[Fluffy]

another religion sucks thread, isn't it?

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Mar 1 2009, 07:18 AM, said:

Winston if you want to limit freedom of speech or freedom of religion...ok....pls tell us.......

Just tell us how you want to limit my freedom.

Vote Republican?

[Al_U_Card]

Fluffy, on Mar 1 2009, 08:22 AM, said:

another religion sucks thread, isn't it?

I'll try to morph it into a "politics sucks" thread....

[PassedOut]

Except for speech (and writing) which poses a clear physical danger to others, I think that everything should be allowed. I also think that people should get a good enough education to be able to sort out the crap for themselves.

"Protecting" people from scary or loathsome opinions wastes time and resources on methods that don't work anyway (people can always come up with more nonsense independently) and it risks perpetuating the preferred foolishness of "the deciders."

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

It made me wonder if a church could also be held liable for its signs, and that by expressing something as fact "Sinners will burn in hell" they could or should be held accountable for any psychological damages claimed to have been caused by exposure to their sign or if they would be considered to be immune to a damage claim due to either freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the freedom of religion clause simply prohibits the establishment of a state religion. It does not, IMO, absolve the practitioners of any religion from liability for their actions in practicing their religion. As an extreme example, suppose a group decided to adopt Aztec religious practices, requiring frequent (and messy, but that's not really relevant) human sacrifices. If a defense on the basis of freedom of religion would get them off the hook, I'd have to say our society is crazier than I ever thought it could be.

As far as the freedom of speech issue is concerned, I think churches should be held to the same standards as anybody else. Whether that is in fact what the law does I don't know.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Mar 1 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

another religion sucks thread, isn't it?

I don't see this as a religion sucks thread. This is a free speech thread. I consider the religious element completely irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong: I agree that religion sucks.
However, I didn't see anyone discussing this issue until you raised it...

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Mar 1 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

It made me wonder if a church could also be held liable for its signs, and that by expressing something as fact "Sinners will burn in hell" they could or should be held accountable for any psychological damages claimed to have been caused by exposure to their sign or if they would be considered to be immune to a damage claim due to either freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the freedom of religion clause simply prohibits the establishment of a state religion. It does not, IMO, absolve the practitioners of any religion from liability for their actions in practicing their religion. As an extreme example, suppose a group decided to adopt Aztec religious practices, requiring frequent (and messy, but that's not really relevant) human sacrifices. If a defense on the basis of freedom of religion would get them off the hook, I'd have to say our society is crazier than I ever thought it could be.

As far as the freedom of speech issue is concerned, I think churches should be held to the same standards as anybody else. Whether that is in fact what the law does I don't know.

You seem to think that religion should be forced to operate within the laws of a nation. Fair enough, and I agree, but that is not the reality.

Most western countries have some law that forbids discrimination on the basis of gender. Nevertheless, it is not a coincidence that there aren't any female catholic priests. Is that ok to you? Or do they get away with it by referring to the freedom of religion? Many western countries have a law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. But if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then that is ok again, based on the freedom of religion? In practice, the freedom of religion argument is frequently used for not following laws.

If a religion is allowed to violate laws, which laws can they violate? I agree with you that an Aztec human sacrifice is a little more extreme than discrimination, but where do you draw the line?

And which religions are allowed to violate the laws?
- Only the ones that are in some way recognized? If I start the Church of the Hasty, am I then allowed to drive 85 mph on an empty freeway because it is my ... given duty to do so?
- Only the ones that were dominant in the population 50 years ago? (Meaning that Dutch protestants are allowed to force women to wear the characteristic long grey skirts, but that muslims are not allowed to force women to wear a vail.)

If it were up to me, there wouldn't be a freedom of religion excuse for religions to break laws while at the same time law makers shouldn't invent new laws that have as their only purpose to obstruct the freedom of religion.

But things are not up to me...

Rik

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Mar 1 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

As far as the freedom of speech issue is concerned, I think churches should be held to the same standards as anybody else. Whether that is in fact what the law does I don't know.

so how do you feel about my two billboard examples?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 1 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

As far as the freedom of speech issue is concerned,  I think churches should be held to the same standards as anybody else. Whether that is in fact what the law does I don't know.

so how do you feel about my two billboard examples?

I think that the case of tobacco advertising is directly equivalent to your two billboard examples.

I am not aware of any cases in which a tobacco company was successfully sued for advertising a dangerous product. However, there are any number of examples in which the federal government has required the tobacco industry to include prominent warnings within its advertisements.

I think that the Big Mac case and the Vodka case should be treated in a consistent manner.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on Mar 1 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Most western countries have some law that forbids discrimination on the basis of gender. Nevertheless, it is not a coincidence that there aren't any female catholic priests.

You're right, it's not a coincidence. It's just not true. Here's an example.

Don't forget that prosecutors have a lot of leeway in what cases they choose to prosecute. It's only human to not want to "rock the boat", and unless there's a serious problem, sometimes even cases that some think should be prosecuted aren't. OTOH, anyway can bring a civil suit, and if there's a law that may apply I can't see a court arbitrarily tossing the case just because the respondent is a religious organization.

Quote

If it were up to me, there wouldn't be a freedom of religion excuse for religions to break laws while at the same time law makers shouldn't invent new laws that have as their only purpose to obstruct the freedom of religion.

But things are not up to me...

Oh, I agree with you - but it ain't up to me, either.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Mar 1 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 1 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

As far as the freedom of speech issue is concerned,  I think churches should be held to the same standards as anybody else. Whether that is in fact what the law does I don't know.

so how do you feel about my two billboard examples?

I think that the case of tobacco advertising is directly equivalent to your two billboard examples.

I am not aware of any cases in which a tobacco company was successfully sued for advertising a dangerous product. However, there are any number of examples in which the federal government has required the tobacco industry to include prominent warnings within its advertisements.

I think that the Big Mac case and the Vodka case should be treated in a consistent manner.

i think you're right, but if winston thinks a church's weekly message, displayed on private property, is actionable it makes me wonder why he didn't mention things such as tobacco (or booze, or fast food) ads on public property... it certainly makes it appear that he is unreasonable, though i suppose the same could be said of most biases

[Winstonm]

Quote

but where do you draw the line?

Exactly - the whole point of the thread - where does one draw the line?

[helene_t]

There are some bad analogies in this thread IMHO.

MacDonnald does not say that non-mac-eaters go to hell. Surely nobody would object to some cultural society depicting its members in an attractive way, similar to the way marlboro depicts smokers.

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 1 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

As far as the freedom of speech issue is concerned,  I think churches should be held to the same standards as anybody else. Whether that is in fact what the law does I don't know.

so how do you feel about my two billboard examples?

We allow products and practices but we sometimes restrict advertising of them. These things get tricky. I doubt that a vodka company could be stopped from advertising its product by signs on its own property (as is the case with Winston's hypothetical sign). There could be some restrictions on the size of signs, applicable not only to vodka but to milk and to religious signs. But of course the big effects come from tv ads, and the government asserts a right to control these ads in the public interest. That is where it can get tough, perhaps.


I have heard ads for religion on the radio and I assume that they exist on tv. I also think that, for example, Scientologists could buy ads. I assume there is some probably vague line somewhere beyond which ads would not be acceptable. Since one person's cult is another person's deeply held belief, I would not like the job of defending such a decision.

Winston's example, however, I think is not really about advertising. The hypothetical sign doesn't advertise church services. I doubt even Winston ("even Winston" because he is the originator of many of these threads) would object. One could perhaps view "Repent or spend eternity in hell!" (signs of this tenor exist) as a threat. Some church people, in some times in history, have taken it upon themselves to encourage repentance of us non-believers early on, not waiting for our descent into hell. In the US, in 2009, I would call this interpretation of the sign a stretch. Of course stretching an interpretation beyond all common sense is how lawyers making the big bucks so... For example burning a cross on someone's lawn is more than arson. It very reasonably, I think, can be taken as a threat. In fact, cross burnings can sometimes be arranged to not violate arson laws, but they are still a threat, intended and taken. And this hellfire preaching was something I took very seriously as a threat when I was young, part of the general mix that eventually led to me taking my leave of religion (non-religion makes sense to me logically but rational thought was only part of the equation back then). So there is a threat aspect to such a sign, but I think it is qualitatively different from cross burning, and if it scares the kids and drives them out of religion, I regard this as a positive development.

It would be nice if all legal matters were crystal clear. Few are. But if someone wants to stop someone else from saying what they think, the burden of proof is definitely on the censor, or it should be.


"Repent or be Damned!" " Stuff your Bible up your ass." Just your basic everyday conversation. No need for the law to intervene.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I understand in other threads you advocate more consignment of what I work and earn.

I do not believe you can produce a single example of your claim. I certainly have no problems supporting a progressive income tax but I have never advocated that solution - I have only pointed out the growing disparity of wealth in this nation.

Perhaps you have a solution to that problem that does not utilize a progressive tax. An argument for status quo won't win, though. I am fairly confident that it is a given that supply-side Reaganomics is a failure and laissez-faire capitalism produces by its nature a type of capitalistic anarchy.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Mar 1 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

There are some bad analogies in this thread IMHO.

MacDonnald does not say that non-mac-eaters go to hell. Surely nobody would object to some cultural society depicting its members in an attractive way, similar to the way marlboro depicts smokers.

so what? study after study links fast food with obesity and obesity to heart disease... what if the church sign read "eat more big macs and die, you fat f$&k"... would that be actionable?

kenberg, on Mar 1 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

One could perhaps view "Repent or spend eternity in hell!" (signs of this tenor exist) as a threat.

assuming it is a threat (some might call it a warning), so what? suppose some idiot had a sign in her yard reading "elect obamba and die in a terrorist attack"... should that be illegal?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

I certainly have no problems supporting a progressive income tax but I have never advocated that solution - I have only pointed out the growing disparity of wealth in this nation.

what makes it a problem?

Quote

An argument for status quo won't win, though.  I am fairly confident that it is a given that supply-side Reaganomics is a failure and laissez-faire capitalism

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

[Winstonm]

Quote

think you're right, but if winston thinks a church's weekly message, displayed on private property, is actionable it makes me wonder why he didn't mention things such as tobacco (or booze, or fast food) ads on public property...

I have no dog in this fight. I see that an argument can be made under seperation of church and state, under freedom of speech, but also can see how a case could be made that the sign was an implicit intimidation tactic that could be construed to be against the public's interest.

The same question could be asked about an atheist bookstore owner who placed a prominent sign outside that said, "There is no God but knowledge". Could theist parents challenge this sign as harmful to the upbringing of their children?

Would this be considered a free speech right?

[Winstonm]

Quote

One could perhaps view "Repent or spend eternity in hell!" (signs of this tenor exist) as a threat

Ken,

You are correct that only one exposed to the belief in this concept could feel threatened by its repetition. In this sense, I am certain the group would be a minority - probably vast minority.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

I see that an argument can be made under seperation of church and state, under freedom of speech, but also can see how a case could be made that the sign was an implicit intimidation tactic that could be construed to be against the public's interest.

The whole point of free speech is that it is allowed to say things that are against the public interest.

I am not saying that free speech is a black-white thing and that it requires all messages to be allowed. We could still ban shouting "fire" in the theater or the threatening of non-followers, such as "if you don't eat brand X omega-3 margarine you get heart disease" or "if you don't pray to brand Y god you go to hell". But if courts are given carte blanche to ban a message solely because it is "against public interests" then there is zero free speech left.