The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
You're defending the criminalization of "hooliganism" - a vague, general habitus, which can be declared ex post facto, as opposed to a concrete set of actions delineated ahead of time. Basically a blank check to prosecute anybody, at any time, for any reason, as long as you can stir up enough manufactured outrage in the "old white ignorant fuckwit" demographic.
Even the fucking Romans - hardly the brightest beacon of enlightened jurisprudence - understood why ex post facto laws were a shitty idea. But what you're defending here isn't even simply an ex post facto law. It's a declaration of open season for retroactively prohibiting any behavior that riles up a large enough number of thin-skinned old grannies.
And you're defending an interpretation of "incitement of religious hatred" which is broad enough to include mockery and bad language. I wonder what you make of Simon Singh and the British Chiroquacktor's Association. Or Dara O'Briain and homeoquacks? Or do chiroquacktors and homeoquacks not count as a religious group? If not, why not? It's not like there's any practical distinction between homeopathy and faith healing.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Shouting "Virgin Mary, become a feminist" in Church is not going to incite anyone to hate Christians, though the subsequent burning at the stake of the shouter might well have that effect.
Maybe an expression of religious hatred. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
Nobody who doesn't have an excessive sentimental attachment to the word "God" can possibly be offended by that.
And people who do have an excessive sentimental attachment to the word "God" need to realize that their excessive sentimentality is not a valid basis for criminalizing speech.
sran gospodnaya is the original phrase. The generally-presented translation is "God's shit", which appears, on its face, to refer to faecal matter excreted by Jehovah.
I understand that the Russian formulation is rather more ambiguous : more accurately, something like "faecal matter emanating from/pertaining to Jehovah".
In which case, and given the context of the phrase in the protest song, which is about Putin and the Patriarch using the Church for political ends, I suggest that the intent is better translated by "Holy bullshit", "Godly crap", "Pseudo-theological nonsense". A purely scatological reading just doesn't make sense in the context (and if anyone wants to proclaim that the whole text is nothing but scatological nonsense, I challenge them to review it line by line with me).
Now, I am happy to admit that the use of profanities may have a much greater impact in the Russian language; and this is probably why this particular phrase has been so gleefully seized upon. But I find its use defensible in the context, and I don't find that it insults God, or religious sensibilities, at all. On the other hand, it is very insulting against the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. It will be perceived as an insult against God and against religion by those who are unable or unwilling to make the distinction between the institution and the thing itself.
The manifest intent of the prosecution to identify this political figure, the Patriarch with God is an indication, to my eyes, that PR's attack is well-founded. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
I think you should think of the ending -aya as -ly in English (which also turns a noun into an adjective).
So Gospodnaya = Godly = God's (in the sense of "of or pertaining to").
But seriously, what does this have to do with anything? If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
It seems obvious to me that there is a world of difference between "God's shit" (which can be construed as an insult to God, and therefore to all believers) and "Godly bullshit", which, in context, is an insult against the Patriarch.
And also... vbo invited a discussion of the phrase. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
So, syntactically it may mean "godly bulshit". Semantically, it recalls "the Lord's shit". [Which is part of the reason why you can accurately translate an adjective by a noun - grammar doesn't follow function, especially across languages]
And sinc neither of us are native Slavic speakers or Orthodox faithful... we might want to defer to their judgement.
Also, considering English routinely "verbs nouns" and "nouns verbs", why are you, an English speaker, so shocked that adjectives can be translated as nouns and conversely, in particular semantic/syntactic contexts? And haven't you heard of apposition? (The use of a noun in an adjective function - as in the use of the noun adjective in an adjective function in the expression an adjective function as opposed to an adjectival function or an adjective's function) If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
Your defence of it needs ridiculous arguments as to the status of the church as public space,
the claim that a person who chooses to be a political figure loses all rights under libel law
All I'm demanding is that religious bigots sue their detractors under the ordinary libel laws, instead of under their own special laws.
Of course, when they do sue under the common libel laws, they almost invariably lose. Which is why they cling so tightly to their special laws.
and now even takes us to homeopathy! What next?
