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.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
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.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 1 comment
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 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Feb 310 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 21 comment
by Oui - Feb 235 comments
by Oui - Feb 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2731 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2561 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
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments