Message from @Ben - TX

Discord ID: 374343755450417156


2017-10-29 23:39:46 UTC  

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.

2017-10-29 23:40:23 UTC  

It would be like us writing a founding document and being expected to take into account space aliens being included 200 years later

2017-10-29 23:41:04 UTC  

Definitely going to have a "gas the xenos, galactic Manifest Destiny now" clause.

2017-10-29 23:41:43 UTC  

Seriously that's how foreign a concept of other races being "American" would have been to them

2017-10-29 23:41:55 UTC  

The state has a duty to keep morally deleterious ideas out of public consumption. This is fundamental

2017-10-29 23:42:21 UTC  

I’m not only talking about obscenity although that’s obvious

2017-10-29 23:42:40 UTC  

And obscenity was never considered speech until the 60s

2017-10-29 23:42:48 UTC  

That's why Fascism is the only way forward

2017-10-29 23:43:08 UTC  

However even dangerous ideas presented in a morally acceptable manner must be scrutinized

2017-10-29 23:43:09 UTC  

The point of the 1st amendment is speech and religion, should Christianity be enforced in your opinion?

2017-10-29 23:43:56 UTC  

I believe in toleration not religious liberty. The difference is important.

2017-10-29 23:44:13 UTC  

Yes. It should be the official state religion with other European religions tolerated

2017-10-29 23:44:34 UTC  

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.

2017-10-29 23:44:39 UTC  

Religious liberty is a deleterious principal. Toleration is often a necessity

2017-10-29 23:44:58 UTC  

Define the difference in your opinion

2017-10-29 23:45:06 UTC  

No Islam, Judaism or any culturally foreign religions not tolerated

2017-10-29 23:46:10 UTC  

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.

2017-10-29 23:47:00 UTC  

We make it very clear which religions are acceptable and they will naturally stay away

2017-10-29 23:47:15 UTC  

Religious liberty is a refusal of the state to make certain claims about the truth

2017-10-29 23:48:07 UTC  

Toleration is necessary in societies which are in any degree mixed

2017-10-29 23:48:26 UTC  

Politically, religiously, even ethnically

2017-10-29 23:48:29 UTC  

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."

2017-10-29 23:49:30 UTC  

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?

2017-10-29 23:50:47 UTC  

@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.

2017-10-29 23:52:40 UTC  

@Thomas Ryan that all depends on the composition of the state. I don’t have a problem with compromises

2017-10-29 23:58:52 UTC  

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.

2017-10-30 00:02:23 UTC  

Wrong school

2017-10-30 00:02:28 UTC  

University of south florida

2017-10-30 00:02:33 UTC  

Not florida state

2017-10-30 00:04:50 UTC  

I updated it

2017-10-30 00:04:51 UTC  

Idk why it's not previewing

2017-10-30 00:09:57 UTC  

@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.

2017-10-30 00:33:41 UTC  

You could also argue it was always more about equality before the law, than equality of value.

2017-10-30 01:06:54 UTC  

Yeah, I think that was the maxim he was invoking.

2017-10-30 01:13:46 UTC  

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.

2017-10-30 01:17:36 UTC  

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.

2017-10-30 01:17:49 UTC  

https://dailystormer.ai/full-analysis-of-tennessee-white-lives-matter-march-and-the-debate-surrounding-it/

Decent article with decent points made. Can't say I find a huge issue with any of it.

2017-10-30 01:20:08 UTC  

Why does it feel like Cicero is talking about Christ in 47 B.C.?

2017-10-30 01:20:45 UTC  

I think the quote is insightful, though. Essentially, no State can alter or rewrite the true binding laws of humanity that are written by nature, or a higher power.