align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

Re: [CFI-Skeptics-of-Eugene] Article in Free Inquiry by UofO Student

From: SylviaB
Sent on: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:22 PM
Well put, Chris.

To ground this a little:

a) It was not charged that the Forum had engaged in violent acts or threats of violence.
b) The issue that brought up the "safety" concerns was a statement that had no political content. It's all in the FI article.

Sylvia

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Chris Lindberg <[address removed]> wrote:
Let's not forget the Christians. How may millions have they killed over the millennia in the name ?of their God? Just try to exclude them.

Clearly censorship is the wrong way to handle this. And would probably be illegal if disputed in court.

Yes, you open the discussion to all. You allow anyone who wishes to participate?into the discourse, whether they be?Nazis, Communists or Christians ... whomever. But it is perfectly legitimate to insist on a set of ground rules that wouldn't infringe on anyone's protected free speech. One of these could be no threats of violence to other panelists or to the audience. That is not protected speech, anyway. Neither is violent overthrow of the government or calls for murder or rape.

If you can agree to the ground rules, you can participate. I don't think anyone would consider that censorship. If you are going to have an open discussion, it must be inclusive. Or you risk becoming like that which you despise. If your ideas are worth a damn, if they are truly based in reason and fairness, then they should be worth putting out there as a counter to the forces of unreason and violence.?From there, you rely on reason to win the debate.

It is also very important to have a good moderator who has the guts to step in when someone violates the ground rules and shut them down. Again, I don't think this would be considered censorship.

But the audience needs to take responsibility as well.?The free expression of ideas is not always pretty.?It is not always peace, love and 'Kum-baya'. If you want it all sanitized for your protection, then freedom is not at all what you want.?I am not afraid of the purveyors of hate. I am willing to look them in the eye. Let's shine the light on them. If you are going to a debate that includes Nazis, you better have a thick skin. Deal with it.

It is better to persuade. But, realistically, you ain't gonna persuade a Nazi. It's the hearts and minds of the audience we need to concern ourselves with. Use the Nazi as a tool. Look here folks, this is the alternative to reason and open discussion. I welcome the challenge.

I don't buy the argument that this just legitimizes 'them'. Quite the contrary. What better way to discredit violent irrational beliefs??

Chris L.


On Jul 26, 2010, at 3:40 PM, SylviaB wrote:

Lowell,

two questions:

a) Should communists, for example, be denied speech because many Americans consider them a threat to public safety? In case you want to argue that communism isn't nearly as bad as fascism, let me remind you that it has proven to be a pretty nasty way to organize a society that has resulted in the death of millions of people under Stalin and the incarceration of many dissenters under subsequent communist regimes. So I'm really interested in whether you would deny speech to communists.

b) Is censorship the most effective way to counter bad ideas, or is it better to present the public with opposing arguments? Is it better to suppress or to persuade? (I am assuming, here, that you are not actually afraid of losing an argument with a Nazi.)

Sylvia



On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Lowell Thomas <[address removed]> wrote:
The Pacific Forum appears to have a penchant for inviting Nazi speakers for heaven's sakes. Nazis have raped tends of thousands (at least), murdered millions, stolen from millions, persecuted millions, repeatedly lied to the whole world to achieve their political ends, and they believe that so-called inferior races and nationalities are fit only to serve their interests. I am amazed that anyone would think that these people are NOT a threat to public safety.

Now, if I may put in a shameless plug. My last blog entry was entitled "Wanted: Committed Christians to pray for stupid, lowdown, atheist bastard." I suspect that you might enjoy it.

Lowell


On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Daniel Athearn wrote:

One culprit in all of this is the overrated status of the Southern Poverty Law Center and its "hate group" designation. Critics have charged it is a self-serving organization whose leaders appropriate toomuch of its funding from charitable donations for their own personal fortunes, do not treat their black employees well, is not well-rated for efficient use of donations by charity rating organizations, exaggerates the threat from white separatists and militia groups, and tends to be tendentiously pro-Zionist. Counterpunch magazine and several columns by Alexander Cockburn have brought these problems to light.?

Dan Athearn
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:33 AM, SylviaB wrote:

Everyone,

Check out this article by Megan Littlejohn in Free Inquiry:

http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=war_on_hate

It's called "The War on Hate" and addresses efforts to stifle free speech at UofO in the name of political correctness.

Megan is a member of the Alliance of Happy Atheists! (AHA!), a student group affiliate of the Center for Inquiry. AHA! and CFI Portland co-sponsored the recent talk by Hemant Mehta at UofO.

SylviaB





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by SylviaB ([address removed]) from CFI Skeptics of Eugene.
To learn more about SylviaB, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Daniel Athearn ([address removed]) from CFI Skeptics of Eugene.
To learn more about Daniel Athearn, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Lowell Thomas ([address removed]) from CFI Skeptics of Eugene.
To learn more about Lowell Thomas, visit his/her member profile

To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by SylviaB ([address removed]) from CFI Skeptics of Eugene.
To learn more about SylviaB, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Chris Lindberg ([address removed]) from CFI Skeptics of Eugene.
To learn more about Chris Lindberg, visit his/her member profile

To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy