Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I am defending a condemnation of their behaviour. 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 and now even takes us to homeopathy! What next?
by Katrin on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 10:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your defence of it needs ridiculous arguments as to the status of the church as public space,

Excuse me for objecting to religious bigots demanding a one-way inroad into the public conversation, where they are permitted  to use their churches as platforms for petty parochial partisan political propaganda, but the public is not permitted to challenge that propaganda in the same churches.

the claim that a person who chooses to be a political figure loses all rights under libel law

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as "a lie."

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?

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.

Because I'm not seeing it.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 10:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

All I'm demanding is that religious bigots sue their detractors under the ordinary libel laws, instead of under their own special laws.

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.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Insulting the Virgin Mary
Huh what!?
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!



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 Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:12:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The words of their text are offensive for the obscenities they contain, 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.

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.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:52:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The words of their text are offensive

The words of the text were never spoken in the church.

and for the fact that a prayer by people who don't believe in prayer is mockery.

So it should only be legal to pray in church if you believe in prayer? Thoughtcrime, in other words?

Add to this the noise and the exact place:

The noise was added in post. No noise was made inside the church.

you can separate all these components from each other, you must see them in combination.

Not a single one of the offensive elements you listed ever took place inside the church. (Except, depending on how exactly you define 'prayer,' the miming of the prayer, which at the time it was done could have been offensive only to a telepath.)

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.

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.

Ordinary trade unionists are regularly insulted. You don't see them getting all prissy about it.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 05:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
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?

 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. And if you hate religion that much why would you even care to enter the church? For the protest? Wrong place. Find better one for that purpose.
Try to insult some Union the way they insulted believers and tell us what happened.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 12:24:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And you know for sure what has been spoken in the church? Evidence please.Tape?

I don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove that they did speak the words in church. The YouTube video isn't proof, because they doctored the sound in post.

But even that does not matter because the words are on YouTube making people to THINK that they are spoken in church.

So what?

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.

Again we have religious people demanding the privilege of defining the rules of public spaces. And again we have religious people whining that they don't get no respect.

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?

That's a perfectly valid reason.

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.

I don't need to. I see people do that every day.

Unless you want to claim that Pussy Riot's insults were garnished with extra special sauce that makes them a doubleplusungood form of thoughtcrime.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:34:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Even if the performance was less noisy in the church than the video that they published suggests, all other elements were there: the writhing at the altar is enough.

What did they shout instead?

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 02:50:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They didn't. They mimed.

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?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:25:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Defacing the altar justifies no harsher penalty than community service. Except for the fact it is an altar.

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:27:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well not everyone is a feminist even amongst so called " progressives".
Do I have to be a feminist necessarily to look intelligent in your eyes?
Can't I be offended if someone calls me feminist?
Just asking...Do not get me wrong I am all for women rights but does that necessarily makes me feminist?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 12:14:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that is stuff for the next diary...
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 02:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying you should become a feminist, but would it be insulting to incite you to become a feminist?

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 04:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am against proselytism as such...be it my religion or ideology...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:31:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You said offending the pope is political speech. Without any exceptions. And political speech is protected against accusations of libel.

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.

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.

Laws that protect religious communities without offering equal protection to everyone else, yes.

I'm a big fan of the whole "equal before the law" thing.

Insulting the Virgin Mary would probably fall under blasphemy laws, which is an entirely different subject (and btw not something I support).

And how do you make a practical distinction between "blasphemy" and "insulting the feelings of religious people?"

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:21:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So if they had shopped their performance over stock footage of the same altar, you would have seen no problem whatever with their performance? It is exclusively the fact that they mimed out the performance (with no sound - that was added in post) which is significant to you?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:47:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They had no business entering the altar for any purpose even to prey to God and even dressed like Virgin Mary. How hard is this to understand?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 12:32:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Too hard if you are blinded by antireligious bigotry
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 02:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So they trespassed. And they were ejected by security. And yet they were not prosecuted for trespassing, or sentenced for it.

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 04:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They trespassed by not just that...there is more in this story...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 04:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That they trespassed is the only thing that all observers can agree to without qualification, and the only thing they were not charged with.

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 04:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, they didn't trespass. They were invited in. They behaved in a way that was found unbecoming by the custodians and left when the custodians escorted them out.

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.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I interpret this hooliganism charge as including trespassing.
by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, and writing on the altar.

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:37:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I think hooliganism in russian law encompasses some other charges that in other jurisdictions would be more specified.
by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:00:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, so now you're going to check whether people possess adequate amounts of piety before they approach the altar.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"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)

by njh on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 09:58:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then you'd either be doing it with the consent of the person principally involved, in which case I see no meaningful difference from ordinary speech.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 11:47:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FWIW, suposedly Catholics can sin by "omission, thought, word or deed". So thay have to confess "sins by thought" and be forgiven. So thoughtcrime is entirely consistent with Catholic teachings. I'm not sure about Orthodox or Lutherans.

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 10:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
their own special laws.

Where are they? They have no any special laws. Their rights are as special as other organization and group let alone institution.
If I enter for example Commerce association (for the lack of better example) in their own property with few members sitting there before their session with a huge cross and dressed like Virgin Mary and I approach their " altar" and start preaching how they are criminals and ask for God to punish them I would probably end up in a mental hospital and at best in prison (all tho maybe not for 2 years). If it is group of us we may end up like public enemy or even terrorist...because we are organized...
They have no special laws. It's a law that would have us respect others.
If I/my group  stand in front of Commerce association with a cross and say the same stuff I will end up with fine for disturbing by passers (if I do not have permit to protest). Dare to see the difference?
Or I have to draw it?  

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 12:07:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They have no 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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 04:32:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 04:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Denmark and Ireland have laws against blasphemy. Spain probably has as well. Poland almost certainly does, but I'm not going to dumpster dive in the wretched hive of fundagelical idiocy that is Polish religious law. Clergy has a special right to consultation at the EU level which is not extended to any other private clubs of unelected old men. And of course, in Russia you can apparently get charged with uploading YouTube videos that believers don't like.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:13:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:41:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're defending the right to prosecute on the basis of offending the feelings of believers.

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:44:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
exactly. As opposed to blasphemy.
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:31:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, goodie. You admit that you advocate censorship on no basis other than that it offends religious people.

Get on the train to the 21st century, will you, because you're obviously stuck somewhere in the 18th.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:37:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Prosecuting people for offending other people's sensibilities is censorship. No two ways about it.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Funny. If you disagree with a law you call it censorship. Are laws against racist hate speech censorship too?
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:09:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are laws against incitement to violence and there are laws against offending people. And then there are the laws protecting personality (from personal insult, defamation, etc).

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:13:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want to be technical about it, yes.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only that nobody has defended blasphemy laws here...

vbo is.

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.

I have never complained about religious people suing according to the ordinary libel laws that are open to everyone (well, I have complained about the British libel laws, but that's a problem with the British libel laws in general, not special treatment of religious bigots).

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:53:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only that nobody has defended blasphemy laws here...

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

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
??? 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 don't object to you being offended.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:12:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I object to your offensive, narcissistic obsession that offending you must be made a 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

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it is just me it would not be necessary. But we are talking about quite a few millions of people...

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it is just me it would not be necessary. But we are talking about quite a few millions of people...

Appeal to popularity is not a valid argument.

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 not telling you what to 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 have nothing against you thinking and feeling anything you like.

I object to you wanting to use the courts to force me to agree with you.

As they say "live and let others live".

Quite.

Seems like the Russian courts did not get that memo.

You as atheists are protected enough

But not equally as well as religious people.

