Irish atheists are horrified by new legislation making blasphemy illegal, and punishable by a 25,000-Euro fine. Christians of all stripes should be, too.

As part of a revision to defamation legislation, the Dail (Irish Parliament) passed legislation creating a new crime of blasphemy. This attack on free speech, debated for several months in Europe, has gone largely unnoticed in the American press.

The text of the legislation is provided at the end of this post.

How does this impact free speech? Just don’t be rude.

* Atheists can be prosecuted for saying that God is imaginary. That causes outrage.
* Pagans can be prosecuted for saying they left Christianity because God is violent and bloodthirsty, promotes genocide, and permits slavery.
* Christians can be prosecuted for saying that Allah is a moon god, or for drawing a picture of Mohammed, or for saying that Islam is a violent religion which breeds terrorists.
* Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

Is it really THAT big a deal?

Ireland’s Blasphemy Bill not only criminalizes free speech, it also gives the police the authority to confiscate anything deemed “blasphemous”. They may enter and search any premises, with force if needed, upon “reasonable suspicion” that such materials are present.

* The local Freethinkers society, with its copies of Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
* The video store, with copies of The God Who Wasn’t There.
* The history teacher, who uses The Dark Side of Christian History to teach her class.
* The library, with its collection of books deemed blasphemous.
* Even the homeowner who lets the wrong person know he has a copy of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses could find his door broken in by the Thought Police, his bookshelves ransacked, and his books burning in the front yard!

Satirizing religion in any way, shape, or form, if it “causes outrage”, is now a prosecutable offense in Ireland. Saying anything negative about a religion, if it “causes outrage”, can now be prosecuted as a crime. Just like in Muslim countries.

Witness the return of the Dark Ages.

The text of the legislation:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) 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, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

37. Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, © specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

(2) A member of the Garda Siochana may (a) enter and search any premises, (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).

(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Siochana in that behalf.

Major new legislation reforming the State's libel laws and enabling judges to advise juries on the size of damages was passed in the Dáil yesterday.

The Defamation Bill, which also introduces a new crime of blasphemous libel, will come into operation after it is passed by the Seanad later this week and signed into law by President Mary McAleese.

The legislation, which the media industry broadly supports, also aims to ensure that the recently established Press Council operates as efficiently as possible.

It also enables newspapers to offer an apology without risking an admission of liability, and to defend libel actions by arguing that a story was in the public interest.

The new laws are expected to be in full operation by October.

In recent months, the stalled legislation was the subject of major debate when Justice Minister Dermot Ahern announced the introduction of a new crime of blasphemous libel. He argued that a new definition was required by the Constitution.

Under the changes, the maximum fine for blasphemy will be cut from €100,000 to €25,000.

During a debate on 33 proposed amendments to the legislation yesterday, Mr Ahern refused calls from Opposition parties to continue the debate today.

He claimed that TDs had debated the legislation "endlessly" since 2006 and it was now time to pass it.

"There is an understanding that it will and should pass before the summer.

"Many of the following amendments are simply a regurgitation of what members discussed on Committee Stage ad nauseam and of what has been debated in the Seanad and the Dáil over the past two years," Mr Ahern said.

Sinn Fein's Aengus O Snodaigh earlier argued that the legislation should be changed so that TDs who took a legal case or who were sued could remain in public office if they ended up bankrupt.

Under current rules, if a TD becomes bankrupt, they are debarred from elected office.

However, Mr Ahern said these concerns could be dealt with in the context of the ethics-in-public-office or electoral legislation. He did not adopt the Sinn Fein proposal.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Wow. I'm really glad I'm not in Ireland with my Choking Victim and Leftover Crack albums, t-shirts and patches. I'd be screwed. Also, every 3rd sentence I utter is blasphemous to someone.

Gwar, if you want a Damn Forsaken Country, come to Wheaton, Illinois. Look up Wheaton College if you want to know what it's like here. There's a building called the Billy Graham Center. Ugh.

Trust me, ten minutes in this place will make you wish for Ireland.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Well this is going over the top a bit, but to be fair, it's not much different from outlawing discrimination against other races or people of different sexual orientation.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Then racism should not be banned, after all, it's oppressing free speech, isn't it?

I'm not a racist or a nazi, but that argument seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I think this law is not meant to target people who say "I do not believe in God", but rather the trolls who say "Religious people are retards".

You know who you are. That's just as bad as racism or homophobia.

Gwar! wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Then racism should not be banned, after all, it's oppressing free speech, isn't it?

I'm not a racist or a nazi, but that argument seems a bit hypocritical to me.

No, there is a difference between inciting hatred towards a race and saying "I don't believe in the same imaginary friends as you."

Gwar! wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I think this law is not meant to target people who say "I do not believe in God", but rather the trolls who say "Religious people are retards".

You know who you are. That's just as bad as racism or homophobia.

Yeah, because Athiests have cause so much bloodshed in the world....

Cheese Elemental wrote:No Gwar, it doesn't. There is a huge difference between saying "I am not religious/I do not believe in a God" and "Religions are a lie/Religious people are bloodthirsty retards/Religion is evil".

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Wow. I'm really glad I'm not in Ireland with my Choking Victim and Leftover Crack albums, t-shirts and patches. I'd be screwed. Also, every 3rd sentence I utter is blasphemous to someone.

Gwar, if you want a Damn Forsaken Country, come to Wheaton, Illinois. Look up Wheaton College if you want to know what it's like here. There's a building called the Billy Graham Center. Ugh.

Trust me, ten minutes in this place will make you wish for Ireland.

I respectfully disagree. You ever been to Ireland? it isn't somewhere you wanna be 5 minutes, and I've been stuck here 9 years

Cheese Elemental wrote:Well this is going over the top a bit, but to be fair, it's not much different from outlawing discrimination against other races or people of different sexual orientation.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I think this law is not meant to target people who say "I do not believe in God", but rather the trolls who say "Religious people are retards".

You know who you are. That's just as bad as racism or homophobia.

Cheese Elemental wrote:But we've gone off-topic here. This isn't about my religion, it's about the blatant step back.

