- Thread starter
- #81
I would like to focus for a minute on #1 on the list:
Liberty is the ability, with impunity, to be who and what we are in thoughts, beliefs, speech, and action that does not violate the rights of anybody else.
In the last year or so there have been so many cases of bruhahas and punitive measures taken against individuals who were simply being themselves at any given time.
Paula Deen
Phil on Duck Dynasty
Ellen Degeneres in a Penney's ad
The CEO of Chic-fil-a
That bakery that didn't want to participate in a gay wedding
And so many others including those currently on the front pages and being discussed at length on message boards. . . .
None of these people were doing anything to anybody. None were requiring any participation or contribution from anybody else in anything. None were in positions where they were teaching kids or otherwise able to impose their views on anybody else. They were simply being themselves and expecting to be allowed to be who and what they are. But there were those who presumed to punish them for just being who and what they are and who would have destroyed their reputations and means of making a living if they could.
My definition of conservatism sees punishing people for nothing more than being who and what they are, when who and what they are has absolutely nothing to do with us and is hurting nobody, as wrong and should be soundly condemned if not made illegal.
Liberty does not require us to appreciate, condone, agree with, or associate with those we find reprehensible. But liberty does not include license to punish people for no other reason than they hold opinions and beliefs that we don't share.
My take on the above is that I agree that people shouldn't be harmed for speaking their mind. I also think that if people don't like what someone says, they also have their First Amendment right to speak out about it and disagree with the person. If people want to boycott the person's show, store, establishment, etc. , they have a right to do it in a lawful manner.
When Reverend Wright made his statements, plenty of conservative republicans were up in arms and looping what he said, day after day on their radio and TV shows. They railed against so-called 'Black Liberation Theology'. When Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., make a statement, conservatives exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out against them. It's not a one way street. That said, I would disagree if the government went after Ms. Deen, The Duck Guy. Sterling, Bundy, for saying what they said. I would feel that their First Amendment rights were being violated.
But WHY were conservatives up in arms over what Rev. Wright said? Had he been just another preacher, he wouldn't have even caused a minor ripple through the conservative community. The reason what he said was important because a man who aspired to President of the United States had sat in his congregation for 20 years, praised him as his mentor, and considered him a close friend. Even had him on his campaign advisory committee. Did this aspiring President endorse or embrace the views preached by Rev. Wright? That is a very valid question and 100% legitimate in the process of vetting a person who would be leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
But what power did any of those other people have? Were they running for office? No. Did they have any ability to compromise our persons or our property or require any participation or contribution from us in any way? No. Did they want any such ability? Were trying to get that ability? No. So why is anything they say or believe or think anybody else's business at all?
I can justify an organized protest or boycott in the case where somebody is engaged in unethical or dangerous practices that is violating the unalienable rights of others. I have participated in such protests and boycotts.
But a person just being who and what he is and not requiring any contribution or participation by anybody else? Somebody who is not violating anybody else's rights in any way? Certainly I might find him disagreeable and choose not to do business with him. But for me to organize a protest or boycott to take away his livelihood and hurt him in any other way is wrong. It is evil. And it should be culturally unacceptable and even illegal to do so.
Last edited: