Apropos the Tufts University's prohibition on blasphemy, the Tufts Daily has this quote:
The [Muslim Student Association] joined the case after the publication of an April 11 item in the Source saying that Islam is a violent religion. "We have to take it seriously," said junior Shirwac Mohamed, the MSA co-chair who will represent the organization at today's hearing. He said that many Muslim students, even those not normally active in MSA, have complained about the item.
"I looked at the article and was flabbergasted," he said. "It's intentionally putting a negative spin on Islam."
My first reaction was — welcome to America: We're allowed to intentionally put a negative spin on religion here, just as we're allowed to criticize any other ideology. There should be nothing flabbergasting about open debate in America, debate which doesn't assume that any religious belief is sacrosanct.
But I guess the joke is on me, because welcome to Tufts: A university panel (consisting mostly of faculty members) has concluded that in fact Tufts does not allow "attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing" that create a "hostile environment" through "unreasonable attacks based on [students'] religion." Or at least that's so when, in the commitee members' views, the criticisms of religion somehow manage to avoid "promoting political or social discourse"; somehow "putting a negative spin of Islam," which I would have thought is a form of political or social discourse, doesn't actually promote such discourse.
So, my apologies, Mr. Mohamed: You're right to be flabbergasted when people "intentionally put[] a negative spin of Islam," when you're in Tufts' No Unreasonable Anti-Religious Attitudes Or Opinions Zone.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Opinion Preliminarily Enjoining SFSU Civility Code
- San Francisco State University Civility Code Temporarily Enjoined:
- The New Anti-Blasphemy Laws:...
- FIRE's Greg Lukianoff on the Tufts Punishment of Blasphemy:
- "Intentionally Putting a Negative Spin on Islam" -- Flabbergasting!
- The New Anti-Blasphemy Rules, Again:...
- The Effort to Ban "Defamation of Religion" and the Democracy Deficit of International Law:
- Baltimore Hebrew University Professor Supporting Legal Penalties for "Negative Depiction of Religion":
- A New International Law "Value" -- Freedom from "Defamation of Religions"?
Theoretically, Professor Volokh. In practice between the PC left (which I imagine is the origin of the Tufts incident) and the religious right, criticism of religion as a practical matter in this country is non-existent, or else treated as a freakish and censure-worthy spectacle when it dares to rear its head. Try arguing for (or even admitting to being) an atheist in any public and many private forums Alabama. The backlash will likely cause whatever Tufts does to pale in significance.
Seriously, I am one of those "evil right-wing Christian conservatives" and I know quite a few atheists. You know what? I don't care, and they don't care that I attend church every Sunday. I think if we took a camera to Alabama and screamed outside of a church on Sunday morning that we were atheists, no one would care because they would be more concerned with beating the crowds to the Cracker Barrel.
I see so why in your so enlightened country is anti-semitism a crime? Surely that is an intentional negative spin on religion?
Putting a negative spin on Islam is acceptable, putting a negative spin on Judaism or Christianity means you lose state funding and are possibly jailed. Double standard or what?
Imagine the outcry if other religions were labelled violent. I suppose those loveable Settlers are so Ghandi-esque! I suppose those good ole Christian soldiers were so pacifist!
You response is what is ludicrous and crass.
Likewise, I've never heard of anyone being jailed in America (since the 1800s) for "putting a negative spin on Judaism or Christianity." Nor can one lose state funding for such speech under a generally available funding program (though when the government chooses which speech to engage in itself, to fund as its own expression, or in some measure to fund through a program that involves case-by-case quality judgments, it has more power to decline to fund speech it dislikes).
Might you enlighten us about exactly what incidents you're referring to?
Come to think of it, I think it's actually important for us to protect Tufts' right to behave in such an idiotic manner.
You seem to be mis-informed. Anti-semitism in this country is not a crime. In fact, it seems to be encouraged on many university campuses under the guise of one form or another of opposition to the existence of Israel.
I've never heard of anyone in this country being jailed for speaking negatively of Christianity or Judaism. Perhaps you can cite an example and enlighten me.
That’s been pretty much my experience as a (former) atheist (now agnostic). Most religious people (about 90 plus percent of my fellow citizens) don’t seem to care what people outside their family believe unless they are participating in any sort of evangelical outreach. And even then it’s usually limited to handing out copies of the respective religious books or promoting messages like “Jesus loves you” in the hopes of persuading people to join them. Which is sort of how having a society that values religious freedom is supposed to work.
As far as there not being any public criticism of religion in the United States, what alternate reality is he living in? American popular culture is decidedly hostile to the religious values that are embraced by the overwhelming majority of American citizens. Television and movies that show mainstream religions in a popular light are the exception rather than the rule.
As far as treating it as “freakish and censure-worthy spectacle,” I don’t believe for a minute that is true (although “freak” seems a generous description of the most prominent public proponents of atheism), but even if it were true, so what? So the 90 plus percent of Americans who believe in God and the 80 plus percent that participate in organized religious activities don’t agree with a few whiny malcontents who think they’re being “oppressed” by people who aren’t doing a thing to stop them from believing in whatever it is that they believe.
Grow the frack up.
You truly have no sense of the irony of this statement, do you?
You've gotta name some names -- whom are we talking about here?
Possibly possible. But I don't think so. The tipoff is his phrase "your so enlightened country." "Your" country? Which country is yours, Avi?
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm
has been putting a highly negative spin on religion in general for some time, and yet has escaped discipline.
Maybe it helps to be a university professor.
Well, Dennett tends to make general arguments against religion rather than specific attacks on any one, but yes, I do view the dichotomy there as hypocritical.
Richard Dawkins?, Daniel Dennet? Not freaks.
Michael Newdow? Not a freak, just an asshole. As an atheist, I wish he would STFU, we have bad enough PR as it is.
"Agnostic" is such a weasel word--you either believe in God or you don't.
Which rules (statute, case law) are those?
I see so why in your so enlightened country is anti-semitism a crime? Surely that is an intentional negative spin on religion?
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe, strictly speaking, anti-semitism in the US is only illegal when manifested in a discriminatory way that violates civil rights law. Such laws do not single out anti-semitism per se, but apply to all races and religions.
Actually, it is illegal in many places. While I'd certainly hope that the law gets struck down if anyone tries to enforce it, in Massachusetts blasphemy is against the law.
MGL, Chapter 272, Section 36: "Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment...."
I'm pretty sure Allah wasn't the God they were thinking of when they wrote that, but still, there was some reproaching of god involved, and definitely some exposing to contempt and ridicule somewhere in there.
Here's the link to the relevant portion of the laws of the great state that Tufts is in, in case you want to read the blasphemy law in its entirety (clipped off the punishment section when quoting above), or if you want to browse the generally goofy chapter 272...
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm
Tufts may have a right to have absurd restrictions on speech (I think they do and should). But that doesn't mean I shouldn't condemn the University for it's stupidity when they apply their absurd rules.
Tufts: You have the right to free speech, as long as we think it's good speech.
Nick
This is, of course, irrelevant to the Professor's post, and not particularly true. Can you cite any actual examples of this bigotry? Or the fact that there's no proof of it is proof of it?
Even assuming this is true (and I do not concede that, Dawkins in particular has gained a much higher profile recently), there is a larger point, namely, how exactly does one become the "public face" of atheism? The answer in the case of Newdow is by a media circus revolving around him serving as fodder for a whole lot of people to moan and moan about what dicks atheists are. In short, the "public face" argument begs the question: they become the "public face" of atheism through negative publicity directed solely at their atheism. Which sells a lot better than, "Daniel Dennett is a great philosopher and an atheist," or "Penn Jillette is a great comedian, magician, libertarian and an atheist."
Not that this state of affairs is limited to Tufts and Duke.
And it's not irrelevant, I made the point in connection with the fact that there is an extensive taboo in all areas of America connected with frank criticism of religion, whether in the specific ("Islam is a violent faith") or the general ("All religion is violent."). The manifestation differs depending on geography, context, etc., but it is real.
I think it’s largely true that in the public eye, the most prominent proponents of atheism aren’t authors on the lecture circuit who most people will never hear about – it’s the ones who file lawsuits going after the pledge of allegiance, nativity scenes, bibles in public libraries, and invocations at school graduations. Or the cretins who think they’re being clever trying to suggest that there is no meaningful difference between evangelical Christianity and Islam. It’s usually only when an evangelical atheist tries to get the court to intercede in a way that is going to be (rightfully) seen as an attack on traditional mores and institutions or goes out of their way to insult the beliefs of 80-90 plus percent of the public that the theistic majority really takes notice.
Including, to my surprise, California, where a man who dissed Scientology got 6 months.
