Political Activism

[Belsnickel]

So, one thing that has come about in this era has been a rise in activism and engagement. I don't think it will be sustained, and I think a lot of it is really surface level engagement where they aren't really digging into the meat of the policies. Then there are the violent ones. I figured we could discuss this rise in activism here. What do you think about it, good or bad? How long do you think it will last? How do you think it can be directed into something that is actually substantial rather than petulance?

I also figured we could bring stories of activism/engagement in places it hadn't been before. This is the story that prompted this for me. It's about Mennonites becoming politically active. Everyone knows about the Amish separating themselves from the world of "the English," and the Old Order Mennonites do that to a large extent as well. But the Mennonites and the Schwarzenau Brethren (German Baptist Brethren, Church of the Brethren, Dunkers, etc.) all believe in a firm separation of church and state. You don't typically find politicians from those groups because it is against those theologies to swear an oath. So these groups do not typically wander into the political arena.

That being said, you may have noticed my avatar. Mine has German on top, but this is the most common version you will see:


It comes from a church that I have actually attended many times as it is just a couple of blocks from my parents' house:

<shameless plug for their signs>

The activism we are seeing within the Mennonite community with regards to immigration has been huge. It ranges from things like those signs (which that started before the election, but was done in response to a growing anti-immigrant attitude in some areas) to Mennonites actually being engaged in local politics. I have seen Mennonites of the conservative variety (not full on Old Order) at political meetups in the area, and that is just blowing my mind.

[*bfine32*]

My $0.02 I have no problem with anyone peacefully marching, rallying, protesting anything they want. My issue is with the counter-protests; especially when your goal is to silence your opposition. We do not need citizens policing citizens on this scale. If they are doing anything illegal or promoting violence/discrimination then the proper authorities should intervene. We have seen was the results of these confrontations can be.

Yesterday Dill and I were having a back and forth and he brought up The Greensboro Massacre. After reflecting on the incident I see that as the route we are currently traveling down and it will explode again. If you look at the Greensboro incident on its surface it is easy to say the KKK were at fault here. I mean who could defend armed KKK members shooting folks just because they are against discrimination.  However, if you look more closely you see the self-proclaimed "communists" had actually attacked at a klan meeting earlier, all but begged the klan to come to their rally for a beatdown, and attacked as soon as the klan pulled up in their cars. So who to blame becomes a little less black and white*




* Disclaimer: The in no way suggests I support the klan or their idealology, I don't think it's OK for white people to shoot black people because of skin color, I am not definitively saying the communists were to blame, I only used the term Communists because that is what they referred to themselves as, I did not kick any puppies this morning,  these statements do not constitute racism,

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2017, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: My $0.02 I have no problem with anyone peacefully marching, rallying, protesting anything they want. My issue is with the counter-protests; especially when your goal is to silence your opposition. We do not need citizens policing citizens on this scale. If they are doing anything illegal or promoting violence/discrimination then the proper authorities should intervene. We have seen was the results of these confrontations can be.

Yesterday Dill and I were having a back and forth and he brought up The Greensboro Massacre. After reflecting on the incident I see that as the route we are currently traveling down and it will explode again. If you look at the Greensboro incident on its surface it is easy to say the KKK were at fault here. I mean who could defend armed KKK members shooting folks just because they are against discrimination.  However, if you look more closely you see the self-proclaimed "communists" had actually attacked at a klan meeting earlier, all but begged the klan to come to their rally for a beatdown, and attacked as soon as the klan pulled up in their cars. So who to blame becomes a little less black and white*




* Disclaimer: The in no way suggests I support the klan or their idealology, I don't think it's OK for white people to shoot black people because of skin color, I am not definitively saying the communists were to blame, I only used the term Communists because that is what they referred to themselves as, I did not kick any puppies this morning,  these statements do not constitute racism,

I don't have an issue with counter-protests unless they get confrontational. If some group like, for example, Westboro Baptist Church is holding an event and you want to counter-protest, go for it. But people need to check themselves with regards to emotional responses. I'm not advocating for a move towards Economic Man status, but we need to move away from the emotional, knee jerk responses. That is what gets so many people in trouble. I feel like the way information is being handed out to people is just furthering that.

The Trump wave is based on emotions over logic, which is what concerns me more than anything else about it. Those staunchly supporting him, and many of those opposed to him, are basing their views on emotions and that isn't how things should work in my view. Substantive discussions can't be had with some of these new political activists.

[*bfine32*]

(03-09-2017, 12:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't have an issue with counter-protests unless they get confrontational.

Good luck with that; as counter by definition means to oppose. When two opposing forces occupy the same space there is going to be conflict. The Westboro example was covered when I said officials should intervene if they determine the speech not to be protected.

No problem with counter protests (if that's the term you wish to use) as long as they are not at the same place at the same time. Why should we leave it up to folks to "check there emotions"? Why can't we just eliminate the opportunity? Folks are going to be emotional as rallies (that is their purpose). If you want to have point-counter-point schedule a discussion.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-09-2017, 12:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No problem with counter protests (if that's the term you wish to use) as long as they are not at the same place at the same time.

I don't think that's practical.  I think a community has the right to show they don't support the KKK, for example, at a KKK rally.  To force them to hold it a different day makes no sense at all.  In a different location, maybe, but that would seem to infringe on free speech rights.

The problem is law enforcement is not really enforcing the laws, I don't think.  In many locations, you need a permit to protest.  That should apply to any counter-protest, as well.  In other public places, you can protest without a permit, so long as you do not block or disrupt people going about their business (which, I would think, includes a peaceful protest marching down a sidewalk).

The moment people start blocking traffic, or obstructing people from entering an event, those people need to be arrested.  The fines will help pay for the additional police presence.

I'm pretty amazed that nothing really worse than fisticuffs and vandalism has happened yet.

[*bfine32*]

(03-09-2017, 03:48 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think that's practical.  I think a community has the right to show they don't support the KKK, for example, at a KKK rally.  To force them to hold it a different day makes no sense at all.  In a different location, maybe, but that would seem to infringe on free speech rights.

The problem is law enforcement is not really enforcing the laws, I don't think.  In many locations, you need a permit to protest.  That should apply to any counter-protest, as well.  In other public places, you can protest without a permit, so long as you do not block or disrupt people going about their business (which, I would think, includes a peaceful protest marching down a sidewalk).

The moment people start blocking traffic, or obstructing people from entering an event, those people need to be arrested.  The fines will help pay for the additional police presence.

I'm pretty amazed that nothing really worse than fisticuffs and vandalism has happened yet.

I just don't think a public location where folks might be just trying to spend time with the family is a good place to host an episode of Springer.

KKK wants to burn a cross at site A, you hold an anti-klan rally at site B. Or you do it prior in order to dissuade folks from coming if that is your objective. It's sorta like putting both chickens in the ring and hope they don't fight.

You suggestion or permits is very valid. For instance we have parks where we can host events; however, if someone else has reserved the same place and time we cannot assemble there. No one has blocked our right to assemble, we just can't do it at that time and place as we will infringe on someone else's right to do so free from distraction.  

[JustWinBaby]

(03-09-2017, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: KKK wants to burn a cross at site A, you hold an anti-klan rally at site B. 

Except in cases where no permit is required (such as public sidewalks), then who's right to free speech will you decide to deny? Because that is what you are proposing.  You can't just kick one group away because you have no legal basis for doing so (assuming they are not blocking traffic).

[*bfine32*]

(03-09-2017, 05:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Except in cases where no permit is required (such as public sidewalks), then who's right to free speech will you decide to deny? Because that is what you are proposing.  You can't just kick one group away because you have no legal basis for doing so (assuming they are not blocking traffic).

Permits should be required to assemble in public; hell parks are public. If a group has a designated route then no other group can assemble along that route during the time they are scheduled to be there. They can peaceably observe. 

We could "what if" all day. 

[JustWinBaby]

(03-09-2017, 05:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Permits should be required to assemble in public

And they are, in certain public places.

But some might argue to require permits in all public places is a threat to free speech - the process might be too costly, too arduous or too arbitrary.

You're arguing that people should need to seek permission from the same authority they may be protesting.

[*bfine32*]

(03-09-2017, 06:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And they are, in certain public places.

But some might argue to require permits in all public places is a threat to free speech - the process might be too costly, too arduous or too arbitrary.

You're arguing that people should need to seek permission from the same authority they may be protesting.

...and some may argue that allowing counter-protests violates a group's right to peaceful assembly. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

No problem with activism in general, but an awful lot of this activism are riots being called protests, or people violently counter-protesting.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-09-2017, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and some may argue that allowing counter-protests violates a group's right to peaceful assembly. 

By that same sort of logic, because a small minority of gun owners shoot people we shouldn't allow open or concealed carry.  The problem is really not a counter-protest, but a small percentage of the groups that are likely breaking multiple laws.

Plenty of existing laws to handle the issue you're raising without violating someone's right to counter-protest. 

[Bengalzona]

(03-09-2017, 10:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, one thing that has come about in this era has been a rise in activism and engagement. I don't think it will be sustained, and I think a lot of it is really surface level engagement where they aren't really digging into the meat of the policies. Then there are the violent ones. I figured we could discuss this rise in activism here. What do you think about it, good or bad? How long do you think it will last? How do you think it can be directed into something that is actually substantial rather than petulance?

I also figured we could bring stories of activism/engagement in places it hadn't been before. This is the story that prompted this for me. It's about Mennonites becoming politically active. Everyone knows about the Amish separating themselves from the world of "the English," and the Old Order Mennonites do that to a large extent as well. But the Mennonites and the Schwarzenau Brethren (German Baptist Brethren, Church of the Brethren, Dunkers, etc.) all believe in a firm separation of church and state. You don't typically find politicians from those groups because it is against those theologies to swear an oath. So these groups do not typically wander into the political arena.

That being said, you may have noticed my avatar. Mine has German on top, but this is the most common version you will see:


It comes from a church that I have actually attended many times as it is just a couple of blocks from my parents' house:

<shameless plug for their signs>

The activism we are seeing within the Mennonite community with regards to immigration has been huge. It ranges from things like those signs (which that started before the election, but was done in response to a growing anti-immigrant attitude in some areas) to Mennonites actually being engaged in local politics. I have seen Mennonites of the conservative variety (not full on Old Order) at political meetups in the area, and that is just blowing my mind.

I saw the same story here:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53717/mennonites-protest-trump/

But I think I like your source better because it had ads with girls in bikinis at the bottom.

[BmorePat87]

(03-09-2017, 03:48 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think that's practical.  I think a community has the right to show they don't support the KKK, for example, at a KKK rally.  To force them to hold it a different day makes no sense at all.  In a different location, maybe, but that would seem to infringe on free speech rights.

especially when they do this.


White flour!

[GMDino]

[BmorePat87]

(03-09-2017, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and some may argue that allowing counter-protests violates a group's right to peaceful assembly. 

Those people do not understand the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law..."

It's like saying I cannot tell someone to shut up because it violates their freedom of speech. 

[GMDino]

(03-10-2017, 09:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Those people do not understand the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law..."

It's like saying I cannot tell someone to shut up because it violates their freedom of speech. 

(02-28-2017, 02:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think many folk misunderstand free speech.

[*bfine32*]

(03-10-2017, 09:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Those people do not understand the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law..."

It's like saying I cannot tell someone to shut up because it violates their freedom of speech. 

Unless you are talking about the Freedom to peaceful assembly clause and not freedom of speech. 

Your example is not equivalent. To be equivalent I would have to be arguing you cannot tell people they cannot assemble peacefully. This is not the case groups of people are taking active measures to deny folks their right to peaceful assembly, not making their assemblies confrontational.

If we follow your stance then the most forceful group always wins. Governments should work to ensure that does not happen and ensure folks have the right to peacefully assemble no matter how mad it makes some people.

[*bfine32*]

GMDino Wrote:I just kinda lurk around here curelessly looking for gotchas

Once again I was not talking about Freedom of Speech and even if I was the can't fell someone to shut up example is not applicable.

My comment about folks not fully understanding Freedom of Speech (It appears some folks felt the shoe fit) is the misconception that all speech is protected; that is not the case. If your speech is deemed to subject someone to imminent danger than it is not allowed. So of the fire in the theater standard that has been debated since about 1920.

There really is no need for you to work tirelessly trying to turn this and countless other things into some sort of personal gotcha.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

The First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech.

It does not, however, guarantee an audience will show up to hear it.