Me & Rob – Part 4

John, your rationale is exactly the same we heard from the apologists during the rioting over the Mohammad cartoons. Here it is nice and simple – the right to offend is a real and time-honored freedom. The right to not be offended does not exist.

No, Rob. You are misunderstanding. I am not trying to have the State interfere in what some consider “offensive”.  (For the record, I do not consider the Mohammad cartoons unfairly insulting.) That’s why I brought up the simple example of a guy insulting another guy’s wife and getting his head knocked in because of it. There was no necessity for the offended gentlemen to seek the State’s intervention. He just did what came naturally to him.  And to that, you said such a reaction was “understandable”.  I am speaking BEYOND the mere legal license you have been granted by the State to offend, and going to the heart of what true freedom is and what its transgression can mean for our society.  I am speaking of the moral significance, not the legal one.  One may have been granted the legal license to unfairly insult or even to commit an immoral act, but that does not mean there is an inherent right to do so.  An inherent right, Rob, is given to us by God and is a permanent and immutable inheritance. It is not given by man or the State — otherwise it can be taken away as sure as it can be fraudulently granted (i.e. abortion, gay “marriage”).  And because a genuine right has God for its author, it is also subject to the objective moral order and the Truth.

You see, Rob, libertarians blindly believe that they can keep exercising their license to do or say just about anything they want without any real and tragic consequences befalling them or the culture around them. They do so, of course, because they refuse to admit an objective moral boundary for their “liberty”.  Every time they brazenly pass this boundary, they encroach on natural justice and consign the society to internal corruption, decay, and eventually death.

That does not mean one has to be happy when offended – the counter to offensive expression is expression. If someone has published something you think is offensive to you personally or to your religion – be outragted, tell that person to go to hell, write about it on your blog, urge other people to send angry letters, urge other people to boycott that person or that person’s site, radio show, whatever. Do not go crying to the state.

This is a very strange response, Rob. You find it “understandable” that someone would resort to violence if his wife were grievously and unfairly insulted, yet you do not have the same feelings when it concerns someone’s religion.  And, amazingly, you seem to be even more unimpressed that someone would usual peaceful means to address their grievance.

I do not say this to support violence or go “crying to the State” whenever there is an offense committed. In fact, I do not.  I only bring this up to show the rank hypocrisy of libertarians when the playing field is level: you’ve got understanding when it suits you, but a lack of that same understanding when it doesn’t.

12 thoughts on “Me & Rob – Part 4

  1. John, you write “I am not trying to have the State interfere in what some consider “offensive”.” Really? Because that was my original point way back when – that some social conservatives were doing just that. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you’re sincere – then that’s it – period. End of story.

    You also say “libertarians blindly believe that they can keep exercising their license to do or say just about anything they want without any real and tragic consequences befalling them or the culture around them.” Again, I’m a strong believer in free speech, not necessarily a libertarian. In any event, I’m certainly not blind to anything – if I call your god or your wife a “bitch” then yes, indeed, I may be punched in the nose. That does mean that the nose-puncher won’t or shouldn’t face sanction for his actions, but free speech simply means that the speech itself is not prohibited by the state.

    You claim that I “seem to be even more unimpressed that someone would usual peaceful means to address their grievance.” Not at all – quite the opposite actually; I’d have been much more impressed if, say, the Canadian Islamic Congress had simply spoken out against Maclean’s magazine through letters, op-eds, news conferences, etc as opposed to the avenue of state censorship. Let’s counter speech with more speech – that was my point. Let’s also oppose censorship – a crucial piece of the puzzle and one that social conservatives need to appreciate.

  2. This is from Deb Wade about unhealthy impositions forced on the public by government, our education ministries and courts. Not leaving out journalists, judges, teachers and public, socially engineered by blatant lies printed as truth in university textbooks and popular media. Remembering that we all go to school and university. Why have the liberal-minded legalized sodomy in Canada and the U.N. is working hard to legalize it world-wide when it is so unhealthy ? Why are courts and education ministries imposing this as just another healthy lifestyle alternative when it is not healthy? Why are clubs formed in schools to recruit the young into this unhealthy lifestyle ? Why is this taught in school sex education courses as just another healthy choice? Why have people teaching this perversion given the Order Of Canada and featured as Canadian hero on the CBC? Deborah Wade

    When our BC Liberal Party, Liberal Education Ministry, and liberal judges have made an agreement with two homosexual activists, the Correns, to develope our BC public school curriculum from Kindergarten to grade 12 even in spite of the fact that according to Health Canada HIV and AIDS in Canada Surveillance Report for April 2006 on page 60, we read that eighty-five percent of AIDS in Canada is in MALES WHO HAVE SEX WITH MALES ! Not healthy is it ?

    The citizens were not given a vote on this and were ignored.

    The ” Gay bowel syndrome ” describes a well documented collection of bowel diseases that lead to a mechanical dysfunction of the lower bowel tract. However unknown to the Public because of a total pro-homosexual Media and Education Ministry blackout, they include amebiasis, giardiasis, salmonellosis, shigellosis, hepatitis a and b, tuberculosis,sypilis etc. These are ENDemic to the homosexual population. Not healthy or normal is it ? Why is our Education Ministry and Media promoting and imposing this on our children as just another healthy worldview? Have they gone stark raving mad or has this imposed relativism in our schools left them in a drug induced type of stupor ?

  3. Over the top ‘gay bashing’, Rob?

    I see pointing out the biological dangers of sodomy, from official sources no less, are now a form of gay “bashing” to you?

  4. I wonder why no one quotes statistics for HIV/AIDS from the Centre for Disease Control, or Health Canada, or the fact that Canadian Blood Services does not accept blood from gay men because of the high risk of anal sex.

    It’s not about discrimination – but about common sense and facts!

    This is a letter I got today with a mountain of facts on this issue. Nobody seems to give a rip about the truth.

  5. Again, what does that have to do with freedom of speech? To segue from a discussion on the limits of freedom of speech to a paranoid rant on the “dangers of homosexuality” suggests to me a most “unhealthy” obsession.

  6. I mean slavery to all sin Rob. legalizing sins don’t make them right and imposing them on children and society as healthy is not what good citizens or governments or education establishments ought to be doing.

  7. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario will force all medical personnel to perform abortions or be charged by the so-called Human Rights Commisions. This institutionalized atheism of Darwinian Humanism spread through our Education Establishments and thus to the Legal Establishment , and to the public goes against freedom of moral thinking and speech. Our judges and Legal Establishment with their Living Tree Evolving Society interpretation of Law do anything they want ! The journalists of our popular media who say they stand for free speech don’t on this and many other perversions. This imposed paganism is harmful not only to our children, but Canada and Western Civilization. Many people escaped to Canada from countries like Canada has been educated with this institutionalized atheism to become. Concerned citizens ought to come together and try to stop this. Electing and supporting the proper politicians to do this is a good idea.

  8. And because a genuine right has God for its author, it is also subject to the objective moral order and the Truth.

    You are correct.

    This is a very strange response, Rob. You find it “understandable” that someone would resort to violence if his wife were grievously and unfairly insulted, yet you do not have the same feelings when it concerns someone’s religion.

    I find an assault in reply to a mere insult to be immoral. It is however “understandable” that some will fall to temptation and commit the sin of violence. If there is a religion that condones immorally using violence to reply to an insult then that religion deserves every insult it gets, because such a religion would be immoral.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
7 × 24 =