Duke to begin weekly prayer broadcasts

Parents Forum
261

@ucalumnus “Seems like the people who would be excessively offended from a religious standpoint are more likely to be far right rather than far left.”

You are correct that it is the far right of a particular religion that would most likely be offended.

Ironically, however, it is the far left that seems to think that somehow, freedom of religion includes banning criticism of religion because we must not offend anyone. This is the same reason that liberal groups were opposed Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaking at Brandeis and Yale because she opposes Islam and its treatment of women. They tried to label this view as “Hate speech.”

No idea should be above criticizing, questioning, challenging or cartooning. That is how the quality of ideas get sorted out. That is what freedom of speech is all about. If you don’t like it, don’t look. If you don’t want to hear it, don’t listen. But no one should be allowed to control what others can say and do in the United States. It is a cornerstone of our culture.

262

Harvard banned fraternities and sororities from campus (they cannot use the Harvard name or meet on campus property) because they discriminate on the basis of gender. Yet there is an official Harvard Islamic Society, Harvard Catholic Center, and Harvard LDSSA.

263

Well, I do think it bears pointing out that Yale, Brandeis, and NYU are all private institutions. But I think they should still encourage free speech. I don’t agree with what NYU did. As for Yale, it wasn’t really a “ban”–rather, it was just that the Yale University Press didn’t choose to publish a book that included the cartoons. As far as I know, they didn’t prohibit anybody else from showing them, which is what appears to have happened at NYU.

As for speakers with an unpopular message, I don’t like efforts to get them uninvited from campuses. I also don’t like efforts to disrupt their speeches. But I do think it’s perfectly OK to picket them, to protest outside the meeting hall, to question them aggressively if they allow Q&A, etc.

264

@ Hunt I agree with all of what you said.

I am responding to @Pizzagirl’s request for examples.

I am also pointing out that some of the same groups that assert their rights to free religion and free speech, then work to impair those freedoms for others. That is unfortunate.

I am not suggesting that Yale did anything illegal.

What I found the most troubling is the reason that Yale gave, which was similar to the Duke situation. “Yale defended its ban as not violating freedom of expression, which it said is overruled by a fear of violence.”

Really, threats of voilence over rule freedom of expression? Then Dr. King would have never been allowed to speak, and that would have been a real tragedy.

How can we argue on the one hand that Muslims are just like everyone else, and have the same rights as everyone else (which I agree with); however, then we say that the conservatives Muslims are dangerous, and if you show a cartoon they don’t agree with they may harm someone, so we can’t show it? (which I don’t agree with).

Why does the threat of someone breaking the law trump my freedom of speech. This is no different than conservative christians making threats if the adhan is performed at Duke. Angry right wing christians making threats should not be a reason not to do it.

I am really hoping you agree with me on this. Fingers crossed. :slight_smile:

265

Many on the far left support the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is pretty critical of ALL imaginary thinking. The PC police exist on both the left and the right–they are just (as always) at opposite ends of the spectrum. On the left they support banning statements or activities that could potentially offend, while on the right they proselytize or put faux concern over religious freedom above the rights of others.

266

Are you referring to Franklin Graham?

My observation is that everybody, left or right, likes free speech until they don’t.

I think it’s not so easy to know what to do about cartoons depicting Mohammed. At the time, I remember thinking that it seemed pretty absurd to publish a book about the controversy that didn’t include at least examples of the cartoons. On the other hand, I don’t think that the freedom to publish a particular kind of speech is, in itself, a moral justification for publishing it. Decent people might reasonably refrain from certain kinds of speech because it would offend others–absent some countervailing reason to publish it. The cartoon case is hard, though–should we publish the cartoons just to show that nobody can control speech through threats? I can say that even if somebody massacres the Westboro Baptist Church, I’m not going to publish a sign reading “God Hates Fags” on my Facebook page. I’m probably not going to say “I am the Westboro Baptist Church,” either.

267

Sounds like he is referring to extreme Islam?

268

Sometimes I get my extremists mixed up.

269

@hunt “My observation is that everybody, left or right, likes free speech until they don’t.”

I think that is a tautology as stated. However, it is not true that everybody opposes free speech. My DD brought home a religious text that is not that one that we are with. It had been given to her by a well intended classmate, and she asked me what she should do with it. I told her that I do not believe that the text is true and the best way for her to know that for herself was not to take my word for it, but rather to read it and use her own critical thinking skills. I tell them that they should think for themselves and not just believe what they are told.

@ Hunt “On the other hand, I don’t think that the freedom to publish a particular kind of speech is, in itself, a moral justification for publishing it. Decent people might reasonably refrain from certain kinds of speech because it would offend others–absent some countervailing reason to publish it. The cartoon case is hard, though–should we publish the cartoons just to show that nobody can control speech through threats?”

I am not saying that the freedom to publish is a moral justification. I am not a fan of these cartoons. I am however, saying that anyone should have the right to do so, and trying to prevent them from being published because it is hate speech or because someone might be offended or violent is not good enough to give up our freedom of speech. It seems to me that the argument some Muslim groups give that this is too offensive to be allowed is the same very same argument that conservative Christians have used to argue that other religions (like Islam) should not be allowed. They say that this is a predominantly Christian nation and Islam is offensive to conservatives Christians, and some of them believe that Allah is satan, and therefore, it should be banned. So it seems to me, that ironically, the law that these groups do not like, is the same law that protects their rights and all of our rights.

Additionally, if we are so worried about the fact that allowing free speech that will lead to people being killed, then why don’t we ban the anti-vaccine speech or the anti-global warming speech. That is the free speech that ultimately kills a lot of people. Yet, no one is arguing that.

The key is that free speech does not mean speech we all agree with. Free speech means the right to speech that others do not agree with. It is the right of MLK to say things offensive to some, and the right of scientists (like Galileo) to say things that are offensive to some. It is the right of homophobes to argue against gay rights, and Islamophobes to argue against Islam. Let them speak. The fastest way for someone to discover that homophobes and Islamophobes have nothing worthwhile to say is to listen to them.

If we do not defend free speech rights for unpopular positions, then there is no free speech. This is especially true on college campuses where free speech has always meant open dialogue and the ability to put forward any idea, or the ability to challenge any idea freely and openly. These discussions and exchanges matter and the idea that you win arguments by providing facts and reason and no by preventing the other person from speaking matters.

To be clear, arguing for free speech is in no way backing hate speech. There is a big difference between opposing a group and threatening to physically harm members of that group or suggesting that other people should physically harm members of that group.That is not acceptable either.

270

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I was just sharing the rueful observation that for many people, whichever side of the political spectrum they are on, the right to free speech only goes so far. I’m an absolutist about it myself. I don’t even like the term “hate speech,” because I think it can serve as a pretext to limit freedom.

271

“Much2learn wrote:
I am also pointing out that some of the same groups that assert their rights to free religion and free speech, then work to impair those freedoms for others. That is unfortunate.”

@ Hunt “Are you referring to Franklin Graham?”
@Tischerella “Sounds like he is referring to extreme Islam?”
@ Hunt “Sometimes I get my extremists mixed up.”

I mean all groups that do this. That would include certain Conservative Christian groups, certain extreme Islamic groups, as well as anyone else who tries to prevent dissenters from speaking. The behavior of these groups is often similar, as Hunt humorously points out.

@Sally305 “Many on the far left support the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is pretty critical of ALL imaginary thinking.”

True, but I have not heard this group arguing that religious people should be banned from speaking or publishing things because what they say is offensive to members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. That is an important difference.

272

Much2learn you say many very sensible things. I particularly appreciate your comments on dangerous medical opinions.