Hindus and Baptists

[Will Linden]

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Rob Weinberg wrote:
> "Religious speech" isn't a different category of speech deserving of
> additional protection merely because it is religious. Even proselytizing
> has been protected in these contexts not on free exercise grounds but on
> speech clause grounds.

> holy days, I observed and empathized when they went after the Mormons
> recently. I was unaware until Will's post that they were targeting the
> Hindus. I suppose Islam is next, if they haven't already.  While Jim
> decries being considered one of the "racists, sexists, anti-gays, born
> again bigots," for his political views, he appears unable to appreciate
> that his religious/political views are not a license -- at some point -- to
> start a fight, a riot or create mayhem.
  You seem to be taking the line that "religious" speech is a separate
category deserving LESS protection. Plenty of people think I am benighted
and ignorant for differing with their views on politics, society,
recreation, literature and music, and often tell me so in an offensive
manner. They often make me angry. Would it then be OK to legally silence
the Communist (yes, he was from the CP, so don't resort to "You call
everyone you dislike a Communist") who bodily blocked my path to deliver
his message (while lying s blue streak), or the character who followed me
shouting abuse because I would not buy his Beatles record?

Will Linden  wlinden at panix.com
http://www.panix.com/~wlinden/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y