Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
AP reports that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is once against calling for the world's major religions to work together. The words sound innocuous enough:
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia exhorted followers of the world's leading faiths to turn away from extremism and embrace a spirit of reconciliation, saying at the start of an interfaith conference Wednesday that history's great conflicts were not caused by religion itself but by its misinterpretation."My brothers, we must tell the world that differences don't need to lead to disputes," Abdullah said, speaking through a Spanish interpreter. "The tragedies we have experienced throughout history were not the fault of religion but because of the extremism that has been adopted by some followers of all the religions, and of all political systems."
Abdullah's comments came at the start of a Saudi-sponsored gathering that aims to bring Muslims, Christians and Jews closer together at a time when the world often puts the three faiths at odds.
But remember, this is the same oppressive dictator who previously proposed that the three Abrahamic religions should join forces against....well, everyone else:
"If God wills it, we will then meet with our brothers from other religions, including those of the Torah and the Gospel to come up with ways to safeguard humanity," he added. The king, who is the guardian of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, said the major faiths shared a desire to combat "the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world"...According to the official Saudi Press Agency King Abdullah said "I have noticed that the family system has weakened and that atheism has increased. That is an unacceptable behavior to all religions, to the Koran, the Torah and the Bible. We ask God to save humanity. There is a lack of ethics, loyalty and sincerity for our religions and humanity."
Abdullah, like many others, has called for an international law prohibiting "defamation" of religion. As I said a few days ago, I'm just not inclined to accept lectures about ethics from a brutal dictator whose regime beheads people for being of the wrong religion, puts gay people to death and has roving gangs (they call them police) whose job is to beat women who leave the house unattended by a male relative. You're gonna lecture me on ethics, you fascist asshole?
Politics
Comments
Why should religions get an anti-defamation allowance? I mean, apart from having to first define what constitutes a "religion" (Does a non-theistic Buddhism or Confucianism count? Does the FSM count? What about cults like "Aum Shinrikyo" or small "break-away" sects like the "Branch Dividians"?), one has to constantly worry about whether something someone says about a religion would be found to be defamation of that religion by any one follower of it. Even pronouncements of one religious holy text about other religions (e.g., "Thou shalt have no gods before me.") could be construed by someone else as defaming their religion.
In addition, many religions don't have a strict hierarchy. Even Christianity, with its myriad churches within Protestantism doesn't have a single "hierarchy", and there would be calls of bloody murder (or an appropriate equivalent) if one were suggested. Apart from very few instances (such as the Anglicanism, Catholicism and Mormonism), there isn't one person (or "supreme council") that can make judgments for the entire religion (and you'll note that all three instances I named are variants of Christianity - although Mormonism is a wide variant).
So if there were an international "defamation" law for religions, who would have standing to bring suit? Would it be anyone who wishes to do so if they are representing a very horizontally ordered religion (like FSM), or would suits only be heard if it were brought by a supreme leader or supreme council (thus negating the ability of religious organizations like FSM from taking part)? How would the law take into account statements made by one priest that goes against the decision of the supreme leader/council?
I propose that if religions do end up getting an international law prohibiting defamation, that someone set up a "Church of Humanism and Atheism" (or something similar) to justify demanding equal non-defamation of humanism and atheism. (Of course, religiously un-free countries like Saudi Arabia would likely be one of the first to deny recognition of such an institution.)
Although the potential limitations to freedoms of speech are also quite obvious, I'll let others get on that one.
Posted by: Umlud | July 18, 2008 10:01 AM
Ed - Calm down! To really get things done, I think we should properly address these people, and I believe we need to treat these people with the respect that they deserve.
Therefore, your last line should read "you fascist asshole, that was lucky enough to be born a King".
Posted by: J-Dog | July 18, 2008 10:06 AM
Furthermore, Umlud, what if someone set up the "Church of Dopesmoking Sexfeinds" then moved thier operation to Mecca? Could the Saudis sue this church? If they did could the CoDS counter sue? Remember this would be an international court probably in the Hague or somewhere. Such laws would not foster co-operation between faiths, it would drive wedges between them, with totally unpredictable consequences. A Hobbesian war between the faiths is just what the world doesn't need now (or ever) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 18, 2008 10:19 AM
I hope someone takes it into their head to ask the king whether his union of monotheisms will have room for Bahaiism,
Ahmadiyya Islam, Aleviism, and other monotheist religions routinely suppressed in muslim countries.
Posted by: csrster | July 18, 2008 10:22 AM
my, getting desperate arn't they.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 18, 2008 11:11 AM
Pat Robertson's injudicious activists at the ACLJ have lately been making a big fuss against "a U.N. resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" which they seem to see as an Islamic plot to "criminalize Christianity".
Can anyone here see through the hysteria and describe what's actually going on?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 18, 2008 11:13 AM
Uhhh, nope. I'm gonna say religion itself, not just misinterpretation, as Abdullah's scripturally-correct bigotry shows. The idea that there could actually be a thing which could never lead to conflicts is pretty absurd. Religion, just like any human-made system, is fallible.
Posted by: Wes | July 18, 2008 12:48 PM
To Pierce R. Butler...
Yes, we can make sense of it. Ed Brayton and the ACLJ agree! That doesn't happen often, but in this instance, from this very blog post, you can see that they both agree that the ability to defame religions is free speech, and that a ban prohibiting defamation of religions is bad.
And, as it turns out, both are right.
Posted by: Jim Babka | July 18, 2008 12:52 PM
I've always been amused how being rude to people is totally accepted, but being rude about a concept (or a fictional character often: God) can draw such intolerance...
Posted by: Dan | July 18, 2008 1:05 PM
Time for a Mencken quote, I think:
"Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he please, provided only he does not try and inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge."
Posted by: Gretchen | July 18, 2008 1:49 PM
Jim Babka: And, as it turns out, both are right.
Okay, but... My question was in search of facts, not opinions.
Sekulow and friends imply that this measure now before the UN would lead to having everyone professing christianism out loud getting their doors kicked in by jackbooted black helicopters.
Does anybody have a reality-based report on this proposal and its likely consequences?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 18, 2008 4:38 PM
Gretchen, you quoted this:
But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them.
Jim Babka said this:
That doesn't happen often, but in this instance, from this very blog post, you can see that they both agree that the ability to defame religions is free speech, and that a ban prohibiting defamation of religions is bad.
Umlud said this:
Why should religions get an anti-defamation allowance?
For the record, I do not think that religions should be immune from criticism. In fact nobody should. Now, I would be interested to hear all your opinions on this:
http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/06/13/world-congress-of-families-decries-brazilian-presidents-call-to-criminalize-opposition-to-homosexuality/
Is this where we are headed? Gays get to be insulated by the law from criticism? Would you all support or oppose what this guy said?
Posted by: mroberts | July 18, 2008 5:01 PM
Jesus, mroberts, do you ever talk about anything other than homosexuality?
Ed and that vast majority of commenters here have made it clear many times that even homophobic bigots have free speech rights and that "hate speech" should not be outlawed. Ed has posted whole topics on exactly this. It's only a small contingent of (mostly Canadian) people here who would outlawed homophobic rants like yours. And since you don't live in Canada, you don't have much to fear from them.
Posted by: Wes | July 18, 2008 6:09 PM
Jim Babka wrote:
Well, kinda. The difference is that I'm framing the issue honestly and the ACLJ is framing it in a highly dishonest, utterly ridiculous manner.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 18, 2008 7:06 PM
mroberts wrote:
That you would even bother to ask that question shows just how little of reality seems to get through to you. I have written dozens, perhaps hundreds, of posts condemning all such laws in other countries harshly and unequivocally. The vast majority of my readers agree with me, a small minority do not.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 18, 2008 7:08 PM
Essentially, the UN proposal requires member countries to prohibit criticism of religion.
The secularists (us) worry it will be used to silence all those who dare to point out how stupid religions can be.
The Christians (them) love the idea of being shielded from criticism - but they have noticed that the countries that proposed it in the UN are largely muslim-majority, and they are concerned (with good reason) that it might be used selectively as a tool to silence Christians who attempt to criticise Islam or to convert Muslims.
For once, both christians and secularists agree, though for different reasons.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | July 18, 2008 7:13 PM
mroberts - instead of linking to a summary of a knee-jerk bigoted reaction, why not link to the story that caused that knee-jerk bigoted reaction? Are we to respond to the reaction or the original piece? Are you one that agrees with the reaction, or stands against it? If so, on what grounds are you making your argument? So many murky questions, so little actual information from you... However, I'll humor your question (apologies to all for going off-topic).
"Is this where we're headed?" If by "this" you mean protecting those inherent things that a person cannot choose - their social, racial, and sexual identity - as opposed to those they can - their belief systems, economic decisions, and personal actions - then I would say, "I hope so."
My reasoning goes a little like this:
Can one choose what one's own belief system? I believe one can. I've done it and, I've seen others do it. These therefore fall in my general category of "personal decisions," and thus are not something that should be protected against, viz anti-defamation legislation. Can one choose one's own sexual orientation? I believe one cannot. Therefore, bigotry against one's sexual orientation - much like one's ethnicity - should be protected against viz anti-defamation legislation.
Now, if a homosexual is bigoted against heterosexuals, then I would have as little sympathy for that bigot's POV as I would if the roles were reversed. Bigotry against inherent characteristics (such as those outlined above) should not (imho) be tolerated. (And please don't accuse me of being intolerant as I preach tolerance. I never said that I was universally tolerant - which is itself an untenable position.)
Now that I've answered your question mroberts, why not follow Wes' advice, and return your questions and statements to the posting at hand (or go back and show how King Abdullah's hypocritical and dangerous call for anti-defamation based on one's personal actions and choices is tied to your posting of a link to a bigoted knee-jerk reaction to President Lula's actions to protect inherent identity, and therefore civil liberties)?
Posted by: Umlud | July 18, 2008 7:31 PM
That you would even bother to ask that question shows just how little of reality seems to get through to you. I have written dozens, perhaps hundreds, of posts condemning all such laws in other countries harshly and unequivocally.
That's great Ed, but I don't think I was asking just you. The problem is that so many don't agree with you and are happy to push legislation that would outlaw criticism of gays. For instance, this from Umlud:
Therefore, bigotry against one's sexual orientation - much like one's ethnicity - should be protected against viz anti-defamation legislation.
As far as I know, you can express racist views and not end up in jail for it. However, gays seem to be more than willing to push for laws that would criminalize criticism of homosexuality. Sorry, but no group should be insulated from criticism. Yeah racists are scummy, but they have a right to be a racist even if somebody else doesn't like it. And people should have a right to criticize homosexuals too. Free speech is a requirement for a free society. The constitution does not say anything about a right not to be offended.
Jesus, mroberts, do you ever talk about anything other than homosexuality?
Uh Wes, if you have ever bothered to pay attention, you would have discovered that my central issue is not with homosexuality per se, but the implications it has for free speech and the expression of religious beliefs. I don't really care what two gay guys do in their bedroom, but I do care when they start trying to pass laws that infringe on my first amendment rights, such as with hate crimes laws. I asked the question to see how principled people are on this board on the issue of free speech. Far too often lefties say they are for free speech but are more than happy to stifle it when it comes to conservatives.
Oh, and if you happen to think you are such a tolerant person, how about not using the name of the central figure of Christianity as a form of profanity? It would be nice to see the same tolerance demanded of me extended back to me for a change.
Posted by: mroberts | July 18, 2008 7:53 PM
mroberts, you have yet to explain how your previous comment was linked to the topic of the post.
Still waiting...
Posted by: Umlud | July 18, 2008 7:59 PM
"As far as I know, you can express racist views and not end up in jail for it. However, gays seem to be more than willing to push for laws that would criminalize criticism of homosexuality."
Just curious, why are you treating "gays" as some kind of monolith? They have, you know, a relatively wide range of opinions of various political issues.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 18, 2008 8:00 PM
mroberts, I have already told you that I do not support legislation which criminalizes homophobic speech. Perhaps you remember-- you made the absurd argument that we should not legalize gay marriage because it would lead to homophobic speech becoming illegal, and I replied that in fact there is no slippery slope that would cause America to adopt the speech laws of Canada, England, or any other less free speech-friendly country should it legalize gay marriage. You might as well have argued that we never should have allowed miscegenation, as they would then start trying to pass laws against racist speech. Considering how many countries seem to think it a great idea to prohibit anti-religious speech (to bring it back to the actual topic of this thread), perhaps we should take away the right of religious people to get married, hmm?
Jesus fucking tap-dancing Christ, it would be nice if you would acknowledge the difference between tolerating something legally and tolerating it socially. You can eject me from a party for saying offensive things about Christianity (or Islam, or homosexuality, or goat milking, or cross-stitch). You cannot, and should not, be able to bring the force of government against me for it by having me fined or arrested.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 18, 2008 8:06 PM
Just curious, why are you treating "gays" as some kind of monolith? They have, you know, a relatively wide range of opinions of various political issues.
I'm sure they do, and that is true of every group. However, gay activists are the ones pushing for legislation that restricts my freedom of speech and conscience. Just because some gays may disagree with doing that does not minimize the fact that gays are doing it.
Posted by: mroberts | July 18, 2008 8:06 PM
Oh please, mroberts. Anyone can see that you are completely and totally obsessed with homosexuality. You keep trying to frame it in terms of irrelevant "free speech" issues. Just let it go. No one really cares how you feel on the subject, but for some reason you can't stop beating a horse that was never alive to begin with.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 18, 2008 8:10 PM
Jesus fucking tap-dancing Christ, it would be nice if you would acknowledge the difference between tolerating something legally and tolerating it socially. You can eject me from a party for saying offensive things about Christianity (or Islam, or homosexuality, or goat milking, or cross-stitch). You cannot, and should not, be able to bring the force of government against me for it by having me fined or arrested.
Nowhere was I advocating bringing the force of government to have you fined or arrested for saying offensive things about Christianity. I don't advocate legal penalties for speech at all, so let's set that aside. Most Christians would find it highly offensive for someone to use the name of Jesus as a form of profanity. However, you do have a right to be a complete dirtbag. Just don't bother demanding tolerance from me when you apparently are the last one to extend it back. I've often found that those who demand tolerance from me are ALWAYS the last ones to extend it back.
Perhaps you remember-- you made the absurd argument that we should not legalize gay marriage because it would lead to homophobic speech becoming illegal, and I replied that in fact there is no slippery slope that would cause America to adopt the speech laws of Canada, England, or any other less free speech-friendly country should it legalize gay marriage.
Yeah, I know, you always deny that free speech already is being eroded in this country. You always assure me that my freedom of religion is being completely respected even when people are being fined for refusing based on religious beliefs to photograph a gay commitment ceremony in NM or being a doctor and refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple in CA. Or being told by a judge that parents have no say in the matter of gay education in schools as was the case with David Parker in MA, or being told by a judge that gay rights trump religious rights like in the case of the "Philadelphia 11" in PA, or losing their job simply because they referred a gay client to another counselor because of religious conflicts like what recently happened with Marcia Walden at the CDC. Yeah Gretchen, I can see how I have nothing to worry about.
Posted by: mroberts | July 18, 2008 8:19 PM
Oh please, mroberts. Anyone can see that you are completely and totally obsessed with homosexuality. You keep trying to frame it in terms of irrelevant "free speech" issues. Just let it go. No one really cares how you feel on the subject, but for some reason you can't stop beating a horse that was never alive to begin with.
Yeah, irrelevant only to those that are clueless, in denial, or just liars. Just saying it does not make it so Sadie. And if people really didn't care what I say about it, why are they - and YOU - bothering to respond to my posts?
Anyone can see that you are completely and totally obsessed with homosexuality.
Yeah, that's it. I'm sure I would spend this much time arguing about something as ridiculous as this subject if it were not for gays trying ram the whole issue down my throat and then take away my right to disagree. What happened to live and let live? I liked that a lot better. Being a happily straight and married guy, I can think of many things I would rather think about than this.
Posted by: mroberts | July 18, 2008 8:26 PM
mroberts, you have yet to explain how your first comment was linked to the topic of the post.
Still waiting...
Posted by: Umlud | July 18, 2008 8:29 PM
mroberts said:
Mroberts, I've never demanded tolerance from you. I've demanded rational arguments, but not tolerance. You can call me all of the names in the book if you'd actually present good reasons for your beliefs.
Err...no I don't. I do think the U.S. has it better than any other country (that I know of) in terms of freedom of speech, but there's still much to work on. That still doesn't justify denying gays the rights to marry, and you have yet to show that there is any reason why I should believe otherwise. I notice you didn't bother to comment on whether we should deny blacks or religious people the right to marry because some advocate that criticizing them should be criminalized. My guess on the reason for this is that it's really not about free speech for you at all.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 18, 2008 8:35 PM
Head for the hills! Homos getting married are taking away mroberts' civil rights!!!
or being told by a judge that gay rights trump religious rights
Yeah, can't let civil liberties 'trump' religious rights. If mroberts' favored religion says gays shouldn't have civil rights, then it's violating his 'religious rights' to let them have it.
Posted by: George Cauldron | July 18, 2008 8:50 PM
Bullshit. You post about homosexuality incessantly, even in threads which have nothing to do with homosexuality. It's obviously something you obsess about. Maybe you just need to get a boyfriend.
You asked a completely and utterly irrelevant question which has already been answered by Ed and other people on this blog many times before. In other words: you're just being a troll.
Jesus titty-fucking Christ, no. I didn't demand any tolerance from you at all. In fact, I clearly said that homophobic morons like you should be free to speak your minds all you want. Go right ahead and be an idiot. Say all the anti-gay things you want. I would never dream of demanding tolerance from a private individual.
But, since you brought up tolerance: Since I have to tolerate your homophobic stupidity, you're just gonna have to tolerate me blaspheming your nonexistent Sky Daddy. Deal with it.
Posted by: Wes | July 18, 2008 9:32 PM
"I'm sure they do, and that is true of every group. However, gay activists are the ones pushing for legislation that restricts my freedom of speech and conscience."
Okay, can you name one recent piece of such legislation and the gay individuals and/or organizations backing the effort?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 18, 2008 9:47 PM
Ed, perhaps you have missed the most arrogant assumption of all on the part of His Highness the Fascist Asshole: from a Muslim perspective, no religion except the three Abrahamic faiths even counts as a religion. Therefore the questions about Confucianists, FSM, Buddhists, etc is simply irrelevant. I have had not one but three different Muslims tell me this over the years: from their perspective, Judaism and Christianity, although false religions, at least "make an attempt to acknowledge God." Other faiths are not even worthy of consideration from a philosophical standpoint; they don't even count as religion. So really, what he is saying is that the three monothesisms should become one mono-monotheism for the sake of expediency in persecuting everyone else.
Sorry, Pastafarians, you're not getting out of this one without losing a few noodly appendages.
Posted by: eugene_X | July 19, 2008 3:47 AM
Firstly, hate crimes laws are not the same as hate speech laws. A hate crime can only exist where an actual crime has been committed: such as assault and battery, arson, vandalism, and murder. The hate crime law simply deals with the crime having multiple victims: those who suffered directly, and those who were deliberately terrorized for being in the same group as the victims. For example, a swastika painted on a synagogue is not only damage to the paint, but implies a threat to Jews, whether they attend that synagogue or not.
Secondly, no one has ever passed a law exempting gays from criticism. Even under hate *speech* laws, I'm sure you could say, "Ellen DeGeneres needs a new make up artist, I don't think she's at all funny, and isn't the media fuss over her ridiculous?" But you don't really mean that you want to criticize people. You mean you want to get your co-religionists angry and inflamed; to be able to use the most extreme language you can think of to lambaste people who you don't understand because they don't follow the ideals of your religion, although they harm no one. You want more transsexual teenagers murdered. You want more people beaten up for not fitting some redneck idea of gender norms. You want secondhand citizenship for a large minority.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | July 19, 2008 4:14 AM
Speech versus Action.
I saw a nice quote, perhaps on this blog, about how the ravings of a madman should, of course, be protected, as long is he harms no-one.
Yet many countries have laws against incitement to violence. That is, in situations where it is clear that the speech has the only (or primary) purpose of causing violent, harmful acts, the speech can be outlawed to 'pre-empt' the illegal actions.
Also, outlawing certain symbols and speeches can have a symbolic effect in itself: The state makes a statement. Think about it, why are the homophobes so upset about gay marriage? Because it means that the status quo implicit non-acceptance of gay equal rights would be lifted. They care about the symbolism (well, and probably other things too). Symbolic acts can matter (even if they shouldn't).
There's also the interesting case of libel. Although lying is almost never against the law (except when it's perjury), when a lie about someone can be seen to cause material damage, for example, it's not free anymore.
Personally, I'm not sure where I stand. In principle, I'd like everyone to weigh the evidence of statements for themselves, and not take anything on face value. But the reality is that the average populace is far more sheepish than that. They crave to be told what to do. And in that situation, incitement to violence is far more consequential than the ravings of a lunatic.
Shouldn't people be held responsible for what they say, in certain situations?
Posted by: Dan | July 19, 2008 9:20 AM
mroberts is being somewhat disingenuous. He always mentions free speech, but it's a red herring. When it comes to specifics, it's "free speech and the expression of religious beliefs" or "my freedom of speech and conscience". None of the examples he gives (without links) are speech issues at all. Admit it mroberts, you're not worried about the freedom to say what you want about gays, you're worried about the freedom to discriminate against gays in the name of your religious rights. So how far do you think it should go? It doesn't bother you that a counselor refused to counsel someone because they were gay. Should a Christian be able to refuse to rent an apartment to someone who's gay? If the answer is yes, do you not see a slippery-slope problem there? If the answer is no, then why not? Aren't you violating the landlord's religious rights?
Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2008 11:38 AM
To this story, I say that the irreligious among us should join with our religious bretheren to oppose the truly evil polytheists. Bastards, all of 'em!
Posted by: Kev | July 19, 2008 1:30 PM
Most of you bashing me for being concerned about my religious freedom are either completely braindead, in denial, or outright liars. I tend to think that most of you would be in the last category. A photographer in New Mexico is fined by the New Mexico Human Rights commission for refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony because it violated their religious convictions and you say that Christians have nothing to worry about. You people LIE through your teeth.
Jesus titty-fucking Christ, no.
Wow Wes, I can tell you are a real quality person. A real shining example of tolerance and respect there.
Posted by: mroberts | July 19, 2008 7:39 PM
mroberts - I didn't bash you, I asked you a legitimate question which you chose to ignore in favor of hurling insults. And once again you cite what is supposed to be an example that backs up your contentions, but you give no source so we can check it out. So once again I pose my hypothetical: do you think it's ok for a landlord to refuse to rent an apartment to a homosexual on religious grounds?
Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2008 9:11 PM
It's pretty rich for you to speak of "outright liars," mroberts. Nobody here has said you have "nothing to worry about" concerning freedom of speech. All we have done is ask you repeatedly to justify your claim that allowing gays to marry will lead to laws against homophobic speech in the United States. I also asked you to be consistent and apply these standards to other groups who are demanding laws against criticizing them-- notably religious groups, which actually pertains to this post. You have not answered, which adds confirmation to my suspicion that this is a gay issue for you, and not a free speech issue.
Nobody is bashing you for being concerned about your religious freedom, either, and yet you insist on repeating that lie. So I guess that makes you both a liar and a hypocrite, for accusing others of doing what you do most egregiously.
About as tolerant and respectful as calling people braindead, I would say. If you want respect and tolerance, you should try earning it. Hint: bitching endlessly about not being respected does not qualify.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 19, 2008 9:23 PM
mroberts,
That really is hilarious coming from someone who started their comment by calling anyone who disagreed with him "completely braindead, in denial, or outright liars."
As for your photographer example; Are you trying to say that the photographer should have a right to discriminate against gays?
Would you feel the same way if the photographer had refused to photograph a black couple?
Posted by: Malcolm | July 19, 2008 9:28 PM
I've just read a little about the New Mexico photographer, and my first reaction is to take the photographer's side, although it's not a cut-and-dried issue. I would assume even mroberts would agree that there are professions which should definitely not be allowed to withhold services because of religious opposition to homosexuality: doctors, nurses, cops, fire fighters, for example. Would you agree with that, mroberts? What about anyone working a government job? Should they be barred from discrimination based on sexual orientation? Can the clerk at the DMV refuse to renew my license if she thinks I'm gay? How about restaurants and stores? How about my hypothetical landlord? Where along the spectrum do you draw the line?
Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2008 9:39 PM
I have zero respect for mroberts or his beliefs. If that makes me intolerant, well, call me Ishmael.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 19, 2008 10:07 PM
I would like to know exactly how photographing this commitment ceremony would violate someone's religious beliefs. Is just attending the thing proscribed in Leviticus, or is it the act of taking pictures? This strikes me as being much more of a political act than a religious one.
Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2008 10:13 PM
So once again I pose my hypothetical: do you think it's ok for a landlord to refuse to rent an apartment to a homosexual on religious grounds?
Yes. If it is private property the landlord has a right to refuse to rent to whomever he wants. Why does a gay person have the right to change the law so that the landlord doesn't have the right to do what he wishes with his property? The gay person doesn't have to live there, he can go somewhere else. If am the landlord and living in the same building, maybe I don't want my kids exposed to that.
So once again I pose my hypothetical: do you think it's ok for a landlord to refuse to rent an apartment to a homosexual on religious grounds?
Look it up! I did a quick search on "New Mexico", "photographer" and "fine" and found dozens of links.
All we have done is ask you repeatedly to justify your claim that allowing gays to marry will lead to laws against homophobic speech in the United States.
Unbelievable! And you wonder why I call you braindead? I have posting about this all the time! The more legitimacy gays get, the more they suppress the religious rights of others. You people are so obtuse. I just talked about the photographer thing. Colorado now has gender-neutral bathrooms, and the law that made that happen contains language that could be construed to outlaw anything that might be deemed hate-speech against homosexuals. Look it up, do a search on "CO gender neutral bathrooms". I mentioned the issue of David Parker, who was told by a judge that he has no right to decided whether or not his kids in the public school should be exposed to homosexual indoctrination. Search "David Parker" and you will get plenty of links. California passed a law last year that prevents anything from being taught in the public schools that might be deemed unflattering to gays. Look up SB 777 and you will find plenty of links. Even AIDS statistics could fall under that. The more legitimacy gays get, which is what the marriage issue really is all about (gays couldn't give a rats about marriage), the more they step all over the rights of others.
