Slashdot Mirror
Want Freedom?
Xenopax writes "According to this story on the Sacramento Bee Americans are now more willing to throw away their first amendment rights for the false feeling of security than ever before. In fact many believe that the First amendment goes too far with its protection and think we should allow monitoring of religious groups for national security. Also many people believe the media shouldn't be allowed to question the government in times of war. One has to wonder if anyone cares about their constitutional rights any more, or if everyone would be happier living in 1984." The study is conducted by the Freedom Forum every year and is available for download.
I'm not against keeping an eye on religions. They are the biggest source of conflicts in the history of man.
The problem is that not every religion will be treated equaly... Bush will surely not mess with his friends of the christian right...
Try it! Library of Babel
Thank the founders that this country is not a democracy, but a Constitional Republic. Of course, the liberals and conservatives of this country like to forget that.
Our Constitution was set forth in order to protect our God given rights from destruction by an insane majority. As you can now see, the insane majority is here.
I will only vote for those who push legislation for smaller government. In Illinois, we will have libertarians on almost every ballot position, and that's how I will make my statement.
Of course, if we do find more infrindgements on our liberties, I will be one of the first to move to Costa Rica, or another country where their freedoms are GROWING, and because those countries aren't fighting "wars on everything," the standard of living is just as high as it is here (for entrepreneurs), but the tax burden and liberty loss is less.
Don't accept this mess. Vote to end government/business orgies and socialist schemes -- VOTE LIBERTARIAN.
The United States has not had real conflict in its borders since the mid 19th century - even 9/11 wasn't a real war at home in anyway comparable to anything the rest of the world has had to deal with for most of the 20th century. In light of that fact, it wasn't surprising that a rhetoric of a free society was able to develop. In light of the love of comfort and security that the American populace evinces, I sometimes think that if it faced the sorts of turmoil that Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America confronted, it would be willing to create a society far less free than many of the above in order to defend those comforts. The luxury of freedom apparently ranks below other luxuries.
The Orwellian reference is most often quoted, but the society in which we increasingly find ourselves bears more similarities with Huxley's work than that of the overrated hack. Our freedoms are not corroded because of fear of any particular oppression, but rather because it's generally more comfortable, more stupefying, to give those freedoms away. People *will* trade their freedom for security - hell, people will trade their freedom for pretty much anything that makes their lives a little easier in the short term, and that allows them to think a little less, to make a little less effort.
In a society where creature comforts are increasingly easy to come by for the average man, there's an increasing willingness/tendency to sacrifice - or ignore - everybody else. So a few of those funny towel-heads get harassed - what of it? So a few lazy bums are on the streets - not my problem. So long as I get my multiple television channels, eh?
Most people just don't care all that much about their freedom - they view 'freedom' as the right to watch tv, drink a beer, see a football game. Even on Slashdot, there are always people who are happy to espouse the free software alternative right up to the point at which they want to play a Windows-only, proprietary computer game. Is it really surprising that most of us don't know what our rights are? We don't need or want to know - and such rights are threatening, particularly in the hands of _other people_.
Just a quick rant.
From the above, it has been inferred that any kind of prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, that putting the 10 Commandments on public property is unconstitutional, that pr0n is legal, that a woman has the right to privacy and, consequently, the right to terminate pregnancy, that public libraries may not filter web sites, and so on and so forth.
The point I'm making is that we have become accustomed to reading an awful lot into that one small amendment. As a student of political science, however, I find it both amusing and disturbing that the first five words of the amendment are the ones most frequently ignored: "Congress shall pass no law..."
Taken literally (and as the Founding Fathers intended!) this means that most of these freedoms we take for granted were never intended to be freedoms at the level they are, but rather issues left to the individual states!
I don't know exactly what that means for us today, but it is food for thought.
----------
Something cleverThe sad truth is that the average person is dumb, and half the population is even dumber than that.
Thus, it doesn't surprise me when 4 out of 10 people say that they don't think the press and the academic community should be allowed to criticize government plans -- they're the 4 who are dumber than average.
The question the article makes a lot of noise over (question 2.) Question 2 is basically a recitation of the text of the first amendment, followed by the text:
"Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.'
In this context, more people agreed than disagreed (by 2 points) that the First Amendment goes to far.
Now, if you look at questions 3-9, each of which ask the interviewee to rate the importance of each freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment individually, there's a solid and vociferous defense for the freedoms guaranteed (on average, between 65% and 80% of people feel that any given freedom is 'essential'.)
What does this tell us? It tells me that there is an effective lobby against "The First Amendment", and that, when the freedoms are disassociated from "The First Amendment", Americans are rabidly supportive of their First Amendment rights. This leads me to hope that, while First Amendment attacks are en vogue in a number of circles today, that the people will lash back should the Frist Amendment face too concerted of an attack.
If we want to draw attention to the erosion of First Amendment rights, we need to step away from the "XXXXX is taking away our First Amendment rights" argument and approach the problem from an "XXXXX is taking away your (right to assemble/right to practice religion/right to privacy/right to speak your mind)."
Sadly, it seems that people cherish the First Amendment considerably less than they cherish the rights that amendment provides.
(My views are my own. They do not reflect those of my employer. I am not a real political analyst, I just work with them.)
