Shootings in Paris

[SWP's back]

Funny thing is, if you exclude the whole element of fundamentalist religion people's opinion would be spun 180 degrees.

Just to understand this idea better, why are the above three including racist remarks, anti-Semitic speech etc. illegal but defaming a religion legal ?

Do you support free speech that for example will cost British soldiers lives in the form of an intelligence leak? illegal

Do you support free speech that will incite a race war? illegal

Do you support free speech that will provoke the killing of the disabled? illegal

He is right, and many people would agree with him if he wasn't a Muslim from Pakistan. Free speech in this country absolutely has limits. This isn't even an argument, it's legislation.

The same people who are saying that they should "get over it" that Mohammed was disrespected are the same people who are saying that we should lock up a cleric for preaching hate towards the UK.

Drawing a picture of a half millenia dead fella isn't illegal and if you choose to live in the UK, then you have to abide by its rules.

A bit like I don't drink on the streets in Qatar or walk my dog on the Corniche.

To understand this idea better... so why is it that the above 3 including racist remarks, anti-semtism etc. illegal but defaming religion legal ?

Because religion is an idea, not a thing. You cannot hurt the feelings of "an idea"

It is also bollocks (though that is by the by), or would you refuse to deny Thor or Odin?

 

[stonerblue]

Great to see representatives from Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Egypt joining the march to support free speech, just like they always do!

The ultimate irony. Those who'd never even heard of Charlie Hebdo or who would maybe have been uncomfortable with the publishing of those images, now stand shoulder to shoulder with these innocent people so cruelly murdered. By launching this attack the terrorists have done more to further the cause of equality and liberty than any politician could ever dream of. An utterly pointless, sadistic and self defeating act. Nous Somme Charlie.

That would be the same Saudi Arabia that just sentenced a blogger to 10 years and 1,000 lashes for blasphemy was it? Should have been told to sling their hook.

Were they stood shoulder to shoulder with the Brits that have shut off parliament square and arrest old dears for reading out names of dead soldiers?

 

[Ricster]

Okay, you've established that you believe Charlie Hebdo were irresponsible in publishing those pictures. You've said that enough times.

What you're failing to accept is that that sort of viewpoint gives the impression that those murdered at the Charlie Hebdo offices were in some small part responsible for their own deaths at the hands of extremists as they should have known it would eventually result in someone unstable taking great offence and acting upon it. Your belief that they must have known that it would anger some extremist nutters and the moment it was published they effectively signed their own death warrants.

That is a view I and others find abhorrent. They are completely blameless for what happened, and none of your opinionated, misguided drivel is going to change mine or many others opinion that "they had it coming and should have known better".

It is an immutable law of physics and of life that "every action has a reaction". It isn't what I think, it's reality. You can't ignore it and you can't get away from it I'm afraid.

How can speech be free when it costs lives?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Okay, you've established that you believe Charlie Hebdo were irresponsible in publishing those pictures. You've said that enough times.

What you're failing to accept is that that sort of viewpoint gives the impression that those murdered at the Charlie Hebdo offices were in some small part responsible for their own deaths at the hands of extremists as they should have known it would eventually result in someone unstable taking great offence and acting upon it. Your belief that they must have known that it would anger some extremist nutters and the moment it was published they effectively signed their own death warrants.

That is a view I and others find abhorrent. They are completely blameless for what happened, and none of your opinionated, misguided drivel is going to change mine or many others opinion that "they had it coming and should have known better".

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

 

[vmsuhail]

Drawing a picture of a half millenia dead fella isn't illegal and if you choose to live in the UK, then you have to abide by its rules.

A bit like I don't drink on the streets in Qatar or walk my dog on the Corniche.

To understand this idea better... so why is it that the above 3 including racist remarks, anti-semtism etc. illegal but defaming religion legal ?

Because religion is an idea, not a thing. You cannot hurt the feelings of "a thing".

It is also bollocks (though that is by the by), or would you refuse to deny Thor or Odin?

I din't get it completely. Heaven or hell or predestination or karma may be an idea. Muhammad (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) is not an idea by the way. Most practicing Muslims do love Muhammad (pbuh) more than their parents. So how is it that the feelings are not hurt.

 

[Ricster]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this video.
Feel free to move it, but it wasn't something a friend showed me, yes he is a follower of Islam, this was his way of trying to explain his religion and I found it quite insightful.

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lma7PpO0JdA[/video]

 

[SWP's back]

To understand this idea better... so why is it that the above 3 including racist remarks, anti-semtism etc. illegal but defaming religion legal ?

Because religion is an idea, not a thing. You cannot hurt the feelings of "a thing".

It is also bollocks (though that is by the by), or would you refuse to deny Thor or Odin?

I din't get it completely. Heaven or hell or predestination or karma may be an idea. Muhammad (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) is not an idea by the way. Most practicing Muslims do love Muhammad (pbuh)

more than their parents

. So how is it that the feelings are not hurt.

Then they have my sympathies.

Had they been born in India, they would have those feeling perhaps for Ghanesh.
Had they been born in Alabama, they would perhaps have them for Jesus.
Had they been born in Sweden, 1,000 years ago, perhaps for Thor.
That they feel that way Mohammed is a quirk of fate, of their timing and place of birth and their indoctrination, nothing more. His, is just one of 7,000 or so recorded religions in human history and just as likely/unlikely as all of the others.

Religion is just an idea, an idea based on no evidence nor rationalism, hence defaming it is not the same as racism or anti-semitism, which was your question.

 

[foetus]

How can speech be free when it costs lives?

Well if some fairy tale believing piece of scum hadn't murdered 17 people then it wouldn't have cost lives.

 

[Ricster]

Because religion is an idea, not a thing. You cannot hurt the feelings of "a thing".

It is also bollocks (though that is by the by), or would you refuse to deny Thor or Odin?

I din't get it completely. Heaven or hell or predestination or karma may be an idea. Muhammad (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) is not an idea by the way. Most practicing Muslims do love Muhammad (pbuh)

more than their parents

. So how is it that the feelings are not hurt.

Then they have my sympathies.

Had they been born in India, they would have those feeling perhaps for Ghanesh.
Had they been born in Alabama, they would perhaps have them for Jesus.
Had they been born in Sweden, 1,000 years ago, perhaps for Thor.
That they feel that way Mohammed is a quirk of fate, of their timing and place of birth and their indoctrination, nothing more. His, is just one of 7,000 or so recorded religions in human history and just as likely/unlikely as all of the others.

Religion is just an idea, an idea based on no evidence nor rationalism, hence defaming it is not the same as racism or anti-semitism, which was your question.

Did you watch the video?

There are reasons as to why people follow religion, as the video shows why people believe what Mohammed said all those years ago.

Although not religious myself, if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism, as I find the idea of reincarnation helpful to my own life, and that is just one reason people choose religion.

Since being on the other side of the world I have tried Christianity, been to church several times over a 3 month period, and while my image of church was outdated and old fashioned, I found it strange and uncomfortable to see grown men have their hands in the air, feeling out for something from above, or or running around the church being vocal about God. Not my cup of tea, but each to their own and I enjoyed the experience.

 

[Chancy Termites]

Funny thing is, if you exclude the whole element of fundamentalist religion people's opinion would be spun 180 degrees.

Just to understand this idea better, why are the above three including racist remarks, anti-Semitic speech etc. illegal but defaming a religion legal ?

Do you support free speech that for example will cost British soldiers lives in the form of an intelligence leak? illegal

Do you support free speech that will incite a race war? illegal

Do you support free speech that will provoke the killing of the disabled? illegal

He is right, and many people would agree with him if he wasn't a Muslim from Pakistan. Free speech in this country absolutely has limits. This isn't even an argument, it's legislation.

The same people who are saying that they should "get over it" that Mohammed was disrespected are the same people who are saying that we should lock up a cleric for preaching hate towards the UK.

Drawing a picture of a half millenia dead fella isn't illegal and if you choose to live in the UK, then you have to abide by its rules.

A bit like I don't drink on the streets in Qatar or walk my dog on the Corniche.

To understand this idea better... so why is it that the above 3 including racist remarks, anti-semtism etc. illegal but defaming religion legal ?

Because incitement is the act of calling on others to break the law; taking the piss is just taking the piss. That's the difference.