Blasphemy

[Cooky]

Just because many people believe something to be true doesn't mean it is. At one time people thought the world was flat.

Research information integration theory of consciousness.

 

[Cooky]

Also, String Theory.

 

[Cooky]

Also interesting, is how life adapts to it's surroundings by mutations which are helpful.

Toward a theory of multilevel evolution: long-term information integration shapes the mutational landscape and enhances evolvability. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Darkforbid]

I think stating any of this is entirely fine. Wouldn't bother me one bit.

And I still can't tell - are you FOR all this punishment you feel would be doled out to people who brandish these anti-religious opinions? Or are you against it? Do you feel that the people who put someone "[on] the Pavement" for wearing a T-shirt with this stuff on it are in the right, or would they be in the wrong? Also, you do realize that not all places are like "English Towns", right?

And I still can't tell - are you FOR all this punishment you feel would be doled out to people who brandish these anti-religious opinions?

Really my comment about my belief in absolute free speech didn't give you any clue at all????!

Do you feel that the people who put someone "[on] the Pavement" for wearing a T-shirt with this stuff on it are in the right, or would they be in the wrong?

That would be situation dependant. My belief in absolute free speech doesn't mean I think you should get special legal protection everyone should face the consequences of their actions

Also, you do realize that not all places are like "English Towns", right?

The OP's about UK law, but yes, it would be absolutely fine in say bible belt America?!?

 

[exchemist]

So what remarks by JJ50 would contravene this, in your view? As I say, I don't believe any of them would.

Really you're asking what now deleted remarks would contravene the act I mentioned?

I'll summarise it for you 'the claim that Jesus was homosexual and that God copulated with Mary, chastisement of Christians for being unpleasant while denigrating Christ and the Virgin'

If you really feel that's fine put those claims on a t-shirt go for a walk around a English Town and see how long it is before you're looking at a cell wall, or picking yourself off the Pavement

Look, to fall foul of this provision of the law, which you claim this language does, one needs 3 things:
i) to use insulting etc language towards another person,
ii) to intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and
iii) to have actually caused such harassment etc to a person.

So, before a successful prosecution could be mounted, the questions are:
- was this language targeted at a person? Who do you claim it was aimed at?
- was there an intent to harass, or to cause alarm or distress. I suggest harassment and alarm are out of the question here. Do you claim it was intended to cause distress to someone?
- did it actually cause such harassment to any person? To you?

Based on what you have told me, I don't see that this meets the criteria at all.

 

[icehorse]

Free speech is only ok to a point, racism and anti-gay bigotry should never be permitted and should be stamped out.

Who is smart enough to tell YOU what YOU cannot hear?

 

[icehorse]

Yes, I have I'm trying to get some sort of idea of what you mean by free speech! I gave some extreme examples you said strawman, I gave a very narrow example you said strawman which by the way is the fallacist's fallacy

But no worries I'll just put you down as a poster of empty rhetoric

Feel free to ask for clarification. But stow the strawman arguments please.

 

[icehorse]

Are you saying you do not have free speech? Haven't you been able to say what you want on here about blasphemy? So is this thread about free speech which affects everything or blasphemy.
As you can see you have been able to say what you want on all topics. A bit of a cop out your post. Because anyone can be offended on any topic where you disagree. The truth is that most people set out to offend others on subjects they do not agree with on religion which is futile and not necessary. There is no real argument when you are not asked or forced to believe.

Yes, I think my free speech rights are pretty awesome. I'm responding to people who think those rights should be reduced when it comes to blasphemy. I think cries of "blasphemy" are nonsense.

 

[Darkforbid]

Look, to fall foul of this provision of the law, which you claim this language does, one needs 3 things:
i) to use insulting etc language towards another person,
ii) to intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and
iii) to have actually caused such harassment etc to a person.

So, before a successful prosecution could be mounted, the questions are:
- was this language targeted at a person? Who do you claim it was aimed at?
- was there an intent to harass, or to cause alarm or distress. I suggest harassment and alarm are out of the question here. Do you claim it was intended to cause distress to someone?
- did it actually cause such harassment to any person? To you?

Based on what you have told me, I don't see that this meets the criteria at all.

Based on what you have told me, I don't see that this meets the criteria at all.

Why?

Denigrating someones core beliefs will not cause offence?! Good luck with that

 

[icehorse]

Hello,
Sometimes I wonder if they would ever see the bigger picture that this world would have been a darker place but for belief in god. If you take belief in good away you remove the barrier which stops
us becoming completely evil.

and @Quintessence

As a card carrying anti-theist I'd say that I don't want to mess with people's spiritual lives. But the problem is that religion has tried to co-op spirituality, and for the most part religion has besmirched it. I would say that to the degree a person feels they are both spiritual AND religious, then have to jump thru hoops to force their religion to not conflict with their spirituality. In other words, a person tends to be spiritual IN SPITE OF their religion, not because of it.

 

[exchemist]

Based on what you have told me, I don't see that this meets the criteria at all.

Why?

Denigrating someones core beliefs will not cause offence?! Good luck with that

Because the three criteria do not seem to be met. Can you explain to me how each of them is in fact met?

 

[exchemist]

Who is smart enough to tell YOU what YOU cannot hear?

A democratically elected government.

 

[Darkforbid]

Because the three criteria do not seem to be met. Can you explain to me how each of them is in fact met?

Because the three criteria do not seem to be met. Can you explain to me how each of them is in fact met?

Well obviously I can but I'm not going to bother if you are unable to explain why you're 100% sure they don't

Let's try again denigration does not cause offence because?

 

[exchemist]

Because the three criteria do not seem to be met. Can you explain to me how each of them is in fact met?

Well obviously I can but I'm not going to bother if you are unable to explain why you're 100% sure they don't

Let's try again denigration does not cause offence because?

Nope, the criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction. So it is up to you to make the case that the law has been broken, not up to me to show it has not been.

So let's take it step by step.

To break this law, the language used would have to be aimed at a specific person. Who is that person, in your view?

 

[Cooky]

and @Quintessence

As a card carrying anti-theist I'd say that I don't want to mess with people's spiritual lives. But the problem is that religion has tried to co-op spirituality, and for the most part religion has besmirched it. I would say that to the degree a person feels they are both spiritual AND religious, then have to jump thru hoops to force their religion to not conflict with their spirituality. In other words, a person tends to be spiritual IN SPITE OF their religion, not because of it.

Not when we see the Holy Spirit as being one of the three Persons of God.

 

[Cooky]

Because the three criteria do not seem to be met. Can you explain to me how each of them is in fact met?

Well obviously I can but I'm not going to bother if you are unable to explain why you're 100% sure they don't

Let's try again denigration does not cause offence because?

I think offence is an essential part of life that people need.

Without it, people will resemble spoiled children IMO.

Learning to cope wirh hardship is essential to human development. It makes us mentally healthy.

 

[Cooky]

Nope, the criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction. So it is up to you to make the case that the law has been broken, not up to me to show it has not been.

So let's take it step by step.

To break this law, the language used would have to be aimed at a specific person. Who is that person, in your view?

We should be allowed to insult homosexuals and the religious. Or anyone, aside from threats of violence.

 

[JJ50]

We should be allowed to insult homosexuals and the religious. Or anyone, aside from threats of violence.

In which case heterosexuals should be insulted too!

 

[Cooky]

Even racist insults are ok IMO.

 

[Cooky]

In which case heterosexuals should be insulted too!

Yes. I agree.