Religion Good news!

[Scouse]

The Egyptian government has officially said the United States should legally curb freedom of expression in order to protect their sky-fairy worship from ridicule.

We need to reach a balance between freedom of expression and to maintain respect for other peoples' beliefs... When asked whether he thought the US should change its laws governing freedom of speech laws, he replied: "I think we need to work out something around this because we cannot wait and see this happen again"

FUCK YOU. I don't respect your beliefs. Yet, I have more respect for your ability to both hold those views and continue practice your despicable woman-hating, racist, violent religion - than you have respect for my ability to openly say what I think, without violence.

I mock your god. You intimidate the entire world with real violence and death.

 

[rynnor]

I thought the Egyptian statement was an attempt to calm the situation at home rather than serious - of course we already lost such freedoms in this country.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No, not really.

Christianity adoped (i.e. stole and claimed it "invented") an existing morality, twisted it and enforced it's bastardisation through fear and (lots of) violence.

Now that christianity is dying it's about-fucking-time death the original morality is coming back to the fore.

i.e. don't steal, don't murder, but you can now have sex with whoever you want to and your kids aren't "invalid" because they're born outside of the church's control.

I can agree with that, christianity twisted and stole pretty much everything in the "dark times", though i will hold the opinion that religion before christianity had a good chunk of impact on how we shaped our morals and christianity, partly, solidified what we have now. We can disagree on that and leave it at a disagreement. These days the morals that have evolved are pretty much a norm, with or without religion, and religion doesn't have that much of a need in that, unless we count those who don't know how to act without it.

 

[Scouse]

Shit.

Turns out it's I need to be punished, personally for the anti-islam film that has sparked the loony wankers off on their latest religious murder-spree.

Those who should be held accountable, punished, prosecuted and boycotted are those directly responsible for this film and those who stand behind them and those who support and protect them

I've never actually seen the film but I definitely support the filmmaker's right to make any loony batshit film he likes. Freedom of speech.

Islam - the violent loony cunt religion of choice for violent loony cunts today


Edit: Toht. How can you appease this common feature of both christianity and islam - that they both campaign against freedom of speech?

Isn't that "immoral"?

Oh, and buddism too - you can't knock the fat-man or you get arrested in some places...

 

[old.Tohtori]

I can't. Or rather won't bother. Morons, loonies, psychos and zealots are everywhere.

They're not campaigning against freedom of speech though, they're always campaigning against ridicule of their religion. Not much of a difference, but it's there.

Christians need to relinquish power and islam needs to lighten the f*ck up, or atleast hone up to "you mock us, we kill you" mentality.

 

[Scouse]

They're not campaigning against freedom of speech though, they're always campaigning against ridicule of their religion. Not much of a difference, but it's there.

Can you explain the difference in easy terms for all of us please?

I fail to see it.

 

[Job]

I love the headline on the Mash.
I t sums the whole the up in a few words.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/religion-still-being-taken-seriously-2012091441042

 

[old.Tohtori]

Can you explain the difference in easy terms for all of us please?

I fail to see it.

One is saying that we don't want to be ridiculed(well who does?) and one is saying all speech should be limited.

I'm not condoning it by the way, but i will say that people who give bananas to a guy who kills people if he eats bananas are silly.

 

[Scouse]

One is saying that we don't want to be ridiculed(well who does?) and one is saying all speech should be limited.

So, free speech should be curtailed to save religion from ridicule? Because they "don't like it"?

i.e. - free speech shouldn't really be "free", there should be arbitrary limits, imposed (in this case) to appease violent religionists?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes, that's what they are saying, not complete ban on freedom of speech. Like i said there's a difference and like i said, not condoning it.

Problem?

 

[Scouse]

Problem?

Yes.

A curtailing of the freedom to speak your mind means that speech is no longer free. You can't have a "partial" ban.

And you said: "They're not campaigning against freedom of speech"

Which, as already pointed out - they are. When asked directly about freedom of speech they said "We need to reach a balance between freedom of expression and to maintain respect for other peoples' beliefs".

Which is an obvious limitation of freedom of speech.


I also asked you the question:

Isn't that "immoral"?

Care to comment on that?

 

[old.Tohtori]

*rub eyes* Why are you taking this so far, when i agree with you on it being bad?

And speech isn't free in this world if you haven't noticed, you can't just say ANYTHING. Case in point; Assange.

 

[Scouse]

/dodge...

Is a religion campaigning to curb freedom of speech immoral or not?

 

[Chilly]

You can't have a "partial" ban.

We already do have a partial ban here. Most countries with generally free speech tend to have exemptions.

 

[old.Tohtori]

/dodge...

Is a religion campaigning to curb freedom of speech immoral or not?

/redodge That's a loaded question since it involves morality(whole other can of worms), i'll just say that it shouldn't happen, even if i respect their right to campaign so.

Now, do you think we really have freedom of speech to begin with?

 

[Scouse]

We already do have a partial ban here. Most countries with generally free speech tend to have exemptions.

I agree that this is the (utterly deplorable) case.

However in order to keep this thread on any sort of reasonable track the issue being debated is whether it is immoral to widen those "exemptions" to protect religion and religious ideas from ridicule.


- Toht - there you go - I've A) answered the question, B) stated my opinion clearly in two sentences. Please to not be harping on about it...

 

[Scouse]

Salman Rushdie says that the Satanic Verses wouldn't be published today ...

The only way of living in a free society is to feel that you have the right to say and do stuff....If you look at the way in which free expression is being attacked by religious extremism, the things of which these people are accused is always the same - it's blasphemy, heresy, insult, offence - it's this medieval vocabulary

Hear! Hear! Salman.

I tend to listen (though not always agree) with what he says. It's not like he's had a 20-year, official, religious death threat hanging over him, eh?


FUCK religion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually you were the one harping it along here, but in any case, questions answered and everyone agrees(agreed fro the beginning) on what you say the issue is.

You've also answered your own question on what the difference is, that being that they want their religion to be added to exempt rules, not complete ban on freedom of speech, which doesn't exist

 

[DaGaffer]

A curtailing of the freedom to speak your mind means that speech is no longer free. You can't have a "partial" ban.

Well, you can, and you do. There's no such thing as truly "free" speech (hence slander laws for a start), so really its just about deciding where the line is, and unfortunately the UK has long since crossed the line into censorship as far as religion is concerned. We may as well have blasphemy laws frankly, because the anti-encitement laws amount to the same thing.

This is not to say that I agree with what the Egyptians are saying; fuck-em in the arse with a copy of the Koran as far as I'm concerned; but the door is open to such discussions because the West have already ceded the argument to the nutters to an extent.

 

[Scouse]

You've also answered your own question on what the difference is, that being that they want their religion to be added to exempt rules, not complete ban on freedom of speech, which doesn't exist

Oh lolz har har har! Technical winz0r!!! To live on such small scraps must be a sad existence.

It doesn't have bearing on the argument at all - the argument being should religion have the power to curb freedom of speech. - Further curb, as I've already conceded and freely admit - but curb it nonetheless...


Unfortunately, DaGaffer's fallen into your hole too

 

[Chilly]

I wonder what the path out of this is?

A few options I can think of and likely consequences:

• Mass campaign from random people on the internet penning tonnes of anti-islam cartoons in an attempt to de-sensitise the nutters. Outcome: short-term worse, long-term probably better
• Politely ask the media to ignore the nutters. No chance cos it sells too many papers. Unfortunately the nutters want exposure rather than anything else.
• Never print another offensive word or image about Islam again. The nutters will find something else to QQ about and it stinks in principle.

Poor bastards having to actually try and sort this out in our foreign office and various other diplomats.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh lolz har har har! Technical winz0r!!! To live on such small scraps must be a sad existence.

It doesn't have bearing on the argument at all - the argument being should religion have the power to curb freedom of speech. - Further curb, as I've already conceded and freely admit - but curb it nonetheless...

No it was just meant to illustrate that we've agreed with it all along.

 

[Scouse]

I wonder what the path out of this is?

We've already got a path tbh. The same one we followed - and we know it works because there's loads of muslims in Britain that don't regularly go around stabbing, shooting and bombing us because of anti-islam jokes.

The problem comes from the fact that most of the rest of the world isn't up to our level yet. Annoyingly, they are well armed - so the thing that would threaten the same thing happening there, or a regression here, is our politicians being spineless.

As long as the west holds it's nerve, we'll get through it. Islam is in the beginnings of it's death throwes - yes, it's converting more people at a massive rate - just like the country that knows it's facing an onslaught conscripts a load of people into it's army. But if we refuse, intellectually, to bow down before religion then it's fate is sealed.

What we need is politicians to show a little backbone. Maybe Obama to draw a big picture* of momammed getting double-ended by the pope and ganesh during a presidential speech.


*Which is effectively your first option

 

[old.Tohtori]

So is it ok(or should i say acceptable) for people to die just so people can say sh*t?

 

[Chilly]

So is it ok(or should i say acceptable) for people to die just so people can say sh*t?

What's the alternative?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Alternative would be not to prod the hornets nest.

 

[Scouse]

No. It's not acceptable for dicks to kill people because of their stupid fucking beliefs.

However - it is going to happen a lot, especially until religion dies. And freedom of speech deserves that protection. Refusal to capitulate gives those deaths meaning.

The alternative the existence of a heckler's veto.



FUCK those violent religious arseholes. They deserve to be "upset" by what people say. Their religion deserves ridicule. It doesn't give them an excuse to kill people. They're ultra-violent playground-bullies with guns and bombs and any free-thinking person of reason should detest their ideas, their religion and their actions - and understand that it's ALL their own fault.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah, i'm sure that the people who lost children because of bombings will feel a lot better, knowing that their death was for the fight for right for Scouse to say "F*ck religion".

I wasn't asking if it's ok for them to kill people though, so here a clearer question for you;

I'm going to use an extreme example here; if we knew that bob would kill your mother if i said the word "testicle" to him, would you still say that "you go for it man! Say it! It's your right!" and then be completely ok with me saying it, and causing your mother to be killed?

 

[rynnor]

Alternative would be not to prod the hornets nest.

Then you get a creep creep effect and we all end up living under sharia law - you have to stick to principles or you end up without them and at the whim of any bunch of nutters.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not if those principles will repeatedly get people killed.

If not drawing silly pictures, making films of certain subject and not saying sh*t that doesn't need to be said anyway saves ONE life, it's worth it. As i said earlier, i don't condone on limiting peoples freedom(since it's a nice pipedream), but if our choices are actually limited to just freedom or saved lives(as it seems to be), i'll choose saved lives anytime.

How many more bombings does it take? As much as it does? How can that be justified.