Should/could denial of evolution be a criminal offence?

[Jason V]

If enough influential people hold Holocaust denialist views there is a risk that similar atrocities could be committed in the future more easily.

The same could be said about people believing the koran is infallible, when it says killing the enemies of Islam guarantees a place in heaven.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks for clarifying, Jason V, and welcome to JREF.

 

[Jason V]

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

There should be moderators in those biology lessons to check up on things. In the UK the new (2010) free-school academies (state funded) can teach whatever they like though so I don't know how it could possibly work there now.

 

[Jason V]

Thanks for clarifying, Jason V, and welcome to JREF.

Cheers! Iiiii'm not a crook11!!!1

 

[Elizabeth I]

ftfy

Well, I thought about writing "really dangerous," but decided against it because the potential for Jason V's idea to become a reality is, fortunately, very small.

Hate crimes are no different from any other crime in that motivation can make an act which is already criminal into a more serious crime, indeed motivation can turn otherwise legal acts into crimes, look at any crime which has a description which contains the words "with intent". The difference between manslaughter and murder is a "thoughtcrime", the difference between attempted murder and what may be no crime at all, is a "thoughtcrime".

What makes "hate crime" legislation specifically different enough to make your skin crawl?

I think in the case of "hate crime" it's the fact that the result of the crime is no different than it would be without the added descriptor - the person is just as dead, or just as battered, as he or she would be if it were not characterized as a "hate crime." It shouldn't change the penalty - if you kill someone because he is black you should get it just as hard as if you did it because he looked at your girlfriend funny.

I do agree that it is a messy gray area because the whole "intent" consideration is so important in our criminal justice system. However, if you mean to kill someone, I don't think the reason you mean to do it is as important to consider as the fact that you had the intent to kill to begin with.

So what is happening now makes it okay that millions were killed in the 1930s and 1940s?

about 60 million died throughout wwii.

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

How is what you said in any way an answer to my question? Was it all right for the Germans to kill six million Jews because of what is happening now?

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

Oh, I don't know, it could have been because your OP posited criminalizing what some people think. In case you have forgotten, you wrote:

Should/could denial of evolution be a criminal offence?
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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6614961&postcount=1 (highlighting mine)

And yes, something can be both silly and dangerous - watch just about any episode of Jackass.

Your question is silly, and it is based on a dangerous principle.

 

[Aepervius]

Denial of evolution should not be criminalised. free speech, yada, yadaa etc...

Teaching of creationism and other religious stuff , in science course, not evidence based not falsifiable, is already forbidden, but should in addition be criminalized.

 

[ETA]

The world needs less laws, not more.

If somebody wants to deny evolution then that is their decision, the same if someone wants to deny gravity. It's not going to change reality, nor will it change the fact that in order to become a biologist or doctor you HAVE to work with the results of evolution being true.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just a couple of nitpicks here.

Something can't be silly and dangerous - you must choose!

Lots of things can be silly and dangerous. For example, playing chicken on a railway line is extremely silly because it's dangerous. maybe you should re-think what you meant there.

There's even more evidence for evolution than the holocaust at any rate.

That's a reason why Holocaust denial needs addressing more, not less, than evolution denial. To take it a stage further, there's even more evidence for gravity than for evolution. Gravity deniers are not, on the whole, a problem.

Dave

 

[Fnord]

... the problem of religious fundamentalism is that the fundies want to criminalize all religions but their own...

Thus we have Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation Between Church and State.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801... The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature -- as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion -- only of establishment on the national level. [Jefferson's] letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause* that we use today: "Separation of Church and State."

I've discussed this with fundies of various religions, and many of them see the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as hostile to their particular religion, and to no one else's. They also didn't seem to like it when I exercised my Freedom of Speech to claim, "While the United States may have been founded on Christian principles, that does not make the United States a Christian nation." Religion does not seem to mix well with free speech, free press, or the right for a person to determine his or her own religious beliefs (or lack of belief).


_{(*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".)}

 

[Spindrift]

The world needs less laws, not more.

You're right! We should have a law that says they can't make more laws. Oh...er...um, never mind.

 

[RockNroll]

As much as I dislike kreationist kretins, that would be a dumb idea on so many levels.

Obviously, it would be a gross violation of freedom of religion/thought.
Moreover, it wouldn't even solve the problem. In fact, it would probably make it considerably worse: fundie types love to whine about being persecuted even when they are clearly not, so providing them with ACTUAL persecution would only serve to radicalize them further.

 

[Mirrorglass]

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

That doesn't make sense. Hitler's propaganda against Jews was often very silly. John Wayne Gacy dressed up as a clown. People regularly urinate on high-voltage train tracks. Silly can be just as dangerous as solemn - sometimes more so.

 

[WildCat]

There should be a "hell no, that would be insane" option.

 

[fishbob]

I voted no.

Unless the denialist is an elected official, or an educator, in which case they should have something done to them that qualifies as a serious learning experience.

No execution, no waterboarding, no Spanish Inquisition.
More like public humiliation and removal from the job.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Denial of genocide suggests and encourages indifference or malice towards the victims.

Not in the slightest. But your strawman is a great example of how the Nazi's spoke to suppress thought

Are there any holocaust survivors on record as ever thinking criminalizing holocaust denial was a good idea?

 

[Drachasor]

Again, you fight ignorance by improving education, not by outlawing people being wrong.

 

[Gregoire]

Thus we have Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation Between Church and State.


I've discussed this with fundies of various religions, and many of them see the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as hostile to their particular religion, and to no one else's. They also didn't seem to like it when I exercised my Freedom of Speech to claim, "While the United States may have been founded on Christian principles, that does not make the United States a Christian nation." Religion does not seem to mix well with free speech, free press, or the right for a person to determine his or her own religious beliefs (or lack of belief).


_{(*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".)}

I recently learned that many of Jefferson's strong supporters were Baptists who fully understood they disagreed with him on religious philosophy. However, these Baptists lived in Congregationalist Massachusetts and knew that if religion were not separated from the state, they could potentially be persecuted as a minority.

Too bad many Baptists today don't share the same sentiments. I mean what if Islam becomes the dominant religion of the US some day?



With regard to the OP, absolutely not.

 

[Gregoire]

Again, you fight ignorance by improving education, not by outlawing people being wrong.

Exactly! Teaching critical thinking is the best solution.

 

[Tero]

Only in textbooks for public schools. Religious texts may state whatever. And use them in private schools.

 

[Emet]

Only in textbooks for public schools. Religious texts may state whatever. And use them in private schools.

The content of public school textbooks is controlled by local or state school boards.

Here's two examples:

Texas

Cobb County, GA