From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Jan 5 19:39:38 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:39:38 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland Message-ID: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> This article popped up in response to a "Google news alert" I have running. Original URL: Interesting how different it is in a country that we usually think of as basically like the US. - Steve G Atheists challenge Ireland's new blasphemy law with online postings By Karla Adam Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, January 3, 2010; A08 LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law. Under the law, which went into effect Friday, a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if "he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion." The penalty is a fine of up to 25,000 euros, or more than $35,000. In a bid to demonstrate that the law is outdated and largely unenforceable, a group named Atheist Ireland published on its Web site on Friday 25 potentially blasphemous quotations from figures such as Jesus Christ, Muhammad, George Carlin, Pope Benedict XVI and Mark Twain, who opined in 1909: "When the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. . . . He slays, slays, slays!" "Two days ago, there was no question over whether these quotes were legal. Now there is a question, and that is very bizarre," Michael Nugent, the group's chairman, said in an interview Saturday. Blasphemy was already a criminal offense in Ireland under the country's 1937 constitution . But until now, the language had been too murky to make prosecutions feasible. In 1999, Ireland's Supreme Court dismissed the last case to test the law because blasphemy was not clearly defined. By clarifying the term and imposing a hefty fine, the government has angered critics, who say the law undermines the state's increasing independence from the Catholic Church. There was "no clamor" for a new blasphemy law, said Eoin O'Dell, a senior lecturer in law at Trinity College Dublin. "Most of the commentary in Ireland has been pretty negative," he added. When Ireland's constitution was drafted, church and state were tightly entwined, O'Dell said, noting that the preamble begins, "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity," in contrast to the U.S. Constitution's "We the People of the United States." But despite the charter's "very Christian framework," O'Dell said, the close relationship between church and state in Ireland has waned in recent years -- the "special position" of the Catholic Church was removed from the constitution by referendum in 1972, and the ban on divorce was repealed in 1995. Dermot Ahern, Ireland's justice minister, has said that he would have preferred simply to abolish the previous blasphemy law. "My personal position is that church and state should be separate," he said in a speech in May. "But I do not have the luxury of ignoring our constitution." Faced with choosing between the pricey referendum that would be required to amend the constitution and reform that would help judges address the 1999 Supreme Court ruling, he said, "I chose reform." Nugent, who estimates that there are a quarter-million atheists in Ireland, said the new law is "silly" and "literally medieval." From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Wed Jan 6 02:07:16 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:07:16 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> Message-ID: >Under the law, which went into effect Friday, a person >can be found guilty of blasphemy if "he or she >publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or >insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any >religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial >number of the adherents of that religion." > >The penalty is a fine of up to 25,000 euros, or more >than $35,000. The object of this law is not to protect Christianity, but to establish criminal penalties for giving offense to _any_ religious group. One suspects that the motive for enacting this now is the increasing presence (even in Ireland) of a religion whose adherents are known to go on violent rampages when offended. Note that the law is triggered by "causing outrage among a _substantial_ number of the adherents..." Religions which don't take offense easily are thus not going to be involved. One wonders who has standing to press charges under this law. Can a private citizen who is an adherent of a religion press charges, claiming that "a substantial number" of his co-religionists are outraged? Who decides when this criterion is met? And who, if anyone, decides whether the outrage is justified? The "Mohammed cartoons" flap showed that followers of a religion can be goaded to "outrage" by reports of blasphemy or other offense which they have never seen and know nothing about - or which have been misrepresented to them. Textual criticism of the Bible, which implicitly denies its divine inspiration, is now widespread and accepted. Similar criticism of the Koran is not; it would be denounced as blasphemy. This law could be interpreted to make such scholarship criminal. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From SteveG at swhi.net Wed Jan 6 07:07:59 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:07:59 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> Message-ID: <8872F4E4D87F4EDF915EC8561DFB3BF5@StevePC> Rich Rostrom says: > The object of this law is not to protect Christianity, > but to establish criminal penalties for giving offense > to _any_ religious group. One suspects that the motive > for enacting this now is the increasing presence (even > in Ireland) of a religion whose adherents are known to > go on violent rampages when offended. You might think that at first - I did - but not if you read the whole article, or anything else about the law. I just found this useful history: > Note that the law is triggered by "causing outrage among > a _substantial_ number of the adherents..." Religions > which don't take offense easily are thus not going to be > involved. Like Irish Catholics and Protestants, for instance? > One wonders who has standing to press charges under this > law. It's a criminal law. The State does. > And who, if anyone, decides whether the outrage is > justified? Assuming it is an element of the crime at all - which is not evident - the judge or jury. > Textual criticism of the Bible, which implicitly denies its > divine inspiration, is now widespread and accepted. Not everywhere. > This law could be interpreted to make such > scholarship criminal. I don't think so. I've had a really hard time trying to find a copy of the statute as actually passed, but this is it: This Act covers civil as well as criminal mattes; the relevant section seems to be Part 5, on page 26. See section 36(3). - Steve G From ignatz at dminet.com Wed Jan 6 09:24:22 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:24:22 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> Message-ID: <20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:07:16AM -0600, Rich Rostrom wrote: > The object of this law is not to protect Christianity, but to > establish criminal penalties for giving offense to _any_ religious > group. One suspects that the motive for enacting this now is the > increasing presence (even in Ireland) of a religion whose adherents > are known to go on violent rampages when offended. Well, actually, maybe not. There was a fairly in-depth report on this by NPR on Monday. It seems there's a clause in the Irish Constitution of 1937 making blasphemy a punishable offense; that requires a civil law to enforce it. There was one on the books from 1961 that was felt to be outdated. Now, the current law, as penned, *may* have been driven by religious motivations--but at this point, nobody can quite figure out who or why. Ah--found a web instantiation of the NPR report: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122225249&ps=cprs > Note that the law is triggered by "causing outrage among a > _substantial_ number of the adherents..." Religions which don't take > offense easily are thus not going to be involved. Doesn't matter; as written, the law is exceedingly vague and, effectively, unenforcable. It doesn't define religon, what is "outrage", or what a "substantial number" would have to be. > One wonders who has standing to press charges under this law. Can > a private citizen who is an adherent of a religion press charges, > claiming that "a substantial number" of his co-religionists are > outraged? Who decides when this criterion is met? Well, that's why an atheist Irish group is trying to trigger the law to see what happens: http://www.atheist.ie/2010/01/25-blasphemous-quotations/ They put 25 "blasphemous quotations" on their website to see who jumps up and screams. I expect much hilarity to ensue. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From andyp at zarquon.net Thu Jan 7 07:50:39 2010 From: andyp at zarquon.net (Andy Peed) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:50:39 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: <20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com> References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> <20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com> Message-ID: <4B45E6AF.3000700@zarquon.net> Dave Ihnat wrote: >> One wonders who has standing to press charges under this law. Can >> a private citizen who is an adherent of a religion press charges, >> claiming that "a substantial number" of his co-religionists are >> outraged? Who decides when this criterion is met? >> > > Well, that's why an atheist Irish group is trying to trigger the law to > see what happens Actually, I think it would be far more interesting to see a non-mainstream, controversial-to-the-point-of-polarizing sect to make a test case... Say, the Church of Satan. -- Andy "The phrase 'God damn it!' is offensive to me, my lord SATAN should be doing the damning! ARRRGH!!!!" Peed From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 7 12:45:22 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:45:22 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: <4B45E6AF.3000700@zarquon.net> References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> <20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com> <4B45E6AF.3000700@zarquon.net> Message-ID: Andy Peed says: > Actually, I think it would be far more interesting to see a > non-mainstream, controversial-to-the-point-of-polarizing sect > to make a test case... Interesting, yes, but also more dangerous. If it were an unpopular religion, the state might feel more compelled to press charges rather than being accused of bias. The law is probably more likely to be found unenforceable - in some way or other - if it is mainstream Christianity that is the target of some offensive remark. This reminds me of a story. When I lived in Iceland (on military assignment), we had a Catholic chaplain who insisted that as a priest, he had a right to perform marriages anywhere. I had to counsel him repeatedly that he did not, and to do so there would be a fraud, because he was not licensed under Icelandic law, so that any marriages he performed would be legally invalid and would not be recognized by the US military or, most likely, by any state in the US. Iceland has an official state-supported religion (Lutheran), and while it fully tolerates others, it only licenses one minister of the smaller, unofficial churches to perform marriages. (The Catholic church actually had two - as a concession, the Justice Ministry treated the Franciscans and the Dominicans as separate sects.) I later carefully avoided pointing out to him a news item I read. A few people were partying late at night in one of the Reykjavik clubs, and a young man and woman who had just met and were well under the influence were joking that they should get married. A guy near them said he could do it, because he was a Druid priest. They thought that was a hoot, and the whole crowd went out and held a Druid marriage ceremony of some kind on the town square. Then they all went home. The next day the couple woke up and found out that they really were married - he was the one licensed Druid priest in Iceland. Hmm. I wonder what counts as blasphemy and "offensive" to a modern Druid? Probably not much - they tend to have a sense of humor. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Thu Jan 7 13:59:05 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:59:05 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> <20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com > <4B45E6AF.3000700@zarquon.net> Message-ID: Steve G wrote: > >This reminds me of a story. When I lived in Iceland (on >military assignment), we had a Catholic chaplain who >insisted that as a priest, he had a right to perform >marriages anywhere. I had to counsel him repeatedly that he >did not, and to do so there would be a fraud, because he was >not licensed under Icelandic law, so that any marriages he >performed would be legally invalid and would not be >recognized by the US military or, most likely, by any state >in the US. Yabbut would the marriage be valid under Catholic canon law? There was a period in England when it was illegal for a C of E priest to perform a marriage under certain circumstances - but the marriage was still considered legally binding. That is, a priest performing the sacrament of marriage was exercising a supernatural power derived from God through the Apostolic Succession. Secular law could establish rules about when and how he could exercise this power, and punish him for violating those rules, but could not alter the actual effect of his action. Does the Church (or governments of Catholic countries) accept that Icelandic secular law can control? I think I may inquire into the history of marriage law in other countries with Christian priests. (Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and eastern churches - other Protestants reject the Apostolic Succession.) -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From mbcrui at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 14:51:20 2010 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank-Peed) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:51:20 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC> <20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com > <4B45E6AF.3000700@zarquon.net> Message-ID: <1262897480.1766.1.camel@stu.home> On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 13:59 -0600, Rich Rostrom wrote: > > Yabbut would the marriage be valid under Catholic canon law? Yes, of course it would. But (as Steve pointed out) Catholic canon law isn't necessarily recognized by the US or other governments. Mary -- Mary Cruickshank Peed From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 7 16:04:37 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:04:37 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC><20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com> <4B45E6AF.3000700@zarquon.net> Message-ID: Rich Rostrom says: > Yabbut would the marriage be valid under Catholic canon law? I don't know. I doubt it, but that wasn't my concern. Here in the US, I've been told by more than one priest that they absolutely are not to perform a marriage for church reasons only that is not legally valid, but that might possibly be a US church rule based on policy. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 7 16:18:16 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:18:16 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC><20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com> <4B45E6AF.3000700@zarquon.net> Message-ID: <68DD7C938CEB45C08E89FBA729BB0E95@StevePC> I wrote: > Here in the US, I've been told by more than one priest > that they absolutely are not to perform a marriage for > church reasons only, that is not legally valid That is, as a first marriage - I don't mean when the couple was already married legally but outside the church, and there was no other impediment. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 7 16:42:03 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:42:03 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Church and state in Ireland In-Reply-To: <68DD7C938CEB45C08E89FBA729BB0E95@StevePC> References: <71A37676914B4CF29C1974A19F36528D@StevePC><20100106152422.GD30349@dminet.com> <4B45E6AF.3000700@zarquon.net> <68DD7C938CEB45C08E89FBA729BB0E95@StevePC> Message-ID: <70D8B0BEE9AA48E89B304784F622B0E5@StevePC> OK, I checked. Canon 1071.1, in the Canons of the Catholic Church under Marriage: Can. 1071 ?1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at: * * * 2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law; A "local ordinary" in this sense can mean a variety of things, but usually the bishop of the diocese. - Steve G > I wrote: > > > Here in the US, I've been told by more than one priest > > that they absolutely are not to perform a marriage for > > church reasons only, that is not legally valid > > That is, as a first marriage - I don't mean when the > couple was already married legally but outside the church, > and there was no other impediment. From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jan 13 21:41:02 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:41:02 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Terrorists wins again Message-ID: <201001140341.o0E3fHvP018501@mail.zarquon.net> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ferry14-2010jan14,0,2260299.story The Navy has decided the ferry ride is too risky, so they shut it down. 100+ riders have to find alternate plans. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Tue Jan 19 03:45:04 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:45:04 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Why I love the Democrats Message-ID: <201001190945.o0J9juQp021702@mail.zarquon.net> Watch the opening sequence of John Stewart's show for January 18. Explains exactly why the Dems are such total losses this past year. It starts out with the Massachusetts Senate race. http://www.thedailyshow.com/ Bill Taylor From bentley at crenelle.com Thu Jan 21 14:54:59 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:54:59 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Why I love the Democrats In-Reply-To: <201001190945.o0J9juQp021702@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201001190945.o0J9juQp021702@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: >Watch the opening sequence of John Stewart's show for January >18. Explains exactly why the Dems are such total losses this past >year. It starts out with the Massachusetts Senate race. > >http://www.thedailyshow.com/ > >Bill Taylor John Stewart is the king's fool, someone who can make fun of the king, usually a hazard. And if the king is listening, the king might LEARN SOMETHING. From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 21 17:53:01 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:53:01 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Why I love the Democrats In-Reply-To: <201001190945.o0J9juQp021702@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201001190945.o0J9juQp021702@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor offers: > Watch the opening sequence of John Stewart's show for January > 18. Explains exactly why the Dems are such total losses this past > year. It starts out with the Massachusetts Senate race. I don't enjoy Stewart much, but this was good. The last major segment was good, too; David Walker is one of the few senior people in the Federal Government (now retired) who really earned my respect. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Thu Jan 21 19:10:42 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:10:42 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Why I love the Democrats In-Reply-To: References: <201001190945.o0J9juQp021702@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <201001220118.o0M1IhWY010711@mail.zarquon.net> At 17:53 1/21/2010 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ > >Bill Taylor offers: > > > Watch the opening sequence of John Stewart's show for January > > 18. Explains exactly why the Dems are such total losses this past > > year. It starts out with the Massachusetts Senate race. > >I don't enjoy Stewart much, but this was good. The last major >segment was good, too; David Walker is one of the few senior >people in the Federal Government (now retired) who really >earned my respect. Yes he was good too. He didn't really say anything I hadn't heard before, but he was obviously very authoritative. I don't always agree with GAO reports. They often seem like gotcha reports rater than fact finding. But to the extent they do find real problems, they are useful. Its just that many times their suggestions become policy that aggravate already complicated situations. When people spend most of their time worried about CYA, they aren't spending time fixing the real problem. The CYA becomes the real thrust of the activity, and whatever their nominal mission is becomes secondary. That said, cost cutting is clearly something that needs to happen. Either do it deliberately, or it will happen by default when you can't meet your obligations. As for Stewart, usually I'll watch the opening monologue, and if I'm still up I'll check the interview. The reporter bits in between are usually take em or leave em. Bill Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 21 20:39:37 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:39:37 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Why I love the Democrats In-Reply-To: <201001220118.o0M1IhWY010711@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201001190945.o0J9juQp021702@mail.zarquon.net> <201001220118.o0M1IhWY010711@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <7957B816DA234041BBD62DEBB01BC2A7@StevePC> Bill Taylor says: > I don't always > agree with GAO reports. They often seem like gotcha reports rater > than fact finding. They are often both. Bear in mind that the GAO has separate and distinct functions related to audit of specific programs and expenditures, investigations of perceived misuse of funds, reviews of the overall efficiency of government operations, and rulings on certain aspects of procurement and rulemaking. In *some* of these functions, they are specifically supposed to ascertain who screwed up; in others its more of a "wellness" check. So some of their reports should read very much like inspector general-type efforts to find fault; others aren't. The detailed facts are rarely presented in their reports; sometimes, at least, this may give a false impression that they didn't collect the relevant facts. They do a lot of summarizing. I do have experience with some of their investigations that went well, and some that didn't. They can't possibly have enough people with enough expertise to look at the myriad of things various agencies do, and know for themselves whether they are doing them all right; so they have to rely on input, and sometimes that input is wrong. I know of one recent case where they found fault (in part) with the wrong set of decisions, ones that were not wrong (at least in the ways they think), because they were dealing with a lot of experts in a highly technical area and (IMNSHO) couldn't figure out which ones actually got it right. But I certainly agreed with them that something was wrong and merited intensive investigation. (No, I can't be more specific.) I have sometimes been seriously concerned, at an intake interview, at the things some of their investigators don't know about the subject matter when they begin looking at an issue; but *usually* the final product suggests that they learned what they needed to along the way. Unfortunately the one thing you never see in a report of this kind is "we're really not sure we get it." The one thing I have never seen from them, in any event, is someone trying to find fault or pin blame somewhere for political reasons. I have seen them mess up, but not often, not generally in important ways, and always (AFAICT) despite an honest effort to get it right. BTW, one of their long-time senior attorneys in the area of government procurement, Dan Gordon, was recently appointed as Director of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. I couldn't be more pleased. Not only smart, and an excellent communicator, but a real straight shooter, in a job that needs one. - Steve G From andyp at zarquon.net Tue Jan 26 07:06:12 2010 From: andyp at zarquon.net (Andy Peed) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons Message-ID: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Wisconsin prison?s rule forbidding inmates to play Dungeons & Dragons or possess D&D publications and materials. The prison?s rationale for the ban is that playing D&D might stimulate ?gang activity? by inmates. But the government conceded that there is no evidence that Dungeons and Dragons actually had stimulated gang activity in the past, either in this prison or elsewhere. -- Andy "They're also concerned about 'escapism, but in this case I don't think it's the inmates who are divorced from reality..." Peed From par at richinn.com Tue Jan 26 08:51:14 2010 From: par at richinn.com (par at richinn.com) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:51:14 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> Message-ID: <20100126075114.mblpqf3pwsgskk8w@richinn.com> Quoting Andy Peed : > The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Wisconsin prison?s rule > forbidding inmates to play Dungeons & Dragons or possess D&D > publications and materials. The prison?s rationale for the ban is that > playing D&D might stimulate ?gang activity? by inmates. But the > government conceded that there is no evidence that Dungeons and Dragons > actually had stimulated gang activity in the past, either in this prison > or elsewhere. > Under that argument, shouldn't they ban basketball? It is 1 gang against another. D&D is a gang against ... um ... ORCS! I thought the argument would be that they didn't understand the secret codes being sent and it might be used to plan an escape. But this is even MORE ridiculous. Peter Richardson From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 28 19:43:45 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:43:45 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> Message-ID: Andy Peed says: > The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Wisconsin prison?s rule > forbidding inmates to play Dungeons & Dragons or possess D&D > publications and materials. It does seem weird and possibly misguided that the prison would impose such a rule, but less so that the Circuit Court upheld it, in view of the strong deference given to prison rules. The prison's rationale was weak but not totally irrational, and did not impose a heavy burden on any constitutionally protected right, so they were unwilling to disturb it. The ruling basically says "we're not saying we agree with the prison - we don't have to. We rely on their judgment in such matters until given a convincing reason not to." The link to the opinion given in the article was temporary. One more likely to remain valid is For the really dedicated, a link to the audio of the oral argument is (for now) - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Fri Jan 29 20:11:33 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:11:33 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> Message-ID: Steve G wrote: >Andy Peed says: > >> The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Wisconsin prison's rule >> forbidding inmates to play Dungeons & Dragons or possess D&D >> publications and materials. > >It does seem weird and possibly misguided that the prison >would impose such a rule, but less so that the Circuit Court >upheld it, in view of the strong deference given to prison >rules. This in spite of the state's "expert witness" clearly not knowing how D&D is played. "The Dungeon Master is tasked with giving directions to other players, which Muraski testified mimics the organization of a gang." - from the opinion; Muraski was the witness. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From SteveG at swhi.net Sat Jan 30 09:36:02 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:36:02 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> Message-ID: Rich Rostrom says: > This in spite of the state's "expert witness" clearly not > knowing how D&D is played. And neither do I. I gather this isn't it? - Steve G From mbcrui at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 11:54:44 2010 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank-Peed) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:54:44 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> Message-ID: <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: >> This in spite of the state's "expert witness" clearly not >> knowing how D&D is played. >> > > And neither do I. I gather this isn't it? > Generally the DM sets up the scenario, the players tell him/her what they're going to do (and I've never had a game run as I expected it to) and then the DM tells them what happens. "You're in a maze of twisty passage ways, all alike. Which one are you going to choose?" "We're going to tunnel up through the ceiling." "The ceiling falls down and you're all dead, roll up new characters." :) Mary -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From jazz at qnet.com Sat Jan 30 12:42:54 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:42:54 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> Message-ID: <201001301843.o0UIhAD2021130@mail.zarquon.net> At 09:36 1/30/2010 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Rich Rostrom says: > > > This in spite of the state's "expert witness" clearly not > > knowing how D&D is played. > >And neither do I. I gather this isn't it? No. It is somewhat ironic actually. A Dungeon Master tells the players what to do in much the same way a Judge tells the litigants what to do. The Judge may set some local rules and obviously hands out rulings on what actions can and cannot be taken in a given situation, but for the most part the litigants will act on their own initiative on what they think is in their own best interest. The DM is pretty much the same. The game has rules everyone knows. The DM set up situations and problems for the players to work their way through, but the players have to figure out what to do or not do on their own. They are usually working as a team, but each is looking out for themself as well. Bill Taylor From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 12:46:53 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:46:53 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 Mary Cruickshank-Peed wrote: > The ceiling falls down and you're all dead I was once boiled in a large vat of oatmeal. -- Bill Wilson The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From mbcrui at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 12:53:01 2010 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank-Peed) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B64800D.4070602@gmail.com> Bill Wilson wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 Mary Cruickshank-Peed wrote: > >> The ceiling falls down and you're all dead >> > > I was once boiled in a large vat of oatmeal. > > Oooo, good idea! I DM for a group of nephews/sons ranging in age from 9 - 15. I have one nephew I've killed 4 times now for sheer stupidity... "You look thru the window, there are several guards in sight." "I stick my head in the window to look around" "You get shot in the head with an arrow, falling off the rope taking the rest of your crew with you. The rest of you, make a saving throw, Donald roll up a new character." Mary -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From steveg at swhi.net Sat Jan 30 13:55:23 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:55:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: <4B64800D.4070602@gmail.com> References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> <4B64800D.4070602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2293.98.226.210.25.1264881323.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Bill Taylor says: > A Dungeon Master tells the players what to do in much the same way a > Judge tells the litigants what to do. That's a whole lot of control. And Mary Cruickshank-Peed says: > Oooo, good idea! I DM for a group of nephews/sons ranging in age from 9 > - 15. I have one nephew I've killed 4 times now for sheer stupidity... Oh, so the DM does not literally "give directions" but has the power of life or death over them? That's a lot more control than a judge over litigants. I'm not saying this means the gang expert had it right or that the prison's rule was a good one, but this hardly seems as irrelevant in terms of whether it can promote gang behavior as just saying "he had it wrong" would imply. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Sat Jan 30 17:53:37 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:53:37 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: <2293.98.226.210.25.1264881323.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> <4B64800D.4070602@gmail.com> <2293.98.226.210.25.1264881323.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: Steve G wrote: > >Bill Taylor says: > >> A Dungeon Master tells the players what to do in much the same way a >> Judge tells the litigants what to do. > >That's a whole lot of control. It's not a particularly good analogy, but it's not that bad. A judge _can_ give orders to litigants and counsel, but does not do so except in special circumstances. Nearly all the actions of litigants and counsel are decided by themselves, and they decide what they are going to try to accomplish - the judge has nothing to do with that. They drive the process, not him. Mostly, he sits and listens. And also, it is the rival litigants who create the situation, who are opposed to each other. A DM creates the situation, and his creation is what opposes the players. >And Mary Cruickshank-Peed says: > >> Oooo, good idea! I DM for a group of nephews/sons ranging in age from 9 >> - 15. I have one nephew I've killed 4 times now for sheer stupidity... > >Oh, so the DM does not literally "give directions" but has >the power of life or death over them? That's a lot more >control than a judge over litigants. It is up to the DM to decide whether the players succeed or fail. Judges don't have that power except in bench trials. The DM is God - but he's a god who's agreed in advance to follow certain rules. Mary: in the example you gave, did you: 1) decide on the fly that the character was shot by the guards? 2) have it set in advance that anyone who did that would be killed by the guards? 3) roll dice to see if the guards saw the character and succeeded in shooting him? It's legitimate for a DM to do it any of these ways. 1) is the most arbitrary, but a DM is entitled to a certain amount of discretion to deal with gross folly by players. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Sat Jan 30 17:57:32 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:57:32 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bill Wilson wrote: >On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 Mary Cruickshank-Peed wrote: > >I was once boiled in a large vat of oatmeal. In an RPG, I assume. Though actually, oatmeal baths were once (still?) a recognized treatment for itchy skin. (Just before the battle of Midway, Admiral William "Bull" Halsey came down with a case of the itches so bad he had to be replaced by Admiral Spruance. Oatmeal baths were one of the futile remedies tried.) -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From SteveG at swhi.net Sat Jan 30 18:48:24 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:48:24 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> <4B64800D.4070602@gmail.com> <2293.98.226.210.25.1264881323.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: Rich Rostrom says: > It's not a particularly good analogy, but it's not that bad. And I have no reason to suggest that it is a good or bad one. My point is that as described (by you and now others) it seems to me a judge in a civil trial, a DM, and the leader of a street gang all are in a position to say "do as you like, but if you violate my rules there will be consequences"; and in the case of the DM and the street gang, the consequences may be severe. If you buy the idea that the fantasy world of D&D becomes an important influence in the lives of *some* players, then the prison rule starts to make more sense. - Steve G From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 00:06:45 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:06:45 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf1001302206s64b13ca2i4d48645edbc09f03@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 Rich Rostrom wrote: > Bill Wilson wrote: > > I was once boiled in a large vat of oatmeal. > > In an RPG, I assume. Let me be more specific. Once upon a time some 30 years ago, during a rousing game of AD&D (2nd ed.), my character was killed by falling into a large vat of boiling oatmeal. Later resurrected, he never got over his fear of cooked grain. ;-) -- Bill Wilson The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From mbcrui at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 11:19:33 2010 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank-Peed) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:19:33 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> <4B64800D.4070602@gmail.com> <2293.98.226.210.25.1264881323.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <4B65BBA5.5010007@gmail.com> Rich Rostrom wrote: > Mary: in the example you gave, did you: > > 1) decide on the fly that the character was shot > by the guards? > 2) have it set in advance that anyone who did that > would be killed by the guards? > 3) roll dice to see if the guards saw the character > and succeeded in shooting him? > The guards they could see thru the window could see them and yelled and pointed and went for weapons. Donald decided to stick his head in the window. I said "Do you really want to do that? "Yes" "Are you sure?" "Yes." "Positive?" "Yes." "How attached to this character are you? I'd really advise you not to stick your head in the window. What are you going to do?" "I want to count how many guards, so I'm going to stick my head in the window." me: roll dice... and the rest is now known as a "Donald" as in "Don't pull a Donald" ... and let's not talk about "Pulling a Dylan" which deals with using magical items before you know what they do... or pulling an "Emma" and giving the DM ideas... I think I've had more fun teaching the kids to play D&D than I ever did playing it... :) -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington