Let's Reverse Shoes
No doubt by now many of y'all have heard of the great conservative wailing about the recent writing of one Timothy Shortell, a sociologist from Brooklyn College who made some unflattering remarks about religion and is now at the eye of a hurricane of public outrage. Seems his referring to the overly religious as "moral retards" got a lot of people's shorts in a knot.
To be fair, there were no doubt more elegant ways to express the same idea, but I don't really think that's the point. The First Amendment doesn't say "freedom of speech as long as you don't hurt someone's feelings" or "freedom of speech as long as the majority approves of it" -- it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Now granted the Constitution has taken quite a beating from Demopublicans and Republicrats alike over the past 100 years, but I think this text is pretty clear and easy to understand.
Moreover, imagine if Shortell had said that atheists and agnostics were "moral retards". Do you think that would have even gotten a peep out of the press in this country? Remember the first President Bush? Here's a conversation between him and a reporter when he was running for President in '87:
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27, 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
So there you have it folks. A major party candidate for president (and later President) can say that he doesn't know if atheists should be considered citizens or patriots ... and nobody gives a damn. But let a college professor call believers "moral retards" and the spit hits the spam.
If GHW Bush should be free to express his opinions without repercussions, so too should Timothy Shortell.
To be fair, there were no doubt more elegant ways to express the same idea, but I don't really think that's the point. The First Amendment doesn't say "freedom of speech as long as you don't hurt someone's feelings" or "freedom of speech as long as the majority approves of it" -- it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Now granted the Constitution has taken quite a beating from Demopublicans and Republicrats alike over the past 100 years, but I think this text is pretty clear and easy to understand.
Moreover, imagine if Shortell had said that atheists and agnostics were "moral retards". Do you think that would have even gotten a peep out of the press in this country? Remember the first President Bush? Here's a conversation between him and a reporter when he was running for President in '87:
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27, 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
So there you have it folks. A major party candidate for president (and later President) can say that he doesn't know if atheists should be considered citizens or patriots ... and nobody gives a damn. But let a college professor call believers "moral retards" and the spit hits the spam.
If GHW Bush should be free to express his opinions without repercussions, so too should Timothy Shortell.
posted by DrJDG @ 23:05
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home