Roy Moore and the belief in a Theocratic America

[Danmark]

Roy Moore is now the GOP candidate for a U.S. Senate seat from Alabama. Moore believes the United States should be a theocracy and that Christians should by law have advantages over other religions and that the Constitution should be subservient to his idea of the Christian God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
Moore thinks homosexuality should be criminalized and has twice been removed as a judge for refusing to follow the Constitution and insisting that the Ten Commandments should be in the courthouse.

I'm wondering if there are any DCR members who agree with him. The question for debate is whether beliefs like Moore's are appropriate in the United States and whether his beliefs are good or bad for Christianity and for the country.

[JP Cusick]

The problem with throwing out the 'garbage,' as you call the right to free speech, is that without that right the government can decide anything you say is 'filth,' and you won't even be allowed to argue they are wrong.

This is what we have going on now.

The gov declaring that hate speech is a right - and we can not argue against it.

The gov declaring that filthy speech is a right - and we can not argue against it.

The gov declaring that racist speech is a right - and we can not argue against it.

The gov declaring that violent speech is a right - and we can not argue against it.
-

Nobody will ever argue against beautiful speech, not against loving speech, not against helpful or uplifting speech.

The freedom of speech only protects and empowers the negative speech.

[Danmark]

The problem with throwing out the 'garbage,' as you call the right to free speech, is that without that right the government can decide anything you say is 'filth,' and you won't even be allowed to argue they are wrong.

This is what we have going on now.

The gov declaring that hate speech is a right - and we can not argue against it.

The gov declaring that filthy speech is a right - and we can not argue against it.

The gov declaring that racist speech is a right - and we can not argue against it.

The gov declaring that violent speech is a right - and we can not argue against it.

You are misinformed. There ARE laws against hate speech, racist speech, and violent speech. 'Filth' is in the eye of the beholder, but even in that area there are limits. The 1st Amendment is not absolute. Speech that encourages violence, or threatens, particularly if it is imbued with hate against people because of race, is a crime.

More importantly what you are advocating is that YOUR opinion of what YOU think 'God' wants should be the test of what type of speech is permitted. No thank you. I don't want you or your church or anyone's church deciding what I can say.

[JP Cusick]

You are misinformed. There ARE laws against hate speech, racist speech, and violent speech. 'Filth' is in the eye of the beholder, but even in that area there are limits. The 1st Amendment is not absolute. Speech that encourages violence, or threatens, particularly if it is imbued with hate against people because of race, is a crime.

Thing is that it is always in the negative.

Only so much hate speech, and limited racist speech, and limits of violent speech, and filth speech is harder to control.

The law has ordered that the KKK can march through any town with Police protection, so the hate speech and racist speech and violent speech is not so limited as to stop it.

The only "free speech" is to be immoral and provocative and ignorant.

More importantly what you are advocating is that YOUR opinion of what YOU think 'God' wants should be the test of what type of speech is permitted. No thank you. I don't want you or your church or anyone's church deciding what I can say.

Well there are places like Facebook and Twitter and even this DC&R forum has sensible controls on speech to keep out the hate and the filth, and yet we still are free to speak and we have in depth discussions.

It would be irresponsible and self destructive to allow "free speech" here on this forum, just as it would be on Facebook or on Twitter or on any decent format.

[Danmark]

You are misinformed. There ARE laws against hate speech, racist speech, and violent speech. 'Filth' is in the eye of the beholder, but even in that area there are limits. The 1st Amendment is not absolute. Speech that encourages violence, or threatens, particularly if it is imbued with hate against people because of race, is a crime.

Thing is that it is always in the negative.

Only so much hate speech, and limited racist speech, and limits of violent speech, and filth speech is harder to control.

The law has ordered that the KKK can march through any town with Police protection, so the hate speech and racist speech and violent speech is not so limited as to stop it.

You're confusing hateful and stupid ideas with advocating violence against people because of their race. The former is perfectly legal, as is its expression. The 1st Amendment protects this just as it protects stupid and hateful religious ideas and their expression. Religion in general and Christianity in particular have a long history of hateful, racist thinking that sometimes becomes criminal:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

So, no, I do not appreciate your dangerous, anti-American hatred for the 1st Amendment, nor your advocacy for theocracy over democracy. Theocracies such as what you suggest have a long and evil history of discrimination.

[JP Cusick]

You're confusing hateful and stupid ideas with advocating violence against people because of their race. The former is perfectly legal, as is its expression. The 1st Amendment protects this just as it protects stupid and hateful religious ideas and their expression. Religion in general and Christianity in particular have a long history of hateful, racist thinking that sometimes becomes criminal:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

So, no, I do not appreciate your dangerous, anti-American hatred for the 1st Amendment, nor your advocacy for theocracy over democracy. Theocracies such as what you suggest have a long and evil history of discrimination.

I say that we need to have laws against hate speech, against racist and filthy speech.

Just like the speech controls in decent society - we need to stop giving legal protection for ignorant and hurtful speech in the USA.

[brianbbs67]

You're confusing hateful and stupid ideas with advocating violence against people because of their race. The former is perfectly legal, as is its expression. The 1st Amendment protects this just as it protects stupid and hateful religious ideas and their expression. Religion in general and Christianity in particular have a long history of hateful, racist thinking that sometimes becomes criminal:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

So, no, I do not appreciate your dangerous, anti-American hatred for the 1st Amendment, nor your advocacy for theocracy over democracy. Theocracies such as what you suggest have a long and evil history of discrimination.

I say that we need to have laws against hate speech, against racist and filthy speech.

Just like the speech controls in decent society - we need to stop giving legal protection for ignorant and hurtful speech in the USA.

You let speech hurt you too much. People are free to speak and believe as they will. Whether you like it or not. I do not want a society that can't be criticized even if I disagree with the criticism. I certainly don't want Theocracy. No one's views of God and good are the same.

[Danmark]

You're confusing hateful and stupid ideas with advocating violence against people because of their race. The former is perfectly legal, as is its expression. The 1st Amendment protects this just as it protects stupid and hateful religious ideas and their expression. Religion in general and Christianity in particular have a long history of hateful, racist thinking that sometimes becomes criminal:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

So, no, I do not appreciate your dangerous, anti-American hatred for the 1st Amendment, nor your advocacy for theocracy over democracy. Theocracies such as what you suggest have a long and evil history of discrimination.

I say that we need to have laws against hate speech, against racist and filthy speech.

Just like the speech controls in decent society - we need to stop giving legal protection for ignorant and hurtful speech in the USA.

You let speech hurt you too much. People are free to speak and believe as they will. Whether you like it or not. I do not want a society that can't be criticized even if I disagree with the criticism. I certainly don't want Theocracy. No one's views of God and good are the same.

Cusick's suggestion is absolutely totalitarian. He even suggests 'ignorant' speech should not be tolerated. There's barely a difference between this and mind control. The philosophy of free speech is that ideas and their expression compete in fair, free, and robust debate. History has shown that ideas and speech that were once censored and criticized have now stood the test of time and have triumphed in the marketplace of ideas over views that were once orthodox. Religious ideas in particular were once privileged and are now seen as bankrupt. Cusick's notions would prevent the free flow of knowledge and ideas.

[JP Cusick]

Cusick's suggestion is absolutely totalitarian. He even suggests 'ignorant' speech should not be tolerated. There's barely a difference between this and mind control. The philosophy of free speech is that ideas and their expression compete in fair, free, and robust debate. History has shown that ideas and speech that were once censored and criticized have now stood the test of time and have triumphed in the marketplace of ideas over views that were once orthodox. Religious ideas in particular were once privileged and are now seen as bankrupt. Cusick's notions would prevent the free flow of knowledge and ideas.

It does not stop any free speech on this forum by having sensible rules against obscene language and against promoting violence and no personal attacks and lots more:

See here = Forum Rules:

These rules allow for free speech to happen.

True freedom is always based on having proper rules to govern the process.

The filthy hateful language as given by the 1st Amendment does not empower our speech - it creates a power base for evil speech to overrule every opposition.

[historia]

we need to stop giving legal protection for ignorant and hurtful speech in the USA.

I would not really like the conservative Evangelical religion of Roy Moore, but still he has the right idea.

So, let's say the United States throws out the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, as you suggest. And then a conservative Evangelical party comes to power, declaring your religious views to be "ignorant" and throwing you in prison.

Would you support such a government?

[JP Cusick]

So, let's say the United States throws out the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, as you suggest. And then a conservative Evangelical party comes to power, declaring your religious views to be "ignorant" and throwing you in prison.

Would you support such a government?

That is just painting extreme gloom and doom which is not possible in realistic terms.

The 1st amendment is already here so it would have to be changed and improved based on the best information we have and then do it right.

To outlaw hate speech and profanity in any public sphere does not stop the home life language of a bigot.

There needs to be freedom of any political opposition or political decent, but just keep it clean and decent.

Stopping the promotion of violence and sexual depravity on any TV source or video game or the internet or on any format is long over due.

To correct the freedom of speech with sensible and reasonable guidelines would be fairly easy to word into law, while enforcement would take a little more effort.