I also asked you to be consistent and apply these standards to other groups who are demanding laws against criticizing them-- notably religious groups, which actually pertains to this post.
NO group should be immune from criticism, including gays.
You have not answered, which adds confirmation to my suspicion that this is a gay issue for you, and not a free speech issue.
Wow, since you're such a great mind reader, why am I even bothering to argue? You've got it all figured out there expert.
About as tolerant and respectful as calling people braindead, I would say. If you want respect and tolerance, you should try earning it. Hint: bitching endlessly about not being respected does not qualify.
I never said I was tolerant. Its the lefties that are always demanding everybody be tolerant to each other, and then they freely sling the crap that Wes did. And calling people "braindead" was not so much an insult as calling it like it is. You people endlessly ask that I give you examples of how Christians are being suppressed by the gay movement, I give them, then you continue to ask for them. If that isn't braindead I don't know what is.
As for your photographer example; Are you trying to say that the photographer should have a right to discriminate against gays?
A private person has a right to choose whomever they will or will not photograph. Those gays could very easily have moved on and found somebody else more accomodating, but they had to stick it to them with the idiotic New Mexico Human Rights Commission. Absolutely pathetic.
Would you feel the same way if the photographer had refused to photograph a black couple?
Lame statement. Those that support gay marriage always like to throw out this ridiculous argument. Plenty of people have gone from being gay to being straight, but I don't know anybody that has managed to go from white to black. Homosexuality and race is a pure BS comparison. It is amazing that this is scienceblogs and that "argument" still gets airtime.
I would assume even mroberts would agree that there are professions which should definitely not be allowed to withhold services because of religious opposition to homosexuality: doctors, nurses, cops, fire fighters, for example. Would you agree with that, mroberts? What about anyone working a government job? Should they be barred from discrimination based on sexual orientation? Can the clerk at the DMV refuse to renew my license if she thinks I'm gay?
I agree with your thinking with regard to the professions mentioned. I hardly think that any Christian would have a problem operating on a gay person or putting out a fire at a gay person's house. The photographer situation is different because they felt that they would be validating the homosexual lifestyle if they participated in the commitment ceremony, and validating that would be against their beliefs. I'm sure they would feel the same about photographing a strip show. Besides, private businesses should be allowed to serve whomever they want. The government should stay out of that.
I have zero respect for mroberts or his beliefs. If that makes me intolerant, well, call me Ishmael.
Yeah, I'm such a big bad hater aren't I Sadie? I've seen FAR, FAR more hatred coming from the left on this issue than religious people. Try wearing a "Jesus Loves You" t-shirt at a gay pride parade and you will see plenty of hate. Or better yet, go to an ex-gay conference like the recent Love Won Out conference recently in Massachussetts and you will see plenty of hatred from the protesters.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/info/kbase/facist_tactics.html
I would like to know exactly how photographing this commitment ceremony would violate someone's religious beliefs.
Photographing the ceremony would be a form of validation of homosexuality in the minds of the photographers and a violation of their religious beliefs.
Posted by: mroberts | July 20, 2008 1:09 AM
mroberts said:
And the more your delusion and homophobia becomes apparent.
...which still does not answer my question. If members of a group demands legal protection from criticism, should they be prohibited to marry, since allowing them the right to marry provides legitimacy? If so, why do you deny gays the right to marry, but give blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and every other group who has had members make such demands a pass?
Kindly provide an example of any person here-- Wes, or me, or anyone else-- demanding any such thing. If you can't, then kindly shut the hell up about what "lefties" (which I am not; I don't know about Wes) demand. It doesn't pertain to our conversations.
Because you are unable to comprehend that homosexuals are not automatons who think exactly the same, you appear equally unable to comprehend that a) most homosexuals by far have absolutely no desire to suppress your rights, and b) by contrast, merely desire to have the same rights you have. What's more, homosexuals aren't the only ones who think they should have the same rights as everyone else. If there's anyone who deserves to be called braindead, it's you for not understanding this.
Neither one harms anyone. Neither one makes you less of a person. Neither one makes you less deserving of rights. That is why the comparison is valid, and your failure to recognize it is why people call you a fucking moron again and again and refuse to respect your beliefs.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 20, 2008 1:28 AM
Unbelievable! And you wonder why I call you braindead?
Well, no. You're the guy who thinks his position is superior--yet those positions are more unsafe than the alternatives.
That's braindead. And I'm calling it like it is.
Posted by: gwangung | July 20, 2008 1:49 AM
Unbelievable. That's tortured non-reasoning.
Posted by: gwangung | July 20, 2008 1:51 AM
mroberts,
Bzzzt! Wrong, thank you for playing the game.
The reason why the comparison between race and sexuality still gets airtime is that only bigoted fools can't see the validity of the argument.
No one chooses their sexuality. Gays may choose to get married to people of the opposite gender, but that doesn't mean that they are straight. All it proves is that dickheads like you have bullied them into living a lie.
The whole gay marriage thing is just about giving gay people the same rights as everyone else.
Posted by: Malcolm | July 20, 2008 3:29 AM
Is photography a religious activity now? Some new kind of sacrament, perhaps? Or did the photographer advertise his or her services to the public?
This looks to me like someone being fined for breaching the civil rights of another through a discriminatory act, not speech.
Again, is AI now a sacrament? Was the procedure to be performed in a church? Or was it made available to the public, with this doctor then denying service to someone based on their sexual orientation?
Another discriminatory act against homosexuals, another breach of their civil rights, and no free speech issue involved because no speech was suppressed.
1) Gay education? What the smeg is "gay education"? If you mean teaching that gay people exist, this is an objective fact about the world. If you mean teaching that gay people are equal in rights and human dignity to others, then why doesn't saying the same thing about Christians constitute "Christian education"? I doubt Christianists like you would be satisfied.
2) Not being given control of curricula does not constitute a breach of anyone's free speech rights.
Funny you should mention them, seeing as how they were arrested for intentionally disrupting the peaceful gathering of others. They also disobeyed the orders of police, who were perfectly within the law in ordering them to disperse (look up "Heckler's Veto"). Regardless, all charges against them were thrown out on First Amendment grounds.
Perhaps you can quote the passage in the decision where the judge says "Gay rights trump religious rights"?
Posted by: DaveL | July 20, 2008 7:54 AM
Roberts, Roberts, Roberts. Don't you think we've already heard all the talking points that you uncritically downloaded from the right-wing propaganda machine?
I'm not going to bore you by pointing out, again, what an abysmal sham the "ex-gay movement" is. I'm going to ask you a direct question:
"If we were to invent a pill that would turn black people white, giving them all the secondary features associated with caucasians, and even wipe their memories clean of their childhood culture, inculcating them with memories of a white european heritage, would it then become acceptable to put up the "Whites Only" sign?"
Surely any sane person recoils in horror at the thought. That's because the idea, though popularly repeated, that it's wrong to discriminate against blacks because they can't choose otherwise is absurd. It's wrong to discriminate against black people because there's nothing wrong with being black, because being black is equal in dignity and rights to being white. Race is not an offence for which we excuse people because they can't help it.
Therefore your use attempt to use "choice" to distinguish between race and sexual orientation fails utterly. Time to run back to O'Reily and Chuck Norris for some new talking points.
Posted by: DaveL | July 20, 2008 8:07 AM
Because you are unable to comprehend that homosexuals are not automatons who think exactly the same, you appear equally unable to comprehend that a) most homosexuals by far have absolutely no desire to suppress your rights, and b) by contrast, merely desire to have the same rights you have.
Sounds like there was an implicit acknowledgment in there that there ARE gays out there trying to suppress religious freedom. The fact that some gays are not interested in suppressing religious freedom does not change the fact that it is happening.
If members of a group demands legal protection from criticism, should they be prohibited to marry, since allowing them the right to marry provides legitimacy? If so, why do you deny gays the right to marry, but give blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and every other group who has had members make such demands a pass?
Wow, that has got to be some of the most convoluted "reasoning" I have seen in a long time. Your question has absolutely no relevance because those groups have not made any demands to get their marriages recognized because they already fit the male/female traditional requirement of marriage!
From gwangung:
Well, no. You're the guy who thinks his position is superior--yet those positions are more unsafe than the alternatives.
And you don't think your position is superior? LOL. What a ridiculous statement. If you don't, then why bother arguing?
From DaveL:
I'm not going to bore you by pointing out, again, what an abysmal sham the "ex-gay movement" is.
Really? And if a man insists he is no longer gay and marries and woman and has 5 kids, how are you going to prove he is still gay? Tell me DaveL. And why would you not take his word for it when you probably would accept at face value the word of man who insists he really is a woman trapped in a mans body?
Posted by: mroberts | July 20, 2008 11:00 AM
Hey mroberts, for all your talk about gays/lefties/anyone who disagrees with you wanting to "suppress" your rights to free speech, have you ever noticed how vehemently you seem to oppose the discourse of those with views contrary to your own? Don't forget, it was you who entered this blog with nothing but insults leveled against us, and yet your mode of argument, without fail, is always to complain about how "intolerant" we are for criticizing you. If you've never heard of projection, it's time to look it up. You're a textbook example. Oh, and you're completely obsessed with homosexuality too. I think you should start asking yourself why exactly it bothers you so much. Someone who's secure in both his sexuality and his religion wouldn't complain as much as you do (or look for conspiracy absolutely everywhere). Have a good one.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 20, 2008 11:14 AM
Surprise, surprise, mroberts has decided to completely ignore my arguments.
Well, if you do want to tread this path again...
If the history of the ex-gay movement is any indication, stake out the gay bars... or just wait until he outs himself.
Wait... I don't suppose you are that "ex-gay" man with 5 kids?
Because the former is motivated to lie to himself and others in order to escape persecution and ostracism, while the latter is not. Transexuals, in fact, must have some internal reason strong enough to overcome the persecution they will face by going public. What do you suppose that would be, if not truth?
Posted by: DaveL | July 20, 2008 11:36 AM
mroberts said:
Well, no shit. There are gays out there who don't want you to have the right to criticize them, sure. There are also gays who want to make it illegal to leave your dog un-spayed, gays who want the troops to stay in Iraq, gays who think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for president, and a whole lot of other stupid things that I disagree with. And you know what? There are Christians and Muslims and blacks who think the same thing (inserting, of course, their particular group as exempt for criticism). There are members of every goddamned group out there who think they're special and deserve for the law to protect them from any rude words. That does not justify denying the group as a whole from having the right to marry. Idiot.
Okay, mroberts, you've tipped your hand. Perhaps you are honestly concerned about your religious freedom, but that appears only to your right to bitch about gays. The real issue, for you, is that you oppose gay marriage plain and simple. If there were not a single gay on the planet who wanted in any way to threaten your freedom of speech, you'd still deny them the right to marry. And now you're afraid that not only will they get that right, but you'll be legally prevented from complaining about it.
Well, you're half right-- the other half, more bigoted and stupid. I'll let you guess which is which.
No, actually I won't do that, because obviously you won't get it, or will pretend not to get it: You do not get to deny rights to an entire group of people because some of them want to deny yours. Look into the mirror and tell yourself that as many times as is necessary for it to sink in. For pete's sake, if I went around advocating that anyone who wants to deny my rights shouldn't get married, a large swath of the U.S. population suddenly would have their marriage license revoked. You're not special, mroberts.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 20, 2008 1:58 PM
From a psychological standpoint, it has become obvious to me what is going on here. Aside from DaveL's suspicion that mroberts might be "ex-gay" (a suspicion that many of us at this point, myself included, share), Roberts is not here to argue. He's here to continually reaffirm in his own mind his "victim" status. I wish Ed's blog had an ignore feature, as this is getting absolutely ridiculous. I miss the days of intellectual debate on this blog.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 20, 2008 2:45 PM
"You're not special, mroberts."
Oh my god, that joke is so obvious...must...resist...
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 20, 2008 3:06 PM
Way back on July 18 @ 7:53PM, mroberts said:
However, mroberts has replied seven times (with upwards of 2500 words, including blockquotes) to his introduced topic of intolerance and homosexuality without answering my (seemingly reasonable question) of how it topically ties with panreligious cooperation or international religious defamation legislation. If mroberts is seeking the respect of others (and prove to others that he can - as Wes puts it - "talk about anything other than homosexuality"), then such respect would be best sought after if mroberts reasonably answers the reasonable questions posed by others (especially after the one asking for the reasonable request provided an answer to his original question).
Therefore, mroberts, I ask you once again to please explain how your first comment is topically linked to that of the original post.
I know that patience is supposedly a virtue, but waiting two days for a simple reply, especially when you have been busy answering others while ignoring my three previous requests for an answer? (It starts to look like mroberts doesn't deserve the respect he demands of others...)
However, I am still waiting...
Posted by: Umlud | July 20, 2008 3:11 PM
Umm - concerning Mrrobert's sexualitity - He is a salesman, presumeabley in his early thirties & white (a guess) and married to a women (sorry to disapoint). Is he frustrated gay? Sorry no data. Any specultion based on "profileing" seen on CSI Miami or Crimal Minds doesn't really count*, despite the show's ratings. +DJ
*I might completely disagree with his point of view, but personal attacks are hardly compelling based on the availablable EVIDENCE
Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2008 3:25 PM
Once again, our resident troll Mr. mroberts hijacks another thread. I'm just curious as to what Mr. mroberts thinks of Alabama Attorney General Troy King who was caught by his wife in the marital bed having sex with one of this male aides. Like Mr. mroberts, Mr. King is a two fisted gay basher who was head of Senator McCains' presidential election campaign until the scandal broke and he was summarily thrown under the bus.
Posted by: SLC | July 20, 2008 3:51 PM
DJ, I'm not sure whom your comment was directed to, nor if it was made in seriousness, but I would disagree that hypothesizing that someone might be struggling with homosexual urges (or who may believe he is "ex-gay") is a personal attack. For me anyway, it's an observation.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 20, 2008 4:11 PM
mroberts -
I don't necessarily buy that, but ok, forget race, use religion instead. Plenty of people have gone from being Christian to non-Christian. Should a Hindu landlord be allowed to not rent to them? Should a Christian landlord be allowed to turn away Muslims? I sure there are some that would like to. What about hotel owners?No, he doesn't. Buy an apartment building and try to refuse to rent to someone on the basis of race or religion. You'll find yourself in a load of shit. Gays are asking for protection from discrimination that religious groups already have, but you want to deny it to them in the name of religion. And you haven't answered the question in regards to restaurants and stores. Should they be allowed to refuse service to gays?Exposed to what? Do you think because they're gay they'll be having sex in the hallways? Would you not mind if straight people were doing that? I think you're buying into some pretty bad stereotypes here.Posted by: Taz | July 20, 2008 7:12 PM
Re: King Abdullah
Am I the only one who thought it was ironic that a man with 30 wives is talking about the weaking the family system?
Posted by: wrpd | July 20, 2008 9:22 PM
Am I the only one who thought it was ironic that a man with 30 wives is talking about the weaking the family system?
Unfortunately, you probably are. Everyone else has been too distracted by the resident troll and his obsessions to recall WTF the original post was about.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 20, 2008 11:15 PM
I'm glad I don't fit the definition of what you consider to be a "quality person". And I have no respect for you. You lost my respect a long time ago. I have no respect for closet homos who obsessively attack other gays in order to hide their own "sinful" desires. Maybe if you were capable of having a reasonable conversation with people, and of talking about something other than gays, I could respect you.
And, like it or not, your freedom to spout anti-gay idiocy also entails my freedom to mock your non-existent god. I can make fun of Jesus and any other imaginary being all I want. That's how freedom of speech works. It has nothing to do with tolerance--it's just free expression. I'm under no obligation to respect your beliefs, and you have no power to demand that I refrain from blaspheming your Sky Fairy.
Posted by: Wes | July 21, 2008 1:14 AM
How many times have we argued this point with mroberts? Answer: dozens, if not hundreds of times. How many times has it penetrated his skull? Answer: not once. Folks, we're wasting our time trying to argue with this moron. He's a lost cause.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 21, 2008 2:15 AM