Well, what do we have here? Looks like a small case of some people being
able to dish it out, but not take it. Let's start at the top.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical
engineering professor named Indrek Wichman. Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim
Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons
that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained
the cartoons were "hate speech."
Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:
;
Dear Moslem Association:
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest
your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like
beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide
murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian
churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the
imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls
and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in
Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris, France.This is what offends me,
a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel
you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to
be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests." If you do
not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to
leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please
return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of
troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this
too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and mandatory diversity
training for faculty and a seminar on hate and discrimination for freshman. Now the
Michigan chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on
American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor
had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground, saying the e-mail was
private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks. That will
probably change. Wichman says he never intended for his e-mail to be made public, and
wouldn't have used the same strong language if he'd known it was going to get out.
How's the left going to handle this one? If you're in favor of the freedom of
speech, as in the case of Ward Churchill, will the same protections be demanded
for Indrek Wichman? I doubt it.
We are in a war. This political correctness crap is getting old .[/color]
What does the Constitution say about "Political Correctness"?
The Constitution is oddly silent on the subject of Political Correctness. Within certain limits of common decency (something which may have eroded significantly since then) it appears to me that our forefather said pretty much what they felt. It is true that their words were usually framed politely (another dying art), but one was rarely unaware of where they stood.
It seems to me that Political Correctness is another name for taking away our free speech rights by the simple expedient of peer pressure. That is the way, in fact, that most of our original "rights" have been eroded. (As an aside, I wish that they had been termed "responsibilities" rather than "rights".) If we were able to properly define the meaning and usage of "common decency" and "public politeness" we would be a step closer to once again being the republic which we started out to be.
Um. Me thinks that the words "political correctness" are words only used in the 21st century. I don't believe, nah, I'll just say it, the Consitution does not say anything about "political correctness". So there. When the Consitution was written and passed by our great and wise forefathers, political correctness was not something they gave a rat's ass about.
Now, here lies the problem. Too often we worry so much about offending someone or a group, etc. In the Old Testament, the Book of Amos was written by Amos from Tekoa. Amos was sent by God to warn the Israelites to stay away from Bethel because the people of Bethel were corrupt in their worship. Bethel was turned into a Jerusalem substitute. The people of Bethel were blatantly idolatrous. It was Amos' job to warn the Israelites about the ways of Bethel.
Amos was compelled to prophesy about what was going to happen and how God was going to punish those people. I am sure that Amos offended many people. However; Amos did not stay quiet. Amos gave his message again and again and again.
The example that Amos gives us is to stand up against these injustices, stand up for what we believe. Stand up and tell the left to put their opinions where the sun don't shine. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
"Political correctness" is a word that the United States needs to quit using. We need to go back to what our Consitution says and quit trying to twist and turn the words of our forefathers.
Enough said.
Down with Political Correctness. Can I say that?
Yes you can. I say we protest against "political correctness". I say we promote manners and ethics and morals and all that good stuff. I say we fight to keep political correctness out of our Constitution.
this is gonna show my mentality - but here goes - when I first heard "politically correct" I pictured a bunch of stuffed shirts, at a sit down dinner, all "correctly" using the right fork etc, eating small bites and carrying on meaningless conversation and trying to impress one another. Now that I sit back and read this, sounds like a bunch of politicians to me. ;D
Both of your descriptions sound perfectly valid to me. As it turns out, generally speaking, political correctness means not saying things that will embarrass those in power or any other group that may cause those in power problems if embarrassed. It is, in essence, a wonderful way to limit free debate without having to pass any laws to do it.
So why is it wrong to embarass those in a position of power?
I don't think it's wrong.
It's the person in power that thinks it is wrong.
You may deduce from the above two statements that I am not a person in power.
You would be correct.
;D
If the person in power doesn't want to be embarassed, maybe he should do something to keep from being embarassed.
That is, of course, an excellent point, Wilma. Another excellent point is that they should keep from doing embarrassing things in the first place.
Of course, I often have this terrible sinking feeling that a lot of the people that are in power probably had to do embarrassing things to get there.
Yikes!
;)
More often that naught, I would say..
And by the way...
You all have made some very valid great points in some good posts.
Damn! I'm impressed!
((Yeahhhh even with you Ta Ta)) ;)
when I last talked to my parents I learned that "political correctness" has spread over to England as well :'( there is a movement over there that is trying to stop people from displaying the English flag because it "might be offensive to some of the immigrants that have moved there" >:(
Quote from: Teresa on June 14, 2007, 11:02:42 PM
((Yeahhhh even with you Ta Ta)) ;)
OMG. Ms. T has given me a compliment. I won't be able to work all day because my head will be too big to get into the door. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MarineMom, that really gets my dander up. Any country should fly their flag proudly and immigrants should respect it. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Where did this political correctness come from? I think it came from the Clinton's,but not sure.
Oh, gosh no, political correctness has been around much longer than that. The following quote is from http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml.
"It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia."
Follow the link for more...
But, I was right about it not being around when our forefathers drew up the U. S. Constitution. Yeah for me.
Indeed you were, Janet. And neither the phrase nor the philosophy enjoyed much credence in the US, except within US Communist and Fascist groups, until the middle of the twentieth century. I am fairly sure that I first heard of it, for what that is worth, during the Nixon Administration. In relative terms, that is not long ago, which make you right again.
During the Nixon Administration, I was a freshman at the Kansas State Teacher's College in Emporia. That college now enjoys the name of Emporia State University. In the fall of my freshman year, Nixon won the seat of President of the US. In January of 1973, the KSTC marching band went by bus to Washington, D.C., and marched in Nixon's inauguration parade. We got to tour some of the Smithsonian. There was just too much for one day. Lot's of memories of that time.
That was the first time that I was ever far away from my folks and let me tell you, I really missed mom and dad and my sisters. Being a trillion miles away in a foreign country, (Washington, D.C.), wasn't really my cup of tea. Oh, yeah. I had fun, but I really could have stayed in Kansas and been just as happy.
I was the banner carrier. The instructor got two blondes, kind of chunky and about the same height. I did get to see Nixon as we passed the place where he was behind bullet proof glass. When we got passed him, the Secret Service motioned us to run to catch up with the rest of the parade. I think I was told that the end of the band started running before they got passed the President. It was on television, but I never got to see it. I do have, (somewhere), a newspaper picture of the banner, us who were carrying the banner, and the drum major. I was out of step or she was out of step. Not sure. I also could hardly see because my big tall hat had slipped down towards my eyes and I had to tip my head up to see what I was doing.
If I ever find that picture, I'll scan it. You all can get a hoot out of that.
Now, I have kind of got away from the topic of Freedom of Speech? Or Not!, except not really, but the 1st Amendment gives me the right to say what I want to. So there.
Quote from: kdfrawg on June 16, 2007, 07:42:59 PM
Indeed you were, Janet.
. In relative terms, that is not long ago, which make you right again.
(http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/worried.gif)
TaTa being right 2 times is kinda scary.. ;)
How about another compliment ::)
Janet does have the ability, with her writing, to put us "in the moment" and share her experiences. Well done!
Yups, she does. I can almost see the black stubble on Nixon's face and a gaggle of high school band trombone players hustling down Pennsylvania Avenue. With my budding music teacher daughter, I have a plethora of marching band memories to draw on for help.
;D
Well, let me describe what Nixon looked like. He had on so much makeup that he looked kind of funny. I remember he was standing and smiling and waving, but the makeup just stood out. What a memory.
Quote from: Mom70x7 on June 17, 2007, 02:33:11 PM
How about another compliment ::)
Janet does have the ability, with her writing, to put us "in the moment" and share her experiences. Well done!
Ah, gosh, Mom70X7, you will make my head swell even more than it already it. ;D ;D ;D
(I had to say it before Ms. T did)
Quoteyou will make my head swell
That's okay - because I think it's just for today. The start of a new job always brings me down a peg or two, so I figure tomorrow you're starting a learning curve. I figure you need our support as you start a new exhilarating / exasperating experience.
Now, back to the original topic -
QuoteAny country should fly their flag proudly and immigrants should respect it. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
I've sometimes become irritated with the flag thing - when I see groups of people marching in the United States with the flag of another country.
But then I got to wondering - is that similar at all to the way we think of states and sports? How many groups around the country are Notre Dame fans, or Nebraska fans (remember - I'm married to one :) ). We go to any college football game, no matter who is playing, and he's a Nebraska fan. He even subscribes, via the Internet, to a Nebraska State paper. We have a house FULL of Nebraska stuff. And Yankee stuff - Yankee fans are almost as bad as Nebraska fans.
What do you think, huh? ???
I don't believe that is the same thing. What I'm talking about is disrespecting a country and their flag. College, clubs, etc. is just friendly rivalry. That's my thots, anyhow. AND it's not just the flag, but what it represents that is being derespected. OMG, should I have waited till soap box day to post this??????
Nah, we are supposed to have freedom of speech and you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. I said so.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Wilma.....that could open a new can of worms~~~~~~~~~~`````
Actually, Wilma's suggestion is pretty nearly exactly right. That is what free speech is supposed to be all about. One must remember, though, that the Constitution was written at a time when civility and mutual respect was much more common than it is today, at least among the class of people that wrote the Constitution.
It sometimes matters as much how you say something as it does what you say. I am personally guilty of being more blunt than necessary sometimes. That's just the way I am and I have consigned myself to dealing primarily with other people that are also blunt whenever possible. When that's not possible, I just control my natural tendency to bluntness.
If we could all exercise that control by being civil, polite, and respectful of others, free speech would be less of a thorny issue. There is a big difference between standing on a platform with a megaphone screaming "THAT IS ONE UGLY &*%^ *^^#$ HAT YOU HAVE ON!" and saying, when asked how you like someone's new hat, "I don't think I would have bought it, because it is not my cup of tea. But it sure looks nice on you!"
Both ways let the wearer know that you don't like their new hat. But only the first way is liable to start a fistfight.
QuoteNah, we are supposed to have freedom of speech and you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. I said so.
I agree - the second half of that is
accept the consequences of our free speech. Which means if you stand on a "platform with a megaphone" you'll usually generate a great deal more of negative responses than if you talk quietly and privately.
There's a right time and a right place to say things, as well as a wrong time and place. Both have consequences.
Quote from: Mom70x7 on June 18, 2007, 12:09:54 PM
Quote
Which means if you stand on a "platform with a megaphone" you'll usually generate a great deal more of negative responses than if you talk quietly and privately.
Does this mean I should quit standing on a platform with a megaphone when I state my blunt opinion? ??? ??? ??? :P
Not necessarily, Janet. Here, at least, you're among friends. So I guess we'll understand. Over at that fancy new prison you're at, though, it might be another story until they get to know you.
;D