Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Dr Benway


301. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155033 by Dr Benway on April 4, 2008 at 4:58 am

The protesters didn't get the memo. The "creationist vs. evolutionist" debate is over. That gap for God has closed. Give it up. Move on.

Take cheer in the last gap you have: subjectivity.

If Robertson is there with a little group of creationists, he's batting for their team regardless of what he says to a more enlightened crowd.

302. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154836 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Ok one more: 12 year old boy with autism-ish problem likes to walk around with his hands postured as if he were holding a pair of invisible binoculars. Sometimes he looks through the circles he makes with his thumb and fingers. Mostly he just holds them down, arms relaxed.

The staff will then say, "Oh look. J's got his crotch goggles on."

Visual humor.

Some who walk into a room smeared with feces recoil in horror. Others pause and say, "Hey he missed a spot there." The latter seem best suited for this sort of work.

Cute boy post-viral encephalopathy, very limited communication, has moments of sudden panic when he says things like, "I'm afraid of cake!"

303. Beware the Believers

Comment #154830 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Uh, sometimes a spork is just a spork...?

304. Beware the Believers

Comment #154828 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 7:12 pm

I speak for myself.
Well then. I don't think we have a problem.

305. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154822 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 7:03 pm

I laugh at the mentally ill regularly. I'm a horrible person.

One woman previously under my care popped out her own eye and ate it. Later, she was fitted with a glass eye.

Kids living near her would say, "Don't mess with M or she'll throw her eye at you!"

And she would.

Or she'd eat it. The nurses then would encourage her to poop into a plastic hat for a day or so, in hopes of retrieving the eye. Those things aren't cheap.

306. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154812 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Artful Dodger: After the scalding Dawkins got the last time your reactions to Robertson are just par for the course. I wouldn't have expected a different reaction from you.
Fuck Dawkins. Seriously. Who gives a shit about an old man thousands of miles away I'll never meet? It's like asking me to care about cricket. What would be the point?

And fuck atheism. It's easy to imagine a world where atheism is popular and nearly everyone is an atheist. Same number of assholes in that world as this, I reckon.

No, what matters is corroboration, falsification, logic, and parsimony. Argue with me about the need for these things and you simply prove you're unworthy of serious attention. No worries, however. Most humans capable of rational thought are humane. We'll find a home for you somewhere, if need be.

Dodger, you never answered the question re: how you can tell metaphor from literal account in the Bible.

307. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154733 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Tiny rule of thumb: if you laugh out loud at the story, think bipolar disorder.

308. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154697 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I don't, however, know who John Lennox is. If he is a creationist I withdraw my comment.
Dawkins debated Lennox at a Christian venue in the US last year. Old earth creationist with the same-old same-old: fine tuning of the constants, word games re: God being "outside" the universe, "everything that exists has a cause..." In short, the usual arguments for deism.

IIRC Lennox's response to the question of why Jesus rather than Thor or Odin was something like, "What a stupid thing to say!" Robinson's "sixth form schoolboy variety" insult was lifted from that debate.

Odious wanker, in other words.

I think I'll wait for Lennox to publish his evidence for God in a peer reviewed scientific journal before I bother to take him seriously. Time is money, after all.

309. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154649 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I just can't wait.
Sucks to be you, I'm afraid.

310. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154636 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 2:25 pm

What would be more balanced is having them on at the same time, that makes a whole lot more sense.
You don't "balance" evidenced-based discourse with wishful thinking, speculation, emotionalism, or fantasy.

I think I'll wait for Robertson to publish his evidence for God in a peer reviewed scientific journal before I bother to take him seriously.

311. Thy will be done

Comment #154616 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Matthew 6:

5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

312. Beware the Believers

Comment #154602 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Kardashovel: And some cultures' moral norms, religious or otherwise, are abominable.
Your opinion, or God's?

If we're talking about your opinion, we may find areas of agreement. If you're representing God's opinion, we have a problem. We'll need God to confirm His opinion in person, else your testimony is hearsay.

313. Fleabytes

Comment #154420 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 7:50 am

Phillip, if we went through Robinson's posts here we'd find enough little red flags for a children's May Day parade.

314. Fleabytes

Comment #154406 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 7:28 am

Bonzai: For others who don't make a living on stage the apparent confidence may be just over compensation for their doubts in order to overcome cognitive dissonance. I think many fundies are over compensating.
There's not enough time to go into the nuances of dishonesty on a message board. It's true that some are dishonest without having a deeply dishonest personality.

One nuance: our brains have a few epistemic rules of thumb that work most of the time but not all the time. Natural selection likely favored brains with these rules of thumb, as they allow for quick decisions.

One such rule: if the dominant personalities in your clan accept crazy idea X, that idea is not crazy.

So it's possible to feel that an extrordinary claim is well corroborated, when in fact it has not been corroborated.

315. Fleabytes

Comment #154359 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 6:15 am

Billy: No we dont, we have a man who says things like "I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit" - His conscience ! his word! The holy spirit! How are any of these verifyable?
This gives me an opportunity to mention another of sociopathy's little red flags.

Any sociopaths reading, please stop now. If you learn of the flags, you'll likely avoid manifesting them. And we need the flags to spot you. We must spot you to survive.

People of normal honesty are aware that others will want independent corroboration for unusual claims or claims associated with some risk. They're aware that promoting an extrordinary claim is an imposition upon their listeners. Their manner and body language are apologetic.

In contrast, sociopaths behave as though they've got the independent corroboration right there with them. They're confident. They want to impress you with their confidence. If they're not too sophisticated, they'll something like, "I can prove it to you. Yesterday while praying, the Lord told me I'd meet you today. And here you are!" It's as though they don't understand what independent corroboration means.

Mr. Apostle Paul gotz a red flag. Big time.

316. Beware the Believers

Comment #154327 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2008 at 5:28 am

I do not believe that we should legislate morality; so I believe that religions, properly separated from the state, are our best hope of encouraging moral behavior.
First point: Religious organizations are power structures like the state. They have their rules, which are like laws. People get disfellowshiped, excommunicated, defrocked, shunned, etc., as a consequence to breaking their policies. That looks like "legislating morality" to me.

Secondly, religions generally claim that God wants us to behave in a certain manner. But God never shows up to the debate. What we get instead are his self-appointed spokespersons.

Thirdly, once someone believes God wants something, there's no talking with them. There's no way to move the conflict forward toward resolution without violence or political force in some manner. And that's too bad in the case of many of the things God is alleged to want, such as genital mutilation, prayer instead of medicine, etc.

Fourth, why not be honest. We feel what is right within us. Let's admit that our morality is simply an expression of what we want. Then we can negotiate as equals.

317. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #154098 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 4:03 pm

From the pics of meetings I've seen, I had the impression the atheists = the elderly.

318. Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'

Comment #154097 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I hope the theists win this one. Here's why:

1. I could care less about monuments.
2. My centrist friends say, "never happen" when I talk about the theocrats rolling back Roe v Wade.

Ergo, nice wake up call.

319. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153922 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 8:03 am

Ok, we can get back to Fitna (although I'll be in meetings).

But I'm going to remember that when I say "deport" I'm talking about citizens of a foreign power who are truly guests in the US. In Europe non-citizens may not have citizenship elsewhere and may have no particular relationship with a foreign power. Deportation of this group is clearly more problematic and upsetting.

320. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153906 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 7:43 am

I think the parents would qualify for a temporary visa fairly easily. If they can get jobs, they likely can get a work visa. But I haven't looked into this, so big grain of salt.

321. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153901 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 7:39 am

No, the parents aren't automatically citizens. I don't know the details of how that all works, so I won't speculate.

Anyway, I'm starting to appreciate how deporation might target a broader group in Europe than in the US.

The US is a nation of immigrants.

322. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153896 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 7:34 am

Quetz, that's no piss take. That's the law of the land here. Born on our soil, we're stuck with you.

323. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153892 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 7:30 am

Where's the Emergency Hitchens Red Phone when you need it?

324. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153888 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 7:22 am

Well before y'all go down the road of ideal citizenship laws, could someone please clarify present European laws? If one is born in a European country, is one automatically a citizen of that country?

325. Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'

Comment #153844 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 6:41 am

Ultimate frisbee in the park will be quite the challenge with all those monuments to sacred rules dotting the landscape.

326. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153834 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 6:25 am

Third-generation "immigrants" are citizens, at least in those countries with a sane concept of citizenship (Germany being a notable exception), an they seem to be the most easily radicalised.
Does this mean second generation immigrants are not citizens in most European countries?

Anyone born on US soil is considered a US citizen regardless of the status of the parents. So everyone in the US is the citizen of some country.

If second generation immigrants were not citizens, would they all be citizens of their parent's native land? I'm not sure.

I don't see how deportation would work for non-citizens of some foreign country. To deport someone, you must cross a boarder. The receiving country must accept responsibility for the person. What country would take someone who is not their own citizen?

I don't see a problem with the deportation of trouble makers. So I'm surpised that talk of deportation has aroused so much upset on this thread.

I'm imagining that if second generation immigrants are not citizens in many European countries, their awkward plight might arouse sympathy we wouldn't understand here in the US. Maybe that explains the different reactions.

327. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #153700 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 9:21 pm

...took me ten minutes to figure out that the overlayed text wasn't German
LOL. Kittehs not spell so gud.

328. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153648 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 6:15 pm

But it doesn't, for me, affect whether research can be carried out on hybrid cell clusters.
Uh, are the religious folks in the UK who are now opposing the idea of combining human and non-human DNA aware of how we make insulin?

329. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153641 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 6:03 pm

I'm just a tufted titmouse. I don't have the answers.

330. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153637 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I suspect there's evidence of criminal negligence in reviewing evidence for WMD prior to the war.

But others point out that Saddam claimed to have WMDs on several occasions. He did have a history of using them as well. He wasn't cooperative with inspections. So the matter is debatable.

I wish we had not invaded Iraq. I wish we'd continued with inspections and pressured for greater openness. Fear and the approaching summer pushed the invasion to happen when it did. Now we're trapped in a quagmire we can't afford.

How does one bear such guilt? Iraq is a wasteland. A relatively functional country with universities and medical schools is in tatters. Ancient treasures valuable to all of us have vanished. The invasion was a proximate cause, but the madness of religious and civil war also bears much of the blame.

Back home our economy is tanking. Lots of people have lost their homes. There's talk of nationalizing banks. Never heard of such a thing before.

The "best military on the planet" has run out of able bodies. They're now allowing criminals to enlist.

Bush is a symptom of a deeper problem of how we study, debate, and resolve policy differences in this country. So even if Bush gets what he deserves the machine that allowed him to rise to power will still be there.

As much as I'd like a public trial to review the dodgy decisions of this administration, decisons that have harmed this and other countries, I don't feel passionately about making that happen, particularly if Bush's humiliation would embolden the Islamists.

Right now I'm worried about the power vacuum a weakened America would create. The notion of greater Russian or Chinese world dominance doesn't send me into a panic, but it doesn't provide me much comfort either.

331. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153618 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 4:57 pm

MPhil, I'm for the rule of law. I want the bad guys brought to justice. And I agree that all human beings are more like me than not, regardless of political borders.

But I'm nervous about how power is managed at the international level.

Should Clinton be brought to trial for bombing that aspirin factory? If Bush was negligent in assessing the WMD danger prior to the war, will Blair also be rounded up for similar charges?

Is the Hague neutral ground? I notice the pressure Islamic groups can bring to bear upon politicians in the Netherlands.

I think we can work toward a system of international law and enforcement. But we have to sort several problems along the way. This UN Human Rights issue might be one of them.

332. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153596 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 4:17 pm

I've been on both sides of this debate. The frustration seems to arise from the blurring of a few issues which we'd be wise to keep separate:

1. Doctrine: What are the explicit teachings of the religion?

2. Consensus: What percentage of Muslims agree that unpleasant dogma X is actually Allah's will for mankind?

3. Practice: What percentage of Muslims who accept unpleasant dogma X are sufficiently motivated to actively or passively support social policies based on X?

We can use a Catholic doctrine as a model.

1. Docrine: Birth control is counter to God's will.

2. Consensus: Most Catholics agree that this is what the Church teaches. Most do not offer a theological position against this teaching.

3. Practice: In the US, many Catholics use birth control without openly challenging the Church's position. If pressed to explain, they'll often say something like, "It doesn't seem like a major issue worth worrying about."

It's my impression that many Catholics feel that God won't hold their use of birth control against them, although they can't justify this feeling with a reasoned argument.

In arguments about Islam, often one party will offer some matter of doctrine. The other side will respond with data regarding consensus and practice. The first side will offer more doctrine. The second responds again with consensus and practice.

The first side gradually becomes annoyed, as it seems impossible to establish a few simple facts regarding explicit Islamic teachings. Why is this so difficult? Why do these people close their eyes to what is there in black and white?

The second side feels the first side is perseverating to the point of badgering. Why can't he see the bigger picture?

I think there's value in sorting Islam into teaching, consensus, and practice. Then we can imagine specific interventions to limit the toxic effects of the religion.

333. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153580 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 3:42 pm

...use a phrase like "X should be deported" when what you actually mean is "X who aren't native should be deported"...
How does one deport natives? I've only heard the word "deport" used for non-citizens.

I think of citizenship as similar to adoption. Once it happens you're stuck with the person, even if they later turn out to be horrible trouble.

I suppose if a naturalized citizen retained dual citizenship with his nation of origin, it might be possible to revoke his citizenship and deport him. I think the US allows dual citizenship with a handful of other nations.

334. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153254 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 9:49 am

Also, i can fight with everything i,ve got. But where does hate come in to that?
Mirriam-Webster: hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy

We measure feelings by their outward, behavioral manifestations. Fighting is generally evidence for strong "dislike or antipathy."

It's possible to decide you dislike something enough to devote years or decades to fighting it. It's also possible to keep a cool head while fighting.

335. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153189 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 7:25 am

Sorry, murder is not a personal taste.
Says who.

336. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153181 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 7:16 am

But saying hate is good, i think is difficult.
Who says hate is good?

Look, if you can't imagine fighting for something with everything you've got, you've effectively removed yourself from any political dialog.

That may be what you want to do, and I'd never criticize anyone for that. But if it's not what you want, then you must recognize your own tactics. Your "hate is bad, mkay?" position is a manipulation. You're coaxing others to drop their weapons while you hide a pistol in your sock.

If you can get the nutters to fall for it, more power to you.

337. Beware the Believers

Comment #153163 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 6:39 am

Layla, I'll see your bad lyrics and raise you ten:

Say you, say me
Say it together
Naturally

I had a dream,
I had an awesome dream
People in the park
Playing games in the dark
And what they played,
Was a masquerade,
From behind the walls of doubt
A voice was crying out

Say you say me...

338. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153162 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 6:33 am

All that hate.
What's wrong with hate? Don't mothers hate any danger to their babies? Don't lovers hate any danger to their beloved?

339. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153159 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 6:23 am

But I wouldn't equate the COE with the Islamism that is apparently festering in your country. COE Bishops who opposes same sex marriage are not even in the same league as Mullahs who preach that we should be beheaded and mean it.
Grading religions by virtue of their nice/nasty belief ratio is a fool's game. To play the game, someone or a group of someones must be appointed as judge. In the example above, that would be Bonzai.

Bonzai, you've just announced to the world that your personal likes and dislikes trump the will of God.

I say, scrap the content arguments. Instead, argue against the faulty method of assigning confidence to beliefs that we see among nearly all the religions.

It means very little if some religion is sweetness and light today, according to our personal preferences. What we want is an enduring method of constraint against irrational belief.

The method I propose:
1. We give more confidence to propositions that can be corroborated as opposed to those that can't be corroborated.
2. We seek alternative hypothesis, and we try to falsify our hypotheses.
3. We reject propositions that lead to self-contradictions or otherwise violate logic.
4. When several explanations fit the data equally well, the simpler explanation is preferred.

I'm sure it's boring, the way I repeat the four tests as I've been doing on these threads. But it's my way to get the memes out there.

340. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153138 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 5:32 am

A shrinking membership means no retirement homes for many old priests and nuns.

341. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153137 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 5:27 am

Namely, Islam should be classified as a cult, legally.
I've never heard of such laws. Reference?

342. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153131 by Dr Benway on April 1, 2008 at 5:14 am

Not only do I see the UN as useless, but it's pretending to be anything but for so long has done nothing but allow atrocities to unfold all over the world, as they were the ones that were suppose to uphold human rights and freedoms.
You have no control group. You don't know what the world would look like without the UN.

The organization was created to support diplomacy and avoid world wars. Good stuff.

Srsly, stop hatin' on the UN unless you've got a better proposal. Y'all bringin' me down.

For example, the US shouldn't be able to not recognise the Den Haag court
Don't cut the nuts off the biggest bully on the block until you're confident bullies #2, 3, 4, etc. are more to your liking.

I think we can work toward an international court but we're not there yet. The US, for all it's problems, is in a unique position by virtue of its geography, size, wealth, military power, scientific establishment, and long democratic tradition. In comparison to other global powers, it's the least likely to regress toward totalitarianism.

I've got a lot more faith in the US than any present international body.

343. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153011 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 9:13 pm

^There are freethinking nations?

344. Christian Founders 3D Adventure Computer Game

Comment #153007 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 8:47 pm

what the ***k relevance to how to run your nation should that bear now?

There are two views regarding the first amendment "establishment clause":

1. The framers intended the US to be generally Christian, with no particular sect recognized as an established church.
2. The framers wanted to keep religion out of government.

Evidence of the founding fathers appealing to their Christian beliefs in the course of their government duties supports #1 over #2.

We can't ignore the intent of the authors of the Constitution unless we want to re-write the document.

345. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152996 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 8:17 pm

I'm a little surprised by China. The Catholics are likely in favor of the document in principle, so long as Christianity is as protected from "hate" as Islam. That might explain why the Philippines and Mexico are on this list.

Binding or not, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights defined a moral standard that I found useful in many arguments. For example, Muslims wanting to hold community courts might be told "Fine, so long as you agree to the principles outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights."

Sad to undermine what once seemed a general consensus among modern states.

346. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152990 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 8:01 pm

I agree with you about the hate speech, Falcon. And even if optimism isn't warranted, if I were involved with this committee, I'd use my meager Socratic skills to point out the wrinkles and help the peeps iron them out. They don't see it; but I see where the road leads: to Thomas Jefferson. Liberty for one means liberty for all. Protection for one means protection for all.

We dreamed up the hate crime laws in the late 1980s/early 1990s cuz we wanted to go after some really annoying pricks: the Holocost deniers, HIV positive haters, gay bashers, and nationalist thugs.

Well, now we get to see how it feels when the tables are turned. Now we're the annoying pricks.

347. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152984 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Well, there is room for clever lawyering above.

First, we must define the word "religion." If we can get that to mean, "matters of personal concience" that would include the position that no god(s) exist. Thus a respect for atheism would be included in the protections against "hate."

I guess we gave up on the UN a long time ago.
I'm afraid we're stuck with Larry, Moe, and Curley. We can't not talk to them. Over the past 20 years, our common flat has grown too small for isolationism to work.

348. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152931 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 6:16 pm

I'm waiting to hear from Steve, Stryer, and Phil Rimmer, as they were defending the hate speech laws on another thread.

349. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152913 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 5:41 pm

In other words: Don't exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. For the first time in the 60 year history of UN Human Rights bodies, a fundamental human right has been limited simply because of the possible violent reaction by the enemies of human rights.
The hate speech laws have always made me nervous. Said this 10 minutes ago on another thread. My fears have been realized above.

We never should have classified any speech as illegal merely for provoking "hate." Hate is at times necessary.

We've had laws against overt speech expressing intent to harm, or encouraging violence against others. We've had laws against covert conspiracy to harm others. By going beyond that, by criminalizing talk that provokes feelings of hatred, we set a precedent we can't now revoke without enormous difficulty.

350. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152888 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Muslims have used anti-hate speech laws to challenge criticism of Islam.
Bring it on! Another challenge, another opportunity to make a reasonable case.
By "challenge" I meant suppress via threats of criminal and civil litigation. It's seriously no fun being charged with a crime. Legal fees can bankrupt you, even if you're innocent.

A Canadian magazine published the cartoons of Muhammad and now potentially faces charges under "hate speech" laws:
Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/13/cartoons060213.html

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next