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
if one morning they woke up to find that while they were sleeping the US government had become a totalitarian dictatorship with Pres. Bush at the helm? Granted, that seems unlikely since they apparently prefer to work the government slowly in that direction, but the question still remains.
If the US government was openly and violently suppressing the American people, what do you think the rest of the world would do? Would the Europeans come to our aide? Would the Africans laugh at our disgrace? Would China just go on with its business of becoming the next super-power?
Would the French help an American resistance movement? Would the British sell the people arms? Or would there be endless talk and admonitions of human rights violations? I really can't imagine that anyone would help us.
I really do believe that the greatest threat to American citizens is not terrorism, but our own government. That might be paranoid, but it's how I feel about it. And everyday I become more and more concerned. And then I wonder, who would help us? What would the world do?
Fair enough. Also, at least Lincoln made clear our universal objectives.
What are we sacrificing for now? Merely security for the majority? Every tinpot dictator in history has provided that.
While I have nothing against the bible or people reading it, living it or whatever. I DO NOT want people telling me what I can, or can't do based on their 'bible beliefs'. The regression of free speech is a sad tale of repressed morality, and low IQ. When I hear that a book/movie/music is banned, people are being put on 'probably going to be a crimminal' lists and held for no legal reason, and when GWB decides to go to war all by himself, I ask, "Where are the dissenting voices?"
The DMCA, U.S Patent Office, the Patriot act, Carnivore, Echelon, M$ allowed monopoly, the lack of worker rights in the workplace, **AAs, DRM, SSCCA, the isolationism of the USA and our resulting lack of support for the Kyoto treaty, the lack of difference between political parties, Senator Disney and his Club, Campaign Reform (not), CAFE standards, war oil oil war, Alaskan Reserve, Enron, Halburton, Worldcom, The Office of Homeland Security.
Are these things NOT fucked up? Am I missing something?
I don't fear the terrorists. I fear my own well meaning, scared, righteous, incompetent citizens will continue to support a Government that is plainly out of control.
I'm now in the list.
Why is it that there seem to be many Americans that believe that the USA invented the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty? The issue comes up time and time again. Is it something that is taught in schools in the USA?
Nope. The usual party line is that the Greeks invented Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty; and that the Americans re-established it after getting sick and tired of Monarchy.
That's the party line anyway. The reality is probably more complex, involving a mix of Masonic ideals, romantic ideals about the Greeks and Romans, and English corporate traditions.
I do think it's safe to say that The American Revolution inspired (or was one of the inspirations for) the French Revolution, which laid the foundation for the spread of Liberal Democratic ideals throughout the world. At least, that's my rather provincial, and admittedly somewhat chauvanistic, take on the matter.
Of course, what's going on now, IMO, is laying the foundation for the spread of tyrrany throughout the world.
Finding God in a Dog
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I asked my mother a few questions:
Me: Should the government be allowed to read suspicous people's email without a warrent?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to stop media that they view as a threat?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to hold suspected terrorists without trial?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to censor the internet?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to put cameras looking into suspected terrorists houses?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should people give up any liberties to make our country safer?
Her: NO!!!!
exactly.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Makes us look like wusses, throwing it all away in the face of the relatively very minor threats we face in 2002.
Who you calling "us"?
The bulk of the population was ALWAYS willing to throw this stuff away - even (perhaps especially) during the period where those documents were composed. The revolution was run by a tiny fraction of the population even then.
The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were largely put there by a coalition of radical (for the time) pressure groups and state legislators. These people were the "anti-federalist" faction of the Founding Fathers and were concerned that the Federalists were staging a coup and setting up a super-state by hijacking an articles-of-confederation-revision committee of the Continental Congress.
The pressure for the freedom of religion clause came primarily from protestant ministers - concerned that the government might select a state religion - other than theirs - and restart the religious wars that led to the founding of several of the colonies by refugees of various religious factions.
Interestingly, Moslems were common in the former colonies (especially near the seaports - lots of sailors). Islam was the canonical example of a non-Christian religion that produced moral people, used in the debates whenever the question of whether "freedom to chose a Christian religion" was what was meant.
The Bill of Rights exists EXPLICITLY to protect unpopular rights of unpopular minorities from trampling by a hostile-to-indifferent majority. And these days the establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amendment has been used for everything from defending abortionists to blocking the Pledge of Allegiance and moments-of-silence in public schools. And the country is still reeling from an act of war by a political sect attempting to start a religious war. Yet a poll finds less than half of the population polled will say "The First Amendment goes too far".
Seems to me that the current US population is MUCH more understanding of, and in favor of, the ideas behind our freedom than the population at the time of the revolution.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I was too.
Why, just yesterday I was watching Crossfire, and it was great entertainment listening to them basically saying Bush is an idiot.
I want my civil liberties so I can keep laughing at my elected leaders in public.
(In private, I cry because I helped elect some of them.)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> Let me say this clearly: Bush sucks. He's a dangerous, arrogant man who's brother stole the election for him, and who's flushing our democracy down the toilet as fast as we will let him.
Personally, I prefer to think of him as an idiot who was selected to serve as a cypher for interests far more extreme than himself. (Look how fast he accumulated a $70,000,000 war chest when he announced his candidacy.)
The most dangerous people in the USA right now are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, not Mr. Bush.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade