Note: Send Email to the Editor to e2e@wnd.com.
The Declaration of Independence elucidates certain inalienable rights, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The document declares these rights exist and are independent of government laws. I believe there is also an inalienable right to be offended.
Sometimes the things we say may be offensive. People may elect to avoid us, ignore us or even argue with us. That is a healthy part of debate that allows us to hear differing perspectives. Apart from rare dangerous speech, no one should be deprived of liberty, work, platform, or position because of what is said. Heated debate allowed the Founding Fathers to produce enduring documents.
Who should determine acceptable discourse – the media, social networks, the government? Certainly not. The freedom to speak should always supersede another's objection to being offended. The canceling of speech leaves only one perspective, one voice to be heard.
Criticism is usually offensive to the one receiving the critique. Fair enough. No one enjoys being challenged. The alternative is a single, unquestioned voice. If we do not like what someone says, there is always an inalienable right to be offended.
Wayne Cook
Bad laws
Hello, Mr. Farah. We are happy to see that you are recovering.
I was wondering if you ever thought about the fact that, almost without exception, every law that is passed either takes away someone's freedom or take's my money and gives it to someone else.
I believe that our Founding Fathers understood this to the point that they knew that even consensus of lawmakers wasn't enough to justify the taking of freedom or money. They believed that to do so required overwhelming agreement amongst lawmakers.
Please know that we are praying for you and for WND.
Bob & Diane
The road to a more perfect union
The challenges and threats facing America, along with survey results that identify a decline in church attendance and belief in Christianity ("Shock: Americans ditch biblical worldview for 'fake Christianity'"), begs the question, "Now what?"
A different perspective offers options. The Judeo-Christian principles influenced the design of the U.S system of government that enables We the People to work together in bringing about "a more perfect Union." The Bible reinforces that only God is perfect, Jesus is the standard of perfection, man is imperfect and has been given the capabilities to make a positive difference in the world. Put another way, God is love, and actions motivated by love can result in outcomes where everyone can benefit, or at least not be any worse off in the long-term. Actions influenced by Satan result in the opposite effect – everyone can be worse off.
The quality-management profession, consisting of individual working in organizations throughout the world, has validated that the more a product or service gets to the ideal (more perfect) outcome, the higher the quality and the lower the cost to the customer and society. This is referred to as the Taguchi Loss Function. The "So What?" Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. A new perspective on the relevance of the biblically based worldview supported by application of the quality-improvement methods and tools can support needed change.
Timothy J. Clark
What about 'love crimes'?
I just read an article reporting that a statue of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was defaced with graffiti. It is being investigated as a hate crime. Yet when Confederate monuments are defaced or destroyed there is no investigation at all.
I have never thought that the hate crime designation was constitutional. It requires being able to read people's minds to determine what they were thinking. Logically, do people who love you commit crimes against you? All crimes are hate crimes. If you presume someone is innocent until proven guilty, how do you prove what they were thinking at the time of the crime?
Brian
The post The inalienable right to be offended appeared first on WND.
