Thought police
The only outlet that I will use to express political thought through the election is this venue. No more shares, no more reposts. I will continue to read, and continue to think, at least while it is allowed, and then privately will continue to think, afterwards. With the exclusion of Gary Johnson from the debates, very little will change in this year when change was really possible.
Why do I say while it is allowed? Let me quote the 1st Amendment to the Constitution;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
All of these are under assault. While I would agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st, is it any surprise that both are in trouble? Freedom of Speech? The universities of the nation used to be bastions of free speech. Now free speech is "allowed" in specific zones and specific times. Trigger warnings are abundant, as well as safe spaces.
Freedom of the press? The press has abandoned any pretense at objectivity in this election, and understandably so. Under the current administration, more than most of the previous ones, reporters are spied on, their work is subject to review, and are blackballed if their reporting is too critical. I suspect that many would admit, if they have any objectivity, that under W, it was more free. When the NY Times revealed the way the government was tracking terrorists then, W essentially said that the press was doing their jobs. Today, we have the administration begging the press to not report on negative things about the war on terror, the Iran treaty, and so on.
The rights to assemble and to petition the government are other activities that are being more narrowly defined, at least for those that try to do so legally. Apparently blocking freeways, looting, and destruction of property are now those actions sanctioned by the First.
The right to exercise religion protects action, but, more importantly, it protects thoughts. People can believe how they choose. To say it is "allowed" is an affront to the founders, and our fundamental rights. It is to be cherished, and protected. This is not to say that religious freedom allows us to act against other's rights. It does not. Organized religion should be able to control what happens within its organization. Individuals should be able to practice as they see fit. To do less would be to make the right a sham. Now, if the individual believes they can hurt someone else, obviously not. But if one feels they should not participate in an event, that should be their right. People should not be forced to violate those tenets of faith that they hold dear.
Equally important to the protection of those who do believe is the protection of those who don't believe from conforming to our beliefs. Laws should not be put into place to force obedience to a "commandment" or law from God. Period. Those who would say otherwise would deny the intent of the 1st amendment. Sadly, I was once one who thought that was good. No longer. My eyes have been opened. One can't have protection to believe, and then deny protection to those who don't.
Let all act as they will in accordance with their rights and the rights of others. And let all think as they will with no conditions.
Why do I say while it is allowed? Let me quote the 1st Amendment to the Constitution;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
All of these are under assault. While I would agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st, is it any surprise that both are in trouble? Freedom of Speech? The universities of the nation used to be bastions of free speech. Now free speech is "allowed" in specific zones and specific times. Trigger warnings are abundant, as well as safe spaces.
Freedom of the press? The press has abandoned any pretense at objectivity in this election, and understandably so. Under the current administration, more than most of the previous ones, reporters are spied on, their work is subject to review, and are blackballed if their reporting is too critical. I suspect that many would admit, if they have any objectivity, that under W, it was more free. When the NY Times revealed the way the government was tracking terrorists then, W essentially said that the press was doing their jobs. Today, we have the administration begging the press to not report on negative things about the war on terror, the Iran treaty, and so on.
The rights to assemble and to petition the government are other activities that are being more narrowly defined, at least for those that try to do so legally. Apparently blocking freeways, looting, and destruction of property are now those actions sanctioned by the First.
The right to exercise religion protects action, but, more importantly, it protects thoughts. People can believe how they choose. To say it is "allowed" is an affront to the founders, and our fundamental rights. It is to be cherished, and protected. This is not to say that religious freedom allows us to act against other's rights. It does not. Organized religion should be able to control what happens within its organization. Individuals should be able to practice as they see fit. To do less would be to make the right a sham. Now, if the individual believes they can hurt someone else, obviously not. But if one feels they should not participate in an event, that should be their right. People should not be forced to violate those tenets of faith that they hold dear.
Equally important to the protection of those who do believe is the protection of those who don't believe from conforming to our beliefs. Laws should not be put into place to force obedience to a "commandment" or law from God. Period. Those who would say otherwise would deny the intent of the 1st amendment. Sadly, I was once one who thought that was good. No longer. My eyes have been opened. One can't have protection to believe, and then deny protection to those who don't.
Let all act as they will in accordance with their rights and the rights of others. And let all think as they will with no conditions.
Comments
Post a Comment