Intermix at 6000 degrees and rising
I want to rant about the idiots who claim that “freedom of religion” gives them the right to harass people they don’t like, but I am controlling myself.
With great difficulty.
Unimatrix Two
More bandwidth is assimilated
Site Contents: ©2006 Unimatrix Two
Wordpress Theme: ©The Open Learning Centre
Fri Nov 29th 16:46:16 UTC 2024
The key question is when is it harassment and when is it the right to speak an unpopular opinion? I didn’t see anything in the article that described a behavior that would normally be considered “harassment” (standing outside your home with a bullhorn, or calling you constantly, or following you around yelling at you). Do students at GIT have the right to make fun of Christians or rail against them in public? If so, why shouldn’t Christians be allowed to speak out about groups they dislike?
The GIT policy as it’s described in the article makes me very uncomfortable. Unfortunately, as usual, the article is quite short on facts and context and long on opinions from the factions.
Freedom of Religion is a hard thing. What does it mean if it doesn’t include the freedom to speak about it?
“Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.”
So, he feels that it’s okay to discriminate against a lifestyle choice? Like, say, religion?
I’d suggest reading‘s LJ to keep up with news items on this sorta thing.
“the act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism”
Reading the article, to me, it sounds like what the people are suing for is the right to call other students/coworkers/etc names and put them down because they are gay. I know there is a fine line with harassment, but to me they are crossing it.
Its hard though, my favorite line from a movie is “You want freedom of speech? Then you have to be willing to listen to a man shouting at the top of his lungs that which you would spend shouting at the top of yours.”
I do think their excuse that it is different then race etc because its a ‘choice’ is dumb. Just because they say its a choice doesn’t make it true. But thats another whole argument into itself really.
The thing that bothers me is the people are only suing for the right to put gay people down. Most chrisitans I know sex before marriage is wrong to them also, but I don’t see them saying they want the right to call people fornicators.
(As an aside, my favorite Television speech:
“I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President,” she replied haughtily. “The Bible does.”
“Yes, it does!” he shouted. “Leviticus 18:22.” The president was just warming up. “I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?”
After a brief moment, he continued: “While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?”
Now on a roll, the president steamed on triumphantly. “Here’s one that’s really important, ‘cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
“Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?
“Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
“Think about those questions, would you? One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-a** club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.”)
Actually, my implied rant has very little to do with their legal rights.
Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn’t mean you ought to be doing it. As well, I’m pretty sure they don’t speak for all Christians or Jews. They’re asking for personal preferential treatment.
What with their claim to be representatives of religions which have been heavily persecuted and not tolerated through the years, I find their behavior hypocritical.
Ahh, hypocracy, one of the few consistent things about the Christian faiths… and a big reason I no longer attend church on a regular basis. Been burned too many times by idiots like these.
Not to worry! General JC Christian is on it!
I’m a big fan of that West Wing moment as well.
But the point remains; Freedom of Speech (and Religion) includes the right of Christians to insult gays (even if they don’t insult forencators), just as it includes the right to stick Christian holy symbols in jars of piss. The difference is that Christians were asked to pay taxes to support the latter.
Calling people names and insulting them isn’t generally harassment, as long as your not following them around. I return to my question of whether other groups are allowed to use names like “fundies” or “Bible thumpers” or any other insulting names of Christians? Are they free to wear shirts that Christians would find offensive? If so, I don’t see how gays get special protection from name calling.
It doesn’t matter if what the people are saying is stupid, incorrect, lies or insulting. The question is how we want freedom of speech defined; narrowly based on what we think people should be allowed to say, or broadly to make sure we’re allowed to say unpopular things.
Should anyone speak out against love? No they shouldn’t.
Should people have the right to do so? Absolutely.
Should Universities be able to expel students for doing so? No. And *that’s* the point of this situation. The University has passed a rule saying that it is forbidden to speak out against gays and while they haven’t expelled the girl, they have indicated that they could. They have not passed a rule forbidding speaking out against Christians, just certain protected groups like gays. That is wrong for a University to do.
Popular, right-thinking speech doesn’t need protection. It’s *unpopular* wrong-headed speech that is what the First Ammendment and our fundamental freedom of speech is all about.
So yes, I object to this girl’s opinions. As far as I can understand from this article, though, I suport her lawsuit to have the right to express those opinions without censure from the University, up to and including name-calling and insults.
And I support the gay right to call her a Bible-thumping fundie if they like. (and a hypocrite and all the other names that I see in this LJ thread alone).
Ah, I can just feel the love! 🙂
I guess I worded what I was saying badly… which is not surprising given I am at work and today is my friday so my brain is a bit gone.
But… I do get what you are saying and mostly agree. I quoted my favorite movie quote wrong, the end should have been ‘that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours’
*shrugs* I guess the part I am opposed to is how narrow the scope of the lawsuit is and that it has religion behind it. I would be much more for it if it was just ‘I want to yell and say insults to people just because I don’t like them or agree with them and my first amendment right gives me the right to do that’. It should have nothing to do with religion and it should not be only to insult one group of people.
Perhaps, but freedom of speech is always about a specific issue; no one can bring a lawsuit about “freedom of speech” in general. And it is a matter of religion, not insulting. I know it’s hard to see that way, but this is the nature of *religion* rather than just “how we kind of feel about things” (which is what most people have in place of religion IMO). True religion compells action. If we say “you can believe whatever you want, but you can’t speak about it and you certainly can’t *do* anything about it,” then what is religious freedom? No one ever needed the freedom to practice and believe in secret. Everyone has always had that as long as they kept their secret well.
Fundamentalist Christians believe homosexuality is wrong in the same way that I believe that pedophilia is wrong. If the law were changed to allow pedophilia as long as the child agreed (i.e. two “consenting” people), I would speak out saying that a child *can’t* agree; it is a inherently coercive relationship. Imagine if people passed rules saying that I was intolerant in this view and threatened to fire me from my job for speaking out about it. I would still have to fight it because pedophilia is wrong. That knot in your stomach that you get when you even think about it, that’s how Fundamentalists feel when we say that homosexuality is good. We’re right and they’re wrong, but we must understand that their goal isn’t just to insult and make fun of people. It’s to object to things they deeply believe are wrong.
We must keep the right to object loudly and forcibly to those things that we disagree with. If we disagree with them because our religion tells us so, it should be no less protected than if we do it because our reason tells us so.
Truth and good will never win by silencing lies and evil. They will only win out by defeating lies and evil out in the open. We must change the minds of Christians, not silence them. We did it before when racism became evil even in church (and I’ve been in enough Fundamentalist churches to say that overt racism is considered more repugnant there as in society at large). In 50 years, we’ll look back on this time in the same way as we look back at the Civil Rights movement. We didn’t need Universities to pass rules banning speaking out against integration; we needed integration to happen and the results would speak for themselves.
*Twitchspaz* OW! There’s opinions…Then there’s wtf moments.
People claim that they want justice on the surface, but truthfully they want the world to be unfair in their favor. Which is diametrically opposed. You cannot have an unfair world (in your favor) and justice.
This theme runs throughout almost all of our culture. Watch for it at a movie near you!
People need to stop trying to be the reigning party and just treat everyone with fairness.
Hell met the handbasket, but why did I?
It is probably too late to jump in here, but we need to separate freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
If FoS already grants it then the suit is void to begin with. You don’t have to sue under FoR to be allowed to watch cable tv – you already have it (for example).
Both are first-ammendment provisions; I don’t know why you would need to separate one from the other. Do you have to separate freedom of speech from freedom of assembly when the two overlap? Why in particular would the suit be void given that her speech is being restricted (provided the court rules that it is being restricted) and that speaking out is a part of her religion?
A key question here is whether freedom of religion includes freedom to act upon your religion. This has always been a fuzzy line. Do Jews have the right to perform animal sacrifices in violation of zoning? Do Rastafarians and certain Native American tribes have the right to restricted drugs? And who gets to decide what’s a religion?
But in any case, I don’t understand your point about the case being void. When you say “you already have [the right],” isn’t that exactly what you would sue about? The fact that you’re being prevented from exercising your right? What else would a lawsuit be about?