I don't really see this standing up for long. Everyone, religious people and atheists alike, anybody who believes in free speech, will be against this.

I mean, how is Gwar supposed to troll religious people if he gets arrested for it?

Falconlance wrote:I personally get a kick out of trolling vegans and vegetarians (the ones who do it because they love animals, not the ones who do it to lose weight.) But nobody gets butthurt over that.

Falconlance wrote:As in would it make me feel better if you got butthurt about it?

Not unless you're one of them.

garret wrote:FREE SPEECH!!!!! HA
Free speech are just words. free speech doesnt truly exist anywhere in this world. neither does freedom of religion or freedom of press. There are no true freedoms in this world only lies of freedom

garret wrote:FREE SPEECH!!!!! HA
Free speech are just words. free speech doesnt truly exist anywhere in this world. neither does freedom of religion or freedom of press. There are no true freedoms in this world only lies of freedom

sebster wrote:

Falconlance wrote:As in would it make me feel better if you got butthurt about it?

Not unless you're one of them.

I'm not religious, nor am I a vegan or a vegetarian. I just know the first rule of life, 'that shalt not be jerk'. You seem to want acknowledgement that you were breaking the first rule, and I'm here to confirm that yes, indeedy, you are.

Orkeosaurus wrote:All hail the Heckler's veto.

This is disgusting. To tell you the truth, those relating this to laws banning racism have a point. Freedom of Speech means nothing if it is negated due to unpopularity. Sometimes I forget how much of America's freedom isn't actually just rhetoric.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Gwar, if you want a Damn Forsaken Country, come to Wheaton, Illinois. Look up Wheaton College if you want to know what it's like here. There's a building called the Billy Graham Center. Ugh.

sebster wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Well this is going over the top a bit, but to be fair, it's not much different from outlawing discrimination against other races or people of different sexual orientation.

This isn't outlawing discrimination, its outlawing speach. Dicrimination based on religion is already outlawed. This is stopping someone from saying 'believing in God is silly', the equivalent of saying 'homosexuality is unnatural'.

I agree with neither phrase, but they shouldn't be illegal to say.

* Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) 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

Gwar! wrote:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) 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, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

37. Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, © specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

(2) A member of the Garda Siochana may (a) enter and search any premises, (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).

(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Siochana in that behalf.

Haha Irish politicians are at it again, you guys might complain about your politicians a lot but i swear they have nothing on the incompetancies of ours.

Basically they were revising defamation laws with only an hour to debate it in the Dail so they were getting bored and pretty much all agreed as they did not want to actually have to look into and investigate the new laws as that would be work when a sneaky bloke decided to slip in and tag on the blasphemy part into as an addendum to the defamation laws and since noboddy was paying attention or caring it passed this first vote.

Luckily though it will be rejected before going further as there is an atheist get together this saturday to organise a protest pointing out the stupidity and more importantly a coalition of lawyers and college professors are getting together to point out that this law can never be finally ratified by the president as it is against EU laws and human rights to the freedom of expression.

Needless to say this is another case of our well paid politicians dropping the ball because they were too lazy to read what they were voting on, and all during the run up to the second vote on the Lisbon treaty ooooppppppssss.

Kilkrazy wrote:The 'intent' argument and the 'reasonable person' argument give a lot of leeway for defending an action and clearly the examples you give would not be successfully prosecutable.

It may well be that after a few test cases the law will become moribund as the UK law did years ago.

The original concept of blasphemy wasn't about offending individuals, it was about insults to God and the Christian religion.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The 'intent' argument and the 'reasonable person' argument give a lot of leeway for defending an action and clearly the examples you give would not be successfully prosecutable.

It may well be that after a few test cases the law will become moribund as the UK law did years ago.

The original concept of blasphemy wasn't about offending individuals, it was about insults to God and the Christian religion.

I don't think this is necessarily the original concept of blasphemy. It is true that blasphemy, theologically, is an insult to God, and I believe it was specific to the followers of a certain religion. ( i.e. Moslems would blaspheme against their concept of God, it wouldn't apply to, say, a Hindu deity, because they don't believe in it anyhow).

I agree that the reasonable person argument would probably be used for a broad defense, as I believe the reasonable person as defined by law would definitely differentiate between a statement meant to hurt individuals and a book questioning the existence or nature of God.

Haha Irish politicians are at it again, you guys might complain about your politicians a lot but i swear they have nothing on the incompetancies of ours.

Basically they were revising defamation laws with only an hour to debate it in the Dail so they were getting bored and pretty much all agreed as they did not want to actually have to look into and investigate the new laws as that would be work when a sneaky bloke decided to slip in and tag on the blasphemy part into as an addendum to the defamation laws and since noboddy was paying attention or caring it passed this first vote.

Luckily though it will be rejected before going further as there is an atheist get together this saturday to organise a protest pointing out the stupidity and more importantly a coalition of lawyers and college professors are getting together to point out that this law can never be finally ratified by the president as it is against EU laws and human rights to the freedom of expression.

Needless to say this is another case of our well paid politicians dropping the ball because they were too lazy to read what they were voting on, and all during the run up to the second vote on the Lisbon treaty ooooppppppssss.

Grignard wrote:It is also worth mentioning that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should.

Gwar! wrote:

Grignard wrote:It is also worth mentioning that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall on Voltaire

As relevant today as ever.

Grignard wrote:What does that have to do with anything Gwar. There is a difference between a statement of opinion that I might well disagree with, and a comment made with the sole intent of causing pain. Words can cut like a knife Gwar, and I'm suprised that you haven't enough life experience to be aware of that fact.

rubiksnoob wrote:

No matter how offensive people's opinions are, they should be allowed to express them.

Tyras wrote:Wow, I had always had a kind view of Ireland until now. I had no idea there was such a Fascist movement within that Government. I'm pretty limited on my knowledge of Irish politics though. If I were living there I would be selling all my stuff to afford the costs of fleeing that place.

Gwar! wrote: They can say whatever thhey want about me, just as I can say whatever I want about them.

Jin wrote:This is the thing: They/you can say whatever they/you want.

* Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

rubiksnoob wrote:

* Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I'm not Jewish, but when you look at this it's just so completely ridiculous. A Jewish person saying that Jesus was not the messiah is just stating one of the central tenets of his/her faith. This is so ridiculous I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This would be funny if it wasn't real.

Just imagine:

Christian: Jesus is the messiah. (Jew is offended)
Christian is prosecuted for blasphemy
Jew: Jesus is not the messiah. (Christian is offended)
Jew is prosecuted for blasphemy
Atheist: There is no god. (Religious person is offended)
Atheist is prosecuted for blasphemy
Agnostic: There may or may not be a god. (Atheist and Religious Person are offended)


So basically, under this law, ANY declaration of belief could be considered blasphemy. This is a disgusting, blatant violation of free speech.

Jin wrote:You can if it's not intended to cause outrage.

Frazzled wrote:Its no worse than many places here with their PC nonsense.

Tyras wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its no worse than many places here with their PC nonsense.

True, to a point. I can publish an article saying the Muslims are violent terrorists who seek to stamp out any culture or religion that doesn't fit the quran's vision. I would then be sued by the ACLU and every anti defamation organization under the sun incurring astronomical legal fees, which would have the same effect on my fianances of maintaining that view in the new Stallinesque Ireland and getting fined 25K Eruos every time I expressed those views.

The difference being that one day when I'm old and grey and the last hyper sensitive, first amendment hating D-bag has their case thrown out because it would violate my Constitutional rights to express my opinion I can then sue for damages in the cost all of those people inflicted on me through frivilous lawsuites, of course I'll probably be dead before seeing one penny of it lol. I hate PC, grow thicker skin people!

* The library, with its collection of books deemed blasphemous.

Gwar! wrote:

Grignard wrote:What does that have to do with anything Gwar. There is a difference between a statement of opinion that I might well disagree with, and a comment made with the sole intent of causing pain. Words can cut like a knife Gwar, and I'm suprised that you haven't enough life experience to be aware of that fact.

Yeah, I know full well. Being an Englishman of Jewish Decent living in Ireland is so much fun, especially when you are forced to go to a Catholic school because it is the only one around for miles.

I know damn well how words can hurt, but I disagree with what they say, not their right to say it. They can say whatever thhey want about me, just as I can say whatever I want about them.

rubiksnoob wrote:This law is appalling and is a huge step backwards. "Blasphemy" is just really an opinion that you don't like. When you outlaw "blasphemy" you are forbidding people from expressing their opinions, and therefore outlawing free speech.

No matter how offensive people's opinions are, they should be allowed to express them.
The only problem with that is that most people are uncivil, uneducated, and unthinking, and do not know how to respond in an appropriate manner when someone has "offended" them. Instead of just asking them why they believe what they do, and having a civil discussion about it, they typically respond with "I gonna sue that " or in some of the more barbaric parts of the world they just kill them.

Gwar! wrote:

Jin wrote:You can if it's not intended to cause outrage.

And who defines the intent? The person saying it? If that is the case the law could never be used.

No, the "intent" is defined by the "offended". So, your Church service is offensive to my Jewish Beliefs, that is Blasphemy, and I say it was inteneded to cause outrage.

rubiksnoob wrote:

* The library, with its collection of books deemed blasphemous.

Under this law would religious texts not be deemed offensive and therefore blasphemous?

Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone you have a bible, you might offend the Jews and Muslims. Don't tell anyone you have a Qu'ran either, you might offend the Jews and Christians. Oh, and keep your Torah hidden away, you might offend the Chistians and Muslims.

Gwar! wrote:And who defines the intent? The person saying it? If that is the case the law could never be used.

No, the "intent" is defined by the "offended". So, your Church service is offensive to my Jewish Beliefs, that is Blasphemy, and I say it was inteneded to cause outrage.

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) 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, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

Gwar! wrote:

Grignard wrote:It is also worth mentioning that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall on Voltaire

As relevant today as ever.

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

No matter how offensive people's opinions are, they should be allowed to express them.

(This is NOT directed at you rubksnoob)

Not including the poster, I find 99 out of 100 people making this statement are hypocrits of the highest order. They believe in free speech unless it offends them or one of their protected categories.

reds8n wrote:Asked a friend about this, he said

Haha Irish politicians are at it again, you guys might complain about your politicians a lot but i swear they have nothing on the incompetancies of ours.

Basically they were revising defamation laws with only an hour to debate it in the Dail so they were getting bored and pretty much all agreed as they did not want to actually have to look into and investigate the new laws as that would be work when a sneaky bloke decided to slip in and tag on the blasphemy part into as an addendum to the defamation laws and since noboddy was paying attention or caring it passed this first vote.

Luckily though it will be rejected before going further as there is an atheist get together this saturday to organise a protest pointing out the stupidity and more importantly a coalition of lawyers and college professors are getting together to point out that this law can never be finally ratified by the president as it is against EU laws and human rights to the freedom of expression.

Needless to say this is another case of our well paid politicians dropping the ball because they were too lazy to read what they were voting on, and all during the run up to the second vote on the Lisbon treaty ooooppppppssss.

So given this is directly aginst a multitude of EU laws-- which the Irish will get no matter how many "NO" votes they have-- I can't see this being quite true as it stands/soon.

Frazzled wrote:Thats a sig.

Jin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats a sig.

W00t! My first sigging!

grignard wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:This law is appalling and is a huge step backwards. "Blasphemy" is just really an opinion that you don't like. When you outlaw "blasphemy" you are forbidding people from expressing their opinions, and therefore outlawing free speech.

No matter how offensive people's opinions are, they should be allowed to express them.
The only problem with that is that most people are uncivil, uneducated, and unthinking, and do not know how to respond in an appropriate manner when someone has "offended" them. Instead of just asking them why they believe what they do, and having a civil discussion about it, they typically respond with "I gonna sue that " or in some of the more barbaric parts of the world they just kill them.

I disagree with that statement. That is something I believe you have the right to do. I DO NOT, however, believe that free speech implies that you have the right to verbally abuse someone. I do not think you should have have the right to use words simply to hurt and offend and for no other reason. That is where that "reasonable person" clause comes in. I think most people would differentiate between an opinion that may be contraversial and may indeed make people angry, and a statement made with the sole purpose of hurting someone.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Grignard wrote:It is also worth mentioning that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall on Voltaire

As relevant today as ever.

True.

Just because you shouldn't say something doesn't mean you can force people into silence.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

No matter how offensive people's opinions are, they should be allowed to express them.

(This is NOT directed at you rubksnoob)

Not including the poster, I find 99 out of 100 people making this statement are hypocrits of the highest order. They believe in free speech unless it offends them or one of their protected categories.

I find that occurs all of the time as well. "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can be racist!"

"Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can cause 'emotional harm' to others!"

It bodes poorly.

Grignard wrote:
You're missing the difference between laws requiring you to be a civilized being and over senstive PC crap. For instance, the way I believe, you shouldn't run up to a black man and scream out that he is a "disgusting n---", at least not if you want to keep all your teeth. However, I think you DO have the right to say " I don't particularly care for n----ers", even if that could offend.

See the difference?

rubiksnoob wrote:

Grignard wrote:
You're missing the difference between laws requiring you to be a civilized being and over senstive PC crap. For instance, the way I believe, you shouldn't run up to a black man and scream out that he is a "disgusting n---", at least not if you want to keep all your teeth. However, I think you DO have the right to say " I don't particularly care for n----ers", even if that could offend.

See the difference?

I agree that you shouldn't but the law should not say that you can't.

rubiksnoob wrote:The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

rubiksnoob wrote:The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

Grignard wrote:
You're missing the difference between laws requiring you to be a civilized being and over senstive PC crap. For instance, the way I believe, you shouldn't run up to a black man and scream out that he is a "disgusting n---", at least not if you want to keep all your teeth. However, I think you DO have the right to say " I don't particularly care for n----ers", even if that could offend.

See the difference?

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

I don't know about the USA but in Britain laws usually refer to 'reasonable', a 'reasonable person' and so on, as does this Irish proposed law.

This means we don't have to define that 'ming' is offensive to French speakers while 'ploop' is acceptable to German speakers or whatever.

Sensible people (reasonable people) have a pretty fair idea about what is or is not acceptable, and when they sit on a jury they are capable of making a good decision.

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) 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, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

Fifty wrote:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) 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, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

And I don't think this would stop me stating my opinion that faith is a character flaw and shows weakness, and that organised religion is an overall negative influence.

(Having said that, everyone has character flaws, and I forgive most of them, including religiosity, and many organised religious groups do fine work.)

Fifty wrote:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) 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, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

And I don't think this would stop me stating my opinion that faith is a character flaw and shows weakness, and that organised religion is an overall negative influence.

(Having said that, everyone has character flaws, and I forgive most of them, including religiosity, and many organised religious groups do fine work.)

Grignard wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:The problem with what the law defines blatant verbal abuse as is that it will be what those that make the law define it as, not what everyone defines blatant verbal abuse as. This is why the government should not make the end all be all definition for what is offensive and what is not.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

The ironic thing is that is exactly what many religious conservatives say in the US ( I can understand libertarian conservatives saying it, but I believe the religious right ought to be very careful with that, for just this reason).

Who is going to define verbal abuse then? I can consider that your criticism of my painted models is verbal abuse, but you know as well as I do it is not. I think the law can reasonably differentiate between contreversial statements and words meant solely to hurt. In short, yes, perhaps the government should define what is offensive, because who else will?

EDIT: By offensive in the last sentence of my statement, I believe something that is an assault on another person, not just "potentially offensive"

Grignard wrote:No, I guess that law would not stop you from stating that, though I think you're wrong and it isn't very nice.

I've been mistreated by religious groups and individuals, but I know that is a minority, and I fail to see that being a "character flaw" or weakness.

Corum wrote:Personally (and I feel dirty saying it,) Im in Gwar's camp on this.

I live in the American Deep South, and Atheism is equated down here with schizophrenia or modest retardation. Reactions range from patronizing sympathy to outright outrage at the denial that Jesus died for our sins and he literally came back to life and leapt into heaven.

I like the Bible, it is a good read. I also believe, like Carl Sagan, that there is a unifying force in the universe, but we haven't the means to qualify, quantify or explain it yet. This really doesn't make me an Atheist, but close enough that I keep my opinions to myself at work.

The points is, even here there is a double standard: complain about the evil humanist worldwide conspiracy and you are eccentric. Point out that there is a double standard, and the Christians leap onto the cross to martyr themselves.

If I have a pretend friend who keeps me out of trouble and his name is Percy - Im a lunatic; if his name is Jesus, Im a pious christian.

P.S. Gwar don't get excited, some of your rulings are still harebrained.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think you'll find all sorts of laws get taken to extremes depending on the era and the country.

For example, a variety of laws were used by the USA to squash the Communist Party during the 1950s.

That doesn't mean it is a good idea to have no laws at all.

Relapse wrote:I just googled speach laws and came up with this link.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/it_cant_happen_3.html

Does anyone from Canada know what the full story is here and enlighten the rest of us?

Classical Values wrote:"You know you've lost your freedom when you cannot call a censor a censor."

warpcrafter wrote:Somebody needs to go there and open up a satanic church. Test how far their so-called protection of religion goes.

Relapse wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think you'll find all sorts of laws get taken to extremes depending on the era and the country.

For example, a variety of laws were used by the USA to squash the Communist Party during the 1950s.

That doesn't mean it is a good idea to have no laws at all.

True enough, but what worries me in this is what people would allow to be put into law and enforced. With most people's awareness level of current events, it seems a lot could slide by them.

lord_sutekh wrote:I keep seeing people refer back to the "reasonable person" part of the law... and I can't help but think: this will be decided in a court, where reasonable people are as rare as the mislabeled "common sense". To quote a little cartoon bat, "this can only end in tears".

