Sunday, November 29, 2009

Global Blasphemy Law?

American Atheists reports: A key U.S. ally in the "war on terror" is one of two nations leading a group of Islamic countries proposing a global ban on "blasphemy."

Associated Press has obtained documents indicating that Pakistan and Algeria are spear heading a campaign to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery -- "essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West."

Reporter Frank Jordans of AP observed: "If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free speech if it risks seriously offending religious believers." He added, "The process, though, will take years and no showdown is imminent."

The proposed resolution has been presented to the United Nations several times in recent years at the behest of the Organization of the Islamic Conference which represents 56 predominantly Muslim nations. Islamic concerns over blasphemy have been growing. When Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses" was published, for instance, India banned the book as an affront to Islam. Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran then issued his notorious "fatwa" or death sentence; and throughout the world, Islamists organized street demonstrations, riots and even bombings while demanding that governments prohibit the printing or distribution of Rushdie's novel.

In England and several other nations, select Christian, Muslim and even some Jewish leaders condemned the work as an "insult" to religious faith.

Four years ago, the publication of cartoons in the Danish press with an unflattering portrayal of Mohamed led to similar riots and the call for government action to enforce or craft strict anti-blasphemy statutes. And earlier this year, the OIC and its allies introduced a non-binding blasphemy resolution identical to the earlier version. That measure is now slated to be presented at the U.N. General Assembly in December.

Several factors may be fueling the Islamist campaign to rein-in "offensive" and anti-religious expressions. The growth of the Internet and other forms of communications technology has rendered traditional political borders less cohesive. So has the increase in international travel and commerce, along with greater interpersonal contact between diverse "civil society"
groups. Religious movements have benefited from this process as well, though. Islamic fundamentalists often cite the aggressive proselytizing of Christian missionary organizations which many in the Middle East view as a coordinated "attack" on Muslim cultural, religious and political institutions.

Islamists have found some common cause with other religious movements anxious at the spread of values they see as deleterious to faith --everything from consumerism, gender empowerment for women and gays, and secularism in general. Christian evangelicals have denounced American culture for its tendency to "privatize" religion, while at the same time demanding greater access to nations in the Third World -- including Muslim-dominated Southeast Asia and the Middle East -- in order to carry out "the Great Commission" and spread Christianity. Islamic activists have a similar agenda, calling for everything from jihad to the resurrection of an Islamic caliphate into Europe and even the United States. In Britain, for instance, Muslim leaders have expressed outrage at efforts to prevent the building of mosques and religious schools, and are calling for the institution of Sha'ria or religious law.

Pakistan in the Middle?

Pakistan has some of the most severe anti-blasphemy laws in the world. The government must also walk a tightrope between its influential military complex (armed with nuclear weapons, "the Islamic Bomb"), pressure from the United States to cooperate in efforts to suppress the Taliban, and a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement within its own borders. Ironically, a broad coalition of human rights groups, Christians and Muslim legal experts have become increasingly vocal in speaking out against any existing and proposed blasphemy statutes in Pakistan, charging that the measures actually contribute to religious tensions and violence. A report from Asia News last week noted: A popular front is emerging in the country which promises to bring the battle (against blasphemy measures) of laws that provide for life imprisonment or the death penalty for those who profane the Koran, or defame the name of the prophet Muhammed..."

One group calling for prohibition of blasphemy laws is the secular civil society movement Peoples Resistance. It found an unlikely ally in the Pakistan Christian Congress; and in late October, the two organizations held meetings and passed resolutions declaring blasphemy statutes "unjust, unconstitutional and an instrument in hands of extremists to target vulnerable religious minorities."

Feminist and gay liberation groups are also calling for action to abolish the blasphemy statutes; their concerns are being echoed by a number of prominent Pakistani government leaders an politicians who are demanding that the law be repealed. Women's rights activist Hilda Saeed told Asian News, "Pakistan is one of the countries where protection of minorities is respected." Other critics note that the blasphemy statutes were introduced in 1986 under the reign of military dictator Muhammed Zia Al-Haq, and are incompatible with a democratic society.

The blasphemy issue has also become a tool in the hands of religious zealots who cite the need for such a law while carrying out acts of violence against their theological and political opponents..

Ireland -- A Disgrace!

While blasphemy statutes are currently associated with intolerant, authoritarian Muslim governments, support for such measures in the West often takes the form of calls to prohibit "hate speech" and defamatory remarks directed against a specific faith or religion in general.

That rationale worked in Ireland -- for years a Mecca for cutting edge artists, writers and other creative talent --which recently enacted a blasphemy law that was signed by President Mary McAleese in July. It provides stiff fines for publications of utterances that violate the "Defamation Bill." Although it allows for "reasonable" exemptions, critics say that the measure is a slippery slope on the road to banning any criticism or "hurtful" remarks concerning religious beliefs. Procedural glitches have stalled enforcement of the statute, which is now expected to go into effect in January, 2010.

At the United Nations, observers who monitor the effort to enact blasphemy controls say that by continually introducing proposals, the OIC is simply counting on gradually accumulating support that, it hopes,will overwhelm any resistance. The prospect of violence over the next "offensive" cartoon, play, book or remark will also give added voice to blasphemy statute proponents. There is,finally,the on-going confrontation of values -- Enlightenment-era tolerance and civil liberties pitted against calls for religious (Sha'ria) law and "protection" for assorted religious groups. Ironically, as secularism spreads and contributes to the growth of authentic civil society groups, the religious become more anxious that their values are "under stack." In the meantime, it is imperative that defenders of free thought and free expression speak out vocally against any national or international measures like the OIC proposals which, under the guise of "protecting" faith-based groups and ideas, violate human rights, prevent questioning of religion, and provide the faithful a "free pass" from any criticism or doubt.

47 comments:

BAWDYSCOT said...

Thank goodness we have our Constitution which if we follow it would make this issue moot. The only thing we need to worry about is whether the group in power(any group) deems the document as the cornerstone to our love affair with individual freedom or not.

G said...

Let's hope our nation isn't overrun by those who consider it a "living" constitution.

This anti-blasphemy stuff shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. Isn't it just a bit farther down that road of speech codes based on potential offense (or "hate") rather than actual danger to the public?

BAWDYSCOT said...

This thought came to me last night. Why should any of us follow any of the laws Congress enacts if we don't even follow the Constitution, the cornerstone of our country's being? The biggest reason to defend the "dead" Constitution is the consistancy it provides. If it is a moving target the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

csm said...

And, unfortunately, it is seeming more and more like the Constitution is becoming worthless. We already have faith-based initiatives, erosion of state's rights, the PATRIOT Act, and on and on and...

I don't necessarily "believe" that our country will support this anti-blasphemy bullshit -- that'd mean we'd have to talk nice about Islam. But it wouldn't shock me at all if there were attempts to make anti-Christian blasphemy illegal.

G said...

Why wouldn't that surprise you? Is it because Christians have so often sought to put limitations on the First Amendment by regulating speech? Oh wait... that would be the liberals/progressives.

BAWDYSCOT said...

And John McCain.

Mike aka Dragonfly said...

It is already here and the POTUS is on board! After the attacks at Ft. Hood Big O first response “Let us not jump to conclusions” although the proofs were quite evident the murderer was a follower of Allah. When the abortion doctor was brutally murdered he never made a similar plee. Fact is, Christianity is fair game for all insults, jokes and disparage. We don’t fear a Christian bringing jihad to our doorstep. Even Hollywood has gone out of its way to not dishonor Islam. The reason is simple. Might makes right and if you dare mess with Allah jihadist just might knock down your door.

Let me give a shout out ‘ALLAH-U-AKBAR” for any of you who might dare dispute me.

My apologies for my previous release Bawdy without ample warning!

From the bunkers just outside Kabul, Drangonfly relase!

csm said...

Christians (not all by any means, but enough to be scary) want this to be a CHRISTIAN NATION. And they go to outlandish means to claim that it always was. And they put their commandments on public property. And they infiltrate government whenever and however they can to promote their agenda. It is the intention of christians to convert all to their religion... their lord tells them to do so. Now why would I worry about any of this? I should just bend over and take it up the ass for jesus, I suppose.

csm said...

And liberals want to suppress free speech? Really? Examples please.

BAWDYSCOT said...

Obama hasn't dismantled Bush's Faith Based Initiative either, if I remember correctly.

G said...

Examples? How about what you mention in your own post? Do you have a problem with someone posting the ten commandments on public property? The effort to ban all religious expression of that kind is at attempt to suppress freedom of speech. If an individual judge wants to put some verses from the Bible (or the Koran, etc.) up in his courtroom, freedom of speech says he can do so.

Where do speech codes on college campuses come from? How about the push for "hate speech" legislation? The "fairness doctrine"? Who uses the IRS as a weapon against churches who dare to say anything political? Which side of congress refuses to allow dissenting voices to be heard? Is it the right or the left that launches all-out assaults on those who dare to publicly oppose gay marriage?

Do we need to continue?

G said...

While I don't really like the term "Christian nation", the intent of the founders was never a "secular nation" either. But it is impossible to deny that the U.S. was settled and founded predominantly by religious people, mostly Christian.

Why don't you provide your examples of how Christians "infiltrate government". Or is that just your snarky way of saying that Christians are often politically active, just like anyone else? What exactly is this "agenda" that you seem to think is so dangerously insidious?

I can't recall ever hearing of a push to ban blasphemy of Jesus or to force people into Christianity. Have you? On what basis do you project the iron fist of Islam onto American Christianity?

Mike aka Dragonfly said...

Across the pond, we are a viewed as a Christian nation. There is no debate on that. Unfortunately for the Christians, Hollywood actors are considered to be Christian. That is the only view of America many get and since America is predominately Christian there is your banner for the world. Perception is reality.

csm said...

The desire to keep your fucking religion out of our government is not a supression of free speech but a desire to protect the liberty of all.

And nobody is attempting to ban "all religious epxression" numbnuts! Keep your religion out of our government. That is the Constitutional way of behaving. But fucking christians can't get that thru their dense skulls.

Let's allow that "individual judge" of your to put up a sign that says FUCK JESUS UP HIS HOLY ASS and then see how fast the christians scream against "free speech" - most likely you included, but I'll wait for a reply if you choose to make one, G.

The IRS is NOT used "as a weapon against churches who dare to say anything political" but is used by churches to not pay their fair fucking share of taxes!

"Which side of congress refuses to allow dissenting voices to be heard?" Both! Are you really claiming otherwise?

And the opposition to gar marriage - and even the fact that marriage is a government thing - is all due to fuycking christian interference with the secular government intended for this nation.

G said...

Wow, where do I start? I guess I'll just go through that post piece-by-piece.

"The desire to keep your ... religion out of our government is not a supression of free speech but a desire to protect the liberty of all."

I said nothing about trying to insert my "religion" into our government, nor would I ever want to do so. What I described was an individual's personal decision to display (or say, for that matter) something on public property. To restrict someone from doing so IS suppression of that person's freedom of speech. Are you able to see the self-contradiction in your desire to restrict religious expression in order to protect liberty (i.e. freedom from restrictions)?

"And nobody is attempting to ban 'all religious epxression'

What I said was "all religious expression OF THAT KIND".

"Keep your religion out of our government. That is the Constitutional way of behaving."

Please quote the section of the Constitution that specifically bans personal religious expression by public employees or on public land.

"Let's allow that "individual judge" of your to put up a sign that says ... and then see how fast the christians scream against "free speech" - most likely you included, but I'll wait for a reply if you choose to make one, G."

He has the freedom to do so. It would be rude and offensive, but not illegal as far as I know. When was the last time you heard Christians arguing against free speech? Off the top of my head, I can't recall it ever happening.

"The IRS is NOT used 'as a weapon against churches who dare to say anything political' but is used by churches to not pay their fair ... share of taxes!"

The tax code wasn't written by churches. And they DO pay taxes. Of course, they receive the same exemptions as any other non-profit organization. But I always find it interesting that the "wall of separation" crowd doesn't seem to want that wall with respect to taking tax money from churches.

"'Which side of congress refuses to allow dissenting voices to be heard?' Both! Are you really claiming otherwise?"

