|
I can't understand why there was such a massive fuss about the televised "Springer : The Opera" thang. And the shots of people burning their TV licences, they were just hilarious...! Let's put things into perspective a bit here. That got something like nearly quarter of a million complaints didn't it? Mostly because people with nothing better to do who had never even seen the thing saw people dressed as Klu Klux Klansmen and a bit of swearing and thought they'd sound off, yet at the same time they'll watch that really fucking pointless sketch in Little Britain with the old racist/homophobic slag at the church fete vomiting over everyone, and titter remorselessly... "Ahhh but that's comedy" they'll say. "And it's harmless" - Well, to some - those of us who've managed to develop a sense of humour slightly above that of a five year old, so is the Springer opera... Well done Beeb for showing it I say...! Peej |
Blasphemy in the UK • Page 2
-
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years ago -
ruttyboy 7,950 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agoA religion is a choice and should be afforded the same protection under law as any other reasonable free thought, but definitely not more because of the legacy of Religion's stranglehold on government in the past. Which, hopefully, is finally slackening.
I found those pictures of the Christians burning their licences politely over a waste paper basket highly amusing.gif)
If I was Roly Keating I'd be sending detector vans round to their houses sharpish! 
-
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years ago"Detector vans" - heh, I like those. I actually want one I can drive and customize...
I don't understand why they were burning their licences though - unless they were burning their licence reminders - that makes a bit more sense
Peej -
ruttyboy 7,950 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agopjmaybe wrote:
I think they thought it was 'symbolic'... What they should have done is nailed themselves to crosses outside the BBC, that would have had an impact!*
"Detector vans" - heh, I like those. I actually want one I can drive and customize...
I don't understand why they were burning their licences though - unless they were burning their licence reminders - that makes a bit more sense
Peej
*Awaits to be sued for blasphemy -
Shinji wrote:
There is no irony, you're just trying to have it both ways, which you can't. Religions don't generally go around taking you to court or putting you in prison if you do something that they don't like. If someone is living a life incompatible with their faith then there's a conflict which will have to be resolved one way or the other, else it is hardly worth having a belief system if nobody abides by it. Then you have a feel-good-self-help group, not a faith/religion.
Religion falls somewhere between the two. People are entitled to believe what they want, but realistically, that's protected by the right to free speech and free thought. I'm exceptionally wary of certain arguments for special protection of religions, to be honest, because there are some religions (including some very mainstream ones) which hold and practice beliefs that are utterly opposed to fundamental tenets of our society - like freedom of belief, freedom of expression and so on, which ironically are the basic tenets that allow these religions to continue to exist in the first place... -
ruttyboy 7,950 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agomalloc wrote:
Surely the irony is that if say we lived in a religious fundamentalist government controlled society then the practicing of other religions would be banned. The same free speech and freedom which allows things that any one particular group finds offensive to occur is the same as that which allows them all to co-exist.
Shinji wrote:
There is no irony, you're just trying to have it both ways, which you can't. Religions don't generally go around taking you to court or putting you in prison if you do something that they don't like. If someone is living a life incompatible with their faith then there's a conflict which will have to be resolved one way or the other, else it is hardly worth having a belief system if nobody abides by it. Then you have a feel-good-self-help group, not a faith/religion.
Religion falls somewhere between the two. People are entitled to believe what they want, but realistically, that's protected by the right to free speech and free thought. I'm exceptionally wary of certain arguments for special protection of religions, to be honest, because there are some religions (including some very mainstream ones) which hold and practice beliefs that are utterly opposed to fundamental tenets of our society - like freedom of belief, freedom of expression and so on, which ironically are the basic tenets that allow these religions to continue to exist in the first place... -
ruttyboy wrote:
Not sure I quite get your point. But IMHO there isn't really any irony there. That wouldn't be a free society, just a form a dictatorship where religion, along with a lot of other things, is decided for you. Dictatorship probably isn't the right word, but hey.
malloc wrote:
Surely the irony is that if say we lived in a religious fundamentalist government controlled society then the practicing of other religions would be banned. The same free speech and freedom which allows things that any one particular group finds offensive to occur is the same as that which allows them all to co-exist.
Shinji wrote:
There is no irony, you're just trying to have it both ways, which you can't. Religions don't generally go around taking you to court or putting you in prison if you do something that they don't like. If someone is living a life incompatible with their faith then there's a conflict which will have to be resolved one way or the other, else it is hardly worth having a belief system if nobody abides by it. Then you have a feel-good-self-help group, not a faith/religion.
Religion falls somewhere between the two. People are entitled to believe what they want, but realistically, that's protected by the right to free speech and free thought. I'm exceptionally wary of certain arguments for special protection of religions, to be honest, because there are some religions (including some very mainstream ones) which hold and practice beliefs that are utterly opposed to fundamental tenets of our society - like freedom of belief, freedom of expression and so on, which ironically are the basic tenets that allow these religions to continue to exist in the first place...
Some irony if because of free speech a religion popped-up became popular, got into politics, and ruled the country and then banned freedom of speech. But then that could happen with any sort of group religious or otherwise. Like the Labour party banning the Tories party or anything really. -
ruttyboy 7,950 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agomalloc wrote:
Not sure I quite get your point. But IMHO there isn't really any irony there. That wouldn't be a free society, just a form a dictatorship where religion, along with a lot of other things, is decided for you. Dictatorship probably isn't the right word, but hey.
Some irony if because of free speech a religion popped-up became popular, got into politics, and ruled the country and then banned freedom of speech. But then that could happen with any sort of group religious or otherwise. Like the Labour party banning the Tories party or anything really.
I see irony in people complaining about the very thing that allows them to exist at all, if you don't see the same then that's no problem, that's what free speech is all about -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoI hope the TV liscence people followed them home and busted them. I’d also be surprised if burning a government license isn’t illegal.
And sorry, metaldog, something like Songs of Praise is in effect an insult to someone who doesn’t have any theistic beliefs. All those songs about how you can only be a decent person if you surrender your heart and mind to the lord.
While I do think the hypocrisy of the BBC in broadcasting the JS opera when they wouldn’t touch anything remotely similar if it dealt with any other religion, including Scientology. Besides, was the show casting hate at the faith or taking the piss out of the inability of some members of that faith to entertain the possibility that the Bible is not the be all and end all on the life of Jesus? I also think those of faith should surely have the heaven-sent tools to rise above such petty squabbles.
Then again, as we are talking about human beings, it si petty squabbles that define religion;
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Free speech needs to be absolute, even up to people saying they hate all gays and think blacks are stupid. Restrictions should never be implemented when discussing topics that are defined by personal choice, such as religion. Controls should only come into play when someone incites violence.
Besides, one of the dodgy justifications for the existence of god is that you couldn’t have good without evil; that’s why god lets bad shit happen. So by outlawing hate we would be setting up love for destruction. -
fireclown 123 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agoIf you enact special laws to protect something like that, it starts making people go "hang on, what's wrong with this thing that makes it need special laws to protect it?" - which isn't an entirely unfair reaction in a lot of cases. I don't really see what's special about religious belief as opposed to any other free thought, and why it should be afforded special status under law.
What's 'special' about them is that they suffer discrimination. What provoked the recent law was very specifically a number of entirely innocent Muslims suffering for being associated with a certain set of famous beardy chaps. If your kid gets called 'Osama' at school, your property gets vandalised and your life is threatened, then something's wrong with the society you're living in. A law to protect you is a decent short-term fix.
If atheists, flat-earthers, Tories, console gamers or people who don't like cake suffered similar discrimination, then they should also be accorded the same protection in law. They don't yet. Though maybe they should. Cake-hating filth. -
fireclown 123 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agoI should add that I'm specifically talking about the incitement-to-religious-hatred law - the blasphemy thing is a leftover from when we defined our society by being Christian, which is *so* nineteenth century frankly. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoBlasphemy is still on the law books decades after it was last used. Why do you think short-term fixes like incitement to religious hatred would ever be removed from the books?
One thing politicans love to do is create new legislation. They have no time for clearing out old, outdated or just plain bad laws. -
ruttyboy wrote:I see irony in people complaining about the very thing that allows them to exist at all, if you don't see the same then that's no problem, that's what free speech is all about
OK.
As Khanivor pointed out if you're going to have proper freedom of speech then that'll have to extend the full whack. Is this ever going to happen? I doubt it. Therefore you're going to get compromises, which are going to knock things out of balance by some degree and hence favour one side more than the other. You have human beings in charge with their own thoughts and beliefs so it's going to be tough to get something that suits all, without chaos.
That's why I get a tad wary of people playing the freedom of speech card, I think it's very important certainly, but it's a pretty big deal that I'm not sure people fully understand, especially me. -
ruttyboy 7,950 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agomalloc wrote:
ruttyboy wrote:I see irony in people complaining about the very thing that allows them to exist at all, if you don't see the same then that's no problem, that's what free speech is all about
OK.
As Khanivor pointed out if you're going to have proper freedom of speech then that'll have to extend the full whack. Is this ever going to happen? I doubt it. Therefore you're going to get compromises, which are going to knock things out of balance by some degree and hence favour one side more than the other. You have human beings in charge with their own thoughts and beliefs so it's going to be tough to get something that suits all, without chaos.
That's why I get a tad wary of people playing the freedom of speech card, I think it's very important certainly, but it's a pretty big deal that I'm not sure people fully understand, especially me.
Yes I agree with you. Personally I would like to see complete freedom of speech/worship up until the point where your actions are detrimental to someone else. I know that's impossibly hard to define and adjudge under law but hey that's what we have courts for right?
Basically if someone believed that all left-handers were the devil's children and should be exterminated then that should be protected under law right up until they actually start the exterminating... -
fireclown 123 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agoKhanivor wrote:
Blasphemy is still on the law books decades after it was last used. Why do you think short-term fixes like incitement to religious hatred would ever be removed from
the books?
Blasphemy is still on the law books as a toothless piece of fossil legislation, so I'd not be worried if the law on incitement stayed around in the same way. It's inelegant but hardly a threat to freedom of speech.
But anyway the blasphemy laws were never intended as a short-term fix to protect a minority. They were a statement by a society about itself that developed out of hundreds of years of ferocious religious infighting, from back when political philosophers seriously believed we needed a state religion to have a stable society. (I think. If they were passed in 1973 or something I'm talking out of my hat.) So they're a different case.
And besides, you could use this as an argument against the passage of any law that might become irrelevant in twenty years, but many of which we need.
One thing politicans love to do is create new legislation. They have no time for clearing out old, outdated or just plain bad laws.
I agree in principle, but in practice (a) the incitement thing will remain a hot topic. (b) if it doesn't, freedom of speech will, and a Freedom of Speech Act or some UK equivalent of the Bill of Rights (which I'd fscking love to see) will remain hot and may repeal this law. And (c) this is one rare occasion where making a public pointby making legislation, which is a notorious New Labour habit, is actually the right thing to do: the government affirming that Muslims aren't all terrorists. Ironic considering what's happening in Belmarsh but there you go. -
fireclown 123 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agoYes I agree with you. Personally I would like to see complete freedom of speech/worship up until the point where your actions are detrimental to someone else. I know that's impossibly hard to define and adjudge under law but hey that's what we have courts for right?
It's bloody hard to define but you can do it, and argue the toss when you need to. The standard example as y'all probably know is falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre: you're exercising your right of free speech but you're *obviously* misusing it to cause harm.
I think the incitement thing has a similar test. You can say the Bible is poorly-written racist tosh. You can tell a joke about a Baptist on a bridge. You just can't claim something false about a religion with the obvious and real intention of getting its practitioners beaten up. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoAkeldama wrote:
Khanivor wrote:
And sorry, metaldog, something like Songs of Praise is in effect an insult to someone who doesn’t have any theistic beliefs. All those songs about how you can only be a decent person if you surrender your heart and mind to the lord.
No off switch on your TV then?
You have a strange view of Christian theology. You are always one of the loudest voices complaining about anti-US bigotry on this forum, yet are always one of the most vocally anti-faith. Not merely expressing you beliefs, but insulting those who hold views different to your own. And not insulting the faith - but actually making comments about people who hold this different views, knowing full well there are several here who hold those beliefs.
Ironic the query about the off-switch, I guess that was your intention. Unfrotuantely you've taken this seriosuly. I don't think SoP is equaly offensive to an aethiest as JSTO may be to a Christian.
I am anti-religion, yes. Not anti-christian, not anti-faith, which would be analogous to anti-us, but anti-religion. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want and I believe that organised religion is the greatest risk to the advancement of the human race and the continuation of civilisation that we face. -
ruttyboy wrote:
Yeah, but then if you're son is at school and is the only left handed pupil and receives verbal bullying constantly from his right handed peers, then as a parent you'll probably want something done about it, and wouldn't be impressed with those pushing the left handers are evil message.
Yes I agree with you. Personally I would like to see complete freedom of speech/worship up until the point where your actions are detrimental to someone else. I know that's impossibly hard to define and adjudge under law but hey that's what we have courts for right?
Basically if someone believed that all left-handers were the devil's children and should be exterminated then that should be protected under law right up until they actually start the exterminating...
Speech is powerful, and a gifted speaker with extreme views can be very dangerous, what we say does effect people.
Tough to say where the line is drawn. I imagine that people being able to disagree on various issues and debate them is very important to us, whether it be political leaders on TV, or religious groups knocking on your door offering something they believe is better than what you've got. Whether we like those sorts of things or not, I doubt many of us have any fundamental problem with them.
I am anti-religion, yes. Not anti-christian, not anti-faith, which would be analogous to anti-us, but anti-religion. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want and I believe that organised religion is the greatest risk to the advancement of the human race and the continuation of civilisation that we face.
Now that's irony. I'd guess that most, if not all, religions believe that they've got it right, or are most of the way there, and that everyone else has got it wrong and are a danger to themselves and the rest of civilisation. A rather sweeping generalisation that pretty much gives the finger to the majority of the planet. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agomalloc wrote:
I am anti-religion, yes. Not anti-christian, not anti-faith, which would be analogous to anti-us, but anti-religion. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want and I believe that organised religion is the greatest risk to the advancement of the human race and the continuation of civilisation that we face.
Now that's irony. I'd guess that most, if not all, religions believe that they've got it right, or are most of the way there, and that everyone else has got it wrong and are a danger to themselves and the rest of civilisation. A rather sweeping generalisation that pretty much gives the finger to the majority of the planet.
And it's the determination that they are right so all those other peole must be wrong that cuases so much grief in the wider world. The basis for believing one religion is true over another is exactly the same, wheter you think budha is top guy or mohammed; because i beleive it it must be true.
Now there are plenty of religious people who can accept the paradox, and good for them in being able to question. unfortunately, if you encourage laws like this then even those more enlightened people could find themselves the target of the intolerant.
And before anyone has a go, I'm tolerant of people of all faiths (although I struggle with hippies). I would prefer that humanity was able to look at the world without fear but it's not going to happen any time soon, so I may as well get along with folk. -
ruttyboy 7,950 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agomalloc wrote:
Yeah, but then if you're son is at school and is the only left handed pupil and receives verbal bullying constantly from his right handed peers, then as a parent you'll probably want something done about it, and wouldn't be impressed with those pushing the left handers are evil message.
But that has passed the point where the actions have become detrimental and so the bullies should be punished. The right-handed kids should still be allowed to say that they believe what they believe but not give the lefties a hard time about it. "I believe you should be exterminated for being left handed, but I do not possess the right (gettit!) to impact upon your life in a negative way for the sake of my beliefs." That kind of thing.
Now I realise that such a situation is impossible because of human nature (especially kids, they can be right cunts for the most part) but I can still dream -
Khanivor wrote:
Right. I sorta agree and certainly wouldn't say that I'm in favour of the new law.
And it's the determination that they are right so all those other peole must be wrong that cuases so much grief in the wider world. The basis for believing one religion is true over another is exactly the same, wheter you think budha is top guy or mohammed; because i beleive it it must be true.
Now there are plenty of religious people who can accept the paradox, and good for them in being able to question. unfortunately, if you encourage laws like this then even those more enlightened people could find themselves the target of the intolerant.
And before anyone has a go, I'm tolerant of people of all faiths (although I struggle with hippies). I would prefer that humanity was able to look at the world without fear but it's not going to happen any time soon, so I may as well get along with folk.
Although the point I was making is if there is a global truth it's that the planet would be better off if everyone else thought and believed as they did, whether they do or don't believe in God, what his name is, whether he's a Trinity or not etc.
but I do not possess the right (gettit!) to impact upon your life in a negative way for the sake of my beliefs." That kind of thing.
Totally. Although aren't you kinda admitting that what a person says can impact somebody negatively, in which case there is a limit to freedom of speech. Get's tricky quickly. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agomalloc wrote:
Although the point I was making is if there is a global truth it's that the planet would be better off if everyone else thought and believed as they did, whether they do or don't believe in God, what his name is, whether he's a Trinity or not etc.
IMO, the best of all possiblke world would be one where the whole planet realsied that making laws and wars based on something completely irrational is not the best way to go about things. -
ruttyboy 7,950 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agomalloc wrote:
Totally. Although aren't you kinda admitting that what a person says can impact somebody negatively, in which case there is a limit to freedom of speech. Get's tricky quickly.
It certainly does Perhaps a better way to describe Freedom of Speech would be 'Freedom of Belief', as I don't mean it in it's literal sense. -
Khanivor wrote:IMO, the best of all possiblke world would be one where the whole planet realsied that making laws and wars based on something completely irrational is not the best way to go about things.
Can't you see what you're doing there? -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoNope.
/fumbles -
Unless I'm reading you wrong you're saying that God is "something completely irrational" which one could take to imply that therefore those believing in such a being are themselve completely irrational. Seems that you're playing the same game as the religions that you youself are against, or anti. Find it tough to see much difference.
For the record I do admit that one cannot philisophically(sp?) prove God, in the sense of one being able to use their senses to prove it, in the same way I cannot prove any of history as one cannot rewind the tape and see it for ourselves. Also the mixing of religion or politics is a very dodgy concept, and something I am not in favour of. -
Ginger 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years agomalloc wrote:
OK, so you can't prove God or History, but can you provide any evidence for God or History?
For the record I do admit that one cannot philisophically(sp?) prove God, in the sense of one being able to use their senses to prove it, in the same way I cannot prove any of history as one cannot rewind the tape and see it for ourselves. Also the mixing of religion or politics is a very dodgy concept, and something I am not in favour of.
I think for History the evidence is of the primary type (e.g. dug up Roman Villas etc). The evidence for God is less clear. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the formal definitions for evidence but I'm pretty sure that:
1) The majestic complexity of the universe
2) Consiousness
3) The bible
would not be considered evidence per se, and if it were, then maybe it would be circumstancial (sp?)
Edited by Ginger at 14:55:44 11-01-2005 -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoGot ya. While I do think that creating a god to explain the mysteries of the world was at one time a wholly rational thing to do, I also think that to hold onto these beliefs in the face of all the evidence that god was nothing more then a comforter for infant humanity is undesirable.
But I don’t think that having religious beliefs in itself makes one irrational. There’s an obvious need in the human psyche to explain the world around them and religion has been the preferred method for millennia. It has a lot of momentum going for it and due to the way that children are indoctrinated at such a young age it continues to hold sway over much of the planet’s thinking.
Besides, one can hold an irrational belief and still be an otherwise rational person. And there’s a big difference between me and most religions, in that I don’t believe those with religious beliefs are leading a wasted life because they don’t think the same way that I do. -
Khanivor wrote:
OK. But you did start off by saying that man created god, which is surely just the other way around than most religions start off with. A difference, obviously, but you're just re-arranging a few words, which I don't think makes much difference at the end, which is why I take your last comments with a pinch of salt. You did say that "organised religion is the greatest risk to the advancement of the human race and the continuation of civilisation that we face." and I find it difficult to see how you can harmonize all of your comments, such as you therefore being different to most religions.
Got ya. While I do think that creating a god to explain the mysteries of the world was at one time a wholly rational thing to do, I also think that to hold onto these beliefs in the face of all the evidence that god was nothing more then a comforter for infant humanity is undesirable.
But I don’t think that having religious beliefs in itself makes one irrational. There’s an obvious need in the human psyche to explain the world around them and religion has been the preferred method for millennia. It has a lot of momentum going for it and due to the way that children are indoctrinated at such a young age it continues to hold sway over much of the planet’s thinking.
Besides, one can hold an irrational belief and still be an otherwise rational person. And there’s a big difference between me and most religions, in that I don’t believe those with religious beliefs are leading a wasted life because they don’t think the same way that I do.
I don't think it's wrong to think that everybody else has got it wrong. We can't all have got it right. And surely those that have got it wrong are wasting a lot of time?
Re: Ginger, heh you edited your post as I was replying... hehe. I was only making those points as an aside, to make my position clear to Khanivor, that me and him aren't as different as he may think, or as my comments my indicate. I don't mind going down that road, although we are straying off topic. -
malloc wrote:
Yeah, I thought I'd put something a little less reactionary in there
Re: Ginger, heh you edited your post as I was replying... hehe.
I'm sure we can have the discussion at a later date if not now as I'm a little busy.
.gif)
If I was Roly Keating I'd be sending detector vans round to their houses sharpish! 
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
