POLL: What do you think about "Dialogue"?

[Brendan_64]

Unless human beings are allowed to stand in the public square (high tech or otherwise) and voice thier opposition, criticize, or proclaim thier thoughts or reasonings, without “dialogue” coming into the picture, free speech has been usurped. Free self expression without interuption.

Do you mean that you want to be able to do this without those to whom you are addressing or proclaiming having the right to question what you are addressing with? You seem to want to have the right to speak at someone without them having the right to interrupt you, question you, etc. You would rather have a monologue.

Why not celebrate our differences and learn from each other instead of being forced into a “national dialogue”?

Because the divisions that exist amongst Christians on Earth are hurtful to and offend Our Lord. Why would we even think about celebrating those divisions? Surely those divisions are something that needs to be healed?

 

[JustaServant]

Do you mean that you want to be able to do this without those to whom you are addressing or proclaiming having the right to question what you are addressing with? You seem to want to have the right to speak at someone without them having the right to interrupt you, question you, etc. You would rather have a monologue.

***I *** never said I wanted anything. I am explaining the foundation of free speech. You are going to extremes. What you are describing is what the opposition uses to silence.
The problem is not the “conversation”, but the fact that the opposition can use that to shut up other side. Polite discourse is always welcome, but free speech is not ONLY discourse. People, whether we like it or not, have the right to ‘monologue’.
As an example, lets use the anti-Catholic fundamentalist. Does he have a right to monologue and proclaim his teachings, however distasteful without debate? The freedom of speech gives him the right to proclaim horrible things. To trivialize speech in terms of ONLY dialogue takes away his right to proclaim his views.
Speech is not about whoever argues better or shouts the loudest. I don’t have to like what the fundamentalist says, but he has a right to say it. We can challenge him into a debate, but not limit his speech in that direction (dialogue only).
Dictatorships limit speech they do not like.

 

[JustaServant]

Because the divisions that exist amongst Christians on Earth are hurtful to and offend Our Lord. Why would we even think about celebrating those divisions? Surely those divisions are something that needs to be healed?

I’m am speaking beyond religious differances. Maybe I should have clarified that.
“Dialogue” can be used to learn what the other side believes. Isn’t that the purpose of CAF?
People who are non-Catholics can come here and have certain aspects of the Catholic faith clarified. Catholics can also learn what THEY truly believe and not what we HEARD they believe. Does that make sense?
That’s what I mean by celebrate.
Dialogue only works with honest, equal participants. If it is only about changing someone’s views, it’s not dialogue.
We call that being banned.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am explaining the foundation of free speech.

No you’re not.

Free speech wasn’t founded with your First Amendment, unless you are going to argue that there is no free speech anywhere outside of the USA, and that free speech in the USA didn’t exist before 1791.

 

[CutlerB]

No you’re not.

Free speech wasn’t founded with your First Amendment, unless you are going to argue that there is no free speech anywhere outside of the USA, and that free speech in the USA didn’t exist before 1791.

There’s the Brit. Melikes!