Posted 1 month, 8 days ago in 
Loading ...
I find it extremely unfortunate that the majority of the people in this community cannot accept that the Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers are simply exercising their right to attempt to change something in their government that they do not think is constitutional.
Relying on “tradition” to justify the intrusion of religion in government is hogwash. Slavery, not allowing women the right to vote and the suppression of the civil rights of African Americans were all “traditions” in this country. Traditions that were changed by a “vocal minority.”
All Americans have the right to fight for what they believe in, even if they are the “vocal minority.” The vocal minority has been a vehicle for change throughout the history of our country, beginning with our founding leaders.
Would Commissioner Rowland have disparaged the abolition movement, the women’s right to vote and the civil rights movement simply because they were espoused by the vocal minority? Indeed Janet herself is part of a vocal minority — female elected officials. Everyone at some point in their lives is going to be part of a minority because all humans will never believe in the same thing, whether it is politics, sexuality, human rights, religion or any one of a million other issues. “Majority rule” only applies to elections and legislation, not constitutional rights.
Now that the Democratic Party is in the majority after the 2008 elections, Republicans, the Tea Party and the Western Slope Conservative Alliance are vocal minorities. Should their voices be silenced? Should they be told to “put up with the majority opinion or shut up” as the atheists are being asked to do? Of course not. Our Constitution gives them the right to express their views and try to actively promote their ideas.
JUDITH M. SIROTA
Grand Junction
31 Responses to “Vocal minorities have the right to speak out”
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, when were the Western Colorado Atheists denied the right of free expression?
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am a free thinker and was long before I moved here; it started right around the age of two. maybe one and a half.
In my ability to think freely, I freely choose to think and know that there is a God. Am I in a minority? Could be. Am I crying because my minority isn’t being heard? No. Do other minority groups need to cry because their side is not being heard? No. So JUDITH, what’s your point?
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 4:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
tiag and Skipp,
Read through the comments on the article about the new billboard (10/8) and count how many people made the suggestion that the atheists should pack up and leave or just sit down and shut up. It is to those people, and those to whom not praying at government meetings equates to persecution of their religion that Ms. Sirota’s letter is addressed.
And tiag, a free-thinker would never assume he cannot be wrong. Making that claim (and you did) disproves your claim to be a free thinker.
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, which end is up with you?
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Normally, the end farthest from the center of mass of the local planetary body. Which is it with you?
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hmm. lets see Scott says I made the mistake of saying I could not be wrong therefore I am not a free thinker.
Am I to surprise myself from time to time with new thoughts that my old thoughts were wrong in their assumed correctness that now go against other thoughts I have had that convinced me one way one day and now another way another today? How am I to be a free thinker if I do not agree with myself from time to time to be or not to be? I mean, isn’t that the real question here? What I mean to ask is; can I freely think without being judged by another who has declared now that I am not a free thinker when in fact I really am? Who can answer this perplexing question for me? And if not for me perhaps for the one who is judging me that I in his infinite lack of wisdom proven by his ineptness of understanding man’s free will to be or not to be a free thinking individual as I myself am.
Thinking himself to be wise he became something else. I am a free-thinker; the proof is in my thinking. The free thinker I am yet therefore is in he’s opinion of my thoughts is not that I am free thinker but is that I think otherwise of his thoughts. Meaning; his thoughts are not my thoughts and because my thoughts are not his thoughts, my thoughts are now wrong or my thoughts are my own personal miss directed thoughts; meaning that my process of thought as a free thinker has been captured by unseen forces that are only apparent in the judges thought processes and not of my own. (?)
He would want me to believe that I am not a free thinker even though I am. This judger of free thoughts would also want me to believe he is even though I know from what he says, he can’t be? What I am really asking here is, whazzzzzz up?
Free-thinkers rebel against the normal free thinkers who have us in a tail-spin of their free thinking opinion vs. ours.
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
TiaG; Do you ever think that you might not be who you “think” you are? You seem to have an observer that is aware of your thinking, but I wonder if you catch your thoughts ever lying about yourself? Do you ever suspect for instance that when you die you simple die? Do you change your idea of God from time to time?
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 8:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Free thinkers simply acknowledge the possibility that their current positions may be wrong. Over-thinking is not free-thinking.
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
tiaG says: “Do other minority groups need to cry because their side is not being heard? No.”
You don’t think that minorities should voice their opinions on government actions that they do not agree with? Hmmm… sounds communistic, not democratic, to me.
Why do you say the atheists are “crying” because they are not being heard? If “crying” is defined as voicing your opinion and encouraging change, which is what the atheists are actually doing, then YES other minorities are crying out all the time and should cry out! Since when did it become “crying” when American citizens challenge their leaders to see things from a different viewpoint? Only when it involves religion?
Posted October 13th, 2009 at 9:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skipp, the atheists have been [disparagingly] called the vocal minority by several elected officials and have been publicly told to “get a life” “get over it” etc. (e.g. Doug Thomasson, former City Council member, on TV). Although this is not directly denying freedom of speech, it certainly does not encourage minorities to speak out. Many atheists I know in this community choose not to speak up or be involved with issues of concern to them because of the fear of public condemnation and personal threats.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 7:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
freethinker: “Many atheists I know in this community choose not to speak up or be involved with issues of concern to them because of the fear of public condemnation and personal threats.”
This is true and has become the norm. And, let us call it what it is, political intimidation and tyranny of a majority, although they would never recognize it and therefore do not have to admit to it.
Those of us who choose to speak out and do not hide our identities quite frequently receive anonymous letters or fliers in our mailboxes, especially from religious zealots. They have every right to speak or write but somehow have not the courage to identify themselves, preferring instead to remain part of a faceless mob. What they are actually indicating about themselves is, not only that they are lacking in physical courage, but intellectual courage as well. If they had courage they would first, identify themselves. Second they would not be afraid to be challenged and third, would be prepared to defend them.
As to those who are “afraid” of such ideologues, that does not reflect well on them either as they are succumbing to fear and allowing themselves to be intimidated. Living in Delta I know that to be the case for many. But, that is their choice.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 8:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Atheists are one of the last minority groups that it is still considered acceptable to discriminate against.
Once again, look at the comments directed against atheists on the Sentinel’s article about the billboard (Oct. 8 headlines) and then replace “atheist” with “Jew” and think about whether that person would have dared make such a statement if directed at the Jewish community. Not in a million years, but it’s okay to say things like that about atheists.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Atheists are one of the last minority groups that it is still considered acceptable to discriminate against.”
Actually, that is not quite correct. There are other groups, one being gays and lesbians to name but one. That was seen in the fairly recent Amendment to the Colorado Constitution where the people of Colorado chose to validate and enshrine that discrimnation in the State Constitution.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What distinguishes a freethinker from another is that he/she does not begin consideration of any issue or question having a priori bracketed, or have bracketed for them, their minds either with pre-jugments or prejudices. Doing so, they recognize, is an impediment to serious consideration of all possibilities.
Can such a state be achieved? Not totally as very frequently it means that the individual will have to challenge him/herself and his/her basic and fundamental assumptions. However, if one is aware of it, has the courage and is willing to undertake the task, and make the effort to do so, it can in large part be compensated for.
Those who criticize freethinkers and free thinking can only be advocates of “captive thinking”; i.e. beginning with the basic premise not only believing that they are right, but the worst possible offense against thinking: “I can’t be wrong.”
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 10:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stereotypical thinking, prejudices and discrimination knows no color or religion or lack thereof.
The early KKK hid behind a Christian symbol, but were equally hateful towards Blacks, Catholics and Jews. “Irish need not apply” signs were commonplace in the 1800’s. Innocent Japanese-Americans were interred after Pearl Harbor. Christian and Jews have been persecuted throughout history. Many White, Black and Hispanic men still treat “their women” like property. Try being gay, Christian or Jewish in the Middle East. Sex slavery in America. Russian “brides” bought and sold over the internet. Fat kids have been bullied in our schools long before bullying gays became the focus. People with conservative viewpoints are regularly disparaged and called racist or such niceties as “tea-baggers” on the nightly news simply for disagreeing with Obama’s policies… and then there was Gate-gate.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Stereotypical thinking, prejudices and discrimination knows no color or religion or lack thereof.”
With that one cannot disagree but, wanting to be serious about it, we also have to ask the question why such is the case. Could it perhaps be that many cannot even stand the concept of equality, and have to find something that will make them believe that they are somehow superior, even if they have to denigrate someone else in order to “feel” that superiority.
It goes to one question which is crucial when encountering another. That is: What do you see? If all one sees are the externals, then begins their judgment based solely upon that, they are looking only with their eyes. The thinking individual will see a “person” first and, once that has been firmly established, proceed further and very carefully.
We, as Americans, are very good at measuring, categorizing and generalizing. We like to measure things, classify them and over-generalize, but as activities only. What is seldom if ever asked is if why we do it, and whether we should or should not do it. The latter all too seldom enters into people’s minds.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, while you are correct that there is a high level of criticism over the billboards, have you heard any sentiment from any government that the billboard should not be allowed? If that is the case I would agree with you. All I have seen is criticism of the billboards. If controversial content is free speech, then criticism of that content is also.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skipp,
If the criticism was just of the billboards, I would agree with you. But many of the comments take the position that the atheists should not be allowed to put up such billboards in the first place. That is not criticism of the billboard but of the atheist’s right to free speech itself. Sure, they still have the right to say it, but it certainly goes a long way to show how the community feels on this topic. Do you really think that many people in the Valley would stand up and defend the atheists if the billboard was taken down?
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 3:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci, Yeah like you I think therefore I am, why do you ask?
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “People with conservative viewpoints are regularly disparaged and called racist or such niceties as “tea-baggers” on the nightly news simply for disagreeing with Obama’s policies…”
That statement is a simplistic over-generalization. First, the reason that much of the modern “conservative viewpoint” is challenged or attacked is not because it disagrees with anyone’s policies, but because it stands for nothing except negativism. Second, as the to the term “tea baggers”, it is those individuals who gave themselves that name, so let the poster not now blame others for what they did to themselves.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
tiag: “In my ability to think freely, I freely choose to think and know that there is a God.”
Actually, the statement is not quite accurate, as the individual is not “thinking” there is a god, he believes their is a god. Those are not the same thing. The first refers to the ability to range without limit in considering questions (free thinking), while the latter refers to his freedom to believe what he will. And, the fact that both may exist in the same place, the mind, does not mean that they are at all the same.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 6:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, this just jumped out at me.
tiag says: “In my ability to think freely, I freely choose to think and know that there is a God.”
And since he has now “freely” decided that he cannot be wrong about the existence of said god, he has stopped being a free-thinker and is now dogmatically bound to one position, no matter what new information appears. This is NOT free-thinking. Quite the opposite, actually.
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “People with conservative viewpoints are regularly disparaged and called racist or such niceties as “tea-baggers” on the nightly news simply for disagreeing with Obama’s policies…”
RL says, “That statement is a simplistic over-generalization. First, the reason that much of the modern “conservative viewpoint” is challenged or attacked is not because it disagrees with anyone’s policies, but because it stands for nothing except negativism.”
/satire ahead/
Gee RL, your statement is a simplistic over-generalization complete with negative stereotyping bound to one dogmatic position that you “can’t be wrong”. To borrow a catchy catch-phrase from you yourself and you (#14), what distinguishes a negative-thinker from thinker, free, captive or otherwise, is that you begin consideration of any issue or question having bracketed your brain, or having had it bracketed for you, either with pre-judgments or prejudices. Doing so, you don’t freely recognize, is a cheap (but not free) impediment to seriously free consideration of the freethought possibility that you could be freely over-thinking your own free-thinking and captive to under-thinking that you could be wrong.
/end satire/
Peace ‘n Luv
“Liberals believe that men–left to their own devices–are not to be trusted. They also believe in the goodness of government; a government composed of men. This paradox may help explain why many liberals are angry much of the time.”
–RE Bierce
Toodles….
Posted October 15th, 2009 at 8:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Doing so, you don’t freely recognize, is a cheap (but not free) impediment to seriously free consideration of the freethought possibility that you could be freely over-thinking your own free-thinking and captive to under-thinking that you could be wrong.”
Actually, I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as over-thinking, not if the individual takes the care to expand his/her breadth of knowledge at the same time, and not merely re-arranging what he/she believes or “thinks” he/she already knows, frequently as a result of restricting possibilites by having restricted (bracketed) them within a narrow range, either through some dogma or ideology. A free thinking mind is also an insatiably curious mind, one that is never afraid to challenge his/her own assumptions and his/her own beliefs. That is at times not only unpleasant but downright uncomfortable.
As to the conclusion of Mr. Bierce, that is not at all true and the author apparently has his own definition of a political liberal, much as Jonah Goldberg has his own definition of fascism. In his own words he admitted as much when, in his book, he clearly stated that the definition of that movement was what it meant to “him.” For those who paid attention that was a clear indicator that the gentleman, never having made an effort to study that pheonmenon (it really not having any coherent philosophy), he made one up that suited his purposes. I suspect that Mr. Bierce did the same thing. Both may therefore be considered as pseudo-intellectuals.
Prior to believing such as Mr. Goldberg or Mr. Bierce, JMH should ascertain that such individuals (his sources) have the qualifications to speak on a particular subject. And, if they do have a degree in that subject area, are they writing as experts in that particular field or attempting to promote a particular viewpoint or ideology; i.e. what is their real motivation.
Posted October 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, while you are correct in that some feel that the atheists should not be allowed to post what to some are offensive billboards, they are exercising their free speech rights. Kind of like flag burning, don’t much care for it but I think it is a protected form of expression. I tend to ignore noise like you are talking about unless it starts moving toward public policy.
Posted October 15th, 2009 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ve never said it isn’t protected speech. I just choose to respond to it rather than ignore it.
Posted October 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How is it that a corporation or a union can have a free speech right? That limiting political contributions can be construed as placing limits on freedom of expression? Not related to the subject but just curious.
Posted October 15th, 2009 at 12:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I believe that falls into a controversial legal definition that grants corporations the same rights as individuals. It was intended for another purpose but an unintended consequence is the free speech issue.
I’m just going from memory on this. It might even have been something that JMH dredged up a while back.
Posted October 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From a corporation standpoint it was intended to limit liability of the stockholders to what they had invested. It also defined the corporation as a legal entity which would allow it to own property. But there are limits, a corporation can not vote or be sent to prison. How free speech got thrown in with that is beyond me.
I don’t know much about unions, except that their political activities, in my opinion,go well beyond what should be allowed by any non-political organization. Most tax exempt organizations, such as churches, as correctly refrained from making political endorsements or actively working for a candidate. Why are unions exempt?
Posted October 15th, 2009 at 1:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Are unions tax-exempt? I don’t know. If not, then they wouldn’t fall under the same status as churches. I do agree with you about unions going too far, though. I was in one of the major unions in the Mid-West for a couple of years. They seemed to spend most of their time trying to convince everyone that they were necessary in the first place. When they weren’t voting on increasing the dues, anyway.
Posted October 15th, 2009 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, being a not-for-profit organization they are tax exempt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_exemption#Non-profit_organizations
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.