![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexmegamiFound via Stupid Evil Bastard in this post.
The First Amendment Center has released its 2004 survey on the state of the First Amendment.
Some choice figures:
"The 2004 survey found that just 30 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, ‘The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,’ with 65 percent disagreeing. The nation was split evenly, 49 percent to 49 percent, on that same question two years ago, in the survey following the ‘9/11’ attacks," said Gene Policinski, acting director of the First Amendment Center.
Only 1% of Americans could name "petition" as one of the specific rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Only one of the five freedoms was identified by more than half of those surveyed: 58% named "speech." For the other rights: religion — 17%; press — 15%; assembly — 10%.
More points listed in the article, but the really scary follow-up is the commentary. Quote?
"But this surge of good feeling about the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily translate into support for keeping government from interfering with our freedoms — which is, of course, what the First Amendment is intended to do.
Most at risk? Freedom of the press. A startling 42% of Americans believe that the press in America has too much freedom. What’s an example of “too much”? According to 41% of respondents, newspapers should not be allowed to freely criticize the U.S. military about its strategy and performance."
Yeah, read that again. Nearly half of Americans don't think the press has the right of free speech, specifically where concerning the military or its procedures.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Thankfully (somewhat), half of those surveyed think that they aren't getting enough information about the government.
Who gets to define this "might"? I mean, on one hand, yes, blatant racism is bad. Religious hate-mongering is bad. But does "might" cover, say, my arguments about whether God exists or not? Fred Phelps found Matthew Shepard's funeral offensive, should it be disallowed? Where is this line getting drawn?
"Sixty-six percent of respondents favor government funding of social-service programs run by churches — even when the program is delivered with a religious message. And 68% support allowing government officials to post the Ten Commandments inside government buildings. So much for Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation."
That just blows my mind. Seperation of church and State? Why would they bother with that? Especially in a day and age where some Catholic priests are encouraging their ranks to deny communion to pro-choice politicians, I just don't think that allowing churches to receive government funding for social services is a good idea. It opens the door to too many problems.
Maybe it's just me, but I think a fundamental part of any 9th grade history class should involve a detailed look at the Constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms/appropriate other document for one's country.
The First Amendment Center has released its 2004 survey on the state of the First Amendment.
Some choice figures:
"The 2004 survey found that just 30 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, ‘The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,’ with 65 percent disagreeing. The nation was split evenly, 49 percent to 49 percent, on that same question two years ago, in the survey following the ‘9/11’ attacks," said Gene Policinski, acting director of the First Amendment Center.
Only 1% of Americans could name "petition" as one of the specific rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Only one of the five freedoms was identified by more than half of those surveyed: 58% named "speech." For the other rights: religion — 17%; press — 15%; assembly — 10%.
More points listed in the article, but the really scary follow-up is the commentary. Quote?
"But this surge of good feeling about the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily translate into support for keeping government from interfering with our freedoms — which is, of course, what the First Amendment is intended to do.
Most at risk? Freedom of the press. A startling 42% of Americans believe that the press in America has too much freedom. What’s an example of “too much”? According to 41% of respondents, newspapers should not be allowed to freely criticize the U.S. military about its strategy and performance."
Yeah, read that again. Nearly half of Americans don't think the press has the right of free speech, specifically where concerning the military or its procedures.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Thankfully (somewhat), half of those surveyed think that they aren't getting enough information about the government.
- 38% would bar musicians from singing songs "with lyrics that others might find offensive."
- 44% wouldn’t allow people to say things in public that "might be offensive to religious groups."
- A remarkable 63% say people shouldn’t be able to say things in public that "might be offensive to racial groups."
Who gets to define this "might"? I mean, on one hand, yes, blatant racism is bad. Religious hate-mongering is bad. But does "might" cover, say, my arguments about whether God exists or not? Fred Phelps found Matthew Shepard's funeral offensive, should it be disallowed? Where is this line getting drawn?
"Sixty-six percent of respondents favor government funding of social-service programs run by churches — even when the program is delivered with a religious message. And 68% support allowing government officials to post the Ten Commandments inside government buildings. So much for Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation."
That just blows my mind. Seperation of church and State? Why would they bother with that? Especially in a day and age where some Catholic priests are encouraging their ranks to deny communion to pro-choice politicians, I just don't think that allowing churches to receive government funding for social services is a good idea. It opens the door to too many problems.
Maybe it's just me, but I think a fundamental part of any 9th grade history class should involve a detailed look at the Constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms/appropriate other document for one's country.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 08:32 am (UTC)You've been doing a lot of reading up on American current events lately, futago-chan.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 10:22 am (UTC)I have been, but that's because I read NYTimes.com and the Canadian election is over ;) Plus, what goes on with you will eventually affect us.
If the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail deliver to inboxes, I'll read them at work, too.
...I should really check that out.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 08:42 am (UTC)and funding Church ran programs? The government shot down one program last year. Churches were trying to get the government to fund "gay reform" programs. It was shot down because the NPA (National Phycriatrics (sp?) Assosiaction) (ok, i just can't spell) has taken Homosexuallity off it's list of mental deseases like 30 years ago. Any theropist that does any kind of anti-gay treatment will get his/her licence revoke, meaning there are no quilfied people who could run such reform schools. And as idiotic as most of our goverenment leaders are, at lest most of them listened to the NPA and voted no to funding for these camps....
sorry to rant in your jounral, but I hate knowing I live in a country full of morons.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 10:25 am (UTC)It makes me want to run around screaming 'DUMB! DUMB! DUMB!' because that's the only thing they'll understand.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 10:28 am (UTC)Religion and state
Date: 2004-07-15 11:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 08:53 am (UTC)In the states, if you're likely to get any volunteers to do anything, odds are its in a religious setting. Might as well make the best of it.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 10:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 09:45 am (UTC)Anyways, what really worries me is that a large minority believe that freedom of press should be curtailed.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 10:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 01:42 pm (UTC)We discussed it quite thoroughly in war and society. And since the history of the states generally is made up of prewar, war and anti war as time frames in their history we covered a lot of area. Anyways, the point being the higher ups in everything tend to lie to the public and so reasons behind events have to be taken as a grain of sand.
Its scary to think what would happen if they limited the freedom of press even more....
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 05:19 pm (UTC)I do, however, think there is a limit to the freedom of the press - when it interferes with the rights of the individual (i.e - celebrity tabloids). They have the right to live their personal lives without being photographed doing so. Yes people, they live normal lives - now get on with your own.
But yeah....most US citizens are dumbasses. Most. Not all. Mostly the people who refuse to educate themselves and choose to follow others blindly. But that's a whole other rant.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 05:59 pm (UTC)Oh to stop the stupid people from breeding...
no subject
Date: 2004-07-15 06:49 pm (UTC)I suppose it shouldn't, given that I have to think really really hard about, say, provincial capitals (and had to read the Charter of Rights on my own time, which I did again - right after posting, just to make sure that it did read as I thought it did).
Still... to not know your basic, fundamental rights? *shudder*