Geoff:

You remind me of the “Free Speech Zones” we had under Dubya. I suppose you would be OK with restricting the building of Christian churches only in certain locales, say not within a 1000-yard radius of schools and government buildings? After all, that would still allow people to worship.

No, I think there would be the biggest outcry of religious persecution and First Amendment violation you’ve ever heard were that to be proposed. These ideas sound great until you turn it around and have it applied to someone you approve of, or yourself.

Imagine if Obama started cordoning off protesters in “Free Speech Zones” like Bush did? Right-wingers insisted on having the right to bear semi-automatic rifles outside locales where Obama was to appear; under Bush, you were likely to get arrested if your T-shit was critical of Bush.

As for “Muslim Terror,” that’s a stretch at best. To say that the 9/11 terrorist represented all of Islam and so nothing Islamic should be allowed near things associated with 9/11 is like saying that Catholic priests who molested children represent all of Christianity–and so nothing Christian should be allowed around children.

I reiterate my “lumping together” argument, as well as my argument that one should be cautious of jumping on questionable bandwagons.

Not to mention that some Christians are already demanding a complete moratorium on the building of any new mosques anywhere in the U.S.–under the contention that it wouldn’t be a violation of their religious freedom because they can keep the mosques they built before now. Didn’t take long for that slope to get slippery.

Heaven help me that I actually am quoting this guy to support my stand, but this is one of the few times when I actually had respect for something he did:

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that. … The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.

Three guesses as to who said that, and when.

As has been pointed out, it’s not a quid pro quo situation–it’s not like every single Muslim nation has to give equal rights to Christians before we allow Muslims in America equal rights. This is one of Newt Gingrich’s favorite talking points–some country somewhere’s not being tolerant of Christians, so until they are, we won’t tolerate Islam here.

It’s depressing how right-wingers will boast about how free America is, or, in their opinion how it should be, and then turn right around and suggest curtailing that freedom just because someone else is.

The Sufis building Cordoba House should be allowed to because we are a free country; they should not be restricted because someone else isn’t a free country.

One of the great moral failings is when people feel they have the right to do something immoral just because someone else did it. To be moral, you base your actions on moral principles, not on the immoral actions of someone you disrespect.

Ken:

Thanks for the reminder; that should have been me giving it, I appreciate your catching it. Truth be told, I used to be a lot more sensitive, striking comments and even once banning a commenter’s IP because of disrespectful behavior. I guess I have developed a much thicker skin, and a more “let it go” attitude. K. Engels is correct in that the current standards of discussion on the web allow for greater than what has appeared here in recent days (and maybe the “Derp” origin, South Park, has even contributed to that, I don’t know), but I think you are correct in that discourse should be civil even when not friendly, for if not, it could lead to places we’d rather not go.

I honestly have no idea why the Left thinks Christianity is outmoded Religious foolishness whereas Islam is a good cause to be supported.

Do you honestly believe that that is the case? Do you think that if it were a Catholic church being denied the right to build that we would be silent? Or if all Jews were being lumped together and scapegoated, that we wouldn’t care?

Quite frankly, I see both organized Christianity and Islam to be outmoded religious foolishness. Worse, I think organized religion in general is a social harm. And I assiduously support the right of others to practice it freely, and for those religions to operate without hindrance.

It just so happens that Islam is the religion being scapegoated and persecuted, while Christians tend to be doing the scapegoating and persecuting. If we were focused on the goings-on in some Islamic theocracies, I am sure we’d be railing about the local brand of Islam and would be sympathizing greatly with local Christians, Baha’i, and others.

Geoff, I think one of the reasons you see liberals as having such errant ways is because you really do not have a grasp of our principles. You see individual acts and expressions mostly within the context of your own socio-political context permeated by right-wing news, and so you cannot see the larger scope of liberal thought. Liberals tend to be more principles-oriented.

Maybe one of the more significant differences is that liberals tend to be willing to sacrifice for their principles. We say we believe in freedom of belief, and so we go to bat even when we really do not like the religion in question, while conservatives seem to have no problem amending the principle to exclude those they don’t like. The ACLU is so often denigrated by the right wing for supporting criminals, when they don’t like the criminals and are not supporting them, they are instead fighting to keep the constitutional rights and freedoms intact. Liberals agree with the founding fathers’ contention that it’s better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man; the conservative view seems to be, “the hell with the hundredth man, I want to feel safe.” That’s why (outside the Second Amendment), conservatives have been so willing to abandon most of the Bill of Rights in the face of perceived safety, while liberals would rather run the risks and protect the Constitution. That’s why conservatives are so ready to throw Muslims under the bus and deny them their First Amendment rights.

It also means that when liberals defend Muslims or criminal defendants, you don’t see the principles, you just see the immediate situation and jump to the completely wrong conclusions.

Sorkin put it very well:

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free.”

Most right-wingers, I don’t know if they get that.

I understand what you’re saying…

No, you don’t, because:

But in practice, Liberal “Freedom of Religion” tends to be “Freedom *from* Religion”. The ACLU will support the right of Nazis to march in Skokie (Free Speech) but not the right of children to hold a voluntary (Christian) prayer meeting or Bible Study after school. And only Religion is so tainted–a LBGT “Support” group would raise no Liberal alarms at all, but a prayer meeting would be grounds to sue.

You prove my point, in failing to see that the separation of church and state is a necessary element of the freedom of belief. Just ask the Jewish family that was literally run out of town in New Jersey because they protested that their children were made pariahs for not being Christian in a school pervaded by Christianity. Where one belief system is in dominance in civil matters, all others are in reality deprived. This falls under the “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”; religion is free in virtually all places and times in the U.S., but once government offices or representatives are involved, it begins to curtail the liberties of others.

To test this, just ask if you are OK with government officials making laws based on Sharia dictates, the school your children attend having classes where Islam is preached and Islamic prayer required, or the courtroom you may face decked out in Islamic regalia. I doubt you’d be OK with any of that. You only see it as OK when it’s your preferred religion being dominant. But the fact is that any religion being dominant with the state is an affront to the rights of all other beliefs. Secular is not anti-religious–it is, in fact, pro-religious.

Christians are perfectly free to march in Skokie and to create religion “support groups,” clubs, prayer groups etc. in public schools, exactly like the groups you mention. Similarly, Nazis may not hold religious events using public funds, nor may LBGT government officials lead prayer while acting officially. Everyones’ rights are identical.

Exactly as I described in my previous post, you see only separate events and completely fail to recognize the principle in action.

Addendum: Of course the ACLU would defend a voluntary Christian prayer group after school. Just not during class. Please, prove me wrong by showing me a real-life example of the ACLU trying to prevent a voluntary Christian prayer meeting after school, or refusing to defend one.

Likewise, you may believe that the rights of Christians and Jews are just as respected as those of Muslims. But Muslims “right” to hide their woman’s faces or use Sharia law or even the “right” not to be criticized at all, are all carefully protected by Liberals.

Phew, hard to argue with pure fiction. Show me one instance of a liberal respecting the specific right of a Muslim man forcing his wife, against her will, to hide her face. Go ahead, I dare you. Your saying this is like me saying that you believe that Christians have the right to kill children if they think they are possessed by demons simply because you defend the rights of Christians to practice religion in general. It is a profound logical fallacy, not to mention an insult.

Show me one liberal claiming that Muslims have the right to “not to be criticized at all.” I am sure you will find examples of people criticizing the criticism of others, as if this were the same thing, when of course it is simply debate. You show me any liberal literally claiming that no one may ever criticize Islam. I double dog dare you. You see liberals defending a religion’s right to practice, and you conclude that they are saying it is forbidden to say one word in criticism of it.

Your bias in this is beyond extreme–and once again, you fail to recognize the principles involved.

By contrast, decent, respectable Christian leaders (e.g. Falwell) are ruthlessly criticized and the right of Christian worship is barely considered. Would anyone try to recreate “piss-Christ” with a picture of Mohommed?

This dichotomy is mostly due to the extreme violent reaction by Islamic extremists to religious affronts–something which liberals criticize and decry just as much as right-wingers do. Liberals would fully support a “piss-Mohammed,” as it follows once again with the overriding principles. But apparently you knew nothing of these, once again proving my case.

Finally, the Left has a tradition of celebrating and encouraging “in your face” speech and acts (like Code Pink and ACT-Up to name two). The Right does not. But when it comes to self-censorship and “Things that can’t be said”, I actually think much more of that goes on on the Left. The number of taboo topics among liberals is fairly astonishing.

You are criticizing liberal suggestions of self-censorship? Really? So, you agree that liberals will go further than conservatives in saying that people have the right to say whatever they want, but your big problem is that liberals suggest that people police themselves and try to be civil?

Wow.

Truthfully, I am just as irritated by your views as is K., but I will continue to challenge them head-on. The problem is that you don’t debate honestly. When someone soundly defeats your arguments, you just ignore it as if it never happened. When someone presents an array of points, you dodge the ones that you cannot answer and run straight for ones you think you can, never acknowledging or conceding or granting if you cannot back it up with evidence or logic. You don’t appeal to fact or reason, but to innuendo and allegation. I have observed this since I first started debating on the Internet back before most people knew it existed, back in USENET forums in the early 90’s, and I recognize the style just as clearly when you use it. Anyone who tries to practice honest debate with such a person is automatically at a disadvantage, not to mention asking for frustration.

I do not expect that you will respond to all challenges, or concede any point, or recognize any logic, but instead continue to rely on bias and evasion.

But please, by all means, do prove me wrong. Even if you never agree with my principles, if I can at least get you to be fact-based, logical, consistent, willing to answer all points of an argument and willing to concede any time you get something demonstrably wrong, I’ll consider it a small triumph. Not some small thing as a token specifically in response to such a challenge so as to claim you are something that you are not, but actual continued honest approach to discussion.

Sorry, temper speaking.

K:

Actually, the ACLU did defend the Nazis in Skokie. But I am guessing that you speak of Geoff’s lack of understanding of the ACLU in general, not about the one specific case.

Not that Geoff at all understands why they do what they do, or that he really has a firm grasp of what the principles are with any ACLU action. As I mentioned above, he does not recognize the application of principle.

K:

Oops. Sorry, missed that. My apologies.

Sorry, 0 for 6.

The “speech codes” on many College campuses are a similar application of this principle. The ideal of freedom of speech and freedom to inflict offense has been completely discarded. Instead, an innocent joke or a chance remark can now be a career-ending threat.

You do not fully understand what Freedom of Speech is about. It applies to public places, not private places. There are special provisions where other people have no choice but to be there. I must work, therefore if you could say anything you want I would have no choice but to listen. Obviously there are restrictions. Sexual harassment is an excellent case in point: you can be sued for hitting on a female subordinate in the workplace, but not for doing so to a woman on the street outside. You may feel that “freedom of speech” means saying anything in any location you want, public or private, without restrictions of any sort, but that is not the law, nor should it be. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to force people to listen to offensive speech.

The example does not apply because you do not understand the principle fully.

At the UN, Muslims are currently trying to set up a similar “right” to be free of criticism.

And how does this in any way touch on liberal thought?

The example does not apply because it is meaningless in this context.

As for Woman’s veils, there have been court cases on this in the US. Invariably, non-Muslim supporters in these cases are liberals writing on the grounds of “religious freedom”

The cases you mention are not about Muslim men forcing their women to wear the headdress, but instead the women’s rights to do so if they choose.

The example does not apply because you misunderstand the specifics.

On the separation of Church and State, you’ve taken the standard extreme liberal view that simply permitting voluntary activities constitutes State support.

Really? Quote me. I have said that prayer activities may not be required, not may they be conducted by state employees in the course of their jobs, or in situations requiring specific public funds. I also stated just as clearly that voluntary Christian prayer group after school is just fine, as are religious clubs. At the very least, get the facts straight on things written six inches above the place you are typing.

So if a voluntary Christian group meets in a classroom after school, that’s the State supporting religion.

Nope. School grounds are OK, never said they weren’t, to my best recollection. If I did, I was wrong. During class or led by a school representative, that’s not allowed. But using a school classroom after school is fine. So say the courts as well.

The example does not apply because you misrepresent me.

It’s the censorship of dissenting views that bothers me. For example, in liberal circles, expressing support for Israel and disgust for the behavior of the Palestinians and their government will earn you criticism at best and ostracism at worst.

So, you are saying that liberals taking a point of view and disagreeing with others is a form of censorship? Get real. I have as much right to strenuously disagree with you and leave your presence out of disgust of your views, just as much as you have the right to state those views. And vice-versa.

The example does not apply because you confuse criticism and disapproval with censorship.

There are institutional censorship issues as well. You can be a Conservative Engineer or Physicist. But, at most Colleges, your career won’t advance very far as a Conservative Political Science or English Professor. I really doubt that Obama would have been a Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard Law if he were a White Conservative.

This is an assumption, not a fact. Academia trends toward the liberal, just as business trends toward the conservative. I could just as easily say that if you take an outspoken liberal stance in an accounting firm, you won’t get very far. But neither can truly be proven beyond assumption; both fields attract ideological extremes more than they weed them out. Just like more whites working for “Golfing Quarterly” does not prove discrimination in the workplace. Ideological discrimination in academia probably does take place, but (a) one would be hard-put to prove it, and (b) your perception of it is without doubt wildly exaggerated by your information sources and your clearly disapproving assumptions of liberals in general.

I work in academia, and we have had several conservatives work at my school over the years, including at least a few currently at the school. While they would encounter argument from the liberal majority should they advance opinions others agree with, they would not in the least suffer work discrimination as a result. If there were word of such, the liberals would be the first to jump to their defense.

Not that any of the above matters. If such censorship or discrimination occurs, it does do despite liberal principles, not because of them.

The example does not apply because you (a) make assumptions (b) based more upon bias than fact, and (c) you state an assumed and unproven undercurrent which goes against liberal principle and open practice. Just as some individual conservatives sometimes act against conservative principles, so do some individual liberals; it is a fault in the specific individuals and those specific cases, not in the stated principles and forthright action of the group at large.

But hey, prove me wrong: list at least a few specific, real-world cases where conservative faculty had their careers demonstrably hindered or ended because they spoke their minds. [Addendum: by “speak their minds,” I do not include racist screeds or other over-the-top stuff like preaching religious views during Math class, stating that certain students are inferior, etc. Show me a Law professor who was fired for saying that he disagreed with Roe v. Wade, or an English Lit professor fired for assigning and discussing Ayn Rand. Best would be to show a pattern, not a single isolated case.] Don’t give me claims by disgruntled former professors who want to gin up sympathy or cast dispersions; you put this forth as something that liberals stand for, so you have to have liberals stating publicly that conservatives should not be allowed to follow normal career paths in colleges if they speak their minds. Just saying it’s hard to find conservatives in academia, or such-and-such a professor made this claim prove nothing.