Ben Carson gets it!! (L)

[Originalist]

But will he agree that the States also have the right to do the same?

Ben Carson: US should rethink Supreme Court review of laws


http://news.yahoo.com/ben-carson-us-...sugc_container

Carson has said a president is obliged to carry out laws passed by Congress, but not what he called "judicial laws" that emanate from courts.

[Pressing-On]

He made this comment on gun control, whether he backtracks or not - troubling, IMO.

“When asked by Glenn Beck if people should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons, Dr. Benjamin Carson said: “It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it.” (Glenn Beck Show, March 1, 2013)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._you_live.html

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He made this comment on gun control, whether he backtracks or not - troubling, IMO.

“When asked by Glenn Beck if people should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons, Dr. Benjamin Carson said: “It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it.” (Glenn Beck Show, March 1, 2013)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._you_live.html

I agree. He also had a similar troubling statement about free speech.

If my right to free speech causes you actual harm, it becomes time to curtail my speech.

Full quote:

Of all the wonderful freedoms that characterize life here in America, freedom of speech is one of the most important. This was most dramatically demonstrated in a recent Supreme Court decision, which upheld the rights of members of the Westboro Baptists Church to display extremely offensive signs and shout obscenities during funeral services for veterans. They are an intolerant hate group that despises homosexuality and are angry with the military because gays are allowed to serve. There is almost no one who agrees with the Westboro Church, but because of the Supreme Court's decision to strictly interpret the Constitution, the rights of the church members could not be denied.

I actually have some doubts about that legal decision, because the signs, obscenity, and noise infringe upon the rights of other Americans to assemble peacefully for the burial of one of their loved ones. If my right to free speech causes you actual harm, it becomes time to curtail my speech.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I agree. He also had a similar troubling statement about free speech.

Of all the wonderful freedoms that characterize life here in America, freedom of speech is one of the most important. This was most dramatically demonstrated in a recent Supreme Court decision, which upheld the rights of members of the Westboro Baptists Church to display extremely offensive signs and shout obscenities during funeral services for veterans. They are an intolerant hate group that despises homosexuality and are angry with the military because gays are allowed to serve. There is almost no one who agrees with the Westboro Church, but because of the Supreme Court's decision to strictly interpret the Constitution, the rights of the church members could not be denied.

I actually have some doubts about that legal decision, because the signs, obscenity, and noise infringe upon the rights of other Americans to assemble peacefully for the burial of one of their loved ones. If my right to free speech causes you actual harm, it becomes time to curtail my speech.

Full quote:

I don't necessarily disagree with him here, especially the last part. -"If my right to free speech causes you actual harm, it becomes time to curtail my speech."

I think, as Christians, we agree with the Golden Rule. This, IMO, is where the conversation can get confusing.

The problem that will arise is - what is the "definition" of actual harm?

The words in bold are more problematic, IMO - I actually have some doubts about that legal decision,.

I think yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is all he should support. But, we know we are in a horrible place in this country. Hate is so strong, and everyone appears to be walking around with a HUGE Dorito on the shoulder.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't necessarily disagree with him here, especially the last part. -"If my right to free speech causes you actual harm, it becomes time to curtail my speech."

I think, as Christians, we agree with the Golden Rule. This, IMO, is where the conversation can get confusing.

The problem that will arise is - what is the "definition" of actual harm?

The words in bold are more problematic, IMO - I actually have some doubts about that legal decision,.

I think yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is all he should support. But, we know we are in a horrible place in this country. Hate is so strong, and everyone appears to be walking around with a HUGE Dorito on the shoulder.

I thought he described what he meant by harm, when he preceeded that last sentence talking about Westboro's hatred of homosexuals, etc. That's scary, IMO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I thought he described what he meant by harm, when he preceeded that last sentence talking about Westboro's hatred of homosexuals, etc. That's scary, IMO.

I think he was including all of the Westboro actions, but still scary that he would define "words" as harm. I define harm as my life/body being physically threatened.

We got in a discussion on another thread about Christians carrying signs at any given function to proselytize. I am never for that, although, MTD said he was saved in that manner, putting him in favor.

I don't mind someone politely handing me a tract, but don't put a poster in my face.

[Jito463]

The whole point of the 1st Amendment, is that the government should never be the arbiter of what is acceptable speech.