![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipWow, fourteen days since my last update. That's probably a record of sorts.
Perth was fine. First stop was![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
caseopaya's family home in deepest darkest suburbia. Following day caught up with the good people at MARS, played a weird but workable combination of Monopoly and Game of Life and latter that evening a "How To Host a Murder" variant which was a lots of fun, which included aurickandrien and bridgetdrusilla, among many others. Kate R. makes a magnificant chocolate martini, no doubt about it. Very pleasing to see that an association that one was responsible for founding some 17 years ago is still going strong.
Gathering at the Oxford Hotel includeddelicious_irony, _fustian, darklion, lefae, and others. Afterwards caught up with Khat K., whom I hadn't seen for years and years at the Hyde Park, local punk-ish orientated pub, which still maintains the rage. To finish off the evening went to local club Sin, where I caught up with zey and radium_labs and met, I think, feathersoul. Bloody nightclubs, can't hear a thing sometimes. Caught sight of, but didn't get to talk to, karmashka_sarah.
SAGE-AU conference went smoothly, although some higher technical standards would have been appreciated. My paper (mostly non-technical) was reasonably well received, although an hour would have been better than the half-hour provided.
Other Perth events included a few days kicking around town catching up with old Perth-ites from many moons ago including Denny C., Bruce T., Richard B., Lorna W., and Jasper S. Went to the zoo to discover that a few years back most of the squirrels, which have been roaming free in the area for about 150 years, were accidently poisoned. Still managed to capture one young 'un on film so they're making a comeback. Hooray! Also had lunch with Jody A., an old high school friend whom I hadn't seen for twenty years.
Also managed to catch up briefly with excellent writer and gamerstephen_dedman and purchased his new book "Never Seen By Waking Eyes". Finished it last night. It's good. Damn good.
Elections in New Zealand and Germany both are marginal victories for the left, with strong showings by the "alternative" left parties (Greens, Maori Party in NZ, Greens, Left Party in Germany). Horse-trading for coalition partners commence, but I cannot imagine the Nationals or CDU getting a workable majority in either case, although it is possible as a "grand coalition" (Labor-National, SPD-CDU).
Sunday's service at the Unitarians was a debate between Mark Zirnsak, of the Uniting Church and Anne O'Rourke, of Liberty Victory on the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act which basically outlaws comments which may incite hatred, contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule (something I think a lot of religions and religious practises deserve). I gave the service with some rather choice comments from Unitarians in the past. I had strong comments to Dr. Zirnsak after the service for his support of the Act. Anne O'Rourke had much better and workable comments (including making defamation laws available to class action, rather to individuals alone).
Opening Words
Conscience is free. Every one follows his own best understanding. Thus to be Unitarian means the acceptance of complete freedom in matters of religion. Unitarian and individual freedom belong together. Characteristic of Unitarianism is the belief in humans potential for good, their noble calling and strong faith in enlightenment and progress. It emphasizes science as an important factor in our religion. It is enthusiastic for humanism. It emphasizes the authority of the individual conscience as opposed to creedal authority. The church is a necessary organization to mature and to spread these views.
Hungarian Unitarian Church, Budapest Bishop's office.
Reading
Douglass, Frederick. "A Plea for Free Speech in Boston," 1860, an escaped slave who became a abolitionist and a friend of the Unitarians. The following was following an angry mob broke up an abolitionist meeting in Boston
No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege. Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?
Even here in Boston, and among the friends of freedom, we hear two voices: one denouncing the mob that broke up our meeting on Monday as a base and cowardly outrage; and another, deprecating and regretting the holding of such a meeting, by such men, at such a time. We are told that the meeting was ill-timed, and the parties to it unwise.
Why, what is the matter with us? Are we going to palliate and excuse a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech, by implying that only a particular description of persons should exercise that right? Are we, at such a time, when a great principle has been struck down, to quench the moral indignation which the deed excites, by casting reflections upon those on whose persons the outrage has been committed? After all the arguments for liberty to which Boston has listened for more than a quarter of a century, has she yet to learn that the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied?
It would be no vindication of the right of speech to prove that certain gentlemen of great distinction, eminent for their learning and ability, are allowed to freely express their opinions on all subjects - including the subject of slavery. Such a vindication would need, itself, to be vindicated. It would add insult to injury. Not even an old-fashioned abolition meeting could vindicate that right in Boston just now. There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. I have no doubt that Boston will vindicate this right. But in order to do so, there must be no concessions to the enemy. When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble.
The principle must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery. A man's right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right - and there let it rest forever.
Closing Words
"Your rights are most secure if they derive from established constitutional principles, not patronage. But the equal allocation of rights is also a moral imperative. I oppose censorship not simply because I fear that the power to censor might be turned against the speech I like but in the belief that people have a moral right to engage in speech I hate. The right to view Nazi porn or tune in to Jerry Springer or Bill O'Reilly may seem ignoble compared to the right to read Montaigne, but it includes the individual's essential right to entertain moral preferences. Restrict it and you substitute the authority of the state for the individual conscience".
