We Pick Our Sacred Cows

[The Nehor]

Nehor, the my intention of bringing up the First Amendment is because our US nation has traditionally valued the right of people to share their thoughts or express their ideas.  The fact that now thoughts, even more than criminal acts, are so disrespected and worthy of total destruction is interesting.  

 

Your cartoon is really cute and I am glad you shared it here where we don't use profanity (you really pulled the wool over our board rules), but it does not directly apply to my position.  I was trying to address concepts - who picks the sacred cows for society and what ideas become pariahs while actual criminal acts become insignificant actions?   

 

This is not a new social phenomenon. Traditionally we tarred and feathered those with outlandish ideas and socially shunned them. That is the American way and always has been. It is the way societies work. The only change the United States brought is that the government does not inflict physical violence on the person with the unpopular idea and does not allow others to punish them with violence.

 

I would think LDS of all people would understand that. While government protection was admittedly limited we got the whole social shun and scorn thing to the point we ran off into the desert to find some peace. Glad you liked the cartoon.

 

 

You are right, this isn't really a free speech issue.

 

However, the cartoon is a perfect example of the state of our country when it comes to 'thought' or 'belief' crimes.  Not only are we, as a culture, very comfortable calling someone names because we disagree with them, we feel morally superior when we do so.

 

We have reach a point in our culture where the majority of us can't stand being disagreed with.  We can't deal with it.  The second anyone does anything that irks us or makes us angry, we launch our public 'attack' of their position.  No one is safe.  

 

I just read a blog written by a mother who was calling out another mother who, instead of commiserating with her about a bad day, had the nerve to instead ask 'what can i do to help'.  The blog's author went on and on about how such a reply was not sincere, and just made her feel like a bad mom, and wasn't appreciated.  The other mother's 'crime' was that she reacted to a situation in a way that the blogger would not have reacted, and that was all that was necessary to denigrate her and warn others to tread more carefully.  

 

In the past i think that most of us, including the blogger, would have realized that such a reaction to that kind of situation is a sign of some emotional issues and problems of the blogger.  Today though, the blogger's reaction is to believe that her unease was caused by the morally inferior position of the other mother.  And of course this example is the most benign of many (of all different levels of seriousness) that illustrate the point.

 

As the cartoon shows, not only do we have little ability to deal with those we disagree with, many of us now believe that we should punish such people, and do whatever we can to force them into adopting our view.  We must 'show them the door' if they say or believe something we don't, because obviously, that one crime alone proves they deserve to be marginalized.

 

I agree but I see little reason to believe society has shifted to this point. "Twas ever thus" I think we may be noticing it more.....mostly because we are currently a minor target and likely to be a bigger one soon. That is actually the norm for the followers of Christ. We have had an exceptionally easy last century so we could get our work done. It was never going to last.

 

 

I'm not talking about freedom of thought or belief as something that is guaranteed by the constitution.  I don't mean it's violated because some law has been broken.  

 

I believe that it's violated whenever someone attempts to stifle it or to bully another into changing it.

 

Because if we have to first make sure our ideas and beliefs 'tow the company line' before we are safe to have and express them, then freedom of thought and belief doesn't actual exist.  And if it no longer exists, then by definition it's been violated.

 

Then the apostates claiming that not being able to have their say in Fast and Testimony Meeting or Sunday School are right and we should let them speak and say whatever they like.

 

I can assure you that if I came out in support of fascism and eugenics next week at work I would be out of a job. Is that a violation of freedom of thought? Is telling people that homosexual relations are sinful bullying? If I ostracize a friend because I find out he is a communist is that bullying or stifling his freedom?

 

Social shame is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. We couldn't throw it out even if we tried.

[bluebell]

I agree but I see little reason to believe society has shifted to this point. "Twas ever thus" I think we may be noticing it more.....mostly because we are currently a minor target and likely to be a bigger one soon. That is actually the norm for the followers of Christ. We have had an exceptionally easy last century so we could get our work done. It was never going to last.

 

I don't think so (and i'm not even really talking about issues with being a Christian, but just the phenomenon in question).

 

I also read an article two weeks ago talking about the change in college kids and how they deal with people who do things they don't agree with.  This was in relation to all the demonstrations and boycotts concerning different graduation speakers around the country.  The author (I might be able to find the article again once i look for it) talked about how this reaction (trying to silence people who had views you didn't agree with) was completely new to college campuses.  He said that in the past, students had very strong opinions on what was right or wrong, but they were able to listen to opposing views, or listen to people who had opposing views, and to understand that it might be reasonable for someone to disagree with them, even if they didn't personally find the same arguments persuasive.

 

 

Then the apostates claiming that not being able to have their say in Fast and Testimony Meeting or Sunday School are right and we should let them speak and say whatever they like.

 

I can assure you that if I came out in support of fascism and eugenics next week at work I would be out of a job. Is that a violation of freedom of thought? Is telling people that homosexual relations are sinful bullying? If I ostracize a friend because I find out he is a communist is that bullying or stifling his freedom?

 

Social shame is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. We couldn't throw it out even if we tried.

I don't think allowing people the freedom to voice their beliefs without fear of reprisal means that they have the right to hold us hostage and force us to listen.  It is possible to give people that freedom without mandating that others must listen to them.  In any situation where a group of people have gathered on private property it is reasonable to assume that individual freedoms can be curtailed to one extent or another.

 

And i agree that shame is a tool that can be used for good or ill.  My point isn't that that tool shouldn't exist.  It's that any tool taken to extremes becomes a dangerous weapon, and it seems like the tool of using social pressure to shame anyone who disagrees with you has been taken to extremes in our culture right now.

[bluebell]

Yes. But in all three of these examples we're talking about actions: the Mozilla CEO can think and believe whatever he wants about marriage,

 

Yes, but can he voice those beliefs without fear of reprisal?

 

For me, that's the sticking point.  It's not really freedom of belief and thought it you have to keep those things a secret.  

 

Mozilla employees can think and believe whatever they choose with respect to their CEO, and Sterling can think and believe whatever he wants about race. In all three cases, it is their actions that are being regulated, as you put it.

 

What actions of Sterlings is being regulated?  As i understand it, he is under attack for things that he said, not anything that he did.  Am i misunderstanding that?  

 

And just to clarify, in my opinion, saying something is not at all equal to acting on it.  

 

We aren't talking about thought and belief. We're talking about those thoughts and beliefs being expressed in various ways. And the consequences of those expressions.

 

 

My point is, or my question is, should people believe they have the right to police and punish expressions of belief that they personally disagree with?  And i'm not asking about legal rights but moral rights.

[rockpond]

Yes, but can he voice those beliefs without fear of reprisal?

For me, that's the sticking point. It's not really freedom of belief and thought it you have to keep those things a secret.

What actions of Sterlings is being regulated? As i understand it, he is under attack for things that he said, not anything that he did. Am i misunderstanding that?

And just to clarify, in my opinion, saying something is not at all equal to acting on it.

My point is, or my question is, should people believe they have the right to police and punish expressions of belief that they personally disagree with? And i'm not asking about legal rights but moral rights.

So telling your girlfriend not to be seen in public with black people is an expression of belief? And financially contributing to an effort to end someone's marriage is an expression of belief? But getting married is NOT an expression of belief? And an employee saying that they are not willing to work for a certain CEO is also NOT an expression of belief?

Do you see where I am struggling to understand the position that you seem to have staked out? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[The Nehor]

 

I don't think so (and i'm not even really talking about issues with being a Christian, but just the phenomenon in question).

 

I also read an article two weeks ago talking about the change in college kids and how they deal with people who do things they don't agree with.  This was in relation to all the demonstrations and boycotts concerning different graduation speakers around the country.  The author (I might be able to find the article again once i look for it) talked about how this reaction (trying to silence people who had views you didn't agree with) was completely new to college campuses.  He said that in the past, students had very strong opinions on what was right or wrong, but they were able to listen to opposing views, or listen to people who had opposing views, and to understand that it might be reasonable for someone to disagree with them, even if they didn't personally find the same arguments persuasive.

 

I don't think allowing people the freedom to voice their beliefs without fear of reprisal means that they have the right to hold us hostage and force us to listen.  It is possible to give people that freedom without mandating that others must listen to them.  In any situation where a group of people have gathered on private property it is reasonable to assume that individual freedoms can be curtailed to one extent or another.

 

And i agree that shame is a tool that can be used for good or ill.  My point isn't that that tool shouldn't exist.  It's that any tool taken to extremes becomes a dangerous weapon, and it seems like the tool of using social pressure to shame anyone who disagrees with you has been taken to extremes in our culture right now.

 

I don't believe this is a big change in terms of college students demonstrating and making a fuss. Are we comparing this to, for example, the 70s? I see objecting to a graduation speaker as nothing compared to what students were saying about Vietnam and everything else in society back then. They make this fuss look like nothing. When I see rioting in the streets I will start worrying. College students supporting inane and dubious causes in little minor ways is just par for the course.

[The Nehor]

My point is, or my question is, should people believe they have the right to police and punish expressions of belief that they personally disagree with?  And i'm not asking about legal rights but moral rights.

 

Yes, they should. I am reminded of previous prophets mentioning they patronized establishments that closed on the Sabbath. Isn't that punishing others by denying them your business based on your personal beliefs? I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I find many of their business practices disgusting. I punish them. It works on a larger scale with the Chik-Fil-A silliness a while back. Facing economic punishments for your beliefs is normal.

 

Now there is a moral component as to when you should exercise that right but I don't know where to draw the line.

[bluebell]

Yes, they should. I am reminded of previous prophets mentioning they patronized establishments that closed on the Sabbath. Isn't that punishing others by denying them your business based on your personal beliefs? I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I find many of their business practices disgusting. I punish them. It works on a larger scale with the Chik-Fil-A silliness a while back. Facing economic punishments for your beliefs is normal.

 

Now there is a moral component as to when you should exercise that right but I don't know where to draw the line.

 

In it's basic form, i don't see that as punishing others based on personal beliefs.

 

There is a difference to me between supporting people who's beliefs you agree with, and purposefully setting out to destroy people whose beliefs you don't agree with.

 

If it's true though, that people should face economic punishments for beliefs others don't agree with, is it then moral for a group of neo nazis to do everything in their power to legally try to get a Jewish shop closed down?

[bluebell]

So telling your girlfriend not to be seen in public with black people is an expression of belief?

 

Seems like a reasonable interpretation.  He believed she shouldn't bring black people to the games and he expressed that belief, right?

 

And financially contributing to an effort to end someone's marriage is an expression of belief?

 

 

Believing that SSM shouldn't be legal and voicing that is an expression of belief.

 

Taking part in the government to try to bring that to pass is an action based on that belief.   

 

But getting married is NOT an expression of belief?

 

 

It's also an action based on a belief.

 

And an employee saying that they are not willing to work for a certain CEO is also NOT an expression of belief?

 

That's an expression of a belief.  

 

Do you see where I am struggling to understand the position that you seem to have staked out? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

 

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.

[bluebell]

I don't believe this is a big change in terms of college students demonstrating and making a fuss. Are we comparing this to, for example, the 70s? I see objecting to a graduation speaker as nothing compared to what students were saying about Vietnam and everything else in society back then. They make this fuss look like nothing. When I see rioting in the streets I will start worrying. College students supporting inane and dubious causes in little minor ways is just par for the course.

 

If i run across that article again, i'll post it.

[rockpond]

Seems like a reasonable interpretation. He believed she shouldn't bring black people to the games and he expressed that belief, right?

Believing that SSM shouldn't be legal and voicing that is an expression of belief.

Taking part in the government to try to bring that to pass is an action based on that belief.

It's also an action based on a belief.

That's an expression of a belief.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.

As far as I can tell, you are drawing a distinction between belief (and expression of that belief) vs action. Your position seems to be that it is morally wrong to police/regulate the former but not morally wrong to police/regulate the latter.

So then looking at the Mozilla example and your definitions... The CEO committed an action that was offensive to some of his employees and customers. The employees expressed their belief that what he did was wrong. The strength of their convictions seems to have at least played a part in his resignation.

If I've understood your explanations correctly, that situation falls into the "moral" category since it was an action that was being policed and regulated while the employees were just expressing their beliefs.

[bluebell]

I am drawing a distinction between thought and action, but not in as black and white of a way as you believe.

I'm just saying that there is a difference between thinking that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without persecution and thinking that people should be allowed to do whatever they want without persecution.

I don't really agree with the idea of thought police, but I'm all for the existence of regular police for example.

I'm not saying that no action should ever be punished by social pressure. I am saying that *some*actions which are currently punished because they stem from beliefs someone else doesn't agree with, are just an extension of thought police moved into the physical realm.

For example, if the CEO hadn't of donated any money to fight SSM, but was still very vocal about his beliefs concerning the practice, do you believe the mozilla workers would have been ok with that, or do you believe their reaction would have been the exact same?

I believe it would have been the same. I believe they used the donation of money as a way to judge what his beliefs were but that it was ultimately his beliefs which he was punished for.

Hope that makes sense.

[rockpond]

I am drawing a distinction between thought and action, but not in as black and white of a way as you believe.

I'm just saying that there is a difference between thinking that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want without persecution and thinking that people should be allowed to do whatever they want without persecution.

I don't really agree with the idea of thought police, but I'm all for the existence of regular police for example.

I'm not saying that no action should ever be punished by social pressure. I am saying that *some*actions which are currently punished because they stem from beliefs someone else doesn't agree with, are just an extension of thought police moved into the physical realm.

For example, if the CEO hadn't of donated any money to fight SSM, but was still very vocal about his beliefs concerning the practice, do you believe the mozilla workers would have been ok with that, or do you believe their reaction would have been the exact same?

I believe it would have been the same. I believe they used the donation of money as a way to judge what his beliefs were but that it was ultimately his beliefs which he was punished for.

Hope that makes sense.

Nope... Still not seeing how you distinguish here other than your own "sacred cow", as you put it.

Why was it okay for the CEO to put his beliefs into action by voting/financing to end marriages and deny rights but it was wrong for the employees to express their beliefs about working for him? How are you distinguishing between the two?

[bluebell]

Nope... Still not seeing how you distinguish here other than your own "sacred cow", as you put it.

Why was it okay for the CEO to put his beliefs into action by voting/financing to end marriages and deny rights but it was wrong for the employees to express their beliefs about working for him? How are you distinguishing between the two?

 

I don't personally believe it's ever wrong to follow your conscience when voting or being a part of the civil government in action.  I don't believe that anyone should ever be punished for doing that.

 

I believe that is fundamentally different than trying to get someone fired because they support a cause you don't agree with.

 

Kind of like the difference between someone voting for a specific president, and someone else trying to get anyone who voted for the president they didn't like fired from their job.

 

Do you see those two options in the above statement as morally equal options?

[rockpond]

I don't personally believe it's ever wrong to follow your conscience when voting or being a part of the civil government in action. I don't believe that anyone should ever be punished for doing that.

I believe that is fundamentally different than trying to get someone fired because they support a cause you don't agree with.

Kind of like the difference between someone voting for a specific president, and someone else trying to get anyone who voted for the president they didn't like fired from their job.

Do you see those two options in the above statement as morally equal options?

Putting something on a ballot doesn't automatically imbue it with moral correctness.

To answer your question, in terms of "moral equivalency" I think it's worse to vote to deny rights to a minority than to say you don't wish to work for someone who harbors prejudice against you or your loved ones. That said, given the deeply held beliefs of many who voted against marriage equality, I withhold judgement of the CEO in question.

[bluebell]

Putting something on a ballot doesn't automatically imbue it with moral correctness.

 

No one is saying it does.

 

Regardless of the topic, I believe that people should be able to vote according to the dictates of their own conscience without fear of punishment.  

 

It's o.k. if we disagree about that.

 

To answer your question, in terms of "moral equivalency" I think it's worse to vote to deny rights to a minority than to say you don't wish to work for someone who harbors prejudice against you or your loved ones. That said, given the deeply held beliefs of many who voted against marriage equality, I withhold judgement of the CEO in question.

 

 

So if i'm understanding you correctly, you believe it is morally inferior to vote according to your beliefs, and morally superior to try to get people fired from their jobs for voting in a way that you disagree with?

[BCSpace]

If the mods delete your post and suspend you for a few days for breaking the board rules and posting profanity, are your free speech rights being violated? Hmmmmm...

 

 

I'll give you a better example.  What if they do it for posting officially published LDS doctrine? I've experienced that first hand here and yet I would say it isn't a violation of my free speech as this board represents the speech of it's owner(s).

[Sleeper Cell]

Yes, but can he voice those beliefs without fear of reprisal?

 

For me, that's the sticking point.  It's not really freedom of belief and thought it you have to keep those things a secret.  

 

What actions of Sterlings is being regulated?  As i understand it, he is under attack for things that he said, not anything that he did.  Am i misunderstanding that?  

 

And just to clarify, in my opinion, saying something is not at all equal to acting on it.  

 

 

My point is, or my question is, should people believe they have the right to police and punish expressions of belief that they personally disagree with?  And i'm not asking about legal rights but moral rights.

 

Apparently Sterling was trying to keep them a secret.  His racist rant was made in private during an argument with his girlfriend. She recorded them without his knowledge and made them public against his will.  When the news broke about Sterling’s private words, wasn’t the local chapter of the NAACP about to give him an award for his public words and actions?   

 

IIRC, a few years ago, Hillary Clinton was given a pass for her anti-Semitic rant on the grounds that it was private speech uttered in a fit of anger.

[Storm Rider]

As far as I can tell, you are drawing a distinction between belief (and expression of that belief) vs action. Your position seems to be that it is morally wrong to police/regulate the former but not morally wrong to police/regulate the latter.

So then looking at the Mozilla example and your definitions... The CEO committed an action that was offensive to some of his employees and customers. The employees expressed their belief that what he did was wrong. The strength of their convictions seems to have at least played a part in his resignation.

If I've understood your explanations correctly, that situation falls into the "moral" category since it was an action that was being policed and regulated while the employees were just expressing their beliefs.

 

You seem to equate two things that I see as in conflict.  If you have a belief or an political opinion and you choose to support your opinion or cause by donating then those who disagree with you are entitled to destroy your business, employment, and....well anything else they determine can hurt you.  After all, they disagree with your opinion.  

 

The conflict I see is why don't the other people just vote?  Or better yet, why don't they just donate some money to their cause?  That seems to be thought and action in equilibrium.  What you are proposing is that because you have an opinion I disagree with then I have the right not to enter discourse with you, but to destroy you socially.  Just curious, but as we carry this logic of yours out, where does the coercion stop?  Or should it ever stop?  After all, it is really about have the "right" opinion and thoughts and if we need to coerce everyone into having these correct thoughts we will have a more civil, peaceful society.  

 

I am not positive, but your logic leads me to think that at some point an individual that was coerced all his life just might begin respond in force.  Two wrongs never make it right; not now and not ever. 

[The Nehor]

If it's true though, that people should face economic punishments for beliefs others don't agree with, is it then moral for a group of neo nazis to do everything in their power to legally try to get a Jewish shop closed down?

 

Already answered:

 

Now there is a moral component as to when you should exercise that right but I don't know where to draw the line.

 

Here is my personal moral judgment. In this case I am going to come down on the side of the neo-nazis being wrong. I know it is a bold and controversial stand but I feel strongly about it.

[strappinglad]

I wonder if Gavrilo Princip , on second thought, might have chosen to  protest Arch Duke Ferdinand with just a sign instead of a pistol had he foreseen the consequences.

 

  Youtube, Facebook and Twitter as well as the ubiquitous cellphone camera have made private conversations the equivalent of standing in Mecca and shouting curses about Mohammed. It makes mom's advice about " if you can't say anything nice..." ever more appropriate.

[Calm]

And yet it doesn't seem like people are all that much nicer.....

[Bob Crockett]

The First Amendment does not apply to fines or sanctions imposed by the NBA against Sterling.  No government entity has fined Sterling, you'll note.

 

 

The comparison between Ray Rice and Sterling (in two different leagues) is no comparison at all.

[rockpond]

 

No one is saying it does.

 

Regardless of the topic, I believe that people should be able to vote according to the dictates of their own conscience without fear of punishment.  

 

It's o.k. if we disagree about that.

 

I agree.  People should be able to vote according to the dictates of their own conscience without fear of punishment.  Isn't that why we have a secret ballot system?  But the CEO didn't keep his support for the ballot measure a secret and therefore is subject to the reaction of his employees.

 

 

 So if i'm understanding you correctly, you believe it is morally inferior to vote according to your beliefs, and morally superior to try to get people fired from their jobs for voting in a way that you disagree with?

 

To understand me correctly, you'd have to drop the spin.  The CEO voted (& provided financial support) to remove marriage equality from a minority.  The employees of a company said that they didn't want to work for someone who treated they and their loved ones in that manner.

 

Personally, I don't like what the employees did.  And I disagree with the CEO's Prop 8 support.  But if I have to pick one that was less moral... I'd go with voting to terminate marital rights of a minority group over employee dissent.

[rockpond]

You seem to equate two things that I see as in conflict.  If you have a belief or an political opinion and you choose to support your opinion or cause by donating then those who disagree with you are entitled to destroy your business, employment, and....well anything else they determine can hurt you.  After all, they disagree with your opinion.  

 

The conflict I see is why don't the other people just vote?  Or better yet, why don't they just donate some money to their cause?  That seems to be thought and action in equilibrium.  What you are proposing is that because you have an opinion I disagree with then I have the right not to enter discourse with you, but to destroy you socially.  Just curious, but as we carry this logic of yours out, where does the coercion stop?  Or should it ever stop?  After all, it is really about have the "right" opinion and thoughts and if we need to coerce everyone into having these correct thoughts we will have a more civil, peaceful society.  

 

I am not positive, but your logic leads me to think that at some point an individual that was coerced all his life just might begin respond in force.  Two wrongs never make it right; not now and not ever. 

 

Does an employee have a right to speak up about their boss's actions?  Does an associate of a business have the right to say that they don't want to engage with another company based on the values of the CEO?

[bluebell]

I agree.  People should be able to vote according to the dictates of their own conscience without fear of punishment.  Isn't that why we have a secret ballot system?  But the CEO didn't keep his support for the ballot measure a secret and therefore is subject to the reaction of his employees.

 

That doesn't make any sense to me.

If people should be able to vote according to the dictates of their own conscience without fear of punishment, then that is true regardless of whether or not the ballot is kept secret.

Either they should have that right, or they shouldn't. 

 

 

To understand me correctly, you'd have to drop the spin.  The CEO voted (& provided financial support) to remove marriage equality from a minority.  The employees of a company said that they didn't want to work for someone who treated they and their loved ones in that manner.

 

I'm not spinning anything.  

 

The CEO voted for something he personally believed in which some of his employees didn't agree with or like, and they worked to get him fired.  That's the simply fact of what happened.    

 

 

Personally, I don't like what the employees did.  And I disagree with the CEO's Prop 8 support.  But if I have to pick one that was less moral... I'd go with voting to terminate marital rights of a minority group over employee dissent.

 

 

So you believe that getting someone fired for voting according to their beliefs is better (not the best option, but better) than someone else voting according to their conscience.