Political bias? We are talking about the vast majority of Americans who believed Quayle was a joke.

For your information, the majority of Americans are not conservatives. They don’t like Quayle, and they don’t like Palin. For some reason a certain anti-intellectual streak in conservative politics works in these folks’ favor, but they are, in fact, national jokes.

And by the way, I believe if you go back and look, you will find that Pat Buchanan and a number of other right-wing pundits admitted in 1988 that Bentsen’s insult was a political masterstroke.

As for JFK, I don’t think he was all that. I think he was tremendously overrated. I wouldn’t deny, however, that the polls show that lots of people think he was, in fact, all that.

As for Dukakis losing the election, every political analyst in America, including conservative ones, said that was due to problems at the top of the ticket.

Bottom line– Dan Quayle was one of the biggest imbeciles to ever run for national office. And Bentsen, by pointed that out, offended a few extremist wingnut conservatives who think imbeciles are really the brilliant ones, while pointing out what the vast majority of Americans felt about Quayle anyway.

And it was just a great insult. If it hurt Quayle’s feelings, all the better.

Nobody, to my knowledge, called him a jackass.

Dan Quayle became a national joke

You are revealing your political bias here. Plenty of people called Bentsen a jackass. You approve of Bentsen’s churlishness because it confirms your bias.

Not everybody thinks JFK was all that, anyway.

Once again, this was said in the context of a vice presidential debate and Bentsen and his running mate lost that election. So it was not effective, except for people who enjoy seeing other people talked to rudely.

Bentsen served a distinguished career in the Senate, and then went on to be Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration. He died with bipartisan acclaim that he had a great record of public service. Nobody, to my knowledge, called him a jackass.

Dan Quayle became a national joke and served four totally undistinguished years as Vice President. After leaving that office, he has been completely unable to restart his political career (despite being liked by many conservatives) because he proved himself to be manifestly intellectually underequipped for office. He has faded into obscurity.

So just on that level alone, I think Bentsen had the last laugh.

But more generally, you are just wrong. Quayle WAS unqualified and not up to the job, and Bentsen’s put-down– and Quayle’s blubbering response– became the perfect symbol of this. Indeed, one of the amazing things about the unreality that conservatives live in is they are making the same mistake again with Sarah Palin.

Bentsen’s put-down is one of the greatest and most devastatingly effective political arguments made in my lifetime– and it had the additional aspect of being absolutely true and justified. That insult made the case against Dan Quayle better than any speech could have, and it will (thankfully) ensure that Mr. Quayle will never hold a position of power again.

Quayle: Three times that I’ve had this question — and I will try to answer it again for you, as clearly as I can, because the question you’re asking is, “What kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have to be president,” “What kind of qualifications do I have,” and “What would I do in this kind of a situation?” And what would I do in this situation? [...] I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur.
Judy Woodruff: Senator [Bentsen]?
Bentsen: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

How nasty that was. What did Bentsen accomplish, except to reveal himself to be a jackass? He certainly didn’t win the election.

A nice example of insult that had great value as political expression:

“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Read Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Essentially, that JUSTIFIED insult can be a very persuasive means of expression, and can expose people DESERVING of ridicule to ridicule.

So if, for instance, you have a friend or spouse who you want to have tender feelings toward you, you have to protect that by not being ugly all the time and forcing that person to become thick-skinned.

But that’s the difference between the moral duties one has in interpersonal communication, and public discourse.

For instance, certainly, there’s no reason for anyone to, say, call Bill Clinton a no-good philanderer at a social dinner with the Clintons. But I have no problem with anyone saying it on MSNBC or Fos News.

No, because they reject those theories on the basis of scientific reasoning.

That said, you miss the point. The point is that everyone denies the existence of Gods, but lots of religious people don’t want to hear anyone deny the existence of their own God while retaining the right to deny the existence of other Gods. It’s pure special pleading.

Thick skin is not sensitive.

So if, for instance, you have a friend or spouse who you want to have tender feelings toward you, you have to protect that by not being ugly all the time and forcing that person to become thick-skinned. Even among people who are not your friend or spouse, if you keep hurting their feelings, they’ll be forced to adopt a cold and uncaring attitude toward you out of self-defense. When do you see that as being an advantage?

Bottom line, insult can be a particularly effective form of expression in certain circumstances, even if it hurts the feelings of the person being insulted.

Can you give me an example?

Here are some things that insult can achieve.

1 – The perpetrator gets some kind of catharsis.
2 – The person on the receiving end will now be damned if she’ll consider the perp’s point of view, whereas she might have if he’d been more courteous in his expression.
3 – Onlookers will probably conclude that the perp is a jerk, except his friends, who will encourage him with “I guess you told her!” and things of that nature. But may secretly think he’s a jerk anyway.

What am I missing?

This is interesting because this is a point that atheists and agnostics often make. Believers are atheists too– they reject every other religion but their own. Everyone is in the business of denying that gods exist, including believers, so they shouldn’t get their panties in a wad when other people deny that their gods exist.

Are people who reject the theory of phlostigon or aether — that is, who reject every scientific theory except the ones not rejected — thereby anti-science or ascientific?

If so, then it would follow that all scientists are ascientific.

Bottom line, insult can be a particularly effective form of expression in certain circumstances, even if it hurts the feelings of the person being insulted.

I would add one other thing– in the grand scheme of things, avoiding hurt feelings isn’t very important. The best cure for hurt feelings is a thicker skin. Certainly better than the government telling other people that they can’t say things.

Laura(southernxyl): We will have to agree to disagree on this one.Tell me about a time when somebody irritated you by being rude and insulting, and it accomplished anything at all worthwhile (besides alerting you that that person was a jerk).

There was the time the (hippies/clinic protesters) called me a “baby-killer” and spat on me. That accomplished the worthwhile end of saving the life of the (Vietnamese soldier / baby in my girlfriend’s womb) that I didn’t kill, upon reconsidering my course of action.

(1) the right to insult people is an important freedom

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Tell me about a time when somebody irritated you by being rude and insulting, and it accomplished anything at all worthwhile (besides alerting you that that person was a jerk).

I merely gave the examples I did because I don’t think the limitation to abuse or insult actually narrows the statute in a concrete manner. All of those statements could be construed as insults, or as factual charges.

The bottom line is we would all be better off if religious ideas were subjected to exactly the same scrutiny as any other ideas. And I might add that I don’t think this would necessarily result in a world of non-believers either– plenty of people, for instance, believe in astrology, ghosts, past lives, etc., despite the fact that those ideas are unsupported by evidence and are, unlike at least traditionally accepted religions, not immune from criticism in polite society.

I’m merely pointing out that disagreeing with another person’s religion does not violate it.

You can express atheism all day long without triggering this law.

If your problem is that people can be nasty about atheism without triggering it, I’m not disagreeing with you.

I wish people in general did not feel the need to slam each other. Isn’t it enough to speak for yourself?

How about the following statements:

“Jews are damned to hell because they rejected their Savior”

“Mormonism is an un-Christian fraud perpetrated by a false prophet”

“Islam is a violent, murderous cult which sponsors and encourages suicide bombings”

“Scientology isn’t a religion, it’s a tax dodge”

“Atheists are by their very nature immoral, because it is impossible to have moral guidance if you do not worship God”

“Orthodox Judaism imposes medieval rules that oppress women”

“Theism is wishful thinking and a fantasy that is outdated and has been overtaken by scientific discovery, and only uncritical simpletons still adhere to it”

Which of the foregoing statements, if any, violate this law?

It defines blasphemy as “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion…”

Statement 1: “I believe in the Trinity and therefore I do not worship Ganesh and Kali, etc.”

Not illegal.

Statement 2: “X belief is stupid and immoral, and you are an idiot for believing it”.

Illegal.

I suspect, however, that just about every Christian, for instance, denies the existence of the Roman or Greek pantheon of Gods.

I don’t think there’s anyone who doesn’t deny the existence of SOME gods. So why is denying the existence of ANY god any different in terms of causing offense?

Dilan Esper: It appears to me that you are coming as close as you can to asserting that there is no J-C god. For the purpose of such a god, that makes you an atheist. IMO. This is interesting because this is a point that atheists and agnostics often make. Believers are atheists too– they reject every other religion but their own. Everyone is in the business of denying that gods exist, including believers, so they shouldn’t get their panties in a wad when other people deny that their gods exist.

You’re confusing creed and religion. Some religions don’t claim to be solely correct, and it isn’t just the small Quaker and Unitarian-Universalist groups. Non-dogmatic Buddhists fall into that camp. In addition, not everyone in a pew is 100% in agreement with the dogma.

Laura(southernxyl): And I don’t appreciate people who don’t know me telling me what I don’t know. “Christians fail to realize…”. Christians realize all kinds of things.

No offense intended. You seem to be missing the problem in stating that one can be atheist in relation to ONE conception of deity. Atheism, by definition, requires rejection of Buddhist theism AND rejection of Christian theism. I took NI to be making a similar point with his question – other conceptions of deity don’t fit the definitions being used above very well.

This is interesting because this is a point that atheists and agnostics often make. Believers are atheists too– they reject every other religion but their own. Everyone is in the business of denying that gods exist, including believers, so they shouldn’t get their panties in a wad when other people deny that their gods exist.

As we explained in Saints Constantine & Helen Greek
Orthodox Church v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895, 897
(7th Cir. 2005), that section of the Act “codifies Sherbert v.
Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963),” which Boerne v. Flores “reaffirmed
. . . insofar as [Sherbert] holds that a state that has a
system for granting individual exemptions from a general
rule must have a compelling reason to deny a religious
group an exemption that is sought on the basis of hardship
or, in the language of the present Act, of ‘a substantial
burden on . . . religious exercise.’

If you’re in the business of granting exceptions to anyone, you’ve got to also grant exceptions to religion. World Outreach Conference Center v. City of Chicago, No. 08-4167 (7th Cir. C.A., Dec. 30, 2009), The case held that since zoning boards are empowered to grant waivers, Chicago’s zoning laws are not laws of general applicability — so Smith doesn’t apply.

Indeed, I am also not a lawyer but I believe Employment Division v. Smith pretty much did away with the idea that there is a constitutional obligation to give religions special exemptions from neutral, secular laws.

But the 3rd Circuit case Police v. City of Newark (written by then-Judge, now-Justice Alito) suggests that genuinely neutral secular laws are hard to come by. In that case, the City of Newark exempted police offers with medical conditions from a prohibition on wearing beards, but did not exempt people on religious grounds. The 3rd Circuit held the law was not genuinely general — if a law permits exceptions for medical conditions (or for essentially anything else), then the law is not ‘general’, Smith doesn’t apply, and the Free Exercise requires also exempting religious belief.

Laws that don’t contain exemptions for medical conditions, emergencies, and similar are few.

When I said “for the purpose of the judeo-christian god” I meant “not for the purpose of pantheism or something like that” since when NI said

I don’t think the probability for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god is zero, but I think it approaches zero, and is close enough to zero that for all practical purposes it may as well be zero. So in theory, does that make me an atheist or an agnostic?

that is the only god he was discussing.

Also, three nits:

It’s atheist, not athiest; the etymology of the word was gone into on this thread.

Your assertion that Jews don’t condemn non-believers is not really relevant. To call someone an atheist is not a condemnation; if he says he is of the opinion that there is no god, it is a statement of fact.

And I don’t appreciate people who don’t know me telling me what I don’t know. “Christians fail to realize…”. Christians realize all kinds of things.

Laura(southernxyl): It appears to me that you are coming as close as you can to asserting that there is no J-C god. For the purpose of such a god, that makes you an atheist. IMO.

Of course, this is the mischief with discussing athiesm and agnosticism with Christians (“Judeo-Christian” is meaningless in this context, as Jews don’t condemn non-believers).

Most non-thiests don’t consider the trinitarian deity to be a special case, but Christians do. Christians (excluding the non-creedal micro-minority) also fail to realize that their belief system is most like the conservative Muslims, and very different from the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and essentially everyone else in terms of required “belief”.

Possibly. Or it could be a ploy by the Catholic Church to stop people from looking into it’s abuse of boys in the orphanages over the last five or so decades.

But I think it’s neither. Rather, it is an attempt to regain a sense of the Victorian in daily life. “When I think that our parents can prevent us from ever marrying, my sweet, I think that it can only be an evil God who would keep us apart.” “Don’t say that, my darling! That’s, that’s …. blasphemy!”

Here is the case I was thinking of.

The case was settled. Here is the consent order.

Nashala Hearn shall be permitted to wear a hijab while a student in Muskogee Public Schools effective immediately. Such hijab shall cover the hair, neck and ears of the student, but not her face.
Nashala Hearn shall otherwise comply with the School District’s dress codes, including the uniform requirements at the Muskogee Seventh and Eighth Grade Center, as they exist at the time of the execution of this agreement.

SW: That’s not true in the military, Laura.

And I believe you’re not a lawyer but I would like to see a case re the hajib being exempted from a school dress code under the Constitution (ie., not a statute).

Indeed, I am also not a lawyer but I believe Employment Division v. Smith pretty much did away with the idea that there is a constitutional obligation to give religions special exemptions from neutral, secular laws. Legislatures are free to provide for religious exemptions within the statute but there is no constitutional obligation to do so.

I doubt a French-style law banning all religious imagery in public schools would survive a First Amendment challenge since such a law specifically targets religious expression. On the other hand, my understanding is that if the government can meet a certain burden in showing it has a legitimate interest in banning hats and other head coverings, it could well be constitutional.

My googling shows that the 3rd circuit did indeed rule that a female Muslim police officer was not entitled to a constitutional exemption from the Philadelphia Police Department’s uniform requirements because she wanted to wear a headscarf while on duty.

We’ll see if IrishReader or those who believe that this law was passed out of PC to mollify Muslims was correct once the first prosecutions occur under this law. I think we will discover that IrishReader is mistaken, but will be happy to admit I’m wrong if this law is applied evenhandedly to all blasphemers.

I’ve closely followed the remorseless, implaccable march of Islam all over the world for the last several years, through violence, intimidation and lawfare, and I doubt very much I’ll have to admit to being wrong about this.

And I believe you’re not a lawyer but I would like to see a case re the hajib being exempted from a school dress code under the Constitution (ie., not a statute).

For instance, in a school system that prohibits headgear, Muslim girls must be allowed to wear the hijab.

First, the Supreme Court, rightly or wrongly, has interpreted the Establishment Clause broadly, significantly beyond prohibiting any literal State establishment of a church, or State favoring of concrete religious v. secular institutions. E.g., School prayer & school funding cases, which bar the State from privileging religious over secular people, ideas or institutions.

In the present matter, we have two individuals, both identical with regard to their firmly grounded moral objection to participation in war. The one bases this objection on religion, the other bases it upon a secular philosophy. The former gets conscious objector status because of the religious basis; the later fails to get objector status, precisely for the lack of such a religious basis. This seems to be “respecting an establishment of religion” within the meaning of the Establishment Clause, under current jurisprudence. (I think your 1st post in reply to mine was cryptic or nonsensical.)

Second, privileging religion – by allowing only religious individuals to get objector status – is not required by the Free Exercise Clause. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Employment Division of Oregon v Smith (1990), held (in the context of criminal law) that generally applicable laws, which incidentally burden religious people or institutions, do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. A law requiring certain individuals to serve in the military “burdens” the morally objecting theist or secularist alike, and present Supreme Court jurisprudence does not mandate a carve-out from that burden favoring only religious objectors.