I love Brad Stine. Earlier this month, I posted a comment to a post regarding Howard Stern and his idiocy. Brad's point was spot-on, but I felt the example he used was weak:

by RightWingRocker on Wed 09 Aug 2006 03:20 AM CDT

... Somehow he has created in his mind a 1st amendment concept that believes the founding fathers true hope and dream for this country was that that one day Americans would be free to listen to shows that include people defecating live as well as sex by albino midgets. ...

While I agree with your point, I don't see this as a particularly good illustration.

The Founders were referring to political free speech in their bringing the First Amendment to the fore, but certainly they did not mean to silence an irrelevant idiot like Howard Stern just because his views carried the stench of immorality.

I'm a firm believer in simply changing the station if you don't like or agree with the programming. If Stern has an audience, let him play to them. If you and I don't want to be bothered, let's listen to or watch something else. Like you, I'm not at all interested in a program that deals with watching people defocate or albino midgets having sex, but if Joe Schmo down the street wants to, I don't see why we should be standing in his way, even if we think he's an idiot for wanting to do so.

The rest of your post is right on the money, as is the point that you were really trying to illustrate.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com

I must have hit a nerve with one of the other guests, Ziobuck ... He came at me with this:

by ziobuck on Thu 10 Aug 2006 03:21 PM CDT

This attitude of "live and let live", not saying anything about the "wrongs" in our society (JUST TURN THE CHANNEL) has contributed greatly to the decline of civility and decency in our country.

Does the rant above mean we should give up? Not at all. But, unlike RightWingRocker, I think it's abominable to just let Joe Schmo down the street do whatever he wants. We have plenty of laws on the books for all types of deviant public behavior. What we don't have are people with the courage to take a stand against these people (and those who would defend them--ACLU-types). I agree with Edmond Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."

This only includes the things in his coment that appeared to be directed towards my comment, but it's easy to see where he's coming from.

by RightWingRocker on Fri 11 Aug 2006 03:39 PM CDT

It appears I've been misunderstood ...

**This attitude of "live and let live", not saying anything about the "wrongs" in our society (JUST TURN THE CHANNEL) has contributed greatly to the decline of civility and decency in our country.**

**But, unlike RightWingRocker, I think it's abominable to just let Joe Schmo down the street do whatever he wants.**

My comments were not geared toward "live and let live" or letting people "do whatever they want", and I'm frankly insulted that they have been presented in this way.

If you have a problem with something that someone is doing that is both wrong but within their rights as an American, you are not obligated to simply sit by. Understand what changing the station does. It removes audience. Removing Stern's audience would take him off the air in very short order. You work to educate and show people the error of their ways. Stick to constitutional means, in other words.

Just remember that they may not agree. If you can't turn them, and you've done everything in your power, then you did what you could.

Interfering with people's Constitutional rights works both ways. How can a Christian advocate restrictions on people's First Amendment rights given the way Cristians' own First Amendment rights are being trampled every day in America by the ACLU and their minions?

I think that is the essence of my point. Stern is an idiot. People like to listen to him. You don't try to shut up Stern by having him thrown off the air. You show his audience why he's an idiot and why they're wrong to listen to him. Persuasion will always be the best way. Trying to ban non-Christian actions and beliefs is exactly the same as the ACLU trying to ban Christian ones, and it's wrong.

RWR

I think I hit it pretty much spot on, Don't you? So here's his response:

by ziobuck on Mon 14 Aug 2006 11:48 AM

**I'm a firm believer in simply changing the station if you don't like or agree with the programming. If Stern has an audience, let him play to them. If you and I don't want to be bothered, let's listen to or watch something else. Like you, I'm not at all interested in a program that deals with watching people defocate or albino midgets having sex, but if Joe Schmo down the street wants to, I don't see why we should be standing in his way, even if we think he's an idiot for wanting to do so. **

RWR: Please..., you feel insulted because I misinterpreted (I don't think so) your post above? Put a helmet on! Maybe you missed the idea that some of us do not think it is an American "right" to be obscene, especially when there are laws on the books in most states about this. Some how, our liberal activists judges have convinced America that EVERYTHING is permissible under the First Amendment, i.e., that PORN in our public library is free speech, that gutter talk on our public airways is free speech, that burning our country's flag is free speech. As you and both Brad said in different ways, free speech was targeting "political" speech, not the obscene kind of trash that would no doubt get you thrown in jail during the Revolutionary War.

**If you have a problem with something that someone is doing that is both wrong but within their rights as an American...**

Yes, I have a problem with someone who is doing "wrong" but within their "rights". It is never right to do wrong. Liberals lawyers and activist judges have so warped our First Amendment "rights" that the Founding Fathers would have been horrified at what we've done to pervert their original intent. Yes, I am a law abiding person, but we have some seriously bad laws in this country. I agree with JOJ that this kind of thinking/activism is what we have to VOTE out of office (impeach if they are on the bench). Somewhere in Scripture it is said, "Woe to those who call Good "evil", and evil "Good". Frankly, I don't see equivalence of a Christian trying to ban obscenity and the ACLU trampling freedom of my religious expression.
--Ziobuck not buying into the "moral equivalence" argument

So he's got a problem with people exercising their rights. Plain and simple. Let him throw around the idea of "moral equivalence" all he wants. Insisting that someone's First Amendment rights are respected is hardly "moral equivalence". This guy's religious zealotry is enough to make a person consider becoming an atheist. Another commentor, "spaceship", chimed in:

by spaceship on Mon 14 Aug 2006 12:14 PM CDT

The United States is a nation of laws. In order for something to be illegal, one must go beyond the "I think it's wrong" argument. This is a good thing, because otherwise liberals might have already made driving an SUV illegal.

So will someone please explain to me the legal tenets under which the government should have the power to tell people how to have sex?

A perfectly legitimate question, right? Here's what Ziobuck said:

Spaceship:
Would it have helped your understanding if I said, "God thinks it's wrong?" Yeah, I thought so!

Then he goes on about how the US is a nation of laws, but that many laws are not enforced, and went off on spaceship over the legal tenets of some of the stupid liberal things going on in the schools. My position was simply that there is no law that Congress can legally make that will protect someone from idiots like Howard Stern, and it is up to the individual to take care of himself. You know ... the rugged individualism that the Founders so cherished? School choice would render his arguments about the schools completely unnecessary. Why doesn't he advocate more for that instead of insisting upon the enforcement of laws that are probably unconstitutional anyway? And what's with this "God thinks it's wrong" crap? God doesn't write our laws and he didn't write our Constitution. How exactly is this relevant to the atheist who doesn't even buy into our religious beliefs?

Another commentor, shortstopjpc, made some wonderful points, none of which seemed to advocate the sweeping thought/morality police that Ziobuck did. Unfortunately, it was very long. Here's the link to it. Anyway, here's what I said to Ziobuck:

by RightWingRocker on Wed 16 Aug 2006 02:17 PM

**It is never right to do wrong.**

And it's also never right to impose your interpretation of right and wrong on others.

When you do this, as you seem to be trying to do here, then you're no better than the ACLU or the Islamofascist terrorists that are plaguing our world.

RWR

Spot on, and this is basically what shortstopjpc was trying to say. I liked the kinds of solutions that shortstop was presenting, because they emanated from the individual. Vote ... Bring your children up properly ... etc. Better to do your part in spreading the truth than to insist that the government overstep its bounds in doing it for you.

**And it's never right to impose your interpretation of right and wrong on others**

RWR: Regarding your comment above, you might get an argument from those who are trying to enforce the law! Ha. I guess through your "free speech" lens you missed the main point of the discussion which was to enforce laws already on the books. I did intimate that there are bad laws on the books that need rectifying, but rather than impose my interpretation of right and wrong on someone, I propose to take the issue to the people and (like JOJ said) and have them VOTE on it, rather than have some activist judge circumvent the law and REALLY impose his idea of right and wrong on the public.

Your statement above sounds like LIB rationale for anything goes, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, it is just "what you feel" is right. Gee, sounds like a receipe for anarchy to me.

BTW, the "right and wrong" commentary is a good theological discussion item. Who determines right and wrong? RWR? The ACLU (Heaven forbid---we share that scare)? Islamofascists? I don't think there is moral equivalence between my faith (Christianity) and that of the ACLU (read "Godless"--Coulter's book on the church of Liberalism) and Islam. I believe that man was given the freedom to choose God (His precepts; His commandments), or figure out "right and wrong" (good vs evil) on his own. Well, we know what happened there, don't we? Without God's standard, we end up like the ACLU (defending those NAMBLA predators who use the "free speech" umbrella to tell other deviants how to get away with committing felony sex acts on little boys), or like the Islamofascists who "kill folks" who draw cartoons.
--Ziobuck getting his "right and wrong" from God's WORD

Isn't this cute? I'm going to get an argument from people trying to enforce illegal laws. Poor baby. The absolute standard for right vs. wrong with regard to what you do in your life can be the scriptures if you like. But with American law, the absolute standard is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. While these items are related, scripture is subservient to the others in matters of law. Rightly so, because not everyone agrees that scripture is the absolute, and the right to that disagreement is clearly set forth in the First Amendment.

***I believe that man was given the freedom to choose God (His precepts; His commandments), or figure out "right and wrong" (good vs evil) on his own.

.. And what exactly gave you the right to take that freedom away?

RWR

So he believes that people have the freedom to figure out right and wrong on their own, but that unconstitutional laws and regulations are ok to take away people's rights to figure it out on their own. I think my response was spot on.

by ziobuck on Thu 17 Aug 2006 08:12 PM CDT

RWR said, "And what exactly gave you the right to take that freedom away?"

Let me try to answer you this way.

(I believe) God gives us the freedom to choose because He wants His creation to love Him like He loves us. God knows that LOVE cannot be coerced. He gave us some rules (heard of the Bible?) to help us on our life's journey because He loves us. He knows when we "don't follow His guidelines" (sin), life is going to get more difficult for us. Sin has consequences. (You and I have been on this planet long enough to know the consequences of our errors.)

So, God and I (we're friends) really aren't taking YOUR freedom away. Say and do what ever your heart desires. But understand this: YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for the choices of your freedom, if not in this life...in the here after. Choose wisely.

You have freedom (temporarily) to say what you want in the USA (bet that won't work in North Korea or Iran), but be prepared for the consequences. You threaten a public official with your freedom of speech, you may end up in jail. With your freedom of speech you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and you will probably be fined or jailed. You talk smut on the public air waves with your freedom of speech, you can be fined by the FCC. So, you've heard it before...with freedom comes responsibility. --Ziobuck wondering how he took someone's rights away by giving an opinion

Of course, he didn't even address the police state he advocated, or even bother to justify it. My response:

by RightWingRocker on Sat 19 Aug 2006 20:02 CDT

**So, God and I (we're friends) really aren't taking YOUR freedom away.

By doing what you advocate above, you are attempting to do just that.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com

So he and God are friends. Big fucking deal. I agree 100% of the time with NONE of my friends. So what was the point of bringing that up, even if God and he were better friends than God and I (which I highly doubt)? Still, what he advocated in his comments was an attempt to abridge the freedoms of non-Christians everywhere. Religious freedom isn't only for Christians, it's for ALL Americans, and if we Christians want to exercise the right to post the Ten Commandments wherever we want, we will have to respect others' right to post whatever dissenting opinion they have as well. Remember, the rationale for posting the Ten Commandments in a court of law has nothing to do with the religious aspects of doing so. It has to do with the foundation that those commandments laid with regard to law. This is not to say that we govern the United States by the Ten Commandments, but rather to recognize and honor their historical context, and their significance with regard to the laws that we do have. One very important aspect of the Ten Commandments is their brevity and simplicity, an important tenet of law that has been largely ignored by our lawmakers. But I digress ...

RWR:
I have to tell you....that you amuse me to no end. In your effort to be "brief", you are incoherent. Taking my comments out of context is a liberal ploy. I'm beginning to sense you are a liberal with a conservative "handle". Tell me I'm wrong. Better yet, why don't you define for me what is right and wrong and how you came up with it? Common sense? Because the ACLU believes it to be so? Because it is a law (never mind it could be a BAD law)? Whose interpretation of right and wrong should we follow in this wonderful country of ours? RWR's? Our Constitution (remember judges interpret it differently at times)? I'm all for democracy and the "will of the people". How about you?

On all of our counter remarks to me, you've never addressed the fact that your precious FREEDOM of SPEECH has consequences. You assume Howard Stern has freedom of speech (but apparently people like Brad, JOJ, and myself do not because we think differently than you). We were saying (but you keep ignoring) that if Howy breaks the law, you know, says obscene things against FCC regs (the LAW), he should be fined. You seem to think THAT is a violation of his free speech and that we need to merely tune out this guy (or persuade him of the unrighteousness of his ways...yeah right!). All you've shown me is that YOU have a lawless bent with no moral compass.

--Ziobuck agreeinig to disagree

OK so I take one sentence that very clearly summarizes everything he attempted to say, and I'm taking him out of context. Cute, but wrong. He continues to rant on about Howard Stern breaking an unconstitutional law, and in the process calls me a liberal with a "lawless bent and no moral compass".

My response:

by RightWingRocker on Tue 22 Aug 2006 13:33 CDT

Nice try, Ziobuck.

You obviously haven't taken the time to read my blog. You might find me a little TOO conservative if you did.

I am a Libertarian-leaning-New Federalist-Reaganite-registered-Republican-but-independent-voting CONSERVATIVE. I took a stand in defense of someone's free speech rights in this comment section, and you came about and made me out a kook - even called me a liberal. Why? Because I defended someone's First Amendment rights.

We can agree to disagree on many things, but to call me a liberal when I stand up and defend the Bill of Rights is to yourself have no moral compass, at least not one that respects the Constitution.

At no point did I ever assert that you, JOJ, or Brad (I'm a fan, after all) do not have free speech rights. The FCC is unconstitutional, and bears no legitimacy with regard to the law. There is no provision for it in the Constitution, and its mere existence, like McCain-Feingold, is a violation of the First Amendment.

Again, I think you and I would agree more often than not, Ziobuck. I think you would be well-advised to read my work, and decide for yourself.

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com

So I stand up and defend someone's right to free speech and I get called such things. This is the kind of bullshit rhetoric that gives the Donks the opportunity to say that religious fanatics have taken over the Republican Party. Ziobuck would probably agree with me on most matters. Unfortunately, it seems that he is of the opinion that the First Amendment should only apply to Christians. As a Christian, I strongly disagree.

The funniest part of this was the guy calling me a liberal. I can think of only one issue where I could be considered liberal - sex. I'm not even pro-abortion! I'm in favor of the tax cuts that Ziobuck probably supports; I'm in favor of dismantling the welfare state, as Ziobuck probably supports; I'm in favor of increased border security, which Ziobuck probably supports; I support the Second Amendment, as Ziobuck probably does; but oh, no - defend some irrelevant loudmouth prick's First Amendment rights, and I'm a liberal with no moral compass.

Ziobuck, I hope you got a chance to read this. The point is that the Bill of Rights isn't just for those of us who are Christian, it's for ALL Americans, including those with whom we disagree. I don't like Howard Stern any more than you do. I don't agree with everything he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it. It doesn't make me liberal. It makes me CONSISTENT.

ME - a LIBERAL! Can you imagine that?!!!!!

HAHAHHAHAHA

RWR