tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5083444066722964712..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Bullying and Freedom of SpeechAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85039653704824414672011-11-08T18:24:00.669-07:002011-11-08T18:24:00.669-07:00the law is merely stating one of the many things i...the law is merely stating one of the many things it does not prohibit. there is no reason to expect that statements that are not faith related would not fall under the category of permited. <br /><br />the statement that an apple is not an orage says nothing one way or another about bananas. (though they also happen top be, not an orange) (apple=religous statements of belief. orange=prohibited. banana=a statement about the truth value of creationism or evolution) <br /><br />that "religous exception" is irrelevant to the law. it merely states that something which is clearly free speech will not be infringed upon. it does not say that other things which are also free speech should be infringed upon if they are not relgious.<br /><br />adding a useless clause to the law shows a certain non-secular focus that i do not appreciate in my laws. but beyond that cosmetic addendum the clause is legally irrelevant and implies nothing about the laws application to secular assertions in school.<br /><br />thanks for the great post alonzo<br /><br />it is a little odd that they needed a law. this seems to be a useless proclamation that bullying is bad. i don't think that previously bullying had been acceptable becuase it was legal but now that this law is in place we can finally do something about it! it's just a politician trying to score points by pointing a finger at something we all know is bad and proclaiming that he too thinks it is bad. what remarkable leadership...Kristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08544209777124068097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61997855673426055232011-11-07T21:50:18.796-07:002011-11-07T21:50:18.796-07:00In general, I think you are right to be skeptical ...In general, I think you are right to be skeptical of laws that would label moral criticism as bullying. At the same time, the law in question prohibits a particular form of criticism in a particular context: Only statements made in school that are reasonably expected to disrupt class or cause emotional distress would be prohibited by the law (even without §8). <br /><br />Given the emotionally fragile nature of schoolchildren and the fact that they are forced to go to school, it makes sense to limit the sorts of speech allowed in this setting. Permitting academic discussions about religion is much different from letting students tell others they are (say) going to Hell. <br /><br />I posted a longer discussion on my blog: <a href="http://www.anemptybasket.com/2011/11/07/matts-safe-school-law-bullying/" rel="nofollow">http://www.anemptybasket.com/2011/11/07/matts-safe-school-law-bullying/</a>Alex Setzepfandthttp://www.anemptybasket.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36990412330368516962011-11-07T11:56:30.651-07:002011-11-07T11:56:30.651-07:00I don't necessarily disagree with anything you...I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, but I do have two questions: <br /><br />1) Why does Michigan need a law to prevent bullying?<br /><br />2) How do we tell the difference between a, "sincerely held religious belief" and an idea I pulled out of a christmas cracker?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69094353306176745312011-11-05T15:27:25.676-06:002011-11-05T15:27:25.676-06:00Your point about the importance of freedom of expr...Your point about the importance of freedom of expression is well taken. Indeed, we as atheists need to think carefully before taking a position on this issue. However, I think your analysis fails to take into account the following points:<br /><br />[1] The phrase "a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" constitutes a privilege for opinions based on religion rather than on other things. Also, in a highly religious country like the USA, the field of morality is assumed by many, perhaps most, to belong to religion: thus, the second half of "religious belief or moral conviction" will normally be subsumed into the first. But why should an opinion based on religion -- rather than on, say, science or aesthetics -- be given special consideration?<br /><br />[2] The phrase is more likely to be used to defend the religious than the non-religious. Indeed, if an atheist expresses an anti-religious opinion while a believer expresses a pro-religious sentiment, then the latter is more likely to be recognized as "a sincerely held religious belief" than the former. This constitutes another advantage for religion.<br /><br />This question is important to me because the controversial clause in Michigan Senate Bill No. 137 is very similar to a provision in the Criminal Code of Canada. Indeed, so-called "hate propaganda" is illegal in Canada, but there are several exceptions which make speech -- which might otherwise be considered hateful -- acceptable. One of these exceptions is "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text". (See <a href="http://www.blasphemyisnotacrime.ca/laws/laws_canada_en.shtml" rel="nofollow">Legislation in Canada</a>)<br /><br />It can of course be argued that "hate propaganda" should never be criminalized, because that constitutes an unacceptable restriction on freedom of expression. But given that some restrictions exist (for example, I think most people would agree that incitement to genocide should not be tolerated), how can one justify making an exception specifically for religious reasons, especially given the fact that religion is often the origin and cause of hateful attitudes? It would seem to me that if we accept any restrictions on freedom of expression, then the only legitimate exceptions should be accorded to reality-based speech. I recognize that arriving at a clear definition of "reality-based" may be very difficult, but it is clear that religious speech often falls well outside that category!David Randhttp://www.atheisme.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85355887011612629012011-11-05T07:43:13.136-06:002011-11-05T07:43:13.136-06:00A fantastic analysis of the current debate on the ...A fantastic analysis of the current debate on the issue of bullying. I have linked to this post on another atheist blog:<br /><br /> http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/11/idiot-of-week-republicans-in-michigan.html<br /><br /> As something close to a civil libertarian and a budding ethicist, I offer my thanks to you for the effort you put into this blog.wicked sicknoreply@blogger.com