INQUIRER Volume 3, Issue 8, August, 2000  A Thumbs Up Publication Editor: Gerald Dantone, Art Design: John R. Wilmarth Copyright LISH 2000 (All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism with a reciprocating reprinting agreement with LISH, so long as the article is used in full and with complete crediting. Edited versions can be used with written permission.)
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://wwwhumanist.com

Table of Contents
1)  Atheists Persecuted in Egypt
2)  Rep. Bob Barr Responds to LISH
3)  Honor for Men Only
4)  Who is the Better Influence: Falwell or Kurtz?  
5)  Letters to the Editor (expanded!)

For info on Book Club meetings Email to LISecHum@aol.com. The September book will be "Big Domino in the Sky" by Michael Martin.

The next regular meeting of the Long Island Secular Humanists (LISH) will be Friday, September 15, 2000, at a new time, 7:00 PM at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview. The September meeting will be on the topic "The Faces of humanism" and will feature representatives from the various local humanist groups. 

The editor and design department apologize for the delay in getting this months news letter out.   [TOC]

Atheists Persecuted in Egypt   Gerry D
        An Egyptian writer on trial for atheism and blasphemy against Islam based his defense in the right to free speech, court sources said on Sunday. "I have an opinion and I expressed my opinion in these books," Salaheddin Mohsen, in detention since April, told a state security court when his trial opened Saturday.

Mohsen began his career as a clerk at the Ministry of Agriculture. He then moved to Lebanon where he worked as a typesetter before moving to Iraq where he again obtained employment as a clerk. Upon returning to Egypt, he started a business for selling painting materials. He used the revenue from this enterprise to finance the publication of his books. Mohsen said that advanced nations achieved success through scientific research, and not religion.

Mohsen claimed that he had not insulted Islam but merely expressed his personal views. The court, however, saw things differently.

Prosecutors put him on trial after he admitted under questioning this year that he did not believe in Islam and sought to promote secular thought in four recent books. Mohsen "is sick in the heart and an example of atheism," prosecuting lawyer Ashraf al Ashmawi told the court. "He mocked Islam and its rites and duties and was proud of his insolence against religion under the slogan of enlightenment and freedom of creativity," he said. Mohsen "claimed that Islam is the reason for the nation's backwardness, that Mohammed is not a prophet but wrote the Koran and that the Koran is full of contradictions," Ashmawi said.

The trial is the first of its kind since Egypt's top appeals court pronounced Cairo University Professor Nasr Abu Zeid an apostate on the basis of his writings in 1996 and forcibly divorced him from his Muslim wife. Thousands of religious students clashed with police in May in protests over the reprint of "A Banquet for Seaweed" by Syrian writer Haider Haider, a book they said insulted Islam. Defense lawyer Samir Bagoury said Mohsen's works were "merely philosophical ideas." He asked the court to call the religious endowments minister as a witness.

In the course of his interrogation, Mohsen said he did not believe in God or religion, and that he dedicated his writings to promoting his beliefs. He was arrested on the basis of a report by state security investigators on a book entitled; Shudders of Enlightenment, charging that the book propagates ideas that violate Shari'a (Islamic law) and holds Islam in contempt. When his house was searched, police seized 100 copies of four books entitled "Chatting With Heaven", "Abdel-Ati", "A Muslim's Memoirs" and "Shudders of Enlightenment".

According to judicial sources who spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly on condition of anonymity, the state tries those who propagate deviant or extremist thought because the country has the right to protect its religious beliefs. "We are not against freedom of expression, but we strongly fight the spread of deviant beliefs (atheism) in our society," a source said.

In his book, Mohsen argued that civilized nations achieved success by means of scientific research and not through religion.

Meanwhile, the state security prosecutor charged two Culture Ministry officials for their role in publishing an allegedly blasphemous novel that triggered two days of student riots at Al-Azhar University last week.

Ibrahim Aslan, editor of the series which published the novel, and Hamdi Abu Golail, its managing editor, were charged with disparaging religion, as well as editing and publishing a work offensive to public morals.

The book in question is the 1983 novel "A Banquet for Seaweed" by Syrian writer Haydar Haydar, which the Ministry of Culture has re-published as part of a series of Arabic literary classics. The novel's reprinting was met by a fierce campaign launched by the bi-weekly Islamist-oriented Al-Shaab newspaper, which said the novel called God a "failed artist" and depicted Prophet Mohamed as "a womanizer."

Incited by the newspaper articles, thousands of angry students from Al-Azhar University demonstrated outside campus and demanded the resignation of Culture Minster Farouk Hosni. Protesters called for Haydar's death and criticized the grand imam of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, for keeping silent regarding the whole affair. Nearly 100 students were briefly arrested and later released.

Many intellectuals and political analysts believe that Al-Shaab's campaign was politically motivated. Accusing fingers were pointed at the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, a traditional ally of the Labour Party that publishes Al-Shaab. The timing of the newspaper's campaign, ahead of the November parliamentary elections, was also considered to be significant.

Seif El-Islam Hassan El-Banna, a leading brotherhood figure denied the claims, asserting that the Muslim Brothers would not use Islam to achieve political gains.

Meanwhile, an exiled leader of Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya, Egypt's largest militant group, has urged Egyptians to follow the example of religious students who rioted over Haydar's novel. "We call on the youth of our Muslim Egyptians, in its universities, cities, villages and factories, to follow the example of their brothers in Al-Azhar University and break the chains they [the government] want for them," Refa'i Ahmed Taha said in a statement.    [TOC]

Bob Barr Responds (Sort of) to LISH!    Gerry D
        Way back in November of 1999, the following letter was sent to Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia:

Dear Rep. Barr: I was glad to hear you speak out against bizarre religious practices, particularly in the US Armed Forces as per the following story: WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7) has demanded an end to the taxpayer-supported practice of witchcraft on military bases. Barr's request came in response to reports that chaplains at Fort Hood, and other bases, are sanctioning, if not supporting, the practice of witchcraft as a "religion" by soldiers on military bases. "This move sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of 'religion.' What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastifarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?" said Barr, in letters to military and congressional leaders. (End of snippet.)

In this light, I would like to point out that other such bizarre practices exist as well; such as the cutting off of a piece of foreskin of the male children of some religious groups; the denying of routine medical care to the children of other religious groups; and the mass eating of the Deity by practitioners of another religious group.

Further, according to the Catholic Baltimore Catechism #2 I have in my possession, it claims that "All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved." It is my understanding that you are not a member of this Church and therefore are not saved, and in fact deserve eternal damnation. Is this a teaching that is appropriate for taxpayers to support in the armed forces? I hope you are able to answer this question.

A self-addressed stamp envelope is included for your convenience in responding. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Very truly yours, Gerry D

Here is the response from Rep. Barr:

6/5/00 Dear Sir, Thank you for contacting me regarding the practice of Wicca or witchcraft in the military. I, and many others, believe there is a connection between the standards our military leaders impose or uphold, and the strength of the military. Insofar as protecting our nation is the most important and fundamental responsibility of our government, policies that may interfere with this responsibility are an appropriate area for action by Congress.

I have demanded an end to the practice of witchcraft by military personnel on military bases. This matter came to my attention recently in press reports that chaplains at Fort Hood, Texas and other bases are sanctioning, if not supporting, the practice of witchcraft as a "religion" by soldiers on military bases.

This move sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of "religion." What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastifarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?

The Supreme Court's decision v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), in which Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "(t)he military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission, the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps..." Numerous other court rulings have upheld the principle that soldiers, especially on military bases, are not subject to the same First Amendment protections that apply to civilians.

A print of the painting, "The Prayer At Valley Forge," depicting George Washington on bended knee, praying in the hard snow at Valley Forge, hangs over the desk in my office. If the practice of witchcraft, such as is allowed now at Ford Hood, and other military bases is permitted to stand, one wonders what paintings will grace the walls of future generations.

Serving in our military is a great privilege, and it carries with it unique responsibilities and restrictions. My opposition to witchcraft is based solely on its practice on military bases, insofar as it undermines the moral foundation of our military, brings the credibility of our military into question and may have an inappropriate impact on military discipline and good order. Again, thank you for contacting me. Your thoughts and comments are sincerely appreciated. With kind regards, I am very truly yours, Bob Barr, Member of Congress. (End of response.)

Of course, Rep. Barr did not even attempt to answer the questions in the letter regarding bizarre and divisive teachings of religions other than Wicca. The point Mr. Barr is making apparently is that Wicca is singularly bizarre and disruptive - that the teaching of Christianity and its' condemnation and damnation of all non-believers is not! Perhaps the armed services are somewhat immune from all First Amendment claims by soldiers - it does not mean that certain religious beliefs are more protected than others! To single out Wicca or any other religion is not acceptable. To treat all religions equally is acceptable, even if that means restricting Christian as well as Wiccan practices in the name of discipline and order. Further, it would behoove Rep. Barr to offer at least an iota of evidence that the practice of Wicca or any other religion is a problem - his sensibilities being offended is not an adequate excuse. If freedom of religion and thought does not define America, what does? Rep. Barr will never "get it."    [TOC]

Honor for Men Only    Gerry D
        The Monday, May 15, 2000 edition of Newsday had a remarkable story written by Matthew McAllester. It involved "honor killing," in which men are given license to kill women who have "dishonored" them or their families. Light prison sentences or suspended sentences are given to men who kill women suspected of infidelity or simply not deferring to men. The practice is prevalent in a number of Muslim countries and is reinforced by the religion itself. Of course, not all Muslim persons or even most accept this practice, but it is widespread in the Middle East.

Is it reasonable to dismiss this primitive code as foreign to the religious ethics of this country, which for believers is primarily informed by Christianity?

Not necessarily. On the same morning that the above-noted article appeared in Newsday, there was the fundamentalist Christian radio minister Harold Camping, preaching in a nationally syndicated show. What was the topic? The role of women: They are to men what men are to God. In his words, that is the "chain of command." What is the penalty if a woman wants equality in marriage and in life in general? According to the preacher, the Bible commands that their heads are to be shaven! Just for the crime of dishonoring a man!    [TOC]

Who Is the Better Influence: Falwell or Kurtz?    Gerry D
        One often hears the following argument from those who seek to return state organized prayer to the public school classroom: "Ever since they took God out of school, morality has gone down and crime has gone up!"

Keeping that in mind, it is noted that early May saw the release of crime statistics for the US that indicated that serious crime fell about 7% nationwide. This has been the trend in recent years, despite God's disappearance! Oh well, never let the facts interfere with a good story!

In a related topic, when subscribers went online this week, America Online invited them to compare crime statistics of various cities and towns around the nation. Of course, purely in the interest of science, LISH decided to determine once and for all whether Jerry Falwell is correct about the need for Christianity and religious belief in the country as a panacea for societal ills. The headquarters for Rev. Falwell's Liberty University is Lynchburg, Virginia. The University is a major factor in that town, with thousands of students! This area is in no way a hotbed of freethought, atheism or humanism.

The headquarters for the Council for Secular Humanism, founded by Paul Kurtz, and also the American Humanist Association, on the other hand, is Amherst, NY, near Buffalo. The presence of those two organizations, plus the freethinking philosophy department at nearby State University at Buffalo, does make this a hotbed of freethinking, humanism and atheism.

What town has more crime? According to the website Homefair.com which is a real estate sales and service e-business, Lynchburg suffers 172 robberies for every 100,000 persons to only 31 for Amherst. Rapes are 36/100K to 7/100k. Murder? Lynchburg had 6 murders per 100,000 persons and Amherst had - none.

What is the conclusion to all this? Using the logic of the Jerry Falwell's of the world, one could then say that "Ever since they brought atheists and humanists into town, morality has gone up and crime has gone down!" But we know that's silly, right? (For more info on crime and your town go to www2.homefair.com/calc/crime.html    [TOC]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

1/23/00 (From a pamphlet received in the mail:) Many years ago, I gradually became aware of an uneasy feeling of emptiness and detachment. What could possibly be causing this uncomfortable condition? What was missing in my life? An intense fear of my ultimate external destiny began to obsess me... Misery rolled over me in waves.

From a rational perspective, it must be concluded that if unfathomable joy awaits us for accepting god's plan of salvation, then eternal punishment must be ours if we reject the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for the redemption of the human race. This truth makes all other events of no consequence. Unsigned, Harrisburg, PA

Response: Apologies for not reprinting the entire pamphlet, though I believe the essence was captured. Though the author surely intended to use this tract to convince non-believers to believe in Christ, not one iota of evidence is presented. All we have is testimony of one person's joy when convinced that he or she was heading for heaven in the afterlife. This only matters if it is true, and even then, it would then have to be shown that believing this makes a difference. The arrogance of this pamphlet's position is overwhelming: Believe this and you will be saved! Why believe it? Answer: Because it says to believe! Thanks for reminding us why we are secular humanists! G.D. 

2/13/00 I believe that the person who had the greatest influence on my thinking was an old (at 19 anyone past 40 was old) man who worked as a presser in a dress factory. He was a friend of my future wife's family. He told me that during the first war to save the world, he had been in the Italian army and even though he carried a weapon into battle he refused to fire it or would fire into the air to avoid hitting anyone. I thought he was nuts. He had two sons about my age, who eventually went off to war to try to save the world again. One Sunday afternoon I was having a conversation with Gennie and we were talking about conditions in the USA. This was during the depression and of course he was not happy about conditions. Having just escaped from the educational system I was a bit conservative. He spoke about the problems we had in this country and I became a bit upset.

"Well if you don't like it here why don't like it here why don't you go back to Italy?" Spoken like a true conservative. Like a gentleman he answered. "I came here many years ago. I have worked and managed to live reasonably well. I have brought up two boys. This is my country. There are many good things here, but what is wrong in trying to make it better?

It took a few more years and a few more thoughts before I came to what I came to believe was the "Right Thing" or way to improve things. Eventually I was able to understand why he would not kill for "God and Country" so that when I was called to do so, I also refused and was sent to prison for refusing to be inducted into the military. Never can tell where the influence on your thinking can come from. Frank S., Secular Humanists of So. Fl. via Internet

Response: Most persons do not think about politics, society and responsibility. You're the rare one. G.D.

Re: Should bookstores sell the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

5/13/00 Yes. We cannot fight ignorance without knowing what we're dealing with. Of course, no bookstore should be FORCED to carry any book. But we should not legislate against it. Lynn B. via Internet

Response: A common theme! G.D. 

5/13/00 Yes, bookstores should be allowed to sell "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," simply for the historical presence. It doesn't matter if it's fiction or non-fiction. It represents a mystery.

If one doesn't like the book, fine! Don't buy it! It should be an individual choice. Let's not eliminate that choice. Later, Rob via Internet

Response: I'm spotting a trend! G.D.

5/13/00 DEFINITELY, bookstores have the responsibility of making available to society any written material, an individual may wish to purchase. There should not be any form of prohibition or limitation of any form of expression. The true test of our belief in our constitutional rights is when we have to tolerate the ignorance and/or the stupidity of prejudice. PP via Internet 

5/13/00 This is suppose to be a free country, therefore they should be free to sell what ever they wish so long as the sale does not directly harm that individual in some way. Bernie S, via Internet

Response: Exactly! G.D. 

Some may disagree, but these freedoms are vitally important. If we agree that things we find distasteful, or opinions we disagree with, can be banned, how then can we object when our own "distasteful" opinions are banned? Let us never forget that freedom means freedom for all. Isaac, via Internet

Response: It IS important that the truth about the fraudulent nature of the "Protocols" is publicized. That is a responsibility for the rest of us. G.D. 

5/13/00 Yes, I believe bookstores should sell the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". It's a matter of free speech, regardless of whether or not we approve of the material. Howard A. P. WA, via Internet

Response: If it's the "Protocols" first to be banned, is the LISH INQUIRER entirely safe? G.D. 

5/13/00 Why not? They sell the Bible, whose New Testament is the source of Christian anti-Semitism. Marie via Internet

Response: You can't preach the bible without preaching hate according to some fundamentalists! G.D. 

5/13/00 I oppose censorship of any kind, no matter how disgusting or repulsive the material. Yes, bookstores should sell the Elders of the Protocols of Zion, however, it should be kept in the fiction section. Tom, via Internet

5/13/00 Only if it includes an extensive introduction explaining the hoax, who perpetrated it, how it was used to justify the Holocaust, etc. Expose it for the hateful thing it was (is) and perhaps even point to other similar hate-hoax documents (such as "The W.I.C.C.A. Papers" of the late '80s). Never Thirst, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, Founder, Church of All Worlds (Pagan) via Internet

Response: This leads to another question: What if the "Protocols" was sold as a "history?" G.D.

5/13/00 I believe that the most dangerous thing is censorship. There are many writings, TV programs , movies, etc... that I find objectionable, but that is the penalty that we must pay for a free thinking people. I would never suggest censorship for anything no matter how offensive the subject may be. It is the camel that gets it's foot in the tent and the beginning of the end of freedom of thinking. Frank S via Internet

5/13/00 Should they sell The Age of Reason (anti-Christian)? Why Men Rule (anti-feminist)? The Autobiography of Malcolm X (anti-white)? Censorship, once associated with religion and the political right, is now as often "liberal." Race has become what religion used to be: an area where dissent, and even doubt, is prohibited. Suppressing criticism of, and even vicious attacks on, a group is the best way to foment hatred of them, by confirming that they have the desire and the power to silence and punish their opponents. John A., Mt. Vernon, NY, via Internet.

Response: Censorship doesn't quite work does it? If it did, we couldn't be writing what we're writing! G.D. 

5/14/00 I recently bought a copy of this text from Amazon.

If humanists are getting on the censorship bandwagon, the anti-Semites have already won.

The Protocols is an absurd text that needs to be disseminated widely. Censoring it suggests it should be taken seriously and may have something "too dangerous to reveal" -- just the sort of nonsense conspiracy theorists thrives on. Anyone who would believe, nearly a century after it was written, that this crude forgery actually reflects an international Jewish conspiracy is already too far-gone to be reachable by reason. Let it be exposed to the light of day for the patent fraud that it is.

Mein Kampf is available at most bookstores. Is it particularly less offensive? I hardly think so. Or maybe someone wants that censored too? Where do we draw the line? Don E via Internet

5/14/00 This question is more complicated than it appears as stated. Should any government entity forbid bookstores from selling this book? Absolutely not. Should bookstore owners be allowed to choose which books they will and will not sell? Should bookstore owners take it upon themselves to prescreen and censor books for their customers? Should bookstore owners be allowed to determine what views their customers will be exposed to for them; much as AOL determines for it's customers what is and is not suitable for them to be exposed to?

Personally, I am not comfortable with other people making decisions about what is and is not appropriate for me to read for me. Nor do I feel I have the right to make such decisions for others. I can only hope that those who do buy and read it, will do so with a critical, questioning eye. Susan, Texas, via Internet 

5/14/00 Well, as I look at my bookshelf containing "The Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, I would say, "bookstores should sell "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

I have not heard of this book yet. Now I'm curious about it. What I'd really like to see is a book get widespread attention that rips L. Ron Hubbard and his dangerous cult Scientology. Vive La France ! Pete, via Internet

Response: Much of Scientology's material cannot be reprinted due to copyright laws. It is hard to find out about Scientology without paying for it. G.D. 

5/15/00 They (the bookstores) should not promote it, but they should make it available for sale. To do otherwise is censorship, which raises the question: who are those qualified to read or view anything, and decide what others may not be exposed to? Who determines who is qualified to be a censor? The world has had a surfeit of political, historical, and religious censorship, from a commandment to destroy the religious edifices of others to a condemnation of death for blasphemy.

Moreover, many objectionable works have at least partial value. Even the worst trash, such as "Protocols" is of interest to anyone exploring the history of anti-Semitism. My objection to censorship is not total; for example I do not believe detailed plans for constructing weapons of mass destruction should be readily available. Mac T., Forest Hills, NY

Response: A very complete response made economically. Thanks. G.D.

5/19/00 Bookstores should be able to sell any books - whether controversial or not. Even if some are considered "hate" literature, it is ultimately more harmful to censor what the public can read and what it has available. There could be an age requirement, if applicable. Just like you wouldn't display pornographic literature for consumption by minors. RS via Internet

Response: This leads to another question about hate speech. See the question of the month. G.D.

5/22/00 Bookstores should be allowed to sell anti-Semitic literature. It is only through the free dissemination of information that those who are disliked by the prejudiced can learn why they are being discriminated against and to be able to take steps to stop these evil people from continuing. Wes via Internet

Response: Censorship laws can be used in service of hate as well as against it! G.D.

5/22/00 Yes, they should be permitted to do so. Denial of their free speech may well result in my own being denied. Much as I hate the hate-filled originators and spreaders of the lying Protocols that's how much I believe in the good sense of the majority to decide that for themselves. I do not think hatred in print is the equivalent of the famous "crying fire in a crowded theatre." Either I believe in freedom of speech or I don't. Freedom of speech for me but not you is not freedom of speech. Lee D., Glen Cove, NY.

Response: Indeed it is not! G.D. 

6/2/00 (Copied to LISH re; Adam & Eve according to the Catholic Church) I marvel at the patience of Mr. Dantone! Signed, Charlotte.

Dear Charlotte: It is good indeed to have patience, in any case (not that I would know, you understand). And I am told that it comes in particularly handy when one is, as is Mr. Dantone, attempting to teach pigs to sing. I wish him luck. Hell, I'll pray for it! TG via Internet

Response: Don't expect the patience of Job however. G.D.

6/12/00 Re: "Giuliani Announces Support for the Posting of the Nine Commandments by combined fictitious wire services." May not be true, but it was very funny. Point well taken. I looked up hypocrisy in a dictionary, and it shows a picture of Giuliani next to the word. Keep up the good work. Thanks, Abel via Internet

Response: Hey, I'm just reporting the (fictitious) facts, that's all! G.D.

6/12/00 I'd like to volunteer to help, but I'd like to know what kind of a commitment and how much time it would involve. Thank you. Mati via Internet

Response: Thanks for the interest. Why don't you come down to some meetings and get your feet wet? Membership is only $40, a subscription is only $12 and we might make an allowance for students. Time-wise, attending meetings is just fun and they're free. If you can only afford a subscription and coming to meetings that would be great. G.D.

Re: LISH QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Should there be laws increasing penalties on account of certain types of hateful speech made during crimes? Should there be classes of persons with special protections from hate speech while other classes of persons are not protected in the same way?

6/11/00 I'm no legal expert. There are all sorts of "degrees" for such things as assault and murder. Are hate crimes any different? James S via Internet

Response: A good point! G.D. 

6/11/00 Although it seems a wonderful thought, no demeaning language according to the laws of the United States. I vote against any sort of law that would restrain hate or any other kind of speech. Armed with that sort of law, although it would benefit, say, gays and other minority groups of one kind or another, you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone in the christian churches including those crazy mormons and catholics will be suing saying their rights have been denied because they were the victims of hate speech. I don't think it would help at all. Buzzer via Internet

Response: Has anyone noticed how many groups claim to be victims of "hate" when it's merely criticism of any kind that they object to? Would biased courts side with them? "Hate" to the religious often is no more than disagreement with their views. "Hate crime" laws are a two-sided sword. G.D. 

6/11/00 Freedom of speech only applies when the speaker is completely wrong, his or her comments are utterly without any redeeming social value, the thoughts expressed are completely disgusting, dangerous, unAmerican, racist, sexist, and any other negative that can be assigned. A fter all, everyone in the Soviet Union had the complete right to agree with Stalin, and everyone in Iraq can agree with Saddam. The important thing about free speech is the presumption that the average person can sort out the marketplace of ideas, take what is good and ignore the rest. Once we accept the premise that some government agency is a suitable arbiter of expression, we are not far from some government agency deciding the populace is incapable of running affairs of state and that task, too, must be assigned to an elite group of people who "know better." Ben via Internet

Response: Thanks for the thought. G.D.

6/11/00 The laws on "hate crimes" are just another device for the Federal Government to get involved in affairs that rightfully belong to the states, and for lawyers to have more lucrative cases.

Another devious method used by the Feds to get around the constitution is the so-called deprivation of civil rights. Once the LAPD cops who beat up Rodney King were acquitted by a stupid jury, the prohibition on Double Jeopardy should've kept them free from further criminal prosecution.

However, the Feds re-tried them for the same action, under a different name. In giving it a different name, they declared it a "different crime", so they could prosecute. At that rate, what's to stop them from making up fifty different names for each activity, so they can get fifty chances at a person for a single deed? Agnostic via Internet

Response: An Interesting angle to look at. G.D. 

6/11/00 I'm sorry, but I have a poor opinion of this month's questions. The first one must be some kind of joke. How can anyone believe that a crime might be less serious if the criminal can remember to be polite while he mugs the victim? Yes, that is the flip side of the question asked, but it is still the same question.

The second question is absurd. One of the problems with our justice system is that we have developed a double standard of law enforcement. I do not think we should have a favored class for any kind of activity, especially when it involves breaking the law. Of course, that assumes that the original law actually makes sense. If not, then it is the original law that should be changed, rather than add some arbitrary form of qualification for offenders. JW via Internet

Response: It may seem absurd to you, but NYS just passed another law creating more severe penalties for "hate crimes" against a certain class of persons. Please note it does not matter what the protected class is in the question. G.D.

6/11/00 NO. There are too many groups now with special protections. It's divisive, leads to resentment and more hate. Cros via Internet

Response: It's remarkable to see the commitment to free speech even by those who may stand to benefit from limiting "hate" speech. G.D. 

6/11/00 Hi, equal rights and protection for all, special protections for NONE! Very Truly, Robert D via Internet

Response: Hey, anybody out there with a contrary view? G.D. 

6/12/00 The argument is made that the gravity of a crime like murder is not greater if hate speech is involved. Perhaps in the extreme case of murder that's true, but take the case of graffiti on a wall. In one instance someone writes, "Mary loves Joe", and in a second instance someone writes, "Kill all faggots, Jews, and blacks". Technically, while both are crimes of vandalism, I submit that the second example is far more evil, and deserves greater punishment. Regards, John L, Long Island, NY, via Internet

Response: Good argument except your example is tantamount to incitement to riot or to commit a crime, which is already illegal. If instead of naming a protected group it said to kill "Joe" would that be less of a crime? If instead the graffiti read "hate" instead of kill, would that still be more of a crime? What if it said "love" instead of "kill," isn't it still an opinion as opposed to a call to illegal action? G.D.    [TOC]