This is open to everyone, of course. It's a general question, I'm not looking to pinpoint any groups or anything. Hypothetical.
Free speech is the allowance of a human to speak up for what they believe in, and have freedom of belief in whatever they want and be allowed to display such.
I think the line of free speech is drawn when someone stops speaking out and instead does something against another belief they do not agree with. There is a clear difference between speaking out against a tattoos, or making tattoos illegal. The difference is that in speaking you decide for yourself, and in doing you make the decision for others. What ever happened to "live and let live"?
How hard is it to simply avert your eyes from that which you do not like, and instead focus on yourself in your beliefs instead of forcing others into said belief? Is it really that hard to speak of your ideas, but not make someone else abide by them as well?
Comments? Ideas? Please try to be constructive.
2007-08-19 21:23:23 · 12 answers · asked by mathaowny 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Obviously murder is wrong. I mean things that aren't hurting anyone but the person that's doing it.
Like the tattoo thing-- it's fine to say you don't like them, but banning them would be wrong. I'm talking about personal choices, not things that affect other human beings.
2007-08-19 21:54:24 · update #1
Hypno Toad-- yes, I was speaking of things that some find "wrong" but are a part of another's way of mlife. Abuse and murder are wrong no matter who you are.
2007-08-19 21:57:09 · update #2
*life
Sorry guys, bad typing spree tonight :)
2007-08-19 21:57:53 · update #3
There's two words that spring to mind Math, respect and tolerance. Even though I have no faith, I have respect for others faiths, that's their decision, and who knows, I might be wrong. I also think if there was alot more tolerance of others, especially inter religious tolerance, the world would be a far better place. I like your idea about focus on yourself, the constant pseudo preaching by certain people is not only boring, I DO avert my eyes. I think that people who blindly preach and don't listen are actually more concerned about their doubts about their own faith.
2007-08-19 21:44:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, we certainly are in agreement about free-speech. But I'm curious; where does one draw the line between speaking freely and not having to be accused of "forcing" their views on someone else? I've actually had experiences where someone would ask me what i believe about this or that - usually politics or religion- and then to have them ask the really absurd question "Why do you want others to feel, think, or believe that way?", and not once in the discussion did I ever hint of any such thing. Personally, I believe there are just too many thin-skinned people out there who have bought into the "politically correct" nonsense beyond any hope of normalcy.
2007-08-20 04:37:14 · answer #2 · answered by RIFF 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Many times it's not a personal "attack" but rather a call for someone to achieve the better good. Those who are "criticized" also need to learn to avert their eyes just as those who are the ones doing the critiquing.
Some issues are a public health issue such as "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and not a moral judgment.
A tattoo is a personal issue and choice however in my state it is legal to require employees with tattoos to cover them while on the job. This gives the employer a personal choice as well as not all employers require tattoos to be covered.
It's balance and maturity.
2007-08-20 04:34:02 · answer #3 · answered by thefinalresult 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In speaking out, we really are trying to change things, aren't we?
For example - I would speak out against pornography. Others would say - just don't look. But, with media surrounding us in our world today, it would be entirely possible to be surrounded by pornography (and in some locations, you are!) Can I go through life looking only at the toes of my own shoes? Can I raise my children in the manner I want to (pornography free) if I'm forced to live in that world?
If one has freedom to display pornography, my freedom to live in a world free of pornography is taken away.
What I am saying, is that there are 2 sides to every argument. An atheist would prefer that God never be mentioned, a Christian would like to see Him honored in everything. Whose freedom outweighs the other? The answer should be, neither!
Freedoms of all kinds need to be tempered with respect, tolerance, and compromise. There are limits to every freedom and arguments for every side of a question.
I hate tattoos and hate to see them on everyone on the street. I do not generally voice that opinion publicly, but, if it were on a ballot, I would probably vote to make them illegal because I know that many people get infections or have a variety of other ailments as a result of tattooing. This affects my health care costs, availability of health care, etc. So, their right to tattoo does affect me.
Every situation is the same. Other's beliefs affect our own life. It is not possible to just "ignore it."
Tolerance and compromise are the highest freedoms we can give ourselves.
2007-08-20 04:50:30 · answer #4 · answered by Serenity 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Here's the thing, if you truly love a person, you want what is best for them. Let's say you are a parent, and your kid is doing drugs. You aren't just going to "tolerate" their drug taking. That is not true love. True love is protecting someone from lies, deception and destruction. That is why Christians, and people from other religions, have a hard time just "averting their eyes." They want people to know the Truth so they will no longer be in the darkness and despair of false thinking and ultimately, a false reality. Just think, if you knew for a fact that Jesus Christ loved the entire world, wouldn't you want the entire world to know? It would be cruel to keep that from people, right?
2007-08-20 04:28:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
From what I read here, I don't believe you meant to avert your eyes in the face of violence or abuse, I think you meant from lifestyles and choices that harm none.
And I think that when it comes to lifestyles and personal adult choices, we should 'live and let live'. I don't always agree with other peoples choices, but I agree with their right to choose their own path if it harms no one else.
Anyone that wants to push their ideas and beliefs onto others is wrong. They wouldn't want anyone else's pushed on them, so they should back off and 'live and let live'.
2007-08-20 04:43:05 · answer #6 · answered by hypno_toad1 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you mean to say if someone is murdering someone else all I have to do is avert my eyes ; like see no evil ?
whether or not I state my own view exclusively or not some one will find conflict even if I would like tohers to see the point I don't foist it upon anyone just because they read it they may always reject any thing they like when it comes to words .
Actions on the other hand are not this way . did that cover the question or a I laboring in the blind?
2007-08-20 04:31:41 · answer #7 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
May be adults can look away,but children can not control them selves.So adults need to do what they must to protect them, so must see and know our enviroment to protect the little ones whom are most important in this world.I would not want my children to see someones free speech that could teach her wrong,or what is wrong to me.There is to many crazies out there to let eveyone speak to freely!
2007-08-20 04:51:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we can avert our eyes and should. It is also the job of ours to warn others from things that can cause harm. We should not necessarily outlaw it, but if it is necessary to protect children, then I am all for it.
2007-08-20 04:28:18 · answer #9 · answered by Jeff E 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
well when its HARMFUL to children and others then u have to do something about it. when it destroys the very fabric of civilization it must be taken care of. like bad words on tv, can't allow that on primetime tv. statues of hitler in washington d.c. might be a bit much too. because it means THATS WHAT WE STAND FOR. so yeah...
2007-08-20 04:27:33 · answer #10 · answered by John 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