Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

They were going to protest at a military funeral near me, until a bunch of local businesses pledged $100 to GLAAD for every minute they protested. They "forgot to show up" after that.

What a wonderful testament to their religion.......Really makes you want to join that church......

To ignore and exploit a painful loss of a dear one serving his country to make a political point is callous and irresponsible.

What makes this people’s behavior more egregious is the invocation of their God.

Grievances should be directed toward the policy makers not toward the victims of that policy.

Hate is still Hate.

This touches on a much larger problem. That is the lack of tolerance and love.

God makes a great fence... at least to nuts like them. These type of people believe that as long as they throw the god card out they are justified in any thing that they do or say.
The same type that created the Spanish Inquisition!

As a Christian these people make me want to pop a cap in their asses.
Not very Christ like ... I know. but what the hell ... I am a sinner.
We ( Christians ) are supposed to share the great news of forgiveness that is a free gift granted by the blood of Jesus.

Shine a light in the darkness, not beat em with the flashlight.

I understand their passions no matter how misguided.
After all, we ( mankind ) are all the same in soul.

I vote for the flashlight approach..

Should this behavior be protected under the auspices of "free speech?"

If not, why?

If so, why?

For some ppl, this is a purely religious issue of morality. The perpetrators of this type of action believe they are working to "save the souls" of others.

I would argue that no man can "save" the soul of another, that only through "proper" free choice, can a person save his own soul. It cannot be saved by another person. Those who would rule by their good book, whatever book it may be, are trying to force perfect behavior upon others, & thus claim that they've saved ppl from sin. Is this what their all-powerful being wants?

Much as you may dislike them and their message, I believe the first amendment does, in fact, protect them. In the same way it protects the people standing outside Planned Parenthood decrying abortion. In the same way it protects people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Arianna Huffington and a host of other people and organizations saying things many of us object to.

That doesn't make what they're doing right, just protected.

Mind you, it goes both ways. I like the people offering pledges for every minute these people protested. That's the aforementioned flashlight approach in action.

I see these people, though, as symptomatic of something I'm generally not liking about modern American society. The "spoiled brat" syndrome. Protests have their place and time. I grew up in the sixties when there was a very real need to make it clear to our government that their behavior (the Vietnam War) was unacceptable. But some people see that as having worked (I'm not as convinced, honestly) and now they feel like they should protest any little thing they don't like.

Everybody wants their personal liberties, everybody wants to get rich, but nobody feels any obligation to their country or their countrymen. The Cult of the Individual reigns supreme. I think it may be a bigger religion than Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Atheism combined.

"It's all about me!!!!!!"

You know what? We all want to be let alone to get on with our lives in peace. We mostly get that as well. So, when Real Life intrudes...

...get over it.

philbymon wrote:Should this behavior be protected under the auspices of "free speech?"

If not, why?

If so, why?

For some ppl, this is a purely religious issue of morality. The perpetrators of this type of action believe they are working to "save the souls" of others.

I would argue that no man can "save" the soul of another, that only through "proper" free choice, can a person save his own soul. It cannot be saved by another person. Those who would rule by their good book, whatever book it may be, are trying to force perfect behavior upon others, & thus claim that they've saved ppl from sin. Is this what their all-powerful being wants?

Yes ... all freedom of speech ends with any form of censorship.

The double edged sword of liberty.

I pray perhaps one day more people will come to realize that redemption is a free gift. Bought and paid for by the blood of Christ Jesus.
Not by their "works".

It's a simple message.
Perhaps too simple for most to fathom.

Philbymon wrote

Should this behavior be protected under the auspices of "free speech?"

aiki mcr wrote.

That doesn't make what they're doing right, just protected.

Question: Is free speech same as behavior?

I may be wrong but it seem to me that there is a distinction between speech and behavior, I know free speech in the constitution is protected but I'm not aware of protecting behavior.


It seems to me if people's behavior is protected under the constitution we would need no laws.

I ain’t no constitutional scholar so if I’m wrong feel free to correct me.

As for Free speech one has the right to voice his/her point of view but he or she does not have the right IMH to silence opposition.

Nav4c wrote:Question: Is free speech same as behavior?

Sometimes. Not always.

Nav4c wrote:I'm not aware of protecting behavior.

It isn't there. Except where the "behavior" constitutes "speech". Well, there is freedom of assembly as well. But the distinction between behavior and speech in these cases is sometimes dicey and that's why the lawyers get involved at all.

Nav4c wrote:As for Free speech one has the right to voice his/her point of view but he or she does not have the right IMH to silence opposition.

And, here, you answer your own question.

Also, there is the question of intent. Freedom of speech is not protected if your intent is to harm other people or to incite a riot/panic/public disturbance of some sort. It's a grey, grey, grey area, but the obvious example of unprotected speech people always use is apropos: yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not protected speech.

Aiki mcr wrote:

And, here, you answer your own question.

I don’t mean to picky here Aiki but that was not a question but a statement and by your answer to it looks like you agree with it which makes your advice in your post where you wrote "when life intrudes get over it” a bit puzzling.

It comes down I guess on what one chooses to do when exposed to a disagreeable opinion get over it or oppose it, both options are valid but most people I think would rather confront a disagreeable view than remain silent.