Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yeah, there's nothing actionable there.  Free speech and all that - 
> until someone actually *does* something to be a physical threat.

Free speech doesn't cover threatening the president's life.

http://newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-man-over-for-anti-obama-sign-on-vehicle/article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget

(What, you think I make this crap up? :-)

Remember, some governments are even more scary than some religions. ;-)

> government seems to be reluctant to charge a religious organization (or 
> personality) with incitement.

Bingo!  That's precisely what I'm saying.

Actually, it's not that they're reluctant to charge a religious 
organization. It's that they're reluctant to charge a mainstream religious 
organization.

> To an extent, I can see why - if they were 
> to go after them, that would inflame the situation.  Remember David 
> Koresh?

Yes, exactly that too. That's kind of my point.  *If* you were to 
marginalize religion, this would be less of a problem. (Which is not to say 
I believe religion should be marginalized for that reason.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If I drove around the city with a bumper sticker saying "Obama should die" 
>> I'd probably get arrested. (Maybe not charged with anything, but certainly 
>> inconvenienced.) But since these nut-case preachers are getting on national 
>> TV and saying they're asking *GOD* to kill Obama, it's apparently not a 
>> problem for the secret service to look into.
> 
>   The solution to that problem is not getting rid of religion, but removing
> their special protected status.

Yes, I'd agree with that. But that's hard to do without marginalizing it in 
the first place. The whole point of religion is that it's a special 
protected status for those that practice it. (Well, mostly. Jews may 
disagree with that. :-)  Certainly if you manage a good level of secularity 
in your country, that makes religion much more palatable to those who aren't.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> Won't fix the problem entirely, since religion isn't the only place this
> happens.

  That's certainly true. Seeing political campaign speeches from the US,
I can't see any significant difference from charismatic christian gatherings.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If I drove around the city with a bumper sticker saying "Obama should die" 
>> I'd probably get arrested. (Maybe not charged with anything, but certainly 
>> inconvenienced.) But since these nut-case preachers are getting on national 
>> TV and saying they're asking *GOD* to kill Obama, it's apparently not a 
>> problem for the secret service to look into.
> 
>   The solution to that problem is not getting rid of religion, but removing
> their special protected status.
> 

Religion could keep it's otherwise protected status if they could just
be held responsible. I am all for people believing what ever they want,
but if they pray hard enough and a hurricane hits my house because I am
immoral or some other disagreeable term, I should be able to drag them
to court for setting their unmonitored deity loose on my property.

I bet that deity hasn't even had it's vaccinations.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:04:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, yeah, there's nothing actionable there.  Free speech and all that
>> - until someone actually *does* something to be a physical threat.
> 
> Free speech doesn't cover threatening the president's life.
> 
> http://newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-man-over-for-anti-obama-sign-on-
vehicle/article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget
> 
> (What, you think I make this crap up? :-)

Oh, no, but praying for a president's death is different than making a 
threat against the president.  That's what I was trying to say.

> Remember, some governments are even more scary than some religions. ;-)

True....

>> government seems to be reluctant to charge a religious organization (or
>> personality) with incitement.
> 
> Bingo!  That's precisely what I'm saying.
> 
> Actually, it's not that they're reluctant to charge a religious
> organization. It's that they're reluctant to charge a mainstream
> religious organization.

True, though even those not in the mainstream (FLDS comes to mind) they 
tend to hold off on prosecuting as long as possible.  IMNSHO, Jeffs 
should've been indicted, prosecuted, and incarcerated LONG before the 
process even started.

>> To an extent, I can see why - if they were to go after them, that would
>> inflame the situation.  Remember David Koresh?
> 
> Yes, exactly that too. That's kind of my point.  *If* you were to
> marginalize religion, this would be less of a problem. (Which is not to
> say I believe religion should be marginalized for that reason.)

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Oh, no, but praying for a president's death is different than making a 
> threat against the president.  That's what I was trying to say.

Why, because the hit-man is imaginary?

Do you think if I got up on national TV and started talking about how I'd 
summon Satan's demons to attack the president, I'd still be on TV a week later?

> True, though even those not in the mainstream (FLDS comes to mind) they 
> tend to hold off on prosecuting as long as possible.

FLDS? You mean the mormons? That's pretty mainstream.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> It may reduce the behavior, though. There is the nice psychological echo
> chamber effect, of sitting around a large crowd of people who, you
> think, all believe the exact same things you do.

There was a very recent study I read. Apparently, religious people don't 
trust atheists, as in, they say they wouldn't give atheists jobs that 
demanded a high level of trust.  But when they find out that something like 
20% of the people around them in general are atheists, they are much more 
likely to give them such jobs. It's no longer "those weird atheists, I don't 
know why they're weird" and more "apparently I know a lot of atheists and 
didn't know that, so what's that to do with how trustworthy they are?"

> term, which I can't remember right now, for describing how many people a
> person can actually know.

I've heard it called "monkey circle", but that's probably an informal name. 
It's between 100 and 200 or so for humans, based on estimates of brain size 
vs other animals. Anything bigger than that and you can't give people unique 
personalities in your mind.

> Won't fix the problem entirely, since religion isn't the only place this
> happens. Any time a large crowd gets together and talks about the facts
> they all agree on, it is bound for trouble.

Well, unless there's a correcting mechanism involved.

 > And now I broke meta

Stop banging your head against the fourth wall. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:20:25 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Oh, no, but praying for a president's death is different than making a
>> threat against the president.  That's what I was trying to say.
> 
> Why, because the hit-man is imaginary?
> 
> Do you think if I got up on national TV and started talking about how
> I'd summon Satan's demons to attack the president, I'd still be on TV a
> week later?

I think the national TV networks would distance themselves from you, but 
would you be prosecuted?  I honestly don't know.

>> True, though even those not in the mainstream (FLDS comes to mind) they
>> tend to hold off on prosecuting as long as possible.
> 
> FLDS? You mean the mormons? That's pretty mainstream.

No, FLDS is the Fundamentalist branch of the LDS church.  Not mainstream 
at all.  They've been disowned by the LDS church, left Utah for Texas, 
and their leader is being prosecuted for child abuse.  They also still 
practice polygamy IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I've heard it called "monkey circle", but that's probably an informal name. 

  I think it was monkeysphere, actually.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I've heard it called "monkey circle", but that's probably an informal name. 
> 
>   I think it was monkeysphere, actually.

Now that you say it, I think you're right.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message