Blasphemy in the UK • Page 3
-
Ginger 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago -
Ginger wrote:
Good idea, on both counts. I will just say that one can get evidence to support any number of conclusions, which doesn't in any way invalidate the evidence.
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. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoA look at history and anthropology will show clear paths of humans creating and embellishing gods throughout their history. The similarity of many Greek and Roman gods, the amalgamation by the Greeks of Egyptian deities during their reign of those lands, the shift from polytheism to monotheism, the integration of pagan exaggerations into the early Christian church to flesh out its bogeymen, the primitive natives who worshipped relief planes during WW2 are all examples to show if there is one industry that man has always been good at it is in the creation of mystical beings.
I don’t think man creating god and god creating man have much similarity other then common words. One is well documented and goes on to this day. The other, well there’s no evidence whatsoever for it.
The blasphmey laws must be the only ones that are there to protect people's feelings. -
Ginger 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years agoI thought this thread was going to end quite peacefully until that post K... Way to stir it up again .gif)
-
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago/blows on typing fingers -
fireclown 123 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agoI don’t think man creating god and god creating man have much similarity other then common words. One is well documented and goes on to this day. The other, well there’s no evidence whatsoever for it.
Nice.
But I don't see how you get from there to 'organised religion is the greatest threat the human race faces.' The Pope is more dangerous than runaway polluting tech, war over scarce resources, overpopulation, nanogoo, and all those nukes sitting in Ukrainian car trunks?
'Irrationality' isn't innately dangerous. It's sodding annoying but humans spend their time doing *all kinds* of weird shit for reasons that sound ludicrous when they're written down. We just had the third most powerful man in the country go down in flames because he couldn't control his glands. -
mercury 53 posts
Registered 19 years agoNo the blasphemy law needs to be outlawed, as does any pro-christian law. There is no need or point in offending our fellow countrymen or potential new countrymen [new immigrants from pakistan or saudi arabia etc], even if they follow Islam or hinduism blah blah.
Also remember that Europe has for the last 200 years or so been a relatively secualr non-christian society, whereas most muslims have lived under religous laws dictated by the Quaron in thier old-countries. So if any religous laws should be in place, Islamic ones should be it since only Muslims have lived under those in this century and its a part of thier culture [multi-culturalism at play here]. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoI'd say its dangerous because people reckon they can just kick bac in this world cause the real show doesn't happen till you die. It ingrains a short term outlook, whihc is why we cannot get to grips with long term problems. That and dying so quickly doesn't help much either. And what will be there trying to stop us from researchng eways into living longer? -
fireclown 123 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agoThat it's dangerous is no doubt, but that it's *more* dangerous than (eg) global warming or Celebrity Big Brother is the thing I don't believe. And
(i) the National Lottery ('I might win tomorrow'), credit cards, a five-year electoral term and eating junk food without thinking about the consequences (biggest killer in Europe right now) all also encourage short-termism;
(ii) pick a religion and I'll find you some prominent representatives who *don't* think the real show starts when you die, but rather that their religion (even maybe the threat of eternal punishment after their death) compels them to act now. The Archbishop of Canterbury campaigned very publicly against the Iraq War, Iraq is full of imams advocating the blowing up of Americans, the Dalai Lama is the most influential voice raised in defence of human rights in Tibet, the Israeli right wants the West Bank to be part of a Jewish state *in their lifetimes* thankyou very much, the last Prime Minister of India was elected largely because Hinduism is a very immediate political reality in the biggest democracy on the planet.
Now some of those causes I'd guess you agree with and some you don't, but they're all about what happens right here in real life, not what should happen when you're dead. -
Khanivor wrote:
I thought I covered that one, when I said that not everyone can be right, some must be wrong etc. You're showing how religions have changed and come into being, that's all. I'll tie it in at the end of this post.
A look at history and anthropology will show clear paths of humans creating and embellishing gods throughout their history. The similarity of many Greek and Roman gods, the amalgamation by the Greeks of Egyptian deities during their reign of those lands, the shift from polytheism to monotheism, the integration of pagan exaggerations into the early Christian church to flesh out its bogeymen, the primitive natives who worshipped relief planes during WW2 are all examples to show if there is one industry that man has always been good at it is in the creation of mystical beings.
I don’t think man creating god and god creating man have much similarity other then common words.
Yikes, I'm obviously not making myself clear at all. The end result is essentially the same. You, like everyone else, believes that everyone else is wrong and that if everyone thought as you did and there wasn't any religion, other than your own (yes I'm playing with semantics somewhat), then that would go along way in solving various problems. Doesn't everyone believe that? You may think that instead of people being lead astray by the Devil, they have just made things up for whatever reason, but the end result is the same. Maybe instead of creating god, people just create their own belief system which is better than everybody elses and they use that to excuse whatever actions or opinions etc, that they wish to inflict on mankind? The more people they get on their side the more right they are.
Whether that is the case or not, it neither makes any of them right or wrong. They would simply argue that instead of creating god they are attempting to increase their understanding of god. -
Ginger 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago*bumpage* Just saw this courtesy of Google news. Seems like a pretty reasonable reaction to the hysteria of a few days before. -
rev9of8 66 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 17 years agoMetalDog wrote:
For all you Athiests out there; should it be okay in our society to do something when it's only possible purpose is to hurt other people?
[...]
What /possible/ reason is there for portraying Christ that way, other than to hurt people who believe in him and flout your own lack of respect? You're not questioning their faith structure, you're just attacking them.
So, why should it be okay to hurt people because you don't agree with or like them?
Let's be quite clear, this doesn't hurt anyone. It may certainly have seriously offended some people but no one was actually harmed by this.
Why should it be okay for the BBC to ignore all those complaints and broadcast something so clearly seen as a hate attack on a significant section of the British populace?
Because fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and of expression are far more important than any desire you may have not to risk being exposed to something you may deem offensive.
Would it be okay if it was Mohammed? Would it be okay if it was Bhudda? Or the God and Godess of Wiccan belief, or a Sacred Cow?
That's exactly the point as Salman Rushdie (who knows a thing or two about the consequences of the religious seeking to jackboot fundamental rights, liberties and freedoms) once observed: "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
Some more quotes which also make the point eloquently and intelligently:
"The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind."
- Mike Godwin, staff counsel, EFF
"Satire dramatizes better than any other use of it, the inherent contradiction of free speech -- that it functions best when what is being said is at its most outrageous."
- Tony Hendra, "Going Too Far"
"If I had a large amount of money I should found a hospital for those whose grip upon the world is so tenuous that they can be severely offended by words and phrases yet remain all unoffended by the injustice, violence and oppression that howls daily about our ears."
- Stephen Fry
"The function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it invites a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."
- US Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
""If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
- US Supreme Court Justice William F. Brennan, writing for the court, in Texas v. Johnson ("the flag-burning case"), 1989.
"The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
- Justice John Paul Stevens, US Supreme Court Opinion in Reno v ACLU. -
MikeD 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years agoStephen Fry is great. -
bainbrge 1,687 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 19 years agoI can't remember where I read it, but some eminent historian was making the point that blasphemy was the basis of the reformation/renaissance etc., as Europe began to question the preeminence of the Catholic Church. Blasphemers and heretics have given Europe some of its best art and science. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoIs their faith so weak that a telly program should be considred a serious danger? -
bainbrge wrote:
Precisely. Look at history and it seems that every single person who increased our understanding of the world and the universe in which we dwell was persecuted for contradicting the church.
Blasphemers and heretics have given Europe some of its best art and science.
Even those who were conducting research on behalf of the church.
But again... in any situation it's always a bunch of nutters which cause the trouble. I don't find those eejits who protested about the Springer proggy representative of christians, just as people with sense wouldn't presume that those who call for the utter downfall of religions are representative of us atheists.
I think we can all agree that people can believe whatever the hell they want, so long as that doesn't involve the curtailment of anyone else's rights because they disagree. -
MetalDog 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agorev9of8 wrote:
Let's be quite clear, this doesn't hurt anyone. It may certainly have seriously offended some people but no one was actually harmed by this.
Physically harmed? No - at least, I certainly hope not. However to state that there is no harm other than physical would be simple-minded, so I hope you're not doing that.
To fail to understand the harm caused by deliberately inflicting emotional pain on other people, is a problem. Just because you are not harmed, doesn't mean nobody else was - you may not believe in Christ as a messaiah and a brother, but many do and to see him portrayed this way was as painful for many as it would be for you to see someone /you/ loved being publically derided. This shouldn't need explaining, really. It's a matter of fairly simple human empathy, which seems to be in short supply these days.
What ought to be considered when attacking things you don't agree with is whether your attack will achieve anything other than harming other people. If it won't make any salient points, it's just spite.
Why should it be okay for the BBC to ignore all those complaints and broadcast something so clearly seen as a hate attack on a significant section of the British populace?
Because fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and of expression are far more important than any desire you may have not to risk being exposed to something you may deem offensive.
You may not have noticed this, but there /is/ no fundemental right of freedom of speech and expression. You use a lot of quotes talking about the US constitution, which we are not subject to and nor are the Americans if the 'Free Speech Zones' were anything to go by, neh?
I /do/ however agree that freedom of speech is important and have argued for the rights of people like the BNP to express their distasteful idiocy via leaflets, because to silence them by force lends them unwarrented legitimacy and they do themselves more damage by expressing their views anyway.
What you seem to be completely ignoring is the fact that the BBC is a public broadcasting service which we all pay for (those of us with a TV license, anyway). I do /not/ expect the BBC to give the BNP free reign to extoll their sentiments on my money and I'd bitch about it if they did. Nor do I expect the BBC to let me help foot the bill for something like the Jerry Springer Opera.
I agree with Stephen Fry's sentiments completely, to be worried about this sort of thing and not any of the other, far more pressing problems, would be stupid. I don't think anyone in this thread /is/ doing that, though. Just discussing the topic at hand. Just because there's a monster running wild downtown, doesn't mean you can't talk about the cockroach problem as well, neh? -
MikeD 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years agoDoesn't the tv license pay for more channels? Wasn't there the opportunity to change channels to one of the other channels.
You are constantly saying this is inteded to harm people. But wasn't it meant as comedy? -
MetalDog 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoMikeD wrote:
Doesn't the tv license pay for more channels? Wasn't there the opportunity to change channels to one of the other channels.
You are constantly saying this is inteded to harm people. But wasn't it meant as comedy?
The two are not mutually exclusive, you know - or have you never, ever heard a joke that was intented to attack a group of people whilst being funny at the same time?
There is, however, a certain amount of subjectivity when it comes to the quality of the writing, clearly some of you* think it was genius satire. I just happen to think you're wrong =)
Next time I just won't bother saying anything here, because on these forums it would appear that religion is /always/ wrong no matter what and it's a little tiresome when the arguments are that weighted. I will bear this particular conversation in mind the next time any of you object to any content on the BBC though.
Mondo busy at work as well, which is really cutting down on my arguing time, darnit!
*collective, vague, blanket 'you's' from this point onwards -
MetalDog wrote:
Or it could be that there's more than enough christian stuff around, nowhere near as much influence from atheistic sources. So when something is poked at religion it sticks out more than otherwise.
Next time I just won't bother saying anything here, because on these forums it would appear that religion is /always/ wrong no matter what and it's a little tiresome when the arguments are that weighted. I will bear this particular conversation in mind the next time any of you object to any content on the BBC though.
There's always choice, as Harry (can't remember his new nick :s )said. There's the off switch. I'm not going to sit here and complain about Songs of Praise, the Heaven & Earth Show, the evangelical channels on Sky etc. being on TV.
I just don't watch them. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoI was watching the GOD channel once a few years back - don't know why, but I was. And I happened to be watching it when a preacher was on, the same preacher who Green Velvet sampled for his fantastic 'Preacher Man' tune. Got me quite excited, I could almost hear the beat behind the guys words.
And they're all playing house!! -
bainbrge 1,687 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 19 years agoKhanivor wrote:
I was watching the GOD channel once a few years back - don't know why, but I was. And I happened to be watching it when a preacher was on, the same preacher who Green Velvet sampled for his fantastic 'Preacher Man' tune. Got me quite excited, I could almost hear the beat behind the guys words.
And they're all playing house!!
I remember a track by some New York bloke who used to be a marine, DJ someone, track was called "I hate everybody" I think. Anyway, I was watching Quincy one day, and I realised he had sampled a whole passage from there- made by pill monging pretty damn amusing for a few weeks... -
Homer-Simpson 1,543 posts
Registered 17 years ago -
Jesus bleeding Christ on a bicycle, doesn't that take the goddamn communion wafer? -
King of the Indies wrote:
As it is in London, unless that's just another urban myth.
NB. It's illegal in Walsall for a Hackney carriage not to carry a bale of hay (Bi-Law)
\Gets coat.
.gif)
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.
