I want your thoughts!

[Celest]

[DASH=green]

The day that we say yes to a government that limits the dictates of our conscience, that puts a parameter on the realm of our faith and tells us that we can believe up to a point but not over the line of what the government deems as acceptable, we have not just lost our country, we have lost our basic fundamental freedom. You must come to the place in your life where you're not just going to say yes to a government that tells you that it will limit you to what you can believe and how you can believe it. We must, in this country, come to the point where we stand and we say no. No it is not the government that dictates the limits of our conscience and our souls.

What do y'all think about this quote? What were your initial thoughts? Does the fact that it doesn't show who said it make a difference? If it had a name would your views on this quote change depending on who it is from? If you knew the context I pulled it from would it change your view? I want to know your opinions.

After a few people post then I think I'll post what comes before it and what comes after it as well as who said it. If a few people post that is hahaha!​

[/DASH]

 

[Zen]

Yes it actually does matter to me who said this. My Communications and History have taught me to look into this and look at the backgrounds of public speakers.

That being said, here's another question - What is conscience? What is a soul?

 

[Revision]

Context would definitely help. There just isn't enough background for me to make a decision on this at the moment.

 

[Super Cat]

My opinions probably would change if I was given the context of the quote, and the author.

I don't think the government should be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot think or feel. If it ever took a turn such as this it would be some kind of totalitarian state, and I wouldn't want to be a part of that. A movie that comes to mind is Equilibrium. They drugged the human mind to get rid of emotions and feelings, while on the drug this made the world a safe place. No more war, no more murder, no more violence. But at the same time there was no more love, compassion, and arguable what makes humans human. But at the same time I don't believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish.

This may be an extreme example but it is relevant. If you are part of an organization that believe it is okay to sacrifice virgins to a higher power so that they will be allowed to live peacefully and have a good year of crops. I think that should definitely be restricted by the government. If your beliefs and thoughts do not bring harm to others then feel free to express them. But if you are complaining that I or the government is stepping all over your beliefs because we didn't allow you to come to my home and burn it down with my dog inside. Then I will call you a fool, even if you are telling me that this was what your believed was correct according to your beliefs.

 

[Kitti]

I agree that context matters, as does the motivation of the speaker, but not the speaker themselves.
Children, even, can say brilliant and meaningful things, but I am more concerned with what limits of faith the person is talking about.

The government should stop some beliefs. Sure, there are some people out there who believed and some who still do that, because of their beliefs, they should be allowed to harm and treat poorly other groups of people. There are some interpretations of faith that involve suicide bombings and mass murder. While these do not reflect the overall opinion of the religion, there are people that still believe in it. Should the government allow it, because it's part of how they interpret their religion? No.

The line between what the government can and cannot control is always difficult, but in general rule of thumb, I believe that the government should allow a freedom of believe so long as your beliefs do not do harm to another person. This gets tricky in non-physical harm. Should the government allow Westboro Baptist to protest the funerals of children because they think we're being too nice to homosexuals? When we start limiting a group's freedom of speech, do we have a line where we stop? What's the difference between acceptable mental or emotional harm and unacceptable? These are some of the most difficult questions for a government to answer. I personally feel that freedom of speech should be restricted when promoting the harm, death, or mistreatment of another group of people, but how strict should the punishment be? Should there be people silenced because they're advocating a certain mistreatment of rapists?

Long story short, it all depends on the context for me in how much I agree with the quote.

 

[Envy]

The whole point of communication is colored in a way by who is saying it and what his purpose for saying such was. If this were say Benjamin Franklin it would be different from if it were V from "V for vendetta" taking ole ben a little more seriously.

As apposed to this: