Socialism and Free Speech/Religion

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Andy T., May 5, 2009.

  1. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can anyone name a socialist country that has robust freedom of speech and religion? It seems that places like Canada and Europe are restricting free speech and freedom of religion more and more (unless you're Muslim; most of the restrictions are against Christians).

    The only conclusion I come to is that socialism is inherently oppressive and hostile to Christianity. And so I wonder, why would any thinking Christian support socialism?
     
  2. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Argentina is very socialist. But there is defiantly freedom of religion. As to freedom of speech, well that depends on what you want to say and how you say it. The government has removed certain radio personalities from the air or has silenced journalists from time to time.

    I would say that any form of human government can be oppressive to the gospel if it so chooses, but some are more prone to it than others.
     
  3. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    And that's not a coincidence. Socialism always, at some point, limits free expression.

    Agreed. The governments that are more prone to it are those that are more socialistic. The more control the government has, the more prone it is to curb speech and religion. China is an extreme example of such, while places like Canada and England (and Argentina) are other examples not so extreme, but still limiting rights nonetheless.
     
  4. Andre

    Andre
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    I live in Canada and know of no particular restrictions on my free speech except, of course, entirely legitimate restrictions on speech that can be reasonably understood to incite violence.
     
  5. Andre

    Andre
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is your evidence foir this claim, please.
     
  6. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean like reading the scripture verses which teach [email protected] is sin?
     
  7. Andre

    Andre
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where is your evidence that this is prohibited or restricted by law in Canada. I am confident this is not the case. But, by all means, please make your case that such a restriction exists.
     
  8. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Were not Ezra Levant and Steve Boissoin intmidated for their free expression of ideas?

    Also, does't Canada have hate crime laws? Hate crime laws are a round-about way to limit free speech.
     
    #8 Andy T., May 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2009
  9. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
  10. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm using inductive reasoning to a certain extent here. But also, by its very nature, a socialistic state demands control over its citizens. Such control may start out merely in economic terms, but due to the nature of power and gov't, and the strings attached to the economy, the gov't will eventually seek control of other aspects of its citizens' lives.

    Let me ask this: Why is it that the United States is universally recognized as having the most vibrant free speech/religion, and also has the most free economy (though many are wanting to change this)? And is it also a coincidence that as soon as those with socialistic ideas on the economy took power in January 2009, that such things as hate crimes legislation have already passed? It's not a coincidence. It's part and parcel of gov't control.
     
    #10 Andy T., May 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2009
  11. BigBossman

    BigBossman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    I completely agree with you. I hate to say it, but I think our nation is heading toward what you have described. Now we are always having to tip-toe around non-Christians because they might get offended. In the late 1990's, in New York (not sure where in NY), in a public school, Islamic students were allowed to get out of class to pray for over an hour. I thought prayer was taken out of public schools. Why were special arrangements made for Islamic students & not everyone else?

    When I attended my brother's high school graduation in 2001, one of the school board members got in front of everyone & told people how to vote on a school board property tax. I think it is crazy that a student can't get in front of every & thank God for everything, but a school board member can tell everyone how to vote. Needless to say, when she ran for re-election, she got voted out.

    Our government & society is full of double standards.
     
  12. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry but I don't see a restriction of free speech in Canada or the UK. Can you support that statement with concrete examples.
     
  13. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
  14. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    As well as the article Matt Wade posted, see the thread here started by a UK poster:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=59290

    Restrictions on free speech/religion are coming, as they always do under strong central governments. This is what we get for our mess of porridge. If you want strong government control of the economy, health care, etc., you better be willing to accept more control in areas like speech and religion. That's what I call selling your soul.
     
  15. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
  16. Andre

    Andre
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cannot speak to the Levant case, but I can to the Boissoin case. When you read the actual text of the material Mr. Boissoin wrote, you realize that he went far beyond any reasonable definition of free speech. He deployed the "disease" metaphor - suggesting that homosexuals were like a plague. Now whether Mr. Boissoin realized it or not, he was doing the same things the Nazis did - characterizing the Jews as a disease, with the not-so-subtle implication that the solution was their eradication.

    This Boissoin story is routinely used to argue that hate laws restrict legitimate free speech. I suggest that many who do so have not read the actual material. If they did, they might be so quick to trot it out as an example of the evils of hate laws.

    Indeed we have hate laws. And no doubt it is illegal in the US to yell "fire" in a crowded movie house. Hate laws, properly crafted, are an entirely legitimate and responsible part of the laws of a compassionate nation.

    The notion that people have a "right" to say whatever they want sounds nice, but that "right" needs to be constrained at least a little to preserve the safety of the citizenry.
     
  17. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Please provide a link to the material.



    We already have laws against murdering people, inciting murder, etc. There is no reason to make additional laws based upon characteristics of the victim. Is a homosexuals life more valuable than my life? No? Why then would hate crime laws make the punishment worse for murdering a homosexual than for murdering me?
     
  18. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with hate laws is they are too open to abuse by whoever is interpreting them. You say that certain statements made about homosexuals should be stopped since they incite violence. Well, there are others out there that maintain if you simply say "homosexuality is a sin" that in of itself is inciting violence. So who's to say their interpretation shouldn't be held over yours? I much prefer to rely on the United States 1st Amendment than your "properly crafted" hate laws.

    Oh, and don't tell me you live in a "compassionate nation" when you allow the murder of the innocent...the unborn. Unfortunately, both of our countries are culpable in that.
     
  19. Andre

    Andre
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is an extract from Pastor Boisson's letter:

    "From kindergarten class and on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators. Our children are being victimized by repugnant and pre-mediated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young children into their camps."

    and this (I added the bolding)

    "Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them...as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities." ...."take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness" of the "homosexual machine."

    The material does indeed promote hate. When you refer to a group of people as if they are the bearers of a disease that threatens society, you cross a line has been crossed before:

    When people refer to other people as the bearers of disease they are, whether they realize it or not, implicitly suggesting a solution of eradication, since that's how you deal with disease - you eradicate the offending organism.

    I think that you will find that the use the "disease-bearing" strategy is frequently associated with an agenda of hate.
     
  20. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was there any evidence that Boissoin was going to act in a violent way or help others to act in a violent way? Also, did Boissoin hold any governmental authority? It's a huge leap to compare him, a private citizen, to Nazi officials who wielded governmental authority.

    I would also like to see the "..." before "take whatever steps are necessary..." Was that conveniently left out, since it might clarify what he meant by that?

    Using the phrase "plague our communities" does not make him a Nazi, as you try to paint. I could say something like "sin plagues our communities" and your secular view would have me thrown in jail for inciting hatred towards sinners. Therefore, as I stated above, many would do just that if they had their way, for someone simply stating "homosexuality is a sin."
     

Share This Page

Loading...