Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Apr 14, 2009.
Shoud this decal be removed?
Nothing offensive about that sticker. Hope he wins his case...
And if the Islamic symbol was replaced with a cross? Still OK?
It would be offensive to me, but not something that should ban a person from federal property.
Of course, a car with anti-Christian stickers on it would be banned from my private property.
Who are you, an undercover CAIR mole? Get a grip.
Doing so would make no sense.
He is merely pointing out the old adage of sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It is against a religion, not a race, so no...it is not racist. However, I can understand that it would be deemed offensive to loyal American military members who may be Muslim. Such would be banned from almost any workplace as creating a hostile work environment under the law.
On a private vehicle this sticker is protected free speech. It doesn't matter who is offended or why. It is not pornographic. It is not promoting imorality. It is strongly opinionated .......yes, ......and no doubt offensive to some .....yes, and may be viewed by certain individuals or groups of persons as being incitive or hateful...... yes, ......but even as they have a right to their opinion and to express it in a lawful manner... so does the individual who personally owns this vehicle and uses it as his form of transportation in the freedom of movement accustomed to his fellow citizens. What is major in making this protected free speech is the fact that no doubt other private vehicles are allowed on base with stickers of personal messages. These messages aren't censored or restricted. Perhaps they aren't offensive as this may seem to be... but the very fact that they are permitted on privately owned and driven vehicles places all in the category of free speech.
Now if a government entity.... such as a military base.... or a place of business which provides parking on its own grounds for employees, wishes to control the speech on vehicles.... it must be a possition of policy which is enforced upon ALL and not a particular few because of political correctness or dependant on offense. Even then... it may be possible to contest the enforcement of this provision: as in the case of visitors arriving in their own vehicles who are temporaraily permitted to drive or park 'on campus'.
I don't see this sticker as being racist. Yes, it is implicating a group by creed or identification with certain idealogies..... but such is political and idealogical ..... and part of free speech is that political and idealogical speech is protected free speech independant of approval or offense. It is by allowing the exchange of opinions and expressions, whether pleasant and tolerant or not, that a free society developes its ability to accept the diversities of expressed thoughts, and discipline itself to live with these diversities in knowing that all have the same freedom to exercise free expressions of thought, both agreement and disagreement in a peacable way without resorting to violent forms of force or suppression.
-------Society, through peer pressure, through acceptance or marginalizing, through approval or expressed disapproval, has always exerted some social pressure on the extreme expressions of free speach upon its citizens.... but a free society doesn't have the right to stop minority speech by the rule of majority, nor to limit the speech of minority or majority based upon approval or absence of offense.
I dare to say, the employee cars in the parking lot is an expression of the free speech of the individuals and not the expression of the employer, nor of the atmosphere within the working relationships: If an employee either takes his personal expression or his offense into the work place then it is there that the interpersonal working relationships should be addressed by management. The EEOC should not have any jurisdiction outside the work place.
not racist, and do we censor personal opinion in this country now?
Same sticker with a cross would make no sense in this context at all.
I don't deem it racist or anti-religious. The wording might sound cold. That's just how truth is, its cold & hard. Some people just can't handle it, so they get offended way too easily.
There has been a major controversy over other things too, like the Confederate Flag. My cousin had a tatoo of a Confederate Flag on his arm. When he joined the Marine Corps, they made him get it covered or filled in. I have even heard of cars not being permitted onto military bases because they have a Confederate Flag bumper sticker. Again, I don't view this as racist. I view this as pride in one's heritage.
I look at it like this: I don't like the Swastika. If a person put a Swastika bumper sticker on their car. Its their right to do so. There's absolutely nothing I can do about it. So why should I get worked up over what someone has on their car?
Billwald asked if a cross was there instead of a crescent moon would it be okay. I don't agree with it at all, & like Rev Mitchell said, it makes no sense, but again, its their right to do so. It would be their right to use a cross, but its also my right to form my own opinion, or to say something.
You are aware of this thing called "freedom of speech," aren't you?
I didn't think so.
Take a remedial history course, and get back to us.