Because I'm not seeing it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as "a lie."
Oh no, it's not a lie. You said offending the pope is political speech. Without any exceptions. And political speech is protected against accusations of libel. Perhaps you no longer like your own words, but you said them.
No, it's not all you are demanding. Additionally you demand that laws that protect religious communities be scrapped. The two are not the same, even if atheist bigots don't get the difference.
What's next is you telling me what difference between insulting homeopathy and insulting the Virgin Mary merits the legal prohibition of the latter, but not the former.
Insulting the Virgin Mary would probably fall under blasphemy laws, which is an entirely different subject (and btw not something I support).
Because I'm not seeing it
There is a lot you are not seeing.
Insulting the Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish Putin, banish Putin, Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish him, we pray thee! ... Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Be a feminist, we pray thee, Be a feminist, we pray thee. ... Join our protest, Holy Virgin. (Chorus) Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish Putin, banish Putin, Virgin Mary, Mother of God, we pray thee, banish him!
Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish him, we pray thee!
...
Virgin Mary, Mother of God.
Be a feminist, we pray thee,
Be a feminist, we pray thee.
Join our protest, Holy Virgin.
(Chorus)
Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish Putin, banish Putin,
Virgin Mary, Mother of God, we pray thee, banish him!
My issue is not blasphemy, it isn't criticism of the patriarch or any other clergyman either. My issue is the insult to the ordinary church members.
The words of their text are offensive
and for the fact that a prayer by people who don't believe in prayer is mockery.
Add to this the noise and the exact place:
you can separate all these components from each other, you must see them in combination.
In other words, you want to criminalize an action which was legal at the time it was made, because some other action was later taken elsewhere, which, viewed in isolation, would have been equally legal.
That's a seriously sketchy precedent you want to set here.
Of course, trade unions aren't used to being cuddled and not having to defend their views from detractors who disagree with the merit of their views, or even the legitimacy of their raison d'etre.
I guess ideology is one of those areas where protectionism really does make you soft and unable to cope with the rest of the world.
The words of the text were never spoken in the church.
And you know for sure what has been spoken in the church? Evidence please.Tape? But even that does not matter because the words are on YouTube making people to THINK that they are spoken in church.
So it should only be legal to pray in church if you believe in prayer? Thoughtcrime, in other words?
And you know for sure what has been spoken in the church? Evidence please.Tape?
But even that does not matter because the words are on YouTube making people to THINK that they are spoken in church.
This would also have been true if they had used stock footage of the church and mixed the clip in a server room in Vladivostok, without ever coming within half a continent of the church in question.
But then, we already did establish that you demand the right to sue people for uploading YouTube videos you don't like.
Well, you can fuck off to Iran or North Korea with that sentiment, because it doesn't belong in Europe.
Actually, I take that back. It doesn't belong in North Korea or Iran either.
You do not have to prey in church if you are tourist non believer visiting it as a historical place. But it is a matter of respect not to go against the rule of the place you are visiting.
Well, newsflash: Respect is earned by acting respectably. And the Russian Orthodox Church hasn't earned any.
And if you hate religion that much why would you even care to enter the church? For the protest?
But I also happen to like choir music, Gothic architecture and medieval history.
What I feel about religion generally (mild bemusement) or the Orthodox Church in particular (that it is a pox upon Russian society and in dire need of the Atatürk treatment) really has nothing to do with it.
Try to insult some Union the way they insulted believers and tell us what happened.
Unless you want to claim that Pussy Riot's insults were garnished with extra special sauce that makes them a doubleplusungood form of thoughtcrime.
What did they shout instead?
And if writhing at the altar is illegal, then I guess glossolalia or religious trances could also be.
Get a fucking grip. What you want to persecute these women for is offending your sense of the sacred by uploading a YouTube video you don't like.
And actually, I find that really fucking objectionable. I even find it insulting of my feelings regarding religion. Does that mean I get to sue you for insulting my religious feelings?
So, is proselytism insulting in general, or only when not practised by people your own ideology? If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
You said offending the pope is political speech. Without any exceptions. And political speech is protected against accusations of libel.
But yes, reminding people that the Pope is, in the end, just another man - in fact, that he's just another pathetic asshole of a man - is political speech, because the Pope claims to be exalted above other men, and that this exalted station has political relevance.
He is perfectly free to take off the stupid hat and debate like a normal person who is given no deference not accorded any other offensive, octogenarian bigot.
No, it's not all you are demanding. Additionally you demand that laws that protect religious communities be scrapped.
I'm a big fan of the whole "equal before the law" thing.
Then argue that political speech should not be protected from accusations of libel. Not that the Pope should have a super-special Pope Loophole in the ordinary law
Nope. I argue that political speech must be protected. I have never argued that the Pope should have a super-special Pope Loophole in the ordinary law, and I am not aware that anyone else does, so what the fuck are you inventing there?
And how do you make a practical distinction between "blasphemy" and "insulting the feelings of religious people?"
Blaspheme away, I don't care. I believe almighty God is well able to cope, and if you are not immediately struck down by a lightning, that's just because she is too bored by you to react.
But invading a church and the altar and screeching obscenities there ought to be punished. You can utter the same words elsewhere for all I care. I object to the behaviour ("performance" you know) in this place.
Just like you're not trespassing if I invite you into my home and then throw you out for smoking in my living room. (And if they had been smoking in the cathedral, that would have been an outrage, because that actually damages the building. Not just believers' mental image of the building.)
You're getting farther and farther into thoughtcrime territory every time you put finger to keyboard.
And no, I will not accept thoughtcrime. Ever. Under any circumstance. No matter how much thoughts "offend the religious feelings" of thin-skinned bigots.
What if someone's thoughts could be read and recorded and played back objectively by a computer? (Sorry, I had to put my popcorn down for this one, because it seems like an interesting problem for the near future)
Or you're not, in which case it's an intrusive invasion of privacy, for which reason it cannot be admissible in a court of law.
their own special laws.
Wrong, there are numerious explicit mentions of "religious feelings" in legal codes. So ordinary legal protections are felt not to suffice when it comes to religion. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
explicit mentions of "religious feelings" in legal codes
Yeah ,same way as they mention rights of minorities, gays , political parties, whatever. But I do not know of specific / special laws that would protect specifically religious feelings. Maybe that's different from state to state...Maybe you can direct me to one of these laws? Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
Get on the train to the 21st century, will you, because you're obviously stuck somewhere in the 18th.
Oh, goodie. You admit that you advocate censorship on no basis other than that it offends religious people.
I do not see it like that. Censorship is one thing , prosecuting people for wrong doing is the other. And doing this in this particular way inside of the church is wrong. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
And again, what actual actions did they do inside the church which should be a crime? (Aside from defacing a building, which we obviously agree on.)
You still haven't told me whether you think heathens praying in church should be a crime, and how you're going to prove that they're heathens without invoking general habitus which is not in itself criminal.
Heresy trials FTW. Welcome back to the 17th century.
So inciting people to burn down a church is not the same as insulting churchgoers, which is not the same as saying Mother of God, Virgin, become a feminist in front of the churchgoers. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
If you want to be technical about it, quotas for women on corporate boards is discrimination.
If you want to be technical about it, requiring employers to have a union contract with a real union is a restriction of their freedom of association (at least that's what the court in Strassburg thinks).
But of course in the real world, the point of hate speech laws is not to censor honest opinion, it is to prevent a politically and socially dominant group from intimidating and legitimizing violence, discrimination or repression against a politically and socially dominated group.
It is, in other words, about redressing an imbalanced power relationship between non-state actors.
Which is totally irrelevant to a Russian punk band offending the Russian Orthodox Church, because the Orthodox Church is the dominant, and punk culture the dominated, group in that power relationship.
This should not be difficult to understand. But apparently it is.
Only that nobody has defended blasphemy laws here...