Two jailed for online racism after US turned down asylum bid

* Track this topic
* Print story
* Post comment

Freedom of speech claim denied

By John Oates • Get more from this author

Posted in Policing, 10th July 2009 15:48 GMT

£50 cash back & £50 off selected Toshiba laptops

Two British men who tried to claim political asylum in the US were jailed today for using the internet to incite racial hatred.

Simon Sheppard, 51 of Selby, North Yorkshire got four years and 10 months while Stephen Whittle, 42 of Preston got two years and four months. They were found guilty of 11 charges but the jury could not come to a verdict on seven others.

The two were originally arrested in 2006 but fled to the US. They arrived at LA airport and asked an official for political asylum believing they would get protection under US freedom of speech laws.

Instead they spent almost a year in Santa Ana City Jail in Orange County, AP reports. An immigration judge threw out their asylum application and recommended they be deported back to the UK.

Welcoming today's decision Adil Khan, Head of Diversity at Humberside Police said: “I welcome the decision by the jury to find Sheppard and Whittle guilty of a number of charges...Inciting racial hatred is a crime and one which seems to occur too regularly. This kind of material will not be tolerated as this lengthy investigation shows.

“These men were arrested in April 2006 by Humberside Police with the assistance of North Yorkshire Police and Lancashire Police and were charged with offences dating between 2004 and 2006."

The charge related to anti-semitic and racist material on a website the two controlled, which still appears to be available. The site published a Robert Crumb cartoon titled "When the goddamn jews take over America" alongside other less savoury material. ®

Keyasa wrote:Is it some quirk of human nature that we must force our relegious views upon others?

Jin wrote:
if (your beliefs != my beliefs) then (me > you) and/or (me == right && you == wrong); If (you == wrong) then you need to be told why you're wrong.

djphranq wrote:

Jin wrote:
if (your beliefs != my beliefs) then (me > you) and/or (me == right && you == wrong); If (you == wrong) then you need to be told why you're wrong.

and then I press CTRL + C... I WIN!

Two jailed for online racism after US turned down asylum bid

* Track this topic
* Print story
* Post comment

Freedom of speech claim denied

By John Oates • Get more from this author

Posted in Policing, 10th July 2009 15:48 GMT

£50 cash back & £50 off selected Toshiba laptops

Two British men who tried to claim political asylum in the US were jailed today for using the internet to incite racial hatred.

Simon Sheppard, 51 of Selby, North Yorkshire got four years and 10 months while Stephen Whittle, 42 of Preston got two years and four months. They were found guilty of 11 charges but the jury could not come to a verdict on seven others.

The two were originally arrested in 2006 but fled to the US. They arrived at LA airport and asked an official for political asylum believing they would get protection under US freedom of speech laws.

Instead they spent almost a year in Santa Ana City Jail in Orange County, AP reports. An immigration judge threw out their asylum application and recommended they be deported back to the UK.

Welcoming today's decision Adil Khan, Head of Diversity at Humberside Police said: “I welcome the decision by the jury to find Sheppard and Whittle guilty of a number of charges...Inciting racial hatred is a crime and one which seems to occur too regularly. This kind of material will not be tolerated as this lengthy investigation shows.

“These men were arrested in April 2006 by Humberside Police with the assistance of North Yorkshire Police and Lancashire Police and were charged with offences dating between 2004 and 2006."

The charge related to anti-semitic and racist material on a website the two controlled, which still appears to be available. The site published a Robert Crumb cartoon titled "When the goddamn jews take over America" alongside other less savoury material. ®

Emperors Faithful wrote:Honestly, it seems to protect ALL views, not just christians,

Emperors Faithful wrote:Also, the legislature mentions a Gordia Schiara or something, what are they? Polizie?

Gwar! wrote:It doesn't protect my views, which may be insulting to Religious People, but they are my views. I notice how insulting Atheism isn't Illegal.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It doesn't protect my views, which may be insulting to Religious People, but they are my views. I notice how insulting Atheism isn't Illegal.

That depends entirely on whether or not the state views Atheism as a religion.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Honestly, it seems to protect ALL views, not just christians,

It doesn't protect my views, which may be insulting to Religious People, but they are my views. I notice how insulting Atheism isn't Illegal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You sure? I thought and atheist was a die-hard believer in nothing religous/spiritual. An agnostic doesn't know. And they HAVE religeons for reincarnation and such.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...i didn't say NOTHING gwar. I said nothing religeous or spiritual. BIG Difference. You bassically told me off, and then reiterated what I said.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You sure? I thought and atheist was a die-hard believer in nothing religous/spiritual. An agnostic doesn't know. And they HAVE religeons for reincarnation and such.

Also if you were, I don't know, a muslim and somebody walked up to you and said.
"Your religeon breeds terrorists and suicide bombers, your people are a poision on this planet, your religeon is suffocating our rights."
How would you feel?

Also, from my time in Dubai, I have realised what idiots people are. Tourists in Dubai take pictures with women (who are wearing the Abaya, can't spell) when the women is clearly uncomfortable, and doing things that would see a local ostrasized and shunned for thier inappropriate behavior. You don't realise how restrained some people are over there. It's kind of like someone walking into a church a drinking from the place where the "holy water" is. Then snatching the wine and slugging it all.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...They BELIEVE that there is no god. They THINK there is no god. Can you pleez point out the difference to me Gwar?

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't know if that's what Gwar was referring too, of course.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You sure? I thought and atheist was a die-hard believer in nothing religous/spiritual. An agnostic doesn't know. And they HAVE religeons for reincarnation and such.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...They BELIEVE that there is no god. They THINK there is no god. Can you pleez point out the difference to me Gwar?

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:...They BELIEVE that there is no god. They THINK there is no god. Can you pleez point out the difference to me Gwar?

No, we KNOW there is no god. You do not know there is a god, you Believe there is one.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:...They BELIEVE that there is no god. They THINK there is no god. Can you pleez point out the difference to me Gwar?

No, we KNOW there is no god. You do not know there is a god, you Believe there is one.

There is no WE when referring to Atheists, unless your going to claim that there are some common beliefs which unite you into a collective. If that's the case you're straying awfully close to a religious movement.

