Religious "tolerance"

[SonomaCat]

An interesting article about a disturbing trend in Europe:

http://www.reason.com/hod/bb113005.shtml

[Ponycat]

"Tolerance" in Europe seems to be a one way street these days.

[Hell's Bells]

On November 2, 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was butchered in an Amsterdam street by Mohammed Bouyeri, a radical Muslim enraged over Submission, van Gogh's blunt film about women's subjugation under Islam. For many Europeans, the murder of one of the Netherlands' most outspoken public figures underscored the importance of protecting freedom of expression. ("Long live the Netherlands, long live free speech!" read one anonymous note placed amid the thousands of flowers and memorial tributes at the scene of the crime.) Many members of Europe's fast-growing Muslim communities, however—along with more than a few non-Muslims eager to keep the peace in an increasingly anxious and divided continent—draw a very different lesson: the need to curb freedom of expression out of respect for Muslim sensitivities.

hopefully it does not spread over here

[SonomaCat]

Couldn't agree more.

Of course, my agreement applies to all religions, and not just Muslims.

[Grizlaw]

hopefully it does not spread over here

You hope what doesn't spread -- do you mean the curbing of free speech to protect Muslim sensitivities, or violence by radical Muslims in response thereto? (I agree on both counts, of course; I'm just trying to figure out which you're referring to.)

[Hell's Bells]

hopefully it does not spread over here

You hope what doesn't spread -- do you mean the curbing of free speech to protect Muslim sensitivities, or violence by radical Muslims in response thereto? (I agree on both counts, of course; I'm just trying to figure out which you're referring to.)

curbing free speach to protect anyone's sensabalities. I will say violence by radical Muslims but then again it has already happened (see 9/11)

[Grizlaw]

curbing free speach to protect anyone's sensabalities. I will say violence by radical Muslims but then again it has already happened (see 9/11)

Yeah -- agreed; I don't want that to spread either.

It is kind of interesting, though, how different these things can look depending on which foot the shoe is on. A radical Muslim murdering a filmmaker for making a film that condemns the treatment of women in Islamic countries seems horrific to us, while blowing up a TV station in an Islamic country because it paints our war effort in an anti-U.S. light is somehow less troubling.

[Ponycat]

curbing free speach to protect anyone's sensabalities. I will say violence by radical Muslims but then again it has already happened (see 9/11)

Yeah -- agreed; I don't want that to spread either.

It is kind of interesting, though, how different these things can look depending on which foot the shoe is on. A radical Muslim murdering a filmmaker for making a film that condemns the treatment of women in Islamic countries seems horrific to us, while blowing up a TV station in an Islamic country because it paints our war effort in an anti-U.S. light is somehow less troubling.

Probably because most people feel fairly certain that bombing the TV station was never seriously discussed.

[Ponycat]

curbing free speach to protect anyone's sensabalities. I will say violence by radical Muslims but then again it has already happened (see 9/11)

Yeah -- agreed; I don't want that to spread either.

It is kind of interesting, though, how different these things can look depending on which foot the shoe is on. A radical Muslim murdering a filmmaker for making a film that condemns the treatment of women in Islamic countries seems horrific to us, while blowing up a TV station in an Islamic country because it paints our war effort in an anti-U.S. light is somehow less troubling.

Probably because most people feel fairly certain that bombing the TV station was never seriously discussed.

Never mind, I see what you saying. Just a little slllllllow

['93HonoluluCat]

hopefully it does not spread over here

It already has. Take the Christmas season, as a pertinent example. No one is afraid to wish anyone a "Happy Kwanzaa," but try to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas," and the ACLU is all over the well-wisher--like stink on a skunk--with lawsuits.

Even with specifically "Christian" themes outside the debate, we've become a society afraid to offend anyone, even if the action that offends is the right thing to do. For instance, the Israeli national airline, El Al, makes no apologies for its policy of profiling racially and sexually its passengers during the security checks. The results speak for themselves: the last time an El Al flight was hijacked was 1970. But yet we are afraid to implement such "drastic" security measures, even though it's probably the right thing to do during heightened security periods.

...while blowing up a TV station in an Islamic country because it paints our war effort in an anti-U.S. light is somehow less troubling.

That is possibly the best cross-reference to another thread I've seen!

[SonomaCat]

hopefully it does not spread over here

It already has. Take the Christmas season, as a pertinent example. No one is afraid to wish anyone a "Happy Kwanzaa," but try to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas," and the ACLU is all over the well-wisher--like stink on a skunk--with lawsuits.

Can you name one instance where the ACLU has sued a private citizen (or anybody for that matter) for speaking the words "Merry Christmas?" I live in San Francisco, and I see and hear Christmas references all of the time ... and this is supposed to be a far left-leaning city.

This is a religious right talking point that I see repeated daily on the Fox News site, but I have yet to see an example in real life. Maybe some ill-advised manager in some call center somewhere said something like this or something, and now it has grown via the internet to be construed as some insidious national fear, but I just don't think it is an issue.

If people want to celebrate Christmas, they can celebrate Christmas. It's really that simple. That's what a free country is about. And, likewise, if we want to point out flaws in a religion or philosophy, it is open to public debate and not hushed out of fear of retribution or of offending those people who hold those beliefs without question. I hope we stay this way and don't follow Europe's model of fear any speech that might upset a religious group.

And I hope we maintain our correct course of keeping government completely out of religion and visa versa so that everyone does, in fact, have a complete freedom of religion (including "none of the above").

And just for effect, Bill beats the drum for us today, with of course the standard suggestions that Christians really have it rough in this country, and that nobody ever says anything critical of Muslims, etc. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that we all say negative things about the Muslim religion almost daily, as do many, many publications, but that level of factual input mucks up the argument.

Bill sounds a lot like the Muslims quoted in the Reason article in Europe. How dare you insult Mary/Islam! The only difference is that Christians are far and away a supermajority in the U.S., while Muslims are not in Europe.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177285,00.html

[Hell's Bells]

Nice try Bac i am not going to let you get away with overgeneralizing a article even an hour before a chem test.

[quote = Bill O'Reilly]Christians are entitled to same sensibilities and courtesies every other religion receives in this country. Hope you agree.[/quote]

basically the article is about a pre school teacher that got fired for having a child out of wedlock. While yes, I will agree with you firing her because she got pregnent sounds bad, just by taking the teaching posation at a catholic school obligated her to be a roll model to her kids. I am willing to bet that as part of her employment contract it stipulated that by getting pregnent before marrage, or doing anything else that can bring shame down upon the school, example drinking and driving, sleeping with a student, child porn addiction...and ect, can and will result in her termination. She has the responsibility to be a good role model to her students, and by getting pregnenet without a husband *i think the kids will tell if she is wearing a ring or not...* that shows the kids that it is the christain way to get pregenent out of wedlock...

back to studying chem

[SonomaCat]

Nice try Bac i am not going to let you get away with overgeneralizing a article even an hour before a chem test.

basically the article is about a pre school teacher that got fired for having a child out of wedlock. While yes, I will agree with you firing her because she got pregnent sounds bad, just by taking the teaching posation at a catholic school obligated her to be a roll model to her kids. I am willing to bet that as part of her employment contract it stipulated that by getting pregnent before marrage, or doing anything else that can bring shame down upon the school, example drinking and driving, sleeping with a student, child porn addiction...and ect, can and will result in her termination. She has the responsibility to be a good role model to her students, and by getting pregnenet without a husband *i think the kids will tell if she is wearing a ring or not...* that shows the kids that it is the christain way to get pregenent out of wedlock...

back to studying chem

I wasn't speaking to whether she should get fired or not (that's a different issue completely) -- I was talking about Bill's words about how bad it was for the Tampa paper to use the (perfectly appropriate) Mary analogy. He sounded a tad bit like the Muslim guys quoted in the Reason article.

[Ponycat]

hopefully it does not spread over here

It already has. Take the Christmas season, as a pertinent example. No one is afraid to wish anyone a "Happy Kwanzaa," but try to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas," and the ACLU is all over the well-wisher--like stink on a skunk--with lawsuits.

Can you name one instance where the ACLU has sued a private citizen (or anybody for that matter) for speaking the words "Merry Christmas?"

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news ... x?cid=3192

['93HonoluluCat]

hopefully it does not spread over here

It already has. Take the Christmas season, as a pertinent example. No one is afraid to wish anyone a "Happy Kwanzaa," but try to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas," and the ACLU is all over the well-wisher--like stink on a skunk--with lawsuits.

Can you name one instance where the ACLU has sued a private citizen (or anybody for that matter) for speaking the words "Merry Christmas?"

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news ... x?cid=3192

Thank you, Ponycat...that was precisely the "site" I was going to "cite."

The point is, BAC, why else would Wal-Mart, Target, and every other chain store of which I'm aware be so afraid of offending anyone by not selling anything with "Christmas" on it (in the case of Wal-Mart and Target collectively) or banning the Salvation Army bell ringers (in the case of Target).

I know your answer will be sales. There's more to it, though. It all boils down to the fear of offending anyone. And in trying to please everyone, the ones that get offended instead are the ones that end up losing their observances, whether they be Judeo-Christian or not.

[SonomaCat]

hopefully it does not spread over here

It already has. Take the Christmas season, as a pertinent example. No one is afraid to wish anyone a "Happy Kwanzaa," but try to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas," and the ACLU is all over the well-wisher--like stink on a skunk--with lawsuits.

Can you name one instance where the ACLU has sued a private citizen (or anybody for that matter) for speaking the words "Merry Christmas?"

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news ... x?cid=3192

That a religious display on public property issue, though. It's not speaking to anyone having their own personal freedom of speech impaired. I personally don't care much about the Christmas displays either way, but I do agree with the legal arguments of the ACLU. It's yet another one of those issues where I agree with a legal perspective, but in practice, I don't think it rises to a level where it hurts anyone enough to justify making a stink out of it.

[Ponycat]

What is your definition of "Personal Freedom of Speech."?

[SonomaCat]

hopefully it does not spread over here

It already has. Take the Christmas season, as a pertinent example. No one is afraid to wish anyone a "Happy Kwanzaa," but try to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas," and the ACLU is all over the well-wisher--like stink on a skunk--with lawsuits.

Can you name one instance where the ACLU has sued a private citizen (or anybody for that matter) for speaking the words "Merry Christmas?"

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news ... x?cid=3192

Thank you, Ponycat...that was precisely the "site" I was going to "cite."

The point is, BAC, why else would Wal-Mart, Target, and every other chain store of which I'm aware be so afraid of offending anyone by not selling anything with "Christmas" on it (in the case of Wal-Mart and Target collectively) or banning the Salvation Army bell ringers (in the case of Target).

I know your answer will be sales. There's more to it, though. It all boils down to the fear of offending anyone. And in trying to please everyone, the ones that get offended instead are the ones that end up losing their observances, whether they be Judeo-Christian or not.

I'm not familiar with the Wal-Mart or Target practices (luckily) as I don't go there unless I absolutely have to, so I wasn't aware that they have removed all references to Christmas in their stores. I'm also not sure what the story is behind the Salvation Army bell ringer.

I agree that people's own personal relgious celebrations shouldn't be muted for fear of offending others. I am not convinced this is really happening as much as, say, Fox News, suggests that it does. I know the issue last year was a campaign to boycott stores that said "Happy Holidays," which proactively went after anyone who DID acknowledge that there are other religions than Christianity.

I think it is all a matter of perspective. Some people think that the month of December should be exclusively about Christmas (the Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus, but developed from the pagan winter solstice holiday whose rituals are still a large part of the commerical aspects of the holiday season) and nothing else. To these people, any references to any other religious holiday is an insult to them. Others view references to Christmas as an overt shoving of Christianity down the throats of every, even if they aren't Christians. The rest of us are somewhere in the middle.

Since Christmas really is about 90% commercial and maybe 10% religious these days (and has been that way for a long, long time), I don't personally see the big deal either way. I have lots of non-Christian friends who celebrate Christmas in the same way they celebrate Thanksgiving -- a family and friends traditional holiday for which they get time off and a long weekend.

So tying this all back to the original point of the thread, I would also hope that nobody ever curtails (either self-imposed or government-imposed) those people who do speak out against Christmas or any other aspect of religious holidays. We have now seen the baseline argument against such hysterical actions in the European reaction to Muslim sensibilities. We need to allow a healthy public dialogue both in favor and against all religions and religious acts in this country.

[SonomaCat]

What is your definition of "Personal Freedom of Speech."?

Well, the ability to speak freely, mostly, which is what HC suggested wasn't being allowed. From the context of what he wrote, I had the impression that the ACLU was listening in on people and sueing them if they uttered the word Christmas. I know he was speaking in hyperbole to make a point.

I don't think that a person is necessarily entitled to commandeer taxpayer-funded facilities for their own personal speech, however, especially if it is in the act of promoting religion. If the local Church of Satan wanted to do a public display on the City Hall front lawn to promote their beliefs, I'm sure 99% of Americans would suddenly have a great appreciation for this philosophy of church/state separation.

So a person can say or do whatever they wish with regards to free speech and religion on thier own dime. They just can't promote religion using taxpayer's dollars.

This leads to the discussion of whether or not a Christmas display is the promotion of relgion. In most cases, it probably is to a material extent, but not enough that I personally care enough to gripe about it.

[Hell's Bells]

ok now for everyones enjoyment the article in question:
my comments in itallics

Last month, the St. Rose Catholic School in Queens, New York fired 26-year old Michele Mccusker for getting pregnant. The single preschool teacher told the school she's not going to marry the father of the child. And the school reacted by terminating her because she violated Catholic standards of behavior in a public way.

The New York ACLU chapter is filing a complaint on Ms. McCusker's behalf, saying her rights are being violated. We'll discuss the case with Judge Napolitano a little later on.

But last week, an editorial appeared in The Tampa Tribune entitled about the situation entitled, "So What Would Jesus Do?" The opinion piece ended this way. "It's hard to imagine that Jesus would want this woman fired. After all, his own mother once found herself pregnant and unmarried."

His own mother found herself pregnant and unmarried? Can you believe that newspaper? As everybody knows, Catholic theology states that Mary was a virgin and Jesus was the product of an immaculate conception. That's basic Christian belief. The Tampa Tribune knows that, but printed a fallacious comparison to make an editorial point.

the first half of the piece *paragraph in a half in question in bold* seems like oreilly is only arguing semantics...lets continue


Predictably, there's much outrage being directed at this troubled newspaper. But why would they do this? That's the question.

of course then all he states is that "people are exersizing their freedom of speach in saying that the tampa paper is a piece of crap" which they have the right to...but i am courious as to what he cites as proof...

As you may know, a columnist for The Tampa Trib attacked me personally in a vile way for reporting on a controversy down there involving removing religious holidays like Good Friday and Yom Kippur from school calendars. The Tribune had to correct the irresponsible diatribe, but clearly, there's something very wrong at The Tampa Tribune.

What do you think would happen if that paper insulted Islam or Judaism the way it insulted the mother of Jesus? There'd be nationwide outrage. The mainstream media would be all over it, but the media has said little about this story. It's OK to marginalize Mary, OK to make an editorial point by distorting Christian theology.

again semantics, in other words *what would happen if on a whim, President Bush decides to attack iran also* sorta question..

"Talking Points" doesn't really care what The Tampa Tribune does or says. Clearly, publisher Gil Thelen has lost control of the paper, but that's his problem.

The larger issue is that a growing anti-Christian bias is now acceptable in this country in the media. That's what the diminishment of Christmas is all about.

The Tampa Tribune is owned by the Media General Company in Richmond, Virginia. Its president and CEO is Marshall Morton. We'd really like to know what Mr. Morton thinks about all this, but he won't say.

So if you like, give him a call. Send him a message. Media General, Richmond, Virginia. Make it nice and polite. But really, enough's enough, isn't it?

Christians are entitled to same sensibilities and courtesies every other religion receives in this country. Hope you agree.

And that's "The Memo."

seems like he is arguing anti-christain media bias according to the last couple of paragraphs, but he seems to wander all around the place...