Intermix at 6000 degrees and rising

[mikailborg]

I want to rant about the idiots who claim that "freedom of religion" gives them the right to harass people they don't like, but I am controlling myself.

With great difficulty.

Comments

[vileone.livejournal.com]

I'm a big fan of that West Wing moment as well.

But the point remains; Freedom of Speech (and Religion) includes the right of Christians to insult gays (even if they don't insult forencators), just as it includes the right to stick Christian holy symbols in jars of piss. The difference is that Christians were asked to pay taxes to support the latter.

Calling people names and insulting them isn't generally harassment, as long as your not following them around. I return to my question of whether other groups are allowed to use names like "fundies" or "Bible thumpers" or any other insulting names of Christians? Are they free to wear shirts that Christians would find offensive? If so, I don't see how gays get special protection from name calling.

It doesn't matter if what the people are saying is stupid, incorrect, lies or insulting. The question is how we want freedom of speech defined; narrowly based on what we think people should be allowed to say, or broadly to make sure we're allowed to say unpopular things.

[raininva.livejournal.com]

I guess I worded what I was saying badly... which is not surprising given I am at work and today is my friday so my brain is a bit gone.

But... I do get what you are saying and mostly agree. I quoted my favorite movie quote wrong, the end should have been 'that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours'

*shrugs* I guess the part I am opposed to is how narrow the scope of the lawsuit is and that it has religion behind it. I would be much more for it if it was just 'I want to yell and say insults to people just because I don't like them or agree with them and my first amendment right gives me the right to do that'. It should have nothing to do with religion and it should not be only to insult one group of people.

[vileone.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but freedom of speech is always about a specific issue; no one can bring a lawsuit about "freedom of speech" in general. And it is a matter of religion, not insulting. I know it's hard to see that way, but this is the nature of *religion* rather than just "how we kind of feel about things" (which is what most people have in place of religion IMO). True religion compells action. If we say "you can believe whatever you want, but you can't speak about it and you certainly can't *do* anything about it," then what is religious freedom? No one ever needed the freedom to practice and believe in secret. Everyone has always had that as long as they kept their secret well.

Fundamentalist Christians believe homosexuality is wrong in the same way that I believe that pedophilia is wrong. If the law were changed to allow pedophilia as long as the child agreed (i.e. two "consenting" people), I would speak out saying that a child *can't* agree; it is a inherently coercive relationship. Imagine if people passed rules saying that I was intolerant in this view and threatened to fire me from my job for speaking out about it. I would still have to fight it because pedophilia is wrong. That knot in your stomach that you get when you even think about it, that's how Fundamentalists feel when we say that homosexuality is good. We're right and they're wrong, but we must understand that their goal isn't just to insult and make fun of people. It's to object to things they deeply believe are wrong.

We must keep the right to object loudly and forcibly to those things that we disagree with. If we disagree with them because our religion tells us so, it should be no less protected than if we do it because our reason tells us so.

Truth and good will never win by silencing lies and evil. They will only win out by defeating lies and evil out in the open. We must change the minds of Christians, not silence them. We did it before when racism became evil even in church (and I've been in enough Fundamentalist churches to say that overt racism is considered more repugnant there as in society at large). In 50 years, we'll look back on this time in the same way as we look back at the Civil Rights movement. We didn't need Universities to pass rules banning speaking out against integration; we needed integration to happen and the results would speak for themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

It is probably too late to jump in here, but we need to separate freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

If FoS already grants it then the suit is void to begin with. You don't have to sue under FoR to be allowed to watch cable tv - you already have it (for example).

[vileone.livejournal.com]

Both are first-ammendment provisions; I don't know why you would need to separate one from the other. Do you have to separate freedom of speech from freedom of assembly when the two overlap? Why in particular would the suit be void given that her speech is being restricted (provided the court rules that it is being restricted) and that speaking out is a part of her religion?

A key question here is whether freedom of religion includes freedom to act upon your religion. This has always been a fuzzy line. Do Jews have the right to perform animal sacrifices in violation of zoning? Do Rastafarians and certain Native American tribes have the right to restricted drugs? And who gets to decide what's a religion?

But in any case, I don't understand your point about the case being void. When you say "you already have [the right]," isn't that exactly what you would sue about? The fact that you're being prevented from exercising your right? What else would a lawsuit be about?