Message from @NDO Nick-TX
Discord ID: 374343396749475843
The truth will not necessarily win out in a free market of ideas
Would it not be that the State cannor enforce it's own definition of good? In our current society, the State's definition of good and just is not shared by us.
Keep in mind their idea of all men were men of European descent of good character. They never envisioned muds being considered our equals
And as far as enforcing morality, it can be done without making dissenting speech illegal. We would be massive hyporcrites to not understand the value of free speech while dangling on the edge of being thrown into prison if it loses ground in this country.
It would be like us writing a founding document and being expected to take into account space aliens being included 200 years later
Definitely going to have a "gas the xenos, galactic Manifest Destiny now" clause.
Seriously that's how foreign a concept of other races being "American" would have been to them
The state has a duty to keep morally deleterious ideas out of public consumption. This is fundamental
I’m not only talking about obscenity although that’s obvious
And obscenity was never considered speech until the 60s
That's why Fascism is the only way forward
However even dangerous ideas presented in a morally acceptable manner must be scrutinized
The point of the 1st amendment is speech and religion, should Christianity be enforced in your opinion?
I believe in toleration not religious liberty. The difference is important.
Yes. It should be the official state religion with other European religions tolerated
Mosley wrote about how he was fine with any religions that did not preach subversion of the State, and welcomed those that promoted duty and fairness. Foreign religions could be given a different status, but as far as homogeneity, that would be a followup of that.
Religious liberty is a deleterious principal. Toleration is often a necessity
Define the difference in your opinion
No Islam, Judaism or any culturally foreign religions not tolerated
That's easy to say, but hard to make precedents of, and what faiths to include in what cultural categories are also not as black and white.
Religious liberty is a refusal of the state to make certain claims about the truth
Toleration is necessary in societies which are in any degree mixed
Politically, religiously, even ethnically
So Thomas, if a communist were to ask me, "Would you make my speech illegal?"
I should then respond, "No, but I will remove the causal factors leading you to become a communist."
The truth as far as morality or religion? Is it possible the State can define the truth about family, lifestyle, and duty without defining what faith most accurately worships Christ or gets the creation right?
@Smiter-IL I believe the State has every right to make actions illegal. Where the line is drawn between speech and action is something to be defined.
@Thomas Ryan that all depends on the composition of the state. I don’t have a problem with compromises
Regardless: a state is always going to have a way of defining its sovereign good - from which it will be punishable to dissent. Our government very much does this as you all know. It isn’t called a state religion but you might as well think of it that way.
Wrong school
University of south florida
Not florida state
I updated it
Idk why it's not previewing
@NDO Nick-TX When Thomas Jefferson was talking about equality, I think he was referencing the forces of nature. The same forces that created me are the same forces that created you. That's what he meant by being created equally. He was arguing against Divine Right of Kings and pointing out that in the eyes of god men are men regardless of title.
You could also argue it was always more about equality before the law, than equality of value.
Yeah, I think that was the maxim he was invoking.
In essence, the following concept is what the enlightenment was supposed to be about:
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment . . ."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Republic, The Laws, 59 - 47 B.C.
The 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights is in line with the 1st Commandment of the Bible, too. Both the 1st Amendment and 1st Commandment are in line with the above quote.