Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

"Choose Life" plates

The state of Tennesee has just approved the "Choose Life" banner plates for use in the state. Of course, the ACLU was the main objector... and they supposedly support "freedom of speech". (and thanks for your forthcoming comment Drew...) ;-)

Either you support freedom of speech, or you don't. Of course, I support LIMITS on freedom of speech, such as limits on spreading hate, pornography, etc. But to try to limit someone from espousing a point of view where there is no harm to any identifiable group, well, I think that's hypocrisy. Don't you? Someone (the ACLU) claiming to be protecting free speech by seeking to limit someone else's right to free speech. Can anyone help me out with this one?

Now, some may point out to my recent posts on how the left attacks Christians, and claim that I'm being hypocritical myself... my saying that the left should quit attacking the church. My previous argument was that the left is CONSISTANT and UNRELENTING in it's public attacks on Christianity... ATTACKS, not just expressing their views. They make it seem like anyone who holds to Christian values is an uneducated bigot, and that is just as unacceptable.

h/t to "Dr. Roy"

posted by Christian Conservative @ 11:33 a.m.  

16 Comments:

  • At Sat Mar 18, 04:51:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    um....what did you expect? Jesus said that people would hate you...Peter said to not be surprised. Why not just get on with doing good works so people can see what you're doing and praise God

     

  • At Sat Mar 18, 05:24:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    I'm not surprised at all... just hoping that others may notice it, and start thinking about it and asking questions of themselves. And when they start asking questions, they may seek answers... which Christ can give.

    Just looking to take the Gospel to areas it's not often presented!

     

  • At Sat Mar 18, 06:16:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I don't know enough about the issue to comment, but I will say that I wouldn't think it's an attack on Christianity as I'm a Christian and I'm pro-choice (as are many of us).

    As a religionless Christian though, I do believe that anything which attacks religion (as Jesus Himself did) is a positive thing.

     

  • At Sun Mar 19, 02:06:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    As usual, CanadianCynic (of whom Big Fat Hairy Dave appears to be a fan, as his post is taken nearly verbatim from CC) is whining and moaning about your post. CC apparently doesn't understand the concept of appeals courts. The ACLU won in the lower court (as CC points out), and now they've lost in a higher court.

    Of course, this is part and parcel to the left's hypocrisy. They complain about "viewpoint discrimination" when it comes to license plates, but not when it comes to liberal indoctrination in schools.

     

  • At Sun Mar 19, 02:50:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Either you support freedom of speech, or you don't. Of course, I support LIMITS on freedom of speech..."

    Then you, indeed, do not support freedom of speech.

     

  • At Sun Mar 19, 03:29:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    djb, would you prefer that I support the creation and distribution of child pornography? Or the KKK's "right" to promote lynching? Are you saying that you do not agree that limits on freedom of expression are needed?

     

  • At Sun Mar 19, 09:07:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sorry, but people from both the "right" and "left" have problems with religious zealots from any religion.

     

  • At Sun Mar 19, 09:29:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    anonymous,
    The problem is that many people on the left define "zealot" as "not on the left."

     

  • At Sun Mar 19, 10:17:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    My point EXACTLY jgriffin!

     

  • At Mon Mar 20, 12:21:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Zealot defined - "A fanatically committed person."
    Funny thing is, I'm a "right winger" too, less the traditional religious overtones. Trust me boys and girls, I know plenty of right of centre CPC members who have problems with "zealots".

     

  • At Mon Mar 20, 05:43:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Are you saying that you do not agree that limits on freedom of expression are needed?"

    I'm saying that you either believe in freedom of speech or you do not. Your statements here demonstrate clearly that you do not believe in freedom of speech.

    I do not believe that any law putting limits on speech has a place in a free and open society. Speech and expression, however, are demonstrably different things. Photographs are not speech. Physical acts such as assault are not speech. Driving a vehicle in a reckless manner is not speech. Creating and distributing child pornography is not speech.

    Saying that you are a damned hypocrite if you claim to support free speech while allowing for limits to free speech is speech.

     

  • At Wed Mar 22, 02:22:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Hey jdave, I don't think I've been a hypocrite, I've been very clear all along about where I stand on "freedom of speech" and such.

    I DON'T support unlimited freedom of speech, and I've never claimed that I did. But I've always supported the idea that all should have freedom of belief, and the freedom to express that belief within reason... and I think that's fair and reasonable, don't you?

    As for "censorship", yes, I freely admit that I deleted two of your posts, however, in each case, I clearly announced that I had done so, and welcomed you to repost the thoughts expressed, only asking that you change a few words... WORDS, not ideas. In fact, if you recall, I reposted the second one for you... I don't see how that shows any hypocrisy on my part; in fact, I think it rather shows my commitment to the idea of "freedom of expression".

    Now, if I had deleted them and said nothing, I think your charge of hypocrisy would be valid, but as it stands, I don't think the charge sticks.

     

  • At Wed Mar 22, 03:46:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "Now, by all means, censor and delete all you want, but please don't say you're in favour of free speech."

    No backflipping on my part here... I have always invited everyone to feel free to post their thoughts, but I ask them to be thoughtful and considerate toward others in the words they choose to use.

    If making that request (and then enforcing it) makes me a hypocrite, then I'm "guilty as charged".

    But it does not, by any strech of the imagination, mean that I want to deny your right to speak your mind. Every debate has it's ground rules, and that's one of the only ones I ask that you respect.

    I've deleted about 5 comments in the last year on this blog... two for language, one for "going to far" regarding my Most Holy and Awesome God, one because it bordered on promoting racism, and one because the author posted the same piece of spam on 50 other blogs.

    It's not something I do lightly, because I want people to feel free to have a reasoned debate without fear of "Big Brother". I always weigh the pros and cons, and, for your information, I've left other posts up in the past even though they too broke my "standards". But remember... I deleted yours specifically because your language was directed at my God, and I won't stand to see Him mocked like that... not on my blog, where I have control over it. Again, it was the combination of factors that led me to remove it. Had you said the same thing differently, it very well may have remained posted.

    I'm sorry that you don't agree with they way I carry things out. I do hope, however, that you still feel free to comment on other issues in the future... I find I grow more when other viewpoints are presented than when I only hear "yes men".

    Thanks for spending what time you have here.

    CC

     

  • At Wed Mar 22, 04:37:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    I can't say that your comment did do any harm to any group... but I ask you to re-read what I said...

    "But to try to limit someone from espousing a point of view where there is no harm to any identifiable group, well, I think that's hypocrisy."

    I didn't ask you to limit your point of view, it was valid... but I asked you to limit the words you used. We may disagree on the details, but I see that as being different altogether.

    My argument was that limiting "free speech" is a bad thing... but I feel that asking people to debate their ideas without swearing is perfectly acceptable.

    But you're right... to most, that would make me look like a hypocrite. If people find that my making that request is offensive to them, and denies them their right to "free speech", then so be it... I have no problem with that.

     

  • At Wed Mar 22, 06:05:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "My argument was that limiting "free speech" is a bad thing..."

    No, you in fact argue for limits of free speech. Speech is either free or it is not. To say "I believe in free speech, but..." is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

    The word "free" is an absolute. If you believe in "free" then the "but" cannot be used as a qualifier.

    You demonstrably do NOT believe in free speech. What I don't understand is why you continue to insist you do, rather than simply stating "I believe in limits on speech, and that there are thoughts that should not be expressed." Stating that would make your position clear and remove any accusation of hypocrisy. Once you did that, you would (in my opinion) then have the right to debate the issue of free speech. But you can't hold both the view that free speech is a right and the opposing view that the state must impose limits on speech.

    Do you honestly not see the distinction?

     

  • At Wed Mar 22, 10:35:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    jdave, sure, I support "limited speech". You win... I think you're still not understanding what I'm trying to say.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home