Aftenposten reports - only in Norwegian, sorry, so I won't link it - that two men were fined for preaching to the crowds on May 17th. More accurately, they were asked
a) To stop using their megaphone, which they did. b) Later, in a different place, to stop preaching and leave the area, as several people had complained that they would like to enjoy the parade in peace. This they refused to do, and the police eventually arrested them; they were fined for disturbing the peace, and a court has now upheld it.
I'm glad to see Norway upholding its fine tradition of religion in private, where nobody else has to see you making a fool of yourself. Let's hope other American evangelists take note.
For those who don't konw, May 17th is the rough equivalent of July 4th; it's the day our Constitution was signed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm glad to see Norway upholding its fine tradition of religion in private
The tradition is more accurately phrased as "using the coercive power of the state to force others to keep religion private."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Was the content the issue or the fact that they were being loud?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since we can't see the article, I'm relying on KoM's account of it. He specifically celebrates this as upholding a tradition of "religion in private." So according to him, it was content based.
This seems to be supported by the fact that they complied with the request to stop using the megaphone. We have no indication of the volume in the second incident other than KoM's opinion on it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The court states that they believe the police explanation, which is that the preachers were removed for being a disturbance, not for the content of their speech.
Reading between the lines, it seems possible to me that if the preachers had not been removed from the scene, the crowd might have taken matters into its own hands, and the police acted to prevent a fight from breaking out.
quote:The tradition is more accurately phrased as "using the coercive power of the state to force others to keep religion private."
And quite rightly so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are Norwegian people accustomed to using violence against people with ideas that they don't like?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Are Norwegian people accustomed to using violence against people with ideas that they don't like?
I don't think it was the ideas that were the problem, it was the pacing behind them and loudly droning on. The people had assembled for a specific activity and were being distracted and annoyed by a completely unrelated activity. I don't know what the criteria for "disturbing the peace" is, but if a drunk staggering down the sidewalk screaming obscenities counts, this probably should too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'll translate the most relevant parts of the article, referring to a film shown to the court of the incident - it may be the same one Youtube has, I'm not sure.
quote: Some [in the crowd] show no reaction to the two men's shouts, while others feel it is the wrong time and place for Christian evangelising.
A little further up on Slottsplassen the men are contacted by a police patrol and asked to leave the location, partly because they do not have the necessary permit to use a megaphone.
The officer explained to the court that he asked them to go elsewhere because many people were reacting negatively to the Christian message on megaphone right in front of the children's parade on Constitution Day. Several people felt their behaviour was provocative and insulting.
The two men left [Slottsplassen] and put down their megaphone in a hotel room. An hour later they were found in the intersection of Kongens gate and Karl Johan [not very far from Slottsplassen, maybe five minutes' walk] where they are again engaged in preaching. Several passersby object to their behaviour, and contact a police patrol. Otherwise they would take the matter into their own hands. After some discussion the preachers are asked [by the police] to leave, which they refuse to do. "In accordance with freedom of speech, we have the right to stand here", they said. After further discussions, where the request to leave was repeated several times, the police arrested them. They were each given a fine, which they refused to accept, and the case thus ended in court.
The court upheld the fines, 10500 kroner or roughly 2100 dollars each, plus court costs of 1500 kroner each.
quote: Oslo [tingrett, local court? Not sure of the English] holds that the police were within their rights to remove the preachers by force, after their multiple refusal to move when requested. The court gives weight to the police's belief that the situation was a threat to order, which gave them the right to intervene, without violating the European Human Rights [treaty, court rulings]. The judgement states
It is clear that the right to free speech is a highly important principle. After EMK [the relevant international treaty] there is nonetheless an option to [damn this legalese] reduce this right to the extent that a democratic society requires it from concern for public safety and to protect public order. The court believes that the case is distinguished by the place and time of the defendants' demonstration, to wit, May 17th and Karl Johan while the children's parade was passing. The defendants were not willing to cease their demonstration in spite of repeated police orders, and the police feared that the situation would escalate. We assume that the intervention did not have the intention of hindering religious speech, but of maintaining order.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Are Norwegian people accustomed to using violence against people with ideas that they don't like?
Nothing to do with the ideas in question. But we do rather strongly dislike being shouted at, especially by foreigners who have apparently come in on our national holiday for the specific purpose of disturbing the celebration.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'll translate the most relevant parts of the article, referring to a film shown to the court of the incident - it may be the same one Youtube has, I'm not sure.
quote: We assume that the intervention did not have the intention of hindering religious speech, but of maintaining order.
If that is the case, I don't have any problem with it. Nor do I see why the fact that the content of their message was religious should matter.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Sounds like they were being a genuine public nuisance. If this consistently happened to religious people and not others, it'd indicate a policy of forcing religion to stay in private...by itself, this event looks like it's just an enforcement of somewhat strict rules about disturbing the peace.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh. Why are you meanies spoiling my fun? Can't a man enjoy the sight of his native oppressive police state cracking down on people he dislikes?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Laws against disturbing the peace I'm all for. Laws that single out religious people while ignoring others, not so much.
Glad this seems to be the former.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think that "keeping religion private" was quite the goal here.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I sometimes wish we had more strict laws on disturbing the peace here.
For instance, the teenagers who like to yell obscenities at each other and the passing cars in the park where small children are playing? I wish they would be fined. But we don't even have cops patrolling around here to tell them to move along. If you call in an emergency it takes the cops at least 20 minutes to get here; if you call in a non-emergency, it's more like 1-2 hours.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I know what you mean, kq. Groups of large, scary-looking, but polite men can come in handy for such situations. Admittedly this isn't always an available solution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The "threat to order" was that people in the crowd - not the shouters - would commit violence. That doesn't sound like something to celebrate about one's country.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the contrary, I think my countrymen are quite right to
a) Insist on their right to enjoy their celebration without being shouted at. b) Prefer to let the police handle it, but c) nevertheless be willing to stand up for their rights by force if necessary.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm not sure it would have played out any differently in the United States.
Disturbing the peace -- check. Refusal to obey a lawful order -- check. Trespassing -- check.
Ending with an arrest and a court appearance in which the defendants cite freedom of speech seems likely.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see where the trespassing comes in - these are all public streets.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
At least in Cook County, refusal to leave a public area when a police officer asks you to leave is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I see. Local laws probably vary on that. Where I work, it is not uncommon for people to trespass by refusing to leave when asked, and the police are called -- so this scenario plays out -- but of course the business is private property.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: At least in Cook County, refusal to leave a public area when a police officer asks you to leave is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
Not an expert, but I think this is not true in Norway. The difference seems to be purely in the formality of what the offense is called, though - the effect is the same.