Is it raining? You don't have to "either believe it is or believe it isn't." You can -- if you're indoors, for example -- just be agnostic and say you don't know.
If you're suggesting that agnosticism about the existence of a God isn't intellectually respectable, you have an extremely cramped view of what's intellectually respectable.
Furthermore, many people use the term "agnostic" in particular either improperly or else deceptively (i.e., someone claims to be an agnostic and then when pressed on the matter they admit they do have theistic beliefs...remarkably enough, strong ones many times).
Wheaton College in Illinois, for example, requires professors to take an oath forbidding the teaching of evolution as valid science. If we're willing to tolerate speech restrictions for sectarian institutions, why not secular institutions as well?
I'd much prefer to see someone like Dawkins be the public face of atheism. Perhaps a significant TV show for him would do the trick.
Nick
I agree that a TV show for Dawkins would be nice -- he does TV presentations in Britain fairly frequently -- though I am not sure a show would sustain itself merely on Dawkins vs. theism. I also think a lot of outlets would be afraid to air it: it's one thing to have him on as a guest arguing in opposition to someone arguing for faith. Giving him a platform is quite another thing, and I think a lot of advertisers would shy away from it.
That’s a pretty good summation of what the terms mean and how I’ve seen them most commonly used. FTR while my beliefs haven’t changed that much*, I switched from “atheist” to “agnostic” largely because it seemed that the people most eager to identify themselves as “atheists” seemed to have some bug up their arses about religion and weren’t content enough to have their beliefs but seemed driven by a desire to go out of their way to attack religion in general while holding themselves out as some sort of “victims.”
* As an atheist I was generally pretty moderate and always tolerant of the 90+ percent of my fellow theists who believe in God. It also helps when you have common cause with conservative evangelical Christians on issues like school choice, judicial restraint, and the war against Islamofascism.
WRT Newdow, the media circus is because he won in the Ninth Circuit. part of the Pledge of Allegiance being ruled unconstitutional for schools to lead students in was going to be huge news, but what made him the public face was his choice to act as his own attorney and do press interviews. The plaintiffs in the Ten Commandments cases that reached the Supreme Court are far less well known.
Nick
Second, the decision was made by a mixed faculty-student committee, which actually often is overruled. So to blabber on about the terror of liberal academia is a bit premature. Especially since the current Tufts administration has had some very prominent conservatives on campus- including a man who insists that homosexuality is a public health threat. This is not "PC university"; its a normal university. Read the christmas carol- most moderates in America would be offended.
Further, the administration released a statement about the carol when it came out, saying the club had a right to free speech and the President didnt support action against the group, but he felt the need to say something because of how hateful it was.
As someone whos been personally attacked in the paper when I was there in undergrad, though I welcomed it, I think the CSL decision is stupid. Mostly, because the Source is known for wanting to pick fights to provoke a a reaction from liberal groups on campus, and has no credibility on campus- only as a cause celebre of conservative national media. That's not "free speech", thats being an irresponsible journalist. This isnt about free speech, but the right to piss people off and make a name for yourself. Sure, they should be free to do it, but if the university didnt react, sadly, the Primary Source would wither and die because of how mean-spirited, offensive, and poorly written it is.
Maybe the truth is "psychologically intimidating".
Do you have links to substantiate any of this?
This isnt about free speech, but the right to piss people off and make a name for yourself.
To a large degree, free speech is the right to piss people off and make a name for yourself.
As a Tufts alumnus, Ive also gotten several emails and such from different alumni, current students, and the big issue was the carol, not the muslim "blasphemy."
And the whole point of "pseudo"-dishonesty is that nothings technically incorrect, but rather a misleading presentation of the facts as they are to shape an agenda. If you read any article about FIRE in what you likely identify as the "liberal-biased" mainstream media (aka anyone but Fox News), thats the charge being made. FIRE has an agenda, and understandably, it will shape the facts the way that advances that agenda.
As to Frank's comment, I don't disagree that one isnt a subset of another. But I think it is important to distinguish when people are trying to engage in actual debate versus when they're trying to be conservative martyrs. They may have the same right to, but one is a much more sympathetic view.
You missed the part about documentation/links. Then again, that would require you to argue on the basis of the evidence and more rationally, rather than leveraging general, categorical, presumptive forms. Following is at least a beginning in terms of documentation/links:
FIRE's commentary on the "Christmas Carol" parody/satire issue.
The Primary Source, examples of other, similar parody/satire, for the sake of comparison and contrast.
The offending "Christmas Carol" as originally printed in The Primary Source, with the note that "[t]he carol was intended as a satirical criticism of affirmative action and was, in fact, intended as an anti-racist statement."
Biteing and offensive satire, certainly, but it also falls within the category of social commentary. Perhaps it even warranted an apology (which was in fact forthcoming from the editors of The Primary Source), but hardly as offensive as, say, many of the lyrics found in Hip Hop music.
Btw, did anyone among the professoriate or the President at Duke ever apologize?
File under: A Study in Contrasts
I agree, you're free to condemn them for their stupidity. I'm just wondering why anyone really cares.
I guess I can imagine that a Tufts alum would be concerned that the university's obvious stupidity is devaluing his or her degree.
Aside from that, seriously, I just don't get it. Any number of private organizations, every day, impose all sorts of limitations on their members that, if imposed by the government, would violate the First Amendment.
There is a vast difference between people holding your professed beiliefs in disdain, and a belief being illegal (but you knew that).
In the northeast, in "respectable" circles, expressing a belief that homosexuality is morally wrong--not sick or perverted, just wrong--will likely cause you to suffer personal and professional damage. If you believe otherwise, you need to get out more. Hell, I take an "agnostic" view of homosexuality's moral dimension and I've been called a Nazi more times than I can count. Life is tough; wear a helmet.
I'm pretty sure that "Avi Cohen" was this poster's hasty replacement for the more obvious "Jewie Jewstein." It's a textbook leftist tactic: don the status of the target of your hatred, so as not to be called out on your disgusting beliefs.
Well "Avi," as everyone knows, anti-judaism and anti-christianity is NOT a crime in America. I'm sorry that folks like Avi are utterly incapable of logically defending their own
twisted perverted sexual fantasiesreligious beliefs, so they have to resort to blasphemy laws to protect their soft skulls from ridicule.If this kind of action was restricted to a single college campus then it really wouldn't matter. But there's at least a perception that this kind of PC free speech restriction - trying to prevent people from being offended - is rampant in American academia. As such is a concern because if most future leaders pass through an environment where such restrictions are embraced it could threaten free speech in society.
In short, tt's noteworthy because it's a symptom of a wider problem.
If the University reverses the Committee's judgment, I'll praise the University -- though I'd continue to condemn the University for having a broad and vague speech code that allowed the Committee to come to its conclusion.
The idea that it was all about the 'carol' (which I have not read) is contradicted by the statement "It's intentionally putting a negative spin on Islam," which was attributed to the other piece.
That Muslims at Tufts would be demanding suspension of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is to be expected. Muslims do that everywhere there are guaranteed freedoms.
Keep your eyes on the ball.
Nonsense! A theist believes that God exists; an athiest believes that God does not exist; and an agnostic believes that the human brain isn't powerful enough and/or doesn't have enough data to make a logical conclusion. What is 'weaselly' about that???
I suppose one could also define a sort of "meta-agnostic" who can't decide whether or not the human brain is capable of deciding, but I don't see where that's particularly weaselly either.
P.S.: Just to lighten things up, I suppose everybody's already heard the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stayed up all night wondering if there was a Dog ?
Hard to do when there's so much spin applied to it.
FIRE indeed has an agenda: opposing restrictions on freedom of speech in universities. Some of the cases they take involve restrictions on identifiably right-wing speech, and some of the people involved in FIRE are right wing, but I do not detect a right wing bias in FIRE's overall activities. With few if any exceptions I find that I support FIRE's positions even though I am solidly left-wing, a card-carrying dues paying member of a socialist party.
You're a Democrat?
I live in British Columbia. I am a member of the New Democratic Party of BC.
Aha!!! You're making a "think of the children" argument.
You're saying we quite sensibly complain at great length about plainly lawful (though idiotic) conduct by Tufts because we're concerned that future leaders of our country will go to Tufts (or similar dipstick private places), be turned into sheeple by these absurd excuses for universities, and then work to subvert the protections of the First Amendment. Right?
Is the end game here a full-fledged gulag, or does it stop short of that, with, say, only Al Franken allowed to broadcast on the radio?
Puh-leeze. I can't get too worked up about this alleged danger. Here's one remedy -- vote only for people who attended public universities. Problem solved.
I also trust the market. Having seen what Tufts is up to, what reasonable person would want to go there?
Finally, I trust young people, even though you obviously don't. Consider that 18- to 21-year-olds are actually ADULTS and are capable of rational thought about these matters. They aren't blank slates on which Tufts can write its braindead message of intolerance for free expression. The ones who buy that message are lost souls already. I trust the majority of Tufts students to make the right decisions about such things.
Even if they were dumb enough to go to Tufts.
Then again, I shouldn't be surprised by someone who is categorically saying everyone who goes to a college that has had serious debate and controversy around an issue is "dumb" because one panel voted a way he dislikes.... People fundamentally misunderstand what the freedom of speech as expressed in some of the other comment threads- particularly those who don't understand how this is constitutional. There are consequences for people's actions, and no, you don't have to keep funding people who say offensive things if you are a private university.
If everyone whos condemning the Tufts action was up in arms about the Solomon Amendment, then maybe I'd see some consistency. In reality though, this is turning, sadly, into a left v. right, those PC liberals claim, which is unproductive and intellectually vapid.
I agree that the decision was partially based on the MSA complaint. But this would not have been a big deal at Tufts if the carol hadn't been printed. Each issue of the Primary Source is not a blank slate, particularly at a small college. Notice I'm not saying that I agree with the decision on the free speech issue, but I think to not discuss the carol is dishonest, because it clearly played a role.
Pointer? (Based on a simple googling, it seems that's going to come as a big surprise to the faculty members who list evolution among their research interests, not to mention those who teach courses that deal specifically with evolution.)
(Pilfered, but fitting.)
I wonder if any university has restricted the right of students or faculty to criticize university policies as absurd. Unless anyone finds that possibility too far fetched, there are already prominent organizations that have such restrictions. For example, from the rulebook of the National Hockey League:
and
and
Note that any criticism of a ruling or of an official at anytime and anyplace if "coupled with any vociferous remarks" are grounds for being fined and even suspended although there is no definition as to what constitutes "vociferous remarks". Neither is there any uniform set of penalties. A player or coach could have his entire livelihood destroyed at the discretion of the Commisioner with no right to a defense or right to appeal.
Several years ago in reference to two coaches being fined for criticism of calls made in some games (the criticisms were made after the games), Colin Campbell, then NHL's executive vice-president and director of hockey operations, said, "Comments criticizing the performance of our on-ice officials violate the constitution and by-laws of our league and demean our great game. Such behaviour will not be tolerated."
Scotty Bowman, the first NHL coach to win 1000 games was fined $10,000 by the National Hockey League for comments he made contending that referees treat Russian players unfairly, a serious charge worthy of investigation.
So what is to keep private universities from prohibiting public criticism of university policies or administrators?
The reason why freedom of speech is an issue at secular institutions (eg. public universitites) and not sectarian institutions (eg. private colleges) is because the First Amendment generally prohibits public actors (not private actors) from restricting free speech.
Whoah. Unbelievable.
Let me get this straight: you DON'T think 18- to 21-year-olds are adults capable of rational thought?!?
So we shouldn't try them as adults in criminal cases, right, because of their reduced mental capacity? And I guess they ought not have a right to contract? Marriage ought to be out of the question, I suppose.
And obviously they shouldn't be allowed to enlist in the military. In fact, you must feel pretty bad about the fact that they're in Iraq and Afghanistan right now getting shot at by Islamofascists who would like nothing better than to kill you. They're mere children, after all. No doubt you've written your Congressman about this.
Oh yeah, there's that voting thing, but those idiot lawmakers have already screwed that up big time, huh?
[Different poster:]
Nothing, subject I suppose to whistleblower statutes or other employment laws. Why would you have it otherwise?
I think hyperbole was in operation here, and I notice you didn't exactly debunk his point that college students are capable of some pretty irrational behavior. As for "legal age" issue, good luck finding any consistency there. They're mature enough to vote, but too immature to drink. Old enough to get married, but not old enough to drive, etc. etc.
"I wonder if Muslim immigrants in the United States, or the West in general, are having a hard time appreciating that in the West, there is a concept of separation between state matters and religious matters."
I rather wonder if many Muslims come to the US precisely because they appreciate this fact.
So well said. Bravo for nailing it.
An agnostic might also believe there's no point agonizing over the question -- because knowing would change nothing. Oh, I suppose if I were the ONLY person to know for sure, and could prove that, it would change things for me dramatically (fame and status). But short of that, I think it would be about the same as knowing what number is in the 514th decimal place of pi.
As are 50-somethings, even ones elected to the White House. What do college students do that's more irrational (not to mention irresponsible) as getting a blow job in the Oval Office while talking to the leader of another country? Or Dubya's choice of the first bill he vetoed in six years in office?
Huh? Grover, name one place where 18 year olds can't drive. In most places, kids can and do get driver's licenses at 16.
And I do agree that the 21-yo drinking age is a crock. There is a "rational basis" for it in the legal sense (an extremely low standard), in that there is a huge gap between what you can expect from young people when they are actually concentrating on a decision - as you would expect when voting or getting married - and when they're just partying, but I don't think the law is working out well in practice. IIRC, it was supposed to correct an increase in drunk-driving deaths after the drinking age was lowered to 18, but it looks to me like the whole decrease in deaths from auto accidents can be explained by better safety standards for cars plus public campaigns against actually driving under the influence.
If the issue is having kids learning to handle drink while they're still inexperienced at driving, it might be better to set the drinking age at 14 and the driving age at 18 (say), so they get over the whole drunken fool thing before they're first behind the wheel of a car. The only problem with that is that highschoolers often need transportation that public transport does not provide except in major cities, which is why the driving age was originally set at 16, which seems to me to be as low as possible without unduly increasing the hazards...
Wrong. I'm an atheist not because I believe God does not exist, but because I treat that question under the same standard that would be used to evaluate the existence of anything else: the burden of proof is on those asserting his existence. If you find that there's no evidence of existence or nonexistence that will hold up, you should be an atheist, not an agnostic. Would you demand that non-believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster present evidence that it doesn't exist?
Some atheists believe firmly there is no god and others like markm just don't believe in any god that's been put forth.
Some agnostics don't believe in any god and other believe that it can't be know there is a god.
It seems we need some more precise labels.
Au contraire. Since we are part of the World, our experience of how we work is the only direct and undistorted evidence we have of how the World works. Since we work by will (it has at least the physical effect that we discuss it), the Theist Presumption must be that the World works by will and that the burden of proof is on those who assert it does not.
I can't make heads or tails of this. I don't even know if I should argue with you. Maybe we agree?
How about this: if I came to you and said I was visited in the night by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who then performed a miracle by raising my hamster from the dead, then:
(a) would I have the burden of proving this happened
(b) would you have the burden of proving it didn't happen or
(c) would we each get to claim the other had the burden?
If people work the same way the rest of the World does -- a classic tenet of materialism -- then it's also true that the World works the way we do. We know that 'will' has at least the physical effect that we talk about it, so it's fair to say that 'will' plays a role in how the World works.
If the World works consistently -- another classic tenet of materialism -- an efficient 'will' in us argues that an efficient 'will' operates in the parts of the World that are not us; hence, God, if not in very much detail.
Now, this isn't an absolute proof. It may be that 'will' doesn't really work in us, or that we don't work like everything else does. But it does set up a presumption that God, simply as Man Writ Large, exists.
Your FSM -- or even Yahweh -- is much too detailed a conjuration to be supported by this line of reasoning. I would suggest, however, that you refrain from worshiping hamsters and especially from sending contributions to the Hamster Hour of Power.
Unless they are college students.
It's not that college students start out dumber than, say, an age-mate who is fighting overseas, or starting a blue-collar job and saving to get married.
But college extends adolescence beyond any reasonable necessity. In fact, it could be said to infantilize the undergrads.
The dorm residents have fewer rules and obligations than they did at home, while the exalted status of accumulating more classroom seat time than their benighted brethren does nothing for a prudent sense of humility.
Outside of the hard sciences a "wrong" answer is generally a matter of opinion and all opinions are equal. So, The Kids already know it all. Just ask them.
I think there's a difference between satirizing a policy, and characterizing the beneficiaries of that policy as "boisterous" failures "from the ghetto." It is my experience that the satirist who aims high scores points, but the one who aims low is on his own.
Were either the quotes improperly quoted or the facts presented non-factual?
Since when do we call truth a 'negative spin'?
In my book, legitimate facts deserve legitimate airing. If they are unpleansant then so be it. A religion must be able to withstand legitimate "heat". Responding by trying to "kill the messenger" is, in my book, a proclmation of fear of the truth - not worthy of any religion.
-David