In our previous post, we explored the origins of free will, and the fact that free will is a natural given right to our existence and it came from somewhere, read the post here to see where it originates. The next premise is that free will cannot be taken from others, it can only be suppressed. The notion that you can build a system and properly and equitably distribute ideas, processes and product equally is a FALSE notion. The basic example is the attempts to only distribute one side of a philosophy as outlined on many campuses today. [Example here] Yet, there is always the other side and their view of speech and how they define "tolerable" speech. [Example from the Atlantic here.]
So how can we define this line of "tolerable" speech, is there such a notion that there is too much speech, or the wrong type of speech, such that there is a potential and possibility of speaking in such a way as to automatically move some one to act against their will? Have we just accepted the premise that if allowed, one individual or group will spill their hatred or anger to the point that they will sway a large group of people to become violent, or make efforts to influence an individual or group's free will? And in doing so harm others?
As noted and stated in the previous post there are only the following things that one individual can do to another; they are Lying, Cheating, Stealing and physical or emotional abuse. That is it, there is no magic in words, if I only have words, those words can only do the following of these four issues: Lie, Cheat and Emotional Abuse. If we say my words are to be used to influence you to make a choice in who would govern you, that eliminates two, cheating and abuse, and leaves us with Lying.
What we have taken for granted in our lives here on the planet to date, and have accepted as a normative approach is to determine that the notion that Lying is a an actual perspective, when in fact is is a MORAL directional matter. What do we mean by that? In today's world we have utilized the notion we need to accept others as they are and not "judge" them and their actions. This post is an interesting perspective from a theological point of view.
In particular, this notion that we cannot judge others has been one that I have personally struggled with for many years. When a friend succumbs to their vices, I am not suppose to judge them and embrace them for who they are is part of the notion. As time has passed, I have understood that in "Judging" there is an automatic assumption that I may reject someone for their actions. When in fact it is the opposite. In my judgement that my friend or family member may be acting out and behaving in a self-destructive manner, I do have a responsibility to use my judgement that this approach is wrong, that it is wrong for their own personal health and their own personal objective to become the best version of themselves as human beings while pursuing and trying to be a more perfect child of the Higher Power that created them.
Then comes the epiphany moment when you begin to connect the act of lying to the vice the person holds, as the rationale individual that has an anchor to a Higher Power as their Northern Star for Morality, will not actively pursue the notion of Lying as a way to achieve their goals. This notion, that a perspective, even a liberal one, or a conservative one, can be a weapon is FALSE. The use of Lying to achieve one's goals is a vice and is one tool or an approach to influence another's free will to your advantage. But it could also be one's ignorance. I could very well be honestly confused and not sure of my thoughts and tell you something someone told me or something that may not be true. I MAY BE SO DISTRAUGHT WITH MY THOUGHTS I WILL ADVOCATE SPEACH THAT IS CLEARLY NOT A BENEFIT TO ANYONE, BUT I AM SO MISGUIDED THAT I SEETH WITH ANGER AND HATRED THAT I HAVE CONVINCED MYSELF THAT I AM RIGHT.
As such, this twist makes it impossible to advocate for one speech that is right vs another speech that is right. The founding fathers knew this and this is why back then they gave us the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Look how simple this text is, how clear it is. But how can there be such struggle in our society against such simple and direct speech. It really shows you how in tune with the Nature of Mankind our founding fathers had been. There is no individual that is without the possibility of a a clear mind and body that they are immune to vice; as such, they are ALWAYS suspect that their words are driven by other motives. That is the purpose of the 1st amendment, it takes that next steps to throw an anchor into what we at the Federalist 2.0 call the "True North" perspective. These are directional beliefs and perspectives that are aligned and rooted in religious texts that align with the notion of one God and the lessons that have been outlined in those books.
The Federalist 2.0 is in no way a religion or advocating for a specific religion, but we at the Federalist 2.0 believe that the implementation of religion in a society is orthogonal to the concepts laid out here. The orthogonality, is important to note in this context, where the best leaders and individuals for society to follow and be subservient to, are people that know and follow the notion of a religion, of a higher power and that the texts that have been laid out to date on our planet, by the religious leaders that have come before us and have died for their religious understandings, should not be discarded for their "random beliefs".
If you are reading this and discounting my words and do not believe that what I say applies to the society and the culture that we live in today. Then heed the following words as I share with you something that was shared with me this past week.
There are some things that are articulated in religious texts that should be warnings that should help us understand our world, here is the text that really made me take notice:
But don’t eat the meat of any of the following birds: eagles, vultures, falcons, kites, ravens, ostriches, owls, sea gulls, hawks, pelicans, ospreys, cormorants, storks, herons, and hoopoes.[and] You must not eat bats.
Within this same section, the following was then articulated as the consequence:
...will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me. ....will make the pestilence cling to you until He has consumed you from the land where you are entering to possess it. ....will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish...
Within this book of teachings we also hear these words of healing:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Note that I am not thumping on a specific way of thinking only pointing out that this religious text as well as others most likely articulate similar things. If you are not aware these viruses have been around for millions of years and have strived to live among the wild, specifically bats, but also live in other wild animals, mostly wild birds. Here is a great article on the challenges bats have.
Would it not be fair to say that the human population has suffered for many thousands of years from this little known challenge. The people of the time did not know how or where this comes from but someone took notice, listened to a Higher Power, and it was imbedded in the spiritual teaching. But even today, people of the world do not heed these warnings. In spite of the known impact these things can have on our society, there are people that ignore the warnings and still pursue this cultural food. Why do they do this? They do this because they can, they have free will. Whether it be a delicacy or that it be the manner in which they live their lives. There are many people that eat strange things that others might have not eaten. I am not to say I am not a hypocrite as I have eaten a guinea pig once, but then again it's not on the list as noted above.
Why do we lead you down this path that is so windy? It all comes together in the end, we all have free will, we have the ability to do what we want in the world within a boundary. But what is that boundary? One side we have free speech and its impact on others, on the other side we have real world activity that kills millions of people (eating exotic animals with pandemic viruses).
On the one side, we cannot influence the notion of free speech because we do not know the meaning behind the speech, and the pain the individual may be suffering at the hands of their own vices, the notion that we allow the use of free speech to fully obtain the REAL truth the truth that points us to True North is our goal. The truth that we are made in His likeness and that we are pursing our happiness within the context of becoming more like that Higher Power, growing and becoming someone we can be proud of, to become someone where our life will end with meaning and with the purpose fulfilled. It is not the purpose of free speech to utilize our free will to maximize our experiences with our vices. As such, we have the 1st Amendment, brilliant to say the least.
We have free will in our world that shares the notion that other civilizations of the world will have citizens that eat exotic animals that carry disease that can and will kill millions. This fact carries the consequences as outlined in a number of historical facts and embedded in the religious texts, these directional way posts can bring us back to what will allow us to be a normal and sane society... if we listen. If we heed these warnings, and directionally embed them in our society, culture and government, we can and will navigate with the help of a Higher Power.
There future is pretty clear, if we reject the notion of a Higher Power, seek to control speech and not take heed to the warnings laid out for us, the future is one of happenstance and this statement would then be true:
...it is within these failed efforts that we may, in our view, deserve to say that it is due to the general misfortune and fate of mankind.
At the end of the day we must take accountability for our free will and determine what allows us to speak and what allows us to be muted, which comes to the conclusion that only individuals can make that decision to mute themselves and their opinion based on their own concerns, usually around safety and group membership. As we have seen in time, those that keep their silence on common sense concerns are, in time, effected by the resulting affliction. As such then, the following, must and has to be true in this context and can cannot be false:
Freewill cannot be taken: Freewill cannot be taken by anyone. It can be suppressed but in the end we make that choice to suppress.
As Publius, I seek your Life, your Liberty and your Happiness so that you do not have to make that choice to suppress your own God given free will. I make this commitment to you the reader to pursue this end to last breath of my life. Join me in this cause to show that there is a way, the Federalist 2.0 way.
(C) 2020 Federalist2.com
(TM) Federalist 2.0