In UK, Twitter, Facebook Rants Land Some In Jail 233
concealment writes with this excerpt from an Associated Press story, as carried by the Houston Chronicle:"In Britain, hundreds of people are prosecuted each year for posts, tweets, texts and emails deemed menacing, indecent, offensive or obscene, and the number is growing as our online lives expand. 'Fifty years ago someone would have made a really offensive comment in a public space and it would have been heard by relatively few people,' said Mike Harris of free-speech group Index on Censorship. People take it upon themselves to report this offensive material to police, and suddenly you've got the criminalization of offensive speech. Figures obtained by The Associated Press through a freedom of information request show a steadily rising tally of prosecutions in Britain for electronic communications — phone calls, emails and social media posts — that are grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character — from 1,263 in 2009 to 1,843 in 2011. Justice Igor Judge said in his judgment that the law should not prevent 'satirical or iconoclastic or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humor, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.'"
The British are the most polite people on Earth... (Score:5, Insightful)
... because if they aren't they get locked up....
In Britain... (Score:2)
It is not just in Britain (Score:2, Insightful)
It is basic human nature to try and stop people from doing whatever it is that they don't like.
The notion that we should respect the freedom of others, as noble as it is, goes against the path-of-least-resistance of human cognition.
So, even in countries that value freedom, you have large groups of the populace that strive to take it away from each other.
Eternal vigilance, and all that.
I for one... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are free to be offended or not be offended, but you are not free to stop others from offending you.
See also: Offence is taken, not given.
Re:The British are the most polite people on Earth (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't know, here's the actual situation in the UK:
The courts generally consider internet posts in the same way they do traditional journalism, you can say what you want as long as it isn't libelous, incitement to commit a crime, or "grossly offensive". Bloggers and Tweeters etc are generally given more leeway and lower fines/sentences than traditional journalists on the grounds that, while ignorance is no excuse, "proper" journalists should very certainly know better. There is no written constitution as such in the UK, and therefore no official right to free speech, but it is generally accepted that the really important free speech, such as speaking out against the government, is protected, and European legislation does provide some protection which UK law omits entirely.
The big problem is the highly subjective "grossly offensive" element mentioned above. The interpretation of this is very much down to the opinion of the judge and/or jury overseeing the case. In my opinion they've been overly touchy about this - after all, you can shout at somebody in a pub that you are going to kill them and chances are the worst you'll see is the inside of a cell for 12hrs and a drunk and disorderly charge.
Re: (Score:2)
What surprises me is that people have not cottoned on to the need to post anonymously. The person who broke many super-injunctions on Twitter managed to do it, probably via Tor but maybe even via a proxy or open wifi.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to define this in the laws and stop letting people that wear funny wigs decide.
Re: (Score:3)
discussing with a friend from england one day we talked about differences similar to this one. And at one point he said something along the lines of "and that is precisely the difference. You are an American citizen, I am a British -subject-."
Re: (Score:3)
We're talking about the UK, not Ireland. At that he'd have to be somewhat old (born before 1949) to be one of the very few British subjects left.
More likely he was just too stupid to know that he was a British citizen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject#After_1983 [wikipedia.org]
"Offensice speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
Turns out it was a slippery slope after all!
who knew, eh?
(apart from everyone who pointed it out)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of those rare things which works a lot better in practice than in theory.
No comment from our friends in the U.K. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So far (Score:2)
Re:So far (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most if not all were being deliberately obnoxious rather than just voicing a genuine opinion.
A genuine opinion can also be deliberately obnoxious.
Besides, there a place for stuff like that: 4chan ... (especially /b/ - yikes!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think the same folks who will try to regulate speech in meatspace would try and do the same online?
Sure, intolerance comes in baby steps. (And, I totally agree with your original post.)
Personally, I believe there's a time and place for all kind of speech, but I try to be mindful of my audience and speak appropriately. Rude and crude is not always appropriate or, more importantly, necessary, but some times it is either and/or both. As George Carlin said (perhaps paraphrasing), "There are no dirty words. Dirty thoughts and intentions, but no dirty words." So, people need to just grow the fuck up - abo
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
A judge? Gotcha. Ever seen a judge make a bad decision? It's not like we don't hear about 'em day in and day out on this site. How about this instead. How about we let free people decide for themselves whether a comment is offensive or not and if it's offensive, they can choose not to read it.
And Tourette fucking Syndrome is spelled with two "t"s and an "ou". Fucking limey moron. Surprised with all the pointless "u"s you're always adding to words you didn't already know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I think it's about time people toughen up rather than try to censor others' speech.
Too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Typical comment from Youtube: "FUCK THE PRICESSES THE HORSE IS DIED!"
I only mention the youtube comment there because it got 72 thumbs up. Certainly Dailykos is an echo chamber for people of a certain political persuasion to visit and feel good talking to people who agree with them. That
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Funny)
First they came for the youtube commenters
And I helped because it made the world a better place? :)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say: First they came for the youtube commenters ...
... Then they uploaded their videos ... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say:
First they came for the youtube commenters ...
... and I was not a Youtube commenter, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the spammers, and I was not a spammer, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the advertising trolls on blogs and internet forums, and I was not an advertising troll, so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, they saw I had excellent Slashdot karma, and they went to find somebody else...
Meanwhile, I rejoiced as I finally turned my calendar from September to October after all of these years....
Re: (Score:3)
If they're going to round up people, I wish they'd round up youtube commenters.
Hell yes. Hey, don't stop there! Head on over to the local pub and arrest those morons for ranting about shit too! Hell, let's use surveillance on everyone all the time so that everything they say can be censored if we find it offensive, or in appropriate. Look, we don't have to screen in real time, we can just pick someone we don't like, pull up their Speakings and find something to arrest them for...
At the dawn of The Age of Information humans struggled with the transition to persistent digital comm
pacifying the mob (Score:4, Interesting)
A direct Example of the 2 facedness of the system here: check out Franky Boyles Twitter, the stuff that comes out on there is generally very offensive (I love you Boyle!! regardless of what i say here), yet he is not in jail. Yet we see the poppy burner, the guy that said mean things about someones dead dad, and a few others all in get arrested. The mob wants them to pay, and the police then back up the mob, such a bad precedent but too late now.
Another reason for the police jumping on this is that they are trying to look like they are not just there to collect speeding tickets and rounding up pot dealers so they have deciced to start a new war on socail media, hell the war on drugs was a good spinner maybe this is will be equally good. I dont want to sound completely negative, but where i live the police are not that well liked, in context it took 8 police offices to remove a man from a swimming pool for swearing at some teenage kids that were splashing him,
In closing my understand with UK law is that if you piss off someone powerfull enough the way the UK law is structured means they will always have something on you. I think thats the goal of the system to make sure they have something on everyone and then keep everyone in their places and no one gets above their station.
iMe
Re: (Score:2)
I think thats the goal of the system to make sure they have something on everyone and then keep everyone in their places and no one gets above their station.
I think that's both the unintended consequence AND the desired state of affairs for the cops.
It's an unintended consequence of there being too many laws -- we tend to outlaw the same kinds of things, over and over in different ways, and at least in the US, at different levels of government, too. Not even freedom from double-jeapordy can help, as you ca
Re: (Score:2)
The mob rules (Score:2)
It seems to me this is the underlying problem.
We can demand absolute free speech on the internet, but it won't help if people are very unhappy. It's doubly not going to help if there's a mob which waits for someone to be offensive, and
Mommy! (Score:2)
He's being mean to me!
*sigh*
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... In Britain, you can only be racist, bigoted or offensive if you're white. Brown people get a free pass.
Your statement makes no sense. 'You can be racist if you're white' and 'Brown people get a free pass' mean the same thing, twit!
I'm against censorship but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I can understand death threats...that is illegal, but what, pray tell, is racial abuse?
I mean, sure it might hurt someone's feeling to call them a stupid polack (sp?), gibbering chink, damned gook, or a fucking nigger....it isn't nice to say, or politically correct.
But, other than hurt someones feelings and self esteem....it isn't causing injury to anyone or threating their lives..?
Sure, it is distasteful speech, but should be free speech no
Everywhere.... (Score:2)
Everywhere in the world you can get investigated, charged and arrested for saying something stupid. The Brits don't have a monopoly on that.
Saying something stupid is not a crime (Score:2)
Saying something stupid is not a crime. The simple fact that you are not telling the truth does not constitute a crime, nor does your ignorance in making false statements.
What you were probably referring to is saying something offensive or insulting. I think you're right insofar as free speech is indeed under attack in a lot of countries, but that should be all the more reason to defend it. It has been proven numerous times that in practice it is impossible to outlaw insulting statements without harming fre
Re: (Score:3)
Try to say "I hope you'll dont find the bomb" while being patted down by the TSA. That will get you in handcuffs faster than you can say "free speech".
That's stupid, but neither insulting or offensive.
There ain't such thing as total freedom as long as you share this galaxy with others.
Boundaries are being checked and moved every day.
Currently they are moving the wrong way (in UK and elsewhere). We have to hold against it. But don't live under the assumption, there ever will be no boundaries.
It's Section Five of the Public Order Act (Score:5, Insightful)
In the UK you can get arrested for all kinds of things you say: Calling a police horse gay, for example. If someone feels like something you say could insult [wikipedia.org] someone, you get arrested. Now, not all of these (ludicrous) charges are successful, but still I think there already is a bad chilling effect.
Listen to Rowan Atkinson's (Mr. Bean) [youtube.com] excellent 10 Minutes speech on the topic and why he is part of the campaign "Feel free to insult me".
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up +insightful
That is a *brilliant* speech on the idiocracy of Political Correctness!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, those are seeming to be where the most calls for suppression of previously free speech like this are currently coming from, no?
Poppy Burning (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/13/remembrance-day-burning-poppy-cartoon
Mod parent up (Score:2)
The incident to which the AC is referring is about a poppy burning [independent.co.uk] which was in the news just a few days ago. A man was arrested for burning the poppy on Remembrance day.
This is probably similar to the flag burning controversy in the US. (See also the excellent Futurama episode [watchcartoononline.com] on why it makes not sense to defend freedom of expression by abolishing it)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus spake Anthrax to Tipper: (Score:3)
So now I'm startin' up a posse (suck my dick, suck my dick) to come and look for you; we're gonna put a stop to what you want to do.
You fucking whores (you fuckin' whores), that's all you are!
You say our records are offensive (you're a douche, you're a douche), our messages ain't right, you say "We're gonna label records so our kids can grow up right".
You fucking whores (let them decide), that's all you are!
"Shit, fuck, Satan, death, sex, drugs, rape", these seven words you're trying to take.
"Shit, fuck, Satan, death, sex, drugs, rape", right or wrong it's our choice to make.
America the beautiful, land of the free - Don't change the words to land of hypocrisy!
Now I'm startin' up a posse (fascist scum, fascist scum) and we'll damn sure make you see, something that offends you may not be offensive to me.
You fucking whores (you fuckin' whores) That's all you are!
Now you might take offense to a word like "fuck" or "shit" (dick!); but you fuckin' don't have the right (cunt!) to discriminate me for saying it!
You fuckin' whores (you fuckin' whores), that's all you are!
So now I'm startin' up a posse (motherfucker, motherfucker) to fight for freedom of choice, to fight for freedom of speech, we're gonna make you hear our voice.
And now I don't do this to shock you (that's the end, that's the end), I don't do this for spite; you've got the choice, don't buy it, don't read it, and don't say your opinion's right
You fucking whores (you fuckin' whores), that's all you are (cunty, cunty, cunty, cunt)!
You know you can't censor my feelings, you can't censor my thoughts. Censorship's against everything America stands for.
You fuckin' whores (let us decide), that's all you are (and this ain't sexist, either)!
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope of slippery slopes (Score:3)
Exceptions on free speech in the UK vs US (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia
"However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[63][64] incitement,[65] incitement to racial hatred,[66] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[65][67] glorifying terrorism,[68][69] collection or possession of informat
Gotta love hypocrits (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how the people that tend to do the reporting also tend to do and say things just as bad, if not worse, than they report. I'm all for lining them up and smacking some sense into them. Wait is that menacing?
I've been on the receiving end of that when I worked in retail. I was reported to my boss by an elderly lady, and she actually called the cops, because of a comment she says she overheard me telling another employee as she is cussing me out and threatening me in all kinds of hilariously awkward ways and the minute the cop arrives she is the grandma next door all the kids in the neighborhood love as their own grandma. Of course nothing came of it as I don't even know what in the hell she was talking about.
When it comes to non-violent protests and speaking your mind, I'm all for it. Talk is just talk and if someone wants to burn a flag or a book, so freaking what? Have at it. The slope gets slippery as you near the point between free speech and illegal or violent actions but we shouldn't be moving it further into free speech territory thus removing rights and freedoms, making mere words or personal actions illegal when they cause no real harm to another except offending your holier than thou morality.
The law comes to Deadwood. (Score:2)
'Fifty years ago someone would have made a really offensive comment in a public space and it would have been heard by relatively few people,' said Mike Harris of free-speech group Index on Censorship
Fifty years ago would be 1962.
Radio and television broadcasters have been operating on a national and international scale since the 1920s. Newspapers and magazines since the invention of the telegraph.
Each had to come to terms with legal and ethical restraints on what could be published in an age of instant mass communication.
you know what's strange? (Score:2)
This has NOT hit UK mainstream media. Over here they're more concerned about who's first to get kicked out of the studio camp in I'm A Celebrity...
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprised. This type of stuff didn't really hit the mainstream press in Canada until Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn among others were trotted before the CHRC(canadian human rights commission) for "offending the sensibilities of muslims" for publishing the mohammad cartoons. In the end, it led to the HRC being disgraced and S.13 of the HRC being revoked by the government of Canada. Though provincial kangaroo courts still exist.
Political Correctness (Score:2)
Political Correctness coming back to bite you
I am offended ... (Score:2)
... by those funny curly white wigs they wear.
Re:FUCK BRITS (Score:4, Insightful)
Stay cool, no need to troll like this: the message here, I believe, is "don't even think for a second that internet makes you anonymous: we (the authorities) can and will find you, and make this public as a warning to everybody else".
This is not about the Brits, this is happening all over the world. It is just that in the UK they seem to be a tad more diligent in enforcing the "nobody gets away with it" regime --remember how some rioters that were caught on camera were eventually tracked months later and -perhaps disproportionally- [guardian.co.uk] punished a while back.
Re:FUCK BRITS (Score:5, Insightful)
...this is happening all over the world.
Yes, but the US is special:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Re:FUCK BRITS (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the US used to be special:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
They have made such a law. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they have. And it needs to be stricken down. Plus, it's not the only violation. As it stands, the 1st amendment, and the rest of the bill of rights are mostly ceremonial and rather toothless. But, they're still on the books, should we ever decide to take action to enforce them.
Re: (Score:2)
Patriot Act is tame compared to what has followed. NDAA for example
Re:FUCK BRITS (Score:4, Informative)
Europe (including the UK) is special too: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
Unfortunately that's followed by the proviso "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." Yes, we had our equivalent to the Patriot Act written in from the outset.
Re:FUCK BRITS (Score:4, Insightful)
I find more and more that if the word "morals" is present in any law or constitution that it can be translated to mean "except when we don't want to."
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the eighteenth century. That's pretty much considered normal in the civilized world, and the US is by no means the most enlightened example
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to: "don't like a woman? If you rape her, you'll almost certainly get away with it, given the pathetic conviction rates in the US and UK".
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to: "don't like a woman? If you rape her, you'll almost certainly get away with it, given the pathetic conviction rates in the US and UK".
Maybe its not 'pathetic conviction rates' but 'pathetic attempts to ruin mens lives by accusing them of rape and having the court see through the tissue of lies'
Re: (Score:2)
not enough pictures/games on slash dot to get the right people to "monitor" it ?
Re: (Score:2)
Should have landed me in jail a couple of times, at least.
The judges don't want to corrupt the rest of the inmate population.
Re: (Score:2)
I posted this comment [slashdot.org] to this discussion [slashdot.org] a while back. I haven't been arrested yet, which goes to show how stupid the law is, since the guy who originally posted it in the UK was.
Re:My slashdot posts (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymity and the internet do get the worst out of us.
Anonymity can also bring out the best in us when there is reason to fear bringing out such parts otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
How may times SHOULD you have gone to jail for saying something: 0.
Incorrect. We don't know what he said - perhaps you have some absolutist position on discussion over the internet - that *anything* can be said without being an arrestable offense. How about some reminders of things that are said that are most certainly illegal?
- Yelling fire in a crowded theater (inciting panic)
- Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
- Extortion
- Threats of violence, rape or murder
I shouldn't have to re-iterate that old mantra of "not all free speech is free!", and you may disagre
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I shouldn't have to re-iterate that old mantra of "not all free speech is free!", and you may disagree on the law on some points like what "racial hatred" is exactly. But if you don't like what someone said and send them a message saying you will find and murder them - do you honestly believe that you shouldn't go to jail? Threats of murder get you jail time, whether it's done in person, over the phone, or over the internet - despite being "just something you said".
I have no issues with what you say here, menacing/threatening messages are something which rightly should be actionable, but, unfortunately, I think you're missing the scope of the legislation in the UK which was designed to deal with these eventualities, and how it's being (ab)used.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
Now, here's the problem, the act, as worded, places no emphasis on the intent of the content, just on its nature.
Say person X posts something 'objectionable' on something as
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! That's why China has just as much free speech as the US; they only punish people for the *consequences* of their speech!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That would depend on whether or not he has a voice activated murder weapon.
They're called Muslims. Insult the qur'an and they go on a murderous outrage
Works for most religions:
"They're called Catholics - suggest a woman should have choice over her own body and they'll bomb your pub"
"They're called protestants - say the wrong thing on the wrong street and they'll burn your entire neighbourhood"
"They're called Buddhists - say the wrong thing and they'll set themselves on fire..."
Wait... that one didn't work so well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to shit in your corn flakes but Brits are about as obese as Americans.
We can't have our British friends closing the obesity gap.
Everyone waddle down to Golden Corral right now!!
Increase your sample size. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure if we sample the most crime-ridden portions of each of our countries we'll find lots of people with bad teeth.
Living in a nice middle class neighborhood, all the kids have braces or straight teeth and an adult with yellowed teeth is called a "smoker."
As for American Beer, try our microbrews, not the Pepsi-subtitutes from BevCo. As for complicated recipes for turning cheap ingredients into tasty ones? Try a prize winning Peach Pie in Georgia. For good food in the Pacific NorthDamp, we eat fresh f
Re: (Score:2)
As for American Beer, try our microbrews
I have, and many of them are pretty good - but you don't chill them to the point where they freeze your mouth into numbness. The whole "chilled beer" thing comes from the US, where thanks to Prohibition (and after that, laws banning brewing without prohibitively expensive licences) people pretty much forgot how to make beer until about five years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think I've tried Applebees, but Sam Adams is much the same as the better end of the mass-produced beers we get over here. It's drinkable, but not great.
The whole microbrewery thing is fairly recent in the US. I could hit about a dozen breweries that have been running since before I was born within an hour's drive of where I'm sitting - roughly half of them have been on the go for over a century. Stick at it, you'll get some brewing heritage yet ;-)
Oh, and while it may be true that the French have
Re: (Score:3)
As for American Beer, try our microbrews, not the Pepsi-subtitutes from BevCo.
Perhaps you should be telling that to more US Americans, as 95% of the beer they drink still comes from the big three (Anheuser-Busch, Miller and Molson Coors).
Or from a goat. It depends on who you believe.
Re:Yet another reason NOT to visit the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
My, what a lovely pile of straw you have created! I hope you didn't have to murder too many strawmen to make it!
1) most dental hygenists I have met take very good care of their teeth, and most don't resort to veneers. Contrary to your vicious assault on that strawman, there *are* american dental hygenists, and they DO take care of their teeth. Fluoride? The effect it has in supressing tooth decay came from american dental hygenists. Fancy that.
2) French Toast. Created at the French House, an american bed and breakfast, according to several noteworthy gastronomists.
3) all beer tastes vile. The manner in which it is served does not matter. It is an acquired taste, much like black liquorice. Arguments over beer are like arguments over religion. Foolish from the beginning, and without real substance, created exclusively to divide and enable spear rattling and jingoistic ego masturbation on the part of the arguer. Insisting upon an objective truth being present in such an intrinsically subjective experience as "favor" is completely irrational.
That's 3 strikes. You're out.
Re: (Score:2)
See how that works? It's all about definitions and slippery slopes.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead. I can even give you the phone number of my local police station if you want.
The police will tell you that "no reasonable person would find that offensive", and hang up on you.
Re: (Score:2)
The police will tell you that "no reasonable person would find that offensive", and hang up on you.
But I'd bet you'd be pretty angry if this vague, imaginary "reasonable person" sided against you.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how it turned out - he got off with it. If he'd been in the US, he would have been "disappeared" to Guantanamo Bay, and he'd still be there.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how it turned out - he got off with it. If he'd been in the US, he would have been "disappeared" to Guantanamo Bay, and he'd still be there.
Foreigners go to Guantanamo. US citizens get sent to federal rape camps.
Re: (Score:2)
Just leave people to continue making threatening and abusive phone calls, emails and posts on social media?
Sure. Toughen up, too.
But that's not all that can get you arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, a lot of it is compartmentalization. Many extremely religious people have no problem applying logic and reason to other areas of their lives.
--Jeremy