The war comes to Belmont!

November 2005 - Belmont University

Moderators: MayorOfLongview, FredProgGH, Sam Gamgee, Bnielsen

Post Reply
User avatar
MayorOfLongview
Hammerhead
Hammerhead
Posts: 2273
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:08 am
Contact:

The war comes to Belmont!

Post by MayorOfLongview » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:33 am

I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart

User avatar
Bnielsen
Hammerhead
Hammerhead
Posts: 3849
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 4:26 am
Location: Spring City, Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Post by Bnielsen » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:50 am

Im all for free speech, but thats like going up to a police officer, slapping him, his squad memebers, his captain, his lt, his chief, and all their wives, and not expecting to be beat senseless.

theres a word im searching for... ah!

inciteful
Brian Nielsen
GH Merch '09 - GH Roadie '05 - GH NEARFest Choir '03
Image

User avatar
yyzmoose
Professional
Professional
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by yyzmoose » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:18 pm

Why did the guy resign??? It seems lately only certain speech is free. And isn't a certain political party always championing free speech? This really makes me angry to be honest. I guess if the cartoon was depicting Jesus it would be ok. Heck, the guy might even get a raise.
And now for something completly different...

User avatar
yyzmoose
Professional
Professional
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by yyzmoose » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:33 pm

Bnielsen wrote:Im all for free speech, but thats like going up to a police officer, slapping him, his squad memebers, his captain, his lt, his chief, and all their wives, and not expecting to be beat senseless.
No, its not at all like that. Its publishing a cartoon of a famous person, nothing more. Much worse has been done with drawings of Christain religous figures and nobody rioted. I say the original cartoons should have been published all over the place, but the gutless media (aside from a handful of papers) caved. They gave in to the demands of fanatics. That is not acceptable. OK, now we can go back to the lighter side of the GH message board... :?
And now for something completly different...

User avatar
Alatar
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:28 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Alatar » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:12 am

Just thought I'd dip my oar in here. Warning, the second paragraph after this makes reference to a work of art that is considered by most as blasphemous to Christians, both in image and title. I am sorry if it offends.

Firstly on "free speech", any country that has defamation laws does not have absolute free speech. Even in a country that has absolute free speech, people uttering words should understand that words uttered have consequences. I can't call you all sorts of names and then claim that my right to free speech has been infringed when you refuse to hire me for a PR role.

The paralell I would draw here is with the picture "Piss Christ". Neither the cartoon nor Piss Christ have much more of merit to say other than "look at me! I'm comitting blasphemy! Aren't I daring?" I believe that both pieces shold be treated on the same basis. Were Piss Christ to originally appear on the blog I would not expect Belmont to force a resignation, but I would expect them to encourage him to remove it, because of possible adverse effects resulting from his association with the University.
----
Five wizards came from the West. One sought knowledge, one power, one conversed with the animals and the other two got into blues

User avatar
Sam Gamgee
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 5:27 pm
Location: The World of Ideas
Contact:

Post by Sam Gamgee » Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:39 pm

Freedom ought never to be given for the sake of free choice itself. It's not like free means do whatever you want, it means you are free to pursue an end, such as the good of the country and society or a personal good. I agree with Alatar; the only real "freedom" being exercised by offensive cartoons is the desire to push the limits of speech as far as it can go for freedom's own sake, not to pursue a particular end, much less a worthy end. So drawing offensive cartoons like this is an abuse of free speech.

Want another exmple of abuse of free speech? So we had some military recreuiters on our campus (U of Chicago) a month or two ago, and in protest, members of this fanatical socialist cultlike group set up a table across from the recruiters. They decided to dress up like Nazis, bite the heads off red-painted barbie dolls, and invite other students to do the same, hailing Hitler as anyone passed. I might also mentioned that they were right next to the table of the Jewish Students Association table. Needless to say, the Jewish students were offended and asked the protesters to stop, but they didn't. Then the police were called, and when the students still didn't stop, they got arrested. And I highly approve. If this is what free speech must necessarily look like, then free speech is overrated. Free means within reasonable and responsible means, and for a purpose to better society. What these students did, and what these cartoons did, were outside the bounds of reasonable, mature discourse.

Also, why are we making distinctions in religions? Just because Christianity gets bashed all the time doesn't mean we should be any more tolerant of other religions getting bashed. It sounds like some almost think that because Christians are used to it no one should be offended when other religions are insulted also, or that the other religions shouldn't be offended. (Not that I approve of mobs and riots, but I do approve that they are offended.)
[color=#ff6600][i]Workings of man crying out from the fires set aflame
By his blindness to see that the warmth of his being
Is promised for his seeing, his reaching so clearly[/i][/color]

[url]http://www.ghfan.net[/url]

Post Reply