I guess that "separate but equal" is OK in your mind.

and just live with a fact that others can have protection too,

I object to a "protection from being insulted," because that means that the most reactionary prude (or the millionth most reactionary prude - same shit) gets to define the limits of legal speech.

Respect and tolerance...that's what we need.

Tolerance I quite agree with. But apparently, in your view "tolerance" does not extend to punk bands uploading YouTube videos?

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...

The Russian Orthodox Church is a reactionary political organization, and as such my enemy. Any nonviolent action which harms the Russian Orthodox Church therefore has my full support.

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).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:06:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing wrong in you/or PR hating Russian Orthodox Church.And you can attack it at wish using lawful tactics.
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

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:05:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the contrary, we're very close to clearly delineating everyone's frames and, given that this is a clash of frames, agree to disagree. The disagreement is not actually about the facts of the Pussy Riot case. It's the frame through which the facts are interpreted. And the difference in frame through which to interpret evidence is invulnerable (almost by definition) to evidence.

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing wrong in you/or PR hating Russian Orthodox Church.And you can attack it at wish using lawful tactics.

I'll ask again, since neither you nor Katrin has ever provided a clear and unambiguous answer to this question: Which of Pussy Riot's precise, concret acts inside the church should be illegal?

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.

Um, because violence requires you to actually, you know, cause bodily harm to somebody.

Do they need to kill someone?

No, slapping somebody would suffice.

Disrespecting the subsidized property privileges of the church... not so much.

Not even that we "agree on disagreeing"...

No, "agree to disagree" is not a possible outcome when one side insists on demanding that the courts repress the other side.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:38:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that complaint was clearly about offending the religious feelings of Catholics, and attacking the dignity of the Pope.

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).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:53:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The BBC article YOU linked to in your pathetic attempt to prove that political speech about the pope was prosecuted does not bear that out:

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?

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't. But the quote you cited proves my point: The Vatican's lawyers clearly think that offending the Pope justifies a frivolous lawsuit.

I disagree.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:21:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You said the law was on the Vatican's side in this point. Which isn't true. So this was a complaint about personality rights: is it legal to show the kissing and twist the meaning a bit?

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.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:41:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, considerations of realpolitik makes the Papacy less trigger-happy with the frivolous lawsuits against people who piss off the Pope.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:48:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I don't know, let's start with the Spanish constitution [PDF]
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.

So, implicitly, "religion" and "worship" are a separate category from "ideology" since protection of ideology doesn't suffice.
No one may be compelled to make sta- tements regarding his or her ideology, religion or beliefs.
Section 27
The public authorities guarantee the
right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions.
There is no equivalent protection of the right to have your child educated free of pseudoscience.
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.

Religion is, again, not opinion, nor covered under "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.

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.

So you're free to be or become non-religious, however
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.


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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:14:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not see any problems here...Religion is mentioned amongst ideology, moral etc. And you are even protected of coercion...What is wrong there? Is it the fact that you are ALSO free to be religious as well as atheist?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:26:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that is mentioned separately and has its own special code of protection.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In what you put here I do not see special law or code that protects religion.
Rather I see that you are FREE to be or NOT to be religious...what more you can ask for...
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

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In what you put here I do not see special law or code that protects religion.

Can you read?

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...

That any and all laws protecting religious sentiments apply equally to collectors of horse porn, or not at all.

Including the right to appoint teachers in schools.

What do you mean? Religion IS separate category from ideology

Not when preachers preach partisan political propaganda from the pulpit.

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.

No. You can't. At least not according to this law.

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 don't.

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.

There are no 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...

I don't see anything about religion which requires any protection not accorded free assembly, free speech, free association and freedom from discrimination on grounds of exercising any of the above.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:05:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Religious indoctrination in education is constitutionally protected. However, there is no constitutional right to an education in the natural sciences free from, say, flat earthers, evolution deniers, or other pseudoscience.

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:34:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are twisting things and hard. Yes you are protected and even privileged as I said above. You have a choice...that's your protection. What you want is to take that choice for those who do not follow your ideology.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I'm not, I'm quoting
The public authorities guarantee the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions.
There is no specific language anywhere to guarantee the right to ensure children receive evidence-based natural science instruction.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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...all tho you are protected for your child to attend compulsory religion classes.
Do not get me wrong I have nothing against science as such and I do not see antagonism between science and God ( as churches and many of them used to preach for centuries). It was wrong. Science can be very wrong too often.We are witnessing how thanks to new developments in science science itself corrects itself.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe but it is already there well established in practice of education.

Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument.

Same way I can argue that I have not protection for my child to be exposed to Darwinism

Appeal to pseudoscience is not a valid argument.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:19:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"It's the law" isn't, in and of itself, a valid argument either.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:07:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"It's the law" isn't, in and of itself, a valid argument either.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"It's the law" can be trivially refuted by reducto ad absurdum: The law is not always consistent, so A and NOT(A) can be illegal at the same time. Meaning it can't be a valid argument in any frame that does not recognize copious use of special pleading as a valid argument.

(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.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 "their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions."

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.

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But then you have to argue that evidence-based natural science is a moral conviction.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:58:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So it isn't your moral conviction that evidence based science should be taught?

It certainly is one of my moral convictions.

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:06:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It may be the conclusion of this whole debate that yes, politics reduces to moral conviction in the final analysis. Even the role of evidence depends on having the conviction that it plays a role.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:27:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't get your position on this.

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"?

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:40:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nothing. Children should have the right to be exposed to evidence-based education.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In principle, I'm not sure what's gained by giving "parent the power to indoctrinate children in their own convictions."

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.

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:05:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the article doesn't say "education on the basis of moral convictions", it says "religious and moral education on the basis of their convictions".

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.
  1. The public authorities guarantee the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions.
  2. Elementary education is compulsory and free.
  3. 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.
[PDF from Spain's Congress]

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 Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:12:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I[f] someone tried to argue that proper science education was part of his moral convictions it probably wouldn't work.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:19:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions."

That seems to give the parents the right to educate their children according to their own convictions.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:43:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If I enter for example Commerce association (for the lack of better example) in their own property

So posting the video on YouTube should not be illegal?

Now you're contradicting yourself.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:47:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So give them a restraining order to not come within x metres of a religious building.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 10:32:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have REPEATEDLY said that I don't support the particulars of this sentence, especially the extent of the penalty. I am saying that these women are guilty of behaviour that must be criminalised. It would be perfectly okay to fine them, give them a suspended sentence or a restraining order or whatever.
by Katrin on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 10:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am saying that these women are guilty of behaviour that must be criminalised.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:00:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"antisocial behaviour" is a much better description than "incitation to religious hatred", so I think we largely agree.
by Katrin on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:12:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah...and there are fines too to be applied.
I am not arguing here that punishment is not draconian. I do not think it will stand and in the end it will go against Putin, judge and church because they already became "martyrs". So it was stupid on Putin/State side but they are yet to learn about this stuff. Milosevic learned after few attempts to even bit opposition leaders in custody. Not to mention that same opposition leader was later in his government...Grr...That made me feel stupid because I was the one protesting against cordon of police for his right not to be bitten as political opponent. We all learn...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 12:41:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... you're absolutely free to "condemn" their actions. I don't give a shit about your "condemnation."

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 10:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right: condemn and criminalise, and damn this language.

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.

by Katrin on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 10:48:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again! You are doctoring the facts, because they don't support your view.

No, that they were prosecuted for posting the YouTube video is the only interpretation that the chronology of events can support.

More precisely, persons you are biased against, which makes you think they are not entitled to the protection of the law.

I have repeatedly said that they are perfectly entitled to equal protection under 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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 12:48:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Respect is earned.

People who want to ban swearing in church haven't earned any.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:17:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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

by vbo on Sat Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series