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, it is not a belief. Calling it a Belief implies that I adhere some sort of legitimacy to religion, when I do not.

Saying "I know there is no god" or "There is no god", is not a belief.

Orkeosaurus wrote:As dogma would no doubt point out, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, which says nothing about other beliefs regarding the metaphysical (reincarnation, for example).

Also, as far as I can tell no one in this thread has said that people should be able to "say anything they like, to anyone, anywhere", that's a strawman.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:...They BELIEVE that there is no god. They THINK there is no god. Can you pleez point out the difference to me Gwar?

No, we KNOW there is no god. You do not know there is a god, you Believe there is one.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I challenge you Gwar. Tell me one thing that you KNOW to be true, beyond doubt. (P.S. "I think, therefore I am" is taken)

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not a straw man, it's an argument by reductio ad absurdam.

Someone implied that he would be unable to make any criticism of religion because of this proposed law. That isn't true as there are specific defences based on rational criticism, etc, provided in the proposed law.

By ignoring these available defences, which would allow him to make scholarly statements for example, his implication is that he should be allowed to say whatever he likes about religion. Of course he can, in private if there is no-one to observe him, but he wants to be free do it in public. Logically he is saying he should be allowed to say anything he likes, anywhere, to anyone, about religion, because freedom of speech trumps other considerations.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I challenge you Gwar. Tell me one thing that you KNOW to be true, beyond doubt. (P.S. "I think, therefore I am" is taken)

Water is wet at sea level atmospheric pressure and 15 Degrees Celsius.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Gwar: How do you know the water is real?

Emperors Faithful wrote:...Orkeosaurus, champion of the OREO, do you accept this challenge where Gwar has failed?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Exactly.
I meant exactly towards dogma.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
@Orkesaurus, how do you know that A=A?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
What is A? Mabye it's not a letter. Mabye it is a number, mabye it an emotion.

Define A. How do you know A is real?

Orkeosaurus wrote:
A = A.

If that don't cut it, nothing does.

(I suspect dogma will still disprove that one somehow.)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Is there an A though?
Your whole argument is based on the statement that A exists...

Emperors Faithful wrote:heh, heh, do I exist?
Does Orkeosuarus exist?
If no, then A is but figment, if that.
If yes, then how do you know YOU are real?
I don't know if anyone CAN answer that. If there is an answer.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Also. A is not A. A is a set of lines/types/peices of objects arranged in a particular pattern.

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

Wrexasaur wrote:I suppose so, but no need to keep the argument going.

Fifty wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

I'd be quoting half of the last two pages. And that is before including posts that are arguing semantcs rather than theology.

Gwar! wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

I'd be quoting half of the last two pages. And that is before including posts that are arguing semantcs rather than theology.

Your point being?

Fifty wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

I'd be quoting half of the last two pages. And that is before including posts that are arguing semantcs rather than theology.

Your point being?

Previous experience suggests any explanation would be lost on you, despite the fact I broadly agree with many of your posts in this thread.

Fifty wrote:I was not aiming at you in particular, but this whole thread has reached the point of being pointless. You and I are quite clearly, for want of a better term, "strongly atheist". We are not going to convince people to join us in this thread. Not least because of the fact that, no matter what their conscious selves beleive, they have no logical basis fo their beliefs for us to challenge.

Fifty wrote:I was not aiming at you in particular, but this whole thread has reached the point of being pointless. You and I are quite clearly, for want of a better term, "strongly atheist". We are not going to convince people to join us in this thread. Not least because of the fact that, no matter what their conscious selves beleive, they have no logical basis fo their beliefs for us to challenge.

garret wrote:I'm going to get shot for this.
Im in favor of this law. maybe know atheist will know what it fells like to be persecuted for there beliefs.

Gwar! wrote:Atheism is not a belief.

garret wrote:I never been a big proponent of free speech.
cause when any idiot says something stubid all hell will break lose

garret wrote:FREE SPEECH!!!!! HA
Free speech are just words. free speech doesnt truly exist anywhere in this world. neither does freedom of religion or freedom of press. There are no true freedoms in this world only lies of freedom

Gwar! wrote:I do not Believe in No god, I choose to not believe in gods, because I know there aren't any. I am not "Believing" anything.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I do not Believe in No god, I choose to not believe in gods, because I know there aren't any. I am not "Believing" anything.

Which would mean you lack a belief in God. That is distinct from "I believe there are no Gods". You can have one, or the other, not both.

Gwar! wrote:.Yeah, I lack a belief in god because there are none.

Cryonicleech wrote:Gwar, by that logic, then you believe that Gods do not exist. Therefore you believe in something, you have a belief.

Regardless, knowing Gwar!, you'll have some kind of either snarky remark or somesuch, so I'm dropping the idea of arguing with you, as it would be like throwing rocks at a wall, pointless, it would accomplish little, etc.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

garret wrote:I never been a big proponent of free speech.
cause when any idiot says something stubid all hell will break lose

garret wrote:FREE SPEECH!!!!! HA
Free speech are just words. free speech doesnt truly exist anywhere in this world. neither does freedom of religion or freedom of press. There are no true freedoms in this world only lies of freedom

Oh, the irony.

Gwar! wrote:
And I do not see it as a belief.

Gwar! wrote:
Belief implies that there is some sort of acceptance of other "beliefs" as legitimate.

Gwar! wrote:
I KNOW there are no "gods" through both physical (Why isn't he visible etc) and Philosophical (Why is there evil etc) that proves that there is no god, and even IF there was (there isn't) he is such a malevolent PoS that worshipping him is pointless.

Gwar! wrote:And I do not see it as a belief. Belief implies that there is some sort of acceptance of other "beliefs" as legitimate. I KNOW there are no "gods" through both physical (Why isn't he visible etc) and Philosophical (Why is there evil etc) that proves that there is no god, and even IF there was (there isn't) he is such a malevolent PoS that worshipping him is pointless.

dogma wrote:

Fifty wrote:I was not aiming at you in particular, but this whole thread has reached the point of being pointless. You and I are quite clearly, for want of a better term, "strongly atheist". We are not going to convince people to join us in this thread. Not least because of the fact that, no matter what their conscious selves beleive, they have no logical basis fo their beliefs for us to challenge.

Sweet, sweet irony.

Hordini wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And I do not see it as a belief. Belief implies that there is some sort of acceptance of other "beliefs" as legitimate. I KNOW there are no "gods" through both physical (Why isn't he visible etc) and Philosophical (Why is there evil etc) that proves that there is no god, and even IF there was (there isn't) he is such a malevolent PoS that worshipping him is pointless.

Just because you don't see it as a belief doesn't mean that it's not one. Using the word "belief" to describe your feelings on a subject doesn't mean that you accept other beliefs as legitimate, either.

Also, those things you mentioned don't prove anything about the existence of a god, or lack thereof (I'm referring to your physical and philosophical "proof"). The only thing they prove is that you are consistently unable to wrap your mind around what are admittedly somewhat complex theological concepts, and at least consider and entertain them on an intellectual level, even if you don't accept them.


And personally, I'm all about free speech and freedom of expression. I think you should be able to say anything and print basically anything, even if it is offensive and you shouldn't say it or print it, in the interest of being a nice person. The only thing I can think of that should be illegal are things like child pornography (hopefully we all agree on that, at least).

Fifty wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fifty wrote:I was not aiming at you in particular, but this whole thread has reached the point of being pointless. You and I are quite clearly, for want of a better term, "strongly atheist". We are not going to convince people to join us in this thread. Not least because of the fact that, no matter what their conscious selves beleive, they have no logical basis fo their beliefs for us to challenge.

Sweet, sweet irony.

Is it ironic because no-one is going to convince Gwar! and I of the logic of their belief in the supernatural either?

Or do you find irony in what I wrote about religious belief having no basis in logic?

The simple facts are these;

1) Belief in God is a faith position which necessitates that someone maintain that position even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
2) That being the case, all that logic can achieve is people justifying their beliefs to themselves for their own comfort.

If you could demonstrate that there must be a God (which some people believe is possible, by generally using quite shoddy reasoning by analogy, or occasionally quite sophisticated, but nevertheless flawed logical argument) then you would have moved from belief to empirical knowledge. Once you reach that position, believing in God becomes like believing in tables.

For my own part, I am absolutely certain that the reality in which we live can be explained without resorting to supernatural forces. Thus I can safely say I have a 100% absence of belief in God. However, I also go further and actively disbelieve in God. I do not just "not believe in God"; I believe there is no God. However, my disbelief in God only comes with 99.99% certain as I cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that he does exist, desite him not being needed to explain anything.

My next statement is even stronger. Based on the monotheistic gods in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic spectrum, there is a sense that God demands certain behaviours and/or worship. No God that makes such demands is worthy of my worship or adherence to his rules, and as a point of principle, even if I did have knowledge of his existence, I'd not worship him. I lead a good life due to my own belief that we need no God to add meaning to our lives; we can give it that meaning ourselves and be no less meaningful for it. Any God who would punish me for the life I have led and am leading just because I haven't doffed my cap and dropped to my knee for him like a peasant being passed by his noble lord doesn't deserve my regard. If I am wrong and it turns out that there is a God, and that he is kind and benevolent, then he will hopefully let me into heaven/paradise/valhalla anyway for the life I have led. If that is how it works out, I will be truly, genuinely glad to have been wrong all my life. Just because I want there to be a heaven though, it doesn't mean it is true or that I am going to believe in it.

garret wrote:I never been a big proponent of free speech.

Gwar! wrote:And I do not see it as a belief. Belief implies that there is some sort of acceptance of other "beliefs" as legitimate. I KNOW there are no "gods" through both physical (Why isn't he visible etc) and Philosophical (Why is there evil etc) that proves that there is no god, and even IF there was (there isn't) he is such a malevolent PoS that worshipping him is pointless.

rubiksnoob wrote:Can you see gravity? Can you see an atom?

rubiksnoob wrote:Gwar, your logic is flawed, warped, and twisted beyond all reason. I pity you.

Gwar! wrote:
How is my logic flawed?

rubiksnoob wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
How is my logic flawed?

Not believing in Gravity = flawed logic.

gravity is a proven law of physics.

Please explain what "spacetime bending" is.

Gwar! wrote:Gravity is not a force, it is a result of mass bending the space time continuum. As such, calling gravity gravity is misleading.

Fifty wrote:
Is it ironic because no-one is going to convince Gwar! and I of the logic of their belief in the supernatural either?

Fifty wrote:
The simple facts are these;

1) Belief in God is a faith position which necessitates that someone maintain that position even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

Gwar! wrote:Gravity is not a force, it is a result of mass bending the space time continuum. As such, calling gravity gravity is misleading.

Fifty wrote:
Is it ironic because no-one is going to convince Gwar! and I of the logic of their belief in the supernatural either?

dogma wrote:
No, that's incorrect. Faith is defined aesthetically. You can have faith without the presence of contrary evidence. All contrary evidence does is render the faith in question empirically verifiable.

Fifty wrote:If I am wrong and it turns out that there is a God, and that he is kind and benevolent, then he will hopefully let me into heaven/paradise/valhalla anyway for the life I have led. If that is how it works out, I will be truly, genuinely glad to have been wrong all my life. Just because I want there to be a heaven though, it doesn't mean it is true or that I am going to believe in it.

Elessar wrote:
Nu-uh. Faith is belief that is not based on proof. Ergo, belief in the absence of/face of proof. Faith carries a definite implication of contrary evidence. If no news is good news, it's fair to say no evidence is evidence against.

Ketara wrote:He did this through the use of language. If I remember corectly, it went something along these lines:-

-I think in a language. Coherent, rational thought is impossible without a language.
-Someone must have taught me language at some point. Therefore there must be another mind. If no-one had taught me language, I wouldn't be capable of thinking these thoughts.
-If that other mind didn't share a common world with me, it would have been unable to share it's concepts with me in language. For example, assume I live in the Matrix, and the only other mind in existence is a computer. The real world is completely different to the one I live in. In my matrix world, fluffy pink elephants fly across the sky daily. Even if no such thing exists in the real world, the concept of fluffy, the colour 'pink', elephants, and the concept of 'flying'(and therefore air, gravity and space) must all exist in the real world, otherwise the computer could never have conceived of them to put them in my matrix world. Anything that exists in my matrix world, no matter how fantastical, must possess certain basic core concepts identical to both worlds. It's actually impossible to conceive of something that has absolutely NO grounding in our world.

I'm simplifying what he said tremndously, and I've probably got half of it wrong, but you get the gist of it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And I do not see it as a belief. Belief implies that there is some sort of acceptance of other "beliefs" as legitimate. I KNOW there are no "gods" through both physical (Why isn't he visible etc) and Philosophical (Why is there evil etc) that proves that there is no god, and even IF there was (there isn't) he is such a malevolent PoS that worshipping him is pointless.

Just because you don't see it as a belief doesn't mean that it's not one. Using the word "belief" to describe your feelings on a subject doesn't mean that you accept other beliefs as legitimate, either.

Also, those things you mentioned don't prove anything about the existence of a god, or lack thereof (I'm referring to your physical and philosophical "proof"). The only thing they prove is that you are consistently unable to wrap your mind around what are admittedly somewhat complex theological concepts, and at least consider and entertain them on an intellectual level, even if you don't accept them.


And personally, I'm all about free speech and freedom of expression. I think you should be able to say anything and print basically anything, even if it is offensive and you shouldn't say it or print it, in the interest of being a nice person. The only thing I can think of that should be illegal are things like child pornography (hopefully we all agree on that, at least).

Even in the USA, Freedom of Speech is not protection against libel, incitement to riot, treasonous correspondence, fraud, threatening the life of the President, and so on. I don't know about racist speech, blasphemy and other 'ism' type speech. There is an overlap or conflict between some aspects of Freedom of Speech as a basic human right and other basic rights such as freedom of religion.

Emperors Faithful wrote:But it's not as extreme as some people are saying it is. Saying that you don't believe in Christ to be the saviour of mankind is not going to get you burnt at the stake. However, if you claim publicly that Christians defecate on human rights and rape little children AND write a book about it then your going to get in trouble. Which seems entirely okay to me.

Freedom of Speech should not mean "Saying whatever the Feth I want without regards to OTHER peoples rights".

Orkeosaurus wrote:Once again, being free from criticism and insult is not a right. Otherwise, Freedom of Speech would be negated by that alone.

If you don't like what someone's saying, you have every right to ignore them, or speak out against them, but forcibly stopping them and arresting them because you're offended throws the concept of Freedom of Speech out the window.

Hordini wrote:What right would you be infringing on by saying whatever you want? The right for other people not to get their feelings hurt? The right for people not to get offended? That's one of the weakest arguments against free speech I've ever heard.

Wrexasaur wrote:These changes will be taking away rights from regular people while the media can freely "express" the public opinion... whatever that means.

Somewhere the public opinion became more important than presenting the public with facts that they could not find without a lot of effort, so they could have debates and possibly even present new ideas in legal form. You need to be told the tree fell down in the forest to decide whether it mattered or not.

Hordini wrote:I agree that it looks like it could easily be a piece of "do-nothing" legislation, but that doesn't make it right.

I also realize that free speech isn't totally free anywhere. I'm simply claiming that it ought to be. If you lie about a person or an organization, they are certainly welcome to present the truth and defend themselves. If you say something, and because of that, violent or otherwise illegal acts are committed, it should be those acts that are dealt with, and those acts are what one should be charged with a crime for. You shouldn't be charged with a crime for the speech itself.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Truth is no defense against the charges, only academic value, which is a burden of proof placed on the defendant. Defamation is a tricky crime, it's not something that can be applied without regulation. It stands right on the edge of acceptable infringement of Freedom of Speech as it is.

Inciting violence is another issue, but while there is a necessity for a government to be able to maintain law and order, beyond that requirement it is the fault of the people perpetrating the violence (assuming that the incitement wasn't an actual call to violence).

Regardless, if this piece of legislation is primarily made obsolete by defamation and incitement of violence laws, that's all the more reason to oppose it. If its primary functions are unnecessary, that only leaves it being used against people who are neither being defamatory nor inciting violence.

Gwar, your logic is flawed, warped, and twisted beyond all reason. I pity you.

Gwar! is basically going to argue until he dies. I say this as a fact, although an interpreted one at that. People that choose to disagree and argue with Gwar! are basically in the same boat, no need to compromise when I am obviously right... right?

Falconlance wrote:Wrong. You CHOOSE your religion, you don't CHOOSE your ethnicity.

Making fun of people for something they made a decision to do, and making fun of someone for something that have no control over, is NOT the same thing.

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:These changes will be taking away rights from regular people while the media can freely "express" the public opinion... whatever that means.

Somewhere the public opinion became more important than presenting the public with facts that they could not find without a lot of effort, so they could have debates and possibly even present new ideas in legal form. You need to be told the tree fell down in the forest to decide whether it mattered or not.

It's basically just the result of a free market slowly working it's magic on the media. You see, media outlets look to make money like any other organisation. What's been discovered slowly over time is that expensive forms of journalism like investigative reporting doesn't bring in any more viewers, and in addition to the cost it also opens you up to legal challenges. So each year media outlets get trimmed a little more, maintaining the same amount of content by spamming stories without anywhere near the same level of examination.

Meanwhile, around the world corporations and political bodies are learning exactly how valuable it can be to have public relations officers representing your own side of the story. So more and more laid off journalists shift across to take a job writing copy for a political party or multi-national.

The result is that the ever shrinking number of journalists are faced with producing more and more stories each, and the result is they will regularly accept the statements given by the ever increasing mass of publicists and media managers, without any review at all. There are countless cases of journalists copying and pasting their stories directly from press releases.

And know, I have no idea how to fix this.

High Commissar Biffsmack wrote:that's sick, and i don't mean sick as in awesome, i mean sick as in the dictionary definition. Ireland sucks. I feel sorry for you man.