On the Left it’s PC, on the Right it’s RC. And I can’t find either in the First Amendment.

February 7th, 2006

In response to Rick at Shark and Shepherd stating that the Vatican was

…wrong to say that the freedom of thought and expression cannot imply the right to offend the sensibilities of religious believers.

Dad29 (of Dad29) left a comment saying:

It is very dangerous to regard “freedom of expression” as an absolute right. While I don’t think that S&S goes that far, cialis generic sick the argument is really over ‘religious sensibilities.’ That’s what the Vatican’s statement is all about.

There is NO good reason to offend religious sensibilities, period.

Now let’s replace the phrase “religious sensibilities” with “racial sensibilities” or “gay sensibilities” or “liberal sensibilities.”

How is Dad29’s position any different than any other form of political correctness?

PC is about protecting the feelings of racial and sexual-orientation groups.

RC (religious correctness) is just the same principle extended to members of religious groups.

(With the added issue that pretty much anyone can define their own religion.)

Are “religions” that profess that a comet is coming to pick believers up also exempt from criticism or ridicule?

What about Scientology’s contention that we’re all descended from aliens?

Or will Dad29 and other same-thinking individuals release a list of which religions are privileged and protected and which are not?

A prohibition against speech that merely offends members of any religion is unworkable, unneccessary, and undemocratic.

And lastly, I better NEVER see any of the people arguing that free speech takes a back seat to religious sensibilities EVER attack another group for wanting to censor free speech because it offends that group’s sensibilities.

Hypocrites are the lowest form of life.

And I won’t apologize if that hurt anyone’s sensibilities.

Entry Filed under: Milwaukee,Philosophy,Politics

6 Comments Add your own

  • 1. grumps  |  February 7th, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    I think he meant to say, “There is NO good reason to offend MY religious sensibilities, period.”

  • 2. dad29  |  February 7th, 2006 at 7:42 pm

    Well, you behave as your mother instructed you, and I’ll behave accordiing to MY mom’s dicta. Assuming that I do better in following her advice, I’ll wind up a gentleman.

    You, on the other hand, will not.

  • 3. Administrator  |  February 7th, 2006 at 9:20 pm

    A desire to protect an act is not the same as a willingness to commit it.

  • 4. From Where I Sit » &hellip  |  February 7th, 2006 at 11:06 pm

    […] It occured to me that somone reading my recent posts defending the “offensive” Muslim cartoons and then reading my post about the inappropriate speech at the King funeral might think that I was being hypocritical. […]

  • 5. Melinda Omdahl  |  February 8th, 2006 at 12:10 am

    dad29 wrote:
    Assuming that I do better in following her advice, I’ll wind up a gentleman. You, on the other hand, will not.

    While a wise man once wrote:
    To assume is only to make an ass out of you and me.

    To dad29 – resorting to name calling only proves Elliot’s point.

  • 6. From Where I Sit » &hellip  |  March 21st, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    […] It occured to me that somone reading my recent posts defending the “offensive” Muslim cartoons and then reading my post about the inappropriate speech at the King funeral might think that I was being hypocritical. […]

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta