Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

If Freedom Isn't Free ....

LadyYunaFFX2

Pulsar
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Location
Boone, NC
Then why do we offer it? And I'm serious, not speaking as liberal or anything. Just a curious citizen that made a bit of a realization after some thinking.

We say we have multiple freedoms, especially in the Constitution. And yet almost every time some event - be it good, bad, or otherwise - comes up that involves it ... it gets manipulated and used against people more often than not.

Like here's one of the many examples. This one just came to my head first.

Anti-freedom of religion

Or at least it seemed like an anti-freedom of religion type of thing to me. I mean ... it was just a mosque. And yet so many people tried to protest on it. But we're guaranteed Freedom of Speech and Religion in the Constitution.

Or if you want something more recent, the National Anthem being sung in multiple languages at the Super Bowl. It's not like the song was being insulted. But people took it as that. Why? It genuinely confuses me.

So ... see the cycle that I do?

Ergo if we don't seem to be sincere on giving so many 'freedoms' to our own citizens, why do we do it?

Personally, if we're going to be hypocrites and go against our own vows, I don't know if we should continue to try to reassure people that they have these liberties.

Now ... with all this being said, I'm curious on what others think about this.

Again, this is just to see the points of views from others, regardless of whether you're from the States or not. In fact, those that are out of the States, feel free to speak up. If anything, the outside factors and opinions will make this all the more intriguing I believe.

No flaming or arguments here, please!

And ... go.
 
That wasn't the national anthem and you should know better, honestly.

America The Beautiful isn't our national anthem and that is racism, not anti-religion.
 
....

Blonde moment there, very much so.

Still, it did create the cycle I mentioned, regardless.

It was seen during the Super Bowl and tons of people got annoyed at the song being sung in multiple languages ...

Yet we're supposed to have freedom of speech as per the Constitution.

There's really no crime in my mind and eyes. It's not like anyone was insulting "America the Beautiful". I admit, it's not typical to see or hear so many foreign tongues. But that doesn't make the act bad. Just .... a rare occurrence.

Also, it may not have been made very clear but only the building of the mosque was meant to be used as an anti-religion example, not the song. Admittedly, I didn't think about the song until I was nearly done with the first post so I kinda added it in real fast near the last second.
 
I just would say it's because though freedom is indeed promised you need guidance with it as well. There isn't really a true freedom and it's more an ideal then a tangible and attainable thing. Also the problem might not be the people, though I still think it is, but the fact of where these outbursts occur which are things like twitter and facebook which are just places where people go to vent and find others to yell at as much as I can tell.

@Hahvoc: did you have anything to add to the conversation or did you just want to get that out of your system?
 
I just added to it without hostility, to make a point that the backlash over that commercial is misguided, just as saying America The Beautiful is our national anthem.

Was there something wrong with my input?

Also: The Mosque is seen as something insensitive since they are to house muslims. I wouldn't consider it anti-religion to have it protested, since people still are in mourning over that event despite it being more than a decade since 9/11. I saw that there were better places to put a mosque than at Ground Zero but I also don't live there. I can say, they purchased the land/area it's on, and they can put it where they want, but I can see the other side of it, too, even if it is a bit much.
 
I think that the biggest problem is that people tend to forget that "freedom" means "other people are free too". It's easy to demand your rights, and to demand the rights of other people like you. It's hard to demand the rights of people who do things you don't agree with, or even who are just different. We all have an ingrained assumption that our way is the "right way", and that other people need to shut up and realize that.

I don't think the US is unique in this. But it's the sort of thing you notice more in your own back yard.
 
Hahvoc: I can understand the still mourning. I'm not from 9/11 as it didn't quite affect me nearly as much as others. But I am still with my own personal losses. Both individuals have been gone now for ten years. And the point I'm trying to get is it may not be the easiest but with time, I have gotten more and more over it.

I'm not saying by any means for anyone to just up and forget of 9/11 because that - admittedly - would be a huge mistake. But .. honestly, it is kinda time to move on. True, there probably were better places to have placed a mosque. But again, I don't think it should have been such a big issue for them to choose that area.

Why? Because they weren't doing so to insult the people from the tragedy. They were doing it for religious purposes.

Another thing many tend to forget on 9/11 is not all of the culprits were Muslims. Quite a few were Caucasian/Americans/some other nationality. So while yes it was by some of the same groups of people behind the attacks, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was all of the people. And even then, it just ... it really seems like a petty thing to have made such a fuss about when all was said and done.

But that's also my point of view.

Corsair: That's definitely an interesting way to view it. Yeah, people seem to forget a lot of things from what I'm noticing. Definitions are a major one.
 
I find that by reading history and by following the examples laid out there, the ones who speak the most loudly of freedom are generally those most willing to take freedom away from others. Napoleon Bonaparte is the example that comes to my forefront. Hijacked an actual revolution to satisfy his own desire for glory. I don't think this is relevant to the discussion but I just wanted to set a contextual basis for what I'm saying. Maybe there are better examples or there are certainly different views on the one I used, but let's not get into that.

I'm speaking as a Canadian so our definition and views on freedom may not exactly coincide with other people on BMR, but it's always good to have other perspectives on things I think. You speak of Freedom of Speech, but where does hate speak and discriminatory remarks fit into that? Do people have a right to say that to others, knowing it does harm to that person? But it's allowed under your Constitution isn't it? Maybe all this hatred and demonizing, like at the Super Bowl, is just people exercising their right to say such nonsense. I find that some countries actually have a term or definition of what actually is Freedom of Speech to them. Some add in that hate remarks and other such obscene language doesn't count as Freedom of Speech while other nations allow it.

A personal opinion of mine; freedom isn't free, true, because freedom is usually bought with blood. Until that cycle is broken, then freedom can be dispensed freely. But again, my opinions are formed from what I read and learned throughout my life. I have very little experience in having my actual liberties or rights taken away.
 
It's basic human instinct to use our power to ensure things we perceive as dangerous stay under control.

Those that lack the empathy to imagine themselves treated that way will use their power against other humans.

People that behave in this way are demonstrably flawed. Had I my druthers, anything that could be read as discrimination would be criminalized. It seems silly that theft, the taking of a material object, upon which the owner does not rely in any way shape or form to live, is considered more wrong than to dehumanize another person.

Getting sidetracked...

Freedom actually is free. It's a state of mind. Were someone to attempt to enslave me, they'd quickly find that I would seek to kill them at every opportunity, and could be beaten to a useless paste without lifting so much as a stone on their behalf. This is because my sense of principle is stronger than my survival instinct, a trait that manifests more when people are raised 'free'. It's all about how you're raised, usually. A child born a slave will usually seek a quiet, happy life in the life they've been told to expect. Usually. Sometimes, that sense of principle rears it's head anyway.

Now, you might say I'm even now not free... After all, harsh punishments await many actions. But punishments take place after the fact, more often then not. Nobody can stop me from taking an item, some money, or a life. They can be very unhappy with me afterwards, but they can't stop me.

I don't think many people make that connection. They equate a punishment with 'can't be done'. Rather like dogs. These people are never free, no matter what situation they find themselves in.
 
I agree with Corsair's point in that "freedom means others are free too". One of my favourite quotes is one usually attributed to Voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

That's a sentiment I believe in, and, although I may not personally agree with the protestors against the mosque, I think they have a right to express their opinion. Freedom of religion should mean that people also have a freedom to protest against religion, be it all of them or one in particular. It just so happens that, in most countries, there is usually a majority religion which has a louder voice than the others. The same applies to those who protested against America the Beautiful at the SuperBowl which (from my admittedly limited knowledge) I'd put down to patriotism more than overt racism.

The other thing I'll say (a personal philosophical view) is whilst the Government can bestow physical freedoms on people, no-one, or no thing can ever bestow intellectual freedoms. The Law, or Constitution, has no weight in deciding what individuals can think or say (and in most cases, do), it can only threaten them with the consequences of thinking, saying or doing something. It may seem pedantic, but I think there's a big difference between the two.

To me, it means everyone has total freedom of religion and freedom of expression at at all times - they just need to be aware of the possible consequences of using those freedoms.
 
In a single sentence: freedom is the absolute ability to do and say things without repression (or oppression or suppression) or violence, and being able to extend it to one's enemies without being reneged on. Also known as self-ownership, and the Natural Law by John Locke.

In turn, I believe everyone has an explicit right to protest, unless the protesters initiate violence. More than that, any individual has an explicit right to buy up any such property, whose only expectation ought be a lack of any violence manner, whether it's the state or any person or group of persons.

Otherwise, my views of freedom can be wrapped up by several dozen quotes.

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. -

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.

Brad Thor -

I live in America. I have the right to write whatever I want. And it’s equaled by another right just as powerful: the right not to read it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people.

Edward Abbey -

Freedom begins between the ears.

Emma Goldman -

There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another, This conception is a potent menace to social regeneration. All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become identical.

Frederick Douglass -

The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

Henry David Thoreau -

Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

John Acton -

By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.

Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being.

John Locke -

Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.

Leo Tolstoy -

There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one; the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.

All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do.

Ludwig von Mises -

The meaning of economic freedom is this: that the individual is in a position to choose the way in which he wants to integrate himself into the totality of society.

A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.

Martin Luther King, Jr. -

Tolstoy, the Russian writer, said in War and Peace: “I cannot conceive of a man not being free unless he is dead.” While this statement sounds a bit exaggerated, it gets at a basic truth. What Tolstoy is saying in substance is that the absence of freedom is the presence of death. Any nation or government that deprives an individual of freedom is in that moment committing an act of moral and spiritual murder. Any individual who is not concerned about his freedom commits an act of moral and spiritual suicide.

Mohandas Gandhi -

If individual liberty goes, then surely all is lost, for if the individual ceases to count, what is left of society? … No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man. … Every individual must have the fullest liberty to use his talents. … Individual liberty and inter-dependence are both essential for life in society.

Naom Chomsky -

Of course, everybody says they’re for peace. Hitler was for peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: ‘What kind of peace?’

If we don’t believe in free expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.

Samuel Adams -

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.It is a very great mistake to imagine that the object of loyalty is the authority and interest of one individual man, however dignified by the applause or enriched by the success of popular actions.

The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

Salman Rushdie -

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.

Stephen Fry -

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' as if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more... it's simply a whine. It's no more than a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that,' well so fucking what?

Thomas Jefferson -

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Paine -

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

Men who are sincere in defending their freedom, will always feel concern at every circumstance which seems to make against them; it is the natural and honest consequence of all affectionate attachments, and the want of it is a vice. But the dejection lasts only for a moment; they soon rise out of it with additional vigor; the glow of hope, courage and fortitude, will, in a little time, supply the place of every inferior passion, and kindle the whole heart into heroism.

Voltairine de Cleyre -

The sin our fathers sinned was that they did not trust liberty wholly. They thought it possible to compromise between liberty and government, believing the latter to be “a necessary evil,” and the moment the compromise was made, the whole misbegotten monster of our present tyranny began to grow. Instruments which are set up to safeguard rights become the very whip with which the free are struck.
 
•Constitutional Rights and Freedoms and the Limitations Thereunder•


Indeed the various platitudes uttered regarding “freedoms” or “rights” can create an unnecessary amount of confusion. Traditionally speaking, such “freedoms” or “rights” refer to a citizen's fundamental rights as enumerated in the “Bill of Rights”―or the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These rights are oft times referred to as “negative rights” because they limit, or prohibit governmental entities from encroaching upon said rights.

Needless to say, such rights are not “unlimited”. In other words, there exists certain extenuating circumstances, where the government can limit the scope and breadth of these rights. For example, the First Amendment's “Freedom of Speech” does not extend to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, when there is, in fact, no fire in the immediate vicinity of the theater. The reasoning behind this is because taking such an action can cause significant bodily injury, or even death, in the ensuing panic. Further, the government can require protestors to apply for a certificate or permit, in order to protest on public property. However, such limitations must be “content neutral”. That is to say, a person, or group of persons cannot be denied such a permit on the basis of their speech.

Of course, abuses are bound to occur, and that is the reason why we have a legal process to address and hopefully limit such abuses. However, the scope of the application of one's rights are never as clear-cut as we might like. As with most legal rights, a delicate balance must be struck, and the fluid nature of human life means that any such balance will be challenged from time-to-time.

In regards to the specific mosque addressed in that 2010 CNN article, I remember the case well, as I was in my final year of law school, and used that particular case as an example of potential zoning law concerns. State governments possess a wide array of so-called “plenary powers” which the Federal government, by its very nature, lacks. (The Feds have to trace their law-making authority back to a specific enumerated power found in Article I § 8 of the U.S. Constitution.) Plenary powers, essentially refers to a form of “absolute” or “unbridled power”. State governments are afforded this, because that form of government predates the national government.

With this being said, there are, of course, certain limitations to plenary powers. And, such power is limited to state governments by their respective state constitutions, as well as certain federal laws, which I will discuss in further detail later. Municipal or city governments can have plenary powers, when two conditions are satisfied: (1) The state legislature authorizes it; and, (2) The municipal charter claims such powers. Despite this, the state legislature can overrule any particular municipal power, via a state enactment. Just as the Federal government can limit certain state powers by: (1) Passing a statute or act via an enumerated federal power, pursuant to Article I § 8 of the U.S. Constitution, (i.e., most often pursuant to the “Commerce Clause” found in Article I § 8, Clause 3); and, (2) When the Federal legislature has the intent to supersede the state's authority, as per Article VI's “Supremacy Clause”.

Now, all that aside, the Due Process Clauses of the Firth Amendment (pertaining to Federal acts), and Fourteenth Amendment (pertaining to state and local acts) require that no legislation can encroach upon the Constitutional rights of the citizens. The same amendments apply to Equal Protection rights as well (prohibiting discrimination against certain classes of people). Of course, this too encompasses a tiered system of review. Race, religion and national origin must meet the standard of “strict scrutiny”. Therefore, the government must “demonstrate a compelling interest in limiting an individual's, or group of individuals' Constitutional rights.” This is the highest level of judicial scrutiny, and the government carries the burden of proof.

The next level of scrutiny applies to gender, and sexual orientation. This level of scrutiny is known as “Intermediate Scrutiny”. Again, the government carries the burden of proof to demonstrate that it had an “important interest” in limiting an individual or class of individuals' Constitutional rights, in that particular case. This standard is much less arduous than the “compelling interest” standard imposed by Strict scrutiny, but is, nonetheless, extremely difficult for the government to satisfy. The final and lowest level of judicial scrutiny is known as “Rational Basis”. This applies to everyone else, or in cases where the court determines that the amount of discrimination is minimal―say, in the case of the mosque, if New York City's zoning ordinances also prohibited the construction of a Christian Church, Jewish synagogue, or Buddhist temple, then the applicable level of scrutiny will be that of Rational Basis. Under Rational Basis, the complainant―the one filing suit―must demonstrate that the government's actions were “arbitrary or capricious”. In other words, the government possessed a rational basis for implementing the statute, ordinance or act in question. This is a tough standard for the complainant to succeed under.

If memory serves me correctly, there were certain zoning restrictions applicable to the Mosque, and that the City Government prohibited the construction of any type of religious facility within the vicinity of Ground Zero. (Precluding preexisting such houses of worship). Therefore, the Rational Basis standard would apply, and the group seeking to build the Mosque would probably lose the case. Also, your initial framing of the subject as “anti-freedom of religion” actually applies here, in the legal context. I know it seems odd, but the purpose of the Mosque was religious in nature, and therefore it is the “Free exercise of religion clause” that would apply in that case. Assuming that it was a governmental entity preventing the mosque from being built.

It is important to note that there is another crucial distinction which must be made, with regard to issues of “freedoms” and “rights”. Typically speaking, Constitutional protections do not extend to discrimination against one individual or group of individuals, by a private entity. That makes sense, when one considers that the main purpose of the Constitution is to set the standards for governmental activity. Nevertheless, there are certain laws which all levels of government can enact to prohibit certain types of private discrimination. However, any such laws must be narrowly construed, in order to ensure that they do not infringe upon said private entity's fundamentally protected rights―as here you have a governmental entity, creating a law.

