As long as people respect the rights and property of others, Government must protect their constitutional rights to free expression regardless of their cultural/moral standpoint.
The Basic Constitutional Premise
Why is there such an outrage and efforts to prohibit "controversial behaviors" that do not harm others or their property?
Regardless of which political party holds the reins of government -- there is always an attempt to codify a favored moral code and enact unconstitutional laws.
As long as people respect the rights and property of others, Government must protect their constitutional rights regardless of their cultural/moral standpoint.
Individuals must not be forced to participate and financially subsidize codified behaviors they don't support with direct tax dollars. People of like-mind can assist those in financial need through nonprofit organizations.
Which Moral Code Should Be Sponsored By Government?
Not all religious sects (e.g., Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Christians, etc.) agree on which behaviors are included or excluded in their moral code, i.e., their religious standpoint. Also, individuals without a religious tradition may have a unique moral standpoint.
With all the variance in accepted behavior which moral standpoint must the state choose as the basis of its lawmaking?
None of the above (NOTA).
State Safeguarding Free Expression
The state spends way too much time telling people how to live. It needs to stop legislating morality.
As long as persons and organizations respect the rights of others to freedom from personal injury and the protection of their property, it is protected religious freedom and thought expression under the U.S. Constitution first amendment.
No Government Mandated Behavior
One form of personal injury is forced participation (personal choice is not available). No one should be forced to live by a particular moral standpoint against their will. We should live voluntarily electing participation in a moral standpoint that aligns with our personal beliefs.
The existence of a moral standpoint (worldview) does not result in personal injury to those who do not agree -- as long those who hold the standpoint do not try to coerce others to comply.
No Government Supported Censorship
The government should not require or permit public platforms, such as social media, to block opinions that present alternative views concerning political and social issues. No one should be able to block others opinions they disagree with, as long as they are presented respectfully.
Government Protecting Individuals from the Mob
Another form of person injury is bullying those with opposing views. The state needs to step to the plate and protect those attacked by anarchy groups likes Antifa, white supremacists, or any other group using violence and intimidation as a means of controlling the conversation.
Threats, violence and destruction of property are never forms of acceptable expression. In other words, true tolerance is needed; not forcing others to accept mandates from government or other sacred cow social institutions.
We need to return to a mode where we live and let live. The state and special interest groups just need to chill.
Summary
As long as people respect the rights and property of others, Government must protect their constitutional rights regardless of their cultural/moral standpoint.
Laws government enact that conflict with its primary responsibility, such as supporting and mandating religious/secular moral behavior, are unconstitutional.
Comments
Post a Comment