Generally Norway does not have as much protection for private land as English-descended legal systems do; for example, everyone has the right to pass through uncultivated land, and even cultivated land if it is frozen over, regardless of who owns it. I think that would be trespass in England.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: On the contrary, I think my countrymen are quite right to
a) Insist on their right to enjoy their celebration without being shouted at. b) Prefer to let the police handle it, but c) nevertheless be willing to stand up for their rights by force if necessary.
What would suggest as a fair use of force in this case? Where are the limits?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What the police used: Remove the offender from the area, using restraint holds where necessary.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I still don't understand your religious angle. You seem to have made a point to mention that they were preaching and for US evangelicals to take note.
Is it just that you don't like religious people? Or that you don't like public religious people?
I know that Norway is a fairly godless place - lots of non-believers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What the police used: Remove the offender from the area, using restraint holds where necessary.
No I mean, say the police weren't able to respond to the situation for whatever reason. You said the citizens should be able to use force if necessary. Would you be in favor of the citizens restraining and removing the men from the area? Bodily harm? What if the men refused to leave and said they would violently defend themselves if forced to move? What are the generalities of this situation?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The U.S. is pretty good at arresting people for demonstrating without a permit. Political demonstrators count on that.
quote:At least in Cook County, refusal to leave a public area when a police officer asks you to leave is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
So public property isn't public? How'd that happen?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The U.S. is pretty good at arresting people for demonstrating without a permit. Political demonstrators count on that.
In general, though, that won't apply to a couple of people street-preaching.
quote:
quote:At least in Cook County, refusal to leave a public area when a police officer asks you to leave is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor.
So public property isn't public? How'd that happen?
If you're interested in the law surrounding "move on" orders, here's a BYU Law Review article on the subject.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I have always hated "disturbing the peace" charges. Or at least since no policemen ever came around to the road construction crews to arrest them.
If this happened in the US, there would be the obvious first amendment issue. "Disturbing the peace" is shroud that disguises the reality: "disturbing the people in charge". That's how things like pornography are unprotected by the first amendment. Yes, there's the knee-jerk response of believers and unbelievers; the former immediately thinking "persecution of the church!" and the latter thinking "finally someone shuts 'em up." I don't know whether this is okay with the Norwegian constitution, but if their court says so, I'll just have to accept what happened. But this does not appear to have broken out on the verge of violence, and "disturbing the peace" in this instance sounds like "telling everyone what they don't want to hear," so I think telling these guys to leave in the first place is morally wrong, regardless of whether my morals are biased by my faith.
It's more lawful to arrest a baby for crying during a fireworks display in the US, if only because the first amendment protects religion and says nothing about crying babies, and preaching and crying are equally disturbing to the peace.
I think there is nothing that can make religion more dangerous than the idea that everyone ought to keep their religion private. If nobody says anything, ideas far dumber than those floating around right now will invade a much larger percent of the population, and nobody will be able to learn from the experiences and revelations of their peers. How can anyone reach an understanding of another if they can't even discuss their beliefs?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In Norway there is a right not to be shouted at. I like having such a right.
quote:"Disturbing the peace" is shroud that disguises the reality: "disturbing the people in charge".
You will note that the police did not get involved until there had been complaints by the crowd.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In Norway there is a right not to be shouted at. I like having such a right.
Was the crowd watching the parade silent? My guess is that there was a lot of cheering going on, probably quite a bit that reached the noise level of shouting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I won't say they were as quiet as your average moonlit, snow-filled meadow on midnight during a hard winter. But I've stood in American crowds, and I've stood in Norwegian crowds, and there is a vast difference in the noise level. There is a strong social inhibition in Norway against shouting or making loud noises in public, which in general is broken only by drunken teenagers and at football matches. Indeed, I'm always asking my wife why she is shouting when were are sitting right next to each other, and of course she doesn't perceive herself to be shouting at all; it's just that her normal tone of voice is several dB higher than I consider comfortable for ordinary conversation. And indeed this is true of most Americans: You people are seriously loud.
Also, if you take a look at the YouTube video, I think you'll find that the crowd isn't saying much. (It's been a while since I saw it, and I'm at work and can't check, so I could be wrong on this.)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
As an American who's visited Norway, I can confirm the quietness and general reservedness of Norwegians. They really just like to be left alone and forced interaction with another person has an air of awkwardness about it that I haven't seen in the states. If you bump into a Norweigan, you're almost better off not excusing yourself as that merely extends and exacerbates what is already an uncomfortable situation.
An interesting contrast is company parties where everyone gets totally sloshed and goes nuts.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think what happened was good.
If someone was preaching loudly (at a children's parade!) threatening me, essentially, with violence and hatred via "God's will", I would most certainly complain to the police.
I would expect the police to ask them to leave at least twice, and then escort them away. If they refused I would be happy with them being fined.
And yes, if they wouldn't leave, I would be furiously angry. Angry enough to consider confronting them and asking them to leave myself.
The fact that street preaching/noise is apparently not a cultural phenomenon in Norway simply makes it even worse.
You have to understand what it's like to be threatened with violence upon your person whether it's directly or indirectly through the threat of violence via "God's will". It pretty well sucks, as you might expect it would. To have your children with in earshot of these type of people who think nothing of other people's views, I can't imagine.
Hear the woman in the second video. "Why have you come today?," she asks. She is distressed that the preachers have chosen to ruin the day.
Religion is not a free pass to generally be a huge jackass. There are other people in the world. Your religion may request that you threaten other people with anger, violence and death or else (whether it's under the guise of love or not), but that doesn't mean that the law will or should allow you to do so, especially in a situation like the one in the video.
I find it ludicrous that these people post the video expecting to be regarded as martyrs.
I'm afraid that I agree with King of Men. What happened was the right thing to happen. No violence was committed against them. They were asked to leave by several citizens who were clearly upset, and by very polite police. And then they were removed and fined.
Fair's fair.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As long as people stop acting self-righteously about how much better their countries are with respect to civil liberties, I don't particularly care. There's been a lot of that lately, with no acknowledgment at all that what's really happening is that some countries are balancing competing rights differently.
***
It should also be noted that KoM originally praised this not for stopping a disturbance but because it stopped public expression of a particular idea.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, if he was referring to this particular idea (violence, guised in religion) then I agree, although I prefer the idea of it being held under disturbing the peace, to allow for citizens requesting the removal of the offender, rather than a law that specifically attempts the impossible task of summing up the offense.
