Civil unrest is a contradiction in terms.
People gather to support those they believe know the "correct" view or strategy on any issue, as well as how government officials should act to preserve unity and peace.
However, any conflict of views on what "should" be often results in un-civil conflict over what actually is.
Here's an adapted excerpt from one of my recent novels describing a public figure's reaction to press coverage. It's intended to remind readers of current events in America. The story deals with a preacher's attempts to combine his religious beliefs with political and government policy.
A candidate is entitled to follow his own conscience when dealing with issues, no matter how he chooses to name them. That right is absolute, and is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. He does not, however, have a right to forcefully impose his views on others. He can encourage others to join his mission and subscribe to his view, but he cannot in any way force others to do that.
Journalists tried to get a comment from the preacher as a candidate, but repeated attempts failed, so the various news organizations ran the story on its own, with a notation that the preacher did not respond.
This led the preacher/candidate to demand equal time and space for a response, but only if he got it without being reviewed or edited by the news outlets.
They all refused, and ran another story reporting his demand and the media's refusal. This heightened the preacher/candidate's anger, and led to picketing and demonstrations by his supporters at news outlets.
In turn, journalists documented the protests and balanced their reports with comments by editors, publishers and TV executives detailing why they refused to comply with the preacher/candidate's demand for full control of how they covered his campaign.
This refusal to cover only one side of the candidate's actions and comments angered him even more, and led to violence at protest sites and at news media facilities.
Soon, the evidence piled up enough so authorities considered arresting the candidate on charges of inciting violence, but they hesitated because his popularity could lead to more protest demonstrations and increased violence.
Privately, lawyers suggested that the candidate's actions and comments bordered on treason, in that it encouraged -- if only by inference -- a violent overthrow of the current government.
The novel from which the above is adapted is entitled "The Druid Dream," and describes efforts by followers of Druidic philosophy to deal with attempts by a missionary to control both spiritual and political actions. The book, one in a series of events in a fictional town in Pennsylvania, is available through Amazon.
People gather to support those they believe know the "correct" view or strategy on any issue, as well as how government officials should act to preserve unity and peace.
However, any conflict of views on what "should" be often results in un-civil conflict over what actually is.
Here's an adapted excerpt from one of my recent novels describing a public figure's reaction to press coverage. It's intended to remind readers of current events in America. The story deals with a preacher's attempts to combine his religious beliefs with political and government policy.
A candidate is entitled to follow his own conscience when dealing with issues, no matter how he chooses to name them. That right is absolute, and is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. He does not, however, have a right to forcefully impose his views on others. He can encourage others to join his mission and subscribe to his view, but he cannot in any way force others to do that.
Journalists tried to get a comment from the preacher as a candidate, but repeated attempts failed, so the various news organizations ran the story on its own, with a notation that the preacher did not respond.
This led the preacher/candidate to demand equal time and space for a response, but only if he got it without being reviewed or edited by the news outlets.
They all refused, and ran another story reporting his demand and the media's refusal. This heightened the preacher/candidate's anger, and led to picketing and demonstrations by his supporters at news outlets.
In turn, journalists documented the protests and balanced their reports with comments by editors, publishers and TV executives detailing why they refused to comply with the preacher/candidate's demand for full control of how they covered his campaign.
This refusal to cover only one side of the candidate's actions and comments angered him even more, and led to violence at protest sites and at news media facilities.
Soon, the evidence piled up enough so authorities considered arresting the candidate on charges of inciting violence, but they hesitated because his popularity could lead to more protest demonstrations and increased violence.
Privately, lawyers suggested that the candidate's actions and comments bordered on treason, in that it encouraged -- if only by inference -- a violent overthrow of the current government.
The novel from which the above is adapted is entitled "The Druid Dream," and describes efforts by followers of Druidic philosophy to deal with attempts by a missionary to control both spiritual and political actions. The book, one in a series of events in a fictional town in Pennsylvania, is available through Amazon.
No comments:
Post a Comment