Slashdot Mirror

> I'm not religious, but identifying people as enemies just because of their belief systems is silly.

Even when their "belief systems" include justifying the threat of nuclear civil war as a means to end legal abortion?

http://www.christiangallery.com/strategy.html

Atomic civil war. Now that's a thought worth pondering...

• 
  Nobody's exactly sure why or how the FBI got warrants to take Indymedia's HDs, but their speculation tends to center around the fact that the Feds were spooked by the fact that Indymedia was able to publish RNC delegate names. This unfortuantely means political motivations are going to be questioned no matter what reasoning is brought forward.

IIRC, there is a anti-abortion group that was putting information on abortion doctors on the web that was forced to remove the site as they were used for murdering the doctors listed. I wish I could remember the name of the site, and searching for anti-abortion or pro-life will get me more hits than I care to wade through. Anyone remember the case I'm talking about here?

Sorry, you don't recall correctly. The right to list the abortion doctor's names was upheld in just the same way in the case in the article. you can visit the site here if you really want to. Doctors names and addresses are on this page.

IIRC, there is a anti-abortion group that was putting information on abortion doctors on the web that was forced to remove the site as they were used for murdering the doctors listed. I wish I could remember the name of the site, and searching for anti-abortion or pro-life will get me more hits than I care to wade through. Anyone remember the case I'm talking about here?

Sorry, you don't recall correctly. The right to list the abortion doctor's names was upheld in just the same way in the case in the article. you can visit the site here if you really want to. Doctors names and addresses are on this page.

Sometimes speech is criminal, e.g., you can't shout "Fire!" ina crowded theater; and web sites are a form of speech.

The "Nuremberg Files" anti-abortion site case in the example I think of. This is not to say legal action was successful -- here's the latest version of the site -- but note they are heeded the 9th Circuit's "hysterical" decision.

Even if this case was wrongly decided, it's not hard to imagine more dire circumstances such as someone publishing American troop movements during wartime. If, for example, Al Queda were posting its marching orders on a web site, that act would be a crime and the web site could be suppressed. There's plenty of case law on this at the Supreme Court level, and note these are examples of applying the 1st. A. rather than ignoring it.

Much more intelligent discussions of this can be found from sources such as EFF and of course the ACLU. These organizations argue for the more expansive interpretations of the 1st A. and their views do not necessarily represent the current state of the law.

Shoddily and over-specifically summarizing centuries of legal tradition, America has the extremely circumspect definition that only speech which "directly incites" other parties to "violence" is not "protected speech" under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

So in theory, in America, a website might be considered illegal if it were instructing protesters to take violent actions. But even in this, U.S. courts have at various times (though certainly not always) proved extremely conservative about what an "instruction" is - as a general rule, "let's teach the bastards a lesson" doens't qualify; not even "bring your baseball bats" would. The former could be considered rhetorical or non-specific, and the latter doesn't tell anyone what to do with the bats (could be self-defense, for instance). Only speech which names names, places, or specific acts in a totally clear and unambiguous way, such as "John, attack any police who come into your sector with rocks" has tended to qualify the speaker as a party to a conspiracy to commit a criminal act.

Despite this unprecedently liberal view of free speech, America has not degenerated into anarchy, much to the chagrin of a number of European political philosophers.

In the case of the websites being shut down, there are no examples of what qualifies, only a vague reference to anti-WTO organizations. Though anti-WTO protests have a repuation for violence, the organizations behind them are uniformly peaceful in nature and advocate nothing other than non-violent demonstration and, only at the most absolute extreme, vandalism or traffic violations. The most polite thing we can say is that it's often "unclear" whether or not the police or the protesters are the source of the violence in a given incident. Being more impolite, it seems that law enforcement is sent out in anti-protest activities with instructions that virtually guarantee violence ("There's a gang of young drugged-out commie agitators out there frightening citizens and stopping traffic. Here's all the clubs, pepper spray, and tear gass you need. We stand behind whatever actions you need to take 100%.") Telling it like it is, quite often the peaceful protestors get the shit gassed and jackbooted out of them without provocation, and when they post bail and go home, they see on the news that they were "violent" and thus, deserved it. Congratulations freshman, you've just passed Authoritarian Propaganda 101.

But I digress. It appears that by U.S. standards the interdictions being considered in Australia would be in gross violation of the 1st Amendment. Obviously territorial sovereignty means this should give an Australian politician little pause. But there is also relevant international law and widely-recognized (or so we all claim at Christmas) international declarations of human rights, which muddy the waters somewhat. Unfortunately, this doesn't give politicians much pause either - in the 1st world or the 3rd.

Ultimately, the American interpretation of the right of free speech is so strict because of constant and blatant experience with the abuse of police power to intimidate and silence political dissent - a totally undemocratic and illegal practice in almost every 1st world country... but politicians and police tend not to have themselves arrested and tried for it.

The bottom line is that (at least up until now - I don't want to speculate about the future) we've pretty much backed off silencing political speech in the U.S., no matter how inflamatory. The infamous example is the Nuremberg Files website, a hideous screed containing a list of abortion practitioners, where names are crossed off when one is murdered. Again - no specific instructions to murder any of them, so, despite a rough ride through the courts (this one is about as close as you can shave it), it is still running.

Americans do it this way because history has unambiguously taught them that what little reduction in "dangerous" activity you might get from trying to silence "dangerous" speech (and believe me, you don't get much) is far outweighed by the immense damage these things do to a functioning democracy.

Incidentally - when democracy breaks down, that's when you really get violence.

I think you're a poster child for propaganda. The moral of this story, as old as government itself, is that those in power will call any protest action "violent" or "illegal" in order to simultaneously suppress it and discredit it. Often, police agent provocateurs are even sent into a demonstration with instructions to commit violence themselves and urge others to as well, as "insurance" against particularly well organized protest groups. And that's happened in America. A loss of rights? Shutting the anti-WTO websites down because they "incite violence" is a classic case.

Bible.

In old testament, it teaches us that one nation is the "chosen race" of god who are superior. No, it's not just a silly myth -- millions of people really take it seriously and support the "chosen race" financially and politically and many are even ready to die for them.

In new testament, it teaches us that the abovementioned people are evil. Well, at least many popes and other Big Names such as Luther have interpreted it in that way. This has resulted in almost 2000 years of procecution, killing millions of the "chosen people".

It orders people to destroy temples and groves of other religions. Actually, the book says that the "God" of the book will kill all nonbelievers. This is a violation of freedom of religion, and certainly a sign of hate. You can find the word "hate" there countless of times. God hates this, God hates that. We can quite safely say that Bible teaches hatred.

I mean, really. Who are the people nowadays most often accused of hate crimes? Christians. Just look at this site or the infamous Nurenberg Files. Need I mention KKK? This is what is going on out there.

I don't support censorship, not even of hate pages. But if such pages or books should be banned, we definitely know the book to begin from. I believe it meets any criteria.

Of course, no western nation would take this seriously. If you're a Christian, you of course won't. No need to wonder why. Remember, even the sickest fundies preach the "message of love".

How the heck did that get lumped together in the same group with pro-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-semitic sites?!?!? Pro-Nazism, white supremacy and anti-Semitism are all hate-driven egocentric nationalistic racial biases. How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?

Blowing up Womens Clinics, then planting more bombs in the dumpsters outside to kill Policemen and Firemen are acts of Terrorism. Assassinating Doctors is Terrorism. Advocating political change through violence against a civilian population is advocating Terrorism. Checkout The Nuremberg Files, this is pretty clearly a website supported by a hate group and inspite of its Christian trappings, has nothing what so ever to do with the teachings of Christ.

Mind you, I do not advocate suppressing these sites, these people, as sick as they are, have the right to say whatever they want. However, Google is a private company, they recieve no government funding and is therefore within thier rights to de-list any site it feels is objectionable. It is no more censorship than a TV broadcasting company refusing to show full frontal nudity during prime time.

To an intelligent and open-minded individual, an intelligent true believer is like a good punching bag. You can whack them as hard as you want, but they always bounce back, and they never really know how to hit back.

You will find this hard to believe, I'm sure, since you've painted me as your enemy, but I appreciate the sincerity and tenor of your response. However, I'm sure you will understand, I am not writing for you. Just as a true believer must be sure that I will go to hell (with all its notorious accoutrements) for dying unrepentant with my beliefs, I have, though not a corresponding faith, a reasonable assumption that you are in no danger of questioning yours. I write for those others who are still capable of thinking for themselves.

Your painting of my writing as "baited" with "anti-Catholic hysteria" is, of course, a weak position to start from, since you have not-so-subtly failed to answer almost all of my points, while attempting to fall back on "victim" mentality; what many believers consider to be a kind of or "inherent" moral superiority. Furthermore, the insincerity of this retort is also fairly obvious, as, had you really believed this claim, you actually wouldn't have responded, rather than responding to point out that you couldn't be bothered to respond.

Religion is a game with words. Understand this thoroughly, and the entire tawdry mass of it becomes transparent. Out here, in the rational world, we use words as they are described in a dictionary. To the sophists of the church, this is nothing more than a weakness to be exploited.

Church opposition to fertility clinics was conducted with beautifully worded position papers and public speeches. Church opposition to abortion and stem-cell research was conducted with systematic violence, expansive and carte blanche political lobbying (or call it by its real name, "subversion"), and domestic terrorism. Yet to you, the Church's position is consistent on both. Until the next round of the argument, where you will, oh, who knows, deny the Church's involvement in politics, or sanction of violence, or claim that their opposition of fertility clinics was just as vehement and organized as their opposition to abortion or embryonic stem cell research. Or surprise me. Come up with something new. The Catholic Church officially condemns Usury, as well, but there is no "Jerusalem Files" website for bankers. Here, fair is fair, I've got something nice for you to read as well: it's called Doublethink.

You made no response to my mention of the Nuremburg Files, or the church's campaign against birth control (despite it being plastered all over that citation of yours), and you admit you are unwilling to engage in what would undoubtedly be an interesting debate over the status of the embryo - typical for someone who arrives at their beliefs by means other than facts and reason. You didn't comment on the church's undisputed and venerable history as a machiavellian political machine - you could learn a lot by having an open-minded discussion of history, you know. Say what you like of me, but don't say I'm not willing to discuss my points in a rational and honest setting. Now that God seems to be out of the bush burning business, that's how most people get their ideas, you see.

You elected not to discuss the peculiarities of the Church's humanitarian priorities, especially their unwillingness to become involved with environmental problems, problems of corruption, or colonialism, some of the chief sources of poverty, especially in the third world, where the Church claims to be so active. Yet you know, I think, your claims that such discussions are "hysterical" or otherwise out of bounds ring decisively false.

The Church rarely recruits adults. It knows it can only breed believers, or (perhaps) recruit them through indoctrination ("Catholic School") while they're still young. The vigor with the church encourages its followers to marry and produce children (your other responder, for instance, had clearly received his opinion about this "requirement" from church sources), and the inherent conflict between this and the duties of a moral person, clearly weight heavily on the minds of your text's author. You claim this is a matter of "hysteria." I much prefer the modern Catholic Church, because such criticism of the church policies in earlier times would have earned me a choice seat at a church barbeque. It makes "hysteria" sound like a real party. But really, I know what you'll say. Actually, you're the most predictable at the weakest juncture of your argument. If you want to surprise me, enter into an honest discussion of Church policy. If you analyze them the way you analyze say, North Korea (who is not nearly as well represented in world politics, I assure you), the conclusions are difficult to avoid. They want what most large bodies want. Survival. Growth. Or dispute me. But don't comfort yourself by thinking that your "hysteria" arguments, or the several other stock "I'm being baited by a Catholic hater" responses make very convincing rebuttal.

Your response to your other poster claims "the church doesn't require you to have children." How charitable. Would you care to comment on the paper referenced in that which you kindly provided for me, "Gaudium Et Spes"

"...married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family..."

You have the audacity to misdirect about the Church's blatant propagandizing of the procreative act? Please, don't neglect to comment also on the very paper you cited, HUMANAE VITAE, which follows, "Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life..." Your beautiful paper is in fact a pitiful compromise with the rhythm method (skimmers, point 16 is the good part). From point 30, to its own administrators, regarding its strict no-effective-birth-control-allowed policy, your paper says, "Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time." How many ways should we dance around it, hoeferbe? The Church is in the baby business! Just a hint, trying to minimize or deny it at this point just massacres your credibility...

The overlap between charity and recruitment. The objective analysis of religion in the context of information science, cellular automata or semiotic phenomenon. The church's role in the violence in Northern Ireland. Yes, even their unwillingness to institute zero-tolerance against pedophiles. All hysteria? You have a different definition of hysteria than the dictionary.

Did the end at any time justify the means, hoeferbe? Did it justify beheading Galileo? Or persecution of gays and lesbians? Did it justify what the church did in Yugoslavia in World War II? Am I hysterical, hoeferbe? Or, truthfully, is my honest and sober talk about the church's behavior rather sedate, in fact downright lazy, when anti-abortion terrorists, whom the church "officially" distances themselves from but unofficially provides the moral (and sometimes financial and logistical) support for (much like Osama bin Laden and the WTC bombers?), are carrying on an active and public murder campaign against Americans? I urge you, read your own side's literature, before you form any premature opinions about what hysteria really is.

I'm hysterical, indeed.

I guess that's the only thing you can tell yourself. Your alternatives would be to start really cranking up the Doublethink - try to bury all this under a deeper bed of lies. Or perhaps you could simply run away, and look for an easier (a more ignorant, pliable) conversational partner. That's the playbook, after all. May God have mercy on your soul.

Check it out for yourself. Cells. Caution not for the weak of heart.

It is too bad that the fundies have seized hold of this issue and bundled it with their twisted worldview.

The real question is when do you call your "bundle of cells" a human being. I believe that long before a baby is born they should be given the same basic human rights you and i enjoy. Just because a fetus cannot speak for themselves does not mean that they are inanimate objects that can be flushed down the toilet without regard.

I don't think the First Amendment protects my right to publish a web page that truthfully states:

Slashdot.org poster "Kilroy" is actually John Q. Smith, who lives at 123 Main Street, Apartment 3B, in Anytown, Utah.[...]

A website called "The Nuremberg Files", which lists personal information about abortion doctors throughout America (with a strikeout font for ones who have been killed) won an appeal against the doctors trying to shut it down, and throwing out a $109m verdict against the site.

Looking at Trummel's site, it looks like the "personal information" was just people's names, replaced with pseudonyms like "Tall Pygmy".

--
Benjamin Coates

It isn't just a blob of cells, although people would like to think that.
Take a look at some of the pictures here (warning, very gory stuff)

Well, if that hit list was a threat against the doctors, could their incitement to nuclear civil war be considered a threat against myself? More importantly, can I get lots of money in damages?

For crying out loud...this website advocates nuclear civil war to stop abortion. I'll fight for his right to say whatever he wants about abortion, homosexuals, whatever, no matter how vile he gets..but advocating nuclear civil war to get his way just takes the cake for me.