Radio appearance discussing upcoming college talk

Reap and I at American Atheists' 2012 Annual Convention

I appeared on the June 27, 2012 episode of Reap Sow Radio to discuss my upcoming speaking engagement for a college-level philosophy course at Holy Apostles College and Seminary -- a fully-accredited evangelical Catholic university -- titled "Atheism and New Atheism." For my initial comments and more information about this upcoming speaking engagement, read the corresponding blog post on the matter that has also been reproduced on the Freedom From Religion Foundation's website. 

Download or stream the episode here.
(Warning: NSFW - Some language)

I start talking about the class and much more-- for about twenty minutes -- around the 35 minute mark.

Enjoy...and check out Reap's podcast, "The Angry Atheist," which has more than 85 episodes -- a new atheist in almost every episode -- featuring Todd Stiefel, Peter Boghossian, my friend Trinity, Bridget Gaudette of the new Secular Woman group, Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta, Emily Dietle, my friend and fellow NEPA Freethought Society member Karla Porter, D.J. Grothe, and many more! I was even on in June 2011! [Sorry, can't get everyone here.]

My protest of "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rally in Scranton, PA

Here I am at the "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rally in Scranton, PA with my protest sign also promoting the NEPA Freethought Society's website. In this post, in a narrative fashion of sorts, I will provide some of my thoughts concerning the rally and recount some of my protesting experience. I can write for hours about the bad arguments (and responses to my arguments) posed to me, but I won't do this and instead focus on some tidbits of my experience. Aside from my thoughts, the end of this post includes local print media coverage of the event via reporter Rich Howells writing for Go Lackawanna in which I was interviewed.



This Friday, I woke early to create a sign inspired by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) that I would bring with me to protest the "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rally in Scranton, PA. For those of you who were unaware of the event in Scranton (which had also taken place concurrently with other rallies nationwide), the rally was essentially a religious-based objection to Obama's Affordable Care Act on the grounds, at least according to many of the ralliers, that the Affordable Care act would 'trample religious freedom' because people of certain religious persuasions [namely Christians who find contraceptives and abortions to be mortal sins or some other evil] would be forced to 'violate their consciences' whether this would be dealing with funding contraceptives and abortions or Christians being forced to provide contraceptives and abortions to patients. This reasoning and objection could be phrased in various ways, but I won't go into this here because I want to focus on my protesting experience while giving my accounting concerning my thoughts surrounding the rally.



One of the first (and biggest) signs/banners I saw at the rally, pictured above, was quite interesting as it seemed to be evident that -- and my thoughts would later be validated -- there would be a contingent of people under the wide and general umbrella of 'tea partiers.' ...which is quite interesting because this rally, at least as I understood it (and the website for the event said), was supposed to be a religious objection rather than a political objection or, even more broadly, a political rally. I suppose, though, that many individuals were attracted and it needed not be the case that individuals were 'on the same page.'



As I walked around the rally with my sign -- mainly before speakers came onstage -- I ended up having some very interesting discussions with people who approached me and initiated conversation. The man pictured above, for instance, yelled "Devil come out of you!" at me and was quite hostile. There was no discussion with him... Others, though, even they didn't appear to be too learned (based on their responses to my arguments and the arguments they posed to me), seemed to be actually interested in learning about me and having a discussion.


(this glorious document was handed to me at the rally)

When blogging, I tend to tackle more serious arguments for God's existence while also responding to counter-arguments theists give to, for instance, the problem of natural evil. Here, though, the arguments and counter-arguments weren't so serious at times. 'Free will defenses' of various forms, 'Jesus died for sins,' and 'man sinned so that is why natural disasters happen in this fallen world' -- just to recall some examples -- were offered as responses to the problem of natural evil. Pascal's Wager even reared its ugly head at points. A man, after discovering that I accept evolution following my rejection of his design arguments, asked me if I ever heard of "creation science" to which I replied with a swift "did you ever hear of methodological naturalism" (after explaining what that meant because he had no idea).



One woman, although this might not be the woman in the above picture, noted that my appearance at this rally was "offensive" and "disrespectful." I asked her why she believed this and didn't really get a response other than repeated assertions. I explained that I was the only person protesting at the rally, was civil, did not interrupt anything, was not yelling at people, and had discussions with those who approached me reinforcing the idea that my appearance -- although she might not like me being there -- is a reasonable dissent and a protected right. As Peter Boghossian might say, her offense meant nothing to me. I wasn't attacking people, mocking people, being rude, or anything like that... The specter of 'respecting beliefs' is not so uncommon.



As the rally went on and speakers came to the stage, I remained still holding my sign to the right of the stage while speakers spoke and people listened. Some people got 'excited' (for lack of a better term on my behalf) and appeared to get angry with my sole dissenting sign. A woman, for instance, defiantly went in front of me thus blocking my sign. I started audibly laughing and told the women, "We can do this all day. You won't tire me out." Following this and my going in front of her (perhaps making a conga line of sorts, if you will), some other people joined in attempting to block my sign.

One man, at a point, even threatened to call police on me while claiming that I required a permit to protest. Much to his surprise, it seems, I encouraged him to call the police...and he refrained from doing so. This might have been my favorite moment of the rally.



This 'blocking attempt' -- partially by the persons holding the 'appeal to heaven' banner -- was quite hilarious and counter-intuitive for multiple reasons. I find it quite desperate and perhaps cowardly that -- at a rally with about two-hundred people (many of them holding signs) -- my sign just couldn't be tolerated. I was not going around blocking signs that I was unhappy with [and to be fair I couldn't block them all although I wouldn't do that anyway], but rather tolerated them recognizing that people ought to have the right to express their ideas on signs and be free of people trying to squelch their messages. This drew a tremendous amount of attention to me, away from the speakers, and made the religious 'blockers' look very foolish as we played a ring-around-the-rosy game of moving around.

Finally, the organizer -- Mary Ann Haas -- stepped in to interrupt the nonsense and persuade the 'blockers' to cease their maneuvering around me. She said that I seem like a nice person who was very respectful and should be left alone instead of being [this is my term and perhaps a paraphrase] harassed. We spoke for some time and she seemed very agreeable as far as free speech and openness to ideas was concerned. I explained that I see encounters like this partially as learning experiences and encourage others to do the same. It is important to face objections to one's ideas, I explained, and learning can be had from that.

After the speakers concluded, various ralliers approached me saying -- in part -- some really nasty and bizarre things. One woman, for instance, explicitly told me that she can't wait until I burn in Hell following a "I'll pray for you." I asked her how an all-loving god could possibly send people to be tortured for all eternity and the usual responses of "It's your choice" and "It's your fault, not God's. God gives you the chance" followed. Some men told me that I should join the military and fight overseas to find out "what the flag really stands for" and "what it really means to stand up for rights." I responded in part saying that, while several atheists are in foxholes, the military is not for me. I can exercise my rights in other ways and, more specifically, better utilize my talents.

One man -- in what I call a constant dismissal of intelligence and education -- told me that I needed "a course in logic" following my reasons for not believing in any gods which he asked for (I responded with problem of natural evil, inductive argument for naturalism, and a more general explanation that the reasons believers have given me aren't sufficient for belief). I told him, "I actually have a degree in philosophy and have taken logic courses. I graduated from King's College, too." He said that King's isn't "really Catholic," infested with "liberal theology," and is heretical. I explained that I had religious classes, too, and had lengthy conversations with ministers and theologians on campus. He just kept attacking King's and the 'heretical persons' there. I suppose the more educated, then, are less qualified to defend the Catholic faith or otherwise that their arguments are worse than laypersons?



As you might expect, pseudoscience also was a large part of this rally. The above woman and others told me about how 'studies show' that 'the pill' is harmful to women, causes cancer (as seen on this sign), and many other wild tales. Never mind, of course, women who use contraceptives for 'non-sex reasons' and require them in order to deal with ovarian cists and other maladies.

I had a really fun time! My friendly approach seemed to really pay off as the organizer was concerned about my safety and discouraged people from giving me a hard time. We walked away after she gave me many hugs. Don't get me wrong, though, I was not pulling punches. I wore my American Atheists 2012 convention t-shirt, was very hard hitting with my arguments, stood against a crowd of two hundred, and obviously brought a sign that happened to offend people. I am really excited for a future event like this and will plan ahead so that others can accompany me.

Following the event, local newspaper Go Lackawanna covered the rally and included various comments I made to the on-scene reporter. Here is a selected portion of the article:

Justin Vacula, an atheist and co-organizer of the NEPA Freethought Society, was the lone counter-protester at the rally, holding his own sign that read “Put women’s rights over bishops’ wrongs.” 

“I want to see that religion doesn’t trump law. People want their religious beliefs to inform what the government has to do…The Constitution is explicitly godless. It’s a secular document. The government is anything but founded on religion. A lot of the founding fathers were deistic,” Vacula said. 

“They weren’t Christians, and they realized by leaving God out of the Constitution that we could have a secular government for everyone. These people are talking about religious freedom, but if they’re really for religious freedom, it wouldn’t be about their Christian beliefs…Health care is about patients, not the people who are providing it.”

A response to those who claim offense

(A fitting poster for this post...)

It's often the case that people are quick to respond to content or people they happen to disagree with with a 'sit down and shut up' mentality in which they believe that certain ideas just shouldn't be discussed. Is this an appropriate attitude to have? In a pluralistic society, I argue, claiming offense and objecting to content -- simply because you happen not to like it -- is unacceptable and immature.

Throughout my 'career' as a 'professional atheist' [a label, expressed with derision, that WILK Newsradio host Steve Corbett used to dismissively refer to me on a recent episode of his radio show] many people -- no matter how mild my tone is or how much I write that persons should not interpret disagreement as disrespect -- claim that my work is offensive. Some people even go so far as to assert that I should cease publishing content, criticizing religious ideas, and simply just 'sit down and shut up.' I've posted several responses to these concerns in the past, but wish to, in this post, hopefully put this issue of offense and objections to my work to rest.

Possible motivations and problems

I believe that many assertions of offense and general objections to my work are hasty responses that are the result of an emotional reaction and a belief that cherished ideas should not be dissected. In a world with so much disagreement and sequestering of ourselves -- despite, ironically enough, the openness of the internet and the increased exposure people can have to different ideas -- perhaps some believe that we should just 'live and let live' and mainly communicate with those who are like-minded. Not enough exposure, perhaps, might be a reason that people have such a difficult time dealing with ideas foreign to them.

Perhaps a hellish mix of misplaced or misunderstood aims of diversity and truth relativism (the notion that truth is relative from individual to individual and/or that there is no such thing as objective truth) has unfortunately led people to believe that everyone can be right about any issue, all beliefs are ultimately one's opinion, and that it's simply just rude to disagree with anyone. Ironically, some efforts to 'draw people together' and find common ground seem to be responsible for causing much harm and intellectual suicide. In the name of what some consider to be tolerance and diversity, some have blissfully placed their brains in blenders and have not achieved a degree of tolerance worth wanting.

Additionally, the ever-returning and often mentioned [in this blog, at least] 'right to opinion' might also be a culprit serving as a barrier to honest discussion...

Cognitive dissonance, the sensation/experience felt when one happens to seemingly hold contradictory beliefs or becomes exposed to information which runs counter to their beliefs, can be difficult to deal with. It seems quite easy to 'throw up the smokescreens' and become defensive when our beliefs challenged and it seems quite difficult to overcome the easy response and, instead of becoming defensive, 'step back' from our ideas and even do so much as to consider another point of view. Perhaps cognitive dissonance is responsible for the attitude of deflection of criticisms?

The general responses of "you shouldn't talk about that" or "you should just leave these ideas alone" that often seem to come from those who object with offense to certain content are often quite short and without explanation or argument (and hopefully I'm not a victim of confirmation bias here). When these comments are made, I typically ask for persons to explain their reasoning and elaborate, but they fail to do so. If persons respond -- after I defend myself, expand on my ideas, and further clarify my reasoning pertaining to the issue at hand -- original objectors continue to, instead of responding to the content, object to a discussion about certain matters even taking place (while the discussion is taking place).

This 'methodology' is not a sign -- it seems -- of an honest discussion in which the objecting party is looking for a conversation; this seems to be characteristic of a hit-and-run tactic paired with an insufficient concern for truth and intellectual laziness. One would expect that people who were willing enough to object to my work would be willing to have an honest discussion if they were willing enough to post and were genuinely offended [perhaps seeking to squelch the content], but this unfortunately isn't the case. Perhaps I am giving people too much credit.

Some philosophy might save us...

In his book "The View From Nowhere," philosopher Thomas Nagel explains how difficult it can be to critically self-reflect and how impossible it might be to 'separate ourselves' from our beliefs. A state of total objectivity -- it appears -- is something we just can't reach as human beings, but we can try our best to work toward objectivity - and with good reason. Self-reflection and a willingness to modify our beliefs -- provided good reason, argument, and evidence are presented that justifies a cognitive shift -- is essential to being an intellectually-minded individual and perhaps even a productive mature functioning member of society.

What good would life be if we never amended our beliefs or realized our errs? We all make mistakes or might happen to hold incorrect ideas for whatever reasons (often no fault of our own) and that's nothing to be ashamed of. What should be considered shameful, though, is an unwillingness to amend our beliefs and a closed-minded attitude. Realizing that our beliefs were inaccurate and considering a new perspective shouldn't be something that we avoid, but rather should be something we embrace. I call this progress, openness, and a concern for truth.

In a 'marketplace of ideas' and a pluralistic society that is not filled with 'yes men' or 'yes woman,' some people will feel offended or provoked by certain content because people regard their beliefs as important self-identifying characteristics and view 'threats' to their beliefs as character attacks. Someone is bound to claim offense when issues such as worldviews and religions are being scrutinized. Before claiming offense, though, or acting in an immature fashion -- especially when content with quite a mild tone is being considered -- people ought to realize that disagreement is inevitable. Just about anyone can claim to be offended by just about anything, so the questions that should be considered are "Is it reasonable for me to claim offense?" and "What should the response be to content I consider offensive?" before people jump to unreasonable conclusions and make unreasonable demands for others to cease expressing their ideas.

One person's 'offensive content' is the next person's 'telling it like it is' that is, as some may see it, quite uncontroversial. With a sea of differing value judgments and barometers as to what is appropriate and inappropriate, it seems futile to protest to anything and everything out there. While there may be no objective standard for what can be considered offensive (mainly, perhaps, because this is an issue of personal taste and there is no quick-and-dirty way to distinguish 'offensive' from 'not offensive'), we shouldn't despair. The proper reaction to what one considers to be offensive, then, considering mentioned issues, is a mature attitude in which one realizes that people will happen to disagree - and disagreement shouldn't force or otherwise demand people to cease from publishing 'any old content.'

Offense isn't the goal, but progress should be

It's difficult for me to identify a single or primary motivation -- if one even exists -- pertaining to why I do what I do, but I can say that I don't write with an intention to offend people, provoke, or make people upset. Writing -- what seems to be my main focus as far as my involvement in the secular community is concerned -- can serve many different purposes such as highlighting bigotry, inspiring people to work toward change, and helping people to understand where certain people are 'coming from' outside of the quick soundbytes and short tweets (although these can be helpful). I like to author longer posts, although they may not be read by as many people if the posts happened to be shorter, in order to allow people to understand my reasoning and further the conversation.

Self-reflection and exposure to new ideas can be a learning experience, a catalyst toward progress, an 'opening door' to new opportunities, a chance to defend one's beliefs and respond to thoughtful objections, and so much more. Instead of claiming offense and avoiding discussion with people, engaging oneself can be quite fulfilling and productive even thought it may seem uncomfortable. If all else fails and engaging with new ideas is too much to handle -- or persons simply just don't want to engage with ideas -- persons can simply 'take the high road' instead of objecting to ideas being voiced with a substantive response.

It seems to be more important that people -- if we were forced with one option over another -- live together than agree on everything. Disagreement is inevitable, so we ought to be able to respond to people and ideas we might happen to disagree with in an intellectually mature and honest manner. Living together, while it may seem very difficult, seems to be much more possible than a successful effort for humans to agree on all issues. Having honest discussions and interacting with people whom we might happen to disagree with seems to allow for our own intellectual progress and understanding of other people. Instead of glibly claiming offense and asserting that others should 'sit down and shut up,' let's assume a mature attitude and be realistic.

As always, comments are welcome. Sharing this post on Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, and wherever else (click below to share!) is also appreciated.

If you're interested in my thoughts (and the thoughts of Rodney Collins) on another related and often overlapping matter, 'respecting beliefs,' please listen to Episode 9 of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast titled, as you might have guessed, "Respecting Beliefs" in audio and/or video formats.

Silent Witness Peacekeepers Alliance: A response to anti-gay protesters

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Silent Witness Peacekeepers Alliance: A Response to anti-gay protesters." View the article and more on my page and please click the subscribe button on my page to get timely notifications!

Dealing with Anti-Gay Protesters at NEPA Pridefest

Image Credit: silentwitnesspa.org

This weekend, members of the NEPA Freethought Society, a local community group of non-theists, attended NEPA Pridefest in order to show solidarity with the gay community, have fun, socialize, and most importantly engage the anti-gay protesters who were bound to show their faces. Instead of ignoring the protesters, like others do at these events, I felt it necessary to engage the protesters in order to mainly distract them from interfering with the event and the event-goers and quiet their voices. I find the tactic of engagement far more beneficial than ignoring. Despite this, we worked alongside with and respected the authority of the Silent Witness Peacekeepers at the event who escorted people into the event, maintained peace, and did not engage with the protesters.

Before NEPA Pridefest, I discovered that many anti-gay protesters attend these events in order to provoke people and file lawsuits if someone was violent toward the protesters. Before Pridefest, I attended an express orientation given by the Peacekeepers in order to learn what their role was, more about the protesters, and how to handle the protesters. One of the main parts of their code of conduct, though, was not to talk to the protesters, so I could not be a Peacekeeper at this event. Regardless, I respected the authority of the Peacekeepers at this event and worked side-by-side with them.

When the protesters -- a group of teens and young children, a relatively quiet adult male, and two very vocal adult males with a sound system and some sort of horn -- arrived, NEPA Freethought Society members observed them and asked the leader of the Peacekeepers if we could engage them, but we were told to wait and see what happens (and we respected that). The two vocal adult males with the sound system were saying all sorts of nasty things about homosexuals and, among many other phrases, was preaching and saying that we [everyone at Pridefest], in our pride, are elevating ourselves about God, rejecting God's truth, celebrating sin, turning people away from God, etc. After about five to ten minutes of this, both of their sound systems failed and the vocal males approached the NEPA Freethought members including myself and wanted to chat. The leader of the Peacekeepers gave us the nod.

One of the most interesting discussions I had with one of the protesters was regarding the problem of evil. He gave most of the usual responses and some really bad infrequently mentioned responses. I argued that one can not properly reconcile an omni-god with the current state of the universe and mostly focused on natural evil. When I told him that the world would be a better place without natural disasters, his defense was surprisingly that I can't know that because I am a finite being and do not know more than God, perhaps God has reasons for this. This defense mainly fails because an omni-god, if he exists, is all-powerful and could accomplish these reasons without natural disasters. He also argued that God has the authority to take life away and him doing so is always just. This defense also fails mainly because this doesn't give a reason for natural disasters and even if this were true, people need not be devastated by natural disasters.

Another interesting discussion was about Biblical prophecy and "the law of compound probability." One of the protesters said that so many prophecies in the Bible have come true and this is why we know God exists; the chances of all of these prophecies coming true is really slim, therefore the Bible must be inspired by God. This argument mainly fails because he is cherry-picking the Bible (there are many predictions that did not some true), the person is liberally interpreting [vague] passages, and many of the 'prophecies' are not prophecies. Regardless, even if propechies came true that were prophecies and they were not self-fulfilling, this doesn't demonstrate that the moral teachings in the Bible are true or even that a specific god exists.

In what might have been about an hour and a half, standing in pouring rain and going back and forth with the anti-gay protesters, NEPA Freethought Society members effectively distracted the protesters, quieted them, and had an interesting discussion. It was obvious that their positions would not change and we did not expect this, but we had fun discussing and accomplished our goals. Eventually, and unfortunately, the leader of the Peacekeepers asked me and the other NEPA Freethought Society members to withdraw from the conversation because she believed that we were drawing crowds, keeping the protesters there among other reasons. After we left the protesters, they were 'back at it;' they continued to harass people, be very loud, and even started following people as they left Pridefest. Once again, people were angered and the protesters were undeterred by people who were engaging them.

It is obvious that I disagree with the tactics of the Silent Witness Peacekeepers, but I respected their authority there and believed they did a great job. Peacekeepers escorted people into the festival with their big umbrellas, encouraged passer-bys not to get violent, distracted peoples' attention away from the protesters (at least somewhat), and served as a security team of sorts. Both the NEPA Freethought Society and the Silent Witness Peacekeepers effectively dealt with the protesters. Just because I preferred engaging the protesters does not mean that their tactics were 'wrong' and just because Peacekeepers did not prefer engagement does not mean that the NEPA Freethought Society's tactics were 'wrong.' Here, we see multiple ways to effectively accomplish a goal and both sides do not have to be at odds.

The Peacekeepers have more experience than NEPA Freethought Society members in 'working' events like this (we've never, to my knowledge, dealt with anti-gay protesters), but our members have lots of experience as far as debate/argumentation is concerned. We could have went back and forth with the protesters for hours, but we were asked to withdraw from the conversation. Working together with the Peacekeepers and offering what the other group does not have to offer, we were effective as a team. Some people, in previous discussions, unfortunately, 'don't get it' and think that people who disagree can not get along, but this was far from the case in this situation.

I also had some other major disagreements with the Silent Witness Peacekeepers. Their website, for example, says that confronting the protesters is "clearly useless" and that the protesters are "impervious to logic." During the express training, this sentiment was echoed along with the common sentiment of "those who do not have a position based on logic are immune to it." While this might be the case with some people, it certainly is not with all. Many former evangelical ministers and 'hardcore fundamentalists' are now activist atheists who have performed a 'cognitive 180.' One conversation probably won't change someone's positions (and this is never a goal of mine, for it is very niave), but a conversation may plant the 'critical thinking seeds' and might embark someone on the journey to reason.

The 'audience,' too, can always greatly benefit from the conversations with protesters (there were multiple Silent Witnesses recording the exchanges for everyone's safety). Perhaps it was the case that those recording never heard responses that I had given to the protesters and may, in the future, use my responses or further research. My discussion was not only limited to discussion about homosexuality; I talked a great deal about God and morality. The other obvious benefits of confronting the protesters, as I mentioned, were distracting them and quieting them.

The Peacekeepers were happy with the NEPA Freethought Society members and thought that we handled the protesters really well. None of us got angry, threatened the protesters, levied personal attacks, or raised our voices. Passer-bys, security, and the Peacekeepers gave us kind compliments. It was great to work with the Silent Witness Peacekeepers...and although we disagreed in the matter of tactics, we were effective as a team and hopefully made the Pridefest a better place for all who attended.

Atheists' aerial banners not welcome in Pennsylvania

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Atheists' aerial banners not welcome in Pennsylvania." Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

---

This article was featured on American Atheists' website!

Barletta Bars People From Recording Town Hall Meetings

In February of 2011, I attended a town hall meeting of congressmen Lou Barletta and Tom Marino at King's College and was astonished when I heard both persons defending their positions and explaining their ideas about government. I've also been discussing Marino and Barletta's ideas on Facebook and have been very critical of them.

Recent news, though, has taken the cake. Lou Barletta wants to ban individuals from recording town hall meetings and only wants to allow media representatives to record these public meetings. According to Barletta's spokesman, one of the reasons for doing this is that people are afraid to speak up and ask questions at these public meetings. This reason is a very poor one.

Transparency of our government is very important. People should be allowed to record and publish what their elected officials are saying at open meetings and should not be stopped from doing so. Banning individuals from recording open meetings is quite draconian and resembles a very closed government in which all cannot participate and learn about their elected representatives. Public town hall meetings are not accessible for everyone because people have other obligations such as work, are limited because of location, etc. Recording of public town hall meetings allows for all constituents and even persons outside of the local area to be informed voters who can participate in one way or another in their state government process. Banning recording of meetings makes many people political outsiders and makes these meetings very exclusive.

Shame on Lou Barletta. I'm not going to take this sitting down. I called Barletta's office today and was told that there are no scheduled official meetings yet, but this does not matter. I want to attend these meetings (and have) and will not have my rights violated by Lou Barletta.

I'm going to do something about this beyond just authoring this blog post.

Stay tuned for updates and details.

***

Other news articles about Barletta's banning of recording public town hall meetings are here:

AP - Citizens Voice

AP - Daily Item

Muslims, Free Speech, and Salman Rushdie

Tonight I attended a Salman Rushdie speech at Wilkes University. Rushdie gave a wonderful speech and argued that free speech is extremely important, writers should be able to write what they wish (save making libelous claims), and American freedom of speech is essential. Other countries that limit free speech, Rushdie argued, don't allow us to hear alternative viewpoints, sometimes write their own histories, give an alternative viewpoint tremendous power, make discussion taboo, and cease to keep "enemies" out in the open. Rushdie also spoke about other topics, joked about the tea party that he said should rename itself the "National Idiot Party," and argued that much news and politicking today is very non- or anti-intellectual.

After the speech, during the question and answer session, a local leader at a Muslim mosque who I met and had a discussion with in November of 2010 was selected to ask a question. He proceeded to ask a series of personal questions like "Do you have children" and "Do you have a house" and followed up with something to the accord of "When I have children in my house, I set the rules and they need to follow what I say..." Rushdie interrupted, as he should have, and said "Do you have a question" and got more story from the Muslim leader who continued saying something like "There has to be rules in society when you're in a place with other people..." and Rushdie cut him off saying, "I'm not going to let you compare adults in our society to children. It's a false analogy and if you don't like the liberties we have, you don't have to be here." Rushdie handled this really well and I agreed with him.

After the discussion, just to make sure that Rushdie was on the mark, I had close to a ten minute discussion with the man and asked him to finish his line of reasoning and explain his conclusion (and Rushdie turned out to be right on the mark, I soon learned). He told me that when you attack someone's belief, you attack them right at the heart and other people are really harmed. I then told him that we live in a pluralistic society and we should be able to write what we want provided that it is legal and if we had to curtail all of our writings because other people may be offended because we disagree with them, we'd severely limit free speech. I didn't really get to chat much after this because the man started preaching, claiming that we can know Allah exists because the Koran predicted embryology and various other things...

For once in a discussion, I felt really left out because I wasn't able to say much at all because I kept getting interrupted and was not able to finish my thoughts. The man kept telling me that he doesn't understand philosophy well/I'm using terms he's unaware of/etc even though I was keeping the discussion at a "low level" and would have explained anything (and tried to) that he didn't understand. Ironically, my speech was silenced in some manner.

I really enjoy chatting with religious people of all stripes because I get to better understand why and how people think, learn something, have some fun, practice debating, etc. What I don't enjoy, though, is getting completely shut out of discussions and no follow-up chances. In November, I gave this man the information from the organization I'm a co-organizer of and invited him and anyone else from his mosque to attend a monthly meeting to talk about what they believe and why. No one showed for several months...and unfortunately probably never will.

Some Muslims, not all of course, will say that they are for free speech and expression, but they want to limit others' because some may write fictional stories about Mohammad or draw pictures of him. This tactic is the incorrect one, as I tried to explain, and not a feasible method in a pluralistic society. If you disagree with someone's message that they deliver via their free speech, you should use yours to critique their message, provide an alternative stance, or communicate directly with the person. I do this quite often on my blog and I always encourage others to voice their disagreement with anything I type. What good is staying in our own comfort areas and complaining about others' ideas if we do nothing about it but complain about free speech and argue that it should be limited?

The Muslim I met tonight fell prey to the "perfect solution fallacy." It's quite obvious that there's no perfect solution in which one can regulate speech to be what everyone in a pluralistic society wants to hear, so the best option is to allow everyone to express legal speech. If there is a better alternative to this, I'd love to hear it. The conversation tonight yielded no such better alternative but a dodge to my question of "what do you think we should do, then, prosecute and censor all who disagree with someone else?"

I don't have to limit and should not have to limit my free speech because others disagree with me. I should be able to voice my opinions without threats of violence or a chilling effect in which people try to intimidate me into silence like the backlash I experienced from members of my community in 2009. If we want to silence everyone who disagrees or "offends" everyone else, we'd start slipping on a legitimate slope and would almost all be silent. It's very important to engage with other ideas, no matter how much they offend us (provided that this speech is legal and isn't just personal attacks) so that we can make informed decisions, be able to deal with objections, and so that we're educated individuals who just don't read ideas that agree with us.

Open forums, like this one, are very important platforms in which all people around the world can share their thoughts. Let's not compromise this because some people howl in the face of diversity of ideas. At the end of his speech, Salman Rusdhie said that it's the job of the writer to express his/her words and if someone has to take some risks whole doing so, it's the writer's job. I agree. Let's open the discussion, share ideas, and be civil people rather than wanting to restrict others' freedoms.

I could have rebutted prophecy claims in this post and wrote about the difference between beliefs and persons, but these are topics for another day!