I know that both sides use strong-arm tactics to get their way. But have you ever heard of an incident where Republicans locked Dem committee members out of a session? Or refused to even allow a dissenting expert to be heard? That's what the Dems have been doing, with seemingly increasing frequency.

"And the opposition to gar marriage - and even the fact that marriage is a government thing - is all due to ... christian interference with the secular government intended for this nation."

What kind of "secular government" do you think was intended? If you mean a government completely devoid of all religious expression, then you must be choosing to ignore the facts of history and the clear reading of the First Amendment.

But that's just a diversion from the point. It is exclusively the gay marriage supporters who have tried to squelch the constitutionally protected rights, through harassment and intimidation, of those who are opposed to their cause.

And I'm still waiting to hear about how Christians are "infiltrating government" or what exactly is their insidious "agenda".

BAWDYSCOT said...

Hey g, I want to display this year's Playboy Playmates luscious orbs above the fresco on our Superior Court Building. Do you think you could write me a legal brief which could get that done? I'd owe you one.

g, you have got to recognize there IS a faction which wants to make this a "Christian Nation" officially. You may not be one of them, but they are out there.

I believe the ninth amendment bestows upon the citizenry the rights not enumerated in the rest of the text. Now maybe I am wrong, but I would consider freedom FROM religion would be one of those. There are plenty of places where religious imagery can be displayed appropriately, why they must use public property seems a little confrontational to me.

G said...

I realize you're being facetious about the playmates, but I'll answer it anyway (just in case some fool thinks it's a legitimate argument). For one thing, I don't think a photo of breasts could be classified as "speech" under even the most broad definition. There is a definite distinction between words (whether they be spoken or written) and images. I think the courts err greatly when they conflate "freedom of expression" (not in the Constitution) with "freedom of speech". Also, the courts have been clear about certain types of images being inappropriate for minors (hence the restriction on even displaying the covers of some magazines). So unless the fresco you've chosen is inaccessible to minors, it won't fly.

On your second point, I do recognize that there is a faction that would like to make the U.S. a "Christian nation" (whatever that entails in their minds). But they are a very small minority. So it isn't really accurate to say that "Christians want this to be a Christian nation". I know csm qualified the statement, but saying it is "enough to be scary" is paranoia.

Your third point is the most salient. I agree that the 9th and 10th amendments guarantee all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the people and the individual states, although I disagree with "bestows" because it implies that individual rights are "granted" by the Constitution rather than being inherent rights given by the Creator (even though that's from a different document).

However, I don't believe those rights are toward anything like "freedom from religion" in general as I think you mean it (freedom from having to see or hear any religious expression in the public square). If a state or locality decided to outlaw (through due process, according to the laws in place) religious symbols on their property, they are free to do so. They could also ban citrus fruit and the color purple for that matter. But if you happen to mean by "freedom from religion" that they can't force you to take any part in any particular religion, then I would agree with you.

I don't see it as confrontational, particularly because most of these symbols have been in place for many decades (sometimes centuries) without complaint. The confrontations only come about when someone (often a single person) starts demanding that they be taken down, as if they think they have a Constitutional right to never see or hear anything offensive to them.

csm said...

The reason minors are being protected from something as horrific as a woman's breasts (wonderful things many of those little fuckers sucked on for months) is completely due to the puritanical, religious mindfuckery. I can whip my nipples out in public whenever I choose, but a woman cannot - and yes, that is because of religion.

You do make an interesting point though that speech and expression are not necessarily the same thing. Many courts disagree, but hell, courts can be wrong.

Your argument that religious shit in public should be OK because those things have been "in place for many decades (sometimes centuries)" is very wrong-headed. If that were the case, then slavery was fine, too. It was in place for a long time. Racism? Fine. Cruel and unusual punishment? Fine and dandy! Keeping women down? That gets a pass, too. Do you see where you are wrong here, g?

csm said...

Here is a stupid little article where Republican fuckery screwed a Dem on a local level... funny, and sad.

G said...

I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that those things being around so long mean they should be ok. It just shows that most of the confrontational attitude is coming from the other side that has only recently begun to complain and try to force them down.

The reason I believe they should be permitted is that the Constitution forbids the federal government from preventing it. If a state or local community wants to ban it, fine. If they want to permit it, fine. If someone doesn't like it, they can try to sway public opinion to their side... or move.

Thanks for the link. That was pretty funny. I wish I could see the video.

csm said...

Oh, I think I understood your point, all right. It is just that the point was ridiculous. Who cares when someone starts to complain about correcting a wrong? Folks generally throw out statements like you made when they don't have a solid case to make, so they rely on something like "Well, it has always been that way."

The Constitution is very clear about keeping religion our of government and keeping government our of religion. It is only religious zealots who see it otherwise.

csm said...

Whoops. Replace "our" with "out" in both places in my previous comment.

G said...

It isn't ridiculous. It's simple logic. If something has been in place, without issue, since before any of us were born, then the one being "confrontational" is the one who brings about a confrontation (i.e. the one who demands it be taken down). That fact says nothing about whether it is right or wrong to bring about that confrontation. And it says nothing about whether the other side ADDS to the confrontation. But there is no doubt about where that confrontation was initiated.

At the same time, we can look at the behavior of government officals (presidents, senators, judges, etc.) in the earliest stages of our nation to give us insight into exactly what degree of "separation" was intended in the Constitution.

Not only is it clear from the plain reading of the First Amendment that the founders never intended to have all religious expression banned from government. The words and actions of the founders reveal the same thing.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's all there is. Only an absolutely biased mind can interpret those simple words as meaning "keeping religion out of government and keeping government out of religion".

G said...

I think I need to rephrase that last part to be more precise.

Only an absolutely biased mind can interpret those simple words as meaning "keeping religion out of government and keeping government out of religion" in the way you intend to convey.

BAWDYSCOT said...

"For one thing, I don't think a photo of breasts could be classified as "speech" under even the most broad definition. There is a definite distinction between words (whether they be spoken or written) and images. I think the courts err greatly when they conflate "freedom of expression" (not in the Constitution) with "freedom of speech". Also, the courts have been clear about certain types of images being inappropriate for minors (hence the restriction on even displaying the covers of some magazines). So unless the fresco you've chosen is inaccessible to minors, it won't fly."


So are you saying images can't relay pertinent political massages just as effectively as words, oral or written? Words are used to put forth ideas, but so do images and I believe with all my heart those are protected by the Constitution. I cannot fathom your argument. Thomas Jefferson, viewing Dr. Strangelove, just might laugh his ass right off! Satire doesn't happen by words alone.

"But they are a very small minority. So it isn't really accurate to say that "Christians want this to be a Christian nation"."

You are misquoting me if you are quoting me,

"g, you have got to recognize there IS a faction which wants to make this a "Christian Nation" officially. You may not be one of them, but they are out there."

Calling out a faction is not saying,
"Christians want this to be a Christian nation". It is saying there are some out there who want their belief system to become the official belief system and if you were take an even smaller section who probably wouldn't mind if it was fully sanctioned by the federal government. Chalk that up to paranoia if you want to but if you were in my shoes, well....what is that saying, paranoiacs aren't always wrong.

"Your third point is the most salient. I agree that the 9th and 10th amendments guarantee all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the people and the individual states, although I disagree with "bestows" because it implies that individual rights are "granted" by the Constitution rather than being inherent rights given by the Creator (even though that's from a different document)."

I'll concede this point to a certain extent, but you just had to get the Creator in there. The Age of Reason was just the beginning and there was a open question to enough of a degree to give us the Freedom of Religion, i.e. there may be another path to enlightenment besides Jesus Christ. That and the fact many Quaker houses of worship just happened to catch fire.

As for the rest of your post you seem to be saying that because these "symbols"(which if I remember correctly AREN'T Constitutionally protected according to you, they aren't words, oral or written)have a history they should be allowed. Now I happen to be a pretty open reasonable person(no laughing) and when I see the umpteenth Nativity Scene I give it no mind. I don't care if they start high school football games with a prayer. This is all part of the scenery. My problems are with the people who have a problem with the people who have a problem with the public religion, because that is where we start to get the "Christian Nation" talk. And to top it off I will take tits to a Nativity Scene any day!

BAWDYSCOT said...

One more thought,g. I believe Piss Christ is Constitutionally protected. It shouldn't have been funded by the NEA because there shouldn't be a NEA, but it is Constitutionally protected speech. Would you agree that if a township of some reasonable size decided to display this piece at Christmas time in the village square they would have a right to?

csm said...

So, G, if I understand you, you are now attempting to say that your whole point is that the people who are raising the issue about religious expression in government properties are the ones raising the issue (that is, confronting it)? Wow. Circular logic much?

Face it, you were complaining about people trying to undo something that has been around for a long time and conflating the time duration with a sense of its rightness. That is what I "believe" you were doing.

And there are other places in the Constitution that talk about church/state separation. Just like the bible, you need to read the whole thing in context!!! (He says, tongue in cheek, laughing his fucking ass off.)

G said...

I wasn't saying that about images at all. They can convey strong messages as well. But they aren't protected to the same degree as words. For example, if you wanted to put up a billboard with the latest Hustler centerfold in graphic form, you just can't do it legally. But when it comes to words, the courts have been very strict in only limiting speech that is an immediate public danger. "Offensive" speech isn't to be restricted, but some images that are broadly deemed offensive and inappropriate for minors can be prohibited. While Thomas Jefferson may have enjoyed that movie with you, I highly doubt that he would have accepted hardcore porn on public display as being protected by the First Amendment.

Second point: I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting csm.

Third point: I didn't inject the Creator into the issue of rights. The founders of the nation did. From what I've seen, I don't think the founders believed that our rights were bestowed upon us by the Constitution, but that the Constitution merely codified the rights that were bestowed upon us by God. Whether one believes in God or not, that's an important point.

Finally, I wasn't saying anything about whether the symbols should be allowed because of their history. I was only trying to point out where the confrontation was initiated.

As for the symbols themselves, I don't believe they are either protected or restricted by the Constitution. And I find it extremely distasteful to see people try to twist the establishment clause in order to protect their delicate eyes from ever having to glimpse something that is offensive to their sensibilities.

Now if CONGRESS were to try to do something along those lines for the entire nation, then there would be a BIG problem.

Anonymous said...

Regarding that piece of "art", I agree with you. The federal govt has no business using tax money to fund art. It has nothing to do with the general welfare of the country. Yes, art adds to the culture, etc. But people are going to get upset when they see their tax dollars funding things that are blatantly offensive to their sensibilities.

If a township decided to do that, then I do believe it would be legal. Spiteful jerks? Yes. A stupid political move? Definitely. But legal nonetheless.

G said...

Sorry. That last one was me.

G

csm,
I'm wiped out. I'll have to get to yours tomorrow.

csm said...

So then, using your logic G, the judge who puts up his cross or ten commandments is, by extension, a spiteful jerk?

csm said...

And this is not true --> "But when it comes to words, the courts have been very strict in only limiting speech that is an immediate public danger."

Carlin's seven words you can't say on television... or on the radio... or, I'm sure, put on a billboard. All because of deference to religion.

BAWDYSCOT said...

Took the words right out of my mouth, csm.

Shit, cunt, fuck, motherfucker, cocksucker, tits, I forget the other so I will use twat, are words, and maybe even words TJ would never utter even in impolite comapny, but they are(or should be)protected speech. They aren't yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, they are handy words used my many citizens everyday. Now I thought we wanted a "dead" Constitution, g. Everybody has sensibilities and they can get stepped on legally, but not arbitrarily.

"And I find it extremely distasteful to see people try to twist the establishment clause in order to protect their delicate eyes from ever having to glimpse something that is offensive to their sensibilities."

Now I am on record saying I could care less about all the hoopla about Nativty scenes in public squares or public prayers; it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am not csm. What does bother me is the fact that public displays of female mammaries are offensive to some sensibilities and are illegal because of that sensibility. Tits aren't yelling "fire" in a theater either unless you are speaking of that warm feeling you get inside, if you know what I mean.

verification word: skippo

BAWDYSCOT said...

Oh, and by the way, g. I hope you don't think Dr. Strangelove is some pornographic movie. It actually is a hilarious anti-nuke movie directed by Stanley Kubrick released in 1964. One of the best cinematic political satires ever produced in my estimation. If you haven't seen it you should give it a try, especially if this nanny state of ours tries to ban it because of it's anti-government nature.

G said...

Don't worry, Bawdy. I didn't grow up among the Amish. I've seen it. But in daring to speak on behalf of Thomas Jefferson, I needed to take the example well beyond any potential gray area.

csm,

I wasn't complaining at all. Those comments were a response to Bawdy's statement that putting up those displays on public property is confrontational. You are wrong in what you "believe" I was doing.

Feel free to point out those other places where the Constitution talks about church/state separation... and explain how it means that all religious expression is forbidden for all public officials and in all publicly owned locales.

"So then, using your logic G, the judge who puts up his cross or ten commandments is, by extension, a spiteful jerk?"

Possibly, but not necessarily. And probably not in most cases. That particular piece of "art" is pretty much the equivalent of flipping the bird to a particular group of people. Most of the religious displays are intended to celebrate, honor, or recognize an event or person that is significant to those people.

As for Carlin's "seven words", that is the jurisdiction of the FCC. I was speaking of the courts.

Yes, those words fall under "protected speech" according to the Constitution. But even a guaranteed right does not mean that right is immutable in every time and place. If a kindergarten teacher is lacing all her lessons with f-bombs, she'll be fired quickly and won't have any legal recourse based on First Amendment rights. In the case of the airwaves, the FCC has jurisdiction over them, and thus makes the rules. If you want to use the airwaves, you have to follow their rules. I'm sure those regulations are antiquated now with cable, satellite, and internet. But still, that's the way it is. I have no idea how those rules came about. I know you attribute them to religion, but I don't know whether that's actually the case. When radio and television first came around, most people (religious or not) still felt that there were certain things that shouldn't be spoken in "polite company".

csm said...

Bawdy: The 7 words are shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

G: Yet where in the Constitution does it talk about "polite company?"

And like I said, you have to read the whole Contitution to understand its true meaning [guffaw, guffaw]

csm said...

Oh, and I see that you can read minds, G. You know why people do things even without asking, even before they do them, and in this case, even as an academic (well, maybe not academic) exercise. The loving and considerate christians want to display their talismans and rules all for noble and wonderful purposes; and the evil piss-christers are just being vindictive. Couldn't be that free speech and expression is as important to them as the archaic fairies and sky gods are to the religious... [please imbue the previous paragraph with the condescension, derision, and disgust I intended]

csm said...

And g, please do some basic research before making comments that show you to be uninformed (probably willfully so in order to cling to your opinions and beliefs). Namely, you should check into the Supreme Court Decision FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026 (1978)

G said...

I've read the entire Constitution, many times. If you're only response to my request for citations of those "other places in the Constitution that talk about church/state separation" is "you have to read the whole Constitution", then I must conclude that you aren't able to point to anything.

If a constitutional issue is brought before the courts, the complaint can't be just that there is a violation of "the Constitution". The complaint has to address the specific section in question.

And I'm already familiar with the "Carlin" case. What the court did was affirm the FCC's authority to regulate the airwaves in that way. They didn't determine that Carlin's routine was outside the protection of the First Amendment, but that even though it WAS protected, that did not mean that it was illegal to censor it in certain contexts.

If memory serves me correctly, I believe that the actual complaint even affirmed the Constitution protected the right to do that routine (and even sell recordings of it), but that the FCC had a right to restrict it from the airwaves at a time when children would be likely to be listening.

So in your effort to make me appear "uninformed" and blinded by religion on the matter, you've pointed to a specific court case that actually confirms the position I stated. Thank you.

G said...

... and I never said "polite company" had anything to do with the Constitution. It was still an accepted part of the mores of American society in the first half of the 20th Century.

G said...

Regarding the displays, I don't need to read minds. Just use a little common sense. Do you actually think that a state seal with a cross that was created 150 years ago was done to inflame the sensibilities of non-Christians?

As I said, there probably ARE some situations where someone is putting up a religious-themed display just to irritate others (particularly the "freedom FROM religion" crowd). But I seriously doubt that's the case in most situations.

At the same time, I'm sure there would be situations where displaying that kind of "art" would be done appropriately, and with the right attitude. But that particular piece (and Serrano's work in general) incites strong reactions from many people. It is intentionally provocative.

G said...

By the way, lest anyone think this issue only goes one way, there has been at least one instance (a very old one) of this First Amendment vs. FCC issue where a "religious" broadcaster was removed from the airwaves because of his anti-Roman Catholicism rants. I can't remember the name of the case off the top of my head.

BAWDYSCOT said...

Piss, I forgot piss. How could I forget piss. Shame on me.

csm said...

Random thoughts based on re-reading all the comments here:

* Don't forget piss, Bawdy... or you will gain a lot of weight.

* It is a LIVING Constitution, just like intended. Otherwise, there would be no Bill of Rights... and no ammendments.

* "We don’t fear a Christian bringing jihad to our doorstep." Sure... sure... tell that to the DEAD doctors who performed abortions.

* "At the same time, we can look at the behavior of government officals (presidents, senators, judges, etc.) in the earliest stages of our nation to give us insight into exactly what degree of "separation" was intended in the Constitution." At the same time, we can look to the actions of those days to guide us on slavery and racism and...

* RE: Constitution and religion - - Just like you and the fucking bible, G (in case you didn't get the reference).

Anyway, it is obvious that the First Amendment provides a wall of separation between church and state. Using your own logic, G, going back to the earliest days (1802) that is how Jefferson interpreted it.

The intent of the founders was based upon the assumption that governments do not inherently exist, but "are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed." America’s founding generation recognized that
political sovereignty resided fully in the people!

G said...

"* It is a LIVING Constitution, just like intended. Otherwise, there would be no Bill of Rights... and no ammendments."

If all you mean by "living Constitution" is that it can be amended in the way set forth in the document itself, then I agree. The problem is that most people who claim it's a "living" document mean that the actual interpretation of those same words can change over time, even if no actual changes have been made to the document. That view is ridiculous.

"* "At the same time, we can look at the behavior of government officals (presidents, senators, judges, etc.) in the earliest stages of our nation to give us insight into exactly what degree of "separation" was intended in the Constitution." At the same time, we can look to the actions of those days to guide us on slavery and racism and..."

If those things had been written into the Constitution, then you would have a valid point. But the best way to interpret what the founders intended by what they wrote is by looking at how they behaved while in office.

"Anyway, it is obvious that the First Amendment provides a wall of separation between church and state. Using your own logic, G, going back to the earliest days (1802) that is how Jefferson interpreted it."

Are you referring to the same Thomas Jefferson who, as President, attended church services at the Capitol building (the one Congress voted to be used as a church facility in addition to the seat of the government)? The T.J. who, as President, began church services at his own executive branch and the treasury? The one who praised the use of a local courthouse for religious services? The one who proposed that the Great Seal of the United States would include the word 'God' in its motto and have a Bible story depicted? The one who closed his presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Christ..."?

It doesn't seem that Jefferson viewed that separation the way you think he did. And I don't think you would be comfortable at all with a Jeffersonian church-state viewpoint. Aside from the things I mentioned above, TJ's view of the First Amendment's establishment clause was that it was strictly applicable to the federal govt, but not to the states. His writings seem to indicate that he didn't see a constitutional restriction on individual states establishing religion. In fact, as governor, Jefferson declared religious days of prayer and thanksgiving. He wouldn't do that as president, but he didn't have a problem doing so as a governor.

In the Draft Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson put "freedom of religion" at the same level of protection as freedom of speech and of the press. He argued that any restriction on any one of those freedoms will tear down the protections of the others as well.

BAWDYSCOT said...

But TJ also had respect for the other "great" religions too. I don't think he would have considered this a "Christian Nation", but more a nation for all to seek their happiness wherever that would take them.

G said...

I doubt that he would use the term. It's imprecise. I don't use it either. But it is clear from his actions that his view of the First Amendment was not what the "wall of separation" crowd thinks it was.