I don't particularly think that all street preaching (the nicer kind) should be subject to this treatment. Hence the above. If it's not horrible or disruptive, go ahead. If it's horrible or disruptive, the police should be able to intervene, just as they would anywhere else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Teshi, if the offenders had behave the same way over some other idea - a political idea, wanting to sell something, begging, whatever, do you think that the situation should have been different?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
King of Men are you declining to answer my questions?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Missed your second post. I would have the citizens take the preachers by the arm and gently lead them away; if they resist, apply as much force as necessary to subdue them, up to strangleholds if required. Beyond that, call for police backup.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Missed your second post. I would have the citizens take the preachers by the arm and gently lead them away; if they resist, apply as much force as necessary to subdue them, up to strangleholds if required. Beyond that, call for police backup.
ah, I see. I suppose it seems to me that this procedure has too much allowance for abuse.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Teshi, if the offenders had behave the same way over some other idea - a political idea, wanting to sell something, begging, whatever, do you think that the situation should have been different?
Naturally. Anyone threating violence, directly or indirectly (If you do not vote for such-and-such, you will die a terrible, terrible death) should be removed from the street, if she or he will not go willingly. I would also be willing to see a slightly less but still abusive preacher, on any subject (social, political, religious) be asked to move on.
There is a difference between a rally or protest, here such abusive yelling is expected- even allowed-, and in a situation where it is entirely out of place. This was not a rally.
I do think that we make more allowances for this kind of religious preaching than for other street preaching of a similar vein. Only Fred Phelps in America is offensive enough to raise almost everyone's eyebrows. I appreciate that kind of freedom of speech and toleration is one of the accomplishments that America is proud of, but that doesn't mean that every country has to take the same path.
Perhaps Phelps' appearance at funerals is in fact a more extreme example of what happened in Norway. Americans are used to this kind of street preaching, since they have far worse. Norwegians presumably aren't. Their reaction suggests that even the religious don't appreciate their presence on that particular day, saying what they're saying. I can't really say for sure, but it may be that to a Norwegian, this kind of preaching may be as shocking and horrible as Fred Phelps at soldiers' funerals is to most Americans.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Was the crowd watching the parade silent? My guess is that there was a lot of cheering going on, probably quite a bit that reached the noise level of shouting.
More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.
I'm usually referring to billboards, bumper stickers, and anything else that might have something on it that I don't feel I should have to explain to my children if I'm driving in a car with them. There was a time when nobody would've considered putting billboards up on I-95 advertising strip clubs, because it would have violated some kind of decency law. Today it's covered by the 1st amendment. I don't believe the founders had anything like that in mind.
As to the thread topic, these people came to a parade with a bullhorn, to divert the crowd's attention from the parade to their own agenda. I think the 1st makes it clear that (in the U.S.) the police can't operate under any motivation that restricts their right to exercise their religion. But when the dictates of their religion (proselytizing) interferes with the religious freedom of others, the police can protect the religious freedom of others by telling them (the proselytizers) to keep it to themselves or move on. (which is an example of why move on orders make sense, but I oppose the idea that a police officer can issue a move on order on a whim. I do believe in a "right to remain" unless there is some kind of "probable cause" or equivalent.)
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
How long until a GodHatesNorway site goes up . . .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.
Why is that more to the point? Unless you're going to ban all expressive activity not part of the official parade, why does the fact that they were proselytizing matter?
quote:As to the thread topic, these people came to a parade with a bullhorn, to divert the crowd's attention from the parade to their own agenda.
The bullhorn prohibition is an example of "time-place-manner" restriction, which is by its nature a content-neutral restriction.
The actual arrest was not about a bullhorn, though. More importantly for the thread topic, the arrest was celebrated based on the content it suppressed. The reason I keep harping on this, by the way, is that the thread starter has a habit of unapologetically advocating violent, totalitarian repression of religion and religious people. He might think it's cute, but I don't. It's clear why he posted this incident - he admitted it was to indulge his police state desires.
It sounds like you want to be able to suppress religious speech based on its content here in America, if I'm interpreting this correctly:
quote:More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.
I'm usually referring to billboards, bumper stickers, and anything else that might have something on it that I don't feel I should have to explain to my children if I'm driving in a car with them. There was a time when nobody would've considered putting billboards up on I-95 advertising strip clubs, because it would have violated some kind of decency law. Today it's covered by the 1st amendment. I don't believe the founders had anything like that in mind.
It's not entirely clear to me - and I welcome your clarification either way - but it seems as if you're saying that proselytizing is one of those things that you don't feel you should have to explain to my children if I you're driving in a car with them. If so, it further seems you are advocating removing proselytizing from the protection of the First Amendment.
quote:But when the dictates of their religion (proselytizing) interferes with the religious freedom of others, the police can protect the religious freedom of others by telling them (the proselytizers) to keep it to themselves or move on.
If you're referring to time-place-manner restrictions to which content is not relevant, I agree with you to an extent. However, if you are singling our proselytizing over some other forms of persuasive speech, I find this very disturbing.
Luckily, current jurisprudence wouldn't allow what you might or not be advocating here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is a difference between a rally or protest,
Why is it allowed simply because a bunch of people decide to yell abusively at the same time and the same place?
quote:Their reaction suggests that even the religious don't appreciate their presence on that particular day, saying what they're saying.
Letting the mob determine what content can be expressed is a frightening thought. And that's what you're advocating here.
Also, calling preaching about hell a "threat of violence" is a serious stretch.
[ July 10, 2008, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Why is it allowed simply because a bunch of people decide to yell abusive things at the same time and the same place?
Without comment on the American situation, there are reasonably stringent limits on the level of abuse tolerated in a demonstration in Norway; demonstrations also require permits.
quote:Also, calling preaching about hell a "threat of violence" is a serious stretch.
If you do not do [X], then [Bad Thing Y] will happen to you through the agency of [Z]. In what way is this not a threat?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Why is it allowed simply because a bunch of people decide to yell abusively at the same time and the same place?
See: The House of Commons.
I think that because we feel that freedom of speech is necessary to a healthy society, we designate specific times and places where particularly powerful/angry speech can and should take place. Like, forgive me for the comparison, strip clubs are a designated are where people can watch strippers.
As for the threats, what King of Men said.
"Oh yes, people, Judgment is coming. And God is very angry with the wicked so you must examine yourself and see if you are in the faith. Are you in the faith?"
When questioned, he doesn't mention this. He says, "I'm here to celebrate with you... I'm here to celebrate the new birth of Christ..." There's some of this rhetoric later, which I don't mind as much as the threatening kind, but of course I still find obnoxious.
The policeman doesn't even mention the rhetoric in detail. He says, "We have to show respect. That's why there isn't other [protesters around here]."
Also, telling people you came to convert their King. Come on, guys. What do you expect? Basically they're just being huge jackasses.
[ July 10, 2008, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you do not do [X], then [Bad Thing Y] will happen to you through the agency of [Z]. In what way is this not a threat?
So someone advocating a measles vaccine is threatening their audience?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Put yourself, if you will, in other people's shoes. You are an atheist or one of the Christians shown here like the lady who tries quietly to say 'God is good'. You are here with your kids to celebrate your country, which does not normally contain public religion, although a number of people are- clearly- Christians.
Some dude is walking behind you, with a huge sign and a loud voice (even without the horn), proclaiming that you and your children are wicked, and will face the wrath of God and judgment for your "sin" of not believing in a very particular kind of Achillean God whose main way of dealing with people is fury and anger and threats of bloodshed and violence, via the very people behind you.
Your kids are looking at you, concerned. You are exchanging looks with the people around you. The protesters are not moving on, but staying behind you, still going on about how you and your children will burn in hell. It's pretty horrible. You feel threatened, and targeted, because you know the guy is trying to get at you. the guy's jovial tone clashes creepily with his words. The parade begins but all you can see is the guy behind you, going on and on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I still don't see it as a "threat." It's unpleasant. Sure.
But I put up with a lot of unpleasant crap every day, and I don't get to have the police make the people doing it go away.
And why is that particular form of unpleasantness worthy of being stopped by coercive force? It's very similar to some arguments made by some anti-same-sex marriage advocates - being forced to publicly acknowledge homosexuality and same-sex affection bothers them and disturbs their children.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Because I can't see a reason not to accept the same level of same-sex public displays of affection that we accept for opposite-sex cases. I'm all in favor of stopping by force an atheist shouting "There is no God!" in the same situation if he doesn't leave peacefully once asked. It's simply not the place for that action.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because I can't see a reason not to accept the same level of same-sex public displays of affection that we accept for opposite-sex cases.
But the criteria being proffered for making these distinctions is whether (presumably the majority or super-majority) appreciate the presence of these people and what they're saying.
So the possible majority (and I'm not saying it is a majority) making a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex affection and not appreciating the former would support using the police to ban one and not the other.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not in favor of that.
I absolute hate that people protest general conference and temple weddings and the like, but it's not worth giving up free speech in general to shut up those saying what I don't like.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, it certainly sounds like a threat to me. People advocating measles vaccines do not usually proclaim their belief in this fashion, although they may warn in a similar way in infomercials, I suppose. I've seen a few commercials like that.
quote:It's very similar to some arguments made by some anti-same-sex marriage advocates - being forced to publicly acknowledge homosexuality and same-sex affection bothers them and disturbs their children.
Do homosexuals threaten these people with judgment and death if they do not recognize them?
As I've said before, I do not have nearly the same level of problem with street preachers whose strategy is to hold a sign that says GOD LOVES, and call out similar phrases. That is more equivalent to a man with a rainbow flag or two men who chose to hold hands in public.
It's the hatred that I think is problematic. What kind of person gets off (see the first bit of the first video) on shouting threats? Is this really about religion or is it about power for these men? (That is, I've no doubt these people are true believers, but is it religion that motivates them to threaten, or the feeling of having power- real or imagined- in their hands?)
Freedom of speech entirely aside, I do not think there is anyone at Hatrack who would act in the manner of these men. Is it because they don't share their strength of religion or is it because they do not want to act in this manner because they feel that spreading a message of anger in this fashion is wrong?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But the criteria being proffered for making these distinctions is whether (presumably the majority or super-majority) appreciate the presence of these people and what they're saying.
I'm not in favor of laws against what we don't like. This, for me, is a case of "to each his own, unless it harms me or it limits my capacity of enjoying my rights". I find it impossible to demonstrate that two men kissing does either of those. It's not too difficult to demonstrate that the activities of those preachers were interfering with an authorized parade. I don't think I can be clearer than this, but I also don't understand why I'd need to be. Seems simple enough. :shrug:
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do homosexuals threaten these people with judgment and death if they do not recognize them?
As I've said before, I do not have nearly the same level of problem with street preachers whose strategy is to hold a sign that says GOD LOVES, and call out similar phrases. That is more equivalent to a man with a rainbow flag or two men who chose to hold hands in public.
But that's not the point. You've advocated allowing the preferences of the people to determine which content is to be subject to coercive repression. The justification given by the police for their actions included the possibility that the crowd might get violent. I've absolutely seen that justification used to stop particular messages before, and I've opposed it then.
You've advocated the use of such repression against one particular type of proselytizing when those nearby object. Glenn may or may not have advocated the use of such repression against any type of proselytizing when those nearby object. KoM has advocated the use of such coercive repression on all public religious expression.
It's all content-based.
quote:I'm not in favor of laws against what we don't like. This, for me, is a case of "to each his own, unless it harms me or it limits my capacity of enjoying my rights". I find it impossible to demonstrate that two men kissing does either of those. It's not too difficult to demonstrate that the activities of those preachers were interfering with an authorized parade. I don't think I can be clearer than this, but I also don't understand why I'd need to be.
If a particular form of affection makes someone so uncomfortable that they feel the need to leave, then it is - in some sense - interfering with the capacity of those people to enjoy their rights.
By the standards proffered in this thread - not in your post, and I was explicit about this in my first response to you - that could qualify for such suppression.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If you do not do [X], then [Bad Thing Y] will happen to you through the agency of [Z]. In what way is this not a threat?
So someone advocating a measles vaccine is threatening their audience?
through the agency of [Z]. What agency is involved in the measles epidemic?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The measles virus
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The measles.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: By the standards proffered in this thread - not in your post, and I was explicit about this in my first response to you - that could qualify for such suppression.
Understood.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:You've advocated the use of such repression against one particular type of proselytizing when those nearby object.
Of course it's content-based. what else would I base it on?
I do not think violence from the crowd is a good reason. Whatever reason the police stated is not necessarily the reason I agree it was a good thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The measles.
I don't think measles have free will - 'agency' in the sense that the Mormons use it. But sending people to Hell is clearly an act of free will on your god's part. To go lawyer for a moment, I identify three parts to a threat:
a) A desired action, "do X". b) A unpleasant consequence, "or else". c) The consequence must be imposed by a mindful agent - "Slow down or you will fall off the cliff" does not qualify; "Slow down or I will beat you up" does.
"Believe in God or he will send you to Hell" is a threat under this definition, while "Vaccinate your children or we will be at risk of an epidemic" is not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you want to adopt the Mormon point of view for this, you have to take all of it: natural consequences for sins are not arbitrary according to God.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you want to adopt the Mormon point of view for this, you have to take all of it: natural consequences for sins are not arbitrary according to God.
The consequences of sins are exactly like "Slow down or you'll fall off the cliff."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am adopting the Mormon understanding of the word 'agency', because it is a convenient shorthand for what I was trying to express. I am not adopting the Mormon understanding of punishment for sins, because the preachers in question plainly believe nothing of the sort, and neither, to the best of my knowledge, do most Norwegian Christians.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So if it had been Mormons shouting it (heaven forbid (ha!) ), you'd be fine with it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Believe in God or he will send you to Hell" is a threat under this definition, while "Vaccinate your children or we will be at risk of an epidemic" is not.
So "don't kill me or the police will send you to jail" is a threat?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed it is. That is, in fact, the explicit reason we have police: So that people can defend themselves by the threat of police retaliation instead of physical violence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So if it had been Mormons shouting it (heaven forbid (ha!) ), you'd be fine with it?
No, but me, I'm not objecting to the threats as such, that's Teshi's shtick. I'm objecting to the shouting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then we simply disagree about the useful definition of the word "threat," and I'll stand by my opinion that it's a stretch.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I wonder if shouting through a megaphone at strangers has ever converted someone to Christianity. Why do certain religious groups seem to think this is an effect method of preaching?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I wonder if shouting through a megaphone at strangers has ever converted someone to Christianity.
With two thousand years in which it might have occurred, I'll bet it certainly has.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why do certain religious groups seem to think this is an effect method of preaching?
You've got me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think anyone does, actually. I strongly suspect that the sort of people who do this aren't looking to convert anyone, they are looking to be warriors for their faith - to demonstrate their bravery and disregard for outsiders. In some sense these preachers probably got exactly what they wanted: Opposition! Threats of violence! Police suppression! It's a bit like trolling a forum, perhaps, only even more fun because you risk more than getting banned. I've seen atheists do similar things.
Perhaps you could cobble up some explanation in evolutionary psychology, where young men need to show off their bravery for the tribe by running needless risks. And going into a foreign tribe and openly defying them by shouting and making noise, that is both very risky and somewhat useful, in that it may establish a psychological dominance for the next territorial fight.
I don't know if I believe it, though. Occam's Razor would suggest that it's better to say "Some people are just jackasses".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I wonder if shouting through a megaphone at strangers has ever converted someone to Christianity.
With two thousand years in which it might have occurred, I'll bet it certainly has.
When were megaphones invented?
In any case, while you generally need a more credible threat than hellfire, many people have 'converted' to Christianity under threat of death or torture.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Agree with Teshi and King of Men. Any Mormon trying to attend General Conference in Salt Lake City while being yelled at by evangelical deminstrators and told they are bound for hell, etc etc, will understand where they are coming from.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I understand where they are coming from.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I understand. I don't agree. It is worth the price of megaphones and blasphemy around the perimeter of General Conference in order to preserve our freedom to assemble and demonstrate.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Intellectually I agree with you Katharina, but I find it really hard to. Practically, I agree with Teshi and KoM. I can't see that freedom of speech can be negatively impacted by having to show good manners towards those you are demonstrating against. It's completely possible to register your objections to someone's beliefs etc strongly, vigourously, without acting in the way the general conference demonstrators, (and the Phelpses) do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Then we simply disagree about the useful definition of the word "threat," and I'll stand by my opinion that it's a stretch.
What word would you use to describe your police example?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If I say, "I'll press charges" then I'm threatening to take an action. If I say "The police will arrest you" then I'm making a statement about what others will do.
For example, I've told some people what not to do when police pull them over, and explained the potential bad things that could happen were they not to follow my advice. In essence, I've said, "If you do X, the police will do Y." That's not a threat.
If the officer pulling someone over says "If you don't stop doing X, I'll do Y," that is a threat.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
off topic and not making a point:
This has been bugging me for a while, but can people think of movies or a TV show where in the middle of a heated confrontation, someone says (paraphrased badly) "Is that a threat?" and the "hero" responds something similar to "No, its a fact" or "No, thats a promise".
There should be more than one, but I can't think of a specific one for now.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.
Why is that more to the point? Unless you're going to ban all expressive activity not part of the official parade, why does the fact that they were proselytizing matter?
Your comment was that the crowd shouting (appropriately) at the parade was comparable to the proselytizers inappropriately turning the situation to their own purpose. It is the purpose, and not the content that you seem to be missing.
quote:
quote:As to the thread topic, these people came to a parade with a bullhorn, to divert the crowd's attention from the parade to their own agenda.
The bullhorn prohibition is an example of "time-place-manner" restriction, which is by its nature a content-neutral restriction.
The actual arrest was not about a bullhorn, though. More importantly for the thread topic, the arrest was celebrated based on the content it suppressed. The reason I keep harping on this, by the way, is that the thread starter has a habit of unapologetically advocating violent, totalitarian repression of religion and religious people. He might think it's cute, but I don't.
Neither do I. And I've made that clear often enough, yet you still presume to anticipate my intentions in a manner that suits your prejudice against me.
quote:
It sounds like you want to be able to suppress religious speech based on its content here in America, if I'm interpreting this correctly:
quote:More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.
I'm usually referring to billboards, bumper stickers, and anything else that might have something on it that I don't feel I should have to explain to my children if I'm driving in a car with them. There was a time when nobody would've considered putting billboards up on I-95 advertising strip clubs, because it would have violated some kind of decency law. Today it's covered by the 1st amendment. I don't believe the founders had anything like that in mind.
It's not entirely clear to me - and I welcome your clarification either way - but it seems as if you're saying that proselytizing is one of those things that you don't feel you should have to explain to my children if I you're driving in a car with them. If so, it further seems you are advocating removing proselytizing from the protection of the First Amendment.
Two separate paragraphs for a reason. I have no problem explaining religious belief to my children. I would have thought the reference to strip clubs, and for that matter, the founders' intentions, would have made that clear.
quote:
quote:But when the dictates of their religion (proselytizing) interferes with the religious freedom of others, the police can protect the religious freedom of others by telling them (the proselytizers) to keep it to themselves or move on.
If you're referring to time-place-manner restrictions to which content is not relevant, I agree with you to an extent. However, if you are singling our proselytizing over some other forms of persuasive speech, I find this very disturbing.
You find it disturbing that religious speech doesn't justify disturbing a parade? Or that the first amendment justifies placing advertising for strip clubs in public view?
quote:
Luckily, current jurisprudence wouldn't allow what you might or not be advocating here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can certainly see where these street preachers are coming from. The desire to proselyte however cannot be condenced down into one simple reason.
It's certainly understandable that with so many examples of bold preaching yielding results in the scriptures it's tempting for a repressed missionary/minister to want to shout out to the people and wake them from their apathetic slumber. Unfortunately that's about as effective as a 10 year old believing that if they just hop into a car and start the ignition they will get to a destination much faster than if they'd walked.
Effective proselyting to me is no less than an art that takes years to appreciate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your comment was that the crowd shouting (appropriately) at the parade was comparable to the proselytizers inappropriately turning the situation to their own purpose. It is the purpose, and not the content that you seem to be missing.
That wasn't the point of my comment.
quote:Neither do I. And I've made that clear often enough, yet you still presume to anticipate my intentions in a manner that suits your prejudice against me.
I don't think you think it's cute. Nor did I say so. Nor did I anticipate your intentions in this regard.
