glintofpewter

I guess the burden is on us to provide an exception to your global assertion.

 

I offer the law regarding threats to kill the president. I believe that is an example of a hate speech law that is fairly and justly administered. I assume that the courts are part of figuring out how to apply the law.

 

Dutch

Paul, George,

I think the three of us would be enough. I'll order my copy and let you know when it comes in.

 

Dutch

<quote>like the Texas sodomy laws. I have yet to see an example of a law restricting free speech that was used in a fair and just manner.</quote>

Many of your examples which are short on details are examples of the fallacy of vividness. I believe since it is you that are making the argument that all laws regarding speech have not been been applied fairly and in a just manner you must bring forth an example. I am waiting for a specific law applied to a variety cases in the last 20 years.

 

Dutch

I see that you feel good that you were able to articulate your thoughts well. I have some quibbles but I am glad you got a positive response from your friend.

 

Dutch

And there are plenty of laws that are so inherently corrupt or easily open to abuse that they can never be revised to be more humane, like the Texas sodomy laws. I have yet to see an example of a law restricting free speech that was used in a fair and just manner.

I am waiting for a specific law applied to a variety cases in the last 5 years. Laws and government are always expressions of their time. Hindsight always suggests that we are smarter than someone who lived and made laws 100 years ago. In 100 years people will be saying the same thing about you and me.

 

If you will read your state's criminal statutes you will see evidence of continuing changes as they rewrite the definitions of the crimes and the severity (petty, misdemeanor, felony, 1,2,3,4,5,) Sections deleted, Revised, etc. There are occassionally references to court cases which clarify the application of the law. Laws are a work in progress. Sometimes they show us at our best and sometimes they don't. Attitudes about sex offense change and the laws changed. If you committed a sex offense in 1978 in Colorado you did not have to register regularly for the rest of your life. after 1994 you do.

 

Dutch

Here are my attempts at some of these:

 

1. Walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths to wholeness

 

4. Celebrating our connection with the universe and each other in joyful vibrant rituals which resonate with deep truth of texts we call sacred.

 

8. Walking humbly and confidently, acknowledging our own shortcomings while honestly seeking to understand and call forth the best in others, including those who consider us their enemies;

 

12. Seeking a meaning and purpose; a vocation to add value to the universe.

 

Dutch

1. Walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths that God may provide for humanity;

 

2. Listening for God’s Word which comes through daily prayer and meditation, studying the ancient testimonies which we call Scripture, and attending to God’s present activity in the world;

 

3. Celebrating the God whose Spirit pervades and whose glory is reflected in all of God’s Creation, including the earth and its ecosystems, the sacred and secular, the Christian and non-Christian, the human and non-human;

 

4. Expressing our love in worship that is as sincere, vibrant, and artful as it is scriptural.

 

8. Walking humbly with God, acknowledging our own shortcomings while honestly seeking to understand and call forth the best in others, including those who consider us their enemies;

 

12. Acting on the faith that we are born with a meaning and purpose; a vocation and ministry that serve to strengthen and extend God’s realm of love.

So if God is a problematical word for some and a personal relationship with the divine is also unimaginable for some how would you rewrite these statements so they are still significant.

 

Dutch

but Bishop Spong has a whole lecture up on youtube where he discusses the long history of Christians quoting the "sins of scripture" to justify their intolerance

A cause-effect error and part-whole error. The intolerance comes first and then the justifying and religion. We choose the religion that agrees with us. Although Spong talks and writes like he is confronting all of Christianity, he is confronting only a part. So we need to be specific.

 

Man who got sued by homeopathic advocates just for saying he thought homeopathy was a hoax. While he ended up winning the court case, he still lost tons of money from all the pointless court cases.

I don't think these are pointless caes.This is how the world works. This is part of the conversation; it is one way we discover truths for our time. Homeopathy has many critics and is fighting to remain in NHS. They are fighting on all fronts. This is not about political correctness but about science, medicine, and money.

 

I think we need very specific cases to explore the boundaries between hate speech that is just ugly and hate speech that harms

Welcome, chelovek. I am glad you joined the conversation after all this time.

 

Dutch

Not warm and fuzzy. Follows the lectionary. Can get email.

http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/?m=1

http://www.sacredspace.ie/daily-prayer

 

You might try this

It doesn't matter what people say about the Bible or anything else. People make the decision and take action. I dont't any court will find the Bible or Mein Kampf or an assault weapon guilty. It doesn't matter what they hold in their hand including any slogans used to support one's desire to take away another's humanity - which comes BEFORE the use of 'authority' to justify or weapon to carry it out.

 

I think you change people by relationship not by an historical analytic study of the Bible.

 

Seeing homosexuality as a sin or sickness was not only Christians thinking. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that psychologists decided it was not a mental illness. The Bible wasn't the issue for them. Being homophobic doesn't necessarily grow out of the Bible. Many more read the Bible and came to the opposite conclusion.

 

I think your railing against the Bible obscures your argument.

 

Dutch

From npr today:

 

U.S. notions of free speech are actually quite unique, even among democratic countries.

 

While even racially and religiously offensive material is protected in the United States, hate speech or speech that incites racial hatred is illegal in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and other European countries. In much of Europe, Holocaust denial is specifically criminalized.

There are many lines from literature that threaten death. I think people are pretty good at figuring that the quoted text isn't what is carrying the hateful intent to harm another. The Bible in and of itself is text, an inanimate object, just like a gun. It is not the Bible or the gun that speaks hatefully or kills. It is the person holding one that harms another.

 

I wonder if either praying for the president's death or an atheist wishing the president dead would rise to 'hate speech' in the countries that have such laws.

 

Dutch

Neon,

This last post is a good description of your position. And, yes, we are part that of the public conversation. But it does not change the fact that the Australians also are having this conversation and have reached a different conclusion.

 

I have not had formal logic in college but I believe your earlier post falls under the less formal but recognized "fallacy of many questions".

 

Dutch

So if we're going to criminalize people for hate speech, what should the punishment for hate speech be? Should people go to jail for it? For how long and what for? Should they have to pay a fine and how much? Should we arrest members of the Tea Party for their racist speech and hate speech against Obama and Democrats? Should Todd Akin go to jail for his offensive speech about women?

 

A long list of questions like this is a logical fallacy also. These are the questions legislators and courts ask of themselves and others in their conversations. It seems obvious that Australia and the US have arrived at different places on this issue which is not black and white.

 

Dutch

invoke an argument from popularity either for or against it would be a logical fallacy.

--o----------o-

 

And So are extreme examples.

The court has reversed itself before and may do so on abortion. They changed the course of political discussion by judging that corporations were persons. Their decisions are not final and reflect society 'best' thinking at the time.

 

Dutch

 

 

but rather that the community over time moves in a certain direction which sees old laws overturned and new appropriate ones implemented.

 

This is what the Supreme Court does. Their views change over time and their judgments are usually not affected by extreme examples.

 

Dutch

It would seem that Bishop John Spong, author of "Why Christianity must or Die" and many other books, could make you 'proud to be an Episcopalian'.

 

Welcome ginger,

 

Most of us discovered we were on the journey after we had been on it for a while. I am not sure there are any pitfalls except being certain that there is a right or wrong way.

 

For a few years I was on staff part-time in a church that had a significant fundamentalist and evangelical group. Where we had obvious disagreements about faith matters I tried to ask myself what was true about their position and why was this position important to them. Many times this would help me stay in a working relationship.

 

Even though I have moved and have an excuse to leave I may stay connected to this church for some sense of community. The pastor's sermons have recently given me new readings of a couple Gospel passages A new experience there.

 

United Church of Christ (UCC) in general are very liberal and focused on social justice issues.

 

I hope we can provide with conversations that meet your needs.

 

Dutch

Quotes from Origins of Political Power by Fukuyama

 

"Human propensity to favor family and friends"

 

"Reasserts itself in the absence of strong countervailing incentives"

 

"Organized groups - most often the rich and the powerful - entrench themselves over time begin demanding privileges from the state."

 

"These entrenched patrimonial groups can prevent the state from responding adequately."

Perhaps it is time for a book discussion Here are several suggestions. The last time we discussed a novel it was a good discussion.

 

 

Putting Away Childish Things: A Tale of Modern Faith

 

didactic novel by Marcus Borg that received good reviews. Inexpensive used copies are available

http://www.amazon.co...0&keywords=borg

 

 

Cutting for Stone Abraham Verghese

 

This novel is highly recommended by many including rivanna. Inexpensive used copies are available.

http://www.amazon.co...tting for stone

 

bookclub in a box for this book is more expensive and I am not sure how the info could be shared by the one or two who would buy the book club in a box without violating copyright but that need not stop us. Much of the info in the box is background for the novel and we find such information from those of us who participate.

 

Bookclub-in-a-Box Discusses Abraham Verghese's novel, Cutting for Stone:

http://www.amazon.co...tting for stone#_

 

 

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Jonathan Haidt

http://www.amazon.co...47765376&sr=1-1

I think this is an important book for our discussions here. Not all of us will agree. Books like this may not make good chapter by chapter studies but GeorgeW can lead us here

 

Dutch

Certainly the tribalism has negative connotations and I will admit that in my reading both Keane and fukuyakma use it in that term. But the movement is from a fictive family organisation of land ownership and the source of their sense of law. If we consider the views expressed here about some Conservatives then that is most appropriate. But it also involved in Haidt's moral foundation, loyalty. What is the group to which you are loyal. In times of stress the circle becomes smaller. It seems to me that the goal of movements like Charter of Compassion is to broaden our boundaries to include more people in the in-group. More us less them.

 

If I don't buy more crafts and products by small indigeous groups around the world their enterprises will not be successful. I think that relationship scales up in todays world.

 

Dutch

 

 

If the decision is purely rational, I would expect the level of suffering to be the decisive factor.

 

George

As we are exploring the many complexities of this issues I think we might recognize that consumerism is part of the answer. If many of us stop buying coffee many workers in 2nd and 3rd world countries would be unemployed. A long term solution to starvation is a sustainable economy. Focusing on suffering is a short term goal which would not be effective in the long term. Keeping American consumerism strong, which would not result from probusiness deregulation, speculation in commodities, and a stagnation of workers wages, would help as one factor in alleviating the suffering in the world.

 

For better, pitting tribalism against altrusim has been sidelined to some extent here. I think that the goal is to expand our sense of who and what is included in our tribe not to leave tribalism behind. Our tribal inclination is innate; we can honor it and not struggle against it.

 

Dutch

 

My memory is that schools and teachers delineated when those subjects were taught. Parents and kids knew.

 

 

A song in which the word Praise appeared 43 times. Yes, I counted them