No matter for you, you can't be bothered to distinguish blasphemy laws, laws to protect the exercise of religion, or libel laws. All you are interested in is your missionary zeal as a secular.
The thing is: When they sue according to the real libel law, they almost invariably lose.
I never complained about laws protecting public gatherings and free association for any purpose, including the exercise of religion. What I complain about is religions demanding extra-special privileges which are not extended to trade unions, tennis players and collectors of horse porn.
Only that nobody has defended blasphemy laws here... vbo is.
vbo is.
??? If you call me mentioning how I feel offended by few porno stars (calling themselves artists ???) naming my religious feelings "God's shit", than yes. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
??? If you call me mentioning how I feel offended by few porno stars (calling themselves artists ???) naming my religious feelings "God's shit", than yes.
I object to your offensive, narcissistic obsession that offending you must be made a criminal act.
Your words (bold mine):
Putting the whole shit on YouTube is another story but not less offensive...to ridicule believes of so many millions of people pointing what they ( those few so called artist, huh, fucking their political position in the museum before) happen to think about " God's shit" is definitely criminal act.
If it is just me it would not be necessary. But we are talking about quite a few millions of people...
And let me tell what I object about your view and your so called "progressive" group of people who are minority in practically all societies. I object your offensive, narcissistic obsession with telling everyone what to think and feel and trying to define for everyone what moral, intelligence etc. is in your narrow view. People are different and in this time in many places free to think and feel what they want (or it seems to be the case to degree). So live with it. As they say "live and let others live". You as atheists are protected enough and just live with a fact that others can have protection too, not necessarily sharing your view.Respect and tolerance...that's what we need. I wouldn't like PR for simple case of bad taste anyway so even if they had good message to share they would be irrelevant in my eyes. Putin made a mistake of making them martyrs.I can't see how they can make any advance for your ideology...unless it is because you like porn... Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
So let's have an auto da fe in a public square, then. Or a lynching. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
And let me tell what I object about your view and your so called "progressive" group of people who are minority in practically all societies. I object your offensive, narcissistic obsession with telling everyone what to think and feel
I'm telling you that mere feelings are not valid arguments for prosecuting people.
People are different and in this time in many places free to think and feel what they want (or it seems to be the case to degree). So live with it.
I object to you wanting to use the courts to force me to agree with you.
As they say "live and let others live".
Seems like the Russian courts did not get that memo.
You as atheists are protected enough
I guess that "separate but equal" is OK in your mind.
and just live with a fact that others can have protection too,
Respect and tolerance...that's what we need.
Respect, as I've said before, is something you earn. And the Russian Orthodox Church hasn't earned any.
I can't see how they can make any advance for your ideology...unless it is because you like porn...
Liking porn has nothing to do with it (not that there is anything wrong with liking porn, though I don't think I'd share Pussy Riot's tastes in that genre).
Any nonviolent action
PR violated Church's property and rules for their goals so how is this not violent. Do they need to kill someone?
Oh I am getting tired and I start to sound to my self as an echo. It is enough for now unless we have something new to say on this...Obviously there is no way for us to come to any conclusion here. Not even that we "agree on disagreeing"... Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
There is nothing wrong in you/or PR hating Russian Orthodox Church.And you can attack it at wish using lawful tactics.
Don't give me vague generalities about intent and insincerity. Concrete, actionable actions only.
Oh, and you never did give a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of whether it should be criminal to upload a YouTube video with a song you don't like set to background footage of a church. Should it?
PR violated Church's property and rules for their goals so how is this not violent.
Do they need to kill someone?
Disrespecting the subsidized property privileges of the church... not so much.
Not even that we "agree on disagreeing"...
I have never complained about religious people suing according to the ordinary libel laws that are open to everyone
Yes, you have. The complaint, possibly charge, but not conviction in the Kissing Pope Photo Affair which you cited excessively and falsely for the power of the Vatican suppressing political speech.
At least that's what the Vatican claimed they were suing over. Again, I don't read Italian, so I don't know whether the Vatican was lying in its press release (admittedly a strong possibility - the Vatican does tend to lie like a rug).
The Vatican statement said the ad was "damaging to not only to dignity of the pope and the Catholic Church but also to the feelings of believers"
So, if you have information what the actual complaint was about (if any), how about sharing it?
I disagree.
Additionally the Vatican claimed that Catholics were offended by a connection of their pope and the notion of sex, especially gay sex. They had to find the hard way that after the child abuse scandal this is no longer true. This will doubtless influence their decisions when to lodge complaints in future.
The Thirty Years War also made the Papacy less trigger-happy with prosecuting heresy. That doesn't make the existence of statutes against heresy not-a-problem.
Either they are not invoked, and can therefore be excised without loss of generality. Or they are invoked, and must therefore be excised to protect the human rights of heretics and blasphemers.
Section 16 Freedom of ideology, religion and wors- hip is guaranteed, to individuals and communi- ties with no other restriction on their expres- sion than may be necessary to maintain public order as protected by law.
Freedom of ideology, religion and wors- hip is guaranteed, to individuals and communi- ties with no other restriction on their expres- sion than may be necessary to maintain public order as protected by law.
No one may be compelled to make sta- tements regarding his or her ideology, religion or beliefs.
The public authorities guarantee the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions.
Section 14 Spaniards are equal before the law and may not in any way be discriminated against on account of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance.
Spaniards are equal before the law and may not in any way be discriminated against on account of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance.
Now, this is fantastic. Article 16 is developed in its own law, but only as it pertains to freedom of religion and worship (not freedom of ideology). Now check this out:
La Libertad Religiosa y de culto garantizado por la Constitución comprende, con la consiguiente inmunidad de coacción, el derecho de toda persona a: Profesar las creencias religiosas que libremente elija o no profesar ninguna; cambiar de confesión o abandonar la que tenía; manifestar libremente sus propias creencias religiosas o la ausencia de las mismas, o abstenerse de declarar sobre ellas. ... Quedan fuera del ámbito de protección de la presente Ley las actividades, finalidades y entidades relacionadas con el estudio y experimentación de los fenómenos psíquicos o parapsicológicos o la difusión de valores humanísticos o espirituales u otros fines análogos ajenos a los religiosos.
Profesar las creencias religiosas que libremente elija o no profesar ninguna; cambiar de confesión o abandonar la que tenía; manifestar libremente sus propias creencias religiosas o la ausencia de las mismas, o abstenerse de declarar sobre ellas.
Quedan fuera del ámbito de protección de la presente Ley las actividades, finalidades y entidades relacionadas con el estudio y experimentación de los fenómenos psíquicos o parapsicológicos o la difusión de valores humanísticos o espirituales u otros fines análogos ajenos a los religiosos.
The Freedom of Religion and worship guaranteed by the Constitution encompasses, with the consequent immunity from coercion, the right of any person to: Profess the religious beliefs they freely choose, or not to profess any; to change confession or abandon that once held; to manifest freely their own beliefs or the lack thereof, or to abstain from declaring on them.
Profess the religious beliefs they freely choose, or not to profess any; to change confession or abandon that once held; to manifest freely their own beliefs or the lack thereof, or to abstain from declaring on them.
Outside the scope of the present law are activities, ends and entities related to the study and experimentation of psychic or parapsichological phenomena or the diffusion of humanistic or spiritual values or other analogous but not religious goal.
Protection of ideological freedom has not been developed in its own law.
Also, did you notice the bit where the law explicitly says that "protection of religious freedom" does not extend to "humanistic or spiritual values which are not religious"?
So, riddle me that. What, specifically, is the part of religion which is not about spiritual values and yet justifies special protection as religion? If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
So, implicitly, "religion" and "worship" are a separate category from "ideology" since protection of ideology doesn't suffice.
What do you mean? Religion IS separate category from ideology and ideology has been mentioned in that same sentence. Nothing wrong there.
There is no equivalent protection of the right to have your child educated free of pseudoscience.
Hah you really know how to twist things. As a parent you can choose where and how to educate your child. What else do you want? You can exempt your child from religious classes if you want so why would you scrap right of those religious that want their kids to attend them? And you are privileged because religious parent CAN'T excuse his child from classes that teach Darwinism.
Religion is, again, not opinion, nor covered under "other personal or social condition or circumstance".
Oh that's what bothers you...you want religion to totally disappear from law... Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
In what you put here I do not see special law or code that protects religion.
Non-religious groups are explicitly, in so many words, denied protections which are extended to religious groups.
Rather I see that you are FREE to be or NOT to be religious...what more you can ask for...
Including the right to appoint teachers in schools.
What do you mean? Religion IS separate category from ideology
Only totally and utterly apolitical religion is in any way distinguishable from a political ideology.
As a parent you can choose where and how to educate your child.
You have the inalienable right to choose religious indoctrination. You don't have the inalienable right to choose no religious indoctrination.
Gee, difference.
What else do you want? You can exempt your child from religious classes if you want so why would you scrap right of those religious that want their kids to attend them?
I just want them to (a) pay for them themselves, and (b) not use school buildings for it.
If you have a hard time seeing why that's reasonable and obvious demands, then you really need to buy a ticket to the 21st century.
And you are privileged because religious parent CAN'T excuse his child from classes that teach Darwinism.
And if you can't tell the difference between classes to teach children science and classes to indoctrinate them into a particular religious sect, then you need to open your fucking eyes and look at an almanac to see what year we're in.
Oh that's what bothers you...you want religion to totally disappear from law...
And since there is no actual religious activity that doesn't fall within one or more of those protections, explicit reference to religion is either superfluous, and should therefore not be made where concision is valued, or it indicates that religious prejudice is set above free assembly, free speech, free association and non-discrimination on grounds of the above. Which is totally, utterly and absolutely unacceptable.
There is general language to protect the right to education. And then the constition drafters feel the need to make an explicit mention of the right to religious indoctrination. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
Maybe but it is already there well established in practice of education.
Same way I can argue that I have not protection for my child to be exposed to Darwinism
Custom is one of the wellsprings of law, though. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
It's also against Swiss law to publish the names and account statements of tax frauds. That's not an argument for not doing it, it's an argument for making sure you get paid well enough that you never have to go back to Switzerland again.
That depends on the frame you're arguing in.
Natural rights? Legal positivism? Others?
But the choice of frame is at the level of conviction. Once you ascertain that (say) you're a legal positivist and the other guy is a natural rights advocate, that's pretty much the end of productive discussion. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
(As a corollary, any authoritarian frame has to rely on special pleading for those cases where the authority - being human, and therefore imperfectly consistent - makes both A and NOT(A) taboo at the same time.)
That seems to give the parents the right to educate their children according to their own convictions.
If "an education in the natural sciences free from, say, flat earthers, evolution deniers, or other pseudoscience". is part of their own moral convictions, I don't see the problem.
And then we're back to trying Galileo in a religious court for the temerity of looking at the world with his own eyes and drawing rational conclusions.
So, from an epistemological point of view, the law protects faith and doesn't protect evidence. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
It certainly is one of my moral convictions.
And once a discussion gets to the point of ascertaining that the discussants have different convictions, maybe it's time to stop it as no more light will come out of the heat. as in this case. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
Let me reformulate the constitution:
Parents have the right to expose their children to evidence based science.
What is gained in this expression that is not already included in "their convictions"?
In principle, I'm not sure what's gained by giving parent the power to indoctrinate children in their own convictions.
Except that your wording would allow parents to fight a state school teacher who peddled prejudices not based on evidence in a science class.
Private schools are, of course, a different matter. If you don't like sectarian teaching don't take your child to a sectarian school. Which is why those kinds of legal protections of parent's rights to a particular kind of education for their children imply the need for state schools where the appropriate teaching is delivered. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
That is another question regarding the balance of the power of the state to educate children and the parents power to educate children.
And this right to determine the religious and moral education according to their convictions only makes sense in context of a state education system.
So you interpret this article as a right of parents to interfere with state education of their children only in the realms of religious and moral education, but not in all other school subjects.
So they couldn't complain about teaching of creationism in biology because this is not a religious or moral subject.
Yes, that is an plausible interpretation.
I interpreted moral convictions probably to generous. Is someone tried to argue that proper science education was part of his moral convictions it probably wouldn't work.
So generic "convictions" are protected, but only in the realm of "religious education".
Anyway, let's quote the full article for context:
Section 27 1. Everyone has the right to education. Freedom of teaching is recognised. 2. Education shall aim at the full development of human personality with due respect for the democratic principles of coexistence and for basic rights and freedoms. The public authorities guarantee the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions. Elementary education is compulsory and free. The public authorities guarantee the right of all to education, through general education programming, with the effective parti- cipation of all sectors concerned and the setting-up of educational centres. 6. The right of individuals and legal entities to set up educational centres is recognised, provided they respect constitutional principles. 7. Teachers, parents and, when appropriate, pupils shall participate in the control and management of all centres supported by the Administration out of public funds, under the terms established by the law. 8. The public authorities shall inspect and standardise the educational system in order to ensure compliance with the laws. 9. The public authorities shall help the educational centres which meet the requirements established by the law. 10. The autonomy of Universities is recog- nised, under the terms established by the law.
That's interesting. Why?
(I actually agree, but you're the lawyer :-) If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
But only in the realm of religious and moral instruction. In other realms, the parents' convictions don't matter, apparently? If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
If I enter for example Commerce association (for the lack of better example) in their own property
Now you're contradicting yourself.
But 2 years in jail to (paraphrasing the judge) reeducate them out of their individualism, stubbornness and penchant for bright, provocative clothing?
For reeducation and reparation, as far as community service goes, and given that they caused no physical damage whatsoever unlike the Femen leader with her chainsaw, there's very little they could be sensibly required to do. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
Are we talking about antisocial behaviour generally, or specifically incitation to religious hatred? Just to know whether we actually agree or not. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
What I challenge is your support for criminalizing their actions.
Condemn all you like. You have freedom of speech. But if you want to prosecute people for posting YouTube videos, you need to make a case that the videos are libel. Not just that they hurt the feelings of an over-privileged, thin-skinned gaggle of intolerant prayer-mumblers.
But if you want to prosecute people for posting YouTube videos,
Again! You are doctoring the facts, because they don't support your view.
the feelings of an over-privileged, thin-skinned gaggle of intolerant prayer-mumblers
More precisely, persons you are biased against, which makes you think they are not entitled to the protection of the law. I see.
More precisely, persons you are biased against, which makes you think they are not entitled to the protection of the law.
What I will not accept is that they are entitled to special consideration, or that offending someone's feelings can be a criminal offense.
over-privileged, thin-skinned gaggle of intolerant prayer-mumblers.
Oh oh oh...how xenophobic is this...and how rude...You really need to learn about tolerance and watch your language. I may sue you, you know, haha. Or worse I can be nasty too...but I am older so I am not going to fall down on that level. Didn't your parents teach you better about respect? Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
People who want to ban swearing in church haven't earned any.
and now even takes us to homeopathy
Hah...this is just great! Hahaha Let us go farther and see who else they see as an enemy of their "progressive" ideology... How about those high rank scientists who are religious? Ah sorry it must be my fantasy... Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
thin-skinned old grannies.
I see that you have "appropriate" names for all others who are not believers in your "progressive" ideology. Great. Now who is a racist, homophobic etc.? Believers are nuts in your eyes etc. You people definitely need to learn about tolerance and ironically enough tolerance is what you are preaching...huh...talking about hypocrisy... Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
Believers are nuts in your eyes
I have nothing against believers per se. Just don't get in my face about it, and don't expect me to observe your silly tribal taboos.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 4 32 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 62 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Oui - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 432 comments
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 2109 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2735 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2562 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments