…and this is a 
It's very nice of Obama to have occasionally acknowledged the existence of freethinkers in his speeches, but it doesn't mean much when his administration endorses blasphemy laws.
The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer.
Free speech doesn't mean you only have the right to say things that the majority agrees upon — it is also the right of a minority to offend the majority. I don't know why that is so hard to get across to some people.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: vanharris
|
October 22, 2009 10:09 AM
You want blasphemy!
The Christian’s Jehovah is God Almighty,
a cantankerous sod, vain and flighty
and, so far as I can tell,
the Christian often is as well.
Confused with doctrines hard to see,
that three is one, and one is three,
of father, son, and holy ghost,
and magic crackers called the Host,
with problems of theodicy,
it sure as Hell is idiocy.
The Jew’s Yahweh is a wrathful old bugger,
and the fervent Jew’s often a meshugener.
The doctrine, certainly, isn’t the same,
but, quite clearly, it’s just as lame.
Myths of Bronze Age goatherd nomads
metaphorically get ‘em, by the gonads.
The Moslem’s Allah is a fierce great djinn,
Submission’s the name of his religion.
Apostasy’s treated just like a crime;
they’ll threaten to kill you, to keep you in line.
The religion of peace is what they call it,
with warfare & terror, they zealously enforce it.
Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain,
Wiccan, Taoist, and the Born-Again,
on theology, they can’t all be right,
so none of them, really, can be Bright.
Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 22, 2009 10:12 AM
It's not! They just don't want you to have that right for obvious reasons.
Now why is that so hard to get across to some people?
Posted by: daveau
|
October 22, 2009 10:15 AM
I keep waiting for that guy I voted for to show up.
Posted by: Trug
|
October 22, 2009 10:15 AM
Someone needs to send Obama a copy of the works of Locke and Mill. Perhaps he needs a little re-education on what democracy and freedom of speech are really supposed to be all about.
All-in-all, this was a very lousy way to start the day. Just when we thought the theocracy was over...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 22, 2009 10:20 AM
ugh
Posted by: IaMoL
|
October 22, 2009 10:22 AM
Fred the Hun is irony challenged.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 22, 2009 10:22 AM
All very bad. I hope that fails.
Am I right in thinking that few if any of those "blasphemy" case examples were actually blasphemy charges, though? Other than paedo-Mo they all for speech against living people or groups of people, not their gods or prophets.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 22, 2009 10:23 AM
There goes my irony meter again.
Attention, United Nations! Religions do not have rights. People have rights. Religions cannot be abused or threatened. People are abused and threatened by restrictions on free speech.
Posted by: Roameo
|
October 22, 2009 10:24 AM
@Cuttlefish
And with wrath and spittle from every pulpit
they'll murder reason with their own bullshit
the hatred they show to those they once slaughtered
in their own blindness, wont be reported
because the speech made illegal and taken away
will never belong to the majorit-ay
Posted by: evinfuilt | October 22, 2009 10:32 AM
I'm not too suprised. If our country wants to treat corporations as people, with even more rights, its no stretch to give religion personhood.
Sad, wrong, stupid. Not surprising. We need to do something about that.
Posted by: DaveX | October 22, 2009 10:32 AM
"RESPECT MY MAJORI-TAY!"
Posted by: Trug
|
October 22, 2009 10:32 AM
@ #7,
Yes, there did seem to be a few of those charges that looked more racist than blasphemous. Such as the British aide who was cussing out Jews while watching a show about the Gaza conflict at the gym. There's the Jewish faith, then there's the Jewish nationality, and it seemed like he was targeting the latter.
Posted by: alopiasmag
|
October 22, 2009 10:34 AM
The world is treading in dangerous waters...
Free Speech = Free Speech
Free Speech ≠ Free Speech but...
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 22, 2009 10:35 AM
The problem with blasphemy laws is: Which religion is the right religion? (Answer: none, of course, but I mean which one is the government going to support? The Westboro Baptists?) The very existence of other religions (and inner-faith sects) is blasphemy. Anyone who ever attended a church in a small town with competing churches such as a Baptist (hellfire and brimstone) church, a Catholic (cracker consumer) church, and a Lutheran (liberal) church should know this. The more right-wing a church is, the more believers in other religions are going to burn in Hell for all eternity. President Obama knows this, too.
I'm not impressed at all so far with the stark contrast between what Obama says and what he (i.e., his administration) does. Just the other day he called insurance lobbyist claims "bogus", for example, but on the ground he is now actively seeking blasphemy laws that would punish people for calling Baptist theology "bogus". I have two shoes ready to go if they are ever needed. Funny how "hope" now means "I hope I don't have to use the shoes".
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 22, 2009 10:36 AM
Daveau wrote at #3:
There are those of us on the left who are still scratching our heads and wondering what it was about Obama that made people think he was anywhere near being a progressive.
Posted by: TuomoHamalainen | October 22, 2009 10:38 AM
Your situation looks a bit weird here in Finland. We have the thing called "poliittinen korrektius", (political correctness). And in it's name there is hard to critize almost anything. Most fun part is, that we have blashemy law. But in same time you can not offend homosexuals either.
So there is peaceful silence. We finns have reputation that we are quiet with to languages. (We have 2. major languages, finnish and swedish language.) The silence laws are really the reason, it is the culture, though.
Problem really is mot that there is not really "freedom of speech". We talk wery openly. If laws were punished, i would get guite big moneypenalties, even jail. But these are really only "marionet laws", anyone could not look that they are followed. So only ultimatelly baddest cases get anything. So they are really not usefull laws. Almost anything would change if they are removed.
But I have still noticed that in our country is a big unfairness: There is normal to see guy advertising religion. But when the atheist bus campaign come in our coldness, it gets religious people angry. Majority off course don't do anything. The problem were the minority. And perhaps we must give them the space? Atheists mocking is not off course religion and its citizing is not "loukkaus" (insult) on certain person, so you can not even got jail in mockin atheists. [Reason: Atheist don't have holy book etc. Which they call "Pyhä" (holy). Not just important, it must be "Holy". Only Holy is protected by our law.]
PS: We still have quite fun out there. And not polar bears. Still you can get as many polar beers as your wallet have the sacret power of money!
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 22, 2009 10:39 AM
That bugged me, too. I think part of the problem with these "blasphemy" restrictions is that conflate speech against religion and beliefs with speech against people. But even for the latter, I think criminal charges are generally inappropriate. The Miliband aide, for example, probably shouldn't have been arrested for spewing bile about Jews, in my opinion, but Jews are not beliefs, they are human beings. Brigitte Bardot's letter also shouldn't have resulted in criminal charges, but blaming France's problems on Muslims isn't an offense to a religion, it's racist speech against real people. If we're going to protect people from racist treatment, it shouldn't be confused with protecting religious beliefs from criticism. Mocking Islam and Judaism and Christianity is one thing; vilifying Muslims and Jews and Christians is something else and the distinction needs to be recognized.
(And all that said, racist speech should still clear a pretty high bar before it becomes a criminal matter. Free speech protections can't stop people from being assholes.)
Posted by: Gingerbaker
|
October 22, 2009 10:45 AM
As far as I can tell, Obama is not trying to make a law against blasphemy in the US at all. It seems that this is merely a vote of support for a U.N. resolution. Nothing more. (Yet)
Unfortunately, this is not always true here in the US. Time and place restrictions have been in place and constitutional for years. One does not have the right, for example, to have Playboy displayed in a grocery without its cover shielded, because it offends some people. One doesn't have the right to watch alcoholic beverages consumed on a TV commercial or the right to watch uncensored material on many television stations. And on and on.
Thankfully, political speech is traditionally protected more than other forms of speech. But religious speech does seem to enjoy more protection than others in general, as it has its spiffy specific mention in the First Amendment.
We need to be vigilant, as we see that even a minority can can use our legislative process to ensure it is not offended.
Posted by: Volcanon
|
October 22, 2009 10:48 AM
I consider this pretty serious as if this law mimics the blasphemy laws in most other countries, this website could potentially be illegal for being "abusive" towards religions.
Hopefully the courts have the good sense to realize that the first amendment clearly contradicts any blasphemy law.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 22, 2009 10:51 AM
If anything like this passes, I will cede one argument to the theists.
Yup, atheism is a religion.
Posted by: Zifnab
|
October 22, 2009 10:53 AM
I don't know what's really being changed here. It's not like Egypt or Saudi Arabia will suddenly change their anti-secular crack downs. The UN is giving these countries a green light to do what they've been doing anyway. And given the UN's notorious powerlessness, it seems a bit absurd that these countries even really need to seek permission.
Free speech has historically waxed and waned with the prominence of a given majority. All this bolivating isn't going to make state censorship any more or less likely. There's little that has ever contained it.
Posted by: Trug
|
October 22, 2009 10:57 AM
@ 18,
While this particular movement is not a U.S.-specific one, the simple fact that the U.S. is supporting such a thing is reprehensible. It essentially states to the rest of the world that the U.S. as a country is in favor of repressing free speech in matters of religion. I don't know about you, but that's not the way I would want the rest of the world to think of me when they see an American citizen.
Added to that; if the current administration supports these sorts of laws for the U.N., why wouldn't you expect such laws to start showing up closer to home? If we let it start now, there's no telling where it will stop.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 22, 2009 10:57 AM
Nothing like opposing the values of the US Constitution. I can imagine the outcry if W had supported such an anti-freedom measure.
Any chance that more than a few liberals will support liberalism when it counts?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: daveau
|
October 22, 2009 11:00 AM
Tabby Lavalamp@15
You got me there. He seemed a lot more progressive in the primaries; end the war, stop the torture, close GTMO, end don't ask don't tell, etc. That changed the minute he was nominated and he had to appeal nationally. I guess he just still looked progressive next to McCain. I didn't vote for him in the primaries; I voted for Kucinich.
Posted by: Trug
|
October 22, 2009 11:07 AM
@ 20:
If this stuff passes, I'm going to start taking my Pastafarianism much more seriously. And they better give me my Fridays off of work to worship at the local Italian joint and the bar afterwards. I'd hate to be offended if they refused. :-P
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 22, 2009 11:10 AM
Which countries would this affect if not the USA? Signing on to a blasphemy law is essentially invalidating the endorsement of the gay rights declaration. It's OK to be gay as long as you don't do any "negative...religious stereotyping" of religions that want to kill you because you are gay?Posted by: Holammer | October 22, 2009 11:10 AM
Blasphemy laws are nothing but a crutch for an impotent god.
If he had any balls at all, he'd smite them himself.
Posted by: cervantes | October 22, 2009 11:10 AM
Well, if I can't blaspheme I guess I can't cast any asperions on this story:
Koran Verses Appear Mysteriously on Infant's Body.
They'll have to have a smackdown between the kid and the Virgin Mary in the hospital window.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 22, 2009 11:14 AM
From the comments over there:
Come on secular left. Let your president know this is B.S.
I think someone skipped a step.
Posted by: qbsmd
|
October 22, 2009 11:14 AM
and pigs fly...
Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 22, 2009 11:14 AM
IaMoL @6,
I'd say that's ironic, but I can't tell until my broken irony meter comes back from the shop sometime this afternoon...
Posted by: Prometheus
|
October 22, 2009 11:18 AM
@DaveX: I lol'd.
It is surprising how few people understand how incredibly childish the "might makes right" tenet of religion is.
Hopefully Obama, the Constitution scholar, remembers the rule that no international agreement can override Constitutional freedoms.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 22, 2009 11:22 AM
Presumably your local Italian restaurant could become tax exempt, and you could claim back tax on the money you spend there.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 22, 2009 11:24 AM
When Obama was campaigning, I saw no indication that he would be anything but a centrist establishment Democrat. Anything else was wishful thinking propagated by liberal groups. I expected him to suck less than McCain and he has met my expectations so far.
Posted by: Blas Femur | October 22, 2009 11:25 AM
Does that mean that Atheists can press charges against everyone else in the world who offends us with their asinine comments? Can I press charges against the hideous elderly virgins who said I would be tortured in hell if I didn't fall in line with his religion? Can charge the Catholic church with terrorism when they exercise their "free speech"?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 22, 2009 11:27 AM
At the least, they should make sure that no one can disparage atheism in a manner equal to the banned "blasphemy."
A law like that would still be wrong, but it wouldn't be likely to pass, as despising the non-religious is held to be a religious right by most religions. Look at ID, which does little else.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: jolly wahlstrom | October 22, 2009 11:46 AM
This guy is losing my vote more and more. I wrote to the White House just now. Do it. This whole idea of blasphemy laws is bat sheet crazy.
Posted by: Holytape
|
October 22, 2009 11:47 AM
What is blasphemy? No Christian I know would agree that Mohammad was the last and greatest prophet of God, just like no Muslim would agree that Jesus Christ is the only true son of God. But to deny either one would not be a blasphemy in one religion and be a blasphemy in the other. Should we start fining the Catholic church for call protestant church "not true churches"? If atheist are breaking law by pointing out the religion is a fraud, and that none of their factual claims are supported, then are church leaders equal guilty we they insult atheism.
I don't consider poking a little fun at the whole Adam and Eve story to be blasphemous, but other's would have a fit.
Posted by: Holytape
|
October 22, 2009 11:52 AM
What is blasphemy? No Christian that I know would agree that Mohammad was the last and greatest prophet of God. Just like no Muslim would agree that Jesus Christ is the only true son of God. But to deny or affirm either would be a blasphemy to the other religion. Should we start fining the Catholic church for calling Evangelical churches "not true churches"? If atheists are breaking law by pointing out the religion is a fraud, and that none of their claims are supported, then how are church leaders not equal guilty when they insult atheism, usual on baseless grounds?
I don't consider poking a little fun at the whole Adam and Eve story to be blasphemous, but other's would have a fit.
Posted by: Wicked Lad
|
October 22, 2009 11:55 AM
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
- Noam Chomsky
Posted by: Holytape
|
October 22, 2009 11:56 AM
God damn back button and double positing.
Posted by: dwatney
|
October 22, 2009 11:57 AM
I think Pat Condell should be invited to speak on the subject at a White House dinner, :-).
Posted by: Eric | October 22, 2009 12:07 PM
What a loser Obama is. Regardless of his views on science funding, he is a disaster for this country in every other way.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 22, 2009 12:07 PM
Meh. Relax. Last I checked, the Constitution still hasn't been amended and we have plenty of anti-Muslim xenophobes in congress. It's pointless fear-mongering. Obama can't pass health care, much less get a Constitutional amendment on the table. I know the old saying, "It's wishful thinking to think it can't happen here..." but it can't happen here, at least not in the current environment.
The article operates on the delusion that many of these countries in Europe never ever had parallel laws, but look at the UK, where libel laws have been restricted speech for a long time. "Protecting" others from speech is already in the tradition of the law, so it's a relatively small hop and a skip away to protecting religious groups from defamation. Americans don't have a similar tradition except for restrictions on speech related to national secrets and provisions of the PATRIOT Act. If anything, our loss of rights will stem from there first.
Posted by: bobxxxx | October 22, 2009 12:07 PM
This is interesting:
The "blasphemy" cases include the prosecution of writers for calling Mohammed a "pedophile" because of his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9).
I always thought Muslims are idiots, now I'm sure of it.
Posted by: SteveM | October 22, 2009 12:08 PM
It is important to to note "time and place" restrictions. That is, the speech is not banned out, just restricted to "appropriate" venues. The other thing that bothers me about your paragraph is that they are all phrased as "right to see" or "right to hear". Those do not exist, it is a right to speak. The difference is important and is at the heart of why anti-blasphemy laws are bad, because they do enshrine a right to hear (to hear nothing bad about one's religion).
As for the Playboy in the grocery store, it is not to protect prudes from being offended (though it is de facto), it is to conceal it from minors. Alcohol is a controlled substance, so its advertising is also restricted.
Posted by: kopd | October 22, 2009 12:11 PM
Since evolution is my religion, according to Bananaman and Mr. Crocoduck, does that mean I'll be able to sue them for blaspheming it with their strawman distortions? I'm more interested in getting the Pope's misleading and dangerous comments about condoms recognized as blasphemy against humanity.
By the way, registration is sucking again.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 22, 2009 12:26 PM
This has also been my experience. I think the situation is compounded by the U.S., in general, being center or center-conservative in its politics. Obviously that's sweeping, and there's all kinds of diversity of political opinion and discourse throughout.
As we know, the political stigma associated with atheism is high in this country.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Joe | October 22, 2009 12:30 PM
Alright, no one appears to understand this at all, so let me explain.
This has no effect on U.S. law. All it does is confirm a well-established bit of international law: a country does not violate international law by prosecuting hate speech against a religion. And this was no endorsement, simply an acknowledgement that you're allowed to do it. (Just as the founders didn't endorse everyone's speech when they wrote the First Amendment). Indeed, the Administration got the language in this substantially weakened.
While the article claims that Europe was skeptical, note which countries are actually enforcing the blasphemy laws in the examples it gives- England, Denmark, France, Ireland, Holland, Italy and Poland.
We are free speech extremists, compared to the rest of the world. (And I'm one too!) There is absolutely no chance we would be able to convince the entire world that anything less than our standard of free speech is so odious that it is a crime for a country to impose it on their people. The Europeans would just look at us cockeyed and say something to the effect of "so banning Hitler's hate speech against Jews would have been an awful thing, eh?"
Frankly, this whole thing is symbolic anyway. We're not going to sanction or invade Saudi Arabia to liberate people from restrictions on their speech - even if we were inclined to become world police, there are much worse things than free speech limitations going on. And so we took a pragmatic tack. We got the symbolic gesture weakened while protecting relationships we need to have any hope of concluding Iran, Darfur and Israel/Palestine peacefully.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 22, 2009 12:40 PM
Also, forgot to add, on a personal note, I had high hopes for Obama out of a sense of long-term frustration after the Bush/Cheney years, and the nonsense from the McCain/Palin camp during the election lead time.
Has he made all the kinds of changes that I would have liked to have seen? No. Will he? Probably not. While some of it is ideological (he's probably not as liberal as many of us imagined), I can't help but think that some of it is process; if I were President, I might have grand designs on improvements and policy change, too, only to find that four years, and even eight years, isn't enough time to get them implemented, especially when popular sentiment is so divided, and legislative barriers (both bureaucratic and ideological) await at every turn.
Still, SteveM's point is a really good one, and it's a concern:
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Joe | October 22, 2009 12:53 PM
"He seemed a lot more progressive in the primaries; end the war, stop the torture, close GTMO, end don't ask don't tell, etc. That changed the minute he was nominated and he had to appeal nationally. I guess he just still looked progressive next to McCain. I didn't vote for him in the primaries; I voted for Kucinich."
Only (4) isn't already in motion. And I'd imagine that will start once the major laws are over with (health care and possibly climate change). He doesn't want to give Ben Nelson some reason to torpedo those two.
(1) The Iraq War is on drawdown, with all combat troops scheduled to be out by August. That's two or three months longer than his campaign promise.
(2) Torture has been stopped, and the legal basis behind it repudiated.
(3) We're in the process of closing Gitmo. Its taking longer than expected because we can't find anywhere to send the Uighurs. (Chinese Muslims who were wrongly captured. We can't send them to China because they're an oppressed minority. Our immigration law limits our ability to keep them here - plus they probably don't want to stay. And other countries by and large don't want them. Bermuda took a few.)
Posted by: Rick J Sarmento | October 22, 2009 1:01 PM
This is simply outrageous.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 22, 2009 1:03 PM
Exactly right, France. Exactly right.Religions are not people - they are ideas. Making it illegal to engage in defamation of your ideas by telling the blatant lie that defamation of your ideas is identical to defamation of you as a person is nothing more than an attempt to protect your ideas from public scrutiny. If your ideas were any good, then you would welcome putting them under scrutiny.
Posted by: Paco | October 22, 2009 1:11 PM
I'm surprised that you relied on USA Today as the source of truth, here! I also got a link to that alarming comentary, so I did some digging. It's another case of quote mining by right-wing liars.
Here's the complete text of the resolution:
http://www.article19.org/pdfs/laws/resolution-on-the-promotion-and-protection-of-all-human-rights-civil-politic.pdf
I find it a well-balanced resolution, condemning *incitement to religious violence and discrimination*, but even more strongly affirming the requirements under international law to protect free speech and the lives of journalists.
Yes, it is an attempt to hold out an olive branch to the Muslim world, and there's a chance of theocracies quote-mining it to defend their blasphemy laws. *But that's not the gist of the full text*!!! Don't encourage the quote-miners.
Here's the UNHRC press release:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/6A69FF0F95283CE7C12576430046793B?opendocument
...that gave me the full citation (Resolution on Freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1)) which helped me track down the full text.
Posted by: Gerin Oil
|
October 22, 2009 1:12 PM
@Cervantes, #28:
Two words: Dermatographic urticaria
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 22, 2009 1:50 PM
The "blasphemy" cases include the prosecution of writers for calling Mohammed a "pedophile" because of his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9).
Heh ... ironically, the writer is likely to get in trouble for this. Although most scholars would agree that he's probably right, there's currently an attempt on behalf of Muslim apologists to whitewash this little bit of history. They're tying themselves in knots trying to make the case that Mohammad didn't consummate the marriage till after his child bride reached puberty. While in Western countries it still wouldn't make much difference today (so she was 12 or so), they seem to think it's a critical point that eliminates the problems which come from declaring this man's life to be the model of perfection.
It would be interesting if someone who writes against blasphemy laws is then accused of blasphemy just for citing things that were accused of being blasphemous, without making it clear that the statements were wrong.
Posted by: Stogoe
|
October 22, 2009 1:51 PM
Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The population of America is center-left on nearly every issue. We are a center-left nation, by and large. Go read any issues poll out there - the majority opinion on the issues is the liberal opinion on issues. Americans want center-left policies. The reason we have center-right politicians who enact center-right policies is the coercive power of corporate cash on elections.Well, and the 100% center-right media landscape. But I can't blame them for that. Reporting on the evils your parent company does and the thousands of lives it crushes every year in its ceaseless grope for more and more profit at any cost is a one-way ticket to the unemployment line.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 22, 2009 1:54 PM
As an addendum to #46, the restrictions on advertising alcohol on TV are voluntary, not legislated. There is some question whether laws restricting such advertising would be constitutional.
Posted by: OneHandClapping
|
October 22, 2009 2:00 PM
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 22, 2009 2:16 PM
From the article:
It's the old spiel, atheists and non-religious folks are fair game to critisize and marginalize, while if you dare to say something vaguely critical to a "believer", or about a religion that questions or attacks any of their medieval traditions, you engage in hate speech or blasphemy.
Sick and tired of it.
And more then a bit annoyed that so many countries(well, it was passed unanimously actually !) let this largely muslim-nation initiated proposal pass.
Free speech should protect minorities from being bullied into submission and silence.This is not helping.
Posted by: B166ER
|
October 22, 2009 2:39 PM
Hey, all this means is that if this passes, we need to make blasphemy day EVERYDAY! Direct action truly does get the goods!
Speaking of the people above who hoped that Obama would be some liberal messiah . Please, he, just like every other nominee, is a Neo-Liberal Corporatist stooge, saying and doing exactly what they know their corporate leach holders will reward them with a biscuit for. Maybe it's my politics that gives me this view of politicians, or maybe it's because I have my eyes open to the horrors that they ALL commit. NOBODY FOR PRESIDENT! Lets do this shit ourselves, instead of giving our power to others and then bitching when they misuse it. Nothing will fundamentally change until the way we make decisions changes. We can continue giving our power to others (just to hope that they use it like we want them to), or we can develop horizontal, non-hierarchical democratically based situations. We choose for ourselves or we let others choose for us, and at least in my opinion that's not much of a choice.
No Gods, No Masters
Cameron
Posted by: senor | October 22, 2009 2:56 PM
On the opposite part of the blasphemy spectrum, I was checking out which charities made it in to the OPM's Combined Federal Campaign. FFRF and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are in there...but so is Answers in Genesis!!! Which reportedly "equips Christians to uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse, through seminars, publications, daily radio program, the Creation Museum, and website". I realize there are some religiously-based charities which provide a useful service, but I can't see how something like this would qualify.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 22, 2009 3:05 PM
Senor, can you tell me what "OPM" is an abbreviation for? Without that I can't decipher the meaning of your comment.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 22, 2009 3:16 PM
OPM is the Office of Personnel Management. And now I'm glad I never got around to donating to the CFC.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 22, 2009 3:26 PM
From the article:
Yep, this is exactly the nonsense being touted, and it's not limited to this particular debate.
Utterly unaware of how liberty and equality must coincide for each to really exist, people make ridiculous arguments about how one liberty right must subordinate itself to another or to ensure equality.
I had a college professor rail against pornography, arguing that her right to equality as a woman was in peril by a man's objectifying women by reading dirty magazines.
"Surely, though," I asked, "you believe that they should be at liberty to do so, right?"
"NO!" she screamed from the podium, "They aren't at liberty to make me less equal!"
"How do they do that in any but a symbolic sense if all they're doing is reading something you don't like in the privacy of their own homes?"
"It's offensive," she retorted, "And they don't have the right offend me like that. It makes me less equal."
Bullshit. (I'm a woman, by the way.)
The right to offend is the very essence of free speech. If we lose the right to offend, we lose the right to free speech. All one must do to silence another is to feign offense.
Religious loons are no less equal and no less free to practice their loony religions simply because I say they are loony.
If that offends you, suck it up and get used to it.
Posted by: Blondin
|
October 22, 2009 3:39 PM
Give me no government at all or give me... anarchy!?
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | October 22, 2009 3:47 PM
The Chemist wrote:
"Obama can't pass health care"
You sure about that? It seems pretty certain at this point that one of the health care reform bills currently under consideration will get passed...no doubt with some changes. And Obama will get the ultimate credit or blame.
If you meant 'Obama can't pass the health care reform package that *I WANT*' that's a different complaint. But it seems clear that a bill will be passed, and that it will be historic, given the long history of thwarted attempts.
Posted by: Carl Buell | October 22, 2009 3:50 PM
"I have not yet begun to blaspheme!"
After 60 years of listening to people pray for MY murder (literally) by their petty, vindictive sky-pilot, I'm supposed to respect their faith? I remember I own mother praying for "Armageddon" knowing full well that when it came I would be killed. Not all religions are that blatant, but every time they bow their heads, they're acknowledging that because I don't belief exactly as they do, I'll be killed or "cast into the pit" or be tortured endlessly. Blaspheme away folks!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 22, 2009 3:59 PM
Oh, it wasn't anything about him.
It was something about the McPain/Failin' ticket.
Posted by: ThatPirateGuy | October 22, 2009 4:10 PM
Yes, I think this was the wrong call. But if you think this was anything other than an attempt to reach out to the Muslim world then you are misunderstanding this action.
The administration signed on to the non-legally binding resolution in an attempt to improve international relations. So when we yell and criticize it for doing this let us show that we understand the not nearly good enough reason for it.
President Obama, you should have stood up for freedom here, it is shameful that you signed onto this. We would be better to have taken the lumps we might have suffered for standing for the right thing.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 22, 2009 4:14 PM
Heh. That couldn't happen over here in France. There's a magazine called Têtu over here... on the cover, there's always... let's call it a man in underpants... têtu is an obsolete word for "gay".
Sold at every kiosque. In the open, often right next to subway stations. No attempts are made to conceal the cover from minors.
Posted by: B166ER
|
October 22, 2009 4:18 PM
@Blondin #66
If any questions are in your mind as to what I meant, read Noam Chomsky's "On Anarchism", or Emma Goldman's "Anarchism: what it really stands for". They are good descriptions of what the idea of anarchism really is.
No Gods, No Masters
Cameron
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 22, 2009 4:24 PM
heh. for no particularly good reason, this reminds me of the anecdotal story of how the availability of Playgirl can lead to voluntarily prolonged virginity (the "Abstinence only" crowd should be thrilled):A friend of mine was very goth-metal as a teen; when the Peter Steele issue of Playgirl came out, she and her best friend sneaked a peak. And that view convinced them that maybe they wanted to stay virgins a bit longer, as sex suddenly seemed like a potentially painful affair. :-p
Posted by: The Chemist | October 22, 2009 4:49 PM
@Steve Sullivan #67
You're right, let me rephrase: Obama can barely get a half-decent health care bill passed.
(And I do mean only half-decent, half-assed, half-measures that will do more harm than good in the long run. Ugh.)
Posted by: llewelly | October 22, 2009 4:58 PM
It is the nature of democrats to believe right-wing rhetoric.Posted by: Spencer | October 22, 2009 5:17 PM
Everyone's reaction in these comments seems a little overwrought. This has no practical effect anywhere in the world except maybe in the heads of UN bureaucrats. It seems the administration was a little too willing to compromise and appease the Muslim countries in order to get something passed.
What is really more outrageous than this is that countries like Egypt and other notorious human rights violators get to sit on and even lead the HRC.
Posted by: Alsofish | October 22, 2009 5:46 PM
I for one comfort myself (and my spiking blood pressure) with an image of a hissing, screeching zombie Voltaire clawing his way through the night toward Geneva.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 22, 2009 8:15 PM
Spencer:
Well, it does not have a de jure, binding legal effect on sovereign nations, but it's not unimportant when the world officially gives its stamp of approval to a rollback of free speech with the U.S.'s blessing. When Know Knothing Knation's politicians rise up to establish a blasphemy law here, and say that they only want to implement the basic standards already agreed to by the U.S. and U.N., there will be an unfortunate semblance of legitimacy to their nonsense. And with judges like Anthony Kennedy ready to subordinate U.S. law to international law on occasion, things could get ugly.
Posted by: kalibhakta
|
October 22, 2009 8:39 PM
@ #78: thank you. I keep hearing "it won't change U.S. law" (like it's OK to endorse idiotic and oppressive policies as long as they only apply to furriners), and "it's just symbolic."
sorry, but symbols matter and this symbolism is reprehensible. great muhammad's codpiece, people, surely atheists who decry the deleterious effects of religious symbolism can understand that symbols make a difference and can be leveraged, as Liveliest Crib suggests, into real-world action.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 22, 2009 9:23 PM
Stogoe at #57,
Long day, only just now getting back to the computer, but wanted to make a quick comment before the gravitational pull of dinner and bed becomes too great for the spaceship of consciousness to escape.
Thanks for your post. I want to follow your recommendation, and so I started an online search, and found PollingReport.com, which I did not previously know about. From a cursory glance, it looks like they've got a nice breakdown of numerous polls, over multiple dates, categorized by issue/topic.
It's been a long day, so I don't have time (well, to be honest, I'm tired, and just poured myself two fingers of birthday-celebratory Talisker) to look into some issues polls tonight, but I hope to have some time after 5 p.m. Central tomorrow to follow up, or over the weekend.
You're point about the media reporting was an angle I hadn't considered, too. Thanks for the suggestion; I'm interested to look at some poll numbers.
In the meantime, some lovely liquid (and some dinner) await, so I apologize for not looking deeper tonight.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: TillNovember | October 23, 2009 6:08 PM
@ 25, 35, 38, 47.
I wish I would have posted this earlier. I say bring on the blasphemy laws. With the new laws, I'm officially starting a new religion that holds the following ideas to be "sacred", and anyone who says anything negative about them is guilt of basphemy:
Gay Marriage
Stem Cell Research
Abortions to save a mother's life
Evolution
FSM
etc..etc.
and of course PZ Myers
If anybody says anything bad about any of these topics may they be thrown in jail. I wonder how long Glenn Beck would have a show for.
Now back to reality:
Since anyone can create any rules they want for their religion, than technically anything could be considered blasphemy. What if a religion worships cancer, does that mean that people who want to "kill" (cure) cancer are being blasphemous?
I don't care if your religion holds something sacred, if it's a harmful idea that affects other people's lives, than I will criticize the shit out of it as much as I want. If that offends you, than good, that's the point. Quit justifying your messed up beliefs with sky daddies that you can prove.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 23, 2009 8:21 PM
Stogoe,
Ok, I wanted to look closer at polls per your recommendation in post #57 re: general ideological division in the U.S. Sorry I'm late getting back to this.
Using an online poll reporting resource called Polling Report (http://www.pollingreport.com/), I looked at polling trends on some issues in the U.S. There are numerous issues on which a liberal/conservative/moderate/undecided viewpoint might be expressed, so for this post I chose seven (7) issues: abortion, birth control/sex education, environment, gun laws/gun control, same sex marriage, illegal drugs, and race/ethnicity.
Not all available polls were chosen for consideration, not only due to time limitations, but also due to concern about poll partisanship. While no poll is likely to be completely objective, I nevertheless tried to avoid polls that were likely to be more obviously partisan. For example, I eschewed Fox News polls. In general, I tried to focus on those polling organizations that I thought prominent and reputable, such as Gallup and Associated Press. In addition, once again owing to time limitations, only the most recent poll results (by date) were examined: in cases where the same poll was administered multiple times over multiple years, I chose the most recent administration of the poll. I also selected polls administered from 2006 up to the present year; I did not examine polls administered prior to 2006.
I coded percentage of responses in polls by what I deemed the likelihood of the response to be a liberal, conservative, moderate (if applicable), or undecided (if applicable) viewpoint. Not all poll responses work out that way, obviously. Number of polls examined per issue range from two (2) to thirteen (13).
All poll results and issue categories were selected from an online polling resource .
For eight (8) polls on abortion, the average response was 35% liberal, 36% conservative, 24% moderate, and 5% undecided.
For five (5) polls on birth control/sex education, the average response was 48.6% liberal, 35.6% conservative, 11.8% moderate, and 4% undecided.
For nine (9) polls on the environment, the average response was 69.2 (repeating)% liberal, 16.2 (repeating)% conservative, 11.3 (repeating)% moderate, and 2.67% undecided.
For eight (8) polls on gun laws/gun control, the average response was 47.125% liberal, 30.375% conservative, 20.125% moderate, and 3% undecided.
For thirteen (13) polls on same sex marriage/gays in the military/gays adopting children, the average response was 48.62% liberal, 45.38% conservative, 2.85% moderate, and 3.23% undecided.
For two (2) polls on illegal drugs, the average response was 43% liberal, 55% conservative, and 2% undecided.
For five (5) polls on race/ethnicity, the average response was 66.8% liberal, 29.6% conservative, and 6% undecided.
So for five out of seven issues, it looks like the majority opinion is a liberal one, which means that my initial characterization of the nation as center or center-conservative was incorrect.
Limitations of my analysis are numerous: for one thing, I looked at a limited number of polls, a limited number of issues, and I only looked at one poll reporting site overall. Coding liberal/conservative/moderate/undecided is problematic, as well, because not all the polls reported poll questions with responses that would obviously fall into those categories. I did not perform a sophisticated analysis, so what I’ve posted here may not be very good (the limitations and errors being mine, not anyone else's).
Regardless, Stogoe, your post at #57 is correct, and my original post at #48 is incorrect. The nation’s response to issues is more liberal than center or center-conservative.
Thanks for your prompt to investigate this further, and thanks for your correction of my error. I’m sorry that I don’t have a more sophisticated analysis, and if anyone does, I would be interested to see it. Also, I hadn’t thought about the media reporting angle, and looking at the polling data, your comment about that makes me wonder if my misinterpretation of liberal vs. conservative trends on issues stems from media reports as opposed to how the tendencies actually are.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 23, 2009 8:24 PM
Crap, and I just noticed a cut-and-paste error where I was moving info around in my post at #82 and made an incomplete deletion.
A little before halfway down the post the fragment
should have been deleted. It was from when I moved the PollingReport info further up toward the beginning. And I did preview and everything.
No kings,
Robert