Browse our
Site:

What Happened to Free Speech

By N. Shuldig

Do I have to renounce Amos 'n Andy? I used to enjoy listening to and watching these two characters first on the radio and later as they were shown on the television. If length of time on the radio is any gauge of popularity, Amos 'n Andy started in 1928 and ran until 1955. In 1955, they did a augmented version which continued until 1960. The television series ran from 1951 to 1953.

How are we to react today to them? Since portrayals of black Americans like those concocted by two white men, Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll, is no longer politically correct. Should we burn the copies of Amos 'n Andy? Perhaps the stations that made money from portraying Negros in such a negative, albeit humorous, light should have to pay restoration to the blacks in America today?

It is not my purpose here to speak about Amos 'n Andy, but about the changing moral trends. Yes, Amos 'n Andy was wildly popular for nearly thirty years, quite a measure of success for any popular figure even though they made fun of the main characters, two black men, Amos and the Kingfish. The characters were portrayed as ignorant black Americans and no one thought twice about it. It was clearly accepted in its time.

But today such things are taboo. It is not proper to call a black person a Negro or such, he has to be referred to as an African-American, as if this does not identify him as a Negro.

Now my question to you is this: Were we Americans who enjoyed Amos 'n Andy wrong for enjoying the program? Were Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll wrong to come up with such characters? Was the entire generation that grew up on Amos 'n Andy an evil generation for enjoying such foolish nonsense at the expensive of American citizens of a darker nature?

Or is morality just something that is dependent on the time and place. For that generation it was alright since they did not know better and even though ignorance of the law is no excuse, still since the law was not passed until some fifty years after Amos 'n Andy began they are not subject to the full force of the law. Or is there an absolute moral code that they should have known and therefore not only are Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll guilty, but so is that entire generation, in which case perhaps restitution is in order.

Let us skip now to today's current love affair with the gays. It was not more than a few years ago that gays were know as homosexuals and perverts. Society found them disgusting and prevented them from being accepted in society. Society based itself on the bible, which decries such relationships as perversions, as it is stated in Leviticus: "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." (18:22) "And if a man lie with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (20:13)

Now what are we who put our faith in the Bible supposed to say? Are we no longer allowed to tell our children that homosexuals are perverts? Are we no longer able to have our voice counted in the newspapers that we think of homosexuals as abominations? Are we no longer to learn and teach the Bible? Or perhaps we must expunge passages which are socially and politically correct?

Shall we tell our sons to stay out of the Boy Scouts since it has become scouting grounds for pedophiles and perverts? Or can we still make our voice heard and protest such perversion?

And what about the legality of witches? In puritan America witches were burnt alive. Now the law has changed; does that make witchcraft permissible? And what about the perversion of justice of burning witches, should the state be forced to pay the descendents of executed witches under the new laws that did away with death for witches?

And what about people who were executed for crimes now that most states have done away with death penalties? Should the state compensate the descendents for wrongfully executing these people under the new laws? Or maybe we should wait another twenty years perhaps society will change the laws again and it will re-instate these laws?

The real case here is relative morality versus absolute morality. Society changes its view on what is proper and what is not. The Bible's laws are God's laws; just as God does not change, so too, His laws do not change. Societies' laws reflect societies ever changing morals. Yesterday homosexuality was a perversion; today society has deemed it a pleasure; tomorrow is anyone's guess.

And who will pay for society's reluctance to act responsibly? The family unit will. With homosexuals being called a 'family' and with the courts approval to for perverts to legally adopt children and for what reason? To legally pervert! The Western society will only become morally sicker and drown in its own perversion.

What has happened is that the law has made perversion proper and being proper a perversion.