Proposed Blasphemy Law

jill_valentine

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So did anyone go to the meeting in Wynn's hotel?
There was a very loud guy saying that we should desecrate a consecrated host every day until the law is repealed. Seems a bit much for me. There was a very good suggestion that a big list of beliefs from a variety of religions should be compiled and have the words "is a load of nonsense" after each of them so that pretty much every religious person will agree with the vast majority of it but get offended by their own one being called nonsense. A scary prospect of the law was mentioned. An Austrian guy published a book that contained cartoons of Jesus as "a binge-drinking friend of Jimi Hendrix and naked surfer high on cannabis" and the Greek authorities issued a European arrest warrant for him, which they were allowed do because blasphemy is a crime in Greece and there is still an old blasphemy law on the Austrian books.

Scary stuff alright.
Yeah, I was there, and that guy was an obnoxious tool with an obnoxious idea. What he was proposing was juvenile and crude, and to do it would require a kind of mean spirited dishonesty that I hope few would support. Stooping to student agitator shock tactics only makes us easier to dismiss, and tbh any criticism we'd incur doing that would be justified.

Whats more, I thought it was pretty bloody rich to watch a proponent of free speech try to win an argument by shouting down anybody who agreed with him.

I was far more impressed by the quiet older lady upfront, who had the class to make her points with a bit of dignity.

Sam Vimes

I agree on both counts. She was impressive and he was obnoxious

lostexpectation

i don't agree with stirring **** but

pz meyers desecrated a host in response to all the hoopla over that guy who tried to leave the chapel with a host to show his friend

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

was this junvenile?

lostexpectation

Dades wrote: »

Vested interests? What is it with the paranoia people have about this... While I agree in principle this bill is bollocks, it represents less of threat to our freedom than the anti-gang laws mooted recently.

The "spirit" of this law is clearly to never invoke it. Okay it's wrong to have blasphemy legislation - but it will never be successfully used. So be all means protest on principle, but don't anyone suggest that our freedom of speech is going to be stomped on.

dades can you explain the purpose of putting the fine at e25,000?
is it not a threat.

Yoda

Dades wrote: »

While I agree in principle this bill is bollocks, it represents less of threat to our freedom than the anti-gang laws mooted recently.

Except that I'm less likely to get done for being a knife-wielding gang member than I am for saying that Santa is a nicer god than Abraham's is.

Yoda

Oops. Did I say that out loud?

Dades

lostexpectation wrote: »

dades can you explain the purpose of putting the fine at e25,000?
is it not a threat.

The (maximum) punishment is meaningless if the law isn't ever used, which, imo, it won't be.

Yoda wrote: »

Except that I'm less likely to get done for being a knife-wielding gang member than I am for saying that Santa is a nicer god than Abraham's is.

I guess it's militant atheist gang members that should really be marching to keep their rights.

Zillah

5uspect wrote: »

Lunch?

Those darned Atheists up to their old tricks again!

jill_valentine

lostexpectation wrote: »

i don't agree with stirring **** but

pz meyers desecrated a host in response to all the hoopla over that guy who tried to leave the chapel with a host to show his friend

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

was this junvenile?

The circumstances were different. Myers was reacting to a specific action by a specific religious group. It would be inappropriate for us to simply ape his actions for a number of reasons, not least being that it would be ineffective: the act itself would not be covered by the anti-defamation bill, since - as I understand it - it only covers publishing blasphemy.

Our friend in Wynn's hotel didn't accept this, and suggested that it would become applicable if he published the results on his blog etc - in which case why not just publish a blasphemous statement in the first place, as had been the idea all along? Save yourself the hassle of physically doing anything. Treat yourself to a lie-in.

His insistence on the idea even then suggested to me that he wanted to do it for the sake of spite at the church as much as anything. It's one thing to provoke outrage for the purposes of protest - quite another to act like an arsehole to a specific group just because the excuse presents itself. Besides which, it seems to me unwise to single out any particular group like that when we're trying to claim the moral high ground.

If we're looking to provoke a test case we should at least have the decency to try offending everybody equally.

drkpower

jill_valentine wrote: »

The circumstances were different. Myers was reacting to a specific action by a specific religious group. It would be inappropriate for us to simply ape his actions for a number of reasons, not least being that it would be ineffective: the act itself would not be covered by the anti-defamation bill, since - as I understand it - it only covers publishing blasphemy.
.

It applies to an "utterance" aswell, Jill.

jill_valentine

drkpower wrote: »

It applies to an "utterance" aswell, Jill.

My bad, but the point stands.

Unless we're to desecrate the communion wafers, and then talk about it really loudly in public a whole lot.

Undergod

It seems to me like that the law was made to be completely un-prosecutable. For whatever reason, this law needed to exist, it was simpler to pass a bill than tohave a referendum to change the constitution, so they decided to make the bill utterly ridonkulous so that no-one could realistically get done under it.

In which case the issue is more anger at a goverment that passes stupid laws to get out of having to do difficult work.

Sam Vimes

Undergod wrote: »

It seems to me like that the law was made to be completely un-prosecutable. For whatever reason, this law needed to exist, it was simpler to pass a bill than tohave a referendum to change the constitution, so they decided to make the bill utterly ridonkulous so that no-one could realistically get done under it.

In which case the issue is more anger at a goverment that passes stupid laws to get out of having to do difficult work.

That position raises a few questions and problems though:

Firstly, if it's meant to be unprosecutable, why not make the fine 1c?

Then there's the problem mentioned above that we're now open to the Greek court's interpretation of blasphemy and if Turkey gets in to the EU, theirs too

Dermot Ahern says it's unprosecutable but he's not the one who is going to be interpreting the law, the courts are

And it will always be in the back of the minds of writers and artists that blasphemy is illegal and they may face a large fine if they do it. Even if you think it'll never be prosecuted, it acts as a deterrent to free speech

lostexpectation

Dades wrote: »

The (maximum) punishment is meaningless if the law isn't ever used, which, imo, it won't be.

so why 25,000 why that figure?( as the max)

lostexpectation

jill_valentine wrote: »

The circumstances were different. Myers was reacting to a specific action by a specific religious group. It would be inappropriate for us to simply ape his actions for a number of reasons, not least being that it would be ineffective: the act itself would not be covered by the anti-defamation bill, since - as I understand it - it only covers publishing blasphemy.

Our friend in Wynn's hotel didn't accept this, and suggested that it would become applicable if he published the results on his blog etc - in which case why not just publish a blasphemous statement in the first place, as had been the idea all along? Save yourself the hassle of physically doing anything. Treat yourself to a lie-in.

His insistence on the idea even then suggested to me that he wanted to do it for the sake of spite at the church as much as anything. It's one thing to provoke outrage for the purposes of protest - quite another to act like an arsehole to a specific group just because the excuse presents itself. Besides which, it seems to me unwise to single out any particular group like that when we're trying to claim the moral high ground.

If we're looking to provoke a test case we should at least have the decency to try offending everybody equally.

nearly everybody here is catholic, theoretically ourselves included, i think entirely appropriate to tackle our virtual state religion specifically.

and it would also sort out who's really going to kick up a stink about how the host is the body of christ rather then most catholics who only see its as a symbol.

we do want the expose their pretends beliefs.

i don't actually see the stronger reason for myers to do what he did, he just got some complaints emails because he spoke about an incident that happened to other people he doesn't know.

im not actually sure where he got the 'cracker' doesn't it have to blessed to in order for you to actually desecrate a sacred object? and maybe leaving that unclear is part of his plan.

would damaging a round piece of bread really be spiteful? and really be enough to cause outrage.

lostexpectation

heres a question, how could catholics challenge this law?

robindch

lostexpectation wrote: »

how could catholics challenge this law?

Challenge, or take a case under?

Either way, a catholic could claim to have been deeply offended by the act of a protestant saying that transubstantiation is a crock, or an evangelical protestant could claim to have been deeply offended by a catholic saying that salvation requires belief in the catholic church.

The prosecution would have to prove intent to cause offense, but I'd imagine that there must be more than a few True Believers out there who'd be only too happy to be fined €25,000 to prove to the world that they're being "persecuted" for their beliefs. Goes down well with the rank-and-pew punters.

On the one hand, this amazingly stupid piece of legislation will encourage certain people to create and deliver offensive material, while on the other hand, it encourages people from an opposing religion to scream "offense!!" in the hope that the first lot will be prosecuted.

It's nuts, I tell ya!

jill_valentine

That's whar I'd suggest.

That's one of the nonsenses of this stupid legislation, the interpretation is so broad that any bloody number of things already out there could arguably qualify. Rather than performing a single clear act of intended blasphemy that probably won't go to prosecution, why not just use the "blasphemy" all around us and create a flood of nuisance complaints?

Every religion necessarily blasphemes against the others, why not use that to our advantage? Complain about Islamic texts on behalf of the Christian community, about the Christian texts on behalf of the Jewish community, and so on. That makes way more sense to me because it would be impossible to weed out which complaints are "genuine" and which aren't. There's a better chance of that creating at least one test prosecution, and even if it doesn't, it would generate a tremendous pain in the ass for the people tasked with enforcing the stupid thing.

ChocolateSauce

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So did anyone go to the meeting in Wynn's hotel?

There was a very loud guy saying that we should desecrate a consecrated host every day until the law is repealed. Seems a bit much for me. There was a very good suggestion that a big list of beliefs from a variety of religions should be compiled and have the words "is a load of nonsense" after each of them so that pretty much every religious person will agree with the vast majority of it but get offended by their own one being called nonsense.

That guy reminded me of my mother:pac:

Although I wouldn't support desecration, he did have an extremely valid point: Civil disobedience isn't about making a joke or being polite, it is about pushing the law until it pushes back and there is a show down. Rosa Parks didn't achieve anything by joking as it was no laughing matter, neither did the gays win any rights by being polite to people who hated them. We should not be polite to any person, institution or belief that will try and control our lives in this manner.

Jill Valentine wrote:

I was far more impressed by the quiet older lady upfront, who had the class to make her points with a bit of dignity.

I was decidedly unimpressed with her. Yes, she was polite and dignified, but what she said - "We do not have the right to offend a person's religious beliefs" - was contrary to the entire spirit of the anti-blasphemy movement, and against the fundamental right of free speech. If she's so against the right to offend, why was she even there? Seems like she should be supporting the law...

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So did anyone go to the meeting in Wynn's hotel?.....

Yep I was there maybe we met? I was with the Midwest Humanists.

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yep I was there maybe we met? I was with the Midwest Humanists.

Nope didn't meet anyone

Galvasean

Would have liked to have gone, but alas it clashed with work.

fitz0

Galvasean wrote: »

Would have liked to have gone, but alas it clashed with work.

As would I have, but it clashed with Bruce Springsteen.

jill_valentine

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Although I wouldn't support desecration, he did have an extremely valid point: Civil disobedience isn't about making a joke or being polite, it is about pushing the law until it pushes back and there is a show down.

This is very true, and you're right, this point was valid.

If he'd stopped there, he would have been a winner. :P

lostexpectation

jill_valentine wrote: »

This is very true, and you're right, this point was valid.

If he'd stopped there, he would have been a winner. :P

what argue a point at debate which you agree with but then do nothing

jill_valentine

No, if he'd said his piece; and then did everybody else the courtesy of letting them say theirs. Instead of insisting on his idea and then acting like a petulant child when anybody suggested anything else. It's been a while since I've watched a grown adult try to shout somebody else down before they've actually said anything.

I just don't think it's the right horse for the course. As has been said a few times, actually desecrating the host wouldn't strictly be covered anyway, so I don't see the immediate value of it.

lostexpectation

jill_valentine wrote: »

No, if he'd said his piece; and then did everybody else the courtesy of letting them say theirs. Instead of insisting on his idea and then acting like a petulant child when anybody suggested anything else. It's been a while since I've watched a grown adult try to shout somebody else down before they've actually said anything.

I just don't think it's the right horse for the course. As has been said a few times, actually desecrating the host wouldn't strictly be covered anyway, so I don't see the immediate value of it.

it would if people were outraged by it wouldn't it.

jill_valentine

You're not getting it.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence

Publishes or Utters.

Desecrating a wafer wouldn't challenge the act at all. It's possibly an option as a publicity stunt, but I still don't think it should be our first resort.

Galvasean

jill_valentine wrote: »

You're not getting it.



Publishes or Utters.

Desecrating a wafer wouldn't challenge the act at all. It's possibly an option as a publicity stunt, but I still don't think it should be our first resort.

What if you were to publish a video of the desecration?

lostexpectation

jill_valentine wrote: »

You're not getting it.



Publishes or Utters.

Desecrating a wafer wouldn't challenge the act at all. It's possibly an option as a publicity stunt, but I still don't think it should be our first resort.

the key to the bill is the intention and the outrage.