RE: AlterNet website
I just read Hedges' piece. It was pure hate speech, but speech I believe the Constitution protects. It sounds like Hedges also wishes to restrict not only Christian broadcasters, but also Christian schools, such as the one my son attends. His real problem is not so much the Christian fascists he attacks so viciously, but all three Clauses of the First Amendment. Hedges piece is a sad and bitter piece, written by a man who believes that both political parties have blessed the unchecked rape of America and that those who believe in the teachings of the Bible have moved from the reality-based world to one of magic -- to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them. This mythological worldview, one that has no use for science or dispassionate, honest intellectual inquiry, one that promises that the loss of jobs and health insurance does not matter, as long as you are right with Jesus, offers a lying world of consistency that addresses the emotional yearnings of desperate followers at the expense of reality. I think the real threat we face is not Christian fascism, but rather religious persecution directed at anyone who has a committed,childlike faith in God and God's lies, or who believes in this mythological worldview. We need a strong First Amendment now more than ever. Returning to lurk mode, Rick Duncan Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence. --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst. -- Id. - Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink QA.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: AlterNet website
As I recall, he wrote a book about his time at the Harvard Divinity School in the late 80s early 90s. He went back after he had established his career as a writer for publications like the NY Times, the New Yorker, etc.. David E. Guinn JD, PhD Recent Publications Available from SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608 - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 4:58 PM Subject: RE: AlterNet website In his Colbert appearance, Hedges said he is a Christian and a seminary graduate. He complained of his faith being hijacked by the people he is attacking in the book. He revealed no details on what he actually believes about his religion. Quoting Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I too have read the piece, but have a decidedly different reaction to it. I wouldn't call it hate speech, or his attack vicious. That is, perhaps, a bit too intemperate. He raises a series of legitimate questions and concerns. The fact that his particular solutions might - or might not - be problematic does not mean that the questions and concerns are not real and serious. By the way, your use of the word Christian suggests that Christian applies only to a rather narrow subset of Christians. I am not sure that that is appropriate either. Or to put it differently, there are some Christians who agree with much of what Hedges has to say. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:10 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: AlterNet website I just read Hedges' piece. It was pure hate speech, but speech I believe the Constitution protects. It sounds like Hedges also wishes to restrict not only Christian broadcasters, but also Christian schools, such as the one my son attends. His real problem is not so much the Christian fascists he attacks so viciously, but all three Clauses of the First Amendment. Hedges piece is a sad and bitter piece, written by a man who believes that both political parties have blessed the unchecked rape of America and that those who believe in the teachings of the Bible have moved from the reality-based world to one of magic -- to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them. This mythological worldview, one that has no use for science or dispassionate, honest intellectual inquiry, one that promises that the loss of jobs and health insurance does not matter, as long as you are right with Jesus, offers a lying world of consistency that addresses the emotional yearnings of desperate followers at the expense of reality. I think the real threat we face is not Christian fascism, but rather religious persecution directed at anyone who has a committed,childlike faith in God and God's lies, or who believes in this mythological worldview. We need a strong First Amendment now more than ever. Returning to lurk mode, Rick Duncan Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence. --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst. -- Id. Food fight? http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTE wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=asks id=396545367 Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink QA. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTE wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=asks id=396545367 Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 -- ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others
RE: AlterNet website
Thanks, Eugene. I am reminded of Holmes [O]ur Constitution] is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. My assumption (Hedges would apparently declare it's naiveté) is that the condition so imminently threaten immediate interference is far from being reached. Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:22 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: AlterNet website The article is by Chris Hedges, a Nation Institute fellow and former NPR and New York Times reporter; he is the author of a book on this subject (American Fascists). He also takes the view that the radical Christian Right should have its speech legally restricted. From the book: This is the awful paradox of tolerance. There arise moments when those who would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible should no longer be tolerated. They must be held accountable by institutions that maintain the free exchange of ideas and liberty. The radical Christian Right must be forced to include other points of view to counter their hate talk in their own broadcasts, watched by tens of millions of Americans. They must be denied the right to demonize whole segments of American society, saying they are manipulated by Satan and worthy only of conversion or eradication. They must be made to treat their opponents with respect and acknowledge the right of a fair hearing even as they exercise their own freedom to disagree with their opponents. Passivity in the face of the rise of the Christian Right threatens the democratic state. And the movement has targeted the last remaining obstacles to its systems of indoctrination, mounting a fierce campaign to defeat hate-crime legislation, fearing the courts could apply it to them as they spew hate talk over the radio, television and Internet. To clear up any ambiguity about whether he was calling for legal suppression (denied the right to demonize) or just social pressure, here's an excerpt from an NPR interview with Hedges: JIM (Caller): Yes. Yes, I am. I needed to ask the author -- I mean, I myself am a Christian, but I wouldn't even somewhat agree with Pat Roberts. But the author stating that you need to restrict someone's free speech just for mere words, he's advocating -- I mean, what he's advocating is fascism, is he (unintelligible)? ... Mr. HEDGES: I think that, you know, in a democratic society, people don't have a right to preach the extermination of others, which has been a part of this movement of - certainly in terms of what should be done with homosexuals. You know, Rushdoony and others have talked about 18 moral crimes for which people should be executed, including apostasy, blasphemy, sodomy, and all - in order for an open society to function, it must function with a mutual respect, with a respect... JIM: Sure. Mr. HEDGES: ...for other ways to be and other ways to believe. And I think that the fringes of this movement have denied people that respect, which is why they fight so hard against hate crimes legislation -- such as exist in Canada -- being made law in the United States. [NEAL] CONAN: But Chris, to be fair, aren't you talking about violating their right to free speech, their right to religion as laid out in the First Amendment? Mr. HEDGES: Well, I think that when you preach -- or when you call for the physical extermination of other people within the society, you know, you've crossed the bounds of free speech. I mean, we're not going to turn a cable channel over to the Ku Klux Klan. Yet the kinds of things that are allowed to be spewed out over much of Christian radio and television essentially preaches sedition. It preaches civil war. It's not a difference of opinion. With that kind of rhetoric, it becomes a fight for survival Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G. Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ucla. edu Subject: AlterNet website On the recommendation of a friend, I just read an short article on this website entitled The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy posted today. I'm curious about any views on the credibility of this website
RE: AlterNet website
Hedges was on the Colbert show tonight. There are probably re-runs for those who are interested but missed it. Quoting Gibbens, Daniel G. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks, Eugene. I am reminded of Holmes [O]ur Constitution] is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. My assumption (Hedges would apparently declare it's naiveté) is that the condition so imminently threaten immediate interference is far from being reached. Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:22 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: AlterNet website The article is by Chris Hedges, a Nation Institute fellow and former NPR and New York Times reporter; he is the author of a book on this subject (American Fascists). He also takes the view that the radical Christian Right should have its speech legally restricted. From the book: This is the awful paradox of tolerance. There arise moments when those who would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible should no longer be tolerated. They must be held accountable by institutions that maintain the free exchange of ideas and liberty. The radical Christian Right must be forced to include other points of view to counter their hate talk in their own broadcasts, watched by tens of millions of Americans. They must be denied the right to demonize whole segments of American society, saying they are manipulated by Satan and worthy only of conversion or eradication. They must be made to treat their opponents with respect and acknowledge the right of a fair hearing even as they exercise their own freedom to disagree with their opponents. Passivity in the face of the rise of the Christian Right threatens the democratic state. And the movement has targeted the last remaining obstacles to its systems of indoctrination, mounting a fierce campaign to defeat hate-crime legislation, fearing the courts could apply it to them as they spew hate talk over the radio, television and Internet. To clear up any ambiguity about whether he was calling for legal suppression (denied the right to demonize) or just social pressure, here's an excerpt from an NPR interview with Hedges: JIM (Caller): Yes. Yes, I am. I needed to ask the author -- I mean, I myself am a Christian, but I wouldn't even somewhat agree with Pat Roberts. But the author stating that you need to restrict someone's free speech just for mere words, he's advocating -- I mean, what he's advocating is fascism, is he (unintelligible)? ... Mr. HEDGES: I think that, you know, in a democratic society, people don't have a right to preach the extermination of others, which has been a part of this movement of - certainly in terms of what should be done with homosexuals. You know, Rushdoony and others have talked about 18 moral crimes for which people should be executed, including apostasy, blasphemy, sodomy, and all - in order for an open society to function, it must function with a mutual respect, with a respect... JIM: Sure. Mr. HEDGES: ...for other ways to be and other ways to believe. And I think that the fringes of this movement have denied people that respect, which is why they fight so hard against hate crimes legislation -- such as exist in Canada -- being made law in the United States. [NEAL] CONAN: But Chris, to be fair, aren't you talking about violating their right to free speech, their right to religion as laid out in the First Amendment? Mr. HEDGES: Well, I think that when you preach -- or when you call for the physical extermination of other people within the society, you know, you've crossed the bounds of free speech. I mean, we're not going to turn a cable channel over to the Ku Klux Klan. Yet the kinds of things that are allowed to be spewed out over much of Christian radio and television essentially preaches sedition. It preaches civil war. It's not a difference of opinion. With that kind of rhetoric, it becomes a fight for survival Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G. Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ucla. edu Subject: AlterNet website On the recommendation of a friend, I just read an short article
