Top Diaries

"Don't thee 'thou' me! Thou 'thees' them that 'thous' thee!"

apparently this is english

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 01:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure it's English. Have you been to church lately? Those old-timers with their King James Bibles do this sort of stuff all the time.

by asdf on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 02:15:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

greatferm:

Where they are is where the here is, but we all have different heres, so where I are is there for you. I will always be there for you, but you are never or at least seldom here for me.

i find that existentially profound, even if you intended irony!

thanks, it made for good reflection...

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 03:38:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Guardian - Suzanne moore - Boris Johnson is no laughing matter

You have failed to apply the grammar rule about apostrophes: "Look out, here comes an 's'."

by asdf on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 01:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Borisconi : The danger to come (4.00 / 5)

Undoubtedly Boris is brilliant and funny and clever. Before he was so powerful he would liven up many a boring debate on the euro with the admission that he had gone into a deep trance. Detail is not his forte; the big picture, the grand symbolic gesture, is. His outbursts of honesty hide his imperial attitude. They hide his utter ruthlessness and the fact that he a politician, not a gameshow panellist.
His record shows that he is not above betraying people he has worked for, in one way or another. He promised more than he can deliver. He did not deliver the Olympics but is sucking up vast amounts of credit for them. His hack trick of winging it has come into its own. The level at which he needs to be in control is frightening and that control combined with his intellect is what makes him a superb writer. The clownishness masks the absolute need to win. Once he got me into a party. Some Tory do, not his party, let me make that clear, and he said I could stay for 20 minutes. I was happily chatting as I knew many people there when he whispered after exactly 20 minutes: "Your time is up." That's bonhomie for you. Petty but telling, I felt, and not in the least shambolic
[....]
He will do what it takes. He has bashed the bankers. And he wants an island with an airport on it. What his values are is hard to say. His achievements as mayor have been rather like the bikes: unwieldy, expensive, not his own idea, but heavily branded as if they were. The idea of him as party leader is terrifying even to many in his own party. The laissez-faire chaotic individuality is superficially attractive but what does he want power for? To simply scoop up adulation and the daft women who throw themselves at him? His rise is the product of a deeply anti-politics mood that looks appealingly different but is not as transgressive at it appears. He is able to summon up the "national" mood, work the media and make us feel good. But do not mistake this laughter for freedom. He is no libertarian but someone with an actual lust for authority. Hilarious, if you actually want a Borisconi in charge. Not so funny if you don't.

Borisconi : A brilliant construct that goes to the heart of what Boris is about. He is a threat, ruthless, ambitious and with the same adherence to the needs of the ultra rich as Mitt Romney but with fewer principles.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 01:05:43 PM EST

Re: Borisconi : The danger to come (none / 0)

don't forget there was the story of Boris involved in Darius Guppy (convicted fraudster and school chum) getting a reporter beaten up.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 01:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Borisconi : The danger to come (none / 0)

that's mentioned in the article

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 01:37:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Borisconi : The danger to come (none / 0)

good. can't be mentioned too often

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 07:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Borisconi : The danger to come (4.00 / 5)

Oration is part of democracy (motivation to action or trust or relief or belief), and not many do it well these days.

Boris is a good orator, but the question is: does he have the organizational skills to turn oration into change? It is possible, like Reagan, to be simply an orator (he was an actor). Obama is an excellent orator, but apparently, not such a good organizer, even though his command of issues is acceptable. Clinton was and is both, as was Kennedy.

The motivational role of speakers in a public forum (providing it is based on facts that a majority can accept) has been downplayed of late. The role is important.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 01:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Borisconi : The danger to come (none / 1)

The role is to instigate debate. It requires that an orator is able to not only to elucidate the big issues, but also point out how such issues affect individuals. An orator needs to speak big and small. Cameron is a hector, as are many in the Tory camp.

Where on the left is the orator? Ed Milliband has the potential. Balls not - he is fundamentally a hector.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 02:49:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Borisconi : The danger to come (none / 1)

Sven Triloqvist:

even though his command of issues is acceptable.

i know you meant 'command' metaphorically. PN, i would say as president his command of issues is mysteriously small, given the status as Biggest Enchilada on the planet.

perhaps his apprehension of the issues is impressive, but i have to wonder how great his comprehension is, given the indubitable gravity of the issues, his firework oratory in the 2008 campaign which rang pretty much every liberal humanist bell in the belfry, then the curiously conspicuous lurch to the centre right upon inauguration.

what's also impressive is his hang-loose, blithe, casualness considering where we all are historically. it's charming and likable, sunny and 'we're all in this together' uplifting, and he does the saturnine fingerwagging mode well, but even when he's in full rhetorical turbo there's a slight remove, a too obviously MLK-an cadencing that suggests patina to my ear.

it's a bit too pat... but does tap into that immense desire to believe we all have in a superior being who's 'got it', (so the rest of us can sleep better at night).

he comes off more real when bantering impromptu, where he defines grace under pressure.

the field of current world leaders makes him seem more of a giant among men, but reagan could make people feel safe and warm inside too....shudder.

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 03:59:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Borisconi : The danger to come (none / 1)

I still believe (citation needed), that Obama is trying his best to promote compromise/cooperation/respect. Forgiveness is not an easy sell. But it is right.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 04:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Prisoners' rights (4.00 / 5)

At the risk of being criticized, I'm all for prisoners having the vote.

"To vote is to be involved." Prison is not about punishment, but about rehabilitation.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 02:36:00 PM EST

Re: Prisoners' rights (4.00 / 4)

Taking away a citizen's right to vote because he's been convicted of a crime is a non sequitur. Unless it was a political crime, perhaps? But no, even then. Because that is open to abuse.

No disagreement from me. Sorry.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 04:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Prisoners' rights (none / 0)

not necessarily. Prison involves a restriction of freedom, one of which could involve the right to vote

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 02:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 6)

http://wharferj.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/underground-guerilla-signs/

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 02:55:00 PM EST

best belly laffs for a while... :)

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 02:30:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Does anyone know anything about this?

Slight hyperbole from Avaaz as usual, but Wikipedia and other news sources do make TPP sound like a Very Bad Thing Indeed.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 03:36:57 PM EST

Mainstream American media and pro-Israel pols are turning against Netanyahu

There's a page with links on Public Citizen.

Avaaz doesn't give enough information, but I signed the petition. That thing looks (as far as we're allowed to see it) like a blueprint for what the big corporates consider a "liberal" economy.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 04:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

US Establishment fed up with Netanyahu (4.00 / 4)

After describing Obama's latest snub to Netanyahu, the article says

But then something interesting happened. Yesterday, a prominent U.S. senator and two important journalists made highly critical remarks about Netanyahu. The blunt wording is almost unprecedented in mainstream American discourse.
Senator Barbara Boxer published a letter to Netanyahu on her website as a press release, titled "Boxer Expresses Disappointment Over Israeli Prime Minister's Remarks." In the opening paragraph she describes herself as "one of Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress" (which she is), and then characterizes Netanyahu's remarks as "utterly contrary to the extraordinary United States-Israel alliance, evidenced by President Obama's record and the record of Congress."
[...]
David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, also had some harsh words for Netanyahu in a piece, Neocon Gambits ("Have Netanyahu's Attacks on Obama Gone too Far?), published yesterday on the magazine's web site. He pulls no punches in his opening paragraph:
[...]
Perhaps the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens was the final straw, but I think the remarks made by Boxer, Klein and Remnick were a long time coming. The fact that they are all Jewish gives the lie to Sheldon Adelson's claim that he represents the mainstream Jewish community's point of view - as does a quick perusal of the names of the biggest donors to the Obama campaign (the bundlers).

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 04:31:01 PM EST

Re: US Establishment fed up with Netanyahu (none / 0)

can't happen quickly enough imo

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 02:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New:

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 05:35:59 PM EST

that was fun

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 02:26:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting watching Nate Silver and the betting markets right now. The bottom seems to be falling out for Mittens.

Nate's got it at 80%-ish for Obama. Intrade has shot up to almost 2/1.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 05:59:11 PM EST

surely all the current polls are mid convention bounce. overconfidence needs to be avoided

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 07:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm thinking with the attack on US embassies spreading to Yemen, if the unrest keeps up it might turn into an election loser for Obama like the Iran hostage crisis was for Carter in 1980.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 07:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And there was Nate Silver a few days suggesting that Obama was practically a shoo-in 'barring some foreign policy crisis.'

Actually I think the Mittster is so far gone that the only thing that would steer a win would be doubled gas prices.

I don't think Yemen, Libya or even Iraq are in a position to do that.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 08:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the problem for the US is that their natural instinct, the political necessity, is to interfere. Which is exactly the wrong thing to do. When you've stirred up a hornets nest, poking it harder doesn't help.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 02:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he does nothing he risks having diplomatic missions under siege or on fire for the 6 weeks prior to the election. And if he reacts heavy-handedly (a facebook friend was wondering aloud why they didn't have "blackhawks erecting a wall of fire around embassies") the think will get really ugly really quick.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 03:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is the only way how Romney can score a point in foreign policy. He couldn't move to the right of Obama there without falling off the cliff.

If Obama hadn't continued and stepped up Bush's war on Muslims, the salafists would be isolated in this matter and there wouldn't be riots. Now everyone in the Muslim world who wants to protest or revenge the murders and humiliations by the US can take to the streets. Which will lead to Obama being accused of appeasement. Oh the irony!

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 04:29:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The joke may be on us.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:03:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He could start by instigating hate crime proceedings against the filmmaker and the Koran burners. (Oh wait, we're talking about a country which thinks he's a Muslim related to Saddam.)

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:43:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But if in the US burning flags is protected free speech, then so must burning holy books. There's no hate crime to prosecute since none of the fundamentalist christians have engaged in any violence or targetted communication.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:50:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 2)

Well, they can criminalise reporting their war crimes. They can ban cartoons showing nipples too. They can't ban hate speech humiliating humans, though. Then they can't expect compassion either.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 06:53:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair point on Wikileaks, but blaming the US for Facebook banning the New Yorker is a bit silly. (And I believe Facebook has since reinstated the New Yorker.)

And Praise Allah they can't ban speech humiliating others, because I go out of my way to offend religious zealots of all makes and models every day.

Prosecuting people for saying things that are stupid or wrong or ugly isn't compassionate. It would simply feed the victim mentality that the nutbags all have.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:51:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where else has censorship of nipples a fairly high acceptance (or else Facebook would never have tried)? But inhumanity against minorities is just fine, if it is verbal. And the nexus to physical violence against the victims of hate speech is constantly denied. No, it's not silly to point at that discrepancy.

It is good to know that hate speech is banned (not saying that the law doesn't need reform, but it's good to have it)

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 08:11:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where else has censorship of nipples a fairly high acceptance (or else Facebook would never have tried)?

The same place where it was met by mockery that forced Facebook to go back on it. What the fuck does that have to do with the fact that the US didn't censor it?

Facebook's a private company. They get to make the rules. People can push back against the rules and force Facebook to change. That happened here. Nothing about it is censorship. So what are you babbling about?

No, it's not silly to point at that discrepancy.

Is that what I called silly? No. So let's move on to the next straw man.

But inhumanity against minorities is just fine, if it is verbal.

Did I say inhumanity against anybody was fine? No.

From what I can see, it's a subset of the victims of hate speech who are the physically violent ones in this case. Not to mention the small matter of responding by killing people who were unconnected with the hate speech.

People say horrible shit every day. People who aren't completely fucking crazy respond in adult ways. They write letters to the editor. They make their own movies. They hold peaceful protests. They respond like adults.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 12:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The same place where it was met by mockery that forced Facebook to go back on it. What the fuck does that have to do with the fact that the US didn't censor it?

The same place where people now hyperventilate and issue statements like "And Praise Allah they can't ban speech humiliating others" or "Prosecuting people for saying things that are stupid or wrong or ugly isn't compassionate. It would simply feed the victim mentality that the nutbags all have". The same place where "free speech" if it hurts humans is revered with religious fervour. And the same place where at hearing their fucking free speech religion mocked they immediately get excited. (I see that by the language you fall to).

But a nipple isn't free speech. There it needs mockingly pointing out that it's a drawing and wtf! ROFL! Hey, it's a nipple that was censored there, where is your indignation at the suppression of free speech? I expect the same religious fervour from you as in your defence of hurting people.

Facebook's a private company. They get to make the rules.

We are thinking a bit slowly today, I see. My dear, this fuss is about a video on youtube. Last time I checked Youtube was a private company. Like Facebook. In one case you find it perfectly okay if they use censorship because it is, gasp, about a part of the female body, in the other case you take to defending your number-soandso-amendment religion.

From what I can see, it's a subset of the victims of hate speech who are the physically violent ones in this case

They are upset about the verbal violence which fits in with the physical violence of drones and so.

People who aren't completely fucking crazy respond in adult ways. They write letters to the editor. They make their own movies. They hold peaceful protests. They respond like adults

That's really nice. So, could you try and behave like an adult too? This exchange started when you made a statement about St Free Speech. How many riots and how many deads are the price you are willing to pay for your religious belief in the use of verbal violence?

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 01:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How many riots and how many deads are the price you are willing to pay for your religious belief in the use of verbal violence?

Careful, there. Equating crass words with physical abuse is boilerplate domestic abuse apologetics.

As someone who has actually been on the wrong end of both verbal harassment and physical assault, I will point out that anybody who equates the two - in any way, shape or form - is off his fucking rocker.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 01:44:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Er - the difference is that Drew doesn't riot and kill people when someone says something that really pisses him off.

(Not usually, anyway.)

Religious people regularly do.

That's why we think they're insane and a menace to everyone.

Not that the US military and the entire political establishment aren't also insane and a menace to everyone.

But - here's the thing - they're a menace for pretty much the same reason. Which is that they believe it's just fine to use violence and kill people because they have a right to.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 01:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is very reassuring to know that Drew doesn't riot and kill if someone insults his Free Speech religion. Adherents of other religions in their majority don't do it either. I don't think that religion plays much of a role for the perpetrators of this violence, btw. It plays a role in the public opinion in the countries where the riots take place, though. And the organisers of the tiots have this public in mind, because their aim is domestic politics, not foreign politics.

I see mirror images. Authors of hate speech on both side. Violence on both sides. Religious fervour regarding the speech acts on both sides. I am amazed that people defend hate speech in the face of these consequences. I think that we agree that there is only negative and horrible consequences of this speech act. And still, Drew and obviously you defend it as a matter of principle. Just as your Muslim counterparts defend their principles.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 02:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh bleh (4.00 / 5)

Free Speech religion

It's not a religion.

And as to censoring hate speech, I think that has been discussed extensively here not long ago, but we're back to defining who says it's hate speech.

I personally consider that religious people who tell me that (i) my ethics have to come from a religious source or (ii) their beliefs need special protection against offense (as decided by themselves) but not mine as a non-religious person, or (iii) non-religious people are just as bigoted as the worst offenders amongst religious persons, are engaging in a form a hate speech, by basically considering me a misguided, inferior person. Not to mention the promise of eternal damnation and all that, which is also damn hateful.

So can we ban all form of religious discourse as applying to anyone but the believers themselves as hate speech, which should be censored?

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 03:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

Logically finding the line that separates legitimate speech from illegitimate speech is more difficult than deciding that all speech must be legitimate. Do we judge the necessity of legislation by the difficulty to find definitions?

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 03:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (4.00 / 3)

In a word, yes.

It's called "rule of law." You should look it up sometime.

When you have a coherent, objective standard which can be evaluated by a disinterested observer, we'd have an actual policy to discuss. But so far you've been hop-skip-jumping between "this offends me," "this offends somebody," "this offends a lot of somebodies" and "this will incite somebody or somebodies to violence against the speaker."

All of which standards conflict with basic tenets of civilized jurisprudence. Standards like "equality before the law," "impartial judges" and "no bills of attainder or ex post facto criminalization." You know, little details like that.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 04:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

Jake, it would be a good idea if you looked up what hate speech laws are. And next time you feel the need to sum up my position, you should read my posts first. I find your attempt offensive.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 1)

I'm still waiting for you to provide that clear, objective legal standard which can be applied by a disinterested (and therefore secular) judge in an equitable fashion.

If you don't like my summary of your previous attempts to provide such standards, then please reiterate the lucid, coherent, objective standard I missed. (I did miss one standard you've previously appealed to. But "the judge gets to decide" is only barely an improvement over "the mullahs get to decide.")

"Read the existing law" is not an answer. The existing body of law does not contain such a standard, which - coupled with asymmetric power relationships - leads to travesties like the Russian Orthodox Church's hetz on Pussy Riot. While actual hate speech against political, ethnic, sexual and religious minorities is routinely ignored.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 1)

I am searching for the line between the legitimate and the illegitimate. I am asking questions. If I had answers to everything, I wouldn't be here. I never said "the judge gets to decide". You are making that up and that's what I find offensive.

In Germany there is a ban on dancing on Good Friday. Yes, really. It is very high on my personal list of laws to be scrapped immediately. There is no reason why people should be forced to share a feeling they have no connection to. So far I guess we agree. But do I want to legalise a deliberate act of provocation in front of a church? Hell, no. It is this line I am interested in.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

Why is there a ban on dancing on Good Friday?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

Are you asking about the Christian relevance of Good Friday or are you asking about the legislator's intention? Or about German attitudes towards state religion? Do try to express yourself.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

I'm asking why dancing is banned on Good Friday. It's a fairly simple question.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

The law doesn't give a reason. I can only guess, but so can you.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 08:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (4.00 / 2)

I'd guess it's because they're pandering to the tastes of religious zealots.

One way or another, it's a stupid law. And if it's considered provocative to dance in front of a church -- well, too fucking bad.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 08:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

A rare point of agreement: it's a stupid law. A law that ought to be abolished (I've already said that, but I don't know how much of my posts you read.)

So you would approve of an act of provocation, intended to hurt and humiliate people who take the liberty of not sharing your world view. I am no longer surprised, but I know that your political way and mine will never meet. I don't do in inhumanity, and that's flat.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:01:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 1)

So you would approve of an act of provocation, intended to hurt and humiliate people who take the liberty of not sharing your world view.

I would disapprove of criminalizing an action on those grounds.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:32:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 1)

But for the record, if the people being humiliated and having their feelings hurt were Nazis, Hell yes I would approve of humiliating them and hurting their feelings. Joining the Nazi Party should to come with a heavy emotional and social cost.

If the people being humiliated and having their feelings hurt were Happyologists, I probably wouldn't approve, unless the provocation had some redeeming virtue (such as being funny or raising public awareness of dangerous cults like Happyology). They need psychiatric help, and taking them down a peg is unlikely to be helpful to deprogramming them.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:35:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

You suggest stripping people of their humanity as an anti-Nazi act. Oh dear. You haven't understood anything about the rejection of nazism then.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 07:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 1)

I would say that by conflating "public humiliation" and "stripping people of their humanity," you're the one who has not learned anything important from the history of the 20th century.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 07:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 1)

Katrin:

I know that your political way and mine will never meet.

and that is why i tried to point out that everyone was right in this argument, from their own needs.

wonder why the left loses? all right here in a nutshell... useless more-heat-than-light factionalist arguments that divide us, leaving the monolithically on-message right to have their wicked way, while we argue over what would be perfect, whether it's free speech (consequences-be-damned), or respect for peoples' belief-systems taken to absurd levels, where everyone's little credo is oh so precious and undeserving of rigorous questioning, and PC rules out honest discussions that could lead to greater unity.

it's insane how we quibble over idealistic purity, and meanwhile a possible new american president wants to lead us to planet kolob!

they know they will need everyone they can get to win...

if we could take the energy frittered away on irascible jousting and hook it up to a turbine towards making a better world for atheists and religious alike, we'll get a lot further. if the most vitriolic agents from both sides turn down the rhetoric, then we can get along better.

testing free speech extremes to a billion people brainwashed out of any capacity for irony, and ready to get royally pissed off-er when bread prices rise a penny.

yeah, free speech, we'll show 'em.

the longer this unfolds the more it looks like psy-ops. keep arab-baiting to ensure the turmoil levels high, and the looting and lying about domestic issues slide by... shock dock 101.

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:49:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 1)

Indeed they will not meet. The idea of criminalizing dancing in front of a church on grounds that it hurts churchgoers feefees is insane.

As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to your beliefs, as does everybody else. You don't have the right to force everybody to cater to your beliefs.

There are lines to be drawn, of course. Incitement to violence and abuse. But dancing isn't even kind of in the ballpark.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 08:23:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

There are lines to be drawn, of course. Incitement to violence and abuse.

We won't legalise hate speech just to do you a favour.
I really wonder how you think you can implement what you think the right laws. You don't believe that your nice little plans to increase hate and decrease peace will ever get a majority, do you?

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 01:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please stop begging the question (n/t) (none / 0)

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (4.00 / 2)

The line is this: You're allowed to believe in any superstitious bullshit you want, and I'm allowed to call it superstitious bullshit.

If you need the state to validate your beliefs by coercion, your beliefs are probably stupid.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 08:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

Frankly, I am not interested at all in your beliefs and I haven't mentioned mine in this thread. This discussion was triggered off by the dehumanisation of people with a certain belief. I note that you are just fine with that.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:05:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 1)

In Germany there is a ban on dancing on Good Friday.

An idea for an ET meetup: next Good Friday we meet in Strasbourg, and first go swimming to the municipal pool with professional-grade full-body speedo swimsuits, and then cross over to Germany and go busking and dancing.

Mulhouse or Saarbruecken would work, too, besides Strasbourg.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 04:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

I am searching for the line between the legitimate and the illegitimate. I am asking questions.

I'm not interested in what you consider illegitimate. I'm interested in what you want to make illegal.

You are on record supporting the Russian Orthodox Church's leveraging of the legal system to persecute their critics.

You don't get to duck out of justifying your support for legal thuggery by "just asking questions."

I never said "the judge gets to decide".

That's what supporting criminalization without a well-defined standard for the judge to apply means. You can sugarcoat it with all sorts of postmodernist horseshit about civil discourse and hurt feelings, but as long as you are supporting criminalization without presenting a coherent standard that judges can apply, that's what you are suppporting.

In Germany there is a ban on dancing on Good Friday. Yes, really. It is very high on my personal list of laws to be scrapped immediately. There is no reason why people should be forced to share a feeling they have no connection to. So far I guess we agree. But do I want to legalise a deliberate act of provocation in front of a church? Hell, no. It is this line I am interested in.

So you want to scrap a clear, specific, objective standard - a blacklist of concrete behaviors which are prohibited - and replace it with "don't act provocatively in front of a church?"

And, uh, "in front of a church" is typically a public street. How far outside the sanctum are religious bigots (and let's be very clear on who will be the "injured" party in cases like that) supposed to be allowed to give their religious bigotry the force of law? A hundred meter? Two hundred? Ten? "The judge decides" meter? What constitutes "provocative?" Pissing on a crucifix? Playing a game of darts with a picture of the Pope as the target? Two gay men kissing? A Pride Parade? "The congregation decides?" "The judge decides?"

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:23:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it' a fair question (4.00 / 5)

but it's better to err on the side of too little censorship than too much. We have explicit laws preventing nazi discourse in a number of European countries, for pretty obvious reasons, and that's a rather objective line.

There are also restrictions on hate speech, which is typically about threatening groups which are weak and vulnerable, or have been historically abused in the past, because such discourse encourages violent behavior which is known to have already happened. Negative discourse against the powerful does not have the same impact.

But the point is - these limits follow pretty objective lines. "I feel offended" is not objective, and certainly not when it's coming from people deciding that their private beliefs or superstitions are deserving of public respect.

There's a name for that: proselyting, and it's one of the most objectionable things about (some) religions: their apparent need to impose themselves on others. Keep it private and we'll give you respect. Put it in our face forcefully and no, you don't deserve that respect.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 04:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, I wonder if you think I am proposing new hate speech laws. I am not, I am mainly defending the existing ones. I find them less objective than you, and I see that by comparing the treatment of Muslims in the courts with that of other minority religions. The laws need clarification, but not fundamentally new changes.

A view that reduces hate speech laws on the intention to prevent violence misses a lot. The intention is to prevent exclusion, discrimination, and violence. The usual view is that hate speech is an injury in itself, not something that can cause negative consequences for a certain group.

There is a lot of pressure to abolish hate speech laws or to water them down to make them ineffective. I am very much opposed to that. I don't understand why you think hate speech laws have anything to do with the wish to proselyte or to impose religion on others. Aren't you perhaps mixing that up with blasphemy laws?

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it' a fair question (4.00 / 3)

By all the standards you have so far invoked, blasphemy is "hate speech." It offends the sincerely held beliefs of religious fanatics, it offends the sincerely held beliefs of a lot of religious fanatics, and it is liable to lead religious fanatics to commit violence against the speaker.

If you're against blasphemy laws but in favor of this expansive view of what constitutes "hate speech," then you really need to come up with an objective standard by which you can distinguish blasphemy from any other sort of taboo whose violation might get religious nuts' knickers in a twist.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have repeatedly said that I am against banning blasphemy (rather, in favour of abolishing blasphemy laws). How many more repetitions do you need? What's more, I have argued mainly from the point of hate speech laws that exist.

You now say being in favour of criminalising behaviour that is way less easy to define than, say, theft, is the same as rejecting the rule of the law, and I have a big problem in taking you seriously at all.

Do you really want to have behaviour legal that has no intention than hurting people and to exclude them from participation? I really don't understand why anyone should want that.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 05:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it' a fair question (none / 1)

I have repeatedly said that I am against banning blasphemy (rather, in favour of abolishing blasphemy laws). How many more repetitions do you need?

I don't need repetitions. I need you to provide a clear, simple, objective, secular standard for how to distinguish between blasphemy and your rather expansive view of "hate speech."

You now say being in favour of criminalising behaviour that is way less easy to define than, say, theft, is the same as rejecting the rule of the law,

I'm saying that not providing a standard that can be applied by a disinterested (and therefore secular) judge is the same as rejecting the rule of law.

And I'm saying that all the standards you have so far argued violate core principles of the rule of law.

Do you really want to have behaviour legal that has no intention than hurting people and to exclude them from participation?

I am all in favor of banning behavior that excludes people from democratic participation. That's a perfectly fine and clear legal standard.

It is also a standard that every single last one of the cases where you have supported prosecution fails.

I am not in favor of banning behavior that hurts people's feelings until and unless you can provide a clear, simple, objective standard for what sorts of feelings are and are not protected, and how you prove that the feelings which have been hurt are the protected sort of feelings.

Because I don't like writing blank checks.

And I severely object to your repeated attempts to conflate, rhetorically and morally, physical abuse, systematic harassment, and hurt feelings. Those three are not the same, and your repeated conflation of them is either dishonest or ignorant. Either way, it is offensive and insensitive.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I need you to provide a clear, simple, objective, secular standard for how to distinguish between blasphemy and your rather expansive view of "hate speech."

You are out of luck then. I haven't written a law to replace existing ones, I am still finding out. (Btw., that was another repetition)

And I'm saying that all the standards you have so far argued violate core principles of the rule of law.

How so? What I argue is not so far away from the laws we already have. I would abolish some privileges of the former state religions, and some inconsistencies that allow courts to treat anti-Muslim hatred differently from other hate speech.

By your insisting on definitions that disregard the groups own self-definition you try to introduce standards declaring the absence of religion as superior. Fortunately you won't get what you want.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 07:11:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By your insisting on definitions that disregard the groups own self-definition you try to introduce standards declaring the absence of religion as superior.

No, I seek to equalize religions with every other sort of club/gathering/political part/pyramid scam/corporation (strike as appropriate).

The fact that you appear to have a problem with this is not totally reassuring.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 07:53:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it' a fair question (4.00 / 3)

I'm not sure what you are proposing.
I agree with your note about "prevent[ing] exclusion, discrimination, and violence" but I fail to see how saying mocking or distateful comments about the established teachings of the main religions causes any "exclusion, discrimination, and violence" - any more than saying saying mocking or distateful comments about people who believe in astrology.

The point I'm making is that if the standard of what is offensive or hateful is set by the believers, then the same standard should apply to other opinions, and then most public religious discourse is offensive and hateful to me, because it says a lot of things that I find terribly dangerous, excluding and discriminating (cf religious discourse about gays, about eternal damnation, about abortion, etc...). You say it's our individual perception that matters - well I see a lot religious discourse in the public sphere as hate speech (again, not commenting on your personal beliefs and spirituality, just on what popes and cardinals and imams, all public figures, say)

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 06:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it' a fair question (4.00 / 4)

I see a lot religious discourse in the public sphere as hate speech

Which is the nub of it, for me. If you're going to ban hate speech against religions you also, for consistency, have to ban hate speech by religions.

For example, this:

The Roman Catholic church has written to every state-funded Catholic secondary school in England and Wales asking them to encourage pupils to sign a petition against gay marriage.

How is that not 'sanctified' hate speech?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 06:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Probably doesn't fit any definition of hate speech that I know, but it surely is -illegitimate--indoctrination in a political question.

"Encouraging pupils to sign a petition" with a demand that concerns the religious group would be legitimate in my eyes. Demanding that a religious holiday is a public holiday, for instance. Demanding that people who aren't members of that church restrict their sex life to what the church demands is not a legitimate demand.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it' a fair question (4.00 / 4)

Demanding that people who aren't members of that church restrict their sex life to what the church demands is not a legitimate demand.

But it's a completely standard position for religionists to take.

And I'd assume the hate speech would happen around the demand - by legitimising playground bullying and the use of 'gay' as an insult, the indoctrination of shame among pupils who happen to be gay, and so on.

Very much more damaging than your pig in a synagogue example certainly, because the attack is on intimate personhood, not just a fleeting challenge to an arbitrary religious symbol.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But it's a completely standard position for religionists to take.

Don't know which "religionists" you hang out with, but from my point of view as a, er, you know what I mean, that's bullshit.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

let's see (4.00 / 3)

Avec le mariage gay, le cardinal Barbarin craint polygamie et inceste
Le cardinal Philippe Barbarin, archevêque de Lyon, a mis en garde vendredi, après une rencontre avec le ministre de l'Intérieur Manuel Valls, contre le mariage homosexuel, qui ouvrirait selon lui la voie à la polygamie et à l'inceste.
«C'est une rupture de société», a expliqué le cardinal, en première ligne de la lutte de l'Eglise catholique contre le mariage homosexuel, dans une interview diffusée vendredi soir sur la radio RCF et la chaîne TLM.
«Après, ça a des quantités de conséquences qui sont innombrables. Après, ils vont vouloir faire des couples à trois ou à quatre. Après, un jour peut-être, l'interdiction de l'inceste tombera», a-t-il ajouté, lors de cet entretien.

The top cardinal in France warns the government against gay mariage, because it's a societal breach, and would open the door to polygamy and incest.

This is just yesterday. I'm quite sure you can find the same in any number of languages and countries in the not distant past - very public interventions in policy debate, spouting reactionary and hateful ideas which stigmatize very publicly and very directly a minority group in the population.

Are you telling me that the boss of the catholic church in France does not represent catholicism (especially as what he says is pretty much in line with what all other cardinals say and with what can be understood of catholic church doctrine on this)?

This is not hate speech? This is not dehumanizing? And yet cardinals and countless minions are given bully pulpits everyday to spew that hate on a daily basis with no consequences.

A pig in a church is unpleasant. A (very) public discourse that says that gay mariage leads to incest is pretty much a call for murder or violence against gays. Can't you see the difference?

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 03:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The top cardinal in France warns the government against gay mariage, because it's a societal breach, and would open the door to polygamy and incest.

He forgot Rick Santorum's "before you know it, it's man-on-dog". And where's the necrophilia?

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 04:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So you cite a reactionary cardinal who issues statements that fit into your and my definition of hate speech. The nexus was TBG's statement about the standard position of "religionists". Apparently both you and he seem to think that if a cardinal and I disagree about gay marriage, it's the cardinal who represents Christianity, not me. I am sure he agrees with you there. (By the way, the Catholic postion there is usually argued with marriage being connected with propagation. The incest thing is more an indication of what this particular cardinal is thinking of.) The only time I have personally been in contact with political Catholicism was when I visited Solentiname. Impressive. Powerful. You will probably tell me that it doesn't exist, because political Catholicism is automatically reactionary. The disgusting cardinal would agree with you again.

But what has this to do with the question whether persons who adhere to certain religions must be protected from exclusion, discrimination, violence?

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:23:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So you cite a reactionary cardinal

No, he cites the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

You know, the political line that they will threaten you with revoking your membership over not toeing.

Apparently both you and he seem to think that if a cardinal and I disagree about gay marriage, it's the cardinal who represents Christianity, not me.

Um, duh. He's a high-ranking official in the Roman Catholic Church, Inc. He represents Christianity (or at least the Catholic variant, which is a comfortable majority of Christianity - even if we only count the reactionaries who agree with him they still form a comfortable plurality) more than you do. For the same reason a member of the Bundestag for Linke represents Linke more than you do.

The only time I have personally been in contact with political Catholicism was when I visited Solentiname.

Good for you.

That's a minority view within RCC Inc., and one that has been losing the internal factional battles since before I was born.

You have a curious definition of "standard" if the marginalized dissenters rather than the corporate headquarters are the ones who get to define "standard practice."

But what has this to do with the question whether persons who adhere to certain religions must be protected from exclusion, discrimination, violence?

Nothing. We agree on that.

What we disagree on is whether they must be allowed to use legal thuggery to quash somebody for offending them.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 06:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let's see (4.00 / 3)

Apparently both you and he seem to think that if a cardinal and I disagree about gay marriage, it's the cardinal who represents Christianity, not me.

Yes, I certainly think that, and, as noted above, this is the official position of the church (that cardinal is 'normal', and not especially 'reactionary' for a cardinal )

This is a cardinal who can instruct bishops and other church officers to spew the same hateful line at every mass and church event, and who has easy access to national mass media, and thus a loud public voice.

I don't mind people finding gay mariage distateful and being against it (and even being political activists against it) - I disagree with them, and find their view bigoted, but I don't deny them the right to their opinion, and to fight for it within the general bounds of law. Arguments that gay mariage lead to incest are borderline, but probably within the realm of discourse if made by private citizens. If made by the official representative of a hugely influential group given special rights under law, it's something else altogether.

Churches as institutions yield huge power, but expect to be allowed to abuse that power freely, and conversely, say they are threatened when people say bad things about them. The double standards are breathtaking.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 06:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and find their view bigoted,

I don't think that's fair: they consider all sex disgusting and evil, basically.

Sex within marriage for heterosexual couples is only really allowed on the basis that it's a necessary evil. Can't produce hordes of new Catholics without it and producing new Catholics is the only thing that sanctifies it.

So they're not bigoted, they hate everyone.

We're talking about a group of men and women who are either celibate or pretending to be celibate. Their views on sex are, on average, and unavoidably so, fucked up.

[Yes, I know there's a whole pile of theological justifications for all this. They're post facto. At heart, the Catholic Church is fucked up about sex. Yes, there are individual clerics who are perfectly sane about it. Hasn't helped the institution in the slightest.]

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 07:19:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, no. The cardinal may represent Catholic hierarchy (in saying gay marriage was connected with incest he is embellishing the official position though), but not Christianity. You cite this in a debate of the protection of religious identity. I think you are falling into a trap if you reduce Christianity to the current political trouble of hierarchies to adjust with modern views on sex, partnership, family.

I agree that churches as institutions have too much political power. Stripping them of this power mustn't lead to denying the collective identity of religious groups. What you are arguing here leads to a solidarisation with the cardinal. That can't be what you want.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 07:50:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, no. The cardinal may represent Catholic hierarchy (in saying gay marriage was connected with incest he is embellishing the official position though), but not Christianity.

Only a comfortable majority of its adherents.

You cite this in a debate of the protection of religious identity. I think you are falling into a trap if you reduce Christianity to the current political trouble of hierarchies to adjust with modern views on sex, partnership, family.

That's the only part of Christianity which is relevant to the people who are not members of the club. What goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors isn't really anybody else's business.

I agree that churches as institutions have too much political power. Stripping them of this power mustn't lead to denying the collective identity of religious groups.

It must, however, lead to denying them any legal protection for that collective identity which is not also granted in full and as a matter of course to chess clubs/corporations/pyramid scams/political parties (strike as required).

There is a lot of pious whining about that point, but in the end it's just whining.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 08:04:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Only a comfortable majority of its adherents

Apparently you believe Christians are more likely to reject gay marriage than other people. Care to back that little gem up?

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 12:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gee, I don't know.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 12:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But just to make sure we're not talking about the US, let's try the German version.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:57:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Try here.

See also...

The DARVO part is particularly relevant to religionist arguments.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 01:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So the Yanks' religious attitudes are suddenly relevant for Europe... Interesting. And I thought due to our system of state religions we don't have fundamentalists.

FYI: Fundamentalists of all religions tend to show a high degree of homophobia. Unlike the US we don't have many fundamentalists here though. In Germany people who go to church often (a measure for the extent of religiosity) tend to slightly higher homophobia, BUT there is no study comparing these people according to socioeconomic factors. Regular churchgoers usually live in rural areas and those simply aren't a paradise for progressiveness.

more here

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 03:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I forgot you think the US is full of nutters.

But as it happens, fundamentalism is a very real problem in the UK where we have a long record of fundies influencing government decisions, Blair being the most famous but by no means the only example.

Still, I don't suppose you think the UK is in Europe either.

Nor is Poland, which - entirely coincidentally - is one of the most homophobic and also one of the most fundamentalist Catholic countries in the region.

Some Poles even live in cities(!) - although I'm sure they are a bit backward and rural compared to proper European cities.

And I don't suppose you think Catholics are really Christian, either.

You could just do yourself a favour and stop there. But I don't suppose you will. (Sigh...)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I forgot you think the US is full of nutters.

Tsk. And where did I say that, my dear? As a matter of fact just now I am sharply reminded of nutters elsewhere. Ahem. By your link, I mean. Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about how much influence the nutty organisations have that it describes.

Still, I don't suppose you think the UK is in Europe either.

I didn't say that either (but I know many Brits who do).

Some Poles even live in cities(!) - although I'm sure they are a bit backward and rural compared to proper European cities

Perhaps you are sure of that (it wouldn't astonish me any more), but leave me out of that, will you?

And I don't suppose you think Catholics are really Christian, either.

Another thing I never said. In the contrary: what do you think I saw in Solentiname?

You could just do yourself a favour and stop there. But I don't suppose you will. (Sigh...)

You have mentioned your own traumatic experience. I am very sorry that you had to go through all that shit. I don't think that it gives you the right to distort my position though. Don't pretend that my experience with religion is less real than yours.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 06:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another thing I never said. In the contrary: what do you think I saw in Solentiname?

A marginal, marginalized and consistently losing minority faction, which you are now - dishonestly - holding up as exemplars of the Christian polity.

Don't pretend that my experience with religion is less real than yours.

Judging by Altemeyer's research into authoritarian personalities, it's a lot less common. And in terms of public policy debates, it's a lot less relevant. Because it is, you know, a marginalized minority position within the relevant religious organizations.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:33:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is marginalised now, but it wasn't then. And it isn't dead. What you don't get: at times when left policies have enough support to gain the power of agency, they include the religious.

But that's scary of course: being strong enough to actually achieve political change. Much safer to prevent that by giving vent to jacobin about "Starting with a confiscation of the property of the Roman Catholic Church". Go on like that. It's much safer to comment politics from the fringe.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, Liberation Theology was crushed as a political force by the current Pope when he was the ideological enforcer of the previous Pope. What the Salvadorean death squads could not achieve by murdering Ellacuria and Romero, Ratzinger did.

But, seriously, we're talking Europe. You're German. Tell us about Hans Küng and his wide and influential following. Don't forget to mention the way the Pope has brought back the Lefebvre people into the fold while defrocking Küng. The way the previous Pope beatified the founder of Opus day, Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, while suppressing Leonardo Boff. Who, by the way,

continues to be a controversial figure in the Catholic Church, primarily for his sharp criticism of the church's hierarchy, which he sees as "fundamentalist"

I'll take his word over yours over whether the Catholic Church is fundamentalist, thank you very much.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 04:07:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, sorry, not defrocked.

Küng is "a Catholic priest in good standing", but the Vatican has rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology. He had to leave the Catholic faculty, but remained at the University of Tübingen as a professor of ecumenical theology, serving as an emeritus professor since 1996. Although Küng is not officially allowed to teach Catholic theology, neither his bishop nor the Holy See have revoked his priestly faculties.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 04:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And while we're on the topic of Opus Dei and Latin America, why don't you look at Marcial Maciel, his personal qualities, and how well his ~~fundamentalist~~sorry, untraconservative movement has fared compared with Liberation Theology?

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 04:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Everything left was marginalised, not only in the churches!

by Katrin on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 04:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

One has to wonder whether Social Democracy and progressive theology both lost power because in the final analysis about 1/3 of the population are authoritarians who can be more reliably mobilised as a block at the service of conservative ideologies both in political economy and in religion.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 04:31:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah yes. What happened in the 1970's? And in the 80's. Well, we can make the pendulum swing back. It won't do that of it's own, though, without a strong movement raising a left agenda. I believe authoritarianism is not that much the point for what happened there, because that can thrive on both wings of the political spectrum. We have--temporarily--lost to the market taliban with their sick views on private property and what an economy is needed for. An ideology that centres around money instead of human needs isn't easily defended from a Christian position.

But apparently keeping jacobinism pure is more important than gaining actual power.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 05:40:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

An ideology that centres around money instead of human needs isn't easily defended from a Christian position.

Oh, but it is. Just look at the following US fundamentalist churches:

Prosperity theology teaches that Christians are entitled to well-being and, because physical and spiritual realities are seen as one inseparable reality, this is interpreted as physical health and economic prosperity. Teachers of the doctrine focus on personal empowerment, promoting a positive view of the spirit and body. They maintain that Christians have been given power over creation because they are made in the image of God and teach that positive confession allows Christians to exercise dominion over their souls and material objects around them. Leaders of the movement view the atonement as providing for the alleviation of sickness, poverty, and spiritual corruption; poverty and illness are cast as curses which can be broken by faith. There are, however, some prosperity churches which seek a more moderate or reformed paradigm of prosperity. Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of a Methodist mega-church, supports a theology of abundant life, teaching prosperity for the whole human being, which he sees as a path to combating poverty.
Wealth is interpreted in prosperity theology as a blessing from God, obtained through a spiritual law of positive confession and visualization. This process is often taught in almost mechanical terms; Kenneth Copeland, an American author and televangelist, argues that prosperity is governed by laws, while other teachers portray the process formulaically. Journalists David van Biema and Jeff Chu of Time have described Word of Faith pastor Creflo Dollar's teachings about prosperity as an inviolable contract between God and humanity.
The prosperity theology teaching of positive confession stems from its proponents' view of scripture. The Bible is seen as a faith contract between God and believers; God is understood to be faithful and just, so believers must fulfill their end of the contract to receive God's promises. This leads to a belief in positive confession, the doctrine that believers may claim whatever they desire from God, simply by speaking it. Prosperity theology teaches that the Bible has promised prosperity for believers, so positive confession means that believers are speaking in faith what God has already spoken about them. Positive confession is practiced to bring about what is already believed in; faith itself is a confession, and speaking it brings it into reality.

And don't tell me this is just a modern, American perversion. How about John Calvin' idea of predestination and how people have argued that material wealth was a sign of God's grace?

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 05:51:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No. I'm telling you that it has been contested ever since Constantine's heretic act.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 06:07:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But that's not the point. The point is that theology is a collection of ex-post-facto justifications for whatever, and therefore is not a sound basis for policymaking.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 06:16:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Though I am willing to accept that there's a substantial demographic that's most receptive to information that's couched in magical thinking. If you want to take on the onerous job of communicating sensible policies to them in the sympathetic-magical language they can understand, you have my admiration and my condolences. I just can't speak that language with a straight face.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 06:19:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, that is getting more and more irreal. I am not an political scientist, but surely the existence of an christian, jewish left etc. can't be denied.

by IM on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 07:45:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but I'm not going to address them in respectively christian or jewish language but 'left' language whatever that is.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 07:56:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Any ideology can justify itself in Christian terms.

Child rape, murder of out groups, progressive charity, capitalist greed, homophobia, tolerance - you name it, some Christian somewhere will use Christian language to justify it and promote it to others.

Politically, that's the whole fucking point of this debate.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 06:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But apparently keeping jacobinism pure is more important than gaining actual power.

Get back to me when you have a demographic, organization or funding source which we can co-opt by not pointing and laughing at religious nuts. And which is large enough, well organized enough and well funded enough to replace the people we will lose by having "pander to the 'thin-skinned superstitious people' demographic" as a requirement for being in our coalition.

Then, and only then, do you get to insist that we take your reactionary atavism seriously.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 07:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LGBT groups have been actually winning, as have ethnic minorities' advocacy groups.

That they have been able to do so despite being marginalized means that if I need to decide whether to coalition with people who view the Catholic Church as an enemy to be fought or people who view the Catholic Church as a theater to be fought over, then it's not a difficult choice. Only one of those groups actually brings political power to the coalition.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 04:54:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LGBT groups have been actually winning, as have ethnic minorities' advocacy groups.

Facepalm, Jake. These aren't left issues. They are on the left's AND on liberalism's agenda.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 05:42:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whereas religion is a left issue?

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 05:53:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL

by Katrin on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 06:09:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's have this talk again... (none / 1)

... when your guys can put at least as many feet in the street against austerity than queers against the cuts. If you want me to not speak out against an atavistic holdover from the dark ages, you need to have something better than "it hurts my feelings" to offer in return.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 06:56:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's have this talk again... (4.00 / 4)

"queers against the cuts."

An anti-circumcision group, I assume?

by IM on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 07:43:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's have this talk again... (4.00 / 3)

I was about to say "close, but no cigar."

But I'm fresh out of cash to put in the pun jar.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 08:49:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

s have ethnic minorities' advocacy groups.

Often organized around religion. Or using religion as an identity.

by IM on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 07:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And some of those religious groups I'm willing to pander to.

Because they're actually, y'know, not a net liability.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 08:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is marginalised now, but it wasn't then.

Pull the other one. It has bells on it.

And it isn't dead. What you don't get: at times when left policies have enough support to gain the power of agency, they include the religious.

No, what you don't get is that in order to be part of a coalition, you need to be able to offer something which is commensurate with the demands you make of the coalition. And the progressive Catholics don't have anything at all to offer. They barely have any warm bodies, they have no organization to put those into the streets or at the ballot boxes, they have no money, they have no voice in the papal hierarchy. If they want to be a part of a coalition, they need to stop making ridiculous demands like criminalizing ridicule of (their own) ridiculous taboos.

The LGBT crowd can put Pride parades in the streets. So until and unless the progressive Catholics can match or exceed that, or are willing to join the LGBT crowd in actively working against the Catholic Church... eh, I know whose coalition I'd rather be in.

Much safer to prevent that by giving vent to jacobin about "Starting with a confiscation of the property of the Roman Catholic Church".

Right, because protecting and encouraging rape (of children, no less) is not a valid reason to seize the assets of and impose an embargo on a joke state like the Vatican?

Oh, right, we mustn't offend the sentiments of this vanishingly small, totally disorganized group of alleged progressives, who put their parochial identity politics above common decency. Because... eh, I'm drawing a blank here.

Show me a voting demographic, an organization or a war chest that will be actually useful in seizing power and using it for progressive ends. Then I'll be willing to pander to their identity politics and avoid mentioning the fact that the Catholic Church is a bigoted, reactionary organization which needs to die in a fire. At least where they are likely to hear it.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 04:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're really grasping at straws. Your "fundamentalists are homophobic but European Christians are not fundamentalist" is just no true Scotsman.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is absurd, Mig. You can't really claim that there is a significant number of fundamentalists in Europe, as it is in the US. It is simply not true. Fundamentalism is exotic here, but not there.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 06:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let's see (4.00 / 3)

My claim is that you don't have to be a fundamentalist to be a bigot, especially if you're religious.

I'll echo TBG: are you claiming that conservative catholics in Spain are not homophobic just because they're not fundamentalists by whomever's definition?

The fact is there's a correlation between homophobia, and religion. Correlation is not causation, the common causative agent appears to be authoritarian personality. And religion can be replaced with any other authoritarian ideology (Communist regimes in the 20th century tended to be homophobic too, because they were authoritarian, even if they had "state atheism" in place of religion).

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 06:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll echo TBG: are you claiming that conservative catholics in Spain are not homophobic just because they're not fundamentalists by whomever's definition?

The usual definition of fundamentalism is taking scripture literally. It needs exceptionally bad schools to maintain fundamentalism. These people become active against gay marriage, but the average conservative in the 21st century can't be bothered to care. They have other demands. This doesn't change their underlying attitude though.

I doubt that conservative Catholics in Spain are more homophobic than non-Catholic conservatives (if any exist there). Or, from another angle: are conservative Catholics conservative because they are Catholic, or Catholic because they are conservative? And can you accept Catholics who aren't conservatives?

Do you by any chance prefer to be a very small political minority of the rightous?

by Katrin on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:41:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the average conservative in the 21st century can't be bothered to care

Okay, so the average conservative in Spain can't be bothered to care about things like gay marriage, according to you. That's why we didn't have a huge demonstration against the legalization of gay marriage in 2005, to which all kinds of religious conservatives went by almost apologizing to anyone who cared to listen that they were not the type to go to demonstrations, you know, they were upstanding citizens. Seriously.

Now will you claim that Spanish catholics are:

not in the 21st century?
actually fundamentalist?

As to I doubt that conservative Catholics in Spain are more homophobic than non-Catholic conservatives (if any exist there), how do we determine this? First of all, if all conservatives are catholics, then spanish conservatism is a branch of spanish catholicism and so their homophobia is a religious feature. And second of all, it's the fucking catholic church that organised the massive demonstration I mentioned above. With 20 bishops marching at the head of it. Really.

Oh, and I'm a very small political community of one.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:50:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I doubt that conservative Catholics in Spain are more homophobic than non-Catholic conservatives (if any exist there). Or, from another angle: are conservative Catholics conservative because they are Catholic, or Catholic because they are conservative?

Yes.

The Catholic Church is a deeply reactionary institution, and as such perpetrates the perpetuation of reactionary sentiment. Denying the role of the Catholic Church in perpetuating reactionary sentiment would be to deny the power of large, wealthy organization to pursue agendas of greater scope than the sum of their members.

And can you accept Catholics who aren't conservatives?

I can coalition with them. If they have something to offer which is proportional to the demands they place on the coalition they are a part of.

And yeah, I can lie to them and fake "respecting their religion," if they bring something to the table which is of commensurate value to honesty and forthrightness.

But if they demand that our coalition must pursue the infliction of their parochial taboos on civilized society, then they need to offer something really fucking good to compensate. And progressive Catholics just don't have that sort of war chest or political organization.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:51:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

are conservative Catholics conservative because they are Catholic, or Catholic because they are conservative?
Yes.
The Catholic Church is a deeply reactionary institution, and as such perpetrates the perpetuation of reactionary sentiment. Denying the role of the Catholic Church in perpetuating reactionary sentiment would be to deny the power of large, wealthy organization to pursue agendas of greater scope than the sum of their members.

And it would be denying the marriage of Fascism and Catholicism for 40 years under Franco as the single party and state religion, and the impact that necessarily has on politics 40 years later.

Where Katrin's homeland gave the world Nationalsocialism, Spain gave it National Catholicism (of course, that wiki article is disputed).

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The usual definition of fundamentalism is taking scripture literally.

You're being a Protestant again.

The definition of Protestantism includes the permission, why, the exhortation, to read Scripture for yourself, in contrast with Catholicism which emphasizes that the Church interpretation of the Scripture is authoritative and thus does not encourage the faithful actually reading the scripture.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 04:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Religious extremism takes a different form here than there.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:59:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope (4.00 / 2)

I cited this on a discussion about hate speech. I just took a very recent example of hate speech by a senior representative of the biggest church in Europe and in the world.

Remember, my point is that under your definition of hate speech, everything this cardinal says is hate speech and he should be punished. Given his influence and the impact of his words as official catholic discourse (and such discourse has repeatedly led to violence by catholic hordes against, for instance, artists they don't like), he should be severely punished.

Yet, somehow, he is not.

So cry me a river about being offended. The churches are the biggest offenders of other people, by intruding actively, repeatedly and shamelessly in other people's private lives, treating non-members like inferior citizens and promoting division and, yes, hate.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 08:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

Apparently we largely agree. I wonder why you think I was opposed to punishing the cardinal severely. And it can be done. My problem is with attitudes that treat religion as inferior, and that deny religions their self-definitions and respect of their taboos. In this respect Europe has more to learn from India than from the US.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 12:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

My problem is with attitudes that treat religion as inferior, and that deny religions their self-definitions and respect of their taboos.

And my problem is with attitudes that treat religion as superior, and that demand that religions must be respected and be allowed to impose their taboos on secular society.

In this respect Europe has more to learn from India than from the US.

Considering the number of gurus and voodoo whackos on Indian television, I'd prefer to not take lessons on the treatment of relgion in public life from either of those places.

France has a problem with lax prosecution of hate speech from Catholics. But other than that, the French model has an excellent record and should be copied elsewhere.

Starting with a confiscation of the property of the Roman Catholic Church, unless it opens its archives to public prosecutors and extradites kiddie-raping clergy.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 16th, 2012 at 03:41:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I fail to see how saying mocking or distateful comments about the established teachings of the main religions causes any "exclusion, discrimination, and violence" - any more than saying saying mocking or distateful comments about people who believe in astrology

I am trying to conceive of remarks about people who believe in astrology that are dehumanising, that deny their being humans with the same value (if that's the word) as the rest of us. I can't. Probably because astrology doesn't come so close to the core of personality. Opinions don't either. Both are more about persons' behaviour, but religion, colour of the skin, gender, sexual orientation, and the like are about how persons define themselves, and if this self-definition is attacked, it is extremely hurtful, exclusionary, and discriminating. By the very nature of it being a self-definition, we can't simply use the definitions of a majority, we must bear the definitions of the minority in mind. In a previous thread I have cited the case of a pig being driven into a synagogue. I have no prejudice against pigs, actually they can be really cute. This pig in the synagogue is offensive because of the definitions of the believers, the religious group that is being attacked, not because of "objective" criteria that you demand.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it' a fair question (4.00 / 4)

Actually astrologers tend to have a New Age belief system, which is a religion in everything but name.

So when someone like James Randi calls astrologers thieves, charlatans and fraudsters - while ignoring the horrors thrown at the public and at science from other directions - it's certainly not a welcome contribution to their beliefs.

Now - you may think he has a point. But if he does, it's the same point that non-religionists have about religious beliefs in general.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:35:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is James Randi and which horrors are thrown at the public? Are they making laws on the dress code of new agers in Britain as they are making laws to harass Muslims everywhere, or what are you talking about?

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can you give exemples (none / 0)

of remarks that are "dehumanizing" when made about religious beliefs but not when made about beliefs in astrology?

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 03:46:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you give exemples (none / 0)

What about the message of the Youtube video that Muslims are revering a prophet who was a murderer, child abuser, sex maniac, and who was defined by that? What does that say about Muslims? Isn't this dehumanising?

I can't imagine a parallel for believers in astrology. Can you?

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:31:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you give exemples (none / 1)

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 07:05:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you give exemples (4.00 / 2)

Is that what the video says? (I haven't watched it.) Because, if so, that's pretty weak.

Hell, Catholics deal with that kind of shit every day after the sex abuse scandal.

Atheists deal with religionists' bigotry -- Christian, Muslim, Jewish, all of them -- every day. It's accepted by society, and constantly reaffirmed on television, in the press, and elsewhere, that atheists are morally and emotionally inferior.

That doesn't mean I, an atheist, think religionists should be thrown in jail. They're assholes, and I respond to them accordingly.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 08:40:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you give exemples (4.00 / 2)

When was the last time a horde of atheists stormed Westminster Abbey and murdered the Archbishop of Canterbury because a Christian posted an insulting movie about Carl Sagan on YouTube?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 09:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you give exemples (none / 0)

Well, you guys are home to "aggressive atheism" according to the Pope.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 11:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you give exemples (4.00 / 2)

Is that what the video says? (I haven't watched it.) Because, if so, that's pretty weak.

In the context of generalized anti-brown-people sentiments being stirred up on a routine basis, it does IMO qualify as harassment. And harassment, unlike "offending my feelings," is a not-bogus charge.

It is also a charge that can be laid with even greater force at the feet of most of the indignant bigots who whine about the relative loss of unearned and undeserved privilege that religion suffers in a democratic society. But the hypocrisy of those who lay the charge is not in and of itself sufficient to make the charge a bogus one.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 09:48:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh bleh (none / 0)

Such speech (religious discourse that is comparative) would not be impossible to regulate if such religions have a charitable standing defined by law. An organized religion could be censored by the threat of withdrawal of tax status.

It still doesn't solve the problem of un/disorganized nutters such as the Coptic Crazies, who have been condemned by the Coptic church. The CCs represent no-one but their own dangerous nutty selves.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 04:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Er - the difference is that Drew doesn't riot and kill people when someone says something that really pisses him off.

Well, it is football season.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We are thinking a bit slowly today, I see. My dear, this fuss is about a video on youtube. Last time I checked Youtube was a private company. Like Facebook. In one case you find it perfectly okay if they use censorship because it is, gasp, about a part of the female body, in the other case you take to defending your number-soandso-amendment religion.

Why you think this helps your argument, I don't know, because it makes my point. Slow, indeed.

As for your "verbal violence" bit, theugliness of this movie is not in any way on par with murder, and if you think it is, you're as much a fucking nutbag as the meth-head filmmaker and the Hallelujahs on the streets of Benghazi.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 06:50:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As for your "verbal violence" bit, theugliness of this movie is not in any way on par with murder

No, but with hate speech. That's why I said verbal violence. No "it's just words, nothing serious", please.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 06:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 2)

You understand these people murdered an ambassador and three others over some utterly unrelated asshole on YouTube, right?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 08:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You understand these people murdered an ambassador and three others over some utterly unrelated asshole on YouTube, right?

A hint: two things happening simultaneously aren't necessarily the same.

The ambassador and the three others were murdered by heavily armed militiamen while they were being evacuated. A trap that shows a lot of planning (and how much Lybian security is infiltrated by the militias). Like the victims of drone attacks they are now defined as the enemy and their death a victory. This narrative needs fresh videos humiliating Muslims. You are defending supplying one, calling it free speech. Well, Muslims all over the world just now aren't interested to respect your feelings. You can't have it both ways.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 15th, 2012 at 05:44:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And before you fall to misunderstanding me: I don't defend the riots. I point at your inconsistency in defending the nipple censorship while insisting on the "right" to hate speech. Well, you will have to see if you want to pay the price for it. If you find the rioters' behaviour irrational (to which I agree), they find yours irrational (and I agree again).

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 01:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Again: The only difference is that YouTube is fine with the movie being on their servers while Facebook was not initially fine with the cartoon.

They're private. They can allow what they want on their websites. Understand? It really isn't that complicated.

The government isn't banning the New Yorker or preventing it from publishing the cartoon, just as it isn't banning this meth-head and his shitty movie. It's not censorship.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 06:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh yeah, I understand. They're private. What they decide is right. That's the market. They are companies, so that's okay. They're really private. Heck, if you've spent money on a company and must still justify what you do, what's that, communism?

Now, if elected representatives did it, that would be really bad. That would be censorship. What do they think they are, just because the plebs have cast a ballot?

Was it that you wanted to say? If not, why did you say it?

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 06:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you capable of making an argument without resorting to straw men? Christ, they ought to appoint you to the Bundesbank.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 06:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you want to say something else by stressing that they are private? If so, what?

The Bundesbank is not private, so why... oh shoot.

by Katrin on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 4)

If he really doesn't want the job. And why are we even talking about the silly movie? Absent a few decades of not killing people with flying killer robots, disappearing them in torture Gulags, invading their countries and taking the other side in long festering territorial disputes there will be occasional flare ups.

Since I figure he both wants to keep his job and is not insane enough to drop napalm on his embassies' direct neighbourhoods some of the bearded corpses his drone program produces will be earmarked as having been sort of to blame for everything.

Von überall könnte das Volk, Urbrut alles Undemokratischen, Zelle des Terrors, über die gewählten Hüter von Wachstum und Wohlstand® kommen. - flatter

by generic on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 07:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thursday Open Thread (4.00 / 4)

I still think it's the composition of the house and the senate which matter more now. Obama can win by a 1 or 100 electoral votes, but if he doesn't hold working majorities in those places America's just get get stomped by the repugs for another 4 years

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Sep 14th, 2012 at 02:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]