Therefore, if it is a private contractor who denied the mosque's construction in his development plan. Unless there is a city or state ordinance prohibiting such discrimination, then there really is no legal recourse by the mosque, unless there is no other suitable location within the limits of the city, in which to erect their house of worship. The same is true with regards to the public outcry against the Coca-cola ad during the Super Bowl. Does Coca-cola have the right to run that ad? Of course! But, on the other hand, the general public also has the right to voice their opinions over whether they like, or dislike the ad―no matter how bigoted, or short-sighted such arguments may be.

It makes sense that Constitutional protections don't apply to private individuals. If they did, we would in essence, have no freedom of speech, as there would be constant litigation over “infringements” and hurt feelings. The wording of the First Amendment also delineates to whom the Amendment actually refers:

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 to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added).​

What we see here, is the intent of the Founders, for First Amendment Protections to merely apply to governmental institutions. It limits the scope of applicability to laws, and the enforcement thereof. Thus, for the most part―unless there is a criminal law or statute prohibiting private discrimination―private entities are free to be as hateful and bigoted as much as they want, unless it leads to violence or death. Is this necessarily a good thing, in the scope of human nature? Probably not, but it is necessary that we draw some sort of a distinction between to whom, and for what, Constitutional rights apply. Otherwise, we are left with utter chaos.
 
LadyYunaFFX2 said:
Then why do we offer it? And I'm serious, not speaking as liberal or anything. Just a curious citizen that made a bit of a realization after some thinking.

We say we have multiple freedoms, especially in the Constitution. And yet almost every time some event - be it good, bad, or otherwise - comes up that involves it ... it gets manipulated and used against people more often than not.

Like here's one of the many examples. This one just came to my head first.

Anti-freedom of religion

Or at least it seemed like an anti-freedom of religion type of thing to me. I mean ... it was just a mosque. And yet so many people tried to protest on it. But we're guaranteed Freedom of Speech and Religion in the Constitution.

Or if you want something more recent, the National Anthem being sung in multiple languages at the Super Bowl. It's not like the song was being insulted. But people took it as that. Why? It genuinely confuses me.

So ... see the cycle that I do?

Ergo if we don't seem to be sincere on giving so many 'freedoms' to our own citizens, why do we do it?

Personally, if we're going to be hypocrites and go against our own vows, I don't know if we should continue to try to reassure people that they have these liberties.

Now ... with all this being said, I'm curious on what others think about this.

Again, this is just to see the points of views from others, regardless of whether you're from the States or not. In fact, those that are out of the States, feel free to speak up. If anything, the outside factors and opinions will make this all the more intriguing I believe.

No flaming or arguments here, please!

And ... go.

well the whole mosque thing goes deeper than that.

On the level that most people protesting it is, it is a symbol of islamic conquest, and of course no-one wants that.

on the deeper level for the more intellectual people who protest it, it's very much the same issue, the act of building a mosque either nearby or directly on top of what used to be a great monument to the conquered land is an old Islamic practice to show their conquest and domination over their enemy, and the fact that many of those who have funded the ground zero mosque are various Saudi, Egyptian, Pakistani etc... groups who have been known to send funding to al-queda, that is a pretty big red flag to "they want to declare us conquered"


Well honestly, the people who say that "freedom should be free" are usually some skinny, self righteous assholes sitting in a starbucks sipping their Lattes while writing poetry on their mac about bringing down consumerism.

Freedom is NOT free, nothing is, you want something free? look at north korea, that's what happens when people don't fight, bleed, cry and die for freedom, when the blood price is not paid all the blood will still flow, but not for freedom.
All I can say is, be grateful, because the fact hundreds of thousands, MILLIONS have died just so you can ask "why isn't freedom free?" should speak much louder and clearer than any post on a forum thread.

and also, yes people are free, but we also have rules, laws, people who break those laws scream "so much for freedom" when they have no idea that no matter how free a society is, there will always be rules to follow, that's what separates "a free society" from "an Anarchistic Clusterfuck"
 
Back
Top Bottom