But his point is that blasphemy laws are not civilised...

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

Inasmuch as the law is that which is actually enforced in really existing jurisprudence, you're wrong.

(Of course, this also has a layer of class privilege, because the people who commit political crimes tend to be higher class than the average criminal brought to trial.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

Voina, voina (Moscow group) and pussy riot have so far done their direct actions on their own, as far as we know.

What has the behaviour you describe to do with values and norms in any religion?

These activities and behaviours are routinely defended as being prescribed by religion. Why do you have trouble acknowledging this? Ever heard of a burqa?

Religious communities must be allowed to function in their own system of values and norms.

In the political sphere a base in religion is as valid as any other base of values.

I'm trying to establish whether, in your system of values, it is ever possible to place any limits at all on the autonomy of religious communities. Buggering choirboys has been within the norms of the Catholic community for centuries, for example. And whether it is ever legitimate to restrict the political activities of religious groups. Because if the answer to the second question is no, then this logically leads to religious totalitarianism in the majority of cases (not only in Iran, but in much of the Arab world, deviation from the religious norms of the majority religion are punished, irrespective of the beliefs of the offender).

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

The Moscow Helsinki Group and For Human Rights are supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, the Washington-based democracy assistance group.

As IM notes, you'll have to do better than that.

Some human rights groups (that you don't approve of, apparently) support PR. That is something that PR has no control over, as far as I can see; and if there's a money connection, it isn't mentioned in the article.

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

That's legitimate, but it is not the same, and needs different sorts of direct action.

<crumble>

That's the sound of your assertion of the illegitimacy of PR's action turning into dust.

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

The direct action would have to be different: you are not part of a discourse inside that church. You come from the outside. That's legitimate, but it is not the same, and needs different sorts of direct action.

If the Catholic laity does not like that, it can stop...

This sounds as if you are aware that the action you have in mind does not only attack your target, but lay church members as well, as a kind of hostages or collateral damage. You are attacking the church, not some behaviour you have an issue with.

I don't have any particular objection to Shell selling petroleum distillates. I object to them dumping platforms and starting wars. By your standard for legitimate protest against a transnational corporation or religious group, I should direct my activism exclusively against those parts of the operation I dislike. Because customers who just want to buy gasoline and a hot dog might be inconvenienced or offended.

You're holding activism against a pathological religious organization to a standard that you do not hold attacks against a pathological transnational corporation to. And I'm not buying that distinction.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

You don't hear many atheists claiming the monopoly of morality as you hear religionists claiming that without religion humans would descend into sociopathy.

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

In combination with your view that religious communities lose the right to their buildings then, because these morph into being public buildings if the community or any part of it issues a political statement, mind.

What I said was that high-profile buildings, such as historical cathedrals, become part of the public space when high-profile representatives of the church, such as the pope or patriarch, make political endorsements. Just like churches that widely advertise that they invite bigots to speak become part of the public sphere.

You can't take steps to insinuate yourself into public life and then claim to be an exclusive, private gathering once public life takes you up on that attempt.

A random crackpot on the internet who claims divine endorsement for his crackpottery does not open every parish church to protest, for the same reason that bin Laden does not open every mosque to protests of his actions: They have no claim to speak for the organization. But the patriarch is not some random crackpot typing away in his mom's basement. Any reasonable observer will assume that he speaks for the Orthodox Church unless either he or the Church takes obvious steps to dispel that notion. Because, well, that's what it says on his job description.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

I'd guess we agree with your values here. But we disagree - as you do - with the values of other religionists.

So what are religious values, exactly? Which values and ethics are religious, and which aren't?

Claiming that your values are religious while the other person's aren't is a futile exercise, because they'll just turn around and say the same about you.

All religionists believe their values are correct because they're religious and they somehow personally know what god wants.

But get a room full of them together and fights will break out. (Often literally.)

This makes the whole business a little unlikely.

As for politics - claiming to be speaking for god is a great tool for persuasive rhetoric, but usually questionable as a matter of fact.

No, my point in asking you where you derive your values from was something else: We all have some values and these have a source. The unpleasant portion of secularists does not accept religion as a source of values that lead to political demands.

What most "unpleasant" secularists insist is that if you make your religion out to be a source of political views, then we get to attack it with the same vigor and general unpleasantness that we get to attack Capitalism, Communism, Apartheid, Creationists, perpetual-motion cranks, and any other personal ideology or eccentric idea.

A great number of religious people find this extremely unpleasant, because they are used to having their religious ideas accommodated - even respected - by rote rather than because those ideas hold any discernable intellectual, moral or social merit.

This is not dissimilar to how businessmen who enter parliamentary politics often find themselves surprised and disgusted by news reporters who actually do their jobs: They are used to being fawned over uncritically in the business page fluff pieces where their word is taken as gospel.

Political reporters have many sins. But that's not one of them.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/video-pro-choice-protester-thrown-out-of-ryans

"Paul Ryan's big speech at the Republican National Covention here Wednesday was briefly interrupted by protesters apparently angry at Ryan's stance on abortion rights.

"My body, my choice," the protesters reportedly shouted."