Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Religion, Atheism, Moral, Politic, PR and all that mess | 533 comments (533 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 1)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 1)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 1)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

But that is stuff for the next diary...

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 02:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no. (4.00 / 2)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 1)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

Too hard if you are blinded by antireligious bigotry

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 02:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 1)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 1)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

I interpret this hooliganism charge as including trespassing.

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

"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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Oh no. (none / 0)

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 ]

Religion, Atheism, Moral, Politic, PR and all that mess | 533 comments (533 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Muslim Hatred Expressed In US Congress

by Oui - Feb 4
31 comments

Ireland and the 6 Nations Rugby Championship

by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2
8 comments

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
3 comments

A Cordon Sanitaire

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31
3 comments

The importance of being England

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22
3 comments

The cost of doing business

by Cat - Jan 25
62 comments

British Anglicanism, Disinformation and Harry

by Oui - Jan 9
21 comments

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

by gmoke - Jan 20

Recent Diaries

Systems differ and patients die

by Frank Schnittger - Feb 7

Muslim Hatred Expressed In US Congress

by Oui - Feb 4
31 comments

Ukrainians Are NATO Mercenaries

by Oui - Feb 3
11 comments

Ireland and the 6 Nations Rugby Championship

by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2
8 comments

Februari 2023

by Oui - Feb 2
106 comments

CIA's Research in Behavioral Modification

by Oui - Feb 1
6 comments

A Cordon Sanitaire

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31
3 comments

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - February 2023

by gmoke - Jan 29

We Are All From Mars Now

by Oui - Jan 27
35 comments

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
3 comments

The cost of doing business

by Cat - Jan 25
62 comments

The importance of being England

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22
3 comments

US War Powers, Regime Change and Third Option

by Oui - Jan 21
10 comments

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 2

by Oui - Jan 21

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 1

by Oui - Jan 20

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

by gmoke - Jan 20

War In Ukraine A Failed Process by NATO

by Oui - Jan 18
41 comments

No Peace In Sight

by Oui - Jan 15
91 comments

Another Execution

by Oui - Jan 14
5 comments

The Protocol and the Founding Principles of the EU

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13
28 comments

More Diaries...

Occasional Series