Finally, after the constant references to Religious Freedom/Religious Liberty surrounding the Conference of Catholic Bishops birth control temper tantrum there is an actual example of it at work. Positive examples of this essential American right are rare, at least when it involves a theistic group. The International Bible Reading Association recently concluded their annual Bible reading marathon at the capitol.
For fairly obvious reasons, there is very little I agree on with this particular group. That, however, is the point. As far as I can tell from the Belief blog post this group has never harassed or bothered anyone. They have simply exercised their rights as US citizens to express their beliefs. The Capitol has long been a venue for a wide variety of demonstrations, protests, and socio-political expressions. That is exactly how it should be. Every citizen should feel welcome to express themselves in a peaceful manner. Whether the message/ideas expressed are agreeable or not is beside the point. One of our country's greatest strengths comes from its protections of free thought and expression. Standing up for the rights of groups we may not agree with or even like makes us better.
So, even though I think the Bible is horrible crap, I applaud The International Bible Reading Association for taking the approach they have to promoting what they believe in. I have watched a few of their videos and get the impression that they are very focused on being positive and helping people. I still see them as essentially relying on cherry-picking and massively editing/interpreting the Bible in order to turn it into something it really isn't but at least they do not use it to attack or directly harm others.
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Tacky vs. Violent
Imagine that, the violent theist's "rights" trump those of the atheist with poor taste. Doesn't seem to matter that the Muslim admitted to the arresting officer what happened or that it was caught on video. The guy who committed an act of violence gets away with it since the person he attacked was an atheist.
The judge's bias seems pretty blatant to me.
"If I were a Muslim, I'd find it offensive. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don't care about other people's rights as long as we get our say but we don't care about the other people's say."
So which is it, asshole? Do we have the right of free speech/expression or don't we? I admit, I would probably not choose to dress up as "zombie Muhammad" for a parade but that does not mean it is illegal or should excuse acts of violence. Since when is one individual's case dismissible due to how others may perceive Americans in general?
As far as I can tell this is simply an instance of a bigoted judge refusing to do his job.
The judge's bias seems pretty blatant to me.
"If I were a Muslim, I'd find it offensive. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don't care about other people's rights as long as we get our say but we don't care about the other people's say."
So which is it, asshole? Do we have the right of free speech/expression or don't we? I admit, I would probably not choose to dress up as "zombie Muhammad" for a parade but that does not mean it is illegal or should excuse acts of violence. Since when is one individual's case dismissible due to how others may perceive Americans in general?
As far as I can tell this is simply an instance of a bigoted judge refusing to do his job.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Free Expression vs. Intolerance?
A recent piece at the Huffington Post seems to be a little more muddled and confused than usual. The authors, Esposito and Lalwani, seem to have difficulty differentiating intolerance from discrimination and persecution, which are by no means synonymous.
They start out relatively clear about there being a fine line between free speech and harassment. Initially, they appear to endorse the right of expression even when it is hateful. However, they derail their own line of reasoning when they get to "the stunning verdict in Geert Wilder's acquittal." What really makes it stunning? Wilder did not physically attack or harm in any way any individuals. His speech was reprehensible but well within the bounds of the free speech/expression Esposito and Lalwani previously defended.
This odd disconnect does seem to stem from the very first sentence. The notion of "defamation of religion" is absurd. Not only does religion neither need nor deserve protection it is also impossible to objectively determine what constitutes such defamation. Who gets to say what rises to the level of defamation? In my view a number of Huffington Post writers, like Rabbi Boteach, routinely defame atheists.
Esposito and Lalwani also seem to ignore the difference between individual believers and the specific religion they follow. They are not the same. The rights of an individual whether it relates to religion or not should never be violated. A religion is not a person and should never be treated as if it is. Religion has no rights. Only an individual has rights.
They start out relatively clear about there being a fine line between free speech and harassment. Initially, they appear to endorse the right of expression even when it is hateful. However, they derail their own line of reasoning when they get to "the stunning verdict in Geert Wilder's acquittal." What really makes it stunning? Wilder did not physically attack or harm in any way any individuals. His speech was reprehensible but well within the bounds of the free speech/expression Esposito and Lalwani previously defended.
This odd disconnect does seem to stem from the very first sentence. The notion of "defamation of religion" is absurd. Not only does religion neither need nor deserve protection it is also impossible to objectively determine what constitutes such defamation. Who gets to say what rises to the level of defamation? In my view a number of Huffington Post writers, like Rabbi Boteach, routinely defame atheists.
Esposito and Lalwani also seem to ignore the difference between individual believers and the specific religion they follow. They are not the same. The rights of an individual whether it relates to religion or not should never be violated. A religion is not a person and should never be treated as if it is. Religion has no rights. Only an individual has rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)