“Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
When I saw that you were addressing the topic of freedom of speech, Peter, I knew you would do so better than anyone else - and you have!
My hope is that the judicial system will now be impelled to address this topic, as well. I believe they would have to conclude that most of the recent ideology of the Left, such as “cancel culture “, has been an advocacy for limitations on free speech. In fact, to my mind, “cancel culture” is pure fascism! I’ve read that the definition of fascism is (paraphrasing) “business and government colluding to enforce a sole allowed viewpoint”. Um, isn’t that what DEI and cancel culture ARE? No wonder so many Americans find these ideas annoying and infuriating - they infringe on our right to freedom of thought and speech!
Thanks, as always, for your dazzling eloquence, Peter!
In order to preserve anyone's right of Free Speech, everyone must relearn the basic humility that words are not violence, and that violence is not a response to words.
We must move the threshold for incitement to lawlessness much, much higher than it stands currently.
Everyone must do this, or we will lose the right of Free Speech altogether. There is no third alternative.
"In order to preserve anyone's right of Free Speech, everyone must relearn the basic humility that words are not violence, and that violence is not a response to words."
This statement should be trending, re-tweeted/posted, etc. far and wide.
I will do what I can, which is what I have always done: submit facts to a candid world, and challenge narratives when they are not supported by the facts.
Hopefully people will eventually be drawn back to the facts and not be seduced by narratives.
The problem with policies about "diversity" is that they are structurally exclusive and divisive, not inclusive. They slot people into arbitrary labels and strip away their individual identities.
Properly apprehended, DEI as implemented is racist, bigoted, and prejudicial. Anyone who says otherwise has not looked closely at DEI concepts or policy guidelines, or simply a damned liar.
The moral and righteous policy has been around since the Apostle Paul penned Galatians:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ" -- Galatians 3:28
That is the policy companies need to adopt. If DEI "experts" had used that as their point of departure they might have actually done some good, instead of the social wreckage they have inflicted on the American workplace.
However, Galatians 3:28 comes a lot closer to addressing the reality of how human beings actually think and act than DEI lunacies.
Whether one takes the "every knee shall bow" view of things or the simple inevitability of reality view, they're going to eventually either be compelled to adopt a premise very similar to Galatians 3:28 or they will cease to exist as an operative societal and political force.
It's not a question of if they are going to come around in their thinking, but when.
Big Parma has been absolutely criminal, and I hope they will be held liable someday!
Plenty of corporate DEI policies have been shameful too. I remember reading that Coke admonished their employees to “be less white” (!). To me, that is a racist and offensive statement, and I would never work for Coke because of it!
The freedom to express ideas as any one person desires is indeed prized. Unfortunately the cost for preserving the prize of freedom of expression is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in certain cases, particularly when the expressions cause needless harm to certain persons and people groups. While some could express appreciation to Margaret Sanger for the freedom to use contraception when engaging in coitus, the concept of sexual freedom as proposed by her is limited to those whom she viewed as superior human beings. I apologize for this vulgar point wholeheartedly.
“Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
When I saw that you were addressing the topic of freedom of speech, Peter, I knew you would do so better than anyone else - and you have!
My hope is that the judicial system will now be impelled to address this topic, as well. I believe they would have to conclude that most of the recent ideology of the Left, such as “cancel culture “, has been an advocacy for limitations on free speech. In fact, to my mind, “cancel culture” is pure fascism! I’ve read that the definition of fascism is (paraphrasing) “business and government colluding to enforce a sole allowed viewpoint”. Um, isn’t that what DEI and cancel culture ARE? No wonder so many Americans find these ideas annoying and infuriating - they infringe on our right to freedom of thought and speech!
Thanks, as always, for your dazzling eloquence, Peter!
In order to preserve anyone's right of Free Speech, everyone must relearn the basic humility that words are not violence, and that violence is not a response to words.
We must move the threshold for incitement to lawlessness much, much higher than it stands currently.
Everyone must do this, or we will lose the right of Free Speech altogether. There is no third alternative.
"In order to preserve anyone's right of Free Speech, everyone must relearn the basic humility that words are not violence, and that violence is not a response to words."
This statement should be trending, re-tweeted/posted, etc. far and wide.
I hope you can lead the way, Peter. You write so clearly, and keep everything so factual, that your writings are a compass for society.
I will do what I can, which is what I have always done: submit facts to a candid world, and challenge narratives when they are not supported by the facts.
Hopefully people will eventually be drawn back to the facts and not be seduced by narratives.
The problem with policies about "diversity" is that they are structurally exclusive and divisive, not inclusive. They slot people into arbitrary labels and strip away their individual identities.
Properly apprehended, DEI as implemented is racist, bigoted, and prejudicial. Anyone who says otherwise has not looked closely at DEI concepts or policy guidelines, or simply a damned liar.
The moral and righteous policy has been around since the Apostle Paul penned Galatians:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ" -- Galatians 3:28
That is the policy companies need to adopt. If DEI "experts" had used that as their point of departure they might have actually done some good, instead of the social wreckage they have inflicted on the American workplace.
They don't want to consider it.
However, Galatians 3:28 comes a lot closer to addressing the reality of how human beings actually think and act than DEI lunacies.
Whether one takes the "every knee shall bow" view of things or the simple inevitability of reality view, they're going to eventually either be compelled to adopt a premise very similar to Galatians 3:28 or they will cease to exist as an operative societal and political force.
It's not a question of if they are going to come around in their thinking, but when.
Big Parma has been absolutely criminal, and I hope they will be held liable someday!
Plenty of corporate DEI policies have been shameful too. I remember reading that Coke admonished their employees to “be less white” (!). To me, that is a racist and offensive statement, and I would never work for Coke because of it!
The freedom to express ideas as any one person desires is indeed prized. Unfortunately the cost for preserving the prize of freedom of expression is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in certain cases, particularly when the expressions cause needless harm to certain persons and people groups. While some could express appreciation to Margaret Sanger for the freedom to use contraception when engaging in coitus, the concept of sexual freedom as proposed by her is limited to those whom she viewed as superior human beings. I apologize for this vulgar point wholeheartedly.