hrothgar Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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. 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. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 but where do you draw the line? Exactly - the whole point of the thread - where does one draw the line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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?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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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?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 capitalismwinston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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?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 capitalismwinston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited? I find that I can't have an intelligent conversation with my own brother, who can repeat the Reagan ideology verbatim but goes into defense mode when confronted with the data. It simply does no good to try to analyze reality with a partner who is only interested in proving pre-held beliefs. As to the second question - you are kidding, right? The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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. Seems to me to be a narrowing of the same line. Yelling "Fire" in a theatre could be dangerous to the public and hence against the public's best interest. So might a sign be construed to be an effort to scare, frighten, or intimidate its readers, which although is not a physical danger could be thought of as a psychological danger. Seems to me to certainly be along the same lines of reasoning - although certainly quite a stretch of that reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited? Interesting graphic (yes, I know this is showing the Dow and not real GDP http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/24/bearmarkets.jpg http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.sha...bearmarkets.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited? Interesting graphic (yes, I know this is showing the Dow and not real GDP http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/24/bearmarkets.jpg http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.sha...bearmarkets.jpg I am fairly sure that the NBER timed the start of this recession as Q4 2007, making it already one of the longest and most severe in history. Add in that the recession has now gone global with the likes of Japan, England, and the EU in recession and you have the potential for depression-level worldwide carnage. It isn't too difficult to understand what happened over the past 20-25 years. Alan Greenspan's misguided belief in the ideas presented in the writings of second-rate novelist/third-rate philosopher Ayn Rand coupled with likeminded ideologists' positioning in political leadership roles led to an imbalance in productivity and real wages, creating a wage-productivity gap that new debt was used to fill. The present crisis is nothing more than the evaporation of illusory wealth that was created by the creation of a level of debt that was unsustainable - all that is happening now is that the economy is simply reverting to its mean where wages=productivity, i.e., supply=demand. Debt used as wage grout to fill the gap is no longer an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I was driving home from the market and passed the neighborhood church that has one of those message-board signs out front, where the message is hand-changed weekly, and an odd thought occured to me: what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse? I know in the U.S. there is freedom of speech, but this freedom does not apply to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. What if the church sign had read, "Repent or spend eternity in hell!" Is that the psychological equivalent of yelling "fire" when there is no fire? Seems to me I should be able to claim the sign a form of psychological abuse and demand it either be brought down or changed. Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and religious expression? What do you think? I think wherever you choose to draw the line and make it a crime similiar to yelling fire in a theater may be ok. Just keep in mind if it is a crime you need to pay for enforcement of that law. If you are going to throw these criminals in jail we need to build alot more jails and courtrooms. Every state already is letting people who are convicted of crimes out of jail due to overcrowding. Calif. alone is letting go 58,000 people. I do not mind this and other threads requesting more laws and more regulations but we need to enforce them or why bother passing or advocating new rules. It is sort of like forcing GM and C to build green/clean cars. What do we do if they do not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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? It depends. As you say, it could be a threat or it could be a warning. As a warning, it could be an argument that Obama is not capable of stopping a terrorist attack. As a threat, it could be that the sign poster intends, if Obama is elected, to carry out a terrorist attack. In the latter case, we may be moving into an illegal area. In 2009 USA, I think it is reasonable to construe "Repent or be Damned" as a warning of the long term consequences of a life w/o God. In fifteenth century Spain, I think it could sensibly be construed as a threat to join the church, pray often, and give money, or else. Context counts. That was the point of the cross burning example. Someone gets a permit to have a bonfire in a public place, then they all come in white sheets and burn a cross directly opposite the house of a new family of unsatisfactory (to them) heritage. Sorry, we are not talking about a cook-out here. Generally I oppose reading something into a statement beyond what it says, when the legal status is under consideration. For example, I don't favor burning flags, I don't favor laws forbidding the burning of flags, I don't favor interpretations of the Constitution that forbid making the burning of flags illegal. Who knows what someone is thinking when he burns a flag? Most likely he is an artist trying for some free publicity. For cross-burning I make an exception. Even if nothing explicit is said I think the message, from history and context, is clear and is understood as intended by everyone concerned. So a law banning it is, in my non-legally binding opinion, proper. "Repent or Burn in Hell", to vary it a little, is obnoxious. The sign poster can repent all he wants if he thinks that's the key to heaven. But he can also mind his own business. If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me I should lose some weight he is both rude and correct. No need to make a law to cover either case however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Just keep in mind if it is a crime you need to pay for enforcement of that law This may be true in the shorter term but is not always so longer term. Certainly there was an origination cost in bringing to trial and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1962 ban on school prayers, but once it was shown that these would indeed be the law of the land there has been no further need to actively enforce those laws on a daily basis. Besides, I am not clear on where freedom of speech line is drawn - Myself, I tend to give the right to the church to say what they believe; however, I can also understand how a challenge to that viewpoint could be validated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Just keep in mind if it is a crime you need to pay for enforcement of that law This may be true in the shorter term but is not always so longer term. Certainly there was an origination cost in bringing to trial and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1962 ban on school prayers, but once it was shown that these would indeed be the law of the land there has been no further need to actively enforce those laws on a daily basis. Besides, I am not clear on where freedom of speech line is drawn - Myself, I tend to give the right to the church to say what they believe; however, I can also understand how a challenge to that viewpoint could be validated. Winston there is a huge ongoing cost to enforcing the Civil Rights laws from the 1960's. My local paper just had an article on this subject the other day. :rolleyes: As I recall the article said they expect this expense to continue for at least another 50 years. My only point is let us not pass more laws just to feel good about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 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 A simple question. Where do you get this: "it certainly makes it appear that he is unreasonable, though i suppose the same could be said of most biases" when you read this? what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse? Is it unreasonable to ask the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlam Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse? Is it unreasonable to ask the question? No, but what if I suffered psychological abuse from reading that question?Well, you will be hearing from my lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.