I Hate Connecticut Nazis

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by subchaser12

They are Christians, they don't "consider" themselves Christians. Granted they might be that gay cousin in the family no one wants to talk about, but they are in the Christian camp.

Nazism and Christianity have as much to do with each other as Hitler and Jesus. You can'T follow both men'S teachings at the same time, you cannot preach racist supremacy and love for thy next like you love yourself at the same time. Thus, you cannot be a Christian Nazi or a Nazi Christian - that is a contradiction in itself.

Being a church member and being Nazi at the same time - that of course can be something different.

Originally Posted by Captain Vlad

Now now, first amendment and all that. They have the right to espouse any viewpoint they want.

Just like I have the right to point, laugh, and mock them.

Do Western constitutions allow to propagate their own destruction? If so, a major pillar of justification why to defend the state and it'S laws against threats, has fallen. I never believed in unlimited freedom, and I never believed in freedom as a general right. It is an ability that must be learned and trained. Limits to the freedom of speech are set by ethical considerations which - admitted - can be hard to define and agreed on, but the communal defense against self-destruction certainly is one such limit, as is the general principle that your freedom generally has to agree to not boost itself beyond the level where it starts to limit the freedom of others and claims more rights for itself than for the other's freedom - which in principle is nothing else but Kant's categorial imperative.

Also, the state's monopole on violence enters the discussion here.

( On behalf of the german constitution i can point poiut that it sets limits to what is allowed. You are not allowed to call for the destruction of the constitutional order, and every german is given the right to resist and oppose such attempts even with force and violence, if needed. )

So, while in general I agree on free speech, nevertheless the freedom of speech can be abused - and I do not see why this has to be tolerated as well. Unlimited freedoms lead to the ultimate absence of any rules at all. In such a situation, only one rules: the strongest. And that is what we call anarchy. The law of the strongest, and right of free speech, are two totally different things.

Allowing limits to free speech, has it's own risks. But accepting no limits to it, also has it's risk. Recent trends in Europe's cultural self-disbanding and denial of historic identity makes me preferring the first risk over the latter.