Should/could denial of evolution be a criminal offence?

[Bishadi]

So, exactly how many Germans did the Jews exterminate?

i wasn't there.

Were you?

Why are you using the words "declared war" to mean two separate things. As regards Germany, you are using it to mean one nation stating an intention of physically fighting another. As regards Jews, you are using it to mean one group of people advocating against the policies of a government.

The headlines on the newspaper render 'declar war' as the judaic synagogues often affect politics.....

but the funny part of the clip is the use of 'holy war'


declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war

perhaps go back and read a bit

By 1933, the anti-semetic policies of Nazi Germany were already pretty evident. Hitler's own book made all that clear. If Jews were to "declare war" by boycotting German goods, hadn't Germany already declared war on the Jews by, you know, blaming us for all of the evil in the world?

blaming you? bull............. you live now, not then.

The GERMANS that were religiously JEWISH, directly went against their very own country. That would be like an american of religious observance to say, i aint joining the army (during a draft). Sure the wingnuts of nazi were wingnuts but just as religious wingnuts, claim land that they have no right too claim because of a religious book

ie.... jews dont own or have rights by god to a 'promised land' and then take it from people because their religious literature (beliefs) made some long standing promise. (that is bonafide self purporting bigotry to call one self 'chosen ones' over another simply by religion)

 

[DC]

about 60 million died throughout wwii.

but the sick part is, 1.3 million are in a concentration camp (gaza) right now!

 

[Ziggurat]

i wasn't there.

But evidently you were in WWII and in Gaza, since you can provide numbers for those.

Admit it, Bishadi: you don't think the Holocaust happened.

 

[Loss Leader]

bull............. you live now, not then.

And yet, look how little has changed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm not convinced Bishadi is a holocaust denier.

He does, however, seem to think a notoriously antisemitic British newspaper report is a useful authority to support his notion that German jews joining a boycott of Nazi Germany were comitting simple treason against their country, and apparently without provocation.

That's... not a view I would share.

 

[Tricky]

I wouldn't criminalize denial of evolution, but I'd consider making it a firable offense for any teacher of natural science.

 

[Slimething]

But you're quite correct about him being incoherent.

Oh, so that's where I've seen it before. Thanks. Didn't connect the dots at first.

It seems to have very strong opinions on topics it doesn't understand. Pity really. I agree these things aren't as funny as they are scary.

 

[Nerd]

I'm sorry, but who would ever vote 'yes'?
This idea wreaks of fundamentalism.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Bishadi, why is it that you criticize others for believing something they did not directly witness, yet have no problem touting your own beliefs based on things you did not directly witness?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ofcourse not.

I don't even think holocaust denial should be a ciminal offence.

This. Bigoted morons have the right to act & sound like bigoted morons - at least they do in the United States.

 

[Drachasor]

Making denials like this illegal is rather silly. IMHO, it mirrors (in dark way) my problem with affirmative action. It's a top-down solution to a bottom-up problem. The real way to handle gross ignorance like this is to improve the quality of the educational system.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I wouldn't criminalize denial of evolution, but I'd consider making it a firable offense for any teacher of natural science.

Agreed, although that's simply professional incompetence. I know of a physics teacher at my kids' school who is also a Bible literalist, and has been known to tell his class that anything he teaches that disagrees with the Bible is a lie that he's been told he has to teach them. Next time I hear about him doing it, I'm putting in an official complaint, and since this isn't the USA he'll probably get into trouble for it. But that's nothing to do with criminality; by his own admission he is teaching lies to his class, we just disagree which bits are the lies, so morally his position is indefensible. He can say what he likes, though, outside the classroom; what he says inside the classroom is covered by the rules of his job.

Dave

 

[sphenisc]

Agreed, although that's simply professional incompetence. I know of a physics teacher at my kids' school who is also a Bible literalist, and has been known to tell his class that anything he teaches that disagrees with the Bible is a lie that he's been told he has to teach them. Next time I hear about him doing it, I'm putting in an official complaint, and since this isn't the USA he'll probably get into trouble for it. But that's nothing to do with criminality; by his own admission he is teaching lies to his class, we just disagree which bits are the lies, so morally his position is indefensible. He can say what he likes, though, outside the classroom; what he says inside the classroom is covered by the rules of his job.

Dave

There's no intent to deceive so it's not a lie.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There's no intent to deceive so it's not a lie.

He is teaching something which he believes to be untrue, so he believes he's lying. If he feels that he's being asked to teach lies, he should refuse to teach them, not undermine his own authority by denying the validity of his own teaching. OK, he'd lose his job, but according to his beliefs it's immoral for him to do his job in the way he's required to do it anyway. Whatever way you look at it, his moral position is untenable.

Dave

 

[sphenisc]

He is teaching something which he believes to be untrue, so he believes he's lying.

No he doesn't.

If he feels that he's being asked to teach lies, he should refuse to teach them, not undermine his own authority by denying the validity of his own teaching.

In your opinion, an opinion he obviously doesn't share.

OK, he'd lose his job, but according to his beliefs it's immoral for him to do his job in the way he's required to do it anyway. Whatever way you look at it, his moral position is untenable.

Dave

Do you also thing that no-one can morally teach a class in Comparative Religion, read from a work of fiction in an English class or teach Newtonian Mechanics in Physics class? Should they all resign?

 

[Jason V]

What are you proposing here? Thought police?

Is holocaust denial currently enforced with thought police? I was thinking more along the lines of banning organisations or people speaking in an official capacity against evolution. Currently some politicians even say they don't "believe" in evolution.

You don't have to listen to BS but if you are going to try to suppress it then you will just make the BS appear more legitimate. (The BS suppressor must have something to hide).

That is true but maybe a slight downside - I doubt many people think the holocaust didn't occur because of the banning of holocaust denial.

 

[Jason V]

I'm sorry, I have to say this is a little bit silly and a little bit dangerous - the idea of thought crimes always makes my skin crawl. I don't even like the hate crimes statutes for that reason.

I really don't know how you peeps read thought crime into this. Something can't be silly and dangerous - you must choose!

 

[Noztradamus]

Holocause denial is a crime in some countries because of the atrocities of the second world war. Couldn't denial of evolution be criminalised along the same lines so as to undermine the (Koranic literalist) Islamic fundamentalism which caused 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan? There's even more evidence for evolution than the holocaust at any rate.

What about denial of Lamarkism? Wait, already been done.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No he doesn't.

Yes, he does. He teaches the material to the children, then after he's taught it to them, he tells them that what he just taught them is untrue because it disagrees with the Bible. He is telling the children in his class that he's been lying to them.

In your opinion, an opinion he obviously doesn't share.

I don't try to understand the moral gymnastics required for a Bible literalist to teach material that he personally believes to be false, state to the class that he's been lying to them, and still presumably believe that he has to follow a commandment prohibiting the bearing of false witness.

Do you also thing that no-one can morally teach a class in Comparative Religion,

What is the moral difficulty with stating that different people have different beliefs?

read from a work of fiction in an English class

What is the moral difficulty with presenting a work of fiction as a work of fiction?

or teach Newtonian Mechanics in Physics class?

What is the moral difficulty with teaching a valid low-energy case?

Should they all resign?

No, because none of them are deliberately presenting material they believe to be lies as truth, then undermining their own authority by stating that they have done so.

But, if you have no problem with a teacher presenting as facts to his students things that he believes to be lies, then telling them that everything he has taught them is a lie, please feel free not to make a complaint if you find yourself in similar circumstances.

Dave

 

[Jason V]

I sense an ulterior motive at play.

Do me a favour. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis killed millions of people simply for being jewish, which was horribly stupid and evil.

In what way is there more evidence for evolution than the Holocaust?

In that the evidence for evolution is all around: in every lifeform and piece of DNA.