Minorly Major
So Eddie, Ben and I recently began an interesting dialogue on my own blog, but I thought I'd open it up to those who don't regularly check the goings-on of my mind. The discussion doesn't "center" on anything, but it was spawned by the Don Imus controversy, and branched out into a) the ACLU; b) who regulates free speech; c) what it means to be a minority. [Incidentally, the title of this post comes from that last topic; it also indicates the fact that I consider at least some of these topic to be of importance, albeit minor importance.]
I have excerpted relevant parts from my initial article below. [For the full piece, click here.]
For your convenience, I have color coded our responses: Eddie red, Ben blue, JT green.
*****************************
Excerpted from "Don of a new day":
So where is the ACLU on the controversy surrounding Don Imus? Usually so outspoken about matters of constitutionality in which it seems the public has erred, the ACLU has remained loudly reticent in this particular debate. Apparently encroaching on the first amendment right to free speech is not worth the ACLU's attention, but God forbid anyone should try to enforce section of that same amendment that protects the "free exercise" of religion. I guess the ACLU was too busy trying to eliminate prayer in schools to help defend Mr. Imus.
[Since it's probably not entirely clear here: I'm not at all against civil liberties, since my being able to blog so freely on a number of topics depends entirely on the privileges granted to us in our divinely wise Constitution. I do take issue with the politicized way the ACLU seems to selectively promote the application of "liberty" for certain (read: left-leaning) groups or for pet causes (read: issues on the Democratic agenda), but not in others...
What do you, readers, think about this sort of censorship by the masses? We can see how in theory it's vastly different from governmental censorship, but in practice, aren't the effects the same (e.g. silencing the voices of those whose opinions Power dislikes, and preventing a free exchange of ideas)? If we become a nation that no longer values the right to free expression (even offensive, hateful expression), then isn't it logical to conclude that at some point we wouldn't care if the government did begin censoring, because we'd already be doing it to ourselves?
May 28, 2007 10:55 PM, Eddie replied:
hey jt. I think you'd enjoy constitutional law. In effect, the censoring of speech by a person is very different from the censoring of a person by the government. You argue that practically, they are the same thing, hinting that the Constitution is designed to keep this sort of behavior out of society. In fact, the Constitution "merely" binds the government - it is not so bold as to mandate behavior on the people. So, if society chooses to discriminate, become bias, or even adopt a fascist government, the Constitution can not, and really, should not be able to stand in the way of the will of the people.
In addition, I do believe in eliminating prayer from public school, although i am not necessarily against classes that study Christianity or prayer itself. As an atheist, I prefer not to be intimidated by religion in school (although it is, admittingly, unrealistic to escape religion's influences).
Although your dislike for the ACLU does shine through in this piece, perhaps some clarifications as to why this is so might help, since I didn't understand which fundraiser you were talking about near the end (although I can guess you were being mildly sarcastic or playing with rhetoric to end on an emotionally stirring note).
May 30, 2007 1:03 AM, Ben said:
Your characterization of the ACLU is inaccurate. First of all, what someone says on the radio is not the concern of the ACLU. The ACLU only acts in cases where the GOVERNMENT infringes on civil liberties. It's inaccuate to say that the ACLU picks and chooses when to protect free speech rights because it has routinely fought for the right of the KKK to stage marches despite how tasteless the KKK is.
As for Don Imus, he does have the right to say what he wants, but he should also keep in mind that there are consequences to what you say. In this case, it was economical, due to a public backlash towards his comments, sponsors no longer wanted to be affiliated with the show. With advertisers pulling out, NBC had to make an economic decision to pull the plug on him.
Then at May 30, 2007 1:21 AM added:
As far as prayer in school, I think you have to understand that the ACLU is not trying to eliminate prayer from school, but rather government-sponsored prayer. When a teacher leads the class in prayer, or when a graduation ceremony is steeped with religious undertones, then MY right to NOT practice religion has been violated. But the ACLU will never fight to take away YOUR right to pray privately in class or before a test. In fact, I am almost certain that the opposite is true. That if a public school infringed upon your right to your religious beliefs, the ACLU would come to your defense. But I doubt that would happen because people like you are in the majority whereas people like Eddie and I are in the minority, and usually its the minority whose rights need protection from the majority.
To which I replied at May 30, 2007 10:40 AM:
Wow, this one got so many comments! Unfortunately, they're centered around part of the blog (the digression into the ACLU, prayer in school, et al) that was intended as tangential.
I acknowledge the fact that the Constitution only prohibits the government (not individuals or private grps) from limiting the free expression of speech. Nonetheless, I really am concerned about the de facto censorship of Imus. My own views (while rarely racially/sexually offensive) are often unpopular, and I would hate for my blog to be shut down because of that. Etimus says that the Constitution "cannot...and should not" prevent people from adopting descrimination or bias. I disagree here, and Etimus himself has previously pointed out the dangers of the "tyranny of masses" when it comes to the will of the majority imposed unfairly on others.
[About the ACLU fundraiser, I aluded to it toward the bottom the 2nd paragraph.]
In response to Ben's comments about the ACLU: I stand corrected regarding their non-support of Imus since this incident did not involve the government. I also stand corrected regarding the Union's defense of the Klan. However, I have still not been won over to ALCU's side--years of bias and hostility built up through the news (and one personal encounter) cannot be undone in one day, even by Ben.
I broke up my response into two sections, so it wouldn't seem as daunting. The second half was added about 30 min later:
Regarding prayer in school generally: I accept that school-led prayer (in class, before sporting events, or other school-related functions) could constitute an infraction against the seperation of church and state. I am not advocating the mixing of those two entities. However, the enforcement of a complete ban on prayer in school could never be realized, because often times no one has any idea that I am praying.
With regard to the ALCU and school prayer, the Union did, in fact file a suit against the Wilson County School System in 2006, a case in which the ACLU argued the defendents' right to assemble on their own on campus (without official approval of the school, or at a school event) to pray was illegal. If groups of students or faculty congregate privately on their own time (ie not during class/a school-sponsored function)and particiation is entirely voluntary (again, meaning those attending are there for the expressed purpose of prayer, not a math test or baseball game), why can they not practice their beliefs on campus?
As far as the majority/minority issue, while some argument might be made for the religiousity of America as a whole, at the local level (greater metropolitan LA/OC area), I am dubious whether the religious in any way constitute a "majority".
If one believes that the entertainment media shapes and/or is shaped by society, a quick glance at that industry will reveal how non-mainstream religion is. With a few notable exceptions, movies, television music, books, and the arts are all profoundly secular. I would actually argue that non-religious people finding themselves "in the minority" are acutely aware of situation in which they feel minoritized because such instances are rare, and stand out as special in their memories (though, of course, I cannot prove this).
I am willing to be corrected on this point, but: on a daily, even weekly, basis, I imagine their minority status rarely crosses their minds or impacts their lives in a meaningful way (unlike, say, blacks as the minority in 18th century America). Again, I make this assertion based on my own day-to-day living experiences (outside of church, which is a context most non-religious can choose not to enter) engaging in various conversations, reading, watching tv and movies, listening to music and the radio.
I am eager to hear others' thoughts, but on the whole, I think religion occupies a very small part of mainstream, daily American life.
*********************
NB: I did not intend to treat Ben and/or Eddie's statements about being a minority cavalierly. They certainly know their feelings better than I do, and I respect their opinions. I only meant to question whether they are truly in the minority, regardless of their perception as such.
It should also be noted that I addressed Ben's comments about advertiser pull out in my original post by saying, "I don't think sponsors pulled their ads because ratings suddenly dropped. In fact, (though, again, I have no hard data to substantiate this speculation) I'm willing to bet that after his nappy-headed gaff in which Imus's show was brought to the fore of American consciousness, millions who had never heard of Don Imus recognized his name, and many likely tuned in. I don't think rating numbers were out fast enough to determine that his stock had plummeted. I think advertisers were just scared of the backlash...and not even necessarily a genuine, certifiable downturn in sales, because I'm fairly confident that (sadly) most Americans are so apathetic that they just would continue buying the same brand of toothpaste, laundry detergent, saltine crackers and indexed mutual funds as before. Whatever is cheapest and most convenient. Whatever is on sale at WalMart or is being offered economy-sized in the Costco coupon book."
I have excerpted relevant parts from my initial article below. [For the full piece, click here.]
For your convenience, I have color coded our responses: Eddie red, Ben blue, JT green.
*****************************
Excerpted from "Don of a new day":
So where is the ACLU on the controversy surrounding Don Imus? Usually so outspoken about matters of constitutionality in which it seems the public has erred, the ACLU has remained loudly reticent in this particular debate. Apparently encroaching on the first amendment right to free speech is not worth the ACLU's attention, but God forbid anyone should try to enforce section of that same amendment that protects the "free exercise" of religion. I guess the ACLU was too busy trying to eliminate prayer in schools to help defend Mr. Imus.
[Since it's probably not entirely clear here: I'm not at all against civil liberties, since my being able to blog so freely on a number of topics depends entirely on the privileges granted to us in our divinely wise Constitution. I do take issue with the politicized way the ACLU seems to selectively promote the application of "liberty" for certain (read: left-leaning) groups or for pet causes (read: issues on the Democratic agenda), but not in others...
What do you, readers, think about this sort of censorship by the masses? We can see how in theory it's vastly different from governmental censorship, but in practice, aren't the effects the same (e.g. silencing the voices of those whose opinions Power dislikes, and preventing a free exchange of ideas)? If we become a nation that no longer values the right to free expression (even offensive, hateful expression), then isn't it logical to conclude that at some point we wouldn't care if the government did begin censoring, because we'd already be doing it to ourselves?
May 28, 2007 10:55 PM, Eddie replied:
hey jt. I think you'd enjoy constitutional law. In effect, the censoring of speech by a person is very different from the censoring of a person by the government. You argue that practically, they are the same thing, hinting that the Constitution is designed to keep this sort of behavior out of society. In fact, the Constitution "merely" binds the government - it is not so bold as to mandate behavior on the people. So, if society chooses to discriminate, become bias, or even adopt a fascist government, the Constitution can not, and really, should not be able to stand in the way of the will of the people.
In addition, I do believe in eliminating prayer from public school, although i am not necessarily against classes that study Christianity or prayer itself. As an atheist, I prefer not to be intimidated by religion in school (although it is, admittingly, unrealistic to escape religion's influences).
Although your dislike for the ACLU does shine through in this piece, perhaps some clarifications as to why this is so might help, since I didn't understand which fundraiser you were talking about near the end (although I can guess you were being mildly sarcastic or playing with rhetoric to end on an emotionally stirring note).
May 30, 2007 1:03 AM, Ben said:
Your characterization of the ACLU is inaccurate. First of all, what someone says on the radio is not the concern of the ACLU. The ACLU only acts in cases where the GOVERNMENT infringes on civil liberties. It's inaccuate to say that the ACLU picks and chooses when to protect free speech rights because it has routinely fought for the right of the KKK to stage marches despite how tasteless the KKK is.
As for Don Imus, he does have the right to say what he wants, but he should also keep in mind that there are consequences to what you say. In this case, it was economical, due to a public backlash towards his comments, sponsors no longer wanted to be affiliated with the show. With advertisers pulling out, NBC had to make an economic decision to pull the plug on him.
Then at May 30, 2007 1:21 AM added:
As far as prayer in school, I think you have to understand that the ACLU is not trying to eliminate prayer from school, but rather government-sponsored prayer. When a teacher leads the class in prayer, or when a graduation ceremony is steeped with religious undertones, then MY right to NOT practice religion has been violated. But the ACLU will never fight to take away YOUR right to pray privately in class or before a test. In fact, I am almost certain that the opposite is true. That if a public school infringed upon your right to your religious beliefs, the ACLU would come to your defense. But I doubt that would happen because people like you are in the majority whereas people like Eddie and I are in the minority, and usually its the minority whose rights need protection from the majority.
To which I replied at May 30, 2007 10:40 AM:
Wow, this one got so many comments! Unfortunately, they're centered around part of the blog (the digression into the ACLU, prayer in school, et al) that was intended as tangential.
I acknowledge the fact that the Constitution only prohibits the government (not individuals or private grps) from limiting the free expression of speech. Nonetheless, I really am concerned about the de facto censorship of Imus. My own views (while rarely racially/sexually offensive) are often unpopular, and I would hate for my blog to be shut down because of that. Etimus says that the Constitution "cannot...and should not" prevent people from adopting descrimination or bias. I disagree here, and Etimus himself has previously pointed out the dangers of the "tyranny of masses" when it comes to the will of the majority imposed unfairly on others.
[About the ACLU fundraiser, I aluded to it toward the bottom the 2nd paragraph.]
In response to Ben's comments about the ACLU: I stand corrected regarding their non-support of Imus since this incident did not involve the government. I also stand corrected regarding the Union's defense of the Klan. However, I have still not been won over to ALCU's side--years of bias and hostility built up through the news (and one personal encounter) cannot be undone in one day, even by Ben.
I broke up my response into two sections, so it wouldn't seem as daunting. The second half was added about 30 min later:
Regarding prayer in school generally: I accept that school-led prayer (in class, before sporting events, or other school-related functions) could constitute an infraction against the seperation of church and state. I am not advocating the mixing of those two entities. However, the enforcement of a complete ban on prayer in school could never be realized, because often times no one has any idea that I am praying.
With regard to the ALCU and school prayer, the Union did, in fact file a suit against the Wilson County School System in 2006, a case in which the ACLU argued the defendents' right to assemble on their own on campus (without official approval of the school, or at a school event) to pray was illegal. If groups of students or faculty congregate privately on their own time (ie not during class/a school-sponsored function)and particiation is entirely voluntary (again, meaning those attending are there for the expressed purpose of prayer, not a math test or baseball game), why can they not practice their beliefs on campus?
As far as the majority/minority issue, while some argument might be made for the religiousity of America as a whole, at the local level (greater metropolitan LA/OC area), I am dubious whether the religious in any way constitute a "majority".
If one believes that the entertainment media shapes and/or is shaped by society, a quick glance at that industry will reveal how non-mainstream religion is. With a few notable exceptions, movies, television music, books, and the arts are all profoundly secular. I would actually argue that non-religious people finding themselves "in the minority" are acutely aware of situation in which they feel minoritized because such instances are rare, and stand out as special in their memories (though, of course, I cannot prove this).
I am willing to be corrected on this point, but: on a daily, even weekly, basis, I imagine their minority status rarely crosses their minds or impacts their lives in a meaningful way (unlike, say, blacks as the minority in 18th century America). Again, I make this assertion based on my own day-to-day living experiences (outside of church, which is a context most non-religious can choose not to enter) engaging in various conversations, reading, watching tv and movies, listening to music and the radio.
I am eager to hear others' thoughts, but on the whole, I think religion occupies a very small part of mainstream, daily American life.
*********************
NB: I did not intend to treat Ben and/or Eddie's statements about being a minority cavalierly. They certainly know their feelings better than I do, and I respect their opinions. I only meant to question whether they are truly in the minority, regardless of their perception as such.
It should also be noted that I addressed Ben's comments about advertiser pull out in my original post by saying, "I don't think sponsors pulled their ads because ratings suddenly dropped. In fact, (though, again, I have no hard data to substantiate this speculation) I'm willing to bet that after his nappy-headed gaff in which Imus's show was brought to the fore of American consciousness, millions who had never heard of Don Imus recognized his name, and many likely tuned in. I don't think rating numbers were out fast enough to determine that his stock had plummeted. I think advertisers were just scared of the backlash...and not even necessarily a genuine, certifiable downturn in sales, because I'm fairly confident that (sadly) most Americans are so apathetic that they just would continue buying the same brand of toothpaste, laundry detergent, saltine crackers and indexed mutual funds as before. Whatever is cheapest and most convenient. Whatever is on sale at WalMart or is being offered economy-sized in the Costco coupon book."
posted by jt at 2:02 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
hey jt.
First: Regardless if you disagree with what I think the Constitution does and does not do, should or should not do, it is what it is. It is based upon popular sovereignty in which the will of the people are above that of the government, and even above that of the majority. How is this possible? Through a greater majority, the entire Constitution can be changed and or discarded. We call this a "super majority", requiring 2/3 consent by blah blah blah... Ask any law school professor or Supreme Court Justice. I can give you the e-mail address of my professor if you'd like. Bottom line, Constitution is not supposed to control behavior of the people. Such a thought is sick and antithetical to our notions of what is American, even if the behavior is for the better, however that is measured.
Second, regardless of what I think about the ACLU (which isn't much), as a writer, you might have been able to pan that aspect out a little more, even if it is a tangential element in your piece. It could have been more compelling and tongue in cheek and effective, whatever your beliefs in it are.
Cheers!
Furthermore JT, the Constitution most certainly allows for discrimination. I know, I know, this seems so unpopular, but think about it. Doesn't your church have the right to discriminate against who it lets in to its programs, who it allows to travel overseas on its behalf, et cetera et cetera? Don't police discriminate against criminals? Aren't people who drive above 90 miles an hour treated differently than those who drive below 90 miles an hour?
If what you are alluding to with discrimination and the Constitution is "equal protection," I suggest you study cases more thoroughly. Equal protection does not protect from discrimination. Equal protection insures the same or similar treatment of other like people. Other people who are driving over 90 miles and hour, other civilians, other criminals. If you are really interested, I'm sure I can give you some cases to read. And if you'd like another approach, you may be able to ask Pam.
So, one more thing, come to think of it. I do believe the tyranny of the masses exists. I believe that in group out group behavior is a very potent factor in social behavior. Your rebuke with my concerns on tyranny is not a valid one - despite what I may believe, it doesn't change the essence of the Constitution. I may want to Constitution to be the exact thing you want it to be...it doesn't mean that it is.
As far as the minority with religion thing...gosh...I'm not going to get into that. This is how it's going to go down - you'll say one thing, I'll say another, and then we'll make exceptions as to what we really mean, and nothing will get accomplished.
So i leave you (hopefully) with this: I am sure that you may feel like the minority, as I too may feel like the minority as well. I can never completely understand how it must be like to be persecuted or discriminated as a Christian in today's America, and you may never know how it is like to get in trouble in elementary school for refusing to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It would behoove both of us to simply take each other's word for it - that we both feel dissatisfied with our group's allegiances in society. Thank goodness the Constitution allows you to find refuge in God and with your Church, as it allows me to assemble with ben and dance around sage bushes in our loin cloths.
=)
Regarding the sponsors...I highly doubt ratings jumped up out of curiousity. I read all this crap about Rosie on The View on CNN, yet I have not had one iota of a desire to watch The View. In my comment, I merely said that sponsors pulled out because of the negative public backlash. I don't think I said anything about ratings. My point was that sponsors did not want to be associated with that show at all because it would be a PR disaster. They couldn't risk having Al Sharpton assemble a boycott against their goods.
As far as the minority/majority issue. You would say PBS is a reliable source right?
http://www.pbs.org/now/society/religionstats.html
86.8% of americans view themselves as religious
57% of americans regularly attend a worship service
70% of americans who view it as important for presidential cadidates to be STRONGLY religious
82% of americans who identify themselves as Christian in 2001
I dont have the stats on this, but America is by far the most religious nation of all the developed nations.
And lets just put it this way. I could never get elected to public office, and it has nothing to do with the dirt that Eddie and Phil might have on me.
I was so excited to see four comments, because I hoped new people would join. This is not to say I am displeased at all with continuing a virtual discussion with Ben and Eddie. But I usually think the more, the merrier when it comes to dialogue.
Anyway, I think I may have been unclear about some things in my comments. After having re-read my initial postsing, I realize that the fault rests with the way I worded certain questions. I did *not* mean to imply that the Constitution protects anyone from being taken off the air, nor that it protects against discrimination. These points were not at all in my radar, and because I don't doubt anything Eddie says regarding the constitutionality of what happened, I'd prefer to end discussion on these items because (again), we'd just be debating something on which we are in agreement.
On a related note, I mentioned Eddie's distaste for the tyranny of the masses only to point out how distasteful I thought he once found it, not to put words in his mouth by implying he said it was unconstitutional. Perhaps the context in which I used that statement was inaccurate, equivocal (but not intentionally so), or both, so I apologize.
I definitely don't want this part of this chat to degenerate into petty bickering ("you'll say one thing, I'll say another, and then we'll make exceptions as to what we really mean, and nothing will get accomplished.") That would be totally fruitless. And again, I think the argumentative way I worded my statements before rather invited that kind of unproductive back-and-forth argument. (Again, apologies. I know I could have come across as supercilious and/or abrasive.) I am sincerely interested, however, in the specific ways Eddie/Ben feels like a minority in this aspect, if for no other reason than to understand the perspective of a friend who is different (at least in this respect). Of course, you're under no obligation to indulge my interest, but I have rarely known either of you to deny me your opinions and insights when beseeched.
Because we're coming from disparate viewpoints, I think it would be helpful for me to understand your paradigms. This question has crossed my mind before when we discussed your feelings, but for whatever reason I didn't ask it. But the present seems like a good time to invite your thoughts. I do not think we will be in agreement afterwards, but I do sincerely hope I can have a better idea of your personal experiences, and in the future be considerate of the way I behave to help mitigate whatever feelings of uncomfortability there may be.
I won't argue the point about America being the most religious of the developed world, because although I have never been to another developed nation (except Japan), from everything I hear from those who have, this is true.
I do, however, take some issue with the statistics sited (and not because I disbelieve PBS or the Pew institutes in general). Even if the survey were properly conducted, and if the data were not manipulated to give a certain impression--and we all know statistics are easy to manipulate--I am a little dubious of the data from *this kind* of self-reporting.
I imagine if you surveyed the citizens of a certain populous, east Asian nation and asked whether they believed they lived in a communist economic system, a large, large number would answer affirmatively. That does not make it true, although it might seem true to them.
The problem with surveys such as this is that they don't actually report the truth (I know, how nebulous a term is that), or people's actual behavior, or even their deeply held beliefs. These surveys only tell what people THINK of themselves, which as I think we can all agree, is often very skewed and distorted.
I have seen many similar statistics reported on the self-perceived religiousity of Americans, so I do not at all doubt that Americans see themselves in this way. I am not suggesting that there is some cost-effective, superior method for conducting a study like this, but I am pointing out serious problems in trying to use data such as these to formulate policy or construct ideas about who people really are.
I also think we can agree that much better indicators of what people really value is how they spend their time and how they spend their money, rather than what they claim is important. I don't doubt that many people in the Pew study would tell you they value their relationship with God or association with religion as more important to them than eating. But, if they were down to their last few dollars, and had a choice between giving alms or eating, at least some would choose the latter.
Hahaha, to be a hypocrit: speaking of self-reporting surveys, NPR reported yesterday that "Only 13 percent of consumers make purchases because of ads...Only 6 percent perceive ads as truthful." If these data are right (and who knows if they are), I don't think advertisers would stand to lose much, even in the face of a boycott, simply because so many American's buying patterns are well-entrenched (see, for example, the failure of the attempt to fell WalMart, despite unfair labor practices, and negative effects of the retail giant on local businesses. At the end of the day, most people (sadly) don't care about social justice, but just want the highest quality widget at the lowest price.
I don't doubt that advertisers (and the broadcast stations) *perceived* a risk to their revenues, but I believe (with nothing other than my own intuition to support me) that long-term (within 12-18 months) Imus in the Morning would have been as profitable as before the gaff.
Okay, take two:
No, Ben and Etimus (for more reasons than this) will never be President. Too bad.
Yes, Don Imus, speak on. Too bad there won't be a microphone to catch what you say.
Wow, so now you guys are debating constitutional law, eh?...Funny.
Post a Comment