they say ever again.
Some say flag burning is free speech. But what are you really saying when you burn your own countries flag? You're saying you no longer are willing to be an instrument of change for the betterment of humanity and you're publically acknowageing your casting off of any responcible behavior. It's not about the flag, it's about your public displaying to the world you've full embrace of reprobate behavior. If you're going to burn a flag, you'd better be beaten thoroughly by someone who fought for that flag. I'm sure not the most patriotic person there is and I see you burning a flag or treating it disrespectfully, I'm going to take offence, because I clearly understand the type of person you are. You might question why I'm not the most patriotic person? That's simple, contrary to polular movies, Christ isn't going to intervien in just the affairs of the United States, but will be a world wide phenomenon, therefore a more global perspective must be given to the task at hand, yet it clearly needs to start here.
Since the election I see alot of comments and even before, people doing what they consider "fighting back." Most of this is just petty sniping back. Saying things like " We're in charge now!" is just the glorification of being petty and small. There is WAY to much work that needs to be done repairing the consequences of deranged policies to waste time in arguing with the willingly ignorant. Being snarky with them is just returning insult with insult and failing to rise above it and prove your ideas and adgendas are better. This can quickly escalate into a mob mentality and not a constructive force for reason. In its day " Turn the other cheek" meant " I dare you to hit me on this side too!" I understand the concept of getting others to see thier mistakes, but everything has its limits and if it requires degrading yourself to thier level, nothing positive will come from it.
One thing that people think ofdoing that they think is a fancy way of expressing thier freee speech is to speak truth to power. This thoroughly exposes thier own inferiority complex by exposing that they are unwilling to try out in a practical sense thier beliefs and they want authority figures to do it for them. If thier ideas were so noble, they would be obvious, and would be integrated into society. They know thier ideas are inferior and thus they won't rise to the level of authority to implement them, therefore they can shirk off all responcibility when implementation goes ariey.
Anarchist's don't speak truth to power, they build a new system that replaces the old one. The founders tried speaking truth to power, the king, and then built a new system, based on an old system. Freedom of speech is the right to embarrass yourself without limitation.
When it comes to the 1st Ammendment there are a variety of ways to respond and each circumstance is different, and your responce in hindsight may not always be the best 1st time around, but if your offensive to someone else, don't expect others to fight your battles for you.
There are sometimes rules established for properly fighting when words fail, non-compliance, Marcus of Queensbury rules, Geneva Convention, but if your enemy isn't honorable they won't adhere to these rules and if they are honorable you probably won't get to the point where words fail.