Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Roses on October 20, 2018, 04:13:10 PM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45903094
I see Ireland is to have a referendum to see if there is support for getting rid of their blasphemy law. I hope there is an overwhelming YES vote. One should be able to express one's opinion about the unpleasant god character in the Bible, or any other god for that matter.
-
There should, however, be a law against being a Moderator: Content removed, who is forever banging on about the "unpleasant god character". Get over it, ffs!
-
There should, however, be a law against being a Moderator: Content removed, who is forever banging on about the "unpleasant god character". Get over it, ffs!
I will keep banging on about it, so you better get used to it or ignore my posts.
-
There should, however, be a law against being a Moderator: Content removed, who is forever banging on about the "unpleasant god character". Get over it, ffs!
;D You neglected to put 'imo' at the end of the first sentence SteveH.
-
There should, however, be a law against being a Moderator: Content removed, who is forever banging on about the "unpleasant god character". Get over it, ffs!
Got anything to say about the referendum about blasphemy?
Although we got rid of our blasphemy laws, we seem to be doing our best to make new ones.
-
Got anything to say about the referendum about blasphemy?
Although we got rid of our blasphemy laws, we seem to be doing our best to make new ones.
Yes - all blasphemy laws belong in the dustbin, and I don't like "hate speech" laws, either.
-
Whilst blasphemy laws are daft because there no evidence any god exists, hate speech is disgusting because it is directed at those who do exist. Racism and homophobic bigotry are particularly nasty.
-
Whilst blasphemy laws are daft because there no evidence any god exists, hate speech is disgusting because it is directed at those who do exist. Racism and homophobic bigotry are particularly nasty.
Yes, they are, but they shouldn't be illegal, unless there is clear incitement to violence.
-
Yes, they are, but they shouldn't be illegal, unless there is clear incitement to violence.
Of course it should be illegal because of the emotional damage it does. Do you think it should be still acceptable to put up a notice saying, 'No black here', as happened in the past?
-
Of course it should be illegal because of the emotional damage it does. Do you think it should be still acceptable to put up a notice saying, 'No black here', as happened in the past?
"Emotional damage" is too vague to make something illegal. Free speech applies to despicable people as well, or it is worthless.
-
Yes, they are, but they shouldn't be illegal, unless there is clear incitement to violence.
I think the problem is that hate speech does incite violence in those who read it.
-
"Emotional damage" is too vague to make something illegal. Free speech applies to despicable people as well, or it is worthless.
No it isn't. 'Emotional damage' makes people afraid to leave their homes, it makes them self harm, it makes them ashamed to come out or tp otherwise be themselves. It's not vague at all.
-
"Emotional damage" is too vague to make something illegal. Free speech applies to despicable people as well, or it is worthless.
Speech should only be free to a point, NOT if it causes harm. You didn't answer my question, do you think it is acceptable to have a notice up stating, 'No blacks here'?
-
No it isn't. 'Emotional damage' makes people afraid to leave their homes, it makes them self harm, it makes them ashamed to come out or tp otherwise be themselves. It's not vague at all.
I agree.
-
Speech should only be free to a point, NOT if it causes harm. You didn't answer my question, do you think it is acceptable to have a notice up stating, 'No blacks here'?
I agree that there are, and should be, limits to freedom of speech - but not many. Yes, I do think such notices should be illegsl.
-
I agree that there are, and should be, limits to freedom of speech - but not many. Yes, I do think such notices should be illegsl.
At least we agree on something.
-
At least we agree on something.
Even you can't be wrong all the time!
-
Even you can't be wrong all the time!
Now! Now! :P ;D
-
No it isn't. 'Emotional damage' makes people afraid to leave their homes, it makes them self harm, it makes them ashamed to come out or tp otherwise be themselves. It's not vague at all.
People saying "God does not exist" probably causes emotional damage to some Christians. Should I be banned from saying it?
Steve H is right. The concept of emotional damage is too vague to be able to frame good law around it.
-
I thought blasphemy was actually taking the name of YHWH thy God in vain, implying that I can only do it if I profess to believe in God? That's between me and God. I don't see why accidentally causing offence to someone who believes should be a crime. It isn't very nice to do it deliberately.
-
I thought blasphemy was actually taking the name of YHWH thy God in vain, implying that I can only do it if I profess to believe in God? That's between me and God. I don't see why accidentally causing offence to someone who believes should be a crime. It isn't very nice to do it deliberately.
I think that is a very naive view, Spud, and certainly one which doesn't fit with the various blasphemy laws in many countries.
-
People saying "God does not exist" probably causes emotional damage to some Christians. Should I be banned from saying it?
Steve H is right. The concept of emotional damage is too vague to be able to frame good law around it.
I'm not aware of offended Christians getting the shit kicked out of them in the street. I am aware of it happening to gay and trans people to the point where they feel safer at home and where they feel so unaccepted that they self harm.
-
I'm not aware of offended Christians getting the shit kicked out of them in the street.
So it's not emotional damage unless you are concerned about getting the shit kicked out of you in the street then? Can you frame a legal definition that covers that but not the kind of emotional damage that Christians claim?
-
I think the problem is that hate speech does incite violence in those who read it.
John Lennon once said "The Beatles are more popular than Jesus". That incited Mark Chapman to violence. Should John Lennon's speech have been banned as hate speech?
On the other hand, I've read some hate speech and never been incited to hurt anybody by it.
Who decides what hate speech is?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/27/ireland-votes-to-oust-blasphemy-ban-from-constitution
Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to get rid of this blasphemy silliness, and not before time.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/27/ireland-votes-to-oust-blasphemy-ban-from-constitution
Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to get rid of this blasphemy silliness, and not before time.
Yep, great news, I'd like the Scottish govt to get rid of it as well.
-
Yep, great news, I'd like the Scottish govt to get rid of it as well.
I had no idea Scotland still had a law against blasphemy. :o
-
I had no idea Scotland still had a law against blasphemy. :o
Arguably because of desuetude and the Human Rights Act, we might not have. There hasn't been a prosecution in at least 150 years, iirc so any new prosecution would be a shock. I think they looked at it for Jerry Springer but didn't proceed. Would still like it officially removed.
-
John Lennon once said "The Beatles are more popular than Jesus". That incited Mark Chapman to violence. Should John Lennon's speech have been banned as hate speech?
On the other hand, I've read some hate speech and never been incited to hurt anybody by it.
Who decides what hate speech is?
Wasn't that statement just run of the mill 'Lennonshit'?
-
Arguably because of desuetude and the Human Rights Act, we might not have. There hasn't been a prosecution in at least 150 years, iirc so any new prosecution would be a shock. I think they looked at it for Jerry Springer but didn't proceed. Would still like it officially removed.
It should certainly be removed. And there was me thinking Bonnie Scotland was more progressive in some ways than the rest of the UK.
-
Wasn't that statement just run of the mill 'Lennonshit'?
It might have had some truth to it.
-
It should certainly be removed. And there was me thinking Bonnie Scotland was more progressive in some ways than the rest of the UK.
in some ways it might be argued that it is, but the idea that it's a haven of progressiveness is often exaggerated. The sectarianism is still a curse.
-
It might have had some truth to it.
Maybe... sometimes one can find sweet corn in excrement.
-
in some ways it might be argued that it is, but the idea that it's a haven of progressiveness is often exaggerated. The sectarianism is still a curse.
We have had three holidays in Scotland and enjoyed the experience very much indeed, apart from those pesky midges. My aunt by marriage, who died earlier this year, came from Glasgow. Our middle daughter's husband, of whom we are fond, is also from Scotland. :)
-
Maybe... sometimes one can find sweet corn in excrement.
You never know if Jesus had been around when the Beatles were strutting their stuff, he might have been a fan of theirs. ;D
-
You never know if Jesus had been around when the Beatles were strutting their stuff, he might have been a fan of theirs. ;D
He might even have been lead singer Floo
He loves you yeh yeh yeh
He loves you yeh yeh
With a love like that, you no it can't be bad.
-
He might even have been lead singer Floo
He loves you yeh yeh yeh
He loves you yeh yeh
With a love like that, you no it can't be bad.
;D ;D ;D
-
Wasn't that statement just run of the mill 'Lennonshit'?
Whether it was or not is not relevant to the point.