The lessons of Liberalism that we just don’t seem to get
Continuing on the subject of the importance of absolutes (something I discussed recently), here is a example of the importance of having some moral boundaries in our culture.
Liberals here in the United States are quick to recite the 1st Amendment when it fits their needs:
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.
But when this freedom of expression backfires on blacks, Liberalism seems to bounce the very people that have given the most to its cause.
Recently, at the University of Cincinnati, a group of white students referred to as the National Alliance posted flyers on campus that target African-American students.
The flyers read “Don’t Have Sex With Blacks - Avoid AIDS”. The flyer was seen all over campus, and was even featured in the school newspaper as an advertisement.
…National Alliance is an on-campus group of white students that attend the University of Cincinnati, and are known for their racist teachings and messages.
Black students at the University say that campus administration is well aware of the group, and does nothing about them. In fact, one white staff member said that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and can post their messages freely on campus.” …more(emphasis mine)
If we use the First Amendment as the basis of our free expression, how then can we justify our complaint calling for this kind of racist behavior to cease? Looking at the whole picture here, we will in effect be asking the state to revoke this racist group’s right to free expression/freedom of speech. Under the First Amendment, what rights does a pro-black/anti-white group have that a group of Klansman don’t have if all they want to do is march down main street?
Please don’t get me wrong here, I hate all forms of racism. All I am doing here is pointing out an inconsistent ideology that always finds it way kicking us in the pants.
…and we are the ones that proudly wear the “kick me” sign.
I guess it all depends on what side of the fence you are on….should the University then also tolarate Swatisticas(excuse my spelling) and signs that say “Dont talk to a Jew, Jews cause crime!”?
or
“Christians Carry herpies, Watch out!”
Black americans in the US have lived under virtual aparthied for a very long time. The small consessions that were given to them during the civil rights era is nothing compared to what they had to give up.
but it all depends on what side of the fence you are on..
Comment by Jack | April 22, 2005
one poster says: “The flyer, although repulsive, does not endanger the lives of others.”
I’m afraid i have to differ. Does not the man photographed on the flyer still have
constitutional protection? Are not black men who physically favor him being
endangered by the willful and intentional actions of this group to ostracize
and criminalize young black men. I would also go so far as to say that such willful
incitement of anger and fear poses a safety risk. One the campus is responsible
for diffusing.
them?
Comment by tressie | May 4, 2005