| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2003 10:51:09 PM |
| Object: |
Why I like NPR |
There were two stories on "All Things Considered" tonight that I
thought were absolutely fascinating. They spend about them minutes
total on these stories, you won't find that kind of coverage anywhere
else.
Audio links can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/smzd
"Walter Cronkite: You Are There
Commentator Walter Cronkite discusses the program he hosted in the
1950s which used real network correspondents to tell historical
stories as if those stories were being televised live. The program
taught history, and had a secret history of its own. All the writers
were victims of the McCarthy-era blacklist. They used the tales of
Joan of Arc, Galileo, and others to make thinly disguised points
about contemporary witch-hunts."
At one point, Cronkite replays a section from a "You are There"
episode about Galileo's appearance before the inquisition. Then he
plays a recording of a McCarthy interrogation that occurred shortly
before the "You are There" program aired. The similarities are
striking.
"Wyoming Park Setting for Monument Dispute
A proposed monument for a Casper, Wyo., park condemns homosexuality -
- and specifically Matthew Shepard, the gay man beaten to death in
Laramie, Wyo. The man proposing the monument claims that since the
park has a monument to the Ten Commandments, he can't be banned from
expressing his views on homosexuals. NPR's Jeff Brady reports."
The minister is Fred Phelps. His monument would commemorate the day
Matthew Sheppard "went to hell." Ironically, Phelps is using a court
ruling that allows Ten Commandment monuments to be placed on public
property as long as other religous monuments are allowed. In effect,
his efforts will probably bring about the removal of a Ten
Commandments monument from a town park faster than any efforts by a
secular organization could.
--
"The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda
machine to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the
one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on,
which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and
should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of
it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have
won their way into the inner circle."
--Al Gore
Tim
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 12:35:00 AM |
|
|
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote
In effect, his efforts will probably bring about the removal
of a Ten Commandments monument from a town park faster
than any efforts by a secular organization could.
I tried optimism. Once.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 01:49:51 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2uidnUOfBbP7kAOiRVn-gA@comcast.com...
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote
In effect, his efforts will probably bring about the removal
of a Ten Commandments monument from a town park faster
than any efforts by a secular organization could.
I tried optimism. Once.
I'm optimistic that I might see a chance to use it again.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 12:37:29 AM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2003, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> posted this:
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote
In effect, his efforts will probably bring about the removal
of a Ten Commandments monument from a town park faster
than any efforts by a secular organization could.
I tried optimism. Once.
Listen to the story. The town fathers are ready to move it.
--
"The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the
widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing
information."
--Justice William O. Douglas
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Transition Zone" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 07:33:32 AM |
|
|
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced <tim@somecallme.net> wrote in message news:<Xns9421E64D2AD1Ftimsomecallme@216.168.3.44>...
On 27 Oct 2003, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> posted this:
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote
In effect, his efforts will probably bring about the removal
of a Ten Commandments monument from a town park faster
than any efforts by a secular organization could.
I tried optimism. Once.
Listen to the story. The town fathers are ready to move it.
I like Pacifica Radio in the morning, too. Very thorough reporting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la la la la" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 01:27:52 AM |
|
|
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9421D4470A353timsomecallme@216.168.3.44...
The minister is Fred Phelps. His monument would commemorate the day
Matthew Sheppard "went to hell." Ironically, Phelps is using a court
ruling that allows Ten Commandment monuments to be placed on public
property as long as other religous monuments are allowed. In effect,
his efforts will probably bring about the removal of a Ten
Commandments monument from a town park faster than any efforts by a
secular organization could.
A couple of sticks of dynamite would be faster.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la la la la" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 01:26:26 AM |
|
|
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9421D4470A353timsomecallme@216.168.3.44...
There were two stories on "All Things Considered" tonight that I
thought were absolutely fascinating. They spend about them minutes
total on these stories, you won't find that kind of coverage anywhere
else.
Audio links can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/smzd
"Walter Cronkite: You Are There
Commentator Walter Cronkite discusses the program he hosted in the
1950s which used real network correspondents to tell historical
stories as if those stories were being televised live. The program
taught history, and had a secret history of its own. All the writers
were victims of the McCarthy-era blacklist. They used the tales of
Joan of Arc, Galileo, and others to make thinly disguised points
about contemporary witch-hunts."
At one point, Cronkite replays a section from a "You are There"
episode about Galileo's appearance before the inquisition. Then he
plays a recording of a McCarthy interrogation that occurred shortly
before the "You are There" program aired. The similarities are
striking.
"Wyoming Park Setting for Monument Dispute
A proposed monument for a Casper, Wyo., park condemns homosexuality -
- and specifically Matthew Shepard, the gay man beaten to death in
Laramie, Wyo. The man proposing the monument claims that since the
park has a monument to the Ten Commandments, he can't be banned from
expressing his views on homosexuals. NPR's Jeff Brady reports."
Pardon my ignorance of US law on this particular matter...but isn't that
slander of an actual person and likely to cause terrible damages to his
family? I don't see how an outrageous vilification of a person and their
memory and an indefensible violation of civil and human decency has any
connection to the separation of church and state. Can't Mathew Shepard's
family bring a MASSIVE civil law suit against someone putting up something
like that?
The minister is Fred Phelps. His monument would commemorate the day
Matthew Sheppard "went to hell." Ironically, Phelps is using a court
ruling that allows Ten Commandment monuments to be placed on public
property as long as other religous monuments are allowed. In effect,
his efforts will probably bring about the removal of a Ten
Commandments monument from a town park faster than any efforts by a
secular organization could.
--
"The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda
machine to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the
one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on,
which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and
should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of
it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have
won their way into the inner circle."
--Al Gore
Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "beber" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 08:24:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:26 +1000, "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la
la la la" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
In the U.S., I don't believe you can sue if you are dead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la la la la" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 04:43:33 PM |
|
|
"beber" <beber@intergate.com> wrote in message
news:5uuspvkrd4egk32huv4k52346ou78fdder@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:26 +1000, "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la
la la la" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
In the U.S., I don't believe you can sue if you are dead.
Not him...his family for pain and distress.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil \Fair & Balanced\ MacRackin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 09:30:03 AM |
|
|
beber wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:26 +1000, "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la
la la la" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
In the U.S., I don't believe you can sue if you are dead.
Mathew Shepard's family is dead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 12:09:14 PM |
|
|
Phil \"Fair & Balanced\" MacRackin wrote:
beber wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:26 +1000, "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la
la la la" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
In the U.S., I don't believe you can sue if you are dead.
Mathew Shepard's family is dead?
Maybe an actual lawyer could chime in here, and let
me know if I'm right or not, but I believe that in
most, if not all, states, only the person being (allegedly) libeled
or slandered can sue, and if that person is dead, the whole issue
is moot. No one can sue posthumously on his behalf.
Even if they could, this case would be a loser, not because
Fred Phelps and his minions aren't thoroughly loathsome,
because they manifestly are, but because Matthew Shepard would
almost certainly be considered a "public figure" and the
burden for proving libel or slander against a public figure
is much greater than it is for others, plus it would be really,
really hard to PROVE that he isn't in Hell.
Personally, I don't think
Hell exists, and if it did, I don't think the deity would
send people to it just for being gay, but many people
have sincerely held religious convictions that differ
from mine (as difficult as you may find that to believe).
And if one kind of private religious expression
is going to be permitted on public land, you'll have
a hard time disallowing other kinds, however offensive
you might find them.
I confess to a certain small-minded amusement in
seeing those who insist on placing religious monuments
on public property so embarrassed by a turn of events
so easily predictable
Best, Marc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Will" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
29 Oct 2003 12:42:06 PM |
|
|
Marc Satterwhite <mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message news:<3F9E9F2A.82D43DA2@athena.louisville.edu>...
Phil \"Fair & Balanced\" MacRackin wrote:
beber wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:26 +1000, "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la
la la la" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
In the U.S., I don't believe you can sue if you are dead.
Mathew Shepard's family is dead?
Maybe an actual lawyer could chime in here, and let
me know if I'm right or not, but I believe that in
most, if not all, states, only the person being (allegedly) libeled
or slandered can sue, and if that person is dead, the whole issue
is moot. No one can sue posthumously on his behalf.
Even if they could, this case would be a loser, not because
Fred Phelps and his minions aren't thoroughly loathsome,
because they manifestly are, but because Matthew Shepard would
almost certainly be considered a "public figure" and the
burden for proving libel or slander against a public figure
is much greater than it is for others, plus it would be really,
really hard to PROVE that he isn't in Hell.
SNIP (Sorry they were good comments)
In the UK, Libel suits are more common than here where they bump up
against the free speech provisions of the Constitution. In the US, in
order to sue successfully for libel you have have to prove the
statment was a lie, that the stater knew it was a lie, and that the
stater said the lie with malicious intent. You'd also have to prove
that some harm was done -- lost wages, lost business, et cetera --as a
direct result of the intentionally malicious lie that was told.
Shepard was a known and self-acknowledged homosexual, so that part of
the document isn't a lie. The statement that Shepard is in Hell is
just a statement of opinion, not a lie, nor a libel.
If I call Mr. X a fat idiot, it's not a libel, it's an opinion. If I
claim that Mr. X is actually Mr. Y (who just happens to have the same
name and is a convicted child molester) then I further say that Mr. X
has repeatedly refused to apologize or make any statement of remorse
for his crimes, and this statement causes Mr. X to lose a multimliion
dollar contract or to be fired from his job or thrown out of political
office, and he can prove that all of my statements were purposeful
lies with utterly malicious intent, then he may have a case. I say MAY
have a case. I can always claim that I was mislead or that it was all
just a mistake. A jury would have to decide the issue.
I think it's easier to sue for mental anguish than for libel. If some
sleazy newpaper tabloid fabricates a story and says that Movie Star
"A," who alwyas plays a brawny he-man was actually a promiscuous gay
and then went on to "quote" from an unnamed source about his sex life,
it might be more productive for "A" to sue for mental anguish. The
burden of proof for the story would be on the paper, and unless they
could make the case that they had adhered to some reasonable standard
of jounalism they could have a hard time winning the case.
Carol Burnett's case was an exception. In 1981 she successfully sued
the National Enquirer for libel because of an article describing her
alleged public drunkenness. The case remains a landmark in the study
of libel cases involving celebrities, even though the unprecedented
$1.6 million verdict (including $300,000 in personal damages and $1.3
million in “punitive” damages) was later reduced on appeal
and the case was eventually settled out of court.
So, sometimes, even in the USA, a libel case is won. Had the National
Inquirer stated that Burnette was destined for hell, however, she'd
have no case.
Will
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
29 Oct 2003 01:00:39 PM |
|
|
(Will) wrote in
news:e6e41727.0310291042.7b8ff99@posting.google.com:
Marc Satterwhite <mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F9E9F2A.82D43DA2@athena.louisville.edu>...
Phil \"Fair & Balanced\" MacRackin wrote:
beber wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:26 +1000, "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra
la la la la" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
In the U.S., I don't believe you can sue if you are dead.
Mathew Shepard's family is dead?
Maybe an actual lawyer could chime in here, and let
me know if I'm right or not, but I believe that in
most, if not all, states, only the person being (allegedly) libeled
or slandered can sue, and if that person is dead, the whole issue
is moot. No one can sue posthumously on his behalf.
Even if they could, this case would be a loser, not because
Fred Phelps and his minions aren't thoroughly loathsome,
because they manifestly are, but because Matthew Shepard would
almost certainly be considered a "public figure" and the
burden for proving libel or slander against a public figure
is much greater than it is for others, plus it would be really,
really hard to PROVE that he isn't in Hell.
SNIP (Sorry they were good comments)
In the UK, Libel suits are more common than here where they bump up
against the free speech provisions of the Constitution. In the US, in
order to sue successfully for libel you have have to prove the
statment was a lie, that the stater knew it was a lie, and that the
stater said the lie with malicious intent. You'd also have to prove
that some harm was done -- lost wages, lost business, et cetera --as a
direct result of the intentionally malicious lie that was told.
Shepard was a known and self-acknowledged homosexual, so that part of
the document isn't a lie. The statement that Shepard is in Hell is
just a statement of opinion, not a lie, nor a libel.
Not . . . quite, but close. Willful disregard for the truth is as good as a
lie - if you should have known it was a lie, it doesn't matter if you did
or not. (Harder to prove, too.) And damages extend far beyond direct
financial damages. Libel and slander can cause emotional distress, which
can, and is, the basis of some very large awards.
However, as has been noted, the dead cannot sue.
If I call Mr. X a fat idiot, it's not a libel, it's an opinion. If I
claim that Mr. X is actually Mr. Y (who just happens to have the same
name and is a convicted child molester) then I further say that Mr. X
has repeatedly refused to apologize or make any statement of remorse
for his crimes, and this statement causes Mr. X to lose a multimliion
dollar contract or to be fired from his job or thrown out of political
office, and he can prove that all of my statements were purposeful
lies with utterly malicious intent, then he may have a case. I say MAY
have a case. I can always claim that I was mislead or that it was all
just a mistake. A jury would have to decide the issue.
If you should have known better, you'll lose (assuming the other side can
demonstrate you should have known better, which in your example probably
wouldn't be difficult).
I think it's easier to sue for mental anguish than for libel.
Mental anguish is (in most states) the basis for damages once libel has
been proven.
--
Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com
www.hyperbooks.com
Roleplaying Stuff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Will" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
29 Oct 2003 04:14:13 PM |
|
|
Terry Austin <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94237002DFAADtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
wryan@mindspring.com (Will) wrote in
news:e6e41727.0310291042.7b8ff99@posting.google.com:
Marc Satterwhite <mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F9E9F2A.82D43DA2@athena.louisville.edu>...
Phil \"Fair & Balanced\" MacRackin wrote:
beber wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:26 +1000, "Clayton of Green Gables..Tra
la la la la" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
In the U.S., I don't believe you can sue if you are dead.
Mathew Shepard's family is dead?
Maybe an actual lawyer could chime in here, and let
me know if I'm right or not, but I believe that in
most, if not all, states, only the person being (allegedly) libeled
or slandered can sue, and if that person is dead, the whole issue
is moot. No one can sue posthumously on his behalf.
Even if they could, this case would be a loser, not because
Fred Phelps and his minions aren't thoroughly loathsome,
because they manifestly are, but because Matthew Shepard would
almost certainly be considered a "public figure" and the
burden for proving libel or slander against a public figure
is much greater than it is for others, plus it would be really,
really hard to PROVE that he isn't in Hell.
SNIP (Sorry they were good comments)
In the UK, Libel suits are more common than here where they bump up
against the free speech provisions of the Constitution. In the US, in
order to sue successfully for libel you have have to prove the
statment was a lie, that the stater knew it was a lie, and that the
stater said the lie with malicious intent. You'd also have to prove
that some harm was done -- lost wages, lost business, et cetera --as a
direct result of the intentionally malicious lie that was told.
Shepard was a known and self-acknowledged homosexual, so that part of
the document isn't a lie. The statement that Shepard is in Hell is
just a statement of opinion, not a lie, nor a libel.
Not . . . quite, but close. Willful disregard for the truth is as good as a
lie - if you should have known it was a lie, it doesn't matter if you did
or not. (Harder to prove, too.) And damages extend far beyond direct
financial damages. Libel and slander can cause emotional distress, which
can, and is, the basis of some very large awards.
However, as has been noted, the dead cannot sue.
If I call Mr. X a fat idiot, it's not a libel, it's an opinion. If I
claim that Mr. X is actually Mr. Y (who just happens to have the same
name and is a convicted child molester) then I further say that Mr. X
has repeatedly refused to apologize or make any statement of remorse
for his crimes, and this statement causes Mr. X to lose a multimliion
dollar contract or to be fired from his job or thrown out of political
office, and he can prove that all of my statements were purposeful
lies with utterly malicious intent, then he may have a case. I say MAY
have a case. I can always claim that I was mislead or that it was all
just a mistake. A jury would have to decide the issue.
If you should have known better, you'll lose (assuming the other side can
demonstrate you should have known better, which in your example probably
wouldn't be difficult).
I think it's easier to sue for mental anguish than for libel.
Mental anguish is (in most states) the basis for damages once libel has
been proven.
Thanks for the comments; you've clarified the issues. I'm no lawyer,
but I did have a former employee once try to sue me for Libel. The
defense against Libel is the truth and I had copious evidence --
written by the complainer -- that everything I had said or written
about him was pristinely true. (It's never a good idea to threaten
physical violence in writing.) We had one meeting with his lawyer that
lasted 20 minutes and the suit was dropped.
Will
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
29 Oct 2003 05:00:10 PM |
|
|
(Will) wrote in
news:e6e41727.0310291414.10db98eb@posting.google.com:
Terry Austin <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94237002DFAADtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
(Will) wrote in
news:e6e41727.0310291042.7b8ff99@posting.google.com:
Marc Satterwhite <mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F9E9F2A.82D43DA2@athena.louisville.edu>...
Phil \"Fair & Balanced\" MacRackin wrote:
beber wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:26 +1000, "Clayton of Green
Gables..Tra la la la la" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au>
wrote: In the U.S., I don't believe you can sue if you are
dead.
Mathew Shepard's family is dead?
Maybe an actual lawyer could chime in here, and let
me know if I'm right or not, but I believe that in
most, if not all, states, only the person being (allegedly)
libeled or slandered can sue, and if that person is dead, the
whole issue is moot. No one can sue posthumously on his behalf.
Even if they could, this case would be a loser, not because
Fred Phelps and his minions aren't thoroughly loathsome,
because they manifestly are, but because Matthew Shepard would
almost certainly be considered a "public figure" and the
burden for proving libel or slander against a public figure
is much greater than it is for others, plus it would be really,
really hard to PROVE that he isn't in Hell.
SNIP (Sorry they were good comments)
In the UK, Libel suits are more common than here where they bump up
against the free speech provisions of the Constitution. In the US,
in order to sue successfully for libel you have have to prove the
statment was a lie, that the stater knew it was a lie, and that the
stater said the lie with malicious intent. You'd also have to prove
that some harm was done -- lost wages, lost business, et cetera
--as a direct result of the intentionally malicious lie that was
told. Shepard was a known and self-acknowledged homosexual, so that
part of the document isn't a lie. The statement that Shepard is in
Hell is just a statement of opinion, not a lie, nor a libel.
Not . . . quite, but close. Willful disregard for the truth is as
good as a lie - if you should have known it was a lie, it doesn't
matter if you did or not. (Harder to prove, too.) And damages extend
far beyond direct financial damages. Libel and slander can cause
emotional distress, which can, and is, the basis of some very large
awards.
However, as has been noted, the dead cannot sue.
If I call Mr. X a fat idiot, it's not a libel, it's an opinion. If
I claim that Mr. X is actually Mr. Y (who just happens to have the
same name and is a convicted child molester) then I further say
that Mr. X has repeatedly refused to apologize or make any
statement of remorse for his crimes, and this statement causes Mr.
X to lose a multimliion dollar contract or to be fired from his job
or thrown out of political office, and he can prove that all of my
statements were purposeful lies with utterly malicious intent, then
he may have a case. I say MAY have a case. I can always claim that
I was mislead or that it was all just a mistake. A jury would have
to decide the issue.
If you should have known better, you'll lose (assuming the other side
can demonstrate you should have known better, which in your example
probably wouldn't be difficult).
I think it's easier to sue for mental anguish than for libel.
Mental anguish is (in most states) the basis for damages once libel
has been proven.
Thanks for the comments; you've clarified the issues. I'm no lawyer,
Neither am I.
but I did have a former employee once try to sue me for Libel. The
defense against Libel is the truth and I had copious evidence --
written by the complainer -- that everything I had said or written
about him was pristinely true.
Truth isn't the absolute defense that people think it is, but it's *damned*
close. It is absolute for libel and slander, so far as I know. (Defamation
can get weird.)
(It's never a good idea to threaten
physical violence in writing.)
Definitely not.
We had one meeting with his lawyer that
lasted 20 minutes and the suit was dropped.
Not surprising. The lawyer was probably working for a percentage. And a
percentage of nothing won't make too many boat payments. (Plus, if he
allows his client to present untrue testimony or evidence, he can be
disbarred.)
--
Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com
www.hyperbooks.com
Roleplaying Stuff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 12:01:03 PM |
|
|
Marc Satterwhite wrote:
Personally, I don't think
Hell exists, and if it did, I don't think the deity would
send people to it just for being gay, but many people
have sincerely held religious convictions that differ
from mine (as difficult as you may find that to believe).
And if one kind of private religious expression
is going to be permitted on public land, you'll have
a hard time disallowing other kinds, however offensive
you might find them.
I confess to a certain small-minded amusement in
seeing those who insist on placing religious monuments
on public property so embarrassed by a turn of events
so easily predictable
It is odd that we would even have this problem. I didn't think that
having a religiously referencing monument on public land meant that all
possible religiously referencing monuments were automatically required
to be placed on public land on demand by anyone so wanting them
displayed. Does this rule apply to non-religiously referencing monuments
on public land? Can someone force placement of an Elvis monument
anywhere he wants?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 12:30:46 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9EAEDF.7917DAB7@backpacker.com...
Marc Satterwhite wrote:
Personally, I don't think
Hell exists, and if it did, I don't think the deity would
send people to it just for being gay, but many people
have sincerely held religious convictions that differ
from mine (as difficult as you may find that to believe).
And if one kind of private religious expression
is going to be permitted on public land, you'll have
a hard time disallowing other kinds, however offensive
you might find them.
I confess to a certain small-minded amusement in
seeing those who insist on placing religious monuments
on public property so embarrassed by a turn of events
so easily predictable
It is odd that we would even have this problem. I didn't think that
having a religiously referencing monument on public land meant that all
possible religiously referencing monuments were automatically required
to be placed on public land on demand by anyone so wanting them
displayed. Does this rule apply to non-religiously referencing monuments
on public land? Can someone force placement of an Elvis monument
anywhere he wants?
Curious. If the town permitted anyone from setting up a monument to his
own hero, would they be required to let *each and every* person set up such
a monument or be selectively violating the first amendment rights of those
they chose to *silence* by banning their monuments? This is exactly the
situation they are in wrt religion.
If you have a town square, and you permit *some* to speak, I guess you have
to permit *all* to speak under the same conditions.
Enkidu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x4F366721
iQA/AwUBP5611ITItnFPNmchEQL7ogCgl5/CcamKHNPLLO/76X4nHCwEy8oAoIYp
lwZAwqL/s4xbVsgq0qqJQVFN
=YdPi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 04:24:10 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9EAEDF.7917DAB7@backpacker.com...
Marc Satterwhite wrote:
Personally, I don't think
Hell exists, and if it did, I don't think the deity would
send people to it just for being gay, but many people
have sincerely held religious convictions that differ
from mine (as difficult as you may find that to believe).
And if one kind of private religious expression
is going to be permitted on public land, you'll have
a hard time disallowing other kinds, however offensive
you might find them.
I confess to a certain small-minded amusement in
seeing those who insist on placing religious monuments
on public property so embarrassed by a turn of events
so easily predictable
It is odd that we would even have this problem. I didn't think that
having a religiously referencing monument on public land meant that all
possible religiously referencing monuments were automatically required
to be placed on public land on demand by anyone so wanting them
displayed. Does this rule apply to non-religiously referencing monuments
on public land? Can someone force placement of an Elvis monument
anywhere he wants?
Curious. If the town permitted anyone from setting up a monument to his
own hero, would they be required to let *each and every* person set up such
a monument or be selectively violating the first amendment rights of those
they chose to *silence* by banning their monuments? This is exactly the
situation they are in wrt religion.
Not quite the same, since in the field of religion, the government
is barred from promoting a religious view; the government is NOT
barred from, say, promoting a nonreligious view that such-and-such
is a hero.
So if the government allows a ten commandments monument on public
land, it must allow similar monuments from other religious views:
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16599
OGDEN, Utah Ρ A federal appeals court has ruled that the city cannot
display the Ten Commandments in Ogden Municipal Gardens while denying
another group the right to display its beliefs there.
(they didn't appeal):
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jan/01152003/utah/20343.asp
Last summer, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that
constitutional guarantees of free speech required the city to remove the
monument or accept one listing the "Seven Aphorisms" of Summum, a
religion founded in Salt Lake City in the 1970s. Summum sued the city in
1999 after Ogden refused to accept a donation of its monument.
ΚΚΚ The Ogden City Council decided in November not to appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court because of the high legal costs and uncertainty over
whether the justices would hear the appeal.
But this is only because the government can't play favorites on
the basis of religion; a nonreligious monument can promote views
that the government can legally promote, and this wouldn't
necessarily create a public forum.
But in the case of Phelps, yeah, if the city wants the ten
commandments on public land, they can't refuse adding
Phelps' monument just because they don't like the message.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
01 Nov 2003 04:35:28 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
Not quite the same, since in the field of religion, the government
is barred from promoting a religious view; the government is NOT
barred from, say, promoting a nonreligious view that such-and-such
is a hero.
So someone who was a hero would or wouldn't be allowed to have on the
biography information at the monument that he prayed to Jesus for help
right before he saved the company of soldiers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "el pelon @" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
02 Nov 2003 10:45:42 AM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:
Brian Westley wrote:
Not quite the same, since in the field of religion, the government
is barred from promoting a religious view; the government is NOT
barred from, say, promoting a nonreligious view that such-and-such
is a hero.
So someone who was a hero would or wouldn't be allowed to have on the
biography information at the monument that he prayed to Jesus for help
right before he saved the company of soldiers?
So, how do you project such a thing?
Someone who is a hero is an INDIVIDUAL and free to express
whatever. The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to promote religion,
which has nothing to do with your premise.
I know. You'd LIKE the Evil Liberals to be saying such a
stupid thing, so you'd be able to claim they were going
after Christians and all..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 12:57:37 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9EAEDF.7917DAB7@backpacker.com...
Marc Satterwhite wrote:
Personally, I don't think
Hell exists, and if it did, I don't think the deity would
send people to it just for being gay, but many people
have sincerely held religious convictions that differ
from mine (as difficult as you may find that to believe).
And if one kind of private religious expression
is going to be permitted on public land, you'll have
a hard time disallowing other kinds, however offensive
you might find them.
I confess to a certain small-minded amusement in
seeing those who insist on placing religious monuments
on public property so embarrassed by a turn of events
so easily predictable
It is odd that we would even have this problem. I didn't think that
having a religiously referencing monument on public land meant that all
possible religiously referencing monuments were automatically required
to be placed on public land on demand by anyone so wanting them
displayed. Does this rule apply to non-religiously referencing monuments
on public land? Can someone force placement of an Elvis monument
anywhere he wants?
Curious. If the town permitted anyone from setting up a monument to his
own hero, would they be required to let *each and every* person set up such
a monument or be selectively violating the first amendment rights of those
they chose to *silence* by banning their monuments? This is exactly the
situation they are in wrt religion.
But governments all over the US do make selective decisions about what
art and what monuments will be placed on public land. If they are
required to have all art if they have any art, then I think I'm missing
out on a chance at some great parody.
If you have a town square, and you permit *some* to speak, I guess you have
to permit *all* to speak under the same conditions.
This is the flaw in pretending that 'free speech' is the freedom to do
anything you want to do in public.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 01:50:06 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
Curious. If the town permitted anyone from setting up a monument to
his own hero, would they be required to let *each and every* person set
up such a monument or be selectively violating the first amendment
rights of those they chose to *silence* by banning their monuments?
This is exactly the situation they are in wrt religion.
But governments all over the US do make selective decisions about what
art and what monuments will be placed on public land. If they are
required to have all art if they have any art, then I think I'm missing
out on a chance at some great parody.
I think it depends on who makes the choice. If you allow private citizens
to us a publice space for their own message, you let them ALL use that
space. As an example, if you allow a political speech on street corners,
you can't then arrest a Libertarian because his political speech is
contrary to the city council's views.
Likewise, if you allow a religious group to display their monument in your
park, you can't let just that group, or just groups you agree with, to use
that venue to display their monuments.
But the governemt can, as representatives of the people, can purchase and
display what they think appropriate as long as they violate no laws or
Constitutional principles.
But I'm not a lawyer.
Enkidu
If you have a town square, and you permit *some* to speak, I guess you
have to permit *all* to speak under the same conditions.
This is the flaw in pretending that 'free speech' is the freedom to do
anything you want to do in public.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x4F366721
iQA/AwUBP57IbYTItnFPNmchEQLViQCdFuGsbpmI5st4equKSVz6fFxm6EgAoNy4
nP7vCMNehrt9Hqu1EpJJXUKQ
=bPW8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
31 Oct 2003 02:17:18 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote in message news:<yLznb.45182$gi2.36714@fed1read01>...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
Curious. If the town permitted anyone from setting up a monument to
his own hero, would they be required to let *each and every* person set
up such a monument or be selectively violating the first amendment
rights of those they chose to *silence* by banning their monuments?
This is exactly the situation they are in wrt religion.
But governments all over the US do make selective decisions about what
art and what monuments will be placed on public land. If they are
required to have all art if they have any art, then I think I'm missing
out on a chance at some great parody.
I think it depends on who makes the choice. If you allow private citizens
to us a publice space for their own message, you let them ALL use that
space. As an example, if you allow a political speech on street corners,
you can't then arrest a Libertarian because his political speech is
contrary to the city council's views.
Likewise, if you allow a religious group to display their monument in your
park, you can't let just that group, or just groups you agree with, to use
that venue to display their monuments.
But the governemt can, as representatives of the people, can purchase and
display what they think appropriate as long as they violate no laws or
Constitutional principles.
But I'm not a lawyer.
Enkidu
If you have a town square, and you permit *some* to speak, I guess you
have to permit *all* to speak under the same conditions.
This is the flaw in pretending that 'free speech' is the freedom to do
anything you want to do in public.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x4F366721
iQA/AwUBP57IbYTItnFPNmchEQLViQCdFuGsbpmI5st4equKSVz6fFxm6EgAoNy4
nP7vCMNehrt9Hqu1EpJJXUKQ
=bPW8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
A small town in New England was in the news recently. Some Jehovah's
Winesses sued the town becuase they were not allowed to solicit
door-to-door. They lost, however, because the town had banned *all
such soliciting for some years. The court reminded the town that if
they allowed any unsolicited speech door-to-door, they would have to
allow unwelcome missionaries.
--- Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
01 Nov 2003 04:32:58 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
Curious. If the town permitted anyone from setting up a monument to
his own hero, would they be required to let *each and every* person set
up such a monument or be selectively violating the first amendment
rights of those they chose to *silence* by banning their monuments?
This is exactly the situation they are in wrt religion.
But governments all over the US do make selective decisions about what
art and what monuments will be placed on public land. If they are
required to have all art if they have any art, then I think I'm missing
out on a chance at some great parody.
I think it depends on who makes the choice. If you allow private citizens
to us a publice space for their own message, you let them ALL use that
space.
So if you let a private citizen put up some 'artwork', you've got to let
everyone put up some art too?
As an example, if you allow a political speech on street corners,
you can't then arrest a Libertarian because his political speech is
contrary to the city council's views.
Sure but political speech is specifically protected by the 1st
amendment.
Likewise, if you allow a religious group to display their monument in your
park, you can't let just that group, or just groups you agree with, to use
that venue to display their monuments.
But what if the majority of the people in the area want some monument?
What makes a monument religious? It would be insane to try to completely
separate all religious references from art displayed in public.
But the governemt can, as representatives of the people, can purchase and
display what they think appropriate as long as they violate no laws or
Constitutional principles.
Which means no Ten Commandments but all sorts of references to Greek and
Roman gods?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
01 Nov 2003 06:14:37 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3FA4349A.37E55157@backpacker.com...
I think it depends on who makes the choice. If you allow private
citizens to us a publice space for their own message, you let them ALL
use that space.
So if you let a private citizen put up some 'artwork', you've got to let
everyone put up some art too?
Not exactly. I think if you create a forum, then you interfere with what
is presented, you would have problems. For example, the campus lab lawn at
San Diego State was a popular venue for free speech, fortune tellers, and
the like at one time. You can't decide that you won't allow an
anti-abortion speaker after allowing speakers of numerous different points
of view unrestricted access to that place.
Likewise, if you allow private artwork to be displayed in a public space
with no oversight, no rules for months or years, then you exclude a
particular artist, you are censoring a point of view.
As an example, if you allow a political speech on street corners,
you can't then arrest a Libertarian because his political speech is
contrary to the city council's views.
Sure but political speech is specifically protected by the 1st
amendment.
It is?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."
I see freedom of expression, not freedom of political expression.
Likewise, if you allow a religious group to display their monument in
your park, you can't let just that group, or just groups you agree
with, to use that venue to display their monuments.
But what if the majority of the people in the area want some monument?
What makes a monument religious? It would be insane to try to completely
separate all religious references from art displayed in public.
Well, that's tricky. Are the crosses, stars of David, etc. on the
headstones of Arlington supporting religion? If they are, I wouldn't push
to eliminate them. But is the cross on a particular sailor's headstone the
same as a 40 foot cross in a public park? I don't think so. One is mostly
a monument to an American, the other a monument to a god. And a display of
the ten commandments is clearly a religious monument.
But the governemt can, as representatives of the people, can purchase
and display what they think appropriate as long as they violate no laws
or Constitutional principles.
Which means no Ten Commandments but all sorts of references to Greek and
Roman gods?
Noone would assume a statue of Apollo was promoting Greek mythological
religion. But if you were to open up the park to ALL views, I don't think
that would be a problem. If some moron wants a plaque commemoration
Sheppard's decent to hell, another group should have the right to set up a
statue of Shepard as a hero right next to it.
Enkidu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x4F366721
iQA/AwUBP6RMbITItnFPNmchEQKh4wCeIUNEJ7mOB3OKO+LUljMGS2KgND4AnAm9
/rOCf8Amv2xmm9vRAN4wjw3l
=03Ud
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
02 Nov 2003 09:25:54 AM |
|
|
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article <q%Xob.50979$gi2.43788@fed1read01> Enkidu <Enkidu@spam.me.not> wrote:
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: Hash: SHA1
: "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
: <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
: news:3FA4349A.37E55157@backpacker.com...
: > Sure but political speech is specifically protected by the 1st
: > amendment.
: It is?
Yes, it is. Not by text but by precedent od the SCOTUS.
: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
: prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
: or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
: petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Congress shall make no
: law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
: exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
: Government for a redress of grievances."
: I see freedom of expression, not freedom of political expression.
Still, political speech is given the greatest protection, so far, by the
courts.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
SAGITTARIUS (Nov 22 - Dec 21)
You are optimistic and enthusiastic. You have a reckless
tendency to rely on luck since you lack talent. The majority
of Sagittarians are drunks or dope fiends or both. People
laugh at you a great deal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
29 Oct 2003 09:05:09 AM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2003, "Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> posted this:
I think it depends on who makes the choice. If you allow
private citizens to us a publice space for their own message,
you let them ALL use that space. As an example, if you allow a
political speech on street corners, you can't then arrest a
Libertarian because his political speech is contrary to the city
council's views.
No. The establishment clause is the only thing applicable to the
Phelps case.
--
"George W. Bush lives at the intersection of faith
and inexperience. This is not a reassuring address,
especially in a time of trouble."
--Joe Klein
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
29 Oct 2003 09:02:20 AM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2003, "Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not> posted this:
Curious. If the town permitted anyone from setting up a
monument to his own hero, would they be required to let *each
and every* person set up such a monument or be selectively
violating the first amendment rights of those they chose to
*silence* by banning their monuments?
No. It's a religious establishment issue. The state cannot advance
one religion over another. If they allow one religous monument, they
must allow all others. Of course, that's impracticable, so they'd be
better off not to erect any religous monuments.
--
"George W. Bush lives at the intersection of faith
and inexperience. This is not a reassuring address,
especially in a time of trouble."
--Joe Klein
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
28 Oct 2003 08:13:59 PM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2003, Marc Satterwhite <mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu>
posted this:
Even if they could, this case would be a loser, not because
Fred Phelps and his minions aren't thoroughly loathsome,
because they manifestly are, but because Matthew Shepard would
almost certainly be considered a "public figure" and the
burden for proving libel or slander against a public figure
is much greater than it is for others, plus it would be really,
really hard to PROVE that he isn't in Hell.
I'd also add that as religous speech, it has strong constitutional
protections. The state cannot prevent a religous person from erecting
a monument on private property unless there is a strong compelling
state interest to do so. I this case, it's public property, but if
it's open to one, it has to be open to all. Otherwise, the state is
in violation of the establishment clause.
Many Christians believe that Sheppard is in hell because he was gay.
They may be intolerant bigots, but they are free to discuss that
belief.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I recall from my con law classes
and the cases I've either read or read about since then.
--
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "beber" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
29 Oct 2003 06:51:59 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:09:14 -0400, Marc Satterwhite
thanx. funneee points.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles R Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I like NPR |
31 Oct 2003 10:45:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:51:09 UTC, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
<tim@somecallme.net> wrote:
I thought it was just me, but during the recent fund-raiser
for KUNI <http://www.kuniradio.org> it was mentioned that
other people do the same thing. I mostly listen to the radio
while in the car, frequently when I get where I'm going I
have to wait in the car for the story to finish. Does that
happen to anyone else?
Does it ever happen while listening to commercial radio?
Charles R Ward
--
"I do live among my fellow atheists. I also happen to live
among Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Satanists
and followers of various other religions -- all of which
have a perfect right to live in the United States without
interference because of their religion or lack thereof no
matter how much it irks you." Liz
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
