Re: Defamation of Religion
The issue of 'defamation of religion' and/or 'hate speech' is a disturbing and confusing legal development in the United Kingdom/ Europe. It may be something that Americans are not over concerned about due to the strong protections granted by US Courts under the First Amendment. However, I believe this is a subject that US academics and attorneys need to address. I make no political point, but if there is a Democratic White House and Congress this November, surely 'sexual orientation' will be added as a category of 'hate crime'. This development will be solely 'home grown' and it will no doubt be developed by US Courts upon European Human Rights decisions: Lawrence/Roper etc. Restrictions on speech arose first in Germany in holocaust denial laws (premised that the truth must be protected/preserved) in circumstances of a pressing social need; to the current situation where truth is not a defence if the subjective 'feelings' of the adherent are distressed. One of the disturbing aspects of 'hate crime' law in the United Kingdom is not the Court decisions (which are poor enough), but the abuse of the executive to determine free speech permissiveness. This is done by a combination of police intimidation (arrests, but subsequent release of individuals- Police has wide 'qualified immunity' in UK) and use of State agencies (BBC, awards, grants) to attack certain groups and protect others. Very often the Courts simply do not enter the free speech debate, but the citizen knows what can be said and what can't be said. Readers of the List will rest assured that these laws are never enforced in relation to criticism of the US/ Israel which are can be in openly racist terminology. The best that can be said is that it is an attempt by the State to micro manage debate and to civilise discourse, but in the light of the above, this is not convincing. One of the absurd aspects of the concept of 'defamation of religion' is the failure to recognise the inherently competitive nature of religions- surely the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to go to Hell and be told about it Paul Diamond, barrister. - Original Message - From: Esenberg, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 4:38 AM Subject: RE: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion I agree with Robert Lipkin that there is a thing called religion as difficult as it may be to define. Certainly, there are things that we can confidently say is not it. What I have a problem with is the notion that government can be neutral among religions or between religion or irreligion. In particular, I am skeptical that a useful test for whether it has done so - or has managed to come as close as it ought to be expected to come - is captured by whether it has managed to avoid explicitly religious language. The state lost the Sklar and Montgomery cases because it started to talk theology (theology toward which I have a certain amount of sympathy) but I can't see why the insult to those who read their faith differently would be any less exclusionary or stigmatizing for the avoidance of such language. If I am a conservative evangelical who regards biblical injunctions against homosexuality as authoritive, I don't know why I would regard myself as not being made a disfavored member of the political community or not believing that the state has acted to disapprove my religious beliefs because it has avoided theological language. To the con! trary, if the state engages my sacred text (even, by my lights, erroneously), it has treated me with more respect than if it dismisses my views as bigotry. This is why, I think, the whole defamation against religion concept is an idea at war with itself. Those who promote the idea seem to want to say that, for example, the relatively mild criticisms of Islam by Mark Steyn (if you want a different villain than CAIR, try Bill Donahue) should bear legal sanction, But, if they are right, we need to know why secular messages that are far more inconsistent with or dismissive of integral religious presuppositions, e.g.,, assertions by the San Francisco Board of Examiners about Catholic teachings on homosexuality and the moral authority of the Church. Rick Esenberg Marquette University Law School From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:45 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion Insisting there is no religion--it doesn't exist--but religion can nevertheless be used intelligibly (as a bracket term). suggests that one has an elaborate argument that no matter how much it might vary from ordinary intelligent discourse, he or she wants to impose
Defamation of Religion - and Gay Rights
Mr. Diamond is quite right to see gay rights as the likely source of this kind of litigation in the US. Marc Stern at the American Jewish Congress (and a participant on this list) has a great chapter forthcoming on litigation to date over conflicts between gay rights and religious liberty and free speech. The Canadian speech cases are terrifying; the US cases in the context of schools and employment are quite unprotective of speech. This chapter is forthcoming in a book (now comes the shamless plug) that I edited with Robin Fretwell Wilson at Washington Lee and Anthony Picarello, formerly at the Becket Fund and now the General Counsel to the Conference of Catholic Bishops. The book is Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, due out from Rowman Littlefield in September. Other contributors are Jonathan Turley at GW, Chai Feldbum at Georgetown, Doug Kmiec at Pepperdine, Charles Reid at St. Thomas (Minnesota), Wilson, and me. I won't vouch for my chapter, but I'll vouch for all the others. Quoting Paul Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The issue of 'defamation of religion' and/or 'hate speech' is a disturbing and confusing legal development in the United Kingdom/ Europe. It may be something that Americans are not over concerned about due to the strong protections granted by US Courts under the First Amendment. However, I believe this is a subject that US academics and attorneys need to address. I make no political point, but if there is a Democratic White House and Congress this November, surely 'sexual orientation' will be added as a category of 'hate crime'. This development will be solely 'home grown' and it will no doubt be developed by US Courts upon European Human Rights decisions: Lawrence/Roper etc. Restrictions on speech arose first in Germany in holocaust denial laws (premised that the truth must be protected/preserved) in circumstances of a pressing social need; to the current situation where truth is not a defence if the subjective 'feelings' of the adherent are distressed. One of the disturbing aspects of 'hate crime' law in the United Kingdom is not the Court decisions (which are poor enough), but the abuse of the executive to determine free speech permissiveness. This is done by a combination of police intimidation (arrests, but subsequent release of individuals- Police has wide 'qualified immunity' in UK) and use of State agencies (BBC, awards, grants) to attack certain groups and protect others. Very often the Courts simply do not enter the free speech debate, but the citizen knows what can be said and what can't be said. Readers of the List will rest assured that these laws are never enforced in relation to criticism of the US/ Israel which are can be in openly racist terminology. The best that can be said is that it is an attempt by the State to micro manage debate and to civilise discourse, but in the light of the above, this is not convincing. One of the absurd aspects of the concept of 'defamation of religion' is the failure to recognise the inherently competitive nature of religions- surely the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to go to Hell and be told about it Paul Diamond, barrister. - Original Message - From: Esenberg, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 4:38 AM Subject: RE: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion I agree with Robert Lipkin that there is a thing called religion as difficult as it may be to define. Certainly, there are things that we can confidently say is not it. What I have a problem with is the notion that government can be neutral among religions or between religion or irreligion. In particular, I am skeptical that a useful test for whether it has done so - or has managed to come as close as it ought to be expected to come - is captured by whether it has managed to avoid explicitly religious language. The state lost the Sklar and Montgomery cases because it started to talk theology (theology toward which I have a certain amount of sympathy) but I can't see why the insult to those who read their faith differently would be any less exclusionary or stigmatizing for the avoidance of such language. If I am a conservative evangelical who regards biblical injunctions against homosexuality as authoritive, I don't know why I would regard myself as not being made a disfavored member of the political community or not believing that the state has acted to disapprove my religious beliefs because it has avoided theological language. To the con! trary, if the state engages my sacred text (even, by my lights, erroneously), it has treated me with more respect than if it dismisses my views as bigotry. This is why, I think, the whole defamation against religion concept is an idea at war with itself. Those who promote the idea seem to want
RE: Defamation of Religion - and Gay Rights
If we are talking about conflicts between gay rights and religious liberty, surely this is a coin that has two sides to it. Many gay people see religion as a sword that is being used to burden their liberty and equality rights. What we have are two groups claiming basic autonomy rights with each seeing the other side as a threat to be feared, rather than as people with basic liberty interests that need to be accommodated. When we have one side of the debate arguing that to avoid potential conflicts with religious liberty, gay people should be denied the right to marry or to be protected against discrimination in housing or employment, it is hardly surprising that the other side of the debate is going to offer little sympathy to requests for religious accommodation. I continue to believe that while there will be some real conflicts between religious liberty and gay rights in some circumstances, at a deeper level these two assertions of autonomy rights can and should be positively reinforcing each other. Sometimes this happens inadvertantly. The Equal Access Act has helped gay and lesbian clubs be recognized at schools. But this was done over the opposition of people who insisted that freedom of association and speech for religious students should not be extended to gay students. To have the mutual reinforcement of autonomy rights (that I think is possible) happen at a broader, practical level, however, there would have to be some commitment to compromise from both sides. Minor shameless plug, Doug. Take a look at the Findlaw column (published last Friday) that Vik Amar and I recently wrote. Alan Brownstein UC Davis School of Law From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 7:13 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Defamation of Religion - and Gay Rights Mr. Diamond is quite right to see gay rights as the likely source of this kind of litigation in the US. Marc Stern at the American Jewish Congress (and a participant on this list) has a great chapter forthcoming on litigation to date over conflicts between gay rights and religious liberty and free speech. The Canadian speech cases are terrifying; the US cases in the context of schools and employment are quite unprotective of speech. This chapter is forthcoming in a book (now comes the shamless plug) that I edited with Robin Fretwell Wilson at Washington Lee and Anthony Picarello, formerly at the Becket Fund and now the General Counsel to the Conference of Catholic Bishops. The book is Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, due out from Rowman Littlefield in September. Other contributors are Jonathan Turley at GW, Chai Feldbum at Georgetown, Doug Kmiec at Pepperdine, Charles Reid at St. Thomas (Minnesota), Wilson, and me. I won't vouch for my chapter, but I'll vouch for all the others. Quoting Paul Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The issue of 'defamation of religion' and/or 'hate speech' is a disturbing and confusing legal development in the United Kingdom/ Europe. It may be something that Americans are not over concerned about due to the strong protections granted by US Courts under the First Amendment. However, I believe this is a subject that US academics and attorneys need to address. I make no political point, but if there is a Democratic White House and Congress this November, surely 'sexual orientation' will be added as a category of 'hate crime'. This development will be solely 'home grown' and it will no doubt be developed by US Courts upon European Human Rights decisions: Lawrence/Roper etc. Restrictions on speech arose first in Germany in holocaust denial laws (premised that the truth must be protected/preserved) in circumstances of a pressing social need; to the current situation where truth is not a defence if the subjective 'feelings' of the adherent are distressed. One of the disturbing aspects of 'hate crime' law in the United Kingdom is not the Court decisions (which are poor enough), but the abuse of the executive to determine free speech permissiveness. This is done by a combination of police intimidation (arrests, but subsequent release of individuals- Police has wide 'qualified immunity' in UK) and use of State agencies (BBC, awards, grants) to attack certain groups and protect others. Very often the Courts simply do not enter the free speech debate, but the citizen knows what can be said and what can't be said. Readers of the List will rest assured that these laws are never enforced in relation to criticism of the US/ Israel which are can be in openly racist terminology. The best that can be said is that it is an attempt by the State to micro manage debate and to civilise discourse, but in the light of the above, this is not convincing. One of the absurd aspects of the concept of 'defamation of religion' is the failure
RE: Defamation of Religion - and Gay Rights
I agree with everything Alan says, and say much the same thing in my chapter. /Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty/ is not opposed to gay rights or to same-sex marriage. About half the contributors are, and about half are not, but that disagreement among them is not the point of the book. The book assumes that same-sex marriage is or will be the law, and asks what issues that raises for religious liberty. Quoting Brownstein, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If we are talking about conflicts between gay rights and religious liberty, surely this is a coin that has two sides to it. Many gay people see religion as a sword that is being used to burden their liberty and equality rights. What we have are two groups claiming basic autonomy rights with each seeing the other side as a threat to be feared, rather than as people with basic liberty interests that need to be accommodated. When we have one side of the debate arguing that to avoid potential conflicts with religious liberty, gay people should be denied the right to marry or to be protected against discrimination in housing or employment, it is hardly surprising that the other side of the debate is going to offer little sympathy to requests for religious accommodation. I continue to believe that while there will be some real conflicts between religious liberty and gay rights in some circumstances, at a deeper level these two assertions of autonomy rights can and should be positively reinforcing each other. Sometimes this happens inadvertantly. The Equal Access Act has helped gay and lesbian clubs be recognized at schools. But this was done over the opposition of people who insisted that freedom of association and speech for religious students should not be extended to gay students. To have the mutual reinforcement of autonomy rights (that I think is possible) happen at a broader, practical level, however, there would have to be some commitment to compromise from both sides. Minor shameless plug, Doug. Take a look at the Findlaw column (published last Friday) that Vik Amar and I recently wrote. Alan Brownstein UC Davis School of Law From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 7:13 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Defamation of Religion - and Gay Rights Mr. Diamond is quite right to see gay rights as the likely source of this kind of litigation in the US. Marc Stern at the American Jewish Congress (and a participant on this list) has a great chapter forthcoming on litigation to date over conflicts between gay rights and religious liberty and free speech. The Canadian speech cases are terrifying; the US cases in the context of schools and employment are quite unprotective of speech. This chapter is forthcoming in a book (now comes the shamless plug) that I edited with Robin Fretwell Wilson at Washington Lee and Anthony Picarello, formerly at the Becket Fund and now the General Counsel to the Conference of Catholic Bishops. The book is Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, due out from Rowman Littlefield in September. Other contributors are Jonathan Turley at GW, Chai Feldbum at Georgetown, Doug Kmiec at Pepperdine, Charles Reid at St. Thomas (Minnesota), Wilson, and me. I won't vouch for my chapter, but I'll vouch for all the others. Quoting Paul Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The issue of 'defamation of religion' and/or 'hate speech' is a disturbing and confusing legal development in the United Kingdom/ Europe. It may be something that Americans are not over concerned about due to the strong protections granted by US Courts under the First Amendment. However, I believe this is a subject that US academics and attorneys need to address. I make no political point, but if there is a Democratic White House and Congress this November, surely 'sexual orientation' will be added as a category of 'hate crime'. This development will be solely 'home grown' and it will no doubt be developed by US Courts upon European Human Rights decisions: Lawrence/Roper etc. Restrictions on speech arose first in Germany in holocaust denial laws (premised that the truth must be protected/preserved) in circumstances of a pressing social need; to the current situation where truth is not a defence if the subjective 'feelings' of the adherent are distressed. One of the disturbing aspects of 'hate crime' law in the United Kingdom is not the Court decisions (which are poor enough), but the abuse of the executive to determine free speech permissiveness. This is done by a combination of police intimidation (arrests, but subsequent release of individuals- Police has wide 'qualified immunity' in UK) and use of State agencies (BBC, awards, grants) to attack certain groups and protect others. Very often the Courts simply
Defamation of Religion
I thought the list would be interested in the following article from Maclean's magazine, which describes a worrying trend in international human rights law: the increasingly accepted norm against defamation of religion. The article describes the problem in greater detail, but the short version is that several countries with stringent anti-blasphemy laws are seeking to make it a violation of international human rights norms to publish statements considered insulting to a religion (e.g. the Danish cartoons). In response to this trend, Rep. Steve Cohen has proposed legislation (HR 6146) that would prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that violate American First Amendment norms, including judgments based on blasphemy laws. The Becket Fund has already urged both presidential candidates to support Cohen's legislation. We've also published an issues brief on defamation of religion which you can find here: http://www.becketfund.org/files/a9e5b.pdf Eric Stifling free speech - globally A coalition of Islamic states is using the United Nations to enact international 'anti-defamation' rules LUIZA CH. SAVAGE | July 23, 2008 | Asma Fatima, a petite, bespectacled Pakistani diplomat in Washington, sat at the front of a crowded Capitol Hill hearing room on July 18, carefully considering whether a man seated a few places to her left on the panel should be jailed. The occasion was a panel discussion convened by a group of congressmen to educate their colleagues on the issue of religious freedom, and the man was Canadian Ezra Levant, who in February 2006 republished Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his now-defunct magazine the Western Standard, which resulted in, among other things, two complaints of discrimination before the Alberta human rights commission. One complaint was withdrawn, but the other continues. If it is upheld, Levant could face a large fine, a lifetime order not to talk about radical Islam disparagingly, and be forced to issue an apology. If Levant does not comply with these orders, he could be imprisoned for contempt of court. Fatima tried to find the right words to explain the depth of the emotions at stake. The cartoon issue really, really hurt Muslims around the world, she told an audience that included congressional staffers as well as officials from the departments of State, Justice, and the media, and various human rights advocates, including a pair of Buddhist monks in bright robes. There are certain things that should not be said. Ultimately, though, Fatima concluded that a journalist should be, as she put it off the hook. Her government has not been so generous. Pakistan and the other nations that have banded together in the Organization of the Islamic Conference have been leading a remarkably successful campaign through the United Nations to enshrine in international law prohibitions against defamation of religions, particularly Islam. Their aim is to empower governments around the world to punish anyone who commits the heinous act of defaming Islam. Critics say it is an attempt to globalize laws against blasphemy that exist in some Muslim countries - and that the movement has already succeeded in suppressing open discussion in international forums of issues such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and gay rights. The campaign gives a new global context in which to view Levant's ordeal and other recent attempts to censor or punish Canadian commentators, publishers and cartoonists. Human rights cases were brought against this magazine for the October 2006 publication of an excerpt of a book by Mark Steyn that, the complainants alleged, subjected Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt. David Harris, a former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, was sued for remarks he made on the Ottawa radio station CFRA linking a Canadian Islamic group to a controversial American organization. And in May, a Nova Scotia Islamic group filed complaints with Halifax police and the province's human rights commission against the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for a cartoon it considered a hate crime. Pakistan brought the first defamation of religions resolution to the UN Human Rights Council in 1999 - before the attacks of 9/11 and a resulting backlash against Muslims. That first resolution was entitled Defamation of Islam. That title was later changed to include all religions, although the texts of all subsequent resolutions have continued to single out Islam. The resolutions have passed the UN Human Rights Council every year since the first was introduced. In 2005, the delegate from Yemen introduced a similar resolution to the UN General Assembly, and it passed, as it has every year since, with landslide votes. In March, the Islamic nations were successful in introducing a change to the mandate of the UN's special rapporteur on freedom of expression
Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
This certainly trivializes the concept of religion. A government that persecutes theists, defames religion in general, and so forth is religious? I suppose the argument is that such a government simply adopts the wrong religion. I suppose similarly each individual is religious no matter what that person's view is about the existence of God or the practice of religion. Taking this route, however, creates both conceptual and practical confusion, but one is, of course, free to take it. To what end? Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris , Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief _http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) In a message dated 7/31/2008 5:38:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ALL government is religious. The only question is: Which religion will a government be based on. **Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr000520) ___ 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: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
In point of fact, strictly speaking, there is no such thing that actually exists that is called religion. That's why I put it in quotes. Religion is an abstract category that no one actually practices any more than someone plays sports or eats food. Thus, I do not believe you can trivialize that which does not actually exist. As for creating conceptual and practical confusion, I believe this happens when one talks about unreal things as if they are real. In any event, if someone denies that all governments are religious in origin, and based on some kind of religion, let's test what I say. Name me a government that you say is not religious and I'll show you how it is. Thank you.? John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 6:52 am Subject: Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion This certainly trivializes the concept of religion. A government that persecutes theists, defames religion in general, and so forth is religious? I suppose the?argument is that such a government simply adopts the wrong religion.??I suppose similarly each individual is religious no matter what that person's view is about the existence of God or the practice of religion. Taking this route, however,? creates both?conceptual and practical confusion, but one is, of course, free to take it. To what end? ? Bobby ?? Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris, Contributor:? http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/ Essentially Contested America,?Editor-In-Chief http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/ ? In a message dated 7/31/2008 5:38:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ALL government is religious. The only question is: Which religion will a government be based on. Ratio Juris, Contributor:? http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/ Essentially Contested America,?Editor-In-Chief http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/ ? In a message dated 7/31/2008 5:38:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ALL government is religious. The only question is: Which religion will a government be based on. ? In a message dated 7/31/2008 5:38:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ALL government is religious. The only question is: Which religion will a government be based on. Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. ___ 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. ___ 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: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
Insisting there is no religion--it doesn't exist--but religion can nevertheless be used intelligibly (as a bracket term). suggests that one has an elaborate argument that no matter how much it might vary from ordinary intelligent discourse, he or she wants to impose on you. I think I'll pass on examining that argument, but go right ahead and articulate anyway. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris , Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief _http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) In a message dated 8/1/2008 10:33:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In point of fact, strictly speaking, there is no such thing that actually exists that is called religion. That's why I put it in quotes. Religion is an abstract category that no one actually practices any more than someone plays sports or eats food. Thus, I do not believe you can trivialize that which does not actually exist. As for creating conceptual and practical confusion, I believe this happens when one talks about unreal things as if they are real. In any event, if someone denies that all governments are religious in origin, and based on some kind of religion, let's test what I say. Name me a government that you say is not religious and I'll show you how it is. Thank you. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 6:52 am Subject: Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion This certainly trivializes the concept of religion. A government that persecutes theists, defames religion in general, and so forth is religious? I suppose the argument is that such a government simply adopts the wrong religion. I suppose similarly each individual is religious no matter what that person's view is about the existence of God or the practice of religion. Taking this route, however, creates both conceptual and practical confusion, but one is, of course, free to take it. To what end? Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris , Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) _ Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief _ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) _http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) In a message dated 7/31/2008 5:38:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ALL government is religious. The only question is: Which religion will a government be based on. (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) Get fantasy football with free live scoring. _Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today_ (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr000520) _._ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) _ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see _ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) _http://lis ts.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw_ (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._ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. _Get the TMZ Toolbar Now_ (http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp000514) _!_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) ___ 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. **Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr000520
RE: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
I agree with Robert Lipkin that there is a thing called religion as difficult as it may be to define. Certainly, there are things that we can confidently say is not it. What I have a problem with is the notion that government can be neutral among religions or between religion or irreligion. In particular, I am skeptical that a useful test for whether it has done so - or has managed to come as close as it ought to be expected to come - is captured by whether it has managed to avoid explicitly religious language. The state lost the Sklar and Montgomery cases because it started to talk theology (theology toward which I have a certain amount of sympathy) but I can't see why the insult to those who read their faith differently would be any less exclusionary or stigmatizing for the avoidance of such language. If I am a conservative evangelical who regards biblical injunctions against homosexuality as authoritive, I don't know why I would regard myself as not being made a disfavored member of the political community or not believing that the state has acted to disapprove my religious beliefs because it has avoided theological language. To the con! trary, if the state engages my sacred text (even, by my lights, erroneously), it has treated me with more respect than if it dismisses my views as bigotry. This is why, I think, the whole defamation against religion concept is an idea at war with itself. Those who promote the idea seem to want to say that, for example, the relatively mild criticisms of Islam by Mark Steyn (if you want a different villain than CAIR, try Bill Donahue) should bear legal sanction, But, if they are right, we need to know why secular messages that are far more inconsistent with or dismissive of integral religious presuppositions, e.g.,, assertions by the San Francisco Board of Examiners about Catholic teachings on homosexuality and the moral authority of the Church. Rick Esenberg Marquette University Law School From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:45 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion Insisting there is no religion--it doesn't exist--but religion can nevertheless be used intelligibly (as a bracket term). suggests that one has an elaborate argument that no matter how much it might vary from ordinary intelligent discourse, he or she wants to impose on you. I think I'll pass on examining that argument, but go right ahead and articulate anyway. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris, Contributor: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/ Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/ In a message dated 8/1/2008 10:33:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In point of fact, strictly speaking, there is no such thing that actually exists that is called religion. That's why I put it in quotes. Religion is an abstract category that no one actually practices any more than someone plays sports or eats food. Thus, I do not believe you can trivialize that which does not actually exist. As for creating conceptual and practical confusion, I believe this happens when one talks about unreal things as if they are real. In any event, if someone denies that all governments are religious in origin, and based on some kind of religion, let's test what I say. Name me a government that you say is not religious and I'll show you how it is. Thank you. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 6:52 am Subject: Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion This certainly trivializes the concept of religion. A government that persecutes theists, defames religion in general, and so forth is religious? I suppose the argument is that such a government simply adopts the wrong religion. I suppose similarly each individual is religious no matter what that person's view is about the existence of God or the practice of religion. Taking this route, however, creates both conceptual and practical confusion, but one is, of course, free to take it. To what end? Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris, Contributor: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/ Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/ http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/ In a message dated 7/31/2008 5:38:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ALL government is religious. The only
RE: Defamation of Religion
Alan is right - I would add to his list that there are also prohibitions on wearing certain kinds of clothing or symbols, anti-conversion laws (which require registration with the authorities of intent to convert) and rules regarding official registration of minority religious institutions, all justified in part by claimed offense towards the beliefs of a particular preferred religious group. Defamation of religion is particularly salient right now because of the push that the OIC is making to enshrine the principle at the Durban Review Conference to be held in April 2009 (also known as Durban II). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brownstein, Alan Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:40 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Defamation of Religion It is my understanding that there are really three related circumstances where restrictions on speech are being justified in the name of religion under international law: restrictions on speech that offends the members of a religious community (an offshoot of hate speech regulations), anti-blasphemy regulations, and restrictions on proselytizing. Alan Brownstein UC Davis School of Law -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:07 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Defamation of Religion Thanks for the link, Eric. This is an extraordinarily important issue that I've been writing about a lot lately and your organization's work has been excellent on it. Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:28 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Defamation of Religion I thought the list would be interested in the following article from Maclean's magazine, which describes a worrying trend in international human rights law: the increasingly accepted norm against defamation of religion. The article describes the problem in greater detail, but the short version is that several countries with stringent anti-blasphemy laws are seeking to make it a violation of international human rights norms to publish statements considered insulting to a religion (e.g. the Danish cartoons). In response to this trend, Rep. Steve Cohen has proposed legislation (HR 6146) that would prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that violate American First Amendment norms, including judgments based on blasphemy laws. The Becket Fund has already urged both presidential candidates to support Cohen's legislation. We've also published an issues brief on defamation of religion which you can find here: http://www.becketfund.org/files/a9e5b.pdf Eric Stifling free speech - globally A coalition of Islamic states is using the United Nations to enact international 'anti-defamation' rules LUIZA CH. SAVAGE | July 23, 2008 | Asma Fatima, a petite, bespectacled Pakistani diplomat in Washington, sat at the front of a crowded Capitol Hill hearing room on July 18, carefully considering whether a man seated a few places to her left on the panel should be jailed. The occasion was a panel discussion convened by a group of congressmen to educate their colleagues on the issue of religious freedom, and the man was Canadian Ezra Levant, who in February 2006 republished Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his now-defunct magazine the Western Standard, which resulted in, among other things, two complaints of discrimination before the Alberta human rights commission. One complaint was withdrawn, but the other continues. If it is upheld, Levant could face a large fine, a lifetime order not to talk about radical Islam disparagingly, and be forced to issue an apology. If Levant does not comply with these orders, he could be imprisoned for contempt of court. Fatima tried to find the right words to explain the depth of the emotions at stake. The cartoon issue really, really hurt Muslims around the world, she told an audience that included congressional staffers as well as officials from the departments of State, Justice, and the media, and various human rights advocates, including a pair of Buddhist monks in bright robes. There are certain things that should not be said. Ultimately, though, Fatima concluded that a journalist should be, as she put it off the hook. Her government has not been so generous. Pakistan and the other nations that have banded together in the Organization of the Islamic Conference have been leading a remarkably successful campaign through the United Nations to enshrine in international law prohibitions against defamation of religions, particularly Islam. Their aim is to empower governments around the world to punish anyone who commits the heinous act of defaming Islam. Critics say it is an attempt to globalize laws against blasphemy that exist
RE: Defamation of Religion
And if this discussion doesn't make one want to dig up James Madison and kiss his molding corpse for penning Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion... I don't know what would. With all due respect to those who profess belief, government and religion should have separate bedrooms, if not separate houses, with no conjugal visits. This trend puts Nixon's domino theory in a new light. Carol Moore Gentle Reader ___ 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.
LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
ALL government is religious. The only question is: Which religion will a government be based on. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: CAROL MOORE [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:34 pm Subject: RE: Defamation of Religion And if this discussion doesn't make one want to dig up James Madison and kiss his molding corpse for penning Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion... I don't know what would. With all due respect to those who profess belief, government and religion should have separate bedrooms, if not separate houses, with no conjugal visits. This trend puts Nixon's domino theory in a new light. Carol Moore Gentle Reader ___ 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. ___ 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: Defamation of Religion
Thanks for the link, Eric. This is an extraordinarily important issue that I've been writing about a lot lately and your organization's work has been excellent on it. Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:28 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Defamation of Religion I thought the list would be interested in the following article from Maclean's magazine, which describes a worrying trend in international human rights law: the increasingly accepted norm against defamation of religion. The article describes the problem in greater detail, but the short version is that several countries with stringent anti-blasphemy laws are seeking to make it a violation of international human rights norms to publish statements considered insulting to a religion (e.g. the Danish cartoons). In response to this trend, Rep. Steve Cohen has proposed legislation (HR 6146) that would prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that violate American First Amendment norms, including judgments based on blasphemy laws. The Becket Fund has already urged both presidential candidates to support Cohen's legislation. We've also published an issues brief on defamation of religion which you can find here: http://www.becketfund.org/files/a9e5b.pdf Eric Stifling free speech - globally A coalition of Islamic states is using the United Nations to enact international 'anti-defamation' rules LUIZA CH. SAVAGE | July 23, 2008 | Asma Fatima, a petite, bespectacled Pakistani diplomat in Washington, sat at the front of a crowded Capitol Hill hearing room on July 18, carefully considering whether a man seated a few places to her left on the panel should be jailed. The occasion was a panel discussion convened by a group of congressmen to educate their colleagues on the issue of religious freedom, and the man was Canadian Ezra Levant, who in February 2006 republished Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his now-defunct magazine the Western Standard, which resulted in, among other things, two complaints of discrimination before the Alberta human rights commission. One complaint was withdrawn, but the other continues. If it is upheld, Levant could face a large fine, a lifetime order not to talk about radical Islam disparagingly, and be forced to issue an apology. If Levant does not comply with these orders, he could be imprisoned for contempt of court. Fatima tried to find the right words to explain the depth of the emotions at stake. The cartoon issue really, really hurt Muslims around the world, she told an audience that included congressional staffers as well as officials from the departments of State, Justice, and the media, and various human rights advocates, including a pair of Buddhist monks in bright robes. There are certain things that should not be said. Ultimately, though, Fatima concluded that a journalist should be, as she put it off the hook. Her government has not been so generous. Pakistan and the other nations that have banded together in the Organization of the Islamic Conference have been leading a remarkably successful campaign through the United Nations to enshrine in international law prohibitions against defamation of religions, particularly Islam. Their aim is to empower governments around the world to punish anyone who commits the heinous act of defaming Islam. Critics say it is an attempt to globalize laws against blasphemy that exist in some Muslim countries - and that the movement has already succeeded in suppressing open discussion in international forums of issues such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and gay rights. The campaign gives a new global context in which to view Levant's ordeal and other recent attempts to censor or punish Canadian commentators, publishers and cartoonists. Human rights cases were brought against this magazine for the October 2006 publication of an excerpt of a book by Mark Steyn that, the complainants alleged, subjected Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt. David Harris, a former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, was sued for remarks he made on the Ottawa radio station CFRA linking a Canadian Islamic group to a controversial American organization. And in May, a Nova Scotia Islamic group filed complaints with Halifax police and the province's human rights commission against the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for a cartoon it considered a hate crime. Pakistan brought the first defamation of religions resolution to the UN Human Rights Council in 1999 - before the attacks of 9/11 and a resulting backlash against Muslims. That first resolution was entitled Defamation of Islam. That title was later changed to include all religions, although the texts of all subsequent resolutions have continued to single out Islam. The resolutions have passed the UN Human Rights Council every year since
RE: Defamation of Religion
It is my understanding that there are really three related circumstances where restrictions on speech are being justified in the name of religion under international law: restrictions on speech that offends the members of a religious community (an offshoot of hate speech regulations), anti-blasphemy regulations, and restrictions on proselytizing. Alan Brownstein UC Davis School of Law -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:07 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Defamation of Religion Thanks for the link, Eric. This is an extraordinarily important issue that I've been writing about a lot lately and your organization's work has been excellent on it. Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:28 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Defamation of Religion I thought the list would be interested in the following article from Maclean's magazine, which describes a worrying trend in international human rights law: the increasingly accepted norm against defamation of religion. The article describes the problem in greater detail, but the short version is that several countries with stringent anti-blasphemy laws are seeking to make it a violation of international human rights norms to publish statements considered insulting to a religion (e.g. the Danish cartoons). In response to this trend, Rep. Steve Cohen has proposed legislation (HR 6146) that would prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that violate American First Amendment norms, including judgments based on blasphemy laws. The Becket Fund has already urged both presidential candidates to support Cohen's legislation. We've also published an issues brief on defamation of religion which you can find here: http://www.becketfund.org/files/a9e5b.pdf Eric Stifling free speech - globally A coalition of Islamic states is using the United Nations to enact international 'anti-defamation' rules LUIZA CH. SAVAGE | July 23, 2008 | Asma Fatima, a petite, bespectacled Pakistani diplomat in Washington, sat at the front of a crowded Capitol Hill hearing room on July 18, carefully considering whether a man seated a few places to her left on the panel should be jailed. The occasion was a panel discussion convened by a group of congressmen to educate their colleagues on the issue of religious freedom, and the man was Canadian Ezra Levant, who in February 2006 republished Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his now-defunct magazine the Western Standard, which resulted in, among other things, two complaints of discrimination before the Alberta human rights commission. One complaint was withdrawn, but the other continues. If it is upheld, Levant could face a large fine, a lifetime order not to talk about radical Islam disparagingly, and be forced to issue an apology. If Levant does not comply with these orders, he could be imprisoned for contempt of court. Fatima tried to find the right words to explain the depth of the emotions at stake. The cartoon issue really, really hurt Muslims around the world, she told an audience that included congressional staffers as well as officials from the departments of State, Justice, and the media, and various human rights advocates, including a pair of Buddhist monks in bright robes. There are certain things that should not be said. Ultimately, though, Fatima concluded that a journalist should be, as she put it off the hook. Her government has not been so generous. Pakistan and the other nations that have banded together in the Organization of the Islamic Conference have been leading a remarkably successful campaign through the United Nations to enshrine in international law prohibitions against defamation of religions, particularly Islam. Their aim is to empower governments around the world to punish anyone who commits the heinous act of defaming Islam. Critics say it is an attempt to globalize laws against blasphemy that exist in some Muslim countries - and that the movement has already succeeded in suppressing open discussion in international forums of issues such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and gay rights. The campaign gives a new global context in which to view Levant's ordeal and other recent attempts to censor or punish Canadian commentators, publishers and cartoonists. Human rights cases were brought against this magazine for the October 2006 publication of an excerpt of a book by Mark Steyn that, the complainants alleged, subjected Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt. David Harris, a former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, was sued for remarks he made on the Ottawa radio station CFRA linking a Canadian Islamic group to a controversial American organization. And in May, a Nova Scotia
