Liu Xiaobo’s Death Pushes China’s Censors Into Overdrive – The … – New York Times

Posted on by

In one experiment, researchers at the Citizen Lab found that a photo of Liu Xiaobo posted to an international users WeChat social media feed was visible to other users abroad but was hidden from users with Chinese accounts.

The heightened yet uneven censorship in recent days has elicited frustration and confusion among Mr. Lius supporters.

On the day after Mr. Lius death, one user posted on his WeChat feed: Did you see what I just sent? No, I cant see it. For the last two days, this has been the constant question and answer among friends.

The aggressive attempt at censorship is just the latest indication of the strong grip that the Chinese government maintains on local internet companies. In addition to automatically filtering certain keywords and images, internet companies like Baidu, Sina and Tencent also employ human censors who retroactively comb through posts and delete what they deem as sensitive content, often based on government directives.

Failure to block such content can result in fines for companies or worse, revocation of their operational licenses. Censors have been on especially high alert this year in light of the Communist Partys 19th National Party Congress in the fall.

Over the years, the constant cat-and-mouse game between Chinese censors and internet users has led to the rise of a robust internet culture in which censorship is normalized and satire and veiled references are par for the course.

So even as censors stepped up scrutiny in recent days, many savvy Chinese internet users found ways to evade those efforts. In tributes to Mr. Liu, users referred to him as Brother Liu or even XXX. They posted passages from his poems and abstract illustrations of Mr. Liu and his wife, Liu Xia.

Over the weekend, however, the tributes gave way to scathing critiques as friends and supporters of Mr. Liu reacted angrily to the news of Mr. Lius cremation and sea burial under strict government oversight.

One user took to his WeChat feed on Sunday to express disgust with the use of Mr. Lius corpse in what some called a blatant propaganda exercise. Swift cremation, swift sea burial, he wrote. Scared of the living, scared of the dead, and even more scared of the dead who are immortal.

More here:

Liu Xiaobo's Death Pushes China's Censors Into Overdrive - The ... - New York Times

As American Tech Firms Move to India, Many Choose to Self-Censor – Slate Magazine (blog)

Posted on by

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos poses on a lorry in Bangalore.

Manjunath Kiran/AFP/Getty Images

Among big American tech companies, the race for India is on. With 355 million internet users (and rapidly growing) up for grabs, its no surprise that firms like Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon are investing billions of dollars to make inroads in the worlds largest democracy.

But as they do, theyre running up against a particular conundrum: how to cater to the countrys cosmopolitan consumers without offending its more conservative classes, including the right-wing government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In a surprising number of cases, companies are erring on the side of censorshipfor instance, by blocking images of dead cows and ads for anti-nationalist home goods.

Indias approach to internet governance isnt in the same league as the heavy-handed censorship of neighbor and rival power China though, which has historically blocked popular websites including Google, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook through its Great Firewall. India represents a softer form of sanitization. By law, the nation offers a constitutional protection of free speech and limits the governments ability to crack down on online content. But that doesnt mean the internet has become a free-for-all. For example, India frequently leads the world in government requests to Facebook for account data and for content removal (mostly related to local laws against anti-religious or hate speech). Many companies also choose to pre-emptively clean up content to appease the government and avoid backlash from of Indias culturally conservative classes.

As noted in a post by the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi on Legally India, the practice of self-censorship is particularly widespread among international video streaming services. The authors suggest that the platforms may be trying to find their place in the Indian market without drawing attention for the wrong reasons.

This May, Netflix released a censored form of the Hindi dramedy Angry Indian Goddessesfor viewers in India, even though it made an uncensored cut available for foreign audiences in April. According to Indian digital news site MediaNama, it seems that the streaming service released the version of the filmwhich covers stigmatized issues like homosexuality, rape, and castethat had been approved for theatrical release by the Indias Central Board of Film Certification. But that body doesnt have jurisdiction over online content from platforms like Netflix and recently implied it has no intention of regulating online content in the foreseeable future.

Instead, it appears Netflixs decision was a case of self-censorship. According to the films production company and director, the American company requested the edited version of the movie first, apparently preferring to stream the version that cut references to the Indian government, blurred an image of an Indian goddess, and cut out dialogue referring to an Indian figure, the holy Hindu bovine cow, and, for unknown reasons, the words guitar and lunch.

Business is Business. They would rather censor stuff and stay on the good graces of the government of India than appease users and risk controversy, wrote one Reddit user in a discussion about the streaming services seemingly arbitrary censorship decisions in the country.

After getting complaints from confused India-based viewers, Netflix released an uncut version of the movie in June.

Amazon Prime Video also routinely eliminates nudity and other inappropriate content from its vast streaming catalog. Since its 2016 launch in India, many TV shows and films available in the region have been edited to the point where plots elude human comprehension. Among others, Amazon heavily cut an episode of Jeremy Clarksons car show The Grand Tourthat featured the host driving a car out of animal carcasses. Despite complaints, Amazon defended the move to Mashable India, saying it wanted to "keep Indian cultural sensitivities in mind. Considering the recent episodes of violence allegedly tied to beef consumption, Amazon may have thought it incendiary to show the dead body of an animal so highly revered in Hindu circles.

Amazon has also had to mind its online merchandise. The everything store came under fire in January for selling doormats with the Indian national flag design. (In India and other South Asian countries, feet on such a symbol would be considered an insult.) Upon learning of the product, Indias Foreign Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj tweeted, Amazon must tender unconditional apology. They must withdraw all products insulting our national flag immediately. In a subsequent tweet, she threatened to withhold and rescind visas from Amazon employees if action was not taken quickly. The company swiftly complied.

Tinder, too, hasnt been immune. The hookup app took criticism earlier this year after releasing a seemingly tone-deaf video ad for potential Indian users, which featured a conservative mother surprisingly approve of her daughters date, saying, From my side, there is a right swipe for this."

Some criticized what they saw as a regressive message at odds with the apps reputation for facilitating casual sex. Others pointed out how not OK their parents would be with them meeting up with strangers in a culture where open dating has traditionally been taboo.

If ma knew her daughter is on a hang-and-maybe-bang app, shed kick me outta the house, not sweetly send me off to drunk-make out with a rando, one user told BuzzFeed India.

When Tinder India CEO Taru Kapoor was asked about the video by Huffington Post India, she admitted the ad might not have been perfectly executed. But, she said, it was part of a larger effort the company would continue to make to show that online dating could appeal to a broad range of Indian users. Although differing from Amazon Prime Video and Netflixs self-censorship, the advertisement tied into a broader trend of appealing to more conservative audiences.

As huge profit margins and success in the Indian markets are already demonstrating, that may not be an unwise business decision.

Continue reading here:

As American Tech Firms Move to India, Many Choose to Self-Censor - Slate Magazine (blog)

Ari Shaffir Moves from Censorship to Creative Control with ‘Double Negative’ – Splitsider

Posted on by

Ari Shaffirs new two-part special Double Negative hit Netflix today. Presented in two episodes, Children and Adulthood, the special is a sprawling look at where the comedian is at in life right now. Hes getting older, exploring his sexuality, and dealing with pressure from family and friends, all in front of the backdrop of a world that is kind of fucked. He breaks down the overarching message of the special like this: One side is what Im against, the other side is what Im for in this life Ive chosen. Ari and I had an in-depth chat about the development of the material, the business side of shooting your own special, and the difficult dance between comedy purism and Comedy Centrals censorship.

Your new special Double Negative is divided into two parts: Children and Adulthood. What led to you dividing this release into two separate sections?

Generally I try to have some kind of through line in my specials. Otherwise, I find it just becomes sort of a collection of bits, which is fine, but its sort of more like a Van Halen album than awhat is it, Sea Change by Beck?

Right.

Yeah, thats a breakup album. Theres a reason theyre all together. If you add another song in thereits like, Im going to save this one for myself because it doesnt fit. So I just need a through line, even if its just in my head. With this one I couldnt really center on a through line. The bits were sort of everywhere, unlinked. I had all this stuff on children and then I had all this other stuff that wasnt quite enough for a special. At the time, I was listening to a lot of Smashing Pumpkins because me and Big Jay (Oakerson) saw them at Rock on the Range in Columbus a few years before. It was so bad. It was just Billy Corgan. He had people that looked like the regular band and he played all of his old songs at double speed just to get through them. He just did it for the money. He walked half the crowd. I dont even know if I stayed for the whole thing. I was mad at him for a couple of years. Then I was like, Well, let me remember what I liked about them. So I started listening to the old albums: Gish, Siamese Dream, and Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness. That one is such a good album. I listened to it over and over again. As I was listening to it I thought, I could apply this to my special and have like a double album.

Then I started thinking about how to break this down in a twofer kind of way. One is all about children because thats the pressure Im getting from my family a little bit and my friends, who are like, Come on, man. Why arent you having a kid yet? Im getting more and more in my thoughts about why I dont want that. Theyre like, Why? Well, let me tell you why. The screaming and you being tired all the time is a negative. Plus, this positive thing that Im going through, you cant do if you have a wife and kids. You cant go to Thailand for two weeks and explore your homosexuality. Youre not going to have STD call drama with random girls. This is a life youve given up. Some of its good, some of its bad. It really started to form in my head that way. One side is what Im against, the other side is what Im for in this life Ive chosen.

Once the segments started to become clear in your head, how did you structure them for the stage, being that its essentially two shows worth of material?

I really worked it. I took it to Edinburgh. I started taking intermissions at the ones I did in Scandinavia. I wanted to see what it felt like to close on each one. Ive seen people do this thing when theyre getting ready for their late night sets where they do their five that theyre going to do for late night and then they keep going and do the rest of their 15-minute set. But you dont know what it feels like to close on your closer joke. So I was doing that. I would flip flop nights, doing adulthood first or children first and then take an intermission. It was going well, but then I talked to (Joe) Rogan about it and he said, Thats all well and good, but thats a Scandinavian crowd who might be used to that stuff. You try to do that in America and theyre going to revolt. Youve got to do it in America before you tape the special. So I started running it like that with little intermissions. I told the clubs to book me a 10 or 15-minute opener and then I ran an hour-and-a-half to an hour-and-45 until I felt like I had two strong closers and two completely free-standing, yet together, specials.

How much did the material change once you brought it back to the States?

It needed more jokes in there for sure. Edinburgh audiences are hoity-toity smart people who are willing to see things like that. I learned that the attention span here is not quite as long and I needed to throw some more tags in there. Theres also other things, like abortion material. Out there it didnt play very well. The attitude here that Ive found in people who are going to comedy clubs is that theyre for a womans right to choose, but then they also think something is wrong with you if youre doing it. You know what its like: I heard she had four abortions. Oh, what?! In the UK and Scandinavia its more just like a procedure if you have to get one, just get one, no big deal. So those jokes didnt hit as hard there, but when I got back here people were more shocked by them.

Where did you record these two sets?

Cap City.

Any reason in particular that you chose Austin?

I have a list of all of my favorite clubs and I want to shoot at all of them. My CD, my first release, was at the Comedy Works in Denver, one of the best clubs in the country. Then I went back to the original room at The Comedy Store, which is probably my favorite room. Then Cap City.

The two sections of Double Negative have slight variations in aesthetic, plus a wardrobe change.

I had to decide how I was going to shoot it. I didnt want two separate locations because I didnt want two separate specials. I wanted it more like a front side and back side. Chappelles special was two separate specials recorded years apart. I dont know why they put those together, to be honest. But theres a George Carlin album FM & AM. It was right after he became dirty and he was exploring his clean side and his dirty side. He had one clean album and one dirty album, like two sides of the coin. So I decided to do it at the same location, but make it a little different. Change the wardrobe, change the color scheme of the set.

This is your first time working with Netflix, which means you probably had to front the whole production and then shop it and sell it, right?

Yeah, it was a risk for sure. I was at the point where I didnt want tothe last special I did I got a call about two weeks before I shot. I was in Appleton, Wisconsin. I try to go up at really shitty clubs for two or three weeks beforehand. Sometimes I dont even tell people Im going, no promoting it at all. Ill just be like, Give me the minimum you would give somebody with no draw. Im not going to tell anybody Im here. I just want to get this stuff real sharp in front of people who dont know me.

So anyway, I was doing that in Appleton, which is actually a really good room, and I get this call saying, Hey, your closer that youre planning on doingwe cant show it. At first they were like, We have notes. I was like, I dont want notes. I dont want them. Keep them to yourself. If you want to cut stuff, cut stuff. They were like, Youre going to need to hear this. We cant show your whole closer. I was like, Why? They said it was just an S&P rule. It was some rule about how you cant describe the smell of a vagina or something like that. I had already worked on it the way I wanted to, so I had to figure out what I was going to close with. When they told me that, right then I thought, I cant ever let you have control over what I do again. As long as I have enough money where Im not destitute, Ive got to do it myself with no notes. Its my special, not anyone elses.

So I talked to my agent and manager and told them what I wanted to do and they said, You might lose a lot of money. I was like, Im willing to. I live like a fucking pauper. So I saved up enough money. This is why I saved up money not so I could take a vacation, but so I can do this, build my special the way I want. I figured if it didnt work I could make $10,000 of it back in iTunes sales and then, lesson learned, I cant do that anymore. But I did sell it. So now this is the way Im always going to do it. Get out of my way, let me do what I want, and then Ill show you what I have. Its like a painter or an artist. They just say, Heres my work.

I remember when Paid Regular came out on Comedy Central it was advertised as uncensored. It sucks to hear the backstory of you having to drop your closer. Your special was censored before it was even finished.

Its not the way comics are supposed to do things. Its like the show I did, This Is Not Happening. The first day we had a meeting where we had to go over the stories with the comics. I remember raising my hand in the meeting and being like, Well, we could go over their stuff with them or we could trust professional comedians to be prepared on their own when theyre doing comedy. They all kind of laughed. I was like, Its not funny. Let them do what they want. We shouldnt be giving them any notes. Im a comedian and I dont want to give them notes. Anyone else who is not doing it should never tell anyone. Get out of peoples way and let them be who they are. If they make a mistake, fine, thats on them.

I saw that you were doing an Off-JFL thing in Montreal. They have your show listed as Ari Shaffirs Renamed Storytelling Show. I assume that Comedy Central is keeping the rights to This Is Not Happening as they are bringing Roy (Wood Jr.) in. But what are your plans to continue doing the show the way you created it? Will you be taking it back to stages and

Ive always done it on stages. I never really stopped doing it throughout the year. I do it at the Bell House, different spots, festivals. Its like, whatever, man. Theyre not going to stop me from being a comic. Its like, fine, do whatever you feel that you have to, but Im going to keep going.

What are your plans once the special drops? Are you going to beef up touring or are there any other big projects in the works?

Im trying to build my next hour. Im trying to do it all about Judaism. Im building that slowly. Im writing stuff. I want to do a travel book. I want to do a roast battle in the Belly Room. You know, just fun stuff. I want to be home for a while. Im not going to start touring again until December or January. I want to build my new hour here in the city.

Go here to see the original:

Ari Shaffir Moves from Censorship to Creative Control with 'Double Negative' - Splitsider

Campus free speech bills: Restrict or protect rights? – The Detroit News

Posted on by

MSU graduate Alex Bissell protests convervative columnist George Wills commencement address in 2014.(Photo: Max Ortiz / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

A pair of bills introduced in the Legislature that seek the suspension or expulsion of outspoken students are causing a stir at Michigans universities.

Critics say the proposed measures could hinder student activism. However, the main sponsor, state Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, says the Campus Free Speech Act ensures invited campus speakers have their voices heard.

It makes sure they arent able to shout down the speaker, he said. Ideally, I think it would be nice to have engagement in debate if they are willing to have a civil debate on the topic. ... If that doesnt happen, they could hold their own forum.

The legislation would apply to Michigans 15 public universities and 28 community colleges. Institutions would be required to suspend for one year or expel students who have twice been found responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others.

The measures also would eliminate free speech zones that designate where students can engage in expressive activity on campus.

Opponents say the proposals would infringe on free speech, not protect it.

This is a very tricky situation, said Vikrant Garg, 21, a graduate student studying public health at the University of Michigan. What this does is criminalize people for expressing their freedom of speech.

Garg, a co-founder of Students4justice, a coalition for students of color, said the legislation could drive away any kind of dissent.

Theres so many applications of this bill, its so far reaching it could apply to almost everybody, he said. Thats what makes it even more dangerous.

Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, said the measures are intrusive and unnecessary.

Its a solution in search of a problem, Hurley said. The freedom of speech and expression are not an issue at Michigans post-secondary institutions. There have been some anecdotal incidents that youve probably read about that proponents would refer to. These are often incidents that are intentionally set up by individuals who are not students, not affiliated with the university.

Fostering discussion

Colbeck pointed to the cancellation earlier this year of a planned speech by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California at Berkeley. University officials said threats of violence made it impossible to guarantee security at the event.

A Philadelphia-based group called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, has found that Michigans public universities already have speech code policies that substantially restrict freedom of speech or have the ability to result in restrictions on protected expression because of their vague wording or for other reasons. The group annually rates the speech codes for the 400 of the nations largest universities and colleges.

FIRE found problems with protecting speech at all 15 Michigan public universities. Six universities, including the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and its Dearborn and Flint campuses as well as Wayne State, had at least one policy that substantially restricts the freedom of speech, according to FIRE.

The other nine universities, including Michigan State and Oakland universities, had policies that restricted a more limited amount of free speech or whose vague wording could easily be used to restrict protected expression, the nonprofit said.

Grant Strobl, a 21-year-old international studies and political science major at UM, supports the legislation, saying it would require universities to remove protesters who interfere with events.

Its something that needs to be addressed not only in Michigan, but across the country, said Strobl, chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a campus conservative group. Its not a perfect bill. Im sure there will be changes. ... I think its a step in the right direction.

He concluded: Its unfortunate that some students have the mentality that if they dont agree with certain speech, they can shout down the speaker and silence them.

As an example, Strobl said he saw hundreds of shouting protesters stop a debate last September at UM about whether the Black Lives Matter movement harms race relations. The event was hosted by Michigan Political Union, an independent student organization.

I feel like a lot of what is important in the democracy was lost that day, he said. We werent able to have a discussion on relevant political issues. Theres no better place to do that than the university.

The legislation in Michigan follows action by Republican lawmakers in several other states to crack down on protesters who disrupt speakers at post-secondary institutions.

In Wisconsin, for example, lawmakers are weighing a bill that would penalize protesters who disrupt speakers. The issue is now before the state Senate.

UMs student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, wrote an editorial last month opposing Colbecks legislation. Officials at some state universities also have expressed reservations.

Targeted limits

Michigan State University spokesman Jason Cody said that while the school has not taken an official position on the legislation, officials are concerned about the bills and share the some of the objections raised by MASU.

Here at MSU, we encourage our students and faculty members to bring in speakers and events, regardless if they are deemed controversial by some, Cody said. By the same token, we encourage our campus community to make their viewpoints known on issues they are passionate about. In all of that, though, we ask both sides of any issue to be respectful and follow MSU ordinances.

Oakland University officials say campus policy has always protected the rights of student groups and outside organizations that gather in a peaceful manner.

Our student affairs office works hand in hand with the Oakland University Police Departments chief of police and group leaders to ensure access and safety in organizing such events, said Nancy Schmitz, assistant vice president for student affairs and dean of students. In addition, we always comply with all federal and state laws on the matter and will follow developments with this latest legislation being proposed.

Free speech expert Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said he doesnt mind the parts of the bills that reiterate the values of the First Amendment. However, he considers certain areas problematic.

Why single out protests and demonstrations? he said. If I recall correctly, those terms arent even defined in the statute. So this bill, which is supposed to be a free-speech bill, is putting a particular kind of limit on certain kinds of free speech, so-called protests and demonstrations.

Magarian said the legislation could be interpreted as banning all forms of protest.

The effect of that passage would seem to be that a protest or demonstration can be shut down if it interferes with any other kind of expressive activity, he said. I dont know of any kind of protest that doesnt interfere with other kinds of expressive activity.

Magarian said the bills mandatory penalties of a one-year suspension or expulsion for second-time offenders create a conflict for universities. He said hes inclined to think its better for universities to figure the issue out themselves.

One thing that might backfire about the provision is that its a pretty severe sanction, he said. The mandate of that sanction might well encourage universities in disciplinary proceedings to go easier on disruptors than they would if they had less severe penalties to dish out. ... That would cut against what this legislation is trying to do.

cwilliams@detroitnews.com

(313) 222-2311

Twitter: @CWilliams_DN

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2vwkVyV

Continue reading here:

Campus free speech bills: Restrict or protect rights? - The Detroit News

What Liu Xiaobo’s Grisly Prison Death Tells Us About Free Speech in Xi’s China – Newsweek

Posted on by

This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.

The death of Liu Xiaobo from liver cancer on July 13, under guard at a hospital in Shenyang, marks the passing of a great defender of freedoma man who was willing to speak truth to power.

As the lead signatory to Charter 08, which called for the rule of law and constitutional government, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison for inciting the subversion of state power.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Before his sentencing in 2009, Liu stood before the court and declared, To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity, and to suppress the truth.

With proper treatment and freedom, Liu would have lived on to voice his support for a free society.

Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Mar-a-Lago estate in West Palm Beach, Florida, on April 6, 2017. JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty

While Lius advocacy of limited government, democracy, and a free market for ideas won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, Chinas leadership viewed him as a criminal and refused to allow him to travel to Oslo to receive the award.

Instead, the prize was placed on an empty chair at the ceremony, a lasting symbol of Lius courage in the face of state suppression.

Beijing also prevented liberal Mao Yushi, cofounder of the Unirule Institute, from attending the ceremony to honor Liu.

The mistreatment of Liu, and other human rights proponents, is a stark reminder that while the Middle Kingdom has made significant progress in liberalizing its economy, it has yet to liberate the minds of the Chinese people or its own political institutions.

The tension between freedom and state power threatens Chinas future. As former premier Wen Jiabao warned in a speech in August 2010, Without the safeguard of political reform, the fruits of economic reform would be lost. Later, in an interview with CNN in October, he held that freedom of speech is indispensable for any country.

Article 33, Section 3, of the PRCs Constitution holds that the State respects and protects human rights. Such language, added by the National Peoples Congress in 2004, encouraged liberals to test the waters, only to find that the reality did not match the rhetoric.

The Chinese Communist Party pays lip service to a free market in ideas, noting: There can never be an end to the need for the emancipation of individual thought ( China Daily , November 16, 2013).

However, Party doctrine strictly regulates that market. Consequently, under market socialism with Chinese characteristics, there is bound to be an ever-present tension between the individual and the state.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (September 22, 2015), President Xi argued that freedom is the purpose of order, and order the guarantee of freedom.

The real meaning of that statement is that Chinas ruling elite will not tolerate dissent: individuals will be free to communicate ideas, but only those consistent with the states current interpretation of socialist principles.

This socialist vision contrasts sharply with that of market liberalism, which holds that freedom is not the purpose of order; it is the essential means to an emergent or spontaneous order. In the terms of traditional Chinese Taoism, freedom is the source of order.

Simply put, voluntary exchange based on the principle of freedom or nonintervention, which Lao Tzu called wu wei , expands the range of choices open to individuals.

Denying Chinas 1.4 billion people a free market in ideas has led to one of the lowest rankings in the World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters without Borders.

In the 2016 report, China ranked 176 out of 180 countries, only a few notches above North Koreaand the situation appears to be getting worse. Under President Xi Jinpings consolidation of power in preparation for this years Party Congress, the websites of liberal think tanks, such as the Unirule Institute, have been shut down, and virtual private networks (VPNs) are being closed, preventing internet users from circumventing the Great Firewall.

Lius death is a tragic reminder that China is still an authoritarian regime whose leaders seek to hold onto power at the cost of the lives of those like Liu who seek only peace and harmony through limiting the power of government and safeguarding individual rights.

James A. Dorn is vice president for monetary studies, editor of the Cato Journal , senior fellow, and director of Catos annual monetary conference.

Read the original:

What Liu Xiaobo's Grisly Prison Death Tells Us About Free Speech in Xi's China - Newsweek

Free Speech 2017 At War With the Framers of 1787 – American Spectator

Posted on by

James Madison, prime drafter of the Bill of Rights, would be appalled to find marauding mobs curbing speakers, but not surprised. This and much more that illuminates todays struggle over freedom of speech is the subject of a compact volume, The Soul of the First Amendment, by legendary First Amendment constitutional scholar Floyd Abrams.

Abrams traces the two-century history of the First Amendment, from its creation in the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, three years after ratification of the Constitution (which took nearly a year after its publication by the Framers of Philadelphia), The Framers were disinclined to adopt a Bill of Rights, whose protections they regarded as implicit in the text of the Constitution. Framer Roger Sherman of Connecticut said of bills of rights: No bill of rights ever yet bound the supreme power longer than longer than the honey moon [sic]of a newly married couple. Fortunately, Mr. Madison prevailed over such skepticism.

Abrams cites the mid-century historian Clinton Rossiter, who described the 1787 Constitution as plain to the point of severity, frugal to the point of austerity, laconic to the point of aphorism. Madison stated that the great object of bills of rights is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. Madison believed courts would act as an impenetrable barrier to infringement of speech. But speech is now under a sustained assault not seen since the 1798 Sedition Act saw more than 20 newspaper editors jailed by President John Adams.

Because Abrams covers only the First Amendment, he ignores the Courts seminal Bill of Rights case prior to 1925, the year the Supreme Court began to selectively incorporate clauses, thus applying them to the States. Until then the case that defined its ambit was Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which Chief Justice John Marshall, our most influential Justice, authored the Courts opinion holding that the Bill of Rights limited only the powers of the federal government. Indeed, it was not until 1939 (NOT a misprint) that the final trio of the original 13 colonies Massachusetts (Mar. 2), Georgia (Mar. 18) and Connecticut (Apr. 19) ratified the document many consider our true fundamental charter. This view is widely held because the Constitutions text focuses on definition and distribution of powers, many arcane to non-lawyers; the first ten amendments collectively called the Bill of Rights is a charter that mostly defines substantive constitutional rights, to many our secular Ten Commandments.

Abrams offers six chapters: (1) the history of free speech and the First Amendment over the past 226 years; (2) comparison of free speech protection between America and the other Western democracies; (3) how English free speech law was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in a landmark decision; (4) comparison of relative protection of a right to be forgotten; (5) comparison of regulation of spending in political campaigns; (6) free speech issues that evade legislative and jurisprudential solution.

Abrams notes two emerging, divergent views on free speech protections. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent as to free speech protection in the landmark 2010 Citizens United decision: The First Amendment advances not only the individuals right to engage in political speech, but also the publics interest in preserving democratic order in which collective speech matters. (Italics in original.) As rebuttal, Abrams cited Chief Justice Roberts in a later election free speech case, that the will of the majority plainly can include laws that restrict free speech. The whole point of the First Amendment is to afford individuals protection against such infringements. The case for new curbs on speech was carried further by former Harvard Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan, who identified opposing visions of free speech: one protects only such speech as is perceived to advance political equality by protecting designated rights holders; the other is negative, and bars the government from restricting speech, with a few very narrow exceptions. Sullivan supports the former, while Abrams supports the latter. Abrams follows the Framers; Sullivan, postmodern jurisprudential values.

The dominant limitation of speech from the founding into the 1920s was censorship. Only with the jurisprudence of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis did protection of free speech, however unpopular, came to the fore. It was only in 1925 that the Frist Amendment was applied to the states; and not until 1965 NOT a misprint did the Supreme Court rely upon the First Amendment to strike down a federal statute.

Abrams is very effective in contrasting the great degree to which speech remains protected in America, versus its creeping strangulation in Europe. Prime culprits are rulings by national courts and administrative tribunals, plus pan-European international bodies. He cites several recent decisions that would not have been made on our side of the Pond. Speakers have been convicted for such offenses as calling for an end to Muslim immigration (Britain, Belgium); for putting ones country first (Britain and Belgium again); and attacking Christianity (Poland). But it is criticism of Islam that is most ferociously punished today. Dutch parliamentarian and unsuccessful candidate for prime minister Geert Wilders was convicted for giving speeches calling for an end to Islamicization in Holland. This is the steep price of multicultural political correctness.

Another landmark protection for American speakers and writers came with passage of laws preventing enforcement against Americans of libel judgments issued by European courts; militant Islamist plaintiffs had targeted authors whose works sold only a few copies overseas, suing in England rather than in the U.S., to take advantage of European speech laws. Abrams counts 23 nations in the European Union that have criminal libel laws, with 20 of them including imprisonment penalties; several have laws calling for greater punishment for libeling public officials.

In one major area even a free speech libertarian like Abrams draws at least a partial line: national security. He recounts that during the 1971 Pentagon Papers case (in which a massive archive of Vietnam war decision-making was published by the New York Times and the Washington Post) the Times withheld certain classified details. Earlier, in the 1950s the Times learned that the CIA was conducting secret reconnaissance overflights of the Soviet Union, and elected not to publish. Rampant disclosure of sensitive classified information is now close to a journalistic norm. While such may prevent abuses, which undeniably exist, they can also damage national security sources and methods regarding intelligence collection, for example.

Perhaps most dangerous of all is the growing trend towards suppressing speech by resort to mass violence. Violence is contagious, if unchecked. Democrats were silent when Madonna said on Inauguration Day that she imagined the White House exploding; when a rapper posted a video imagining President Trump being assassinated; and some even defended the profanation of a Julius Caesar Shakespeare in the Park production in which Caesar dressed as Trump was stabbed to death. Such attitudes spawn violence not only against the right. California Democrats, much to their surprise, have received death threats from members of their hardcore leftist base, warning them not to cede to President Trump on health care.

Many remember vividly the tragic and terrifying events leading up to November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was gunned down. For at least a year before that ghastly Friday of November 22, right-wing extremists had openly preached violence against the president. The contagion had spread, but a radical leftist was the assassin. Violent and hateful rhetoric, far from being tamped down, escalated though the massively destructive race riots of 1964-1968. The wave crested with the spring 1968 murders of Martin Luther King by a white racist, and of Senator Robert Kennedy by a Palestinian terrorist.

In what Abrams terms an historical irony the protections of the Bill of Rights have most often been invoked on behalf of leftist dissenters, yet it is the hardcore left that today aggressively moves to curtail such protections for speakers on the right. It was said of the French Revolution that in the end it, like the Roman deity Saturn, ultimately devoured its own children. Todays myriad leftist practitioners and the few of their ilk on the right of intellectual thuggee might do well to ponder this.

The death of free speech would mark the demise of the American republic, tossing the Constitution into historys ash heap. It would be a terrifying triumph for totalitarians everywhere. Either we let speech run free, or we let the sensitivities of listeners (and readers) delimit what we may lawfully say. To prefer the latter is to empower most those who will most vociferously impose their sensitivities to silence others. They will always be the most extreme among us. And then we will have the least freedom of speech when we need most the broadest freedom to speak.

Excerpt from:

Free Speech 2017 At War With the Framers of 1787 - American Spectator

Michigan Students Object to Campus Free Speech Bill – Townhall

Posted on by

Michigan State Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, is the leading sponsor for the Campus Free Speech Act, a proposed bill that would restrict certain kinds of protesting on Michigan college campuses. Students who have twice been found responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others, would either be suspended for a year or expelled permanently.

Colbeck says that the bill would allow speakers to visit campuses without being disrupted by students who disagree with their views, referring to when author and commentator Ann Coulter canceled her speaking engagement at the University of California, Berkley, because of pushback from students.

The CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, Dan Hurley, said that such instances are intentionally set up by individuals who are not students, not affiliated with the university." He does not believe there is a problem with free speech or expression at colleges, he said.

Michigan's 15 public universities and 28 community colleges would adopt the rules set out by the bill, and would also abolish free speech zones. In May, Sen. Colbeck said, Ultimately, theres people that are just trying to shut down any discussion of issues that they dont agree with.

Michigan students are split on the bill, some thinking that it would infringe on their own free speech rights. Vikrant Garg is a graduate student at the University of Michigan and helped found Students4Justice, a group for students of color at UM who organize to target inequities on our campus.

What this does is criminalize people for expressing their freedom of speech, Garg said.

This bill, and the people that make these decisions, including the police who are used to enforce these policies operate under a framework in which they can silence us and inflict violence against us with no consequences. They can inflict violence against us for speaking out."

Gregory Magarian, professor of law at Washington University in Saint Louis and a free speech expert, says that colleges should address the issue on their campuses individually.

Nancy Schmitz, dean of students and assistant vice president of student affairs at Oakland University said, Our student affairs office works hand in hand with the Oakland University Police Departments chief of police and group leaders to ensure access and safety in organizing such events. In addition, we always comply with all federal and state laws on the matter and will follow developments with the latest legislation being proposed.

Some faculty members believe the bill is unnecessary. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that rates speech codes on campuses, rules restricting or limiting free speech already exist on Michigan's public university campuses.

Ultimately, the legislation could promote an atmosphere of discussion and civil debate. Sen. Colbeck said, "if campus leaders believe some speech creates a safety concern because of unruly audience members wishing to use violence, they must police those who would break the law in order to stifle free speech, ... intellectual freedom on our campuses must not be bullied into silence."

What McConnell Said When He Was Asked to Justify Health Care Failure to Voters

Read more:

Michigan Students Object to Campus Free Speech Bill - Townhall

In Niagara Falls, a ‘church for atheists’ and everyone else – Buffalo News

Posted on by

NIAGARA FALLS At 11 a.m. on Sunday morning, as light streamed through the church's tall, arched windows, the service began.

The topic was science.

Although that focus might be unusual for some churches, no one batted an eye at the venerable First Unitarian Universalist Church of Niagara, which prides itself on welcoming people of any religion or even no religion.

The message on the sign in front of the Main Street church says, Atheists, Buddhists and Christians belong to this church. No specific belief is expected or required. In fact, the members proudly call it "a church for atheists."

"Everyone is always welcome in this church," said longtime member Peter Diachun, who opened the service. "We're particularly putting out the welcome mat for people who are seeking an alternative church."

That welcome for those of any faith, no faith or those who just aren't sure about faith was expressed in words and images. Colorful fabric banners representing the world's major religions, from Christianity to Hinduism, lined the side walls and two Unitarian Universalist banners hung in the front.

The program on this day was one of the summer sessionsgeared toward "Free Thinkers," a term used for a person "who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority," said Diachun.

Free Thinker programs also will be held starting at 11 a.m. on July 23 and Aug. 6. On July 23, the service will includea video of author Alain de Botton's lecture "Atheism 2.0."

A free thinker, said Diachun, can be but doesn't have to be an atheist, an agnostic or a skeptic. The free thinker "does not necessarily have wild or unstable beliefs, but they simply choose to question the validity of claims that come from an authority."

The local congregation meets in an impressive church, dedicated on Jan. 15, 1922. With its four Doric stone columns, it resembles a bank building. It is faced with a striking pattern of deeply recessed, rustic cut-edge limestone slabs that were excavated from the site while it was being built. "We like that kind of thing," said Diachun.

Its appearance tells a story the congregation still enjoys sharing. "It doesn't look like a church where is the steeple?" Diachun asked.

In fact, the building was intentionally built without outward religious symbolism except for the words "Unitarian Church," with the U's carved as V's in the Latin style, over the main door. That's because the congregation wasn't entirely sure that they would be able to support such a building.

The main hall, which is filled with light from the arched clear-glass windows, was built with a working stage in the front in case it might have to be marketed as a theater. It wasn't until 1955, when the congregation was booming, that confident leaders converted the backstage area into classrooms.

Suzanne Cole of New Orleans speaks during a discussion session at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Niagara. (John Hickey/Buffalo News)

"It's a very UU thing, to be a little skeptical," said Suzanne Cole of New Orleans, one of several young people who attended the service after coming to the area for the Quaker Friends General Conference Gathering held at Stella Niagara.

There are 64 Unitarian Universalist congregations in New York, with about 8,500 members. Some 150,000 members belong to 1,016 congregations across the country. The church has 20 more congregations outside the United States.

In Niagara Falls, the fortunes of the congregation have waxed and waned over the decades, and now the active membership hovers around 40, with about 20 attending services regularly.

The congregation is no longer large enough to support a minister. Its programs which in the fall, winter and spring are often led by a visiting minister or lecturer are coordinated by the board, which is led by Elizabeth "Betsy" Diachun, Peter's wife and the longest-tenured member of the congregation.

Betsy Diachun has scheduled ministers and guest preachers, including several with Unitarian Universalist educations, to lead services starting in September.

"I think this makes it much more interesting, because we get so many different points of view, rather than hearing just one person every Sunday," she said. "Of course you get consistency if you have one person. But a lot of our members would prefer not to have a minister just for that reason."

Cole, who is affiliated with both Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists, said she seeks out one of those congregations whenever she travels. After attending a service at the Niagara Falls church, she preached there on July 2 "in honor of our loyal skeptics," she said. "I talked about how loyal skeptics propel an organization forward by helping us reconnect to a mission in a changing world."

The Free Thinkers service began with the lighting of an oil-filled chalice, flanked by two candles on a small table in the front of the room.

"A Hungarian minister began this during World War II," said Betsy Diachun. "We feel that it demarcates the time that is special to us. At the beginning of the service, we light the chalice and say that we hope to heal instead of harm, and at the end when we blow it out, we wish to stay safe until we meet again."

The congregation watched a video of a TED talk by author and neuroscientist Sam Harris titled "Science Can Answer Moral Questions." Then they passed around a hand-held microphone and shared their opinions on the topic.

Michael Miano of Middleport speaks during a "Free Thinkers Sunday" session at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Niagara in Niagara Falls. (John Hickey/Buffalo News)

Michael Miano of Middleport, a newcomer to the church, kicked off the spirited exchange by saying that he disagreed with Harris' points. Next to take the microphone was Nan Simon of Youngstown, who said of Harris, "I think what he said is absolutely correct."

"As usual, we seem to have a wide spectrum of ideas on these topics," said Peter Diachun as he handed the microphone around.

From there, people discussed the elitism of scientific work "Let's not make science so exclusive that only the rich and powerful have access to it," said Cole and whether science can ever be totally objective.

Even the first-time participants expressed their views passionately. Spotlighting the cultural impact of religion, Sky Stewart of Franklin, Ohio, asked, "Is this thing you're being asked to do by your religion making a person greater or making them less?"

Sky Stewart of Franklin, Ohio, one of several people visiting the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Niagara, expresses his opinion. Stewart is both a Quaker and a Unitarian Universalist, which is not unusual in the church. (John Hickey/Buffalo News)

After the service ended, announcements were made about coming social events, and discussions and conversation continued in the aisles.

Betsy Diachun said the congregation "would love to attract more members," but there are challenges.

A comfortable rocking chair for mothers with babies is positioned in the last row of the sanctuary, but the church has not been able to keep families with young children. "We are prepared to offer a Sunday school or baby-sitting," said Betsy Diachun. "But unless we have two or three families, they want to go someplace where their child is going to have interaction with other children."

Starting in September, services will become more traditional. They include music on the grand piano and hymn-singing, readings, a time for sharing joys and concerns, and a homily.

"They have a beautiful grand piano and they have a fabulous musician," said Cole.

"Niagara has a lot more than many small churches, they have a beautiful building and they have a position in the community, but I know that they are also challenged for members, especially families and young adults," she said.

After services during the year, members take turns bringing food for a coffee hour, said Betsy Diachun. "We are always telling people not to go overboard" with what they prepare, she said.

"That is supposed to be a big thing with Unitarians, instead of 'Holy, holy, holy,' they have a hymn that goes, 'Coffee, coffee, coffee.' There are lots of jokes about Unitarians and coffee," she said.

Having traveled and visited many congregations, Cole is optimistic about the future of the liberal religious tradition to which some Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists belong.

"We're the type of groups that people don't find until they are really desperate to find us," she said.

"People don't know to look for something that's further left than anywhere they've ever been. Folks who were raised very liberal socially often say, 'Religion doesn't meet me here. There's no faith acting here.'"

Liv Monck-Whipp of Ontario speaks during a discussion session at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Niagara. (John Hickey/Buffalo News)

However, said Cole, "To be a UU, you don't agree to believe a set of things, but to interact with the people around you in a set of ways. Most people want to be more moral, and they want to be more principled and they want to change the world. Worshiping with any of the faiths in the liberal tradition equips us and enables us to be those people that we are hoping to be out in the world, by finding solidarity when we worship."

On the Free Thinkers Sunday program she attended with her friends, Cole said, "I can tell you there were at least two atheists in the room, a Christian, two pagans. That is the composition of most UU churches. The church I worship with in New Orleans is at least 50 percent atheist."

In the Niagara Falls church, "We have people who are quite Christian, and we do have a lot of humanists and atheists," said Betsy Diachun. And, like Cole and Stewart, some members belong to another religion, too. "We've had ministers who were Sufis as well as Unitarians," she said.

Members understand that a church for atheists and everyone else might be a stretch for some to accept. But they believe that what they have to offer is valuable.

"We can't offer salvation, because most of us don't believe there is life after death," said Betsy Diachun. "What we can offer you, though, and why you should come to this church, is that it would open your mind to consider ethical and moral questions from different points of view, and that it would give you a terrific feeling of companionship of others who are walking the same path in life."

The services on Sunday morning, she said, are "a way of getting our moral compass aligned, once a week, if we've gotten astray, which is so easy with all the distractions."

email: aneville@buffnews.com

More:

In Niagara Falls, a 'church for atheists' and everyone else - Buffalo News

Were Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain Atheists? – Patheos (blog)

Posted on by

Madame Tussauds Abraham Lincoln (photograph by Kevin Burkett: 12-21-12) [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

***

(11-16-06)

*****

[along with fellow so-called atheists Jefferson, Paine, Voltaire, Hume, and Franklin?]

***

Atheist DagoodS wrote in one of my comboxes (note: incontext, he was speaking rhetorically, but this doesnt imply that he doesnt think Twain and Lincoln were atheists):

Imagine I told you that I hold the atheists Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain in high regard. Now THERE was a fine pair of atheists! . . . When I think of atheism it is the Lincolns and Twains, I see. Not the hordes of also-rans that fail to demonstrate true atheism.

Even thelist of notable heroic non-believersthat DagoodS directs us to, recognizes distinctions as to belief in God (it notes, for example, that Jefferson was a deist and Paine possibly one, and exercises subtlety and restraint in its very title), but DagoodS shows no such precision of category.

Abraham Lincoln was an atheist? Thats news to me. To the contrary, he is considered by many historians the most religious president ever. Who was he praying to repeatedly during the Civil War? Why is it that he developed his second inaugural address around the notion of divine providence? How can you have a guiding providence if there isnt anyone there to oversee it?

This sort of historical revisionism (even up to the denial of Jesus existence) is one of the more ludicrous elements of atheism. DagoodS an intelligent man [an attorney, in fact]. How could he actually fall for the nonsense that Lincoln was an atheist? I agree that he was by no means an orthodox Christian, nor even any sort of Christian even in a watered-down, insipid liberal Protestant sense, but that is still far different from an atheist (as theists come in many varieties). We must have sensible definition of terms. Atheist means no God at all. Even aweb page at infidel.org, devoted to the issue, states:

In regard to a Supreme Being he entertained at times Agnostic and even Atheistic opinions. During the later years of his life, however, he professed a sort of Deistic belief, but be did not accept the Christian or anthropomorphic conception of a Deity.

Exactly. This isnt Christianity, but it isnt atheism, either. DagoodS affirmed that he was anatheist. The same exact silliness is applied to Thomas Jefferson, who was neither an atheist nor a deist (strictly speaking), but rather, a Unitarian (as he referred to himself at least twice in personal letters). Jefferson talked about providence, too, just as Lincoln and also Franklin did. Lincoln is quoted onthe same web page:

If God be a just God, all will be saved or none (Manfords Magazine).

Atheist ignorance and overzealousness on these topics never ends. It is said that philosopher David Hume was an atheist. He was not (I wrotea paper about thatand even once amazed a former Christian-turned-atheist philosophy professor at the University of Michigan with this bombshell information). Hume accepted one form of the teleological (design) argument for God and never once, it is said, denied that God (of some sort: more like a deist God) existed in his personal letters.

Voltaire and Paine are regarded as atheists. They were not, either. They both believed in God in some sense, but criticized organized religion. The sameinfidel.org web pagestates:

The clergy parade Lincolns recognitions of a Supreme Being as a triumphant refutation of the claim that he was an Infidel. Yet, at the same time, they do not hesitate to denounce as Infidels, Paine and Voltaire, when they know, or ought to know, that two more profound and reverential believers in God never lived and wrote than Paine and Voltaire.

If Infidelity and Atheism were synonymous terms it would be difficult to maintain that Lincoln, during the last years of his life at least, was an Infidel. But Infidelity and Atheism are not synonymous terms. An Atheist is an Infidel, but an Infidel is not necessarily an Atheist.

Here (from aweb page documenting Lincolns theism) is a proclamation of fasting and prayer by Lincoln, from March 30, 1863. Either he is lying through his teeth or he is no atheist:

It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, and to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in Holy Scripture, and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord. And, insomuch [sic] as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which has preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Was Lincoln also shamelessly lying in his second inaugural address of 4 March, 1865, about a month before he was murdered?:

The Almighty has His own purposes. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondsmans 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another draw with the sword, as was said 3000 years ago, so still must it be said, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nations wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

The following is a statement Lincoln made to General Dan Sickles, who participated in the battle of Gettysburg:

Well, I will tell you how it was. In the pinch of the campaign up there (at Gettysburg) when everybody seemed panic stricken and nobody could tell what was going to happen, oppressed by the gravity of our affairs, I went to my room one day and locked the door and got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed to Him mightily for victory at Gettysburg. I told Him that this war was His war, and our cause His cause, but we could not stand another Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville . . . And after that, I dont know how it was, and I cannot explain it, but soon a sweet comfort crept into my soul. The feeling came that God had taken the whole business into His own hands and that things would go right at Gettysburg and that is why I had no fears about you.

(July 5, 1863)

Perhaps this proves the truth of the statement, there are no atheists in foxholes? Did Lincoln cease to be an atheist the day after Gettysburg, pick it up again for nearly two years, till his second inauguration, and then promptly resume his belief in God in time for that classic speech?

He even mentioned theHoly Spirit, for heavens sake, in one of his proclamations (a most politically incorrect and non-secularistic, non-atheistic thing to do indeed):

I invite the people of the United states (on Aug 6) . . . to invoke the influence of His Holy Spirit . . . to guide the counsels of the government with wisdom adequate to so great a national emergency, and to visit with tender care and consolation throughout the length and breadth of our land all those who, through the vicissitudes of marches, voyages, battles, and sieges have been brought to suffer in mind, body, or estate, and finally to lead the whole nation through the paths of repentance and submission to the Divine will back to the perfect enjoyment of union and internal peace.

(July 15, 1863)

And there is his proclamation of the holiday of Thanksgiving:

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they (gifts of God) should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.

(October 3, 1863)

Obviously, if Lincoln were truly an atheist during his presidency, then he was an inveterate liar. Since atheists who claim him as one of their own want to make out that he was of such high character (and I fully agree), then this doesnt fit in with that picture. Therefore, we must conclude that if he was a truthful man to an extraordinary degree, this is inconsistent with a picture of him lying repeatedly about belief in God in his public speeches.

Therefore, one can only reasonably, plausibly conclude that he believed in God. He was not merely a deist but a theist (so it seems from the references to providence), albeit in a sub-Christian manner. Neither deism nor theism is compatible with atheism. So he was not an atheist, and atheists zealous for a known, respected figurehead and hero ought to revise their language to recognize this.

No. (Understand that to me, an atheist is someone who simply lacks a god-belief for whatever reason and that I go along with Charles Bradlaugh and the rest who would call an infant an atheist, sincea-theismmeans without theism). Part of the time he sure seemed like an atheist (such as the poem Contract with Mrs. T. K. Beecher) but other times he seemed like a theist or at least one who embraced the supernatural. Then again, some people change, and others waver. The subject of God and the supernatural is no easy deal, and I dont blame anyone for being unsure. I try not to categorize someone as atheist or theist unless they consistently use the term (or unless I am in direct dialogue with that person). Ingersoll called himself an agnostic and an infidel, and Ill buy that. This gives me something to work on. Paine was clearly a Deist, as was Jefferson. But Twain was Twain, and who can really explain him? I like himbecausehe merelydescribedhis opinions; I dont remember him attaching a label to himself (but I could be wrong). Ive certainly not been the same throughout my life. I first called myself an atheist in a courtroom in 1988, and the second time I called myself an atheist was shortly before I started putting together the predecessor to this magazine. I was, at one time, a Christian; at another time, I lived with the Hare Krishnas; at still another time, Id have been glad to read your Tarot. Because Ive always had a passion for religion and religious beliefs, and because Twain has had such a profound influence upon me during just about every phase of my life, Id be interested in any studies of his religious views. If you have a book or article, Id be interested in reading it. If you could dash off a few notes laying out your case or, better yet, showing both sides of Twain, Id be more than happy to print it . . . I have read the old American Atheists article that calls him two-faced when it comes to his religious views. (Its around somewhere; Ill find it and post it eventually, but am reluctant to post or reprint it because of its tone.) But I think this charge is unfair, considering that religious claims elicit such complex reactions in most people particularly complex and open-minded people such as Twain. Sure he wavered, but I cannot go so far as to describe him as being two-faced about it. Part of my goal here is to encourage compassion when confronted with others religious beliefs, and Twain, of all people, cannot be sized up in three or four pages if he can be sized up at all!

William Phipps, takes a similar perspective, but coming from a Christian standpoint, and arguing positively for some sort of Christian Mark Twain, in his semi-humorously-titled article,Mark Twain, the Calvinist(Theology Today, Vol. 51, No. 3 October 1994):

Many people think Mark Twain was among the cultured despisers of religion and that he became increasingly cynical about both God and humans as he grew older. If being a Christian includes believing in the infallibility of the Bible, the immutability of the species, holy wars, and literal hellfire, then Twain was indeed not religious, not a Christian, and not a Calvinist. But on looking further, both at his life and his writings, one can see that Twain was deeply sensitive to the sovereignty of God and the weakness of those made in the divine likeness. While Twain rejected passages of the Bible that he regarded as absurd and morally repulsive, he was ever a feisty Christian. He wrote: All that is great and good in our particular civilization came straight from the hand of Jesus Christ.

. . . Calvinism enabled Twain to discern more keenly the two sides of human nature. Everyone is a moon and has a dark side, he quipped.4The chasm between the ideal and actual provided the incongruity on which much of Twains humor was based. His religion also gave him a compulsion to ridicule the human propensity for self-righteousness. Biographer Edward Wagenknecht writes: Unchristian conduct on the part of professing Christians was always shocking to Mark Twain. . . . He thinks, he jokes in terms of Calvinism . . . (which) had sunk into the very marrow of his bones.5

During the four decades that Twain lived in Hartford he regularly attended the Asylum Hill Congregational Church, where Joseph Twichell was the pastor. It was mainly because of his close friendship with Twichell that Twain settled in Connecticuts capital and built a house near Twichell.6Twain called his church the Church of the Holy Speculators because many of its members worked for the insurance companies centered in Hartford. Calvinist Twichell found Twains creed as a mature writer acceptable: I believe in God the Almighty. . . . I think the goodness, the justice, and the mercy of God are manifested in His works.

. . . In the nineteenth century, people on both sides of the Atlantic seemed especially prone to divorce the performance of faith from the profession of faith. Twain described counterfeit worship this way:

He (God) pronounced his work good.. . . Daily we pour out freshlets of disapproval, dispraise, censure, passionate resentment, upon a considerable portion of the work-but not with our mouths. No, it is our acts that betray us, not our words. . . . For ages we have taught ourselves to believe that when we bide a disapproving fact, burying it under a mountain of complimentary lies, He is not aware of it, does not notice it, perceives only the compliments, and is deceived. But is it really so? . . . Is it not a daring affront to the Supreme Intelligence to believe such a thing? Does any of us inordinately praise a mothers whole family to her face, indiscriminately, and in that same movement slap one of her children? Would not that act turn our inflamed eulogy into nonsense?15

Twain did not regard holiness as an enemy of hilarity, and he even ranked humor as one of Gods chief attributes.16Accordingly, as one made in the divine image, Twain said, I am Gods fool.17He regarded laughter, conveyed by his fictional and non-fictional writings, as the most effective way of dealing with human foibles. While seriously trusting in God, he laughed at lesser commitments to Bible and sect-and the world laughed with him. Finding much pretense and little Christian substance in the character of his New England contemporary, Mary Baker Eddy, he devoted a book to an examination of the founder of Christian Science.

. . . Albert Paine, who lived with Twain while composing his official biography, commented: Mark Twains God was of colossal proportions-so vast, indeed, that the constellated stars were but molecules in His veins.19Witness to this belief isCaptain Stormfields Visit to Heaven, Twains rollicking treatment of the traditional provincial and literal notions of heaven. His God is too grand to be comprehended by the puny cosmic conceptions of earthlings. Twain had this to say about the authentic Creator of the real universe: Let us now consider . . . that God of unthinkable grandeur and majesty, by comparison with whom all the other gods whose myriads infest the feeble imaginations of men are as a swarm of gnats scattered and lost in the infinitudes of the empty sky.20

Two of Twains three children, as well as his wife, preceded him in death. Those personal tragedies prompted this jotting on divine suffering:

When I think of the suffering which I see around me, and how it wrings my heart; and then remember what a drop in the ocean this is, compared with the measureless Atlantics of misery which God has to see every day, my resentment is roused against those thoughtless people who are so glib to glorify God, yet never to have a word of pity for Him.21

Although never certified as a cleric, Twain fulfilled his childhood ambition. Near the end of his life, he wrote: I have always preached. . . . If the humor came of its own accord and uninvited I have allowed it a place in my sermon, but I was not writing the sermon for the sake of the humor.22

[see further documentation of citations in the article]

Likewise, David Tomlinson, in areview of a collection of writings by Twain on biblical themes, posits a pseudo-Calvinist Mark Twain:

The curious thing is Twains attitude toward Biblical literalism. As an adult, he associated with the minister Joseph Twichell and a set of people who would not have viewed Biblical literature as literal truth. They would have seen it as representing the beliefs of those who did the writing of the Biblical books. The imperfections of the God of Genesis, then, should not be attributed to God but to those who wrote about him. What the nineteenth-century sophisticates believed was never what Twain himself could take to heart, however. He had been raised in the Biblical literalism of the small Hannibal churches, and no fancy theological explanations would relieve him of the burden that the literalism he learned there imposed.

This sounds to me like no atheist at all. Rather, it sounds exactly like a troubled, irreverent (and irreverently funny) but ultimately pious theist no longer orthodox in a Protestant or Catholic sense, but profoundly, deeply influenced by Calvinism and Christianity in general. In other words, he is basically in this respect a wise, funny version of Abraham Lincoln. But neither man was an atheist.

Visit link:

Were Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain Atheists? - Patheos (blog)

Atheist Deconversion Story Series #2: Lorna – Patheos (blog)

Posted on by

If I were in an abusive situation, Id certainly want to break free, too. The question, however, is where to go (fractal image by PublicDomainPictures) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

Introduction: Deconversion stories are accounts of an atheist or agnosticsodyssey from some form of Christianity to atheism or agnosticism. Since these are public (else I wouldnt know about them in the first place), its reasonable to assume that they are more than merely subjective / personal matters, that have no bearing on anyone else. No; it is assumed (it seems to me) that these stories are thought to offer rationales of various sorts for others to also become atheists or to be more confirmed in their own atheism. This being the case, since they are public critiques of Christianity (hence, fair game for public criticism), as a Christian (Catholic) apologist, I have a few thoughts in counter-reply.

I amnotquestioning the sincerity of these persons or the truthfulness of their self-reports, or any anguish that they went through. I accept their words at face value. Im not arguing that they are terrible, evil people (thats a childs game). My sole interest is in showing if and where certain portions of these deconversion stories contain fallacious or non-factual elements: where they fail to make a point against Christianity (what Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls defeating the defeaters), or misrepresent (usually unwittingly) Christianity as a whole, or the Bible, etc.

As always, feedback on my blog (especially from the persons critiqued) is highly encouraged, and I will contact, out of basic courtesy, everyone whose story I have critiqued. All atheists are treated with courtesy and respect on my blog. If someone doesnt do so, I reprimand them, and ban them if they persist in their insults.

When I cite the stories themselves, the words will be inblue.

*****

Today, I am responding to Real Deconversion Story #1 Lorna (10-25-12), hosted on Jonathan MS PearcesA Tippling Philosopherweb page at Patheos (where my blog is also hosted).

I was brought up in what I now refer to as thefundie bubble, where I was raised to be completely unaware of how the real world worked.

And of course this will have a harmful effect: being exposed to a fringe, extreme, anti-intellectual species of Christianity. This is now the third straight deconversion story I have critiqued in the last few days, where this was the case. One starts to detect a certain pattern. Most of what an atheist will say in critique of fundamentalism, the vast majority of non-fundamentalist Christians will readily agree with.

Lorna has great fun mocking the fundamentalist aversion to evil forces but, all joking aside, certainly we can all agree that there are bad (evil?) people and bad belief-systems out there (e.g., ISIS and neo-Nazis and child molesters or rapists).

Their [her parents] prime objective as Christian parents wastokeep the world outof our home.

And that makes perfect sense. All parents seek to insulate their children against harmful influences. Some may do it in dumb, extreme ways, and we may disagree on which harmful influences to exclude, but the principle itself is a general one.

Lornas struggle with masturbation simply highlights the Christian assertion that sin is addicting. Its powerful. Its enticing. Thats why we must try to avoid it at all costs. Its much easier to never begin such practices. There is a rational argument (even a secular one) that can be made against masturbation, but this is not the place to do that. Of course, the atheist and sexually liberated person simply says that because masturbation is a powerful urge, therefore, it must be perfectly natural and therefore okay. That doesnt follow at all.

Virtually every married man (to give one example) has been attracted to a woman not his wife. If that were purely and solely natural, therefore, good, then infidelity would then become good. But there is a consensus (still, even today), that cheating on your spouse is a bad thing. Therefore, this is an analogous example of an urge that society (atheist and Christian alike) stigmatizes as something that should not be done. The child molester has strong natural urges to molest children. Society (and I would say, natural law and common ethical sense) says that is wrong. We also still think its wrong for a parent and child to have sex, or for a man to rape a woman.

All of those things feel natural to those who have those urges. Christianity simply holds that a wider group of sexual practices fall under this same sort of thing. And we have plenty of reasons for believing so: that can be backed up by studies from social science, as to effects on individuals and families and marriages of certain practices.

Of course, I couldnt stopand according to what I learnedit was a spiritually dangerous addiction. Knowing this did a number on my self-esteem because I deeply and genuinely believed that God was disappointed in me all of the time and I couldnt stop no matter how hard I tried. I asked for forgiveness nightly, but it got to the point where I was even ashamed to mention the subject in prayer.

Lornas in good company. Paul the Apostle wrote about very similar struggles (that we all go through in one way or another):

Romans 7:15-24 (RSV) I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.[16] Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.[17] So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.[18] For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.[19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.[20] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.[21] So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.[22] For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,[23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.[24] Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

His solution was given in the next chapter, where he talked about the powerful help of the Holy Spirit and grace, to overcome sin.

. . . the darker elements of the Christian mindset that were present both in my home in the church certainly latched onto personality weaknesses and perpetuated them, even more so as time went on.

That is, the fundamentalist(not general Christian) mindset . . .

The point of homeschooling, both my parents and seemingly the chosen curriculums, was not to educate and prepare me for life but rather to keep sin aka reality far out of reach. As a result, when I actually did face the real world,I did so naively and unprepared.

That has not been our own experience at all. We have homeschooled all four of our children, and they are doing wonderfully in life (now at ages 26, 24, 20, and 15: our oldest is autistic as well). All are rock-solid Catholics. So once again, the big bad boogie man is neither Christianity nor homeschooling, but rather, extreme, unrealistic versions of both. I agree with the excesses Lorna condemns in this regard (there are good and bad homeschoolers, just as with anything else), but I dont see how they constitute any reason for deconversion and adoption of atheism. Lorna seems to think they do (since they are in her deconversion story). I dont see how, meself.

As a result of her desperate need to control combined with her belief that there was only one correct path that I was straying from, I was made to quit my job, have the cellphone that I bought and paid for (on time every month to prove responsibility) taken away from me (so that I couldnt communicate with Daniel as freely), and forbidden from actuallydatinghim.

. . . which is, of course, silly and extreme, since nothing bad was known about the boyfriend. All this proves is that Lorna had a controlling, legalistic, fundamentalist mom. It proves nothing against the truthfulness of Christianity. We know that when parents are too strict, the kids rebel (duh!). And I think atheism can be tied into that phenomenon. Its going from one extreme to another.

On top of what I now consider harassment from the church, I was also dealing with angry letters from my mom about how myselfishnessandchosen lifestylewere hurting family. Never mind how I was emotionally ostracized, manipulated and black-mailed for wanting to make some of my own choices. Somehow, the blame was all on me. I even received a letter from an uncle, who rarely said a word to me prior to this, in which he explained in great detail that God could very well punish my sinful rebellionwithcancer. The fear tactics in that letter were so blatant that it was actually sickening, even for my naive mind. This combined with the new-found freedom to think outside of the bubble is what eventually led me out of religion all together. Unfortunately, I clung to the love of Jesus for as long as I could. When I finally began to let go of even Jesus, Daniel and I began to drift as well.

I see nothing here that is a reason to reject Christianity: only a reason to object to controlling behaviors and fundamentalism. She gives no reason at all for why she let go of even Jesus. I guess she started to think that He would supposedly act like her despotic mother and uncle? Or did she commit intellectual suicide and start thinking that He never existed?

. . .having both escaped the Christian mindset.

I see this tendency repeatedly in atheist deconversion stories: a conflation of the extreme, fringe Christians elements with Christianity. This is not honest (I must say). Its false advertising. The atheist is the first to vocally object if we point out that the usual raging, angry anti-theists who are rampant online represent the average, mainstream atheist. I agree that they dont (Ive written about that several times). I ask for the same courtesy from atheists to distinguish between ignorant fanatic Christians and those who are not so.

This is a big problem that I see in deconversion stories. Atheists read them and say (or so I speculate), That is Christianity, and I want no part of it; glad I left that nonsense. I read the same thing and think, That is despicable fundamentalist foolishness, that has never been part of my Christianity, or most Christians faith, and I detest it as well, but see no reason to reject Christianity itself because some people have a lousy, stupid, mindless application of Christianity in their lives.

I could go on to critique much more of this story, but it is mostly variations on the same theme, so what I have written will suffice. There is nothing whatsoever here that I see, that would compel anyone to reject all forms of Christianity. The storywould certainly, however, form a good reason to reject reality-denying fundamentalism. Since lots of Christians do that, it can hardly be an unanswerable reason to reject Christianity altogether.

Lastly, there are intelligent, sensible, non-controlling ways to teach abstinence before marriage. My children have all lived that out. One is now very happily married, another has a steady girlfriend. They are all wonderful Christian human beings, and theyre not out there condemning homeschooling and talking about how terrible my wife and I were in bringing them up. Quite the opposite. My wife and I also waited till marriage, and are fabulously happy, with almost 33 years of marriage.

So the idea that Christianity is all this garbage that Lorna went through or that there is no conceivable way to intelligently, rationally, sensibly teach abstinence before marriage is nonsense. There is a balance between extreme puritan-like legalism and prudishness and extreme sexual anything goes license. Christians can even agree with atheists on much (if not all) of that.

*****

In the combox, Lorna wrote: I will link you to my transition story from a blog that I no longer update, in case youre interested. [link provided]It offers a little more detail as to how I got from fundamental Christianity to agnosticism/atheism. It was by no means an angry, thoughtless jump.

Since Im interested in precisely that, Ill give a few thoughts on this additional material, too.

. . . this transition of mine consists of what I can separate into three phases: liberal Christianity, spirituality (where I believed in God, but thought that organized religion was pointless -this led to a slight interest in certain aspects of far eastern religions) and finally agnosticism (where I had concluded that no one can know anything for sure and that there is probably a bit of truth in every view).

Okay, Ill keep reading.

More recently, thanks to the experience and emotional support from my partner as well as my own interest in psychology, I have become more and more certain that god must simply be an idea to help fill in the gaps. Ive come to learn that our mind craving for something god makes perfect sense; but it doesnt justify dedicating your life to a fear-soothing fantasy. I think religion, or any idea of god, gods, or a greater power for that matter is only for emotional comfort. The unknown tends to be uncomfortable, unsettling, and even frightening to some.

This is simply an assertion of what Lorna has come to believe, and no argument; therefore, there is nothing to dispute. Its merely subjective mush. Of course, this is a variation of the usual tired atheist schtick that religion is the equivalent of belief inSanta Claus or leprechaunsor the tooth fairy and suchlike (alas, some asinine atheist slogansnever change).

My attempt at a more liberal version of Christianity after a childhood of the conservative brand lasted for a couple of years, or less. Id decided that most Christians were bad representatives, but that Jesus was perfect and that I should strive to be like him; loving, non-judgmental, understanding all the things my mother, as well as various other influential authority figures in my life were not. I wasnt ready to leave what I had known all my life behind, but I knew she and the others were going about it the wrong way.

Many Christians on the way to atheism or agnosticism stop by liberal Christianity as a halfway house because it is much closer to atheism in many ways. But the liberals didnt satisfy Lorna, either. She still hasnt explained exactly why, though. This additional post gives no rational reasons that could be critiqued. From what I can tell, Lornas main reason for conversion to agnosticism seems to be personal and sexual freedom. But she does link to a third paper:

I didnt blame Jesus or Christianity for the actions of these angry Christians.

Good. Its refreshing to see these basic distinctions made. She goes on to talk about conversations with someone she regarded asa mature, loving Christian to talk to . . . very understanding. This provides a nuance missing from the first deconversion story.

Unfortunately, this was Part 1 and just when it started to get interesting (from where I sit), there seems to have been no further writing on the topic.

Therefore, I still see no reason why anyone should leave Christianity because of Lornas testimony. All it proves it that there are some judgmental, legalistic Christians out there, which we all knew already: just as there are some judgmental, condescending atheists out there, too! Crappy examples and role models can be found in any human group whatever. Its about as revelatory as saying that there are people in Group X that like baseball, and some like fishing, and some liketo talk! Likewise, there are the folks in any given group that are embarrassing and dont properly represent the whole. Were all blessed by them.

This is basically Lornas ongoing point, and it is no reason whatever to reject Jesus or the Bible or Christianity. Thats why I wanted so much to see why and how Lorna rejected Jesus. But I guess its not to be.

Continue reading here:

Atheist Deconversion Story Series #2: Lorna - Patheos (blog)

Israeli and French scientists find Martian roots in asteroid family – The Jerusalem Post

Posted on by

Mars as seen from Hubble telescope. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot and the Cte dAzur Observatory in France are proposing a new and unique origin for Mars Trojan asteroids, which travel along the planets orbital path around the Sun, and are not quite like those that populate the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Their findings, just published in Nature Physics, suggest that they were most likely born in a giant impact with the Red Planet.

There are a great number of asteroids in our solar system, especially in the region known as the asteroid belt.

These objects are generally assumed to be leftovers from the solar systems formation that did not manage to form a planet. Mostly, it has been presumed that the Mars Trojans were rocks from the asteroid belt that had wandered into particular places within the path of Marss orbit known as the Lagrange points unusual positions in which objects remain locked into the orbit of a planet.

To investigate the origins of the seven asteroids in one of Marss Lagrange points, Dr. David Polishook, a postdoctoral fellow in Prof. Oded Aharonsons group at Weizmann, and Dr. Seth Jacobson of the Cte dAzur Observatory first used the SpeX instrument on the IRTF telescope in Hawaii to spectrally infer their composition.

Our observations showed that all these asteroids are rich in a mineral known as olivine, implying they are all related. They represent a family with a single common origin, said Polishook.

Olivine-rich asteroids are rare in the asteroid belt; this mineral generally forms deep within the mantles of much larger planetary bodies such as Earth and Mars, where pressures are high.

To explain this finding, Polishook and his colleagues suggested that the Trojan asteroids had not formed along with the rest of the asteroid belt. The most likely explanation for the asteroids being both rich in olivine and locked in one of Marss Lagrange points is that they were excavated from deep within Mars and ejected into orbit by a giant impact.

To test this hypothesis, the scientists developed a computer simulation that shows how such an impact could have created the asteroids and how they may have been captured in their particular Lagrange point in the orbital path of Mars. For the first time, said Polishook, we were able to draw a link between specific asteroids and a planetary source. Now that we know such objects exist, the next step is to investigate their abundance and study their characteristics.

Since olivine comes from the planetary mantle beneath the outer surface, the material in these asteroids could provide a unique opportunity to study the inner makeup of Mars, added Aharonson. They may serve as targets for future exploration; sampling them could prove more feasible than retrieving material from Mars itself.

Share on facebook

Read the rest here:

Israeli and French scientists find Martian roots in asteroid family - The Jerusalem Post

Hutchison’s confirmation hearing chance to clarify NATO policy | Opinion – Sun Sentinel

Posted on by

In nominating former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to be Americas next ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, President Trump tapped a top-notch stateswoman to serve in an important diplomatic post. By any objective forecast, Hutchisons confirmation should proceed smoothly. She is a distinguished politician who served in the U.S. Senate for 20 years, during which time she sat on both the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

But there is at least one reason senators should take their time with Hutchisons confirmation: The American people and their allies abroad need clarity on President Trumps NATO policy and Hutchisons confirmation offers the best near-term opportunity to obtain that.

The Constitution provides Congress with few better opportunities to define and shape foreign policy than the Senate confirmation process. Nominees to ambassadorial posts must first obtain the Senates advice and consent before their appointments take effect. That process can move swiftly for someone with Hutchisons record, but other considerations also play a role. Here, those considerations include the heightened importance of Americas NATO ambassador given recent Russian hostilities, as well as President Trumps incoherent NATO policy.

Forged in the early years of the post-World War II world order, NATO served as the Wests bulwark against Russian aggression throughout the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many observers understandably questioned whether time had rendered NATO obsolete. The alliance, however, proved to be a useful guarantor of freedom and security for its members even without the Soviet Union as its principal adversary. Indeed, NATOs collective defense covenant commonly referred to as the Article 5 commitment provided a strong foundation for political cooperation among NATO members.

Any lingering doubts about NATOs continued relevance should be put to rest in light of Russias jingoistic return to the world stage after a decade of wandering in the geopolitical wilderness. Since ascending to power in 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin has aggressively pursued Russias perceived interests both regionally and globally. And Russias high-risk, high-reward policies have cost the United States and its interests dearly.

Russias illegal annexation of Crimea and its blatant meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election are but two of the most egregious examples of Russias belligerence. Hence, recent history has shown NATO to be an important safeguard against a clear and present danger posed by Russia.

Unfortunately, Trump has offered scant detail on his policy toward NATO. And what information the administration has provided is vague, incomplete and often contradicts earlier and sometimes even contemporaneous statements. As a candidate, Trump excoriated NATO, thereby eliciting acclaim from the nationalistic wing of his base. As president, however, Trump has softened his views, albeit without demonstrating a nuanced understanding of NATOs history, membership and mission. Indeed, the president recently proclaimed that NATO is no longer obsolete without elucidating why, when and how the alliance took on new value and purpose in his mind.

Individually, any one of Trumps bizarre statements about NATO could be written off as a misinformed gaffe. But collectively, they suggest that the president is wholly untethered to an adequate understanding of a crucial pillar of Americas national security policy. And that, coupled with the pall of investigations into the Trump campaigns ties to the Russian government, demands swift attention by senators with the power to take a hard look at the administrations heretofore haphazard NATO policy.

Therefore, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which will presumably consider Hutchisons nomination in the coming weeks should obtain clarification on at least three fundamental issues:

First, senators should demand a clear and complete explanation of the Trump administrations NATO policy, including the presidents position on honoring Americas Article 5 commitments. Going back to President Truman, all of Trumps predecessors have affirmed Americas commitment to its NATO allies; any departure from that policy should require a convincing explanation.

Second, senators should categorically ascertain which entity within the U.S. government authoritatively speaks on U.S. policy vis-a-vis NATO. Normally, the presidents word is final on such delicate matters of statecraft. Yet, time and again, Trump has confused, if not outright contradicted, his own administration's messaging on matters of policy. Tweets have consequences, so senators should ascertain whether future midnight Twitter rants will constitute an official break from established doctrine.

Finally, senators should advise Hutchison on Americas proper posture toward NATO and inquire where the would-be ambassador stands on the question of what constitutes a presidential action in contravention of Americas national interests. The Senate would be remiss if it failed to establish an ethical baseline for such an important ambassadorial assignment.

Americans, not to mention Americas allies, deserve to know how the president views Americas most important institutional fortification against Russian hostility. The Senate should see that they get it.

Scott A. Olson is a former congressional staffer and is a Political Partner of the Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Go here to read the rest:

Hutchison's confirmation hearing chance to clarify NATO policy | Opinion - Sun Sentinel

NATO: Plane Carrying Afghan VP Denied Landing Rights – Voice of America

Posted on by

ISLAMABAD

NATO confirmed Tuesday that Afghanistans vice president, Abdul Rashid Dostum, tried to return to the country overnight but that his private plane was denied permission to land in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif.

Dostum, a 63-year-old ethnic Uzbek warlord, and some of his militia guards, have been under investigation for months over allegations of torturing and sexually assaulting an elderly political rival by the name of Ahmad Ishchi.

The first vice president left the country for Turkey about two months ago, saying he needed health care, a move prompting allegations Afghan President Ashraf Ghani allowed Dostum to travel abroad under a secret deal to escape prosecution.

What happened with General Dostum was that he was denied permission to land in Mazar-i-Sharif, a spokesman for NATOs Resolute Support mission, Bill Salvin, told VOA.

While we were asked to make a phone call to try and get permission for the first vice president to land, we declined to make that phone call because our commander up in the north said that this is not the role of Resolute Support, Salvin added, without naming the caller.

He noted that the international missions role is to provide training, advice and assistance to Afghan security forces and it would not have been appropriate to intervene in internal Afghan matters.

Local media reported that aviation authorities directed Dostums plane to Kabuls international airport but instead, it turned back and landed in the neighboring central Asian state of Turkmenistan.

Dostums spokespeople and political allies in Afghanistan have denied that he was on the plane, saying the first vice president is still in Turkey.

The Afghan government has not commented.

Reports of comeback attempt

The controversial Uzbek strongman attempted to stage Mondays dramatic comeback days after he formed a three-party political alliance, which also involved Governor Mohammad Atta Noor of the northern Afghan province, where the aircraft tried to land on Monday.

The formation of the coalition was announced in Turkey and it brings together discontented political groups that are also part of the government.

Noor has also rejected reports Dostum was on board the plane. A statement quoted the governor as saying a group of engineers was on the flight and technical problems forced the plane to return to Turkey.

Afghan judicial officials announced earlier this month that the probe into allegations against Dostum and his men has been completed and sent to the court for further action.

President Ghani has been under pressure at home and from Afghanistans international backers led by the United States to ensure extremely serious charges against his vice president are reviewed and follow-up legal action is taken.

The acting U.S. ambassador to Kabul last week emphasized that the legal process underscores the Afghan states effort to uphold the rule of law and combat impunity, and to send a signal to the world that no one is above the law in Afghanistan.

Late last year, Ishchi, a former provincial governor, said in a nationally televised interview that Dostum's militiamen detained, tortured and sexually assaulted him. He alleged that Dostum had ordered the detention and abuse.

Observers say that Mondays incident is likely to fuel tensions between Dostum and Ghani. The warlord, who enjoys a strong following in northern Afghan regions, has rejected charges against him as politically motivated and an attempt to marginalize him.

Ghani has defended Dostum's departure from Afghanistan, saying he left with the permission of the attorney general and that the laws do not bar someone suspected of wrongdoing from seeking medical treatment abroad.

Link:

NATO: Plane Carrying Afghan VP Denied Landing Rights - Voice of America

Russia’s Summer Wargames Are Making NATO Nervous – Popular Mechanics

Posted on by

Russia's summer wargames, named Zapad ("West") 2017, are set to kick off in September but are already setting off alarm bells across Europe. Held every four years, the Zapad exercises are a window into Russia's military prowessand perhaps future intentions.

The exercises, held jointly between Russia and neighboring Belarus, will take place later this summer in the two countries, involving the armed forces of both. According to Belarus' defense minister, "Up to 12,700 servicemen are planned to be involved in the drills. About 10,200 troops will be involved on the territory of our country, including 7,200 servicemen from the Belarusian Armed Forces and about 3,000 from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation." The minister also stated that 680 pieces of military hardware, including armored vehicles, would take part in the exercises. Zapad 2017 will take place at six different training grounds scattered across the two countries.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The location of the exercises, in Central Europe near NATO members states Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, has made NATO nervousespecially after Russia's secret 2014 war in Ukraine and annexation of the Crimean peninsula. The Zapad 2013 exercises, also held by Russia and Belarus, were publicly claimed to involve approximately 12,000 troops but in reality that number was more like 90,000, according to the Atlantic Council. How many troops will really exercise in September is anyone's guess, although some NATO members believe the true number of troops will be around 100,000.

Exercises are also used by the Russian government to shift forces around to prepare for actual combat operations. In 2008, military exercises preceded Russia's invasion of neighboring Georgia. In 2014, the Russian government staged exercises involving 150,000 troops near the Russian-Ukrainian border. After the exercise many of the units stayed in the area to participate in the subsequent war with Ukraine.

2S5 Giatsint self-propelled guns firing during an exercise in the Russian Far East, 2017.

Getty Yuri Smityuk.

Past Zapad exercises have also featured new tactics and technologies later seen in subsequent conflicts. Western observers first noticed Russia's use of unmanned aerial vehicles to spot for artillery and assess the effects of artillery strikes at Zapad 2013. The exercise was also notable for its use of tactical missiles for deep strikes and anti-guerrilla operations, which were later put to use in Syria.

Zapad actually predates the Russian Federation, having originated in the old Soviet Union. The Zapad '81 wargames were huge, involving involved between 100,000 and 150,000 Soviet Warsaw Pact military personnel, tank armies, large numbers of aircraft and ships, and even simulated use of tactical nuclear weapons.

For its part, Russia claims it is trying to be as transparent as possible with the exercises, including inviting 80 observers from NATO, the United Nations, and other countries. But the only know the aftermath is to wait and see.

Link:

Russia's Summer Wargames Are Making NATO Nervous - Popular Mechanics

The US is reportedly close to separating military-focused Cyber Command from the NSA – The Verge

Posted on by

After a long debate, the United States is reportedly moving forward with plans to separate its military-focused Cyber Command branch from the National Security Agency. The changes could be announced in the coming weeks, according to the Associated Press.

The two roles have caused tension

Since Cyber Commands 2009 inception, it has been under the same command as the NSA, but the two operate in different ways: Cyber Command has focused on digital warfare, while the NSA has focused on electronic intelligence gathering. According to the AP, those two roles have caused tension, especially in the battle against ISIS.

Under a new division of authority, Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville would reportedly be nominated to lead Cyber Command, replacing Admiral Michael Rogers, who also leads the NSA. Leadership of the NSA could be turned over to a civilian, according to the AP.

Last year, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter reportedly sent a plan to President Obama proposing the split, and it seems the Trump administration is prepared to move ahead with those plans. The mechanics of the split including what the AP describes as Cyber Commands reliance on the NSA are still reportedly being worked out.

See more here:

The US is reportedly close to separating military-focused Cyber Command from the NSA - The Verge

Posted in NSA

ACLJ Files Federal Lawsuit Against NSA Whatever it Takes to Get to the Bottom of the Dangerous Susan Rice … – American Center for Law and Justice

Posted on by

Today, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) just filed its second lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA).

We made lawful demands for government records that will shed light on the Susan Rice unmasking scandal that rocked the intelligence community. The NSA failed to comply with the law. So, today, we took the NSA to federal court.

Heres what Fox News reported back in April:

Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance. The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

The only way we even know about the Obama Administrations apparent politically motivated unmasking is because this raw intelligence information - classified national security secrets - was illegally leaked to the media.

The ACLJ went to work in our effort bring these secret and unlawful actions to the forefront. Our Government Accountability Project prepared a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests designed to get to the bottom of this disturbing revelation.

Our FOIA Request sought:

records pertaining to any and all requests former National Security Advisor Susan Rice made to National Security Agency (NSA) officials or personnel regarding the unmasking of the names and/or any other personal identifying information of then candidate and/or President-elect Donald J. Trump, his family, staff, transition team members, and/or advisors who were incidentally caught up in U.S. electronic surveillance.

The NSA acknowledged our FOIA request and even granted expedited processing which means the NSA acknowledged the time-sensitive urgency behind our requests. But, even though expedited processing means the NSA is bound to process the request faster than other requests, we have heard nothing from them since.

So, today, we filed a critical lawsuit and we will force the NSA to answer to a federal court for its blatant disregard for the law. Among other things, we asked the Court for [a]n Order enjoining Defendant from continuing to withhold any and all non-exempt records responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA request.

This is not our first time weve taken the NSA to federal court. We filed a lawsuit earlier this year to force the NSA to produce government records that could expose the people and purposes behind the Obama Administrations eleventh hour rule change that dramatically expanded access to raw signal intelligence signed by the Obama Administration officials on their way out the door. It was these changes that have lead to an unprecedented avalanche of dangerous national security leaks.

Both of these lawsuits are part of our ongoing effort to aggressively combat the dangerous national security leaks that have been plaguing the federal government. The deep state shadow government bureaucracy must not be allowed to endanger the national security of the American people as it carries out a vicious vendetta against the current Administration. We will not stop fighting until we defeat and expose the shadow government leaks.

You can be part of our effort. We need your voice. Sign our petition today.

Link:

ACLJ Files Federal Lawsuit Against NSA Whatever it Takes to Get to the Bottom of the Dangerous Susan Rice ... - American Center for Law and Justice

Posted in NSA

CSU Partners with School District to Earn NSA Grant for Middle School Cybersecurity Education – Colombus State News

Posted on by

COLUMBUS, Ga. In what may be a first for Georgia, Columbus State University is partnering with the Muscogee County School District on a National Security Agency (NSA) grant to develop and implement a course in cybersecurity education specifically designed for middle school students.

The $50,000 NSA grant allows CSUs TSYS School of Computer Science and its developing TSYS Center for Cybersecurity to work with Rothschild Middle School Leadership Academy to develop and implement a course in cybersecurity education specifically designed for 7th and 8th grade middle school students.

We do not think that a cybersecurity curriculum of this magnitude has been attempted at the middle school level in Georgia, said Tom Hackett, chair of CSUs Department of Counseling, Foundations, and Leadership and executive director P-12/University Partnerships. This STEM project is expected to raise interest in cybersecurity and will encourage students to continue learning about cybersecurity, a field very much in-demand by todays workforce.

The course will be structured on the National Security Agency (NSA) Cybersecurity First Principles but will be broken down into age-specific topics understandable by 7th- and 8th-grade students, Hackett said. The NSA Cybersecurity First principles include: domain separation, process isolation, resource encapsulation, least privilege, modularity, layering, abstraction, data hiding, simplicity and minimization.

He said the course will facilitate a learner-centered classroom with numerous hands-on exercises that provide opportunities for middle school students to apply their newly gained knowledge of cybersecurity education.

This program is just one example of what will be many developing partnerships between the Muscogee County School District (MCSD) and Columbus State University. Hackett, CSU President Chris Markwood and MCSD Superintendent David Lewis are working on more ways to develop programs and education goals to benefit P-12 students, university students and the local businesses that will be hiring these graduates.

We are proud of this unique partnership with CSU and excited for the opportunities it will afford our students as they begin exploration in this high-demand field, said David F. Lewis, superintendent of the Muscogee County School District.

About 140 7th and 8th grade students at Rothschild Middle School will have the appropriate prerequisite to take the year-long elective course on cybersecurity education during the 2017-2018 school year.

Whether you are 6 or 60 years old, cybersecurity is important to us all, said Wayne Summers, professor and Distinguished Chairperson of CSUs TSYS School of Computer Science. By teaching the elements of cybersecurity in middle school, we will encourage safe computing practice as well as expand the pool of candidates for future cybersecurity professionals. Based on a comprehensive study supported by the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education, there are nearly 13,000 cybersecurity job openings in Georgia and nearly 350,000 openings nationally.

The TSYS School of Computer Science, its TSYS Center for Cybersecurity and Muscogee County School District will ensure the cybersecurity education course will provide age-appropriate and performance based cybersecurity education in a safe environment for middle school students and will meet Georgia curriculum standards.

Hackett said the course curriculum will be available for download on the projects website and the course can be replicated in other middle schools across the nation.

The Rothschild teacher developing this falls course to be called Business Principles & Computer Science is enrolled at CSU this summer in the Information Security course in the TSYS School of Computer Science, which is designated by NSA as a National Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education. Additionally, CSU is part of a consortium of seven University System of Georgia (USG) institutions to develop the USGs capabilities in IT and cyber security as well as significantly increase the number of IT and cyber security industry qualified graduates coming from USG institutions.

Link:

CSU Partners with School District to Earn NSA Grant for Middle School Cybersecurity Education - Colombus State News

Posted in NSA

Prosecutor: Attempted murder began with feud over coat – Bloomington Pantagraph

Posted on by

BLOOMINGTON A dispute over a coat led to a November shooting on Bloomingtons east side, prosecutors said Monday on the first day in the attempted-murder trial of Darvell Williams.

A six-man, six-woman jury was seated Monday before opening arguments and the states first witness, a woman who reluctantly testified against her former roommate.

Its a really simple case, Ghrist said. It will come down to common sense. The defendant took a 9 mm handgun and shot multiple times at Willie Love. Eight shell casings were found in the apartment the defendant was living in.

Williams is facing nine felony charges, including attempted murder in the Nov. 26 shooting that also damaged a mailbox in an apartment complex, a passing car and a window at Lowes Home Improvement at 2101 E. Empire St.

One of the charges, an aggravated unlawful use of a weapon into a vehicle, against Williams was dropped in court Monday.

Defense attorney Brian McEldowney asked the jurors to keep an open mind and to listen to all of the evidence before making a decision on Williams' guilt or innocence.

These are volatile charges and our natural reaction is to get angry, but please listen to all of the testimony before making a judgment, he said.

The state called Chiquan Felton to the stand, who attempted to avoid Ghrists questions.

I plead the Fifth, she said. I have nothing to say.

Ghrist reminded her that she was not facing charges, so there were no grounds to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

After excusing the jury, Judge Robert Freitag explained that she had to be truthful with her testimony.

You are here pursuant to a court order and if you are asked a question, you must answer truthfully, and if you refuse, you could be held in contempt of court and be held in county jail until you decide to answer, he said.

When the jury returned, Felton testified that she never saw Williams shoot at Love because her back was turned while she was trying to open the door to the apartment she shared with Williams.

I heard gunshots, but I never saw him shoot at him, she said. Where I come from, you run away from gunshots.

The trial is expected to conclude Tuesday or Wednesday. Testimony will resume at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

Follow Kevin Barlow on Twitter: @pg_barlow

Excerpt from:

Prosecutor: Attempted murder began with feud over coat - Bloomington Pantagraph

Judge blocks bid to delay multimillion-dollar school system lawsuit – The Telegraph

Posted on by

The Telegraph
Judge blocks bid to delay multimillion-dollar school system lawsuit
The Telegraph
Robert Luskin, a lawyer representing Culver and his company, argued his clients won't be able to adequately defend themselves in the civil case without invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, which could also have a negative ...

Follow this link:

Judge blocks bid to delay multimillion-dollar school system lawsuit - The Telegraph

Big school district lawsuit may be put on hold while prosecutors pursue criminal case – The Telegraph

Posted on by
Big school district lawsuit may be put on hold while prosecutors pursue criminal case
The Telegraph
What's more, they contend Culver and his company won't be able to adequately defend themselves in the civil case without invoking their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination, which could also have a negative impact in the civil case. The ...

Here is the original post:

Big school district lawsuit may be put on hold while prosecutors pursue criminal case - The Telegraph