Hating America

25th September 2005

posted in Society by themaiden |

While about 100,000 aged hippies, anti-American socialists and assorted conspiracy-theorists gathered in DC for a hate-America fest…

Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: The Word From the Front Line

How in the hell is protest anti-American? There is nothing in our Constitution, in the Declaration, or in the various documents that lead up to it that can by any means be read to mean that the people should defer to the government. The government defers to the people. Anyone thinking differently ought to commit the following lines to memory. They come from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

Note: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Protest is nothing more than the expression of a lack of consent. For those still not convinced, read the following lines from the same document.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Is it really reasonable to imagine that altering or abolishing a government can occur without protest?

And what about the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Surely, protection of speech would not be embedded in the structure of our government if using that speech constitutes treason.

No. It is not expressing an opinion that shows hatred for the country. It is demonizing those who express an opinion contrary to one’s own that shows a hatred of the country. We will not remain free when our opinions are suppressed We will not remain free when dissent is outlawed. And demonizing dissenters is the first step to that end.

No one is under any obligation to support the activities of government, nor is anyone under obligation to keep silent. Nor does anyone need treat those of contrary opinions with kid gloves, but suggesting that expressing an opinion runs counter to the principles of this nation is absurd and is the first step invariably taken by those who truly do hate freedom. It is the first step taken by those wishing to set up some some government divorced from the will of the people. And that is blasphemy to our founders.

Popularity: 1%

Love the post? Hate it? Please let me know. Leave a comment and spread the word: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 25th, 2005 at 11:43 am and is filed under Society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On June 20th, 2006, TuCents » Carnival of Liberty 50 said:

[...] John posts Hating America at hell’s handmaiden, with the question “How in the hell is protest anti-American?”. [...]

2 On June 21st, 2006, tkc said:

So is dissent from the dissenters not to be tolerated? Are we to hold our tongues when people spew forth venomous rants because the ranter may not like being called out for what he or she is?

Just who is attacking the 1st Amendment here?

3 On June 21st, 2006, themaiden said:

What in the hell are you talking about?

Noonan can say what he wants. I haven’t told him he can’t. In fact, I don’t tell that to anyone. I will point out illogic, or plain stupidity.

4 On June 22nd, 2006, tkc said:

I take exception with the notion that citicizing dissent, even by calling it un-American, is an afront to the 1st Amemdment.
Calling people un-American maybe unseemly but then again so is some of the dissent.

5 On June 22nd, 2006, tkc said:

Let me make a quick example. I would call the KKK a ‘dissident’ group. They certainly are not the mainstream. I would also consider them worthy of the un-American label for their outright bigotry. In my opinion they are just not what this nation is about. I’m not advocating for outlawing their brand of dissent. I’m just calling it as I see it.

6 On June 22nd, 2006, themaiden said:

tkc,

Thanks for dropping by. Well, you may take any position you wish, of course, but I still disagree with you.

First, it really has nothing to do with being unseemly. It does have to do with what I think is a fairly simple calculation.

1) The United States was founded philosophically and officially upon a fairly small set of principles.

2) One of those principles is the right to protest the government’s actions. This principle is embodied in the First Amendment, though it doesn’t originate there.

3) Speech whose primary aim is to shame or bully another group into keeping silent is an affront to that principle. And that is the difference between the protesters and Noonan. The protesters are saying “The war is wrong”. Noonan is saying “Shut up, you do not have a right to speak.”

Please note that I am not arguing that Noonan’s, or any similar speech, be silenced, much less by the government. Such speech is protected, and it should be. It is also hypocritical and it does show a fundamental disrespect for the principle of free expression.

7 On June 27th, 2006, tkc said:

Sorry for taking so long to get back.

I will agree that people who say, “Shut up, you do not have a right to speak.” are wrong. That said, dissents do not have an exception to the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is not a right to not feel insulted or bullied. When certain protesters to the war start carrying on about communist worker utopias (that are almost always tyrannical hellholes) or terrorist ‘freedom fighters’ I will not hold my words for the sake of their fears of persecution.
Their views, in my opinion, are worthy of harsh criticism. I do not see such criticisms as the first step to destroying the 1st Amendment even when it takes the form of calling some one un-American. If that is the way a person feels about certain dissenters then they have the right to say so.

Consider this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2126913/fr/rss/
Mr. Hitchens is well within his rights to point out what these ‘dissident’ groups are up to. Would you say it was demonizing? Would you say it was an attack on the 1st Amendment? My answer is no to both.

8 On June 29th, 2006, themaiden said:

tkc,

The delay is not a problem. Thanks for coming back at all.

I’m glad you agree that telling folks to shut-up runs counter to the First. That is precisely why I criticized Noonan’s post. As for the rest of what you write, I’m not sure where you are getting this material about communist utopian hell-holes and terrorists. Noonan’s article, as I read it then and as I read it now, is criticizing the protesters for nothing more than protesting. Sure, he calls them “aged hippies, anti-American socialists and assorted conspiracy-theorists” but that seems to be no more substantive than Noonan’s typical name-calling rants.

Take care.

9 On December 1st, 2007, This is Not My Country: Last one of the Year | hell's handmaiden said:

[...] Scholars & Rogues, Real heroes refuse to shut up and sing. Amen. I’ve had this fight myself, but it is a good one. There really is nothing more un-American than ‘America: Love it of [...]