Seems to be a prejudice you have against me, assuming things that have no basis in what I've written.
quote:Two separate paragraphs for a reason. I have no problem explaining religious belief to my children. I would have thought the reference to strip clubs, and for that matter, the founders' intentions, would have made that clear.
It didn't, so I asked for clarification. Thank you for providing it. Something you could have done before assuming I was lumping you in with KoM above.
quote:You find it disturbing that religious speech doesn't justify disturbing a parade? Or that the first amendment justifies placing advertising for strip clubs in public view?
No. How on earth do you get that out of my saying I don't disagree with time-place-manner content-neutral restrictions? Or, more to the point, when I said that what I find disturbing is the willingness (which I again qualified with an "if" awaiting your clarification) to single our proselytizing over some other forms of persuasive speech.
You misunderstood every single thing you responded to.
Allow me to clarify: Almost everything I've been discussing in this thread has been about those willing to restrict persuasive speech based on its content. Had the opening poster not couched his celebration of this event in those terms, I would not have applied. Had others not explicitly advocated or seemed to implicitly advocate content-based restrictions, I would not have continued to respond.
There has been a side issue about allowing people's reaction to content and fear of potential violence triggering arrest for speech, but that, too, is linked to content.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
My question, Dagonee, is that you object to the restriction of freedom of speech 'by content'. Now, content pretty much refers to every aspect of the speech such as subject (religion), tone (aggressive/disturbing); which I think should be combined with audience (children and adults in a celebratory parade), and position (not in a protest).
Do you agree of the removal of any kind of protester or preacher from any kind of situation, and if so, what are your requirements? If they were swearing violently while preaching, would you allow them to be removed, for example?
I agree with removal for tone combined with audience and position. Subject, such as very gruesome or disgusting comments, could also warrant removal if combined with an inappropriate audience and position.
What are your requirements in this matter, if they exist?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, content pretty much refers to every aspect of the speech such as subject (religion), tone (aggressive/disturbing); which I think should be combined with audience (children and adults in a celebratory parade), and position (not in a protest).
Restrictions based on the audience and not being in a protest should not be content based.
quote:Do you agree of the removal of any kind of protester or preacher from any kind of situation, and if so, what are your requirements?
Certainly. For instance, owners of private property should be allowed to exclude speakers based on the content of the speech. This includes the right to temporarily "privatize" public spaces, such as by renting a park pavilion, as long as such rentals are not themselves content restricted or by using such a venue for a specific public function. In the former case, the temporary private "owner" could exclude anyone for any reason. In the latter case, which could conceivably cover a government-run parade, the restriction must be content neutral, with the caveat that all speech not directly related to the function could be restricted. However, it would not be acceptable to allow some private expression unrelated to the parade and bar others based solely on content.
Reasonable time-manner-place restrictions on public property - again, which are not content-specific - are also feasible.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So, you would prefer no content or tone-based (but yes to audience-based and 'manner') removal.
So I'm assuming that manner would cover the preacher screaming obscenities at children.
It's merely an opinion-based thing. Thankfully, the world is more tolerant, usually, than King of Men. In my opinion, compared with you, I prefer a slightly more stringent, case-by-case ability to remove protesters and such who are acting in a disruptive, inappropriate or aggressive manner. If this has to take into account content when combined with audience in some situations, then so be it.
I'm not advocating arrest. I only approve of arrest when removal through request is not working, or being flagrantly ignored.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm not advocating arrest. I only approve of arrest when removal through request is not working, or being flagrantly ignored.
That is advocating censorship based on content, though, backed up by the power of arrest. So much for freedom of speech - it's only freedom of speech if the people with the power to arrest agree with what you are saying. That isn't freedom at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that I define "content" differently than I think you do, Teshi. By "content" I specifically meant the fact that that it was religious speech, not the manner of the speech. I would like to think that a person being intrusive and obnoxious about religion would be treated the same way that person would be treated if he were being intrusive and obnoxious about anything else. I would hope that if the preachers had been screaming about alien abduction or atheism, for example, they would have received the same response and that they weren't being treated more harshly because of their religious beliefs are unpopular.
KoM original post seemed to imply that the latter was the case. Instead of saying, "Yay, we are keeping people from disturbing others at a parade" his post seemed to say, "Yay, the government is shutting up religious people."
Does that make more sense?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am also saying "Yay, we don't give religious people a free pass". I feel it is quite likely that in the US, any content-based discrimination would be in the other direction, because of the exaggerated respect for religion that we've discussed before.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I feel it is quite likely that in the US, any content-based discrimination would be in the other direction
Which is a good reason not to allow unelected people to effectively shut down speech based on content.
The real problem with the "move on, arrest if they don't" policy is that it effectively silences a lot of people. Moreover, there is no way to review the decision unless one wants to risk arrest. It concentrates an enormous amount of power with little accountability.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Of course there is a review, what was the court case about?
Edit: Never mind, I see what you mean - 'unless one wants to risk arrest', right. Then again, free speech that you're not willing to protect by civil disobedience couldn't have been so important as all that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Never mind, I see what you mean - 'unless one wants to risk arrest', right. Then again, free speech that you're not willing to protect by civil disobedience couldn't have been so important as all that.
One of the points of civil disobedience is to secure rights for others that can be exercised without using civil disobedience.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In this case, a right which doesn't actually exist in Norway, namely shouting at people who are minding their own business. So they've had their review, and they've failed to secure that right, it being trumped by the right of Norwegians to be left alone and not be bothered. So what was the problem, again?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So what was the problem, again?
The problem is you seem to think that I was talking about this case when in reality I was talking about general situations and rules. And I was doing so in the context of content-based shutting down of speech, and said so explicitly in my post.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, right. I forgot that you never actually talk about the same thing anyone else is, at least not if it can possibly be shown that you might conceivably be mistaken. That's a problem, right enough.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, right. I forgot that you never actually talk about the same thing anyone else is
Well, no, you see, Teshi and I have been discussing it for two pages now. You'll remember you yourself started this thread to celebrate content-specific speech restrictions, despite the story not actually being about such restrictions.
It's also strange you forgot, since the words were right there in my post.
Now that I think about it, it's not so strange. You do seem to often ignore or change important words used by others to qualify their posts when you respond to those posts.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Seems to be a prejudice you have against me, assuming things that have no basis in what I've written.
Here we go again, same old Dagonee BS. (to which Dag will riposte...)
Figure it out, Dag, the world doesn't revolve around you. I'm entitled to put in my comment without reference to whatever is happening in your little world.
And yes, you asked for clarification, after your usual assumptions about my intent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Figure it out, Dag, the world doesn't revolve around you. I'm entitled to put in my comment without reference to whatever is happening in your little world.
I don't even know what the hell this means in this context. You made explicit assumptions about my intent. They were wrong. I didn't imply, suggest, insinuate, or state that you were in favor of KoM's ongoing police state crap. Not only can I not figure out how you got that out of the quoted portion of my post, you now have no excuse whatsoever for not realizing that I wasn't referring to you.
quote:And yes, you asked for clarification, after your usual assumptions about my intent.
Except that what you quoted as being an assumption about your intent WASN'T ABOUT YOU. "The world doesn't revolve around you."
Also note that I stated from the very beginning that your meaning about proselytizing and strip clubs advertisements wasn't clear. Here it is again:
quote:It sounds like you want to be able to suppress religious speech based on its content here in America, if I'm interpreting this correctly:
quote:More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.
I'm usually referring to billboards, bumper stickers, and anything else that might have something on it that I don't feel I should have to explain to my children if I'm driving in a car with them. There was a time when nobody would've considered putting billboards up on I-95 advertising strip clubs, because it would have violated some kind of decency law. Today it's covered by the 1st amendment. I don't believe the founders had anything like that in mind.
It's not entirely clear to me - and I welcome your clarification either way - but it seems as if you're saying that proselytizing is one of those things that you don't feel you should have to explain to my children if I you're driving in a car with them. If so, it further seems you are advocating removing proselytizing from the protection of the First Amendment.
Got that? There was NO assuming. I told you how it "seemed" and asked for clarification.
I spent considerable time researching an article for you, didn't say anything bad about you, and took great pains to underline that I wasn't sure about your meaning. And you still got pissed.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, first. I apologise. You're right, you asked for clarification. Bear in mind that being an atheist within theist society gives me thin skin, and I overreacted. I guess you could compare that with black people that see racism everywhere, Jews that see antisemitism everywhere, and gays that see homophobia everywhere.
Please note that what follows is an explanation of an emotional response. You can't argue with it logically, so it's probably better not to try.
This is (part of) what I was reacting to:
quote:It sounds like you want to be able to suppress religious speech based on its content here in America
No, I wasn't, and I get tired of being accused of this. It's not just one event, it's the buildup, the overall experience of being accused time after time. And while, yes, you asked for clarification, it felt like when the press calls someone an "alleged murderer," when they've obviously already drawn their conclusions.
I've worked for many years to try to find common ground between atheists and theists. I started doing this on alt.atheism and got burned out trying to balance my arguments between the fundy nutcases and the other atheists like KoM (many of whom made his behavior seem pleasant by comparison). I'm not sure how I wound up here, but I'm drawn to it in large part by the fact that there are frequent exchanges between theists and atheists, and they seem much more productive than the flame wars on alt.atheism. But there still doesn't seem like much progress.
Years ago, Rivka made a post that said something like: "Wow that's the first thing Glenn Arnold has said that I actually agree with." Up to that point, I had seen her name, and probably had some back and forth conversation in the larger context of a variety of threads, but I'd never been conscious of specifically conversing with her. I was intrigued by her comment, and I asked her to explain what specifically she had disagreed with. You responded that she disagreed with everything I'd said about religion. She never responded at all.
Just as you feel you made a legitimate effort to include requests for clarification about my posts, I have gone to great lengths to always include point of view statements when I speak of religion. For example, instead of saying: "There is no God," I say, "From the atheistic perspective, there is no God." That doesn't seem to be enough, however. people still react as though I've attacked their viewpoint. Emotions are powerful things.
I'm jealous that there exist groups such as ecumenical councils, and interfaith organizations, where people from a variety of religious backgrounds agree to seek the commonalities of their religious philosophy, while seeking to minimize the differences that lead to sometimes violent conflict, but there exist no such organizations that welcome atheists to try to find the same commonalities.
After September 11, people needed healing. They were also trying hard to avoid showing prejudice against Muslims, so when they arranged vigils and community gatherings, they always included a statement like "members of all religions welcome." Atheists needed to heal too. But we weren't invited. But it never occurred to those people that they were discriminating against anybody, because atheists just don't count.
That's pretty subtle, and likewise when it "seems" to you that I'm saying something you find disturbing, well, it seems that way to you because of assumptions you've made, however subtle they may be, and I'm sensitive to that.
Years ago when I was first made aware of your SCOTUS case, I told you that I agreed with the merit of the case, from your perspective. Yet your response to my comment forced me to defend my statement, which made no sense to me at all. Again, there were assumptions made, and it was obvious that you didn't trust me to mean what I was saying. I worked very hard through that thread, to try to make you realize that I was in agreement with you, but basically no progress was made.
It feels to me that you always operate like a lawyer, trying to win a case. Competitive. Can you accept my word that from my perspective, I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to find agreement? That doesn't mean that I won't react with emotion, or that I don't have prejudices similar to the ones I accuse you of, but what I'm asking for is for people to make an effort to see from my perspective, because I'm tired of being dismissed merely because of the foregone conclusions about what it means to be an atheist, or that atheists are just plain wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Years ago, Rivka made a post that said something like: "Wow that's the first thing Glenn Arnold has said that I actually agree with." Up to that point, I had seen her name, and probably had some back and forth conversation in the larger context of a variety of threads, but I'd never been conscious of specifically conversing with her. I was intrigued by her comment, and I asked her to explain what specifically she had disagreed with. You responded that she disagreed with everything I'd said about religion. She never responded at all.
Edit: It took some searching, but believe I found it. And your memory does not seem to quite agree with what I see.
Moreover, my initial comment was quite clearly a joke about the Evils of WalMart!
[ July 13, 2008, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Interactions are not reciprocal.
I know. And frankly I think your comment was a throwaway comment, not necessarily deserving of response. I assumed it was meant to point out that whatever I had said was deserving of notice, so I took it as a sort of compliment. But it piqued my curiosity because I didn't know if you meant that you usually disagreed with my viewpoint, or that you meant that I was specifically wrong about things.
And I assumed that you never responded because Dag had summed up what your answer might have been.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I edited because it seemed no one had seen my initial response. Clearly I was wrong.
But my edit may be worth noting anyway.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:And your memory does not seem to quite agree with what I see.
Well, you did respond, but didn't answer. So yeah, Dag answered for you. But as I said, I took it as a sort of compliment anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ok, first. I apologise. You're right, you asked for clarification.
Thank you for the apology and the explanation.
quote:but what I'm asking for is for people to make an effort to see from my perspective, because I'm tired of being dismissed merely because of the foregone conclusions about what it means to be an atheist
That's fair. From my perspective, though, I wasn't dismissing you.
I dismiss KoM quite often, and feel no regret in doing so. You, I asked for clarification and wrote a full response to my then-current interpretation.
quote:It feels to me that you always operate like a lawyer, trying to win a case.
It's not that I'm trying to win a case. It's that I care deeply about this issue and see a lot of nuanced, intricate aspects to it. I like to examine those issues in a lot of detail.
quote:Years ago when I was first made aware of your SCOTUS case, I told you that I agreed with the merit of the case, from your perspective. Yet your response to my comment forced me to defend my statement, which made no sense to me at all. Again, there were assumptions made, and it was obvious that you didn't trust me to mean what I was saying. I worked very hard through that thread, to try to make you realize that I was in agreement with you, but basically no progress was made.
In that discussion I never doubted your opinion on the case. I think I understood you perfectly, and what we discussed subsequently wasn't really about the case. It was about how other people viewed the establishment clause. I didn't intend anything in that discussion to question your view on religious freedom, but to point out that some people definitely try to use the First Amendment as a club against religion.
quote:Can you accept my word that from my perspective, I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to find agreement?
Yes. Can you accept my word about the same thing?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Well, you did respond, but didn't answer.
I did the first time, actually. I didn't see the point the second (or third) time -- it was a joke, and making it serious was not something I had any interest in doing.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Boy, everything's on record, isn't it? Leaves no room for faulty memory. And I've never been good at searching these things out.
But Ok.
quote:It's not that I'm trying to win a case. It's that I care deeply about this issue and see a lot of nuanced, intricate aspects to it. I like to examine those issues in a lot of detail.
I don't know what to say about that. I feel intimidated by your style, and I think you should be aware of that.
Anyway:
quote:Yes. Can you accept my word about the same thing?
I'd just say yes, but a more honest answer is that I'll try. We've been through this before, after all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't know what to say about that. I feel intimidated by your style, and I think you should be aware of that.
That's surprising to me. If I had to make a list of people I intimidated, you wouldn't have made it past the very first cut. I doubt I'd even have entertained the thought for a minute.
But I'm aware of it now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Boy, everything's on record, isn't it? Leaves no room for faulty memory. And I've never been good at searching these things out.
I didn't remember it at all, so I'm glad I could find it. I try not to be dismissive (except of a few specific posters, and you are definitely not among their number), so it bothered me that you felt I had been.
But honestly, I'm still not sure why you brought it up. I disagree with Dags on a whole bunch of things. I don't expect that to ever change. Doesn't mean I don't like him.
And the same goes for you. Expecting an avowed theist to agree with you on God and religious beliefs seems like an exercise in futility -- and it's rarely been my goal when discussing religion to change anyone's mind about their beliefs. Maybe about what constitutes acceptable behavior to those they disagree with. But mostly, to me, it's about being heard and understood.
The occasional times someone agrees with me are a bonus. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm kind of glad we don't have laws like that here. During the civil rights movement, black people peacefully sitting at a lunch counter asking to be served might have been considered to be creating a disturbance (the disturbance being the thugs who were wanting to shove them off the stools and kick them through the door), and arrested. In many cases they WERE arrested, of course, but our courts held that it was legal for them to peacefully be there, and that the people threatening to harm them were the ones who needed to be arrested. I'm very glad to live in the United States.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Expecting an avowed theist to agree with you on God and religious beliefs seems like an exercise in futility -- and it's rarely been my goal when discussing religion to change anyone's mind about their beliefs. Maybe about what constitutes acceptable behavior to those they disagree with. But mostly, to me, it's about being heard and understood.
That's why I say I'm searching for common ground. But it seems much easier for people of different religious background, as opposed to people with and without religious belief.
Religion is pretty good at coming up with slogans that have meaning, and that people take to heart. Some of those are divisive, but most of the ones that people remember speak to the common values that everyone agree are good. I've kind of latched on to Ecclesiastes, and the idea that (assuming there is a God) then he must have made atheists for a purpose.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I've kind of latched on to Ecclesiastes, and the idea that (assuming there is a God) then he must have made atheists for a purpose.
Hmm... is this something you want to discuss, or is this a throwaway statement?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As long as people stop acting self-righteously about how much better their countries are with respect to civil liberties, I don't particularly care. There's been a lot of that lately, with no acknowledgment at all that what's really happening is that some countries are balancing competing rights differently.
I believe that the second part is definitely worth repeating and in that exact wording, "balancing competing rights differently."
If you consider this as a sliding scale of "how much the majority can control the speech of a minority" it is clear that Norway's "the police will move you if you are causing a disturbance" slider is farther along than the US slider. However, it also seems apparent that the US is not entirely stuck at the endpoint of the scale. After all, without commenting on the relative merits of the two systems, many states do have a restriction (150 metres in Indiana) on protesting at funerals and without jumping into the legalese, there is the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" exception. One could theoretically conceive of a more "free" society without these two restrictions and yet it would not be immediately obvious that it would in fact be better.
Thus it seems to me that, not only is it that other countries may find a difference balance for competing rights, it is well worth debating which balance is actually the optimal. Perhaps it may even happen that different populations and cultures may find different balances optimal.
One obvious example in my mind would be the different approaches to property/land rights taken in Hong Kong (pre-1997 or otherwise) as compared to North America. I suspect that either approach would be a disaster if transplanted across, although I would certainly appreciate a dialing-down of the NIMBY politics here.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I've kind of latched on to Ecclesiastes, and the idea that (assuming there is a God) then he must have made atheists for a purpose.
Hmm... is this something you want to discuss, or is this a throwaway statement?
Not a throwaway statement at all. I think there are two approaches to discussing it however. One is to give my ideas, and the other is to ask theists what they think about it.
I've actually seen similar ideas used as challenged by aggressive atheists to theists. Like: "If your god exists, why does he force you to use faith to believe, rather than just showing himself?" That's a rude way of putting it, but it's part of what got me thinking. If god has a purpose for everything, then he must have a purpose for atheists. Or another way of looking at it, if he makes himself hard to detect specifically so that some people won't believe in him, he must have a reason.
What comes to mind is that everyone interprets God differently. Wait. Everyone interprets everything differently. That is to say we all create our own reality by incorporating our own personal experiences in to schemata composed of prior knowledge. Every one is colored by a different set of experiences.
(Seems like free will ought to fit in this argument somewhere. I'll just drop that out there as a lemma. Maybe it'll come in handy)
When you look at the problems that exist in the world because of conflict between different religions, what it comes down to is that each religion is different because people experience reality differently. I wouldn't expect to have one perfect religion that meets everybody's needs.
But that conflict is a big problem. How do you deal with it? It's always nice when members of different religions get together to get along, but what about when opposing religious leaders each make assertions that imply the "wrongness" of their opponents? The leaders are, after all, the authorities on their respective religions, and being leaders, they have followers that believe and obey.
This brings me back to how people interpret things differently. Does it make sense that when people can't agree because their beliefs are colored by theism, that a person whose beliefs are not colored by theism might be more impartial, at least in some situations?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)