Defamation of Religion

Paul Diamond pauldiamond at btconnect.com
Mon Aug 4 02:02:08 PDT 2008 

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" <richard.esenberg at marquette.edu>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Cc: <RJLipkin at aol.com>
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: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of RJLipkin at aol.com 
> [RJLipkin at aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:45 AM
> To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> Cc: RJLipkin at aol.com
> 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, 
> jlof at aol.com 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: RJLipkin at aol.com
> To: religionlaw at 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, 
> jlof at aol.com 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=aolspr00050000000020>.<http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to 
> Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> <http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>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=aolcmp00050000000014>! 
> <http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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=aolspr00050000000020>.
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 
> 01/08/2008 18:59
>
>
>

More information about the Religionlaw mailing list