• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Blasphemy

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The same UN that has done nothing to the illegal Israeli occupation and daily killings of innocent women and children? The same UN that has done nothing to Saudi for killing of the journalists and the treatment of their people? The same UN that has done nothing to China for their treatment of the Uighur Muslims and throwing them in concentration camps? The UN (which is nothing more than a joke imo) seems to have a lot to worry about before getting to Poland
Yes, the UN is rather toothless. That does not change the fact that Poland is being hypocritical.
 

Earthtank

Active Member
Why would you expect such?

Because I need to make sure I "don't conflate rational morality with religious morality" as you put it.

Can you not reason it out for yourself?

Reason something out for myself and for the rest of the world are 2 different things. Reasoning something out for myself and something that could e put into law are something else entirely. Also, how do I know what works morally for me will work morally for you or anyone else?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Because I need to make sure I "don't conflate rational morality with religious morality" as you put it.



Reason something out for myself and for the rest of the world are 2 different things. Reasoning something out for myself and something that could e put into law are something else entirely. Also, how do I know what works morally for me will work morally for you or anyone else?

It really is not that hard. Rational morality is based upon an agreed set of what is good or not. Once one agrees to the base then morals can be derived from that. Religious morality is merely based upon one's religion. It is not based upon something being "objectively right" There is no objective morality in religions. Nor ultimately is there one in rational morality. Though rational morality does have the advantage that once the basis of morality is decided upon that the resulting morals can be objectively derived from that base.
 

Earthtank

Active Member
Rational morality is based upon an agreed set of what is good or not.

Hitler thought concentration camps to burn Jews was good. The Chinese government thinks rounding up the Uighur Muslims in concentration camps is a good idea. Arabs used to burry their daughters alive pre Islam thought it was a good idea. Do you agree? We can quickly see how wrong your statement is when it faces reality.


There is no objective morality in religions

Muslims, Jews and Christians would 100% disagree with you. And now we are back to our main problem all over again.

Religious morality is merely based upon one's religion.

Another faulty statement I really do not wish to dive too dee p into since we have already seen how your previous comments are invalid.

There is no objective morality in religions.

Another huge mistake.

Though rational morality does have the advantage that once the basis of morality is decided upon that the resulting morals can be objectively derived from that base.

Again, you show your lack of understanding of religion. The Muslim, Jew and Christian will say that morality is derived from God whether we acknowledge it or not. How do you respond and prove them wrong?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hitler thought concentration camps to burn Jews was good. The Chinese government thinks rounding up the Uighur Muslims in concentration camps is a good idea. Arabs used to burry their daughters alive pre Islam thought it was a good idea. Do you agree? We can quickly see how wrong your statement is when it faces reality.




Muslims, Jews and Christians would 100% disagree with you. And now we are back to our main problem all over again.



Another faulty statement I really do not wish to dive too dee p into since we have already seen how your previous comments are invalid.



Another huge mistake.



Again, you show your lack of understanding of religion. The Muslim, Jew and Christian will say that morality is derived from God whether we acknowledge it or not. How do you respond and prove them wrong?
Okay, so you do not understand morality and did not read my post.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You sound like a theist lol :D
No, you demonstrated a lack of understanding. Excessively breaking up a post is always a bad idea. It is an attempt to quote out of context and that is practically always dishonest. It is better to deal with the post as a whole rather than doing that.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't often post topics in this section, and it is possible this is the first time I have. Came accross this on the FaceBook page of the Universal Life Church

A Polish heavy metal singer has been convicted of blasphemy after posting a photo of himself stepping on an image of the Virgin Mary on Facebook.



The questions

What do you think of the Virgin Mary photo?

Should we take more care to respect religious sensibilities?

Or is the freedom to offend an important right?

I'd say it depends on the context. I see nothing wrong what he did to the picture, but what was the story behind it. I see it wrong if it were a sacrament-say someone threw the Eucharist in the trash or spit on the Mary statue in the church. But not a photo. Not sure why there would be prison sentence or any of that non-sense. Maybe it warrants an apology, but that's about it.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Thanks for your reply. While I am saying they 'in any way they see fit' this does not mean i am saying they are free of the consequences on how they retaliate, if that retaliation is against the law then, they should dealt with accordingly.

For example, if my choice of offending you is verbal by cursing at your mom and sister, if you chose to retaliate by verbal abuse in return, that's your right and choice, if you chose to punch me in return, that's your right and choice, if you chose to run me over with your car, that's your right and choice however, if any of your 3 choices have legal repercussions you still have to deal with them. Just because I think something is your right or choice, does not mean you are right and free from consequence of that choice.

Nothing we do is free of consequence. But suggesting that something is somebody's 'right' goes beyond mere acknowledgement that they might act in a manner, and instead indicates that they have a moral or legal entitlement to do so.

Me running over you in my car for verbally disparaging something I am fond of is certainly a consequence. It is in no way my 'right'.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Thanks for your reply. While I am saying they 'in any way they see fit' this does not mean i am saying they are free of the consequences on how they retaliate, if that retaliation is against the law then, they should dealt with accordingly.

For example, if my choice of offending you is verbal by cursing at your mom and sister, if you chose to retaliate by verbal abuse in return, that's your right and choice, if you chose to punch me in return, that's your right and choice, if you chose to run me over with your car, that's your right and choice however, if any of your 3 choices have legal repercussions you still have to deal with them. Just because I think something is your right or choice, does not mean you are right and free from consequence of that choice.

Okay, so if I'm understanding you, you think that criticism of IDEAS might provoke justified, violent consequences? I'm not sure that's what you're saying? I guess I can just ask, what do you think the moral or ethical limits are, when responding to criticism of IDEAS?

The point here is that a religion is really just a set of ideas, correct?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
So if you were in charge or a lawmaker, what would you do if you were in Poland? Carry out the law? change/repeal it? What would you tell all the people that got offended this act? Is it better to at least have a law in place or let the people deal with it on their own?

Were I in charge, there are a few things worthy of consideration, imho.
But in simple terms, any time there is a specific reference to religion, it is worthy of additional scrutiny. This applies whether the law is 'pro-' or 'anti-' religion. As much as possible, society should enforce laws consistently regardless of religion.
It is certainly NOT better to have a law in place (what...any law?) than let people 'deal with it on their own'. As you are well aware, and have previously articulated, people can take action freely regardless of law. I see no reason to believe that blasphemy laws in Pakistan (for example) result in people not taking action, and instead deferring to due process. Quite the opposite. And such laws are almost invariably used to protect certain religious viewpoints (only). Not religion as a whole.

People are welcome to be offended by whatever they like. I have been called plenty of names by some religious folk through my life. Others have been perfectly accepting of my non-belief. I've had the joy of attending a service to support a born-again friend who was being baptised as an adult, getting to sit through a somewhat old-fashioned 'fire and brimstone' service, where 'unbelievers' were called out as responsible for...well...lots of fun stuff. That is somewhat offensive, to tell truth.

But they didn't call for anyone to take punitive action against unbelievers. Nor did they incite violence (apart from referencing the violence God would ultimately do to me, but that's not quite the same thing).

What I don't want is a legal mechanism deciding whose offence is legally protected based on religion...or non-religion, for that matter.
If hate speech is to be banned, then let it be so for all. If inciting violence is banned, then let it be so for all.

And let the law be as clear as possible on the actions that constitute this, rather than vague concepts like 'offending religious feelings' being held up as a law. Does anyone actually think that a Satanist could take the Church to court for offending their religious feelings?

I personally do not have a perfect answer but, simply saying something is bad because you don't like it is not a solution either. I prefer to think about how my words (or hypothetical actions) would have a real world effect rather than, just saying something is good or bad based off my personal preference

I've been around here for a while. I don't know how much interaction we've had, honestly, but I doubt any here would see me as unreflective, or suggest that I make posts based on personal preference and without consideration to real world effect. I certainly have not done so here.

This is already widely done in the US lol and not even against criminals, this is being done against comedians and actors by cancel culture. Trust me, the least of your fear are the religious people when it comes to freedom of speech, its the political left that's carrying this out. This is how i see the religious people vs the political left. When religion gets offended the followers demand for form of "punishment", take this Poland example. When the left get offended, they want you canceled, fired, humiliated and to never earn a living again. Simply go through some of the most recent "twitter drama" by the left when they get offended. Freedom of speech isn't at risk from the religious people, its the political left. While i know many won't like what i am saying but, be objective and look at the world today. With all that said, i am not for any religion nor religious, i try to be as objective as i can when looking at issues.

This is quite the jump. I would certainly not agree that 'the least of your fear are religious people when it comes to freedom of speech'. That varies massively depending on which part of the world one is talking about, and this OP is specifically about a country limiting freedom of expression based on religious exception...not on US cancel culture for comedians.

I have my own thoughts about that, and will happily extrapolate on them in an appropriate thread, but suffice to say that one countries misguided attempts to control speech via social censure say nothing about another countries choices to do so through their legal justice system. I can have an opinion about each matter...and do. And this OP is about Poland, and more generally blasphemy laws.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
As an anti-theist that is your opinion but, not the opinion of all the Christians that took offense to what happened in Poland. Outside if your anti-theist stance, is there any good logical and rational reason why Blasphemy law shouldn't be considered and take just as serious as other offensive laws? Before answering, I ask that you think of the real world ramifications your words/action would actually have instead of just being an anti-theist.

(In response to me saying that being offended is very different than blasphemy laws.)

What other "offensive laws" are you talking about here? In the US, the basic standard for the limits to free speech is that only if speech is likely to incite imminent violence, is that speech banned.

I think the real point here is that we have conclude that "the right to not be offended" is a laughable idea.
 

Earthtank

Active Member
Nothing we do is free of consequence. But suggesting that something is somebody's 'right' goes beyond mere acknowledgement that they might act in a manner, and instead indicates that they have a moral or legal entitlement to do so.

Me running over you in my car for verbally disparaging something I am fond of is certainly a consequence. It is in no way my 'right'.

You are correct, bad choice of word with "right" on my end. I am not sure the correct word I am looking for all I am saying is if you offended me verbally or physically, I will retaliate however I see fit, I am not saying my retaliation is 100% correct, valid or appropriate for the situation, all I am saying is I can react however I want but that does not mean I am free from the consequences of my action. I hope that clarifies what I was initially trying to say
 

Earthtank

Active Member
Okay, so if I'm understanding you, you think that criticism of IDEAS might provoke justified, violent consequences? I'm not sure that's what you're saying? I guess I can just ask, what do you think the moral or ethical limits are, when responding to criticism of IDEAS?

The point here is that a religion is really just a set of ideas, correct?
please see reply #56. I hope that helps clarify what I was really trying to say
 

Earthtank

Active Member
If hate speech is to be banned, then let it be so for all. If inciting violence is banned, then let it be so for all.

I think you will find a major problem when you decide or try to define hate speech. Are facts hate speech? Some people think so. Are jokes hate speech? Many people think so. I agree with you on inciting violence however, you will run into the same problem as what defines an incitement to violence, look no further than Trump's latest impeachment trial to see how hard that is to legally define.

I have my own thoughts about that, and will happily extrapolate on them in an appropriate thread, but suffice to say that one countries misguided attempts to control speech via social censure say nothing about another countries choices to do so through their legal justice system. I can have an opinion about each matter...and do. And this OP is about Poland, and more generally blasphemy laws.

Agreed, lets stay on topic and keep that other stuff for a different thread. I have a few more of your comments quoted but decided to delete them and the reply to not go off topic and focus on the OP and Poland.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Yes I agree but in reality we know not all criminals get the same and consistent consequence based off the same crimes. Look at the US and how when the rich vs poor, or black vs white sentences.

Back to the main point, It seems Poland does have laws for these types of crimes. Not saying I agree or disagree but it does seem to be the law in Poland

"Adam Darski, was charged under Poland’s blasphemy laws for offending religious sentiment with the photo."
My country has anti censorship laws and I and others are offended by censorship. What would be the correct punishment for Poland?
 
Top