So what happens when the First Amendment butts up against the realities of post-9.11 Amerika? Obviously, something has to give.
Of all of the Amendments to the Constitution though, none is so flawed and schizophrenic as the First. It starts out promisingly enough, stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This part means that Jesus Christ is our government-sanctioned Lord and Savior, and that we must lavishly fund faith-based Christian charities and parochial schools with tax dollars harvested from Godless Arabiacs, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and other atheists. Trouble is, the First Amendment doesn't quit while it's ahead, but goes on to ban laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
Clearly, the founding fathers were men who not only knew nothing of the realities of war, but had also never spent a few annoying hours surrounded by liberal chatterboxes and anal Congressmen who are always carping about "facts."
Welcome to the Zondervan Green Ribbon Campaign.
As the world's leading Christian publisher, Zondervan recognizes that the right to free speech is one of the most important and fundamental rights of liberty. We support the right to free speech in all its forms. We also call for responsibility in exercising this right.
Good citizens know they're accountable for their actions (someone has said, “My right to swing my arm ends when my fist hits your nose”). There are those, however, who tend to forget that they also are held accountable for their words. That's how laws against libel and slander are sustained. Just as in life rules, limitations, and boundaries guard against physical anarchy (e.g., traffic laws, social graces), so too limitations exist to guard against verbal incivility.
Noble thoughts, indeed, and not necessarily misguided. While I certainly would support the sentiments behind this sort of campaign, there is one question burning a hole in my brain: Who will be the ultimate arbiter of good taste? Think about it for a moment. Do you REALLY want someone else to be passing judgement on the appropriateness and/or civility of your words? Isn't this at it's core just the Right-Wing sugarcoating what is little more than censorship in sheep's clothing?
Of course, it will make a difference who is the ultimate arbiter. What do you think? Phyllis Schlafly or Allen Dershowitz? Jerry Falwell or Andrew Dice Clay? Lynn Cheney or Patricia Ireland? Is anyone else beginning to see the problem with this concept?
