NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I would appreciate your thoughts on this quote. I heard the shorter version in the title in a podcast about the Red Scares and was intrigued as to how it might apply to today.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty
- Thread starter NaasPreacher (C4K)
- Start date
I would appreciate your thoughts on this quote. I heard the shorter version in the title in a podcast about the Red Scares and was intrigued as to how it might apply to today.
Edward R. Murrow was a great reporter and thinker. I am not sure we have any of his stripe today nor would modern day reporters be allowed to report as he did ... profits you know are more important.
I agree with the quote. In fact in the first line the phrase, "if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox" is the same idea that I was taught what being a Baptist is all about when dealing with others. That is no longer true with most Baptist folk ... sad to say. We have to meet people who they are, present Christ to them, but never violate their right to be different, to believe differently. We do not have to agree, but we to retain that right for ourselves we have to grant it to others.
I am sure there are folk on the board who can express this belief better than I.
freeatlast
New Member
It would be interesting to know the whole context of what is being said, but just on the surface I see this is antichrist. To suggest that freedoms have no limits and we are to accept any and all values of a person goes against something greater then freedom and that is moral values based on the word of God.
On the other hand I see this as what is happening in the church today. Liberty without limits, consequently a church without Christ.
It's called a "do as you will but harm no one" philosophy.
But I agree that it can be and usually is a mask for a hidden agenda.
One day the truth will all be made very clear when He removes all the masks.
Luke 8:17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
James 5
7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.
7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.
HankD
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Murrow was writing in the context of the Second Red Scare when rights were being deprived of American citizens because they 'might' have communist connections because of threats they might pose. Rights were being restricted based on skin colour and national origin because of what people might do.
The cost was a loss of liberties for all Americans and a loss of reputation of whether or not America really was the 'home of the free' or whether she was preaching a myth.
The cost was a loss of liberties for all Americans and a loss of reputation of whether or not America really was the 'home of the free' or whether she was preaching a myth.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Just hoping for an honest discussion about a quote that grabbedy attention.
Ahh...well outside of a particular context this subject is difficult to speak on with any clarity. Dissent can be right or wrong depending on the context and manner in which it is done. To leave the subject in a general sense paints the picture that it is either always right or always wrong. And that would be a misrepresentation of the issue.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Apologies, I gave the context in a later post. I guess the question would be if the comments he made in the context of a Red Scare are relevant to the current 'War on Terror.'
I see, then it depends. If we revert to treating our troops like they were treated over Viet Nam then it is ia problem. If we work to investigate every issue and believe the enemies accusations over our own troops then it is a problem. If we act like the occupiers over any issue then it is a problem.
Of course the tea Party folks have been falsely maligned and denigrated by the left in order to discredit them. So it can be wrong on both sides of the issue.
dissenting over the founding of this country will, in most cases not be tolerated. Which is communism 101.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Your definition of dissent is actually a definition of disloyalty. I can't find a definition of dissent that includes loyalty to a competing set of values. Dissent is simply disagreement.
The list of specific rights being denied the communists in 1953 is a non-issue. We are discussing whether dissent is allowable and if rights should ever be denied to dissenters. Murrow was speaking of an atmosphere that could lead to denying the rights of dissenters. There were those at the time who advocated rounding up anyone accused of being a communist in order to head off dissent.
Dissent is healthy. In today's context it would be wrong to support the dissent of the tea partiers and oppose the dissent of the occupiers or vice versa.
American citizens are promised certain liberties. These should not be denied them whether they be liberal dissenters or conservative dissenters or anything in between.
If the truths, values, and freedoms that Americans hold dear cannot stand up to dissenting points of view are they really that valuable?
poncho
Well-Known Member
"American citizens are promised certain liberties. These should not be denied them whether they be liberal dissenters or conservative dissenters or anything in between.
If the truths, values, and freedoms that Americans hold dear cannot stand up to dissenting points of view are they really that valuable?"
American citizens claimed these rights no one promised them to us. Problem is today people are more concerned with feeling safe and being on the winning side than (re) claiming their rights.
Look how easily we'll let ourselves be degraded and humiliated just to fly on a plane.
The truths, values, and freedoms that Americans used to hold dear matter naught today. It's like I've said before . . .
Anything goes, the end justifies the means. We've sold off our individual liberties to the collectivists, traded our republic in for a democracy and we're in a sorry state for it.
And truth? What is the truth? Something we rarely hear and easily dismiss when we do. The truth is we don't want the truth. Because if knew it we might have to get up and do something about it like our founders did. No the only thing that matters today is protecting our own little worldview at whatever cost.
If the truths, values, and freedoms that Americans hold dear cannot stand up to dissenting points of view are they really that valuable?"
American citizens claimed these rights no one promised them to us. Problem is today people are more concerned with feeling safe and being on the winning side than (re) claiming their rights.
Look how easily we'll let ourselves be degraded and humiliated just to fly on a plane.
The truths, values, and freedoms that Americans used to hold dear matter naught today. It's like I've said before . . .
Anything goes, the end justifies the means. We've sold off our individual liberties to the collectivists, traded our republic in for a democracy and we're in a sorry state for it.
And truth? What is the truth? Something we rarely hear and easily dismiss when we do. The truth is we don't want the truth. Because if knew it we might have to get up and do something about it like our founders did. No the only thing that matters today is protecting our own little worldview at whatever cost.
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Lost what? I didn't realise there was battle going on. There is not goal to 'win' anything here.
Is it possible to have an honest discussion without declaring a 'winner' and a 'loser?'
Both of those groups are dissenters. In a free 1st Amendment America their dissent should be encouraged. When laws are broken there should be repercussions, but the general dissent is part of what America is all about.