Subject:
|
Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:36:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1303 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Because they think *they* are so tolerate of others' views? Are you saying
> that your respect of my rights is conditional?
I am only responding to this one part because after reading Larry's reply it
occurred to me that this part is intended as a kind of snare -- frankly, a
rather lame one at that.
I am tolerant of others' views unconditionally -- that is to say that
despite vehement disagreement with another's views I would fight for that
person's right to be heard. But being heard and being respected are two
different things. As a matter of fact, I think the sillier the views the
more amusing it is to have these ideas become a part of public discourse --
the nonsense inherent in such ideas is more a cause for laughter than any
true political vexation. So sure, let Nazis parade up and down on your
streets -- don't you think they make excellent buffoons? No real american
could ever also be a Nazi -- can't everyone see this? Sure I realize that
some people might take their message seriously, but that's what's so great
about our system: some idiot says something patently offense and is met with
the cold steel of good old american freedom-loving principles.
Well, ideally this is true...
I believe that the political views I hold dear can withstand any opposition
and I do not fear informed public discourse. What I do fear is ignorance
and dogma.
Some of the things the United States is not about include: corporate power
being more important than individual freedom; christianity as a political
agenda; the routing of all political power inherent in the people by the
devaluation of U.S. dollars, and the destruction of the right to hold real
estate in allodial (there is no real wealth any longer).
So go ahead, John -- get in your licks for the big G, who cares if you
trample other people's rights in doing so, right? My question is: why is
religion part of your political agenda? Do you fear that your beliefs
cannot withstand public discourse -- that they wouldn't be freely adopted
by a freedom-loving people? Must your views be legislated instead?
That's not much faith.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
