tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post4643648191853189138..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Freedom of religion - Quinn O'Neill adds to the confusionRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36792366735679420742010-08-31T08:58:04.374+10:002010-08-31T08:58:04.374+10:00When any of us talk about the need to use freedom ...When any of us talk about the need to use freedom of speech in this respect, I don't think anyone is in any way advocating the hurling invective or personal insults -- as Robert correctly points out, let's separate that, and call it "inappropriate to any debate." <br /><br />Likewise, we all seem to agree that freedom of speech needs to include the ability to make simple assertions like "the Earth is not 6,000 years old" openly enough that it is no longer considered a deadly insult of some kind. <br /><br />The problem in the U.S. (and it seems in Australia to a lesser extent as well) is that the very definition of the term "insult" is now skewed so far out of whack that (a) for a U.S. president to suggest that atheists shouldn't really be considered citizens is A-OK, whereas (b) a simple statement of "I am an atheist" is often somehow considered a vitriolic attack against Christianity and some sort of crime against humanity. <br /><br />Coming from this standpoint, there is little need to protect the poor Christian majority from these "horrible insults," and a great deal of need to defend the ability of the non-Abrahamic minority -- Buddhists, Atheists, what have you -- to be able to criticize anti-democratic attitudes like Sharia law and erroneous truth statements like "evolution is false," without automatically being accused of being strident, militant, hateful, antireligious, or whatever.<br /><br />O'Neill seems not to be clear on a lot of that, and it fatally damages the essay.Kirth Gersennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-65732198723353711442010-08-31T02:50:37.149+10:002010-08-31T02:50:37.149+10:00No, it's precisely what the debate is about. O...<i>No, it's precisely what the debate is about. Or at least it's about whether religion should be exposed to the same robust criticism as anything else - secular ideology, political policies etc. O'Neill claims that freedom of religion demands we not criticise religion robustly. Or if that's not what she's saying she damn sure needs to clarify her position.</i><br /><br />I agree with you that this part of her argument is confused, and I agree with you that freedom of religion does not put any constraints on freedom of speech that would not already be in force (e.g. incitement). If she meant otherwise, she is mistaken (she has a follow up today on 3QD I have not read).<br /><br />However: nothing in her piece that I can see miliates against "robust" criticism. It seems to me to focus only on the distinction between criticism and abuse. Whatever you feel about the right to be (verbally) abusive, I don't think she argues that the religious should have legal protection against such abuse. Rather she seems to me to argue the wisdom of the matter, which is a much different thing than it's legality. Not everything we are permitted is prudent; should we not have a dialogue about which is which?<br /><br />By the way, I was glad to see your post about the CFI press release, which helped answer my outstanding question of whether you supported freedom of religion from private, not just state, discrimination. (This was missing from the definition in your post in this thread.)Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-50555311016195328212010-08-30T23:34:28.660+10:002010-08-30T23:34:28.660+10:00"O'Neill claims that freedom of religion ..."O'Neill claims that freedom of religion demands we not criticise religion robustly."<br /><br />If I were O'Neill, the response I'd give would be to differentiate between matter-of-fact rational criticism, which need not be vitriolic, and vitriolic attacks, which need not even be rational. Then I'd contend that the latter don't belong in <i>any</i> discourse. I'm not O'Neill, so I won't defend that contention (though I partly agree with it), but it seems like an obvious move to make.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-49242542171225250552010-08-30T10:16:58.180+10:002010-08-30T10:16:58.180+10:00No, it's precisely what the debate is about. O...No, it's <i>precisely</i> what the debate is about. Or at least it's about whether religion should be exposed to the same robust criticism as anything else - secular ideology, political policies etc. O'Neill claims that freedom of religion demands we not criticise religion robustly. Or if that's <i>not</i> what she's saying she damn sure needs to clarify her position.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28371606020069072632010-08-30T04:22:09.537+10:002010-08-30T04:22:09.537+10:00Bruce Gorton,
Please show me where I or O'Nei...Bruce Gorton,<br /><br />Please show me where I or O'Neill said that people should not expose religions to criticism. That is not what this debate is about.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-52417408820481576612010-08-28T22:21:46.069+10:002010-08-28T22:21:46.069+10:00Great post Russell. I believe you discussed the i...Great post Russell. I believe you discussed the issue with clarity and wit.Sean Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-66308041172442931652010-08-28T19:08:31.000+10:002010-08-28T19:08:31.000+10:00Chris Schoen
The net effect of not criticising r...Chris Schoen <br /><br />The net effect of not criticising religion is that people forget just why religion doesn't belong in politics - because nobody dares point out the bad bits.<br /><br />EG: The Catholic Church. If all anybody says about them is that they run good schools, hospitals and world charities, heck I would vote for them.<br /><br />But when you throw in the systematic cover-up of child abuse, the wide scale missapropriation of funds going to those charities, the horrors of the nunneries, their frankly genocidal irresponsibility when it comes to condoms in Africa (as well as the odd priest involved in genocide such as in Rwanda) and various other abuses of power...<br /><br />Suddenly, well I wouldn't want those priests anywhere near political power anymore.<br /><br />And much the same happens with all the other faiths. This is because, well what would you expect in the one field where comparing people to sheep isn't seen as an insult?<br /><br />And if you don't have anybody pointing all of this out, well why not have the Pope set up your child protection policies?Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14351426184582347752010-08-28T06:20:10.900+10:002010-08-28T06:20:10.900+10:00Oops. I meant for the Prop 8 case to be an exampl...Oops. I meant for the Prop 8 case to be an example of the first type, not the second type.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77931465499126274102010-08-28T06:18:23.541+10:002010-08-28T06:18:23.541+10:00Not that it impacts the main point made but there ...Not that it impacts the main point made but there are two slippery slopes to the separation of Church and State. One is the one explicitly mentioned in the original post: the attempts by religious groups to obtain the power of the state to impose their religious views. And the other is the attempt by the Government to ally itself with religious groups. <br /><br />Here in the USA there are ample examples of both. The 'faith-based initiatives' started by the Bush administration and continued by Obama is an example of the second type. <br /><br />While the financial (and likely illegal) support by the Mormon Church for California's Prop 8 (a ban on gay marriage) is, I think, an example of the second.<br /><br />While slippery slope arguments are frequently unsound, in the case of Church/State separation the slipping is real and dangerous.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-29508845451784806302010-08-28T04:58:06.510+10:002010-08-28T04:58:06.510+10:00Okay, I stand corrected.Okay, I stand corrected.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-44346054686874694012010-08-28T04:56:12.766+10:002010-08-28T04:56:12.766+10:00Heck, I don't even see Benson resorting to hyp...<i>Heck, I don't even see Benson resorting to hyperbole about O'Neill.</i><br /><br /><i>Quite funny, isn't it. Our dear darling cherished freedoms, she burbles, blithely giving one of them away.</i> (OB)Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-65405818497231523892010-08-28T04:04:21.397+10:002010-08-28T04:04:21.397+10:00"But I don't see O'Neill making the a..."But I don't see O'Neill making the argument that we should legally constrain speech to protect religious feelings. Do you?"<br /><br />No, and I don't think Dr. Blackford does either. I think we both see O'Neill as confused. Heck, I don't even see Benson resorting to hyperbole about O'Neill.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82975922223987435082010-08-28T03:43:39.330+10:002010-08-28T03:43:39.330+10:00Even the most childish and stupid attacks on relig...<i>Even the most childish and stupid attacks on religion are no more inconsistent with freedom of religion than racist diatribes are with freedom of speech.</i><br /><br />I agree. <br /><br />But I don't see O'Neill making the argument that we should legally constrain speech to protect religious feelings. Do you? She's making an appeal to civility and tolerance--not particularly original, but not the assault on civil liberty Russell and Ophelia are making it out to be--unless you want to argue that how we conduct our discourse is nobody's business but our own, which might stave off the "tolerance" critique, but at the expense of defeating any attempt to criticize <i>religious</i> discourse.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-11770298968770687002010-08-28T01:26:20.574+10:002010-08-28T01:26:20.574+10:00"O'Neill, for her faults, does not seem t..."O'Neill, for her faults, does not seem to me to suggest we yield any speech rights legally, just that we reflect on our social means and ends."<br /><br />True, but when she writes, "Personal and vitriolic attacks on religious individuals are also inconsistent with religious freedom," she comes off as confused. Even the most childish and stupid attacks on religion are no more inconsistent with freedom of religion than racist diatribes are with freedom of speech.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-47594013141506915412010-08-27T23:14:40.527+10:002010-08-27T23:14:40.527+10:00I think you get a couple things wrong here, includ...I think you get a couple things wrong here, including the definition of freedom religion,and I've responded here.<br /><br />http://underverse.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-not-letting-human-feeling-stop-you.html<br /><br />There is an important distinction between defending our liberties and talking about how best to use them. We can reject such a discussion as nobody's business but our own, but this seems to me not a very inquisitive stance to take. O'Neill, for her faults, does not seem to me to suggest we yield any speech rights legally, just that we reflect on our social means and ends. We can disagree without arguing she is trying to take anything away from us.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82073453232376683672010-08-27T18:46:44.835+10:002010-08-27T18:46:44.835+10:00DM: are you little brian b?
I thought you collec...DM: are you little brian b?<br /><br />I thought you collected yourself back on D'Souza's blog a long time ago. <br /><br />Looks like you may need to do some more recollecting -- you know, just for your own soul's sake, okay?mryananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80105935381313157712010-08-27T16:16:49.458+10:002010-08-27T16:16:49.458+10:00Thanks for this, Russell. People often conflate to...Thanks for this, Russell. People often conflate tolerance and a generalised desire to avoid conflict with issues relating to freedom of religion. Any desires to effect social change are impossible to satisfy without criticism - and criticism is often perceived as rude or hostile by those being criticised. Just as believers may become irritated by us heathens telling them they are wrong, likewise, I'm pretty irritated (all too often) by the respect and column-inches afforded to Bronze Age mythology. But they are free to speak their minds, as am I. The issues of how best to engage - whether to be a dick about it or not - are an entirely separate matter.Jacques Rousseauhttp://synapses.co.zanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-19704944636083698722010-08-27T11:04:39.236+10:002010-08-27T11:04:39.236+10:00"Maybe in the U.S. it's free for all but ..."Maybe in the U.S. it's free for all but I very much doubt it. What about slander?"<br /><br />Slander is flat-out illegal in the U.S., but there is no equivalent to a racial vilification act. Judging from what I've read from Dr. Blackford, I think he'd prefer the harder line on free speech seen in the U.S. than the approach of Australia.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-72919495234246042162010-08-27T11:02:33.232+10:002010-08-27T11:02:33.232+10:00+1+1Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-15811120384145947162010-08-27T09:14:09.716+10:002010-08-27T09:14:09.716+10:00Well that didn't come out quite how I intended...Well that didn't come out quite how I intended --<br /><br />but I hope it is understood I agree with the possision in principle and Russell makes a solid argument, but in a practicle and political sense it is difficult and will take much time...<br /><br />We had an atheist PM in Bob Hawke, and later in Julia GIllard -- not all that long ago such things would have been viewed as impossible. Now we have gay members of parliament. So change does come...Robert N Stephensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17846982349433428044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-67733998309223640562010-08-27T09:06:23.899+10:002010-08-27T09:06:23.899+10:00Australia on the whole is a secular society, this ...Australia on the whole is a secular society, this is obvious when you examine it laws and even social structure. The government makes decisions based on a secular system - yes, there are still some old religious traditions within how systems present, but there are in themselves not part of any decision making process in this country.<br /><br />No law is passed or denied on religious grounds - though in the parliament relion is brought up in debate by those members who have such convictions.<br /><br />Freedon of Religion isn't what the government itself enforces, it is a law enforced by social attitudes as mcuh as anything else.<br /><br />To suggest the government not be secular and be more atheistic is then suggesting this Freedom be governed by a system that not only doesn't have this faith dynamic but in many cases goes out of its way to display an open, and sometimes, abusive, position against such religious types.<br /><br />So, in a polical sense and perhaps to a lesser degree in a legal sense, does this kind of shift actually advantage or disadvantage the wider population and communities? After all this is why many political decisions are made - the larger advantage for the population must always be in the forefront of any reasonable decision.<br /><br />It is not that I fully disgree with Russell at all and to always aim for absolutes in argument or discussion is very primitive.<br /><br />While there are ideals in an atheistic view, in a realistic world where religions do actually play a part in millions of people's lives, politics and laws need to reflect at least a minor understanding of this.<br /><br />Will there one day be a change to something more considered as Russell states? Quite possibly, but it will take calm heads and a great deal of respect across many walks of life to reach a reasonable consensus. In time, in time change does come - but rarely does change come to the loudest of yellers.Robert N Stephensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17846982349433428044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31036293700160741202010-08-27T09:03:12.469+10:002010-08-27T09:03:12.469+10:00J.J. Ramsey: People supporting freedom of speech s...<i>J.J. Ramsey: People supporting freedom of speech support the right of people to say things that they may find utterly loathsome.</i><br /><br />Maybe in the U.S. it's free for all but I very much doubt it. What about slander? In Australia there are legislations which temper some aspects of the freedom of speech,for example, the racial vilification act.<br /><br />Religious freedom in Australia, aside from what Russell has pointed out in his post, is this: Individuals are free to express a diversity of views, as long as they do not incite religious hatred.Theistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-78455929354127778552010-08-27T08:44:53.035+10:002010-08-27T08:44:53.035+10:00My boss, an otherwise very nice fellow, once told ...My boss, an otherwise very nice fellow, once told me: "If there were really freedom of religion in this country, we'd be allowed to MAKE everyone pray to Jesus in school But the ACLU took away our freedom."<br /><br />If that's what the religious "moderates" in the U.S. think "freedom of religion" means, then we've got more of an uphill struggle here than most people probably realize.Kirth Gersennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-85763497043452204892010-08-27T06:14:35.030+10:002010-08-27T06:14:35.030+10:00"Yes, that's what we should aim at - a se..."Yes, that's what we should aim at - a secular, free society. I agree. But O'Neill doesn't even understand what our cherished freedoms <i>are</i>."<br /><br />Quite funny, isn't it. Our dear darling cherished freedoms, she burbles, blithely giving one of them away.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91454698488018214002010-08-27T02:51:01.261+10:002010-08-27T02:51:01.261+10:00"They" in "What they think" re..."They" in "What they think" refers to atheists. SDC are telling atheists what atheists think. Speaking of playground insults, it's about the equivalent of the old "Stop hitting yourself" chestnut.<br /><br />-Dan L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com