From "Free for All", Wendy Kaimer, Beacon Press (publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association), 2002 (in reflection of September 11, 2001)
Perth was fine. First stop was
caseopaya's family home in deepest darkest suburbia. Following day caught up with the good people at MARS, played a weird but workable combination of Monopoly and Game of Life and latter that evening a "How To Host a Murder" variant which was a lots of fun, which included aurickandrien and bridgetdrusilla, among many others. Kate R. makes a magnificant chocolate martini, no doubt about it. Very pleasing to see that an association that one was responsible for founding some 17 years ago is still going strong.Gathering at the Oxford Hotel included
delicious_irony, _fustian, darklion, lefae, and others. Afterwards caught up with Khat K., whom I hadn't seen for years and years at the Hyde Park, local punk-ish orientated pub, which still maintains the rage. To finish off the evening went to local club Sin, where I caught up with zey and radium_labs and met, I think, feathersoul. Bloody nightclubs, can't hear a thing sometimes. Caught sight of, but didn't get to talk to, karmashka_sarah.SAGE-AU conference went smoothly, although some higher technical standards would have been appreciated. My paper (mostly non-technical) was reasonably well received, although an hour would have been better than the half-hour provided.
Other Perth events included a few days kicking around town catching up with old Perth-ites from many moons ago including Denny C., Bruce T., Richard B., Lorna W., and Jasper S. Went to the zoo to discover that a few years back most of the squirrels, which have been roaming free in the area for about 150 years, were accidently poisoned. Still managed to capture one young 'un on film so they're making a comeback. Hooray! Also had lunch with Jody A., an old high school friend whom I hadn't seen for twenty years.
Also managed to catch up briefly with excellent writer and gamer
stephen_dedman and purchased his new book "Never Seen By Waking Eyes". Finished it last night. It's good. Damn good.Elections in New Zealand and Germany both are marginal victories for the left, with strong showings by the "alternative" left parties (Greens, Maori Party in NZ, Greens, Left Party in Germany). Horse-trading for coalition partners commence, but I cannot imagine the Nationals or CDU getting a workable majority in either case, although it is possible as a "grand coalition" (Labor-National, SPD-CDU).
Sunday's service at the Unitarians was a debate between Mark Zirnsak, of the Uniting Church and Anne O'Rourke, of Liberty Victory on the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act which basically outlaws comments which may incite hatred, contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule (something I think a lot of religions and religious practises deserve). I gave the service with some rather choice comments from Unitarians in the past. I had strong comments to Dr. Zirnsak after the service for his support of the Act. Anne O'Rourke had much better and workable comments (including making defamation laws available to class action, rather to individuals alone).
Opening Words
Conscience is free. Every one follows his own best understanding. Thus to be Unitarian means the acceptance of complete freedom in matters of religion. Unitarian and individual freedom belong together. Characteristic of Unitarianism is the belief in humans potential for good, their noble calling and strong faith in enlightenment and progress. It emphasizes science as an important factor in our religion. It is enthusiastic for humanism. It emphasizes the authority of the individual conscience as opposed to creedal authority. The church is a necessary organization to mature and to spread these views.
Hungarian Unitarian Church, Budapest Bishop's office.
Reading
Douglass, Frederick. "A Plea for Free Speech in Boston," 1860, an escaped slave who became a abolitionist and a friend of the Unitarians. The following was following an angry mob broke up an abolitionist meeting in Boston
No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege. Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?
Even here in Boston, and among the friends of freedom, we hear two voices: one denouncing the mob that broke up our meeting on Monday as a base and cowardly outrage; and another, deprecating and regretting the holding of such a meeting, by such men, at such a time. We are told that the meeting was ill-timed, and the parties to it unwise.
Why, what is the matter with us? Are we going to palliate and excuse a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech, by implying that only a particular description of persons should exercise that right? Are we, at such a time, when a great principle has been struck down, to quench the moral indignation which the deed excites, by casting reflections upon those on whose persons the outrage has been committed? After all the arguments for liberty to which Boston has listened for more than a quarter of a century, has she yet to learn that the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied?
It would be no vindication of the right of speech to prove that certain gentlemen of great distinction, eminent for their learning and ability, are allowed to freely express their opinions on all subjects - including the subject of slavery. Such a vindication would need, itself, to be vindicated. It would add insult to injury. Not even an old-fashioned abolition meeting could vindicate that right in Boston just now. There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. I have no doubt that Boston will vindicate this right. But in order to do so, there must be no concessions to the enemy. When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble.
The principle must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery. A man's right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right - and there let it rest forever.
Closing Words
"Your rights are most secure if they derive from established constitutional principles, not patronage. But the equal allocation of rights is also a moral imperative. I oppose censorship not simply because I fear that the power to censor might be turned against the speech I like but in the belief that people have a moral right to engage in speech I hate. The right to view Nazi porn or tune in to Jerry Springer or Bill O'Reilly may seem ignoble compared to the right to read Montaigne, but it includes the individual's essential right to entertain moral preferences. Restrict it and you substitute the authority of the state for the individual conscience".
From "Free for All", Wendy Kaimer, Beacon Press (publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association), 2002 (in reflection of September 11, 2001)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-20 05:15 am (UTC)