Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The behaviour doesn't target all Christians - it's just that Christians are very likely to claim that anything touching Christianity targets them personally, IMHO.

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 Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 10:45:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, yes. My point is, the video speaks to me. Directly. Your video is different: it doesn't address me. I know what it is alluding to (probably not all allusions, but enough), but I don't feel it.
by Katrin on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Krahe's Christophagia, if somebody else feels it, then according to you they're entitled to sue over it and would have your support? Or do you have to feel it to support them?

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 Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:06:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I don't have to feel it myself. So in principle, yes, they would be entitled. I don't know about the history of the publication, or with what message it was published and so on, but I think you want to know about the principle, right?
by Katrin on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:21:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Suing people over profaning sacred rites offends my deeply held beliefs. Do I get to sue people for violating my taboo against suing people over profaning sacred rites?

Or is it only some sincerely offended deeply held beliefs that get to be enforced by law?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:34:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Go and found the Sacred Profanity Church and find it out for yourself.
by Katrin on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 01:26:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words, your taboos - and those taboos that are sufficiently similar to them that you can emotionally identify with them - are the only ones that you think should get legal protection.

Thank you for clearing that up.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 07:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nowhere did I say that. Your religious fervour as an atheist does not give you the right to distort my position.
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 02:07:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You didn't say that. You just won't give a clear, simple, straightforward, honest answer to the question of whether sincerely and deeply felt moral outrage at religious people abusing the legal system to shut up their detractors should be put on an equal footing with any other sincerely and deeply felt moral outrage. Including religiously motivated moral outrage.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:15:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure it would be on an equal footing, if you can conceive of equivalent behaviour. What are the taboos that are firmly lodged in your atheist traditions? Have you altars where I can try which animals you abhor most in your places of worship?
by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:25:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not basing my complaint on "atheist traditions." I'm basing my complaint on a sincerely felt outrage that people abuse the power of the state to silence their opponents. This requirement that the outrage must be in response to a violation of a taboo which is deeply embedded in a long historical tradition of thought is a movement of the goal posts.

And irrelevant to the putative public purpose, which is to protect feelings from getting hurt and preventing social division along such fault lines. There are no grounds to suppose that violation of a sincerely held taboo produces greater outrage simply because it was adopted a thousand years ago rather than last Thursday. The outrage may be more restrained if there isn't a thousand year history of irrational social deference to the taboo. But that is a property of society's norms for accepting eccentricity rather than a property of the feeling of outrage.

But as it happens, the idea that it is immoral to write parochial religious taboos into law (let alone issue a blank check for religious groups to retroactively write parochial taboos into law) is deeply embedded in a long historical tradition. Of course, it's not an atheist idea. Atheist ideas in their modern form have no long historical tradition, because it's less than three generations since atheists were routinely lynched. And some parts of the world still haven't gotten that memo. If you want to dig into the intellectual history of such ideas, you need to look at enlightened secularism, which is originally a concept championed by religious minorities (in a time when there were next to no publicly avowed atheists, because publicly avowed atheists were, you know, routinely murdered).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:45:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is no equivalent behaviour, Jake. You are inventing it.

Not even your complaint that legitimate speech was suppressed is true. There are attempts to ban criticism of the Pope or satire on these grounds. They just happen to be without success.

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 03:52:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How dare you tell me that my moral outrage at frivolous lawsuits is less real than your moral outrage at frivolous prayers? The fact that frivolous lawsuits cause actual harm to real people and frivolous prayers do not (the only objective distinction I can imagine between the two) does not in any way diminish my feeling of moral outrage.

Of course, if you define "equivalent" as "desecrating an altar of worship," then no secular moral outrage, no matter how sincere and heartfelt, can ever be "equivalent," since secular ethics do not define any places as places of worship. Such a definition is, of course, another case of blatant special pleading, no different from defining "equivalent" as "violating a taboo on iconography" (by which standard it is the altar, not Pussy Riot's performance, which is the valid cause of moral outrage, by the way).

But you do defile the dignity of the courtroom by letting religious bigots use it to silence detractors.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 04:38:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Stomping your feet. Cute. You have a problem with the coexistence of different sets of beliefs. You want atheism as state religion, and the right to define a small corner where religion can exist, without leaving any agency to the religious.

And you want me to BELIEVE what you cannot prove: the existence of religious bigots successfully silencing detractors.

by Katrin on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:02:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have a problem with the coexistence of different sets of beliefs.

No, that would be you who has that.

I'm the one who wants to not allow people who have a problem with the coexistence of different sets of beliefs to use the court system to eliminate that coexistence.

You want atheism as state religion, and the right to define a small corner where religion can exist, without leaving any agency to the religious.

Nonsense. All I demand is equality before the law. You are the one making expansive demands about religious groups' right to compel everyone in the whole of secular society to observe their particular parochial taboos.

And you want me to BELIEVE what you cannot prove: the existence of religious bigots successfully silencing detractors.

No, I have proved that. You dismissed those cases as not pertaining to the discussion because you did not support the censorship which occurred in those cases.

That is dishonest. If you demand that religious bigots have the right to censor sacrilege, then you cannot declare a genitalia-crucifix being banned to be irrelevant to the discussion. Since, you know, there's no actual objective distinction between uploading a YouTube video of a song you don't like and displaying a cross-shaped picture of genitalia.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2012 at 06:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series