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 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.
Insulting the Virgin Mary would probably fall under blasphemy laws, which is an entirely different subject (and btw not something I support).
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
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.
by Oui - Feb 4 31 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 gmoke - Jan 20
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 431 comments
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 2106 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 Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments