|
Limitations On The and still requiring revision this web site was put onto the web on December 10th, 2005 in commemoration of Human Rights Day and the work of the New Brunswick Canadian John Humphrey who as Director of the UN Human Rights Division was the primary author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. May Canada continue to lead in its contributions towards world peace, human rights, and a universal auxiliary language. "How can a global society be established to assure world peace? How can the freedom of expression be preserved within this more secure society? This paper will focus on an examination of possible limits to freedom of expression in order to develop unity and to preserve peace. It will also discuss how these might be properly implemented, modified, and controlled in the New World Order. The present writer draws upon his philosophical background and formal training in the area of political theory but the main guiding source for his beliefs is his religion. Throughout the presentation the reader will find many unattributed quotes from the writer's religion but if they wish to identify the source they may easily do so using the Ocean program. The religion is not named throughout this essay because this essay is not intended as a polemic for a specific religion, and the quotes are given only so that the reader can know the source and definition of the writers view. This presentation is seen as a dialogue or inquiry. Comments, observations, suggestions, and so forth are welcomed from any and all sources no matter what philosophical or religious background may prompt them. The writer may be reached at:
2. My religion's view on freedom of expression in society. 3. The view on freedom of expression within my religion 4. Internal criticism in my religion 5. Freedom of expression in society at large
8. United Nations as the source of the standards for freedom C. Philosophical Limits to the Freedom of Expression
11. Deficiencies in the views of libertarian thinking
14. Obedience to government
17. The failure of the Internet 18. Courts and formal argument 19. Behaviour in government and legislatures 20. Behaviour of the public F. Freedom of Expression in Practice
23. Freedom in China 24. The individual versus the atheistic state 25. The individual versus the theistic state
28. Moderation in the practice of principles of freedom I. Summary and Conclusion 1. Preface and definition of purpose This is an investigation of the relationship of Freedom of Expression to Freedom of Religion - rather than the freedom of expression within religion. The first subject - the relationship of Freedom of Expression to Freedom of Religion - has to do with governments of the world and their relationship to religion, and the impact on Freedom of Religion by the Freedom of Expression or the individual's right to seek what they consider to be the 'right' or 'true' religion. The second subject - the freedom of expression within a religion is a matter of individual religious conscience - or to put it more correctly - the collective conscience of each individual's religion. This search is dealing only with the subject of freedom of expression as a social freedom. That is to say, freedom of expression as provided by government and the attitude of society at large. Indeed, the major concern that it is intended to examine is the appropriate degree of freedom of expression in the world at large and the manner in which it may be established after the Great Catastrophe of nuclear WW3. 2. My religion's view on freedom of expression in society. At the very root of my religion
his freedom to declare his conscience and set forth his views". arise out of a collective combination of the cultural, religious, philosophical milieu in which they have been raised or unto which the have attained. I am no different. Consequently, you will find within this discourse - quotes from both the philosophical background in which I was raised and the religion which I adopted. Throughout this examination of freedom of expression within society I strive to understand the view held in my religion on the freedom of expression within society. The reason for this is that I obviously accept my religion and therefore my understanding of its views on the freedom of expression within society are the predominant and underlying factor in determining my views regarding the freedom of expression within society.
A different subject would be that of freedom of expression in my own religion. This, however, is determined by procedures within my religion and is not the subject of this inquiry. Nevertheless, I will briefly present some statements from my religion on the subject - although I will not try examine or critique them except as they stand as examples for society at large.
or what some see as censorship is justified on the basis that the religion is still in an infant state and that until its teachings become generally known - and widely defended - it is necessary to make sure that they are correctly presented. The Prophet of my religion Himself, stated:
along with the concepts of balance and moderation are major principles of my religion somewhat associated with what we might call 'the golden mean' and they are a theme unto which we will return later as we seek to define limits to freedom of expression for society as a whole. These concepts are ones that I adopted but gradually. Before becoming a member of my religion I carried a Barry Goldwater placard on the floor of the Republican National Convention and saw great merit in his statement -
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." has however stated:
these principles of gradualism, balance and moderation must be applied with patience, consideration, and prudence. For example:
"As you well appreciate, the extent to which such technology advances the work of the Faith depends, of course, on the manner in which it is used. As a medium for ... (members of my religion) to exchange views, it imposes on participants the same requirements of moderation, candour, and courtesy as would be the case in any other discussion. Likewise, those involved should avoid belittling the views of one another."
for above all else it is the prince of virtues.
My religion:
"all criticisms and discussions of a negative character which may result in undermining the authority ... order ... itself will be endangered, and confusion and discord will reign in the community." "Clearly, then, there is more to be considered than the critic's right to self expression..." is not for the purpose of "airing of one's views in the community." as I anticipate that most of the readers will not be members of my religion. I do not intend for this discussion to hold any "criticisms and discussions of a negative character" about my religion" - and indeed it is not meant as a criticism of any particular system - but is rather intended as an examination of the challenges facing society as a whole in the establishment of the freedom of expression. I should also mention here that this presentation is not meant to be a presentation, explanation, summary or other accounting of my religion's teachings on the subject of freedom of expression. That is because it is totally unauthorized and
"could ... be free to teach wholly independent of any advice or supervision." that is necessary for any religion or sect to have any sort of official position on anything. Otherwise every religion's teachings would be just whatever any of its members said that they were. Many religions ordain (the dictionary says this simply means 'authorizes') its official teachers and some permit authorized teaching only by authorized teachers. These again - are only internal matters to freedom of expression within a religion and are not relevant to the subject of this inquiry. 5. Freedom of expression in society at large. My concern is about freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the New World Order - and specifically how they may be instituted after the Great Catastrophe. My religion
to constructive social processes."
and refuse to sanction it in others."
that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty."
about what life and freedom will be like in the New World Order. 6. Infallible sources for the definitions of freedoms
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
(King James Bible)
nor an infallible source of knowledge. See the Four Paths to Truth. I, like others in my religion, take our supreme religious administrative authority to be Divinely guided. In fact - we take its guidance to be infallible - although infallibility here may have a different meaning than what some others may give to it. Infallible does not mean that the source may not change its decisions, opinions, or guidance - over time and with changing circumstances. It may. Within the Writings of my religion there is mention of various degrees of infallibility such as the "Most Great Infallibility". It is explained that:
essential infallibility and acquired infallibility." because in the first place - I am sure that I do not understand all this - but I just mention it here in case the term infallibility does not match what others conceive as its meaning. Some people perceive of infallibility somewhat in the terms of the young lady who came to her father and said - "Daddy, I am a little bit pregnant". Others see pregnancy, virginity, infallibility as being an on or off thing - or what we would call exclusive sets. However, we live in a relative world - where perfection and certitude can be of many degrees. In point of fact - if someone says to others today - that such a lady is VERY pregnant then they know what is meant. The Writings of my religion state:
So then it resolves itself into a question of personal and individual standards, or units of measurement." or implied infallibility - although there are those in my religion who go into orbit when they hear me speak of implied infallibility. This is somewhat in the same way as many, at least in the past, viewed the US Supreme Court. What it says the US Constitution says - then that is what the Constitution says - and there was no further level of appeal - although the Supreme Court, too, could later change its decision. In my mind - one aspect of what we are really speaking of in this case - is final human authority and in my religion that is the Supreme Administrative Authority - which:
not to convince you of my religion but to let you know the source of the concepts - and the authority that I attach to them - in regards to the topic at hand. One might think - that having such an authoritative source that then for myself all issues would be resolved, but in fact the opposite is true - because ideas are raised from that source which I had not considered before and which I do not at all pretend to comprehend. Some would retort - that then I should query the source for clarification. Would that it were so easy - but the problem is I often don't thoroughly understand the issues or how one would properly frame the questions. Anyway, my subject here is not the issue of freedom of expression within my own religion - for there are channels for examining that subject within the religion. The subject here is the issue of freedom of expression and religion within the New World Order after nuclear WW3 - and what guidance I can find within my religion for the Pattern of Future Society. 7. A philosophical basis for freedom Dogmatic and authoritarian censorship of thought in the religious sects of
at the present time of this writing, such as,
there is what we call Post Modernism whose roots stem from the concepts of 'enlightenment rationalism' and 'libertarianism' epitomized in the writings of J.S. Mills, to which I thrilled in the formative years of my initial political concepts. Today - holding to Mill's concepts may bring the epithet that one is a part of the 'cult of individualism' but a balanced use of his concepts may have a proper application for the future whereas carried to an extreme as by many post-modernists they would prove detrimental to society. The following is what my religion has to say about Post Modernism which it calls the Old World Order:
philosophically called Post Modernism or sometimes 'Hyper modernism', predominately espouses authenticity and autonomy. As a result of emphasizing the 'authentic' 'or real', Hyper modernism has found itself in the scientific age of relativity, without any guide posts of absolute reality.
"Even marriage as an institution is denounced." have gleefully pulled down the historical guide posts of social custom and cultural tradition, they have had nothing with which to replace them. For them the standard of determining value for anything is simply one's own self.
such as that to which I subscribe takes the countervailing position - of providing access to absolute truth (although we may still have only relative understanding of it.) The second facet of Hyper modernism - that of autonomy - holds that a person is sole judge of what their actions should be - so long as their actions harms no one else. This viewpoint - particularly in its extremes - rejects authority and holds that the individual's sole concern is the individual self, with the caveat, of course, that they are not harming others. It is a philosophy of total selfishness, seen for example in the writings of Ayn Rand. From the completely opposite point of view my religion holds:
in the past century - for the point of view that the individual has primary responsibility to society - have been the systems of communism and fascism. Some see a danger in this view also being taken to an extreme with the rights of the individual being completely submerged in the demands of the state. To this point, my religion states:
limits and balances to all freedoms and that freedom of speech does not include a right to lie on the witness stand, to falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre, to publish pornography wherever one wishes, to incite to riot and a dozen other such examples as one might give. Conversely, there may be an equally applicable right to not speak. Some speak of 'self incrimination' - as one of several examples - but these too are with their limits. In the past, most Americans would have at least drawn the line at torture - in forcing one to speak - but that too has been changing. JS Mills is said to have held a philosophical concept of negative liberty - which variously stated - is the absence of coercion from others. In this negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no person interferes with one's activity. Obviously, one's activity is interfered with in all sorts of ways. By natural 'laws' such as the 'law of gravity' by social and cultural laws and customs. By each person's needs for interaction with their employers, customers, spouse, members of their family, neighbours - and an endless list of 'others'. There are other concepts of freedom or liberty. In the religion of Islam and in my religion true liberty consists of submission to the will of God. The imprisoned Prophet wrote:
the most important concept to learn about the true nature of true liberty but one that lies beyond the scope of this inquiry. What is being dealt with here is the concept of social liberty - particularly as it applies to the subject of freedom of expression.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as adopted on December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations we will surely be concerned about how poorly those principles were universally applied prior to the Great Catastrophe - and we may be even more concerned about how they will be implemented afterwards. If the two freedoms that primarily concern me - exist - then I feel that all others will eventually follow. Once again - the two 'rights' or 'freedoms' that concern me most - are freedom of religion - and freedom of speech or expression. Regarding religion - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. also mentions religion in relationship to education:
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory... (2) Education shall ... promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all ... religious groups... (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. endorsement of the freedoms of religion and speech - in that it makes education universal and gives parents the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children and also as restrictive in the sense that it requires the teaching of tolerance to be universal. I see the freedom of religion as being the most important freedom because I see religion - that is to say - one's relationship to God - as being the very purpose of life itself. The reason that freedom of expression (speech) is almost equally important is because unless one has the freedom to hear, read, examine, discuss, and express ideas then they do not have the freedom of conscience to search for and adhere to what would be the highest religious ideals that they can find. This freedom of expression is described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. the fact that these rights are provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does not mean that they are permitted even in one's own country - or even in one's own religion. 9. The concepts of positive and negative liberty The concepts of social freedom in political thought are often categorized as falling largely into two main areas - those of negative liberty and those of positive liberty. In their extremes - the concept of negative liberty is often identified with 'libertarianism' and positive liberty with communism or socialism. Most of us would apply some of the principles of one in some cases and the principles of the other in other cases. For example of the extremes - some would have all schooling done by individual parents (home schooling) which might be thought compatible with libertarianism and others would have all schooling to be public schooling which would be more compatible with the views of socialism. Many such issues such as private medicine versus public and socialized medicine - and public health and safety issues abound. My own preference is simultaneous decentralization and the encouragement of cooperation - as much as the two may sound incompatible and inconsistent, or that decentralized cooperation may sound oxymoronic in nature. Whatever. The issue before us is simply that of freedom of expression. Negative liberty is said to define a realm of zones or a "zone" of freedom. That is to say the area both geographic and social in which a person is said to have freedom. For example, some would say - that the government has no responsibility interest or right - as to what goes on behind bedroom doors. As an extreme view that would include the practice of polygamy, polyandry, incest and pedophilia - all of which most in society would neither condone nor permit. But the subject before us is not the freedom to act - but rather the freedom to advocate discuss investigate propose oppose and generally express one's opinion.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
This ideal principle regardingthe freedom of expression is greatly ignored in both public and private practice in many nations in the world. 10. Categorization of 'harm' levels. Mills said:
(ibid.) is often central to any discussion regarding Mills' concept of liberty. The no "harm" principle appears to be embodied in the UN Declaration of Human Rights as:
ends - where your nose begins." if what one does - does not harm someone else - or society - then they are free to do it. I would at least render the latter qualification that it then becomes between them and God. After studying Mills' philosophy - from a social point of view and the comments of others on it I have categorized limitations on the freedom of expression as follows:
2. Offensive 3. Blasphemous 4. Obscene 5. Pornographic 6. Immoral that of 'harm' we have already discussed. They are those things which could immediately and directly lead to harm in society such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The latter categories are somewhat more difficult to deal with - but deserve at least some comment. Each of the lower categories - by those who hold to the lower category - are seen as being embodied in those categories above it - but those holding with a higher category may not accept the extension of harm to the lower category. 2. Offensive An example of that which may be offensive would be hate literature or language that is intemperate. Societies may determine where to draw the line. For example - there might be laws prohibiting the spray painting of racial epithets in public places - that would still permit the same statements in private forums providing that they were not then considered harmful to society - or that there would be greater harm in restricting that free expression in private forums. There is no telling what some people will find offensive. There have been court cases brought by non-Christians that they find Christmas manger scenes on public property to be offensive. Those who hold a particular thing that is offensive to be harmful - would therefore feel it should be banned - (as explained above) while others will say - it is simply offensive to some - without being harmful to society - and therefore should not be banned. For example, KKK marches through Jewish and black neighbourhoods may be (and actually have been in a real cases) permitted by the courts to proceed. 3. Blasphemous Expressions that are blasphemous specifically involve Divine or religious concepts or expressions in a profane or non-reverent way. Blasphemous expressions are offensive to some people and there will be a difference of opinion as to whether or not they are harmful to society. A recent case of some note was the publication of Salman Rushdi's "Satanic Verses". Some societies considered it harmful and others did not. 4. Obscene Violence, disrespect for human dignity - in any form - even of acts that would be necessary or appropriate in another socially acceptable setting all may be obscene. The use of socially non-acceptable words - are obscenities although they may not be profanities or blasphemous. 5. Pornographic That which is pornographic is always sexually based but it must also contain an element which is considered obscene or immoral. Otherwise the material is simply erotic. Society may legitimately impose limitations as to in which forums both pornographic and erotic materials may be expressed. The reason being the harm principle - in that there may be some instances - such as it's being shown to children - that it may be considered as being socially damaging. 6. Immoral Expression that depicts or advocates immoral behaviour such as pornography but also including others such as lying, stealing, murder, adultery, or even littering and any one of a thousand of what may be considered immoral acts may also be subject to social censorship - always upon the basis of the harm principle. There are many issues that enter in here. The intended audience and or the intended purpose would be two. A book intended for censors - might show examples of what is - and what is not pornographic - and as such would in itself contain pornographic material but would be legally permitted for its social purpose. A manual for bomb squad technicians could very well show the techniques that are used by terrorists to construct bombs. Medical manuals would show sexual techniques and methods of erotic stimulation without having an intent of being pornographic. Examples of this sort are endless. It comes down to intended audience and purpose. But - it must also go beyond that point - because there must also be opportunity for advocacy for those ideas that current culture may consider to be immoral. Thus there are people who wish to advocate polygamy, nudism, pedophilia, drug usage, abortion, euthanasia, genocide, terrorism, and a wide variety of other ideas - including pornography - that may be abhorrent to many people or society in general. Mills expressed this idea even more strongly.
a grand ideal - but whether in practicality mankind will ever reach the spiritual maturity to be able to provide forums in which every idea could be appropriately expressed - is another matter. There is a difference between advocacy and incitement - and certainly that of practice but the ability to distinguish what is socially acceptable as scholarly investigation or legitimate discourse - and that where the latter is merely being used as a deceptive cover for what goes beyond social limits can be a social problem. 11. Deficiencies in the views of libertarian thinking Up to this point the present discussion of freedom of expression has mainly focused upon the concept of liberty as expressed in current appraisals of libertarian - and what is often identified as - humanist thinking. While the ideals associated with these schools of thought have been attained through what was called the 'age of enlightenment' they have also become identified with the philosophy of materialism which humanity must now progress beyond if it is to achieve the spiritual goals and nature which is its true and natural destiny.
and the issue that really lies before us - is how the ideals expressed in Article 19 and Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are to be actually implemented in the world.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
"How incalculable have been the negative results of ill-directed criticism: in the catastrophic divergences it has created in religion, in the equally contentious factions it has spawned in political systems, which have dignified conflict by institutionalizing such concepts as the 'loyal opposition' which attach to one or another of the various categories of political opinion -- conservative, liberal, progressive, reactionary, and so forth." "Content, volume, style, tact, wisdom, timeliness are among the critical factors in determining the effects of speech for good or evil. ... Just as this discipline applies to the spoken word, it applies equally to the written word; and it profoundly affects the operation of the press." 12. Social limits to the exercise of the freedom of expression Almost two decades ago (29 December 1988) there appeared in the writings of my religion a paper on: "Individual Rights and Freedoms". The paper referred to:
individual rights and freedom of expression ..." that has prompted this examination. Now, almost two decades of wrestling with the ideas presented in that paper have raised for me more questions on the subject of individual freedom of expression - than I had before it appeared. I have noted that effect upon others who have read the paper - so I take these to be thorny issues for others as well as myself. From my religion's
"Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation". "Also relevant to what is said, and how, is when it is said. For speech, as for so many other things, there is a season."
