1. 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!

Featured Blasphemy

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Wu Wei, Mar 3, 2021.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,776
    Ratings:
    +23,443
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Yes, the UN is rather toothless. That does not change the fact that Poland is being hypocritical.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,776
    Ratings:
    +23,443
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Why would you expect such? Can you not reason it out for yourself?
     
  3. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Deist
    Possibly but then, lets not and try to use the UN in attempt to make a point.
     
  4. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Deist
    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?
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,776
    Ratings:
    +23,443
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  6. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Deist
    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?
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,776
    Ratings:
    +23,443
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Okay, so you do not understand morality and did not read my post.
     
  8. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Deist
    You sound like a theist lol :D
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,776
    Ratings:
    +23,443
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  10. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist My baby niece

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    32,240
    Ratings:
    +11,003
    Religion:
    Process of Spiritual Healing
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    19,071
    Ratings:
    +11,314
    Religion:
    atheist
    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'.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,686
    Ratings:
    +6,108
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    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?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    19,071
    Ratings:
    +11,314
    Religion:
    atheist
    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'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 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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  14. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,686
    Ratings:
    +6,108
    Religion:
    spiritual 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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Deist
    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
     
  16. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Deist
    please see reply #56. I hope that helps clarify what I was really trying to say
     
  17. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Deist
    100% completely agree with this statement, however, this has not stopped people from getting offended for no valid reason.
     
  18. Earthtank

    Earthtank Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Deist
    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.

    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.
     
  19. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    6,491
    Ratings:
    +5,575
    Religion:
    none
    My country has anti censorship laws and I and others are offended by censorship. What would be the correct punishment for Poland?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,776
    Ratings:
    +23,443
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No sausages for a month. What could be wurst?
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Creative Creative x 1
Loading...