The God Delusion - Chapter 1

[otseng]

I'll kick off the debate on chapter 1 with a few questions. Feel free to add more questions for us to debate.

What does Dawkins mean by "deserved respect"?
Does religion really have "undeserved respect"?

[Confused]

I'll kick off the debate on chapter 1 with a few questions. Feel free to add more questions for us to debate.

What does Dawkins mean by "deserved respect"?
Does religion really have "undeserved respect"?

I believe that the undeserved respect Dawkins refers to is the tendency for people to simply leave anything associated with religion alone, regardless of merit, worth or even ethics.
To some extent I agree with Dawkins here. Religion is a very protected entity. Occasionally it is so protected that it goes overboard. On the other hand, I do not feel that it is ALWAYS overprotected. In some cases it is flat out attacked (like what occurs on occasion with the ACLU). It has certainly been shut down recently like with the creation lawsuits in Penn.

Regarding these circumstances, Dawkins is incorrect that religion is given undeserved respect.

In my opinion, religion (in the USA) is protected to a good degree. Not to much, not to little on average. Of course there are instances which overstep "normal" boundaries, but on average, I'd say the defense of religious values is well balanced with reasonable acceptance of opposing views.

Deserved respect I believe refers to aspects of society which have been tested. Science for example is able to be tested. Since Dawkins is a scientist, it doesn't surprise me that he would try and compare science and religion despite the fact that religion can never be tested in the same manner as science and is therefore set up for failure when given the "Dawkins Deserving Test".

I think I have to disagree here, sorry. In terms of undeserved respect: I agree in what it means, however, I do think it is overused. I think the court case with the childs t-shirt he wore to school is a good example. Had one worn a t-shirt that said blacks should be slaves, would the courts decision be the same? These may be seen as rare examples, but they are extreme enough to warrant a tipping balance towards underserved respect. The lawsuit in Penn wasn't cut off because of religious aspects, it was cut off because it was trying to use ID as an alternative to evolutionary theory, ie. a scientific theory. The problem is that ID isn't a scientific theory. So this doesn't give an opposing example that would negate the claim made by Dawkins.

Taking the case of the t-shirt, I do not see what was really wrong with it.

It was expressing his opinion. No where does it say that we should persecute attack or anything else because those people are sinning. It simply says they are sinning or wrong.

Even Dakwins points out that the shirt would have been defendable based on freedom of speech. The fact it was defended based on a different clause brings me to ask "so what?". It was defendable under both, so why make a big deal about which path of defense was taken? All it indicates is that freedom of religion coincides with freedom of speech under these circumstances.

Is there a problem with freedom of religion and freedom of speech resulting in the same decision?

How is this evidence that religion is given undeserved respect? If anything THIS example should show that the religious defense had DESERVED respect since it agreed with a decision which didn't use religion at all.

Actually, in the case of the T-shirt, the supreme court wouldn't have ruled in favor of the childs parents had it been on the basis of freedom of speech. That is why the organization didn't base its suit on it. Instead, it was on the merit of freedom of religion. That is why they won the case.

Regardless, I have a serious issue with a 12 year old child wearing it to school. I am finding it very common for people to say that it isn't wrong to be offensive. But they are basing it on adults, not children. A 12 year old who may have been adopted by homosexual parents shouldn't have to deal with such crap in school. That to me is flat out wrong. Period.

The decision wasn't based on religion????? Wrong. Read again. On page 23 "

The parents might have had a conscionable case had they based it on the first amendments guarantee of the freedom of speech. But the didn't, indeed, the couldn't, because free speech is not deemed to include 'hate speech'. But hate only has to prove it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate. So instead of freedom of speech, the Nixons' lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion. Their victorious lawsuit was supported by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, whose business it is to 'press the legal battle for religous freedom".

Religion won that: and it was undeserved.

[achilles12604]

[Confused]

I think you have the wrong case: Here is yours: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... ethel.html

Just the essentials of the case:

BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 ET AL. v. FRASER, A MINOR, ET AL.
No. 84-1667
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
478 U.S. 675
July 7, 1986, Decided

BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result. MARSHALL, J., and STEVENS, J., filed dissenting opinions.

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly.

I

A

On April 26, 1983, respondent Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly. Students were required to attend the assembly or to report to the study hall. The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. Students who elected not to attend the assembly were required to report to study hall. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.

Two of Fraser's teachers, with whom he discussed the contents of his speech in advance, informed him that the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it," and that his delivery of the speech might have "severe consequences."

During Fraser's delivery of the speech, a school counselor observed the reaction of students to the speech. Some students hooted and yelled; some by gestures graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to in respondent's speech. Other students appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. One teacher reported that on the day following the speech, she found it necessary to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson in order to discuss the speech with the class.

A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of obscene language in the school provides:

"Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures."
The morning after the assembly, the Assistant Principal called Fraser into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of this rule. Fraser was presented with copies of five letters submitted by teachers, describing his conduct at the assembly; he was given a chance to explain his conduct, and he admitted to having given the speech described and that he deliberately used sexual innuendo in the speech. Fraser was then informed that he would be suspended for three days, and that his name would be removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement exercises.

This would be about a speech a child wanted to give, not at t-shirt. Review your evidence.

[achilles12604]

I think you have the wrong case: Here is yours: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... ethel.html

Just the essentials of the case:

BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 ET AL. v. FRASER, A MINOR, ET AL.
No. 84-1667
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
478 U.S. 675
July 7, 1986, Decided

BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result. MARSHALL, J., and STEVENS, J., filed dissenting opinions.

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly.

I

A

On April 26, 1983, respondent Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly. Students were required to attend the assembly or to report to the study hall. The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. Students who elected not to attend the assembly were required to report to study hall. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.

Two of Fraser's teachers, with whom he discussed the contents of his speech in advance, informed him that the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it," and that his delivery of the speech might have "severe consequences."

During Fraser's delivery of the speech, a school counselor observed the reaction of students to the speech. Some students hooted and yelled; some by gestures graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to in respondent's speech. Other students appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. One teacher reported that on the day following the speech, she found it necessary to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson in order to discuss the speech with the class.

A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of obscene language in the school provides:

"Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures."
The morning after the assembly, the Assistant Principal called Fraser into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of this rule. Fraser was presented with copies of five letters submitted by teachers, describing his conduct at the assembly; he was given a chance to explain his conduct, and he admitted to having given the speech described and that he deliberately used sexual innuendo in the speech. Fraser was then informed that he would be suspended for three days, and that his name would be removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement exercises.

This would be about a speech a child wanted to give, not at t-shirt. Review your evidence.

When did I cite this case?


I just re-read my entire post and it isn't there. I gave links. Not one of them addresses the case you have given here.


I acquired my cases from the Dawkins book and the LA times article Dawkins cited.


I have the right cases, and the right links. look again.




http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06c/gr090.html - This case was mentioned in the LA Times article that Dawkins cited as evidence for his position.

http://www.plastic.com/comments.html;si ... 050;cid=44 - This is the same case as above, again cited by the article in the LA times, used by Dawkins.

http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?T ... &DID=36777 - This was the actual court case involving the T-shirt as Dawkins described.



http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... ethel.html - THIS ONE I DID NOT PRESENT AT ALL in my above post. I have no idea where you got it, but it wasn't from me.

[Confused]

Read the whole thing:

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/NixonOpinion.pdf

I stand corrected. He did argue for his first amendment right. The school failed to prove the criteria required as set forth by the case I mentioned above.

[achilles12604]

Read the whole thing:

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/NixonOpinion.pdf

I stand corrected. He did argue for his first amendment right. The school failed to prove the criteria required as set forth by the case I mentioned above.

No prob. Thats what I'm here for.

Like I said, we should not take Dawkins words as fact per se. There is an old military expression :

Trust . . . but verify.

[jjg]

Which chapter deals with the evils of Christianity like Hitler being a "lapsed Catholic."

[Confused]

I don't think my last post was really reflecting what I meant for it to. Overtired is a curse. Let me try again:

My apologies to Achilles. I got the cases mixed while evaluating the links you provided with the Tinker case being used as a standard for the Nixon trial. I commend you on your research. After much searching, I found the actual case documents and found that you were completely right. There was no grounds for what Dawkins had listed. His argument has no basis in the context he has given it.

I will add, however. That despite the ruling, I don't agree with it. Whether it is on the grounds of free speech or whatever, I don't think that shirt is appropriate for a school. But after reviewing the Tinker case as well as the other cases listed in the trial transcripts, I don't agree with the ruling of them either. Though many of the case laws listed didn't even address religion, the findings and rulings of the courts to allow some t-shirts with messages that I find to be morally and ethically reprehensible to be worn in public elementary and high schools were wrong. I think as a parent, the Nixon parents weren't considering the effects that such a shirt might have on children of Islamic parents, homosexual parents, etc... If this is the message that they wish to send, then I have to say that I wouldn't want my children around theirs.

However, praise is definitely warranted in the diligence of Achilles to uncover this lie.