Language - We all use it, but not well.

This is one of my favorite scenes from Blazing Saddles.  To me, it is one of the best anti-racist films ever made.  And that's because of Brooks' use of language.  Could you imagine the impact of this scene if it were limited to politically correct language?  Try this comparison:

"One move, or the black fellow gets it!"

or

"One move, or the n----r gets it!"

Which is more funny in the context of this film?  Given how dumb the racist whites in the film are being shown to be, I feel the latter line used by Brooks has a greater impact in more ways than one.

- - - - - -

What a person says, how it is said, and the context in which something is said gives much meaning to an utterance.  This is why Germany has strict rules regarding the display of Nazi symbols to this era.  I find it sad that America has greater freedom in the use of Nazi symbols, and with it, a larger neo-Nazi movement.  Sadly, symbols can carry meaning more effectively than words. And during the Trump era, we've seen more Swastikas and Confederate Battle Flags on display than I'd ever have dreamed would be socially acceptable in any part of America.

I was sickened when our former president said "there were good people on both sides" when referring the the Charlottetown protests.  Are Nazi sympathizers good?  How so?  Does this mean that black rights are bad?  I still remember them chanting "Jews will not replace us."  How can they do that, given how few there are in this country?  Maybe, it's because these people don't want want to invest in the education needed to get the jobs of the future?  Maybe, it's because these people don't want to move to where the jobs are?  Maybe, it's because they don't value people who are not as bigoted as they are, and employers reject them because they want a healthy workplace?

Over time, we saw how bad a person our 45th president was. Recently, Business Insider posted an article noting how the Russians have been cultivating this man as an asset for years. The article links to another in the Guardian, that references a new book on the KGB's development of assets in America. Given what is now known about our 45th president, it's easy to see how a foreign power could manipulate a person's use of words to harm a nation while plausible deniability is spread all around.

It's hard for me to say this, but maybe we need guardrails on the 1st amendment.  Germany strictly regulates the use of Nazi symbols.  But it does allow them to be used.  How many of us know that in a country that generally prohibits the use of the Swastika, that Mel Brooks was allowed to use it in a theater where "The Producers" was being performed?  Yet, Germany prohibited the use of the image outside the theater. So, a pretzel flag was used instead. Even Germany realizes that a symbol of hate has to be exposed to the contempt it deserves.  

- - - - - -

Sometimes, freedom of religion conflicts with other people's property rights.  Several years ago, a bunch of ultra orthodox Jews sued to allow their Eruv to be extended from Rockland County, NY into neighboring areas of New Jersey.  What couldn't be openly discussed in the courts is that the neighboring New York religious community had a much higher rate of poverty (50%-60% on public assistance) than in the community on the New Jersey side of the border. The folk in New Jersey wanted to keep their parks for their own community, and not be crowded out by outsiders.  They wanted to make sure that their properties would not be bought out, then turned into illegal multi family homes.  The 1st amendment actually got in the way of free and responsible speech in this case.

- - - - - -

All of our freedoms come with responsibility.  Sometimes they come into conflict with each other.  When I contrast our 45th president's encouragement of a mob storming the capitol on January 6th with the court battle regarding the Eruv, I see evil (as evidenced by the 1/06/21 mob) vs. good (both sides of the Eruv dispute).  In the former case, people had no respect for the law, and would use any and all tools to get what they want.  In the latter case, the court system was responsibly used.  Although the settlement was not perfect, it is being adhered to, and has had a peaceful outcome.  

Language when used effectively is powerful. But without law, it can also be dangerous.  My question is: Do we need explicit limits on 1st amendment freedoms?

The collision of Church and State

Sadly, we're seeing in some of the "Red States" a push to break down the wall that separates Church and State. Although many of the people think this to be a good idea, saying that "if we go back to God's word, then all will be right with the world", history has shown this idea to be the furthest from the truth. 

- - - - - -

If one looked at Europe before the "Peace of Westphalia",  one would see a collection of European states fighting each other, with people being expelled from their homelands because they did not worship in the same church as the princes that rules their principalities. This was not a stable situation, and it was not good for the princes nor was it good for their subjects. 


According to Wikipedia, the main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia were:

• All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio) 
• Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will. 
• General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.

Over the long term, the associated treaties that defined this peace helped define the nation-state we know today. People could worship in their own churches - even though the crown may be associated with a different religious sect. Europe stumbled into a policy which would reduce the risk of sectarian violence between Christian sects.  


Undoubtedly, the well educated among our Founding Fathers were aware of these treaties, and wanted to make sure that the fledgling United States would not have religious wars between the states. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a result, religious sects had to market themselves as this country grew Westward. Often, the first church in a community gained most of the parishioners - but this was not a hard and fast rule. Later immigration might result in new churches being built for people who belong to different sects, and we had relative peace. (I choose to skip over the persecution of the Mormons for now, as it is a notable exception to this trend.)


Even now, in most areas outside the "Bible Belt" most people don't care what church, temple, or mosque their neighbors belong to. Sadly, in the "Bible Belt", there is a large number of people who believe that they should roll back America to the "good old days" where traditional Christianity was the default religion - as if the 1950's were great for all of America. These people judge others based on their conformity to tradition, claiming that these cultural norms are defined by God - and punishing those people who don't follow these norms.  Challenges to any authority are squelched - even when the person in authority is corrupt and self serving.


We see people trying to use fear of God to control others, such as this post that God will destroy America if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Same Sex Marriage equality. Why do they fear this change?  I know of no traditional marriage which has been harmed by two people of the same sex getting married.  The answer, as I see it, is that people in cultures (or subcultures) where tradition is valued very highly do not have adequate skills to cope with and manage the unknown. So instead, these people try to use both secular law and pseudo-religious dogma as their tools to keep others in line with tradition. 


Some traditional cultures, such as the Amish, simply shun those who do not follow the group's edicts regarding following tradition and associated behaviors. But the Amish also allow for their children to make a "knowledgeable" decision, giving them time to learn about the outside world before committing to the Amish tradition. Contrast this with the Hasidim, who do their damnedest to make sure that their population is as ignorant as possible about the outside world as a whole. But it's not my intent to bad mouth people from traditional cultures, as it is to make note of a line between an informed decision and a decision made out of ignorance and fear.


Years ago, Southerners used religion as an excuse to preserve slavery. Now, the social dysfunction once limited to the South has infected other states - and is being used to deny rights to a new class of people.  Although I am a straight male, I feel that I must stand up for the Gays and Lesbians in our community. If I don't help them defend their rights, who will be there to protect mine when I need help?
 

Charlie Hebdo

What is it that many devout Muslims find offensive about any visual depiction of their prophet? I can understand why they might find the pictures in Charlie Hebdo offensive, but can't they do what Christians do when Christ is depicted in an offensive way - look elsewhere?

These radical Islamists (like radical Christianists and radical Zionists) are a dangerous cancer eating away at our society. The use of terrorism to cause fear must be pushed back. But most of the mainstream media refuses to publish any of the pictures that catalyzed the deaths that just happened in France. Why? They are afraid! This is why we must insist that these pictures are published - to insure that people know why the murderers committed their crimes and why we must protect satire at all costs, as satire is the most valuable of speech protected by the 1st amendment.

Years ago, Charlie Chaplin said that he would never have made "The Great Dictator" had he known how evil Hitler was. To me, that would have been a great crime in itself. Only Chaplin could put Hitler in proper perspective - as an evil man who was out of control and wanted to rule the entire world. 

We have a choice as Americans - run and hide, or defend free speech.  Years ago, Larry Flynt was asked why he appealed an obscenity ruling against Hustler Magazine. He responded that he believed that it was important to defend obscene satire - and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed, in an 8-0 unanimous verdict. He could have given up, but he didn't. 

Yes, I find Flynt a vulgar man - unlike his then peers, Hefner (Playboy), Guccione (Penthouse), and Goldstein (Screw). But I respect him and his peers (especially Hefner) for their work to preserve the protections of the 1st amendment. And I feel that it is important that we support the right to be offensive, for if we don't support it, our freedoms will be whittled away by those who want to act as moral police....