Religion
The Ugly Nature of Free Speech
A week ago another doctor who performs abortions was shot to death. His name was Dr. George Tiller. He was shot by an alleged pro-life activist while attending church. You can get the rundown here, US abortion doctor is shot dead, if you are unaware of the circumstances of the news story.
I don’t want to talk about the rightness or wrongness of abortion or whether or not the assailant was crazed or obsessed with abortion. What I wanted to discuss were the ethical and moral issues surrounding pro-life/pro-choice rhetoric. Before I jump into my point which consists mostly of questions either way let me tell you why I chose to approach the topic in this way.
The following letter was sent to us as a sort of “cc” to Fort Wayne’s afternoon newspaper, The News-Sentinel. The following letter is in response to an editorial that asked “us” not to blame the harsh language of pro-lifers for the murder of George Tiller**:
Your cowardly editorial on Thursday, June 4, asserts that anti-abortion rhetoric had nothing to do with the murder of Dr. George Tiller. This is transparently false.
Groups such as Operation Rescue published Dr. Tiller’s home, office and, yes, his church address. Dr. Tiller was killed in cold blood at his church. How do you think his killer found Dr. Tiller?
The suspect, Scott Roeder, posted at Operation Rescue’s web site (which, in a fit of cowardice, was shut down shortly after the murder). Roeder was obsessed with abortion, and reportedly followed the rantings of anti-abortion fanatics.
Fanatics such as Bill O’Reilly on many occassions mocked Dr. Tiller as “Tiller the Killer.”
Words have consequences. Words influence the actions of the people who hear them. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t write editorials. This act of violence was predictable.
The News-Sentinel is not entirely innocent in this affair; your columns and editorials are routinely over the top regarding the entirely legal business of abortion.
All of you: Limbaugh, Hannity, Phelps, O’Reilly and your own editorial staff have blood on your hands. How dare you try to distance yourself from your own words over the years.
A law-abiding man was murdered while working as an usher at his church. Shame on all of you.
While I agree with the authors sentiment, there are a couple of very crucial problems that strike at the heart of the debate. The first and easiest is simply, just because its legal doesn’t make it good, moral or right. ‘Nuff said. Slavery, legal. Segregation, legal. Prohibition, legal. Gassing of Jews, legal. CFCs, legal. Whale-hunting, legal. Do I need to continue reinforcing the point? If the legality of something precedes the rightness of something then you get yourself into some pretty sticky ground. Under this theory if you simply want to make abortion wrong, you ban it. Which coincidentally is what groups like Operation Rescue are trying to do, they can’t change someone’s choices, only limit their options. Either way that kind of argument just puts you into a dead-end or, at least, I can’t see a way for either side to reach any consensus (which may not be possible anyway). While I doubt the author believes this its not sufficiently clear from the editorial and throwing the legality of abortion into the mix just obscures the point of the editorial.
The real point I want to address and the author’s main point either way is that “Words have consequences. Words influence the actions of the people who hear them.” I couldn’t agree more.
When do the words we use begin to have real, tangible consequences? To me the author and to a larger extent the News-Sentinel’s editorial speak more directly to issues of Free Speech and personal responsibility. How do we protect Free Speech while at the same time protecting lives, like Tiller’s.
What purpose other than to intimidate is there of publishing the home and church addresses of abortion doctors on the same websites where the message of “we must stop them” are all mixed together? Does this kind of irresponsible behavior rise to a level of criminal negligence or even manslaughter? Doesn’t this kind of thing practically put guns in the unbalanced hands?
On the other side, the author stretches too far into hyperbole themselves by saying the News-Sentinel has “blood on [its] hands”. Is it fair to equate O’Reilly’s rants against George “Killer” Tiller with groups that publish the home addresses of abortion doctors? It’s the same kind of over the top words that the author decries and I don’t think it contributes anything constructive and can even be a distraction. The last thing we want to do is throw up barriers between both sides before you even get to the heart of the issue.
Having attended a number of Operation Rescue and similar events in my younger, “believing” days, one of the most oft repeated analogies to legalized abortion in America is that it is essentially an American Holocaust. If the rhetoric against abortion rises to the level that you are associating people who have, perform or accept abortions as essentially latter-day Nazis; are we to be surprised when someone gets killed?
In Operation Rescue’s defense I’ve never heard them say this or take their rhetoric this far in public but if you knew someone was getting away with murdering children and there wasn’t anything you could do about it (or worse it was legal), wouldn’t you feel justified in stopping them? Perhaps even killing the one, to save the many? If your neighbor worked the gas chambers at Buchenwald, wouldn’t you be morally obligated to stop him, anyway you could? Its not like you can just call the cops.
Aren’t the “harsh words” used by both sides of this debate essentially Free Speech? If you yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater and it results in the trampling of someone, isn’t it clear that you are responsible for the trampling and the resulting injuries or deaths? When do the words we use have consequences? Are the consequences simply moral or do they become legal?
Does equating the hyperbole of Hannity/O’ Reilly and the publishing of abortion doctors home addresses fail to properly separate Good Free Speech from Bad Free Speech? Doesn’t the “Fire” test show that there are in fact limits to Free Speech or at least defines a litmus test for limits? If we fail to properly separate the different kinds of speech aren’t we preventing the “dangerous” kind from being limited? How do we make sure that words have consequences? Do we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water?
** While the author gave us permission to discuss or post the editorial, I didn’t feel comfortable posting the contact information that came with it, if the author wishes to claim this simply post in the comments. I’d rather err on the side of anonymity here.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by an individual contributor to this blog are not necessarily shared by all members of FreeThought Fort Wayne. That is what makes this organization so interesting. Commenters on the FreeThought Fort Wayne blog are expected to abide by our comment policy. About the author: Skeptigator is a mystery wrapped in an enigma and served on a bed of lettuce. Read more from this author
The The Ugly Nature of Free Speech by Skeptigator, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Tags: abortion, george tiller, hannity, killer tiller, news-sentinel, o'reilly, operation rescue, pro-choice, pro-life Discussion
30 comments for “The Ugly Nature of Free Speech”
Post a comment
Categories
Our Readers
While I absolutely believe that these hate-mongers are morally complicit in the violent side of the pro-life movement, that is something they must reconcile with themselves. The law can’t do it for them.
This argument reminds me of the classic “Do video games cause violent behavior?” argument. (Why, yes, I do teach freshman composition.) At the end of the day, each individual has to be responsible for the way he or she acts.
As far as the legal aspect in the U.S. is concerned, the guiding principle here is the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio. Basically, all speech is protected unless it is likely to cause a violation of the law faster than an officer of the law can be summoned. The “imminent lawless action” test replaced the “clear and present danger” test established in 1919 in Schenck v. United States.
It seems unlikely to me that any of the rhetoric on the anti-choice side represented a danger of imminent lawless action so that pretty much constrains us to discussions of morality. This would not be the case in most other countries, including Canada.
On the morality side, I think we also need to ask if those whose voices are capable of reaching a wide audience (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, etc.) have a greater obligation to choose their words wisely.
I appreciate Skeptigator’s offer of anonymity to me, but I reject it utterly. I wrote that letter, and only a coward would refuse to acknowledge doing so.
It will be interesting to see if the News-Sentinel publishes the letter, rejects it, or publishes it in an altered form.
And yes, I do think the N-S has blood on its hands. Obviously they didn’t publish doctors’ addresses or encourage murder, but they clearly were comfortable with those who did.
As an analogy, I believe Pope Pius XII shared Hitler’s guilt, for precisely the same reason.
The suspect, Scott Roeder, has today announced that other attacks are in the works, suggesting he is not the lone nut conservatives are calling him.
My name, by the way, is John A. Anderson. I’m in the book.
A letter well written, John. You are a braver man than I.
Tony: Thank you for your kind comments.
Actually, I don’t see any reason to be afraid of the News-Sentinel, the smaller of two small papers in Fort Wayne. The papers were recently purchased by Ogden, a communications company out of Wheeling, WV, known for their, let us say, frugality and conservativism.
If the letter runs in the N-S, it will carry my name anyway. What are they going to do, break my thumbs? I’m way too old to be afraid of threats. I’m certainly not courageous.
I realize I sound like a broken record, but the reluctance to offend anyone, it seems to me, reduces the effectiveness of FFW. I will speak only for myself of course, but giving offense is precisely my intention. Remember how the gay rights movement got underway after the Stonewall clash? We need to stand up for ourselves.
littlejohn,
While your willingness to stand behind your words is admirable, speaking anonymously is not necessarily an indication of cowardice. The ability to speak anonymously is a critical and necessary condition to ensure truly free speech. (For brevity, I proffer that assertion with no supporting evidence.)
The fact that that I am posting this anonymously has nothing to do with being a coward. I have other reasons.
Anon: I certainly respect your decision to speak anonymously. You may have important reasons to do so, such as serious threat to yourself, your family or your job.
Considering these, and other considerations, I would never assume you’re a coward.
Indeed, by being affiliated with a widely hated group, you are, in my estimation, a courageous person.
I salute you. Yours, John.
One bizarre thing about the editorial is that the frickin’ title of the editorial acknowledges that harsh language is used in the anti-choice movement, but doesn’t offer any arguments as to why harsh language should not be considered a culprit in influencing Scott Roeder’s actions. (Ahem, ‘alleged actions’.)
This just made me laugh. I suppose it’s technically true, but the movement is certainly built on intimidation. And intimidation implicitly threatens violence.
I am reminded of the website which listed abortion doctors’ names and addresses and then crossed them out in a dripping, bloody animation when one was murdered. IIRC, the website was forced to shutdown, not by the protests of the anti-choice crowd, but through legal means.
I am reminded that shortly after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with a U-Haul truck filled with fertilizer, (empty) U-Haul trucks were parked outside of abortion clinics.
I am reminded of the harrassment of women by the anti-choice crowd and the full color posters of bloody, dismembered baby parts that are on display as the women enter the clinic.
I could go on, but I hope the point is made. I know that the anti-choice movement is made up of a lot of different people and groups. I just wish the more sane among them would speak up and condemn these actions when they occur. Maybe they do, but I haven’t heard it.
Incidentally, FreeThought groups will have to be careful of the rhetoric they use when discussing the evils of religion and the priests, mullahs, etc. that promote it. Right now, the groups are filled with smart, cream-of-the-crop type, but as the groups grow, they’re bound to pull in a few crazies. It’s not too hard to imagine that one of them may use some random harsh critique of religion as justification to kill a religious person. It’s an unfortunate sociological fact that sometimes groups of people can go quite insane. We’ll have to watch out for that.
Heh. I’m reminded of The Raving Atheist (back when he was an atheist).
Oh, geez…found one.
Fortunately, someone responded appropriately.
With regard to the ugly nature of free speech, I’d prefer to hear statements from Skeptigator as to what his opinion IS, rather than a series of rhetorical questions, that seems to probe the issue, but does not.
For example, “if you knew someone was getting away with murdering children and there wasn’t anything you could do about it (or worse it was legal), wouldn’t you feel justified in stopping them?”
As a matter of fact, I do know that people get away with murdering children. There’s sweet FA I can do about it. Of course, many of these people are caught by the police, and are tried under the law. But there are few, indeed, who are *put to death* for their crimes.
So the answer to the rhetorical question is, No, I am not justified in killing some individual because his actions make me good and mad. Further, not even THE STATE can kill people just because they want to.
Neuralgourmet points out the current legal standard on unprotected free speech. If I knew this once, I had forgotten, so thanks for the reminder. So, I suppose, under Brandenburg, if I saw Skeptigator take out a knife in order to slash some kid’s throat, I could shoot him in the head and likely beat the homicide rap. I’d still likely be arrested, charged, and tried for his homicide. But this is an issue of defense of another, not free speech.
I’m a supporter of free speech, even when I disagree with whatever the opposing person is spouting. Perhaps I should say, “Particularly when I disagree…”
Enough free speech seems to me to be the equivalent of enough rope to hang oneself with.
I recognize and value the importance of Free Speech, but I do feel in a much, much larger scale there seems to be something out of whack with our country’s continual focus on conflict, violence and confrontation.
Whether it be TV commercials for our local Komet Hockey team showing footage of a fist fight on the ice (with children cheering in the background), or watching CSI show a mangled, bloody corpse on TV, some Americans can’t get enough of this in-your-face, shocking footage.
I am focusing on just TV here, but from a smack down on the Jerry Springer Show (again with people cheering in the background) to a heated, intense exchange of ideas on The O’Reilly Factor, we are conditioned to think this sort of combative behavior is acceptable, or worse, commendable. Talking louder during an exchange with (your opponent), or just plain talking over them, is the mainstay on some of these shows. I suppose the more belligerent one can be, or the more dramatic, the better the ratings.
Skeptigator poses a great question:
“When do the words we use have consequences?”
By no means am I in favor of censorship, but some of the rhetoric I hear on shows like O’Reilly and Glenn Beck leaves me wondering what messages are being branded into the minds of the viewers. Is there not a responsibility to be mindful of the words which are used ? And ultimately, what will the long term consequences be if we continue to award and reinforce aggression and intimidation as a viable (or preferred) means for solving problems ?
@ellecdr
My point was not to offer my opinion on the news story itself but more to highlight what I see as the fundamental issue with a special illustration contributed by littlejohn’s Letter to the Editor.
When do the words we use (free speech) cross over the threshold from something that should be protected despite its distasteful character to something that presents a danger to society and should therefore be prevented.
The fact that I view the murder of George Tiller as a Free Speech issue actually IS my opinion. And to that end, I think littlejohn’s letter to the editor doesn’t contribute to separating protected Free Speech from the kinds that should be prevented. I wanted to explore the words we use on both sides of the abortion debate, we know the anti-choice’s position but used littlejohn’s letter to illustrate the pro-choice side that I often hear but I don’t entirely agree with. Not littlejohn’s position per se but his choice of words. I agree with littlejohn wish that people like Hannity/O’Reilly would shutup and crawl back under the rock they came from but…
The fact that there are 2 SCOTUS cases (Brandenburg/Schenk) demonstrate that this is not a cut and dried issue and that the rightness/wrongness of the words we use lies along a continuum and is driven very much by circumstances. In fact, what’s significant about the “new” litmus test is that it is very much determined by the exact circumstances (is law enforcement present and able to contain a situation) whereas the “old” clear and present danger was not burdened so much by these conditions. The “Old” example says, “Shouting Fire!” is wrong, the “New” example says, “Shouting Fire! is wrong unless sufficient law enforcement to prevent a stampede”.
If you really want my opinion of my opinion then, I think my opinion of the issue is dead-on and flawless and contributes greatly to my awesomenesstude.
Ok fine, I want be facetious.
I personally think groups that publish the addresses of abortion doctors do it purely for intimidation purposes as there is no other reason to do it and that this practice should be stopped. I also think Anon hits the nail on the head that groups like Operation Rescue work purely via intimidation tactics. I mean we’ve already made the blocking of clinics a crime which previously may or may not have been a crime. But out of response to OR’s intimidation tactics specific legislation had to be passed.
Rereading my post, I realize I wasn’t entirely clear in what I was trying to say about “If you knew someone was killing children…” My point was that the rhetoric used by anti-choice activists can lead this kind of thinking. Which appears to be the motivating factor for the alleged shooter, he appears so convicted of this fact that he needed to kill the doctor to prevent anymore deaths.
I was curious of other opinions if the circumstances surrounding this issues was elevated sufficiently that some of the responsibility for this guy’s actions be transferred away from the assailant and to the groups that promote these intimidation techniques.
I was also trying to frame the question in such a way as to separate the circumstances away from the rightness/wrongness of abortion itself. Because we all know that’s a dead-end topic and I’m encouraged that this thread hasn’t devolved into that.
Regardless of whether you accept abortion or not isn’t entirely relevant to whether or not O’Reilly’s douchebaggery about abortion is protected or if we can properly separate general comments on morality from very precises actions/words such as publishing addresses and therefore get some kind of protections in place. And if we do wish to pursue protection do we do this at the risk of damaging free speech rights in general.
I’m sorry if I have more questions than answers but I did think my questions were probitive. I will take your criticisms in to consideration next time to make sure I’m really making things crystal clear (its a known problem
P.S. Welcome to FFW’s blog.
BTW. I just got a confirmation call from the N-S, so I assume they’re considering publishing my letter. The reactions should be interesting (if sadly predictable).
@littlejohn: Cool! We should all be writing more letters to the papers. Let us know when it gets published.
I’ll notify everyone here when/if the letter is published. Since my wife works for the JG, we’re required to subscribe to both papers. Since the N-S is Limbaugh-style crap, don’t waste your money on it unnecessarily. I’ll keep an eye out.
Free speech is an area of particular interest to me, as I graduated back in the Triassic with a double major in journalism and philosophy.
I was very gung-ho for free speech (Jefferson’s marketplace of ideas and all that) until several years ago when an abortion doctor was killed. I was mortified to learn that an anti-choice group was posting a list of abortion providers’ names and addresses. Whenever one was killed, a black X was printed over his photo.
That’s not free speech. That’s a hit list and an incitement to murder. Dr. Tiller was, from all appearances, a victim of same.
That’s where I draw the line on free speech, just as I would draw the line on freedom of religion at, oh say, human sacrifice.
Our schedules make it practically impossible for my wife and me to attend your meetings (Have you ever considered weekends, when people are not, you know, working?), but I noticed in your mailing that the Pharyngulization of the News-Sentinel poll was discussed.
As a matter of decency, I should point out that I was the one who pointed out the poll to PZ. I should also point out that I saw nothing wrong with doing so.
I did it as a private matter and did not mention FFW. I don’t understand objections to expressing ourselves in polls. But I’m thick-skinned (except for the broken rib thing), and have girded my loins for any criticism anyone wishes to send my way.
I have a tiny little story about words having consequences. And as they used to say in the Navy, “This is a no-shitter.” A middle school girl was running for Student Council. Each candidate made a speech specifying his or her qualifications for the gig, and this young girl was quite vituperative, saying that the current Student Council did nothing, was full of fatuous coneheads, or words to that effect. She hurled down what I’m sure she thought was a challenge to all the no-thinking poopyheads to get up off their behinds and vote for her. Not one did.
Her mamma was quite incensed that her sweet lil thing got no votes, which hurt her feelings and/or self-esteem, and how unfair it was for her sweet lil thing to be punished for simply exercising her free speech.
Mamma was kvetching about this to my sister. She was further incensed when my sister, who is something of a straight shooter, commented that free speech clearly had its consequences, which was a lesson she hoped the middle-schooler had learned in spades.
@littlejohn-
I was wondering why you haven’t been to the meetings. We have social gatherings on various Sundays at different coffee shops. We will be having another secular highway clean up day soon, too.
We appreciate your invitation to your home and we all hope you recover quickly from your accident. We all like the idea of having more game and movie nights.
You and your wife are welcome to attend any event. We have had several in-depth group discussions and official meetings on tone of the comments and the overall blog and came up with a good set of guidelines and a schedule. We stated the case and gave you credit of the PZ poll thing. BTW we only pointed out how the NS got it wrong twice until the final poll data… and most people around town probably saw the mistakes only.
As far as your letter to the editor, (my opinion)
I agree with Skep, in saying we all need to dial down the rhetoric a bit. The blood on their hands is a bit much for the political pundits. I agree with John on the ugliness of posting the addresses of the medical providers. Actions are where the line is crossed. Yes shouting fire in a theater is an action with a very direct consequence. (One may yell fire if there really is a fire!)
Free Speech is tough. White supremacists are allowed to have rallies and gatherings. I don’t agree with them but I must say they are allowed to meet legally. When it crosses a line into actions of violence or direct harassment is where the law needs to step in.
The truth is these doctors were harassed and groups that do condone this type of behavior such as the Army of God, etc should be prosecuted both civilly and criminally. Operation Rescue is a tougher case and they came out saying they do not condone such things officially. Privately, I have seen the hateful things on right wing twitter accounts, etc.
There is a problem here. Can’t we just say we do not approve of the Hannity’s tone and constantly offer criticism for every type of lie those types spew… Isn’t that the solution here? Sometimes Hannity gets something right. You can’t talk for 8 hours a day and not get something correct.
I think banning free speech would hurt freethinker’s eventually. We probably are not high on the list of those in power. (We are working on changing this). Blasphemy already has laws against it in the UN. Right now it isn’t binding. This is what I asked Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor about when she came to IPFW. I was a bit surprised when she didn’t know about it. One would think that being religious to one god automatically makes one blasphemous to all the others….
We could write all day on this…
FreeThought’s main goal in my mind is to offer a place for people who are not religious a supporting community in the sea of superstition around us. The best thing we can do for each other is help members admit publicly when they are ready that they are not religious. Abortion is the religious right’s wedge issue and not necessarily ours. We are playing into their game by being thrown into it.
Being non-religous does not mean you are automatically pro-choice either. Christopher Hitchens and Robert Price have stated in interviews that they are pro-life. I think most non-religious people probably are pro-choice. Interestingly, there is a correlation with religious belief and abortion rates. The less religious nations have less abortion rates probably due to education levels. Both Hitchens and Price, like myself, fully support sex education that is based in science not theology. That is our arguing point and why we should speak up on this issue!
I don’t like the idea of abortion but right now it is necessary and I think President Obama has changed the debate slightly by saying we can work to reduce it. There is a fairy tale belief that every pregnancy is perfect. Boy, is that wrong! Can we just dial down the tone and help people make better decisions so that there are less abortions; moreover, we will always have them and when they are necessary can they be safe, clean, and free from church and government interference?
Now another right-wing nut with known terror associations has been charged with killing a guard at the Holocaust Museum. I cannot believe the two murders (Tiller and now Johns) are unrelated. Obama, you will recall, had just denounced Holocaust deniers in his speech in Cairo.
@Littlejohn –
Horrible news at the Holocaust Museum. The unfortunate thing is, hate groups like the one this man subscribed to are on the rise.
I’m at a loss for what the answer is. As people have stated, I do think there is a responsibility to speak out and to stand up for one’s beliefs. But, in reality, this is a much harder thing to do especially considering the risks involved. FW is, in a sense, a small town that is undeniably very Christian and conservative. If you are in business or work for someone, you may be risking your livelihood by publicly taking a stance. As I’ve stated in previous threads, family members and friends may view you differently or severe ties, if it is known you are an atheist, gay, pro-choice or anything else which may be deemed “different”(sinful).
Last year, while getting my teeth cleaned at a dentist whom I have had since I was 7 yrs old, I was lectured by a technician on how abortion was evil. She went on and on for the next twenty minutes to tell me how she had a friend of a friend who was going to have an abortion BUT, the technician successfully convinced the woman to not have the abortion and instead have the child. She was very proud of this, and wanted to share the news with me (a complete stranger). Taking into consideration I had my mouth open 99 % of the time, once the technician was finished, I asked her to please refrain from talking about the subject. I requested to my dentist that I never have that technician again.
I applaud you Littlejohn for penning a letter to the paper. As probably many people do, I scan the letters to the editor on a daily basis to get a feel of what people in the area are concerned about and thinking.
I’m sure there will be rebuttals and attempts to attack your integrity, but know you have my respect for speaking out.
Hey, ho. On Monday’s News-Sentinel Letters to the Editor, John Anderson’s letter gets a response from Paula Blauveldt. It’s not a very good response, (lapses in logic, grammar and syntax) but at least you can feel sure that somebody is reading your letter, John.
I decided to take a look at this Web site after seeing an advertisement for it on the buleltin board in the IPFW parking structure. I am confused. Is this an atheist Web site, or a Web site for Free Thinkers? Many of the opinions expressed sound more like dogmatic atheism than Free Thought. If this community is not a democracy and free speech can be suppressed by its editor, mightn’t we at least see censorship of the kinds of Atheists who insist on parading their capital “A”?
@Mark
Before I respond to this, I’d like to know what your definition of “freethought” is. Please clarify, then we’ll talk.
Thanks!
-Andy W.
From our About page:
So we’re not too big on dogma around these parts. While I grant you that dogmatic and hence irrational strong atheism could exist, it isn’t something that I’ve ever seen in evidence among our members, either in private conversations or public blog posts. What evidence do you have of such dogmatism?
The reason the flyers indicate atheism despite its absence from the group’s title is that, as a practical reality, freethought and atheism are intimately linked. When one follows the methodology advocated by freethought, atheism is a common conclusion, as evidenced by the fact that 93% of the members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences questioned in a 1998 survey[*] lack belief in a personal god. Without the impetuses of fear, ancient authority, or dogmatism, belief in (to take Christianity as an example, since it’s the religion in which many of our members were raised) fantastic occurrences such as a talking snake (Genesis 3:1), magic wall-crumbling spells delivered via trumpet (Joshua 6:20), and a zombie invasion of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53) becomes untenable. Further, the arguments made in support of an amorphous, theistic “god” are seen to be unconvincing, and even a cursory study of religious attempts to monopolize ethics runs into the Euthyphro Dilemma, which shows deities to be superfluous to deciding what’s right, unless you want to be a sniveling toady to a petulant dictator in the sky, which in reality, almost nobody is, and which freethinkers categorically reject.
None of this contradicts the fact that, as I’ve argued before when attempting to get somewhere with a proselytizing godbot, a theist who groks what freethought is, yet feels that they have a justification for their belief, would be welcome; so, of course, is anyone for whom the whole concept is new, and who’s just curious and willing to learn.
As to your arrogant suggestion that editorial control (on someone else’s site!) should be used to censor any display of atheism you personally find distasteful, you’re lucky that you suggested that here, where we have as part of our mission outreach to the wider community and are in general more tolerant (at first) of beginner’s mistakes like that, and not on one of the more visible and mainstream atheist sites like Pharyngula, where you would have (justifiably, I think) received various creative suggestions on which objects to insert into which orifice, and on which age groups or which other hominid species your research and argumentative skills remind people of.
So, no, we won’t be doing that.
————————————
[*] According to a letter by one of the survey’s authors to Nature. Yes, I need to find newer numbers.
@Mark,
Hmmm, what a stumper…let me think a moment…..OK, I think I got it. The group is called ‘FreeThought Fort Wayne’, the word ‘freethought’ appears in the URL, the About page gives a definition of FreeThought, so I’m going to take a shot in the dark and go with….’Web site for Free Thinkers’. It was just a guess; did I get it right?
That’s because this site uses the newest version of the Internets. The new version is kinda complicated to explain, but basically it’s a series of tubes. It’s really neat because it allows people to post their own opinions on other peoples’ blogs. I’m guessing you still have the old version which doesn’t allow that. You should definitely get your Internets upgraded. The newest version is so much better.
Oh, yeah, if you see any dogma, please point it out so we can start a (hopefully) fruitful discussion.
Ow! Parsing that sentence made my brain hurt. What a confusion of ideas, all jumbled up in a single sentence.
The ‘community’ is open to anyone who is willing to participate. There are a few ground-rules that must be followed.
The blog is not a democracy.
The explicit purpose of an editor is to ‘censor’ free speech. So, yes, there may be censorship. But, note, that your post got through. If you threatened someone with violence and posted their home address, I expect your post would be censored.
You seem to think that Atheists should refrain from parading their ‘A’ around – if that’s what you think, that’s fine; everyone is entitled to their own opinion – but you imply that they should not do that. If that is your position, can you specify why it is a problem?
I think you meant ‘censorship by’, rather than ‘censorship of’. Using the wrong preposition gives your question a totally different meaning.
Folks, Mark raises a teeny tiny objection to atheism, and people fall on him like a hundred of brick. I gather from his comments that he perceives the atheist rhetoric to be a little heavy-handed on FFW, and I don’t disagree with him altogether. His question: is this an atheist site or a site for free thinkers is a legitimate one.
Some of these responses seem quite defensive to me — e.g., I’m not sure I understand what a “dogmatic atheist” could be, Butter. And Andy, HE is asking what the site’s notion of free thinking is. It’s as if you’re asking for some secret handshake that a novice definitely will not know.
Compelling initiates toward a single way of thinking is just not empirical; in history, enlightenment thinkers discussed a wide variety of ideology – they didn’t insist on a single, acceptable view.
Nor should FFW.
Folks, Mark raises a teeny tiny objection to atheism
This is an incorrect description of his comment. He expressed confusion about the purpose of the group and of the relation between freethought and atheism. None of this is an “objection to atheism.”
His question: is this an atheist site or a site for free thinkers is a legitimate one.
And it was answered. If he or you were unsatisfied by the answer, you may make a counterargument.
I’m not sure I understand what a “dogmatic atheist” could be, Butter.
The term I used was “dogmatic and hence irrational strong atheism,” complete with a hyperlink to an explanation of the “strong” part of the phrase.
A dogmatic strong atheist is one who makes the explicit assertion that no gods exist, but clings to that belief based on dogma. Their belief in the non-existence of deities is held as part of a dedication to a predetermined conclusion, not as the result of reasoned inquiry. This definition of the phrase should be apparent from the definitions of the constituent words.
And Andy, HE is asking what the site’s notion of free thinking is.
Not explicitly, no, he didn’t. He used the term in a declarative sentence, as though he had his own definition of it. That makes it legitimate (and, I think, praiseworthy) to ask what he means by it, to see if our definitions match. What Andy asked is what anyone who’s interested in having a productive conversation (and who actually cares about the other party in such a conversation) ought to ask.
It’s as if you’re asking for some secret handshake that a novice definitely will not know.
Does this novice have access to Wikipedia? Or a dictionary?
Compelling initiates toward a single way of thinking is just not empirical; in history, enlightenment thinkers discussed a wide variety of ideology – they didn’t insist on a single, acceptable view.
Nor should FFW.
Nor do we, that I can see. Asking people to clarify their remarks and pillorying their attempts to ask us to censor ourselves for their own personal comfort is a hell of a long way from compelling them to think like us. Conflating impassioned argumentation with dogmatic thuggery is a disgustingly dishonest form of rhetoric that won’t make you many friends around here.
@Mark,
I take that back. After a good night’s sleep and upon re-reading your question, I think I now understand what you were asking.
You were requesting that the comments of vociferous atheists be censored.
Seeing as Mark has yet to return to address the questions and arguments presented to him I think it likely that his venture to our web page was not in the interest of seeking information but rather for the purpose of ’showing those atheists’…
This seems especially likely since he already said he saw our flier at IPFW which in big bold letters across the top says “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” which should have given a pretty good clue that freethought and atheism were somewhat intertwined… The flier in question can be seen here with some graffiti courtesy of another IPFW student… http://freethoughtfortwayne.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fgraf1.jpg
Granted should he return to seek genuine conversation I’ll gladly reconsider my evaluation of the likelihood of his intent here…