As far as freedom of religion is concerned - I suppose that I would impose on other's religions practically no limits other than prohibiting involuntary human sacrifice or the killing of others (Jihad) to enforce one's own beliefs. However, there are lots of religious issues that concern other people. For example, Christian Scientists refusing medicine or vaccination for their children (as a danger to both their children and society). (Coincidently - I was raised as a Christian Scientist). Or Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusion for their children, or some religions wanting to remove body parts such as female circumcisum (so you would forbid Jew males?) But this list goes on and on - and generally while I personally would be quite lenient - societies have their dominant cultural values and when they feel that something like vaccination is necessary to protect the whole society - then their particular society's interests will overrule. 14. Obedience to government That the collective interest always supersedes personal interest is one of the principles of my religion. Even as the Vulcan Captain Spock said: "The needs of the many - outweigh the needs of the few - or the one." This collective interest is supposedly represented by the authority of the governments and governments are often one of the main restrictions on the freedom of expression. The Prophet of my religion has stated:
(Martin Luther, Large Catechism)
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
"Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
(King James Bible)
In the past that latter scripture has been taken as a justification for slavery something that is forbidden in my own religion. Issues such as this create a great struggle for the individual. Questions of justice and dealing with governments that are unjust are a great trial and spiritual test because one is not permitted to be disobedient to government except in refusing to do that which is forbidden by their Lord - in which case they must be willing to suffer the human consequences. From these circumstances there will often arise martyrs. Coincidently - a martyr means one who is willing to lay down their life for a cause. It does not mean one who is willing to kill for a cause. The latter are terrorists - not martyrs. It appears that my religion's position is that its members should never demonstrate, protest, strike, or resist - the decrees of government. Raised in the revolutionary culture of what has been called "Bloody Kansas" - this has been a considerable challenge for me. Before becoming a member of my religion I was quite active in the US Black Civil Rights Movement and later taught in Black colleges. Peaceful Civil Disobedience was the word of the day. I marched with signs on Woolworth's to get the coffee counters desegregated, and even after becoming a member of my religion was the NAACP representative in the largest US city without a Black resident. To tell of all the dramatic confrontations that I was involved in - factually even involving true potential for loss of my life, would be a very lengthy exposition. More recently I participated in Peace Demonstrations - again marching about carrying a sign - when there came down a directive from the national administration of my religion that we were not to do so. Not that we are against peace - but that we simply should not demonstrate. So - I laid down my sign never to pick it up again. Years ago - some states in the Southern US prohibited interracial marriages and interracial social gatherings in homes. Members of my religion pointed this out to me at the time and expressed the feeling that we should be obedient to the government. If I were having a religious meeting in my home (what we call 'firesides') when a knock on the door came from a black friend who said that he heard I was having such a meeting and wanted to know if he could come in, some felt I should have said - "Nope - sorry - it is against the law." The fact that they're lived in our home one of the partner's in the first interracial marriage - in the fifth to last state to outlaw miscegenation - did cause some discomfort in our community. My first born was Jewish - (born of a Jewish Mother) and if we had lived in Germany I can imagine a knock on the door with Gestapo Officers saying - "Send out any Jews that you have." Hard to obey. But then hard too for Abraham to be obedient to God's command to sacrifice his son. Where do we draw the line - in obedience to God's command to be obedient to government? There is nowhere to draw the line in being obedient to God. We can only pray to be protected from such trials. Members of my religion are not permitted to be conscientious objectors. Now, I spent eight honourable years in the military before becoming a conscientious objector. And then back to the other side upon joining my religion. The Prophet of my religion permits the execution of terrorists (what used to be called arsonists) and I would extend this to cyber-terrorists - so I guess I should volunteer to pull the trigger. In this world difficult choices never end.
that I have gone off on a tangent - I assure you that I have not because the issue of freedom of expression most applies in relationship to government. When one is not permitted to possess a Bible or teach about their religion or display religious symbols such as even wearing a cross or to hold meetings or to tell another person about their religion or to even teach their own children - then the significance of these issues should become quite apparent. In my religion - the Prophet has commanded us to teach the Cause of God.
with two commandments that appear to be in conflict - such as the commandment to teach versus the commandment to be obedient to government then for them it may create a difficulty. Some will choose one commandment - and others - the other. Each may think the other has their priority wrong. God knows. The Authorized Interpreter of my religion has written that my religion has:
[To insure] freedom of conscience and tranquility of heart and soul is one of the duties and functions of government, and is in all ages the cause of progress in development and ascendency ... till such time as they put away the strife of sects out of their midst, and dealt with all classes according to one standard. All are one people, one nation, one species, one kind. The common interest is complete equality; From whatever section of earth's denizens signs of contentiousness appear, prompt punishment is required by a just government; ... Times are changed, and the need and fashion of the world are changed. Interference with creed and faith in every country causes manifest detriment, while justice and equal dealing towards all peoples on the face of the earth are the means whereby progress is effected."
that the function of my religion 'collectively' - that is to say through its administrative bodies - is to 'suggest' to governments (in those cases where the government will entertain such suggestions) as to what is the right course. To say that my religion's institutions would 'recommend' or 'advocate', might be a tad strong - and they would certainly never insist or confront the government in any way - although they have been known to request and plea. The individual on the other hand has no recourse (other than those legally provided by the government) but to obey - or in those circumstances which contravene the decree of God to be obedient to God and suffer the human circumstances. 15. Erroneous ideas There are those who feel that erroneous ideas simply should not be advocated. At one time the erroneous idea was thought to be Material Scientism and Evolution Theory. Today another segment of society would ban Creationism and Intelligent Design. We never know how the pendulum may swing. Emotional and non-logical irrationality should never be allowed to ban discussion - nor - should discussion ever be banned because it is based upon emotional and non-logical irrationality. For example:
would say that it is Emotional and non-logical irrationality that Creationists use to try to ban the discussion of Darwinism in the schools. b. At the same time the devotees of scientism would ban the discussion of Creationism because they say it is based upon emotional and non-logical irrationality. would of course permit 'discussion' of the other side from a negative point of view - but that is not what is meant here by discussion.) 16. The failure of media Much discussion about freedom of expression circulates around 'the media'. In fact the media - or what is often called 'the Fourth Estate' has very often proven quite disappointing in its service. The Prophet of my religion has stated:
has a well-established standard for 'checking its facts'. What is reported most often has 'verifiable sources'. The problem is - often the veracity of the sources themselves and more importantly that the media quite often does not seek out the true story or 'the other side' of the story. Media 'bias' is reflective of two things - one: low individual standards that many humans, including reporters, have for seeking and determining truth - and two: the prudent self-interests of the publishers for whom they write. Reporters or writers who stray very far a field from their publisher's philosophy - are soon out of a job. Publisher's philosophies are determined by what they call 'responsible journalism'. They must stay fairly close to the cultural views of the society in which they write. This applies equally to publishers in government controlled totalitarian societies - and to those which consider themselves to be in free 'open' societies. There is direct control in the former - and in the latter control by
upon whom they are reporting - and last, but not least, must not be held accountable if they do not tell the truth because otherwise they would be fearful of mistakenly publishing and would therefore be restrained from publishing. This is then extended to the point that freedom of expression means that they are free to tell lies if they wish to. 17. The failure of the Internet The Internet has proven very much a challenge for those who would control freedom of expression. Some of the more totalitarian countries have more or less risen to the challenge but leaks occasionally appear even in their control.
is the very fact that it is uncensored and consequently requires a considerable degree of sophistication upon the part of the reader to sort out that which has merit from that which is meaningless froth - and worse yet - that which is totally misleading. There is that about the Internet being uncontrolled which is disastrous. I have received hundreds of email scams and while I have never lost anything to them there have been collectively many millions of dollars lost by others. I have received thousands of email spams. The total collective cost in time wasted on them in analyzing and removal has been a great many multiple of the benefit that any have received from them - including their senders. The punishment for those sending them should be at least some multiple for that which we would bestow for the anti-social activity of littering in the streets. I have received email viruses that have cost me days to repair the damage. The millions of human days that they have destroyed are more than the human days that have been destroyed by any terrorist. The punishment for the perpetrators should be equally great to that for terrorists. The random purveyance of pornography - the nuisance of unsolicited advertising - the plethora of anti-netizen behaviour - all should be controlled. But enough of my rant. For conversely - I fear that the control will mean loss of essential freedom. What the future of the Internet is - remains presently undetermined. It is a very recent phenomenon of the moment and while I personally hope that it may long endure and become ever more valuable as a source for the rapid acquisition of truth - the fact remains that it both entirely lacks in self-discipline and responsibility of action towards those powerful institutions that may curtail it. 18. Courts and formal argument The practice of freedom of speech takes some peculiar forms. Not just in the arts and drama - but also in the business community and courts. In the business community there is not only the intentional deceptiveness and unwarranted emotional motivation of advertising there is also the funny business of contracts. Sit down to negotiate any substantial piece of business - such as the purchase of a house or the taking out of a loan - or any one of a hundred filings that you may be required to make with the government - and you will find yourself presented with a mountain of paper that no reasonable person could wade through. Even the purchase of a ticket at an airline counter or the leaving of your car on a parking lot will find you confronted with the acceptance of some legal document in fine print that you obviously can't refuse and have no way to negotiate. But this is the way of the law. And lawyers. Everything that you are presented is meant to protect their client and to provide them with many 'loopholes' to wiggle through. Should you ever end up in court - you find that in their freedom of speech they have defined words, phrases and meanings in ways that you couldn't have imagined. But take courage, they will tell you - because you can hire another lawyer to defend you. And now the real fun begins because you will find that the rules of the game are not to find the truth or achieve justice - but rather to win the argument. Adversarial law it is called. Argue anything you wish. The one who can put up the best argument wins, no matter how ridiculous the answer may appear on the surface. Better yet - if the lawyer can show that others have made the same argument then that is called precedent or 'stare decisis' - and he wins all sorts of extra points - justice often in the meantime - being ignored. Adversarial law is a form of playing what is called - the 'devil's advocate'. Truth being ignored - it is all based upon suppose - and the best supposer wins. If you have enough money to hire a better supposer than the other person - then you win - and the best supposers can even get you free of almost any crime. All in the name of a form of free speech - which isn't really that free because unless you have the money to pay for it you - yourself may not go free. Other cultures have practiced an alternative to devil's advocacy or adversarial confrontation in conflict resolution. My own religion recommends consultation. The Prophet stated:
of my religion stated:
the skill and techniques of consultation is beyond the scope of this presentation - but it is a subject that needs to be investigated, studied, and practiced at all levels of society. 19. Behaviour in government and legislatures As ridiculous as may seem the cultural practice of intentionally contrived and misleading argument in courts even more astounding is the behaviour in legislatures. There if you ask a member their position on anything they may truthfully reply that they can't know until they know the position of the opposition - because whatever the opposition's position - theirs is the opposite. Add to that the visual image (in what should be solemn debate and consultation) of behaviour in the legislatures of democracies where grown men are whooping and hollering banging on desks and making catcalls in a manner that would not be permitted in any fourth grade class of children. Add still beyond the circus of the procedure that the legislation passed is generally drawn up by lawyers in the specialized terms of bureaucratize that hides within its depths the publically undeclared special interests of its proposers, however very often, concealed by some fine sounding title. Not only does the public not read these tomes but neither do the members of the legislatures who vote for them - votes actually being determined by loyalties to the sources of their election funds. All of this in the name of freedom of expression for the public will - but in actuality controlled in far too many parts of the world either by direct bribes - or by class and private loyalties. The present attainment of freedom of expression and freedom to act from considered conscience in the world's legislatures is quite minimal when one considers the centuries of struggle that have gone into that supposed attainment. 20. Behaviour of the public In many ways the practice of the freedom of expression and commitment to following true conscience is reflective of society as a whole. The masses of society - even in the supposedly democratized societies - both in their private and public discussions show little of the tolerance, understanding, restraint, and courtesy necessary for the practice of freedom of expression. Aside from riots and the burning of buildings and vehicles, confrontations with law enforcement personnel, and the general trashing of public and private property the emotional chanting and yelling, in demonstrations conducted to provide the intentional disruption of civic affairs - far from being an instance of freedom of expression - actually curtails it. When speakers try to dialogue with such groups they are often drowned out. Groups such as these even intentionally disrupt special forums and meetings that have been established for the speakers to express their views. These again are examples opposite of the support of freedom of expression. Admittedly - sometimes (perhaps oftentimes) (and this a point that can hardly be OVERSTRESSED) these groups are acting out of frustration that they have no legitimate forums or avenues for effective freedom of expression of their views. However, sadly, even when those forums and avenues exist - there are far, far too many instances of behaviour that do not evidence a general willingness to be respectful, courteous, tolerant, understanding, or open to meaningful dialogue. Caricature, ridicule, parody are all very power instruments of expression - and political cartoonists and political humorists have been potent forces in forming public opinion - and there may be proper forums for such antics - but with these - as with all other mediums of expression there is a proper balance and a proper time and place. That time and place certainly isn't when one has the listening receptive ear, of the party being characterized. While I characterized the behaviour of the members of legislatures as being that which wouldn't be tolerated in a fourth grade class - the behaviour of many public crowds is more like that of badly behaved two year olds. Such is the sad state of humanity to which we would like to bring freedom of expression. Where between these poles of the behaviour of political leaders in never justly and evenly praising their opponents accompanied by the shameful example of behaviour that they set in the legislatures as to how debate, discussion, consultation should be conducted - and the mass attitudes shown in student and public demonstrations, union strikes, and even in riots can we find a legitimate field for freedom of expression? 21. Legal restrictions to freedom of expression The right to freedom of expression, even as expressed in the UN Statement of Human Rights, is not considered unlimited; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three-part test:
2. pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; 3. and they must be necessary
for the accomplishment of that aim.
(prevention of defamation) 2. the protection of
b. public order c. health d. morals with the question of when -
b. public order c. health d. morals at saying that everything and anything is a matter of national security. There may be "Freedom of Information Acts" but it is almost impossible in terms of time, effort, monetary, legal expertise, and other resources for an individual to obtain any information such as the three video tapes that the FBI confiscated of whatever it was that flew across the highway and into the Pentagon on 9/11. When governments get into the area of protecting the nation from insurrectionists, terrorists, spies, anarchists, or whoever is not popular - the lines become even more nebulous. 22. Civil Society and religious NGOs There is much talk today in academic circles about Civil Society. A google search on the term brought up 116,000,000 hits which is the most that I think that I had ever seen it bring up on any subject. I did then try 'love' and 'God' and found considerably more - but still 116 million is an awful lot. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia:
in the thread of thought - but in actuality it is the role of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and specifically that of NGOs that are religious - in establishing the New World Order - and their attitude towards freedom of expression that should perhaps most concern us. There appears to be a counterpoise in regards to freedom of expression between the NGO members of civil society which are humanistic and those which are of a religious nature. Many religions are specifically concerned with their own particular religion's dogmas and the advancement of their own religion rather than the universal enhancement of spiritual values in all the peoples of the world - no matter what their religion. However,
as a manifestation of the vibrancy of the Revelation brought by my religion's Prophet. On the other hand there is no clear support for universal freedom of expression by many other religions. Indeed, there are presently numerous religious groups in North America that are opposed the UN itself. Many of their members support the slogan of:
and the UN out of America. in this non-participative point of view with the complaints lodged by them regarding the 'humanistic' philosophy of the UN. If they are not there and participating - then obviously the UN will instead express the philosophy of some of those who do participate. Many and varied are the reasons by these religious groups for not participating. They give reasons all the way from that the UN is a representative of the anti-Christ to that they are expecting Jesus to come down on a cloud and establish a just world without any effort on their part. While my religion feels that it requires the full effort of humanity to build a just world, nevertheless, in my own religion I can see somewhat of a parallel of the attitude of not participating in certain areas. For example - we are all very concerned about the immorality that is expressed in the movies and TV. Yet, the Guardian of my faith said:
for the individual today and we may well hope for a better day when the world is more moral. However, one may wonder if those with high spiritual values do not try to educate the public through these avenues of entertainment then how the industry will ever change of have the resources in spiritually minded personnel to better itself. Perhaps, as a religion - we should leave this to others in the same way as we do politics - an arena in which members of my religion are strictly forbidden to participate. Cinema, Politics Protest and revolutionary organizations have certainly had a dramatic effect upon the evolution of society but as individuals - the members of my religion are either cautioned (in the first case) or absolutely required as in the latter cases to not involve themselves in those activities. The alternative for individuals - in my religion indeed - their duty is to expend their full effort both by precept and example in the moral and spiritual education of all with whom they come in contact.
on the other hand - the administrative bodies of my religion are quite supportive of the United Nations and do make 'suggestions' as to its policies and operations. While many religious based NGOs, (my own religion being one of the exceptions) do not show strong support for freedom of expression through the UN there does seem to be strong support within the philosophy of Post Modernism reflected in those NGOs that are not religiously oriented. The result is that - the idealistic postmodernist NGOs seek for more and more materialistic betterment of the Third World countries while almost completely ignoring any spiritual concerns.
that affects great masses of the peoples of the world - and that is the alternative of 'statism', most often expressed in the form of fascism, but a concern most usually identified in the West with 'communism'. In its extreme form the alternative to deification of the individual is the deification of the state. My religion's
about the deification of the state that brings me to the next topic. 23. Freedom in China Because of my great love for China - and because of my close connection to that country that will play a predominate role in the future of mankind - I most wish to examine how the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of religion may apply there. Actually the principles will have to apply to the world as a whole. My religion's writings state:
(actually 'suggested') in the UN:
But first - let us examine one alternate 'statist' view purportedly made in 2005 by China's former Minister of Defense - Chi Haotian:
...Ostensibly, in comparison, today's China is alarmingly similar to Germany back then. Both of them regard themselves as the most superior races; both of them have a history of being exploited by foreign powers and are therefore vindictive; both of them have the tradition of worshipping their own authorities; both of them feel that they have seriously insufficient living space; both of them raise high the two banners of nationalism and socialism and label themselves as "national socialism"; both of them worship "one state, one party, one leader, and one doctrine." ...Our theory of the shifting center of civilization is of course more profound than the Hitler's theory of "the lords of the earth." Our civilization is profound and broad, which has determined that we are so much wiser than they were. ...Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages. These two heritages determined that we have a stronger ability to survive than the West. That is why the Chinese race has been able to prosper for so long. We are destined "not to be buried by either heaven or earth" no matter how severe the natural, man-made, and national disasters. This is our advantage. ... What makes us different from Germany is that we are complete atheists, while Germany was primarily a Catholic and Protestant country. Hitler was only half atheist. Although Hitler also believed that ordinary citizens had low intelligence, and that leaders should therefore make decisions, and although German people worshipped Hitler back then, Germany did not have the tradition of worshipping sages on a broad basis. Our Chinese society has always worshipped sages, and that is because we don't worship any god. Once you worship a god, you can't worship a person at the same time, unless you recognize the person as the god's representative like they do in Middle Eastern countries. On the other hand, once you recognize a person as a sage, of course you will want him to be your leader, instead of monitoring and choosing him. This is the foundation of our democratic centralism. ... The bottom line is, only China, not Germany, is a reliable force in resisting the Western parliament-based democratic system. Hitler's dictatorship in Germany was perhaps but a momentary mistake in history. Maybe you have now come to understand why we recently decided to further promulgate atheism. If we let theology from the West into China and empty us from the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us? If the common people don't believe Comrade Hu Jintao is a qualified leader, question his authority, and want to monitor him, if the religious followers in our society question why we are leading God in churches, can our Party continue to rule China? that the individual is to be completely subordinated to the atheistic state is of course not the view of my religion. My religion states:
What then - about the subordination of the individual to a theistic state? When there is an alignment between philosophies or religion and the government powers - then all sorts of questions may arise such as to whether the word "God" should appear on money - or be spoken in ceremonies in public schools - or whether or not women should be required to wear a veil. Whatever may be one's views regarding the subject of separation of church and state - what is being discussed here - is the right to discuss it. Religious organizations often require complete devotion - complete unquestioning acceptance of ideas - complete submission to authority. Unquestioning acceptance and complete submission may be fine - within the religion - but how that might be a pattern for society as a whole - is a matter we must consider. To take just two examples - members of the Catholic Church may see the Church as having been established by God in direct lineage of authority bestowed upon Peter - and as such any disobedience to Papal Authority is the same as disobedience to God Himself. Thus the Church may pronounce against abortion and Catholics are therefore required to not practice it or to even advocate it in society as a whole. However, if society as a whole continues to permit its practice then they would have to allow that freedom to others. Similarly, in the Muslim Faith - there may be some sects that feel in direct lineage of authority from Muhammad - that Caliphates, Imams, Mullahs or others with spiritual authority - have ruled that they should not permit their daughters to be educated. Again, those who practice this may even advocate the practice to society as a whole. But once again - should society as a whole prefer to follow some other standard - then those religionists should not be able to force their views upon the others. More adversely - a conflict may arise where the society at large decides to impose its view upon the specific religionists. What we may have here are two different standards. One for the individual - as expressed in the following by the Prophet of my religion:
and to infringe on the dignity of his station"; "true liberty consisteth in man's submission unto My commandments". those freedoms that one may accept for society as a whole are not necessarily freedoms that they will accept for themselves or that are accepted within their religion. Therefore, whereas a society might permit the use of alcohol or drugs, the practice of abortion, the equal education of women with men, the use of doctors or medicine, the reading of pornography, or the free examination and expression of ideas - one's personal standards - or their religion may forbid it. Freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and what I think to be a basic principle of my religion - the independent investigation of truth - have always been extremely important to me. I have heard some argue that independent investigation of truth applies only until one accepts the religion and then from that point forward they are to accept without question the teachings of the religion as determined by its administrative authority. I have difficulty with that point of view. While I too accept the revealed Scripture as being infallible - I leave room for pleading ignorance as to always fully understanding its intent, and feel that one needs to continue to examine and dialogue with society at large as regarding the nature of reality. There are many proponents of a theistic state from the Hindu, Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions. It would be overly exhausting to examine even a fraction of those views but one of the most dominate at the moment is that of those who are called Islamists. Islamists feel that it is impossible for a Muslim to live in a society where secular law, not Shari'ah (Islamic jurisprudence), is in force. In this extreme Islamic point of view those countries where there is secular government are regarded as part of the Dar al-Harb (the House of War), because political power is held and exercised by the infidel (kuffar), and the Islamists see it as their duty to overthrow those governments - by whatever means, including Jihad (Holy War). More moderate Muslims prefer the label Dar al-Sulh (House of Conciliation), for describing the relationship to secular governments - implying a conceptual no-man's-land between war and peace. Still others use Dar al-Dawah (House of Propagation), which means that the Muslims have the responsibility to convert the nation. Many religions, including mine see as their goal - the converting of the whole of humanity to their religion. The issue is by what means. The Prophet of my religion stated:
the Prophet of my religion declared:
G. Freedom in the New World Order 26. Is the world ready for democracy? I look about and I see that Saddam was keeping the lid on a lot of problems in Iraq. As Powell told Bush - he might break Iraq and and not be able to fix it. I didn't have the wisdom to see that. Most certainly the same concerns exist in China. Turns out - that perhaps a large part of the world's population is not ready for democracy. They have no attitude of permitting everyone to vote. They have no attitude of accepting majority decision. They have no attitude of majorities providing tolerance of other ideas. Indeed - one can even see this as a growing trend in North America - which already had Democracy. Much of humanity does not seem to be able to listen courteously to other people's ideas - and to make a real effort to understand them. Indeed - this discourteous expression of opposition - seems to be increasing with the Internet. At least that is the impression that I am getting from discussion boards that I visit (even though they are monitored) and the emails that I receive. I now hear MUCH MORE expression of hatred, prejudice and intolerance, than I ever heard 40 years ago - during the days of segregation and before we even heard of Muslims in the rural community where I was raised. All this when - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states in:
All human beings ... are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. presently does not really want to understand alternative social and spiritual concepts. They prefer to be emotionally involved in their sports activities music and entertainment religious dogma political party dogma media generated current events and every other diversion rather than trying to truly and sympathetically understand abstract social or spiritual ideas as expressed by others. Indeed - with the freedom of the Internet in North America the concern with frivolous ideas seems to have increased as much as any true insight into social or spiritual wisdom. If this is true - I can see how there may be considerable concern on the part of many leaders regarding the extension to the masses of democracy and the freedom of speech. Sadly, it is not just the masses of people that exhibits these backward tendencies but they are prominent in the leadership themselves. Not only do we often find intolerance there - but also favoritism to members of their own families clans political supporters culture class countries - and most sadly of all even entrenched customs of direct outright bribery. In such a situation it seems impossible for a just system to arise where there will be either people worthy of freedom of expression or leaders that will assure it. For this reason I have undertaken for myself to re-examine how and in what stages universal freedom of expression may be established in ideal and practice in the New World Order after nuclear WW3. 27. Freedom and future society Given the immediately preceding pessimistic view regarding the present state of the world in regards to freedom of expression then we must ask - what in this regards is mankind's destiny?
that contrary to the pessimistic view held in the previous section - that humankind can progress but that it needs to take a different tack than it has so far.
humankind has seen its foremost need as being 'peace' in fact its real need has been for 'unity'. Conflict and lack of peace has grown out of the lack unity.
that humanity must meet to identify and implement those features that will bring about unity. First and foremost among those is the need for justice.
begins with the spiritual progress of individuals. The task that lies before the stewards of society is to inculcate into the masses the elements of spiritual qualities.
have been to create the 'social man' but it is the very essence and spiritual nature of man that this can only be done through the education and training of the soul. Inculcating and encouraging wrong values into the soul has been the cause of the moral depravity presently exhibited by so much of the human race.
requires that the world as a whole collectively encourages every individual throughout to rise above the limitations of narrow self interest limited allegiances to family, clan and nation and exclusive appreciation of one's own religion.
of peaceful society - whether we look upon it on an individual basis or on a national scale. There can no more be peace and order in the world as a whole with the anarchy of nations than there can be peace and order in the nations with anarchy of individuals. Moreover, where in the past there has been anarchy of individuals today in the world we see multi-national corporations behaving in a similar anti-social manner.
to our subject of freedom of expression communication anarchy on the global scene could be very detrimental to morals. With no standards nor means to enforce standards with media such as satellite communication - the telecosm could become the cesspool of decadent human thought.
global corporations global weaponry sales global pollution global destruction of resources and many similar areas must be justly organized, monitored, and yes - controlled, for they're to be global justice and global unity - both of which must be attained - for they're to be global peace. H. Requirements for the Establishment of Freedom 28. A new pattern for future society The old system obviously did not work. For they're to be peace there must be a New World Order (NWO). The three major contenders - perhaps better to say contestants or even combatants for controlling the NWO have been:
the adversarial systems in courts parliaments governments between governments - is not one that works. What is needed is unity and any and everything that creates unity. If this again seems to be subject drift be assured that it is far otherwise.
go hand-in-hand with with human rights and freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
that I provide, propose, and examine what I understand to be its recommendations. I do not see any challenge by others to my presentation of these ideas themselves - as being a challenge to my religion. There is the very real possibility that I may misunderstand both the ideas themselves and my religion's teaching about them - and it is for that reason that I do not claim to be authoritatively presenting my religion's viewpoint on these subjects. The goal here is simply to understand and discuss the ideas as they should be applied to society as a whole. It is equally important that society as a whole eventually discuss these ideas. The Prophet of my religion has stated:
My religion:
to the subjects of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. My religion declares:
'liberty, civilization and the like', 'passeth beyond the limits of moderation' must 'exercise a pernicious influence upon men'; for societies that have totally controlled the channels of communication and media for either political or religious purposes - to a system of even a moderate level of freedom of expression may not be practical. When, as considered earlier, many of the members both among the officials and the masses of even very open and free societies were not able to conduct themselves responsibly and courteously in their public and private exchanges - then it is unreasonable to expect that those not accustomed to such freedom - will be able to immediately do so. I. Summary and Conclusion 30. Culmination of events and a third attempt My religion therefore raises the question:
of the Great Catastrophe it was commonly stated in the writings of my religion that it:
and where do limits free us to thrive?" what the proper balance in civilization should be. It is a question to which humanity is not yet aware - of the answer - but what we are concerned with here is that humanity have the proper social environment in which to seek the answer. The search for the Just Society is the search for Unity among humankind. It must of necessity be a collective effort among all the nations of the earth and all the nations of the earth must participate. What specific methods will be implemented to determine as to who are the recognized representatives of each nation and the boundaries of the nation which they represent along with the level and responsibilities of their participation are all matters that will have to be determined by the International Organization itself. However, there can be no Just Society without Freedom of Expression - nor can there be Freedom of Expression without a Just Society. Chief among the criteria for joining and participating in the search for universal standards for freedom of expression and freedom of religion is the establishment of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the nations setting the standards. Every society must deal with Saints, Sinners, Satans - and global society must be prepared to deal with Saint, Sinner, and Satan nations. One may well ask:
Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion can hardly be guides to - or judges of - the rest of humanity that is struggling to answers these questions and to establish world justice, unity and peace. It may be - that some of the nations of the world will experience - a 'death bed conversion' - and that the survivors will suddenly seriously commit to enforcing standards that will achieve justice and unity. While the theme throughout has been that perfection cannot be obtained suddenly still we must avoid a defeating and destroying policy of over-bearing gradualism. Instead there must be adopted a firm program of reasonable rapidity with definition of specific goals appropriate measures of achievement and all the necessary methods of visible monitoring. It may indeed take humanity decades or even centuries to achieve a nominal universal level of justice, freedom and unity but it is essential that the proper mechanisms be immediately established and diligently applied and moderated. Earlier I presented my religion's call for 'an all-embracing assemblage' to establish justice, freedom and unity. Elsewhere I have proposed steps for humanity in general to begin the process on a local level. 31. China and the three onenesses In concluding let me turn my thought once again to China not only because of its nearness and dearness to my heart but also because of its pre-eminence among the world's populations and the prominence that it is to play in the present century and the shaping of the affairs of the world. China has been selected at the opening of this new age to host both the first Olympics and the first World's Fair. While these may have been originally perceived by some as opportunities to showcase new technologies - the pressing need of the world for unity is such that they must be used to showcase to the world new attitudes towards unity. Many opportunities will present themselves for China to take its proper leadership in leading the world to Unity. Already - China has taken a marvelous and substantial step in using this opportunity to lead the world towards the development of a universal auxiliary language. In my religion we speak of: the "three onenesses".
present a marvellous opportunity to demonstrate not only a tolerance of all races, religions, and nations but such a true and deep appreciation of ALL of them that it will truly contribute to the unity of the world. This is China's great opportunity. This is China's great privilege. Let us hope that this will be China's great accomplishment. -------- |
Spreading Awareness about: Wiederaufbau der Gesellschaft nach Grosser Katastrophe. <@}-|-|-- --|-|-{@> Reconstruction of Society after a Great Catastophy.
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Justified Limitations On The Freedom of Expression in Society
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The countdown is winding down
As we can see on the blog, the countdown for the #3DD has not yet arrived. Still, it is my firm belief that the #ThreeDaysOfDarkness will co...
-
Bruce Beach Greetings, my name is Bruce Beach and I am adding this page so that anyone desiring to do so may get to know me more ...
-
This morning, while making coffee, this video showed up in my feed, supposing to have a fresh hypothesis on the phenomena of aircraft uniden...
