Atheist processiion for Holy Week banned in Spain

branie

Here's the link:

http://thinkspain.com/news-spain/19455/authorities-outlaw-atheist-easter-procession

Robert ninja

Only dying cultures need law to protect them.

Galvasean

Those Catholics sure are fond of getting the opposition to sit down and STFU.

henryporter

Amazing how the only ones talking about offending and provoking Catholics are the Catholics

jimmycrackcorm

Were these guys planning any protests outside Mosques for Ramadan also ?

Zillah

speranza Aguirre applauded the decision, saying it was wrong for people to be "free to offend the Catholics"

So...it should be illegal to offend Catholics?

Galvasean

Freedom is wrong!

Paparazzo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Were these guys planning any protests outside Mosques for Ramadan also ?

Percentage of Spains population that's Catholic: 75%
Percentage of Spains population that's Muslim: 2.5%

antiskeptic

branie wrote: »

Here's the link:

http://thinkspain.com/news-spain/19455/authorities-outlaw-atheist-easter-procession

Imagine some or other group decided that they wanted to protest against whatever it is that the St. Patricks Day parade is supposed to represent ... and had their march banned.

Freedom of speech doesn't give every muppet the right to stick his oar in precisely whenever it is he wants to stick it in.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Imagine some or other group decided that they wanted to protest against whatever it is that the St. Patricks Day parade is supposed to represent ... and had their march banned.

Freedom of speech doesn't give every muppet the right to stick his oar in precisely whenever it is he wants to stick it in.

Actually that's exactly what freedom of speech is designed to do.

The atheist groups in this case simply wanted to have a procession through the streets, not a protest march which you seem to have interpreted. This is a constitutional right guaranteed under Section 21.1 of the Spanish constitution. This right does not require authorisation, simply notification of the authorities. The constitution only allows a procession to be forbidden if the march is intended to breach the public order and cause danger to public property or lives. There is no evidence of any such intent here.

There is in your example of the St. Patrick's day march a similar protection afforded under Article 40.6 of our constitution. It is encumbent on local governments to schedule the processions appropriately but it is not within their remit to ban them outright.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Imagine some or other group decided that they wanted to protest against whatever it is that the St. Patricks Day parade is supposed to represent ... and had their march banned.

Freedom of speech doesn't give every muppet the right to stick his oar in precisely whenever it is he wants to stick it in.

yes actually it does

Dades

If I'm honest I believe that organisation is wrong for deliberately organising a march on that particular day.

I'm not saying it's right for it to be banned - I just have little sympathy for them, frankly.

Lawrence1895

Dades wrote: »

If I'm honest I believe that organisation is wrong for deliberately organising a march on that particular day.

I'm not saying it's right for it to be banned - I just have little sympathy for them, frankly.

Planning such a protest on a day like that is a form of provocation and is counter productive. I would not tolerate it either.

But on any other day? Why not. Freedom of speech should not be undermined, just because a certain religion is dominating a country.

CiaranMT

Dades wrote: »

If I'm honest I believe that organisation is wrong for deliberately organising a march on that particular day.

I'm not saying it's right for it to be banned - I just have little sympathy for them, frankly.

Ditto.

Stercus Accidit

I hope they go ahead with some form of protest regardless, freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest trumps superstitious sensitivities in my book any day of the year.

dvpower

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I hope they go ahead with some form of protest regardless, freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest trumps superstitious sensitivities in my book any day of the year.

Freedom of speech trumps freedom of thought?

oldrnwisr

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I hope they go ahead with some form of protest regardless, freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest trumps superstitious sensitivities in my book any day of the year.

I agree.

The real issue in the story is about whether or not it should have been banned. Are they being a bunch of jerks for deliberately staging this protest on that day? Maybe. Are they legally entitled to do so? Absolutely. I don't really give a crap whether or not they were walking down the street wearing atheist t-shirts or standing on a float with a twenty-foot tall burning bible on it. If it's legal, it's legal. This is essentially the same debate that has been had about Fred Phelps. Yes the guy is a despicable human being for protesting at servicemen's funerals but that's not what's important. What's important is that it's his right under the 1st amendment.

And as for offending Catholics, so what? There are plenty of things that I could list that I have found to be offensive about Catholic actions throughout history.

Stercus Accidit

dvpower wrote: »

Freedom of speech trumps freedom of thought?

What on earth are you talking about?

flyboy69

I don't think this is the way to promote atheism and freethinking as it only antagonizes catholics, including the ones on the sidelines, the very ones that may turn from religion. It has now turned into a them and us situation. Not the way to win hearts IMHO.

dvpower

oldrnwisr wrote: »

And as for offending Catholics, so what? There are plenty of things that I could list that I have found to be offensive about Catholic actions throughout history.

Trading offence isn't a zero sum game.

While banning the demonstration probably isn't the right course of action, holding a demonstration on what is probably the most important week in the Christian calendar seems petty and vindictive.

Reminds me a bit of the Orange Order insisting that they be allowed march down the Garvaghy Road. They knew they weren't wanted. They knew it would cause offence (they wanted to do it because they knew it would cause offence), but they had the right to walk on a public highway, right?

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about?

Your use of the term 'superstitious sensitivities' had me thinking you were referring to their beliefs, rather than their sensitivities about the demonstration, which of course aren't superstitious at all.

Stercus Accidit

dvpower wrote: »

Your use of the term 'superstitious sensitivities' had me thinking you were referring to their beliefs, rather than their sensitivities about the demonstration, which of course aren't superstitious at all.

You meant all that from;

dvpower wrote: »

Freedom of speech trumps freedom of thought?

I get the impression you are trying to deliberately misinterpret what I said and are veiling it with a rhetorical question, would I be correct?

I think I am, because there is no mention of freedom of thought in my first post or in your obscure subsequent explanation.

Maybe you could have another crack at understanding and addressing my post.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I hope they go ahead with some form of protest regardless, freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest trumps superstitious sensitivities in my book any day of the year.

Freedom of speech trumps the right to not be offended, otherwise freedom of speech wouldn't exist, would it?

oldrnwisr

dvpower wrote: »

Trading offence isn't a zero sum game.

I know that but my point is that offending catholics is not a legitimate basis for banning a march and particularly not in view of the actions of the church throughout its history.

dvpower wrote: »

While banning the demonstration probably isn't the right course of action, holding a demonstration on what is probably the most important week in the Christian calendar seems petty and vindictive.

I agree that it may be petty and vindictive but I don't think that that's as important as the legal principle at stake.

dvpower wrote: »

Reminds me a bit of the Orange Order insisting that they be allowed march down the Garvaghy Road. They knew they weren't wanted. They knew it would cause offence (they wanted to do it because they knew it would cause offence), but they had the right to walk on a public highway, right?

Right. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with a group's motivations for marching. Their motivations (assuming they are not intent on being violent) does not have any bearing on their right to march.

dvpower

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I know that but my point is that offending catholics is not a legitimate basis for banning a march and particularly not in view of the actions of the church throughout its history.

Agreed.
I think they should have a right to have their demonstration (but that they shouldn't excercise that right).

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I agree that it may be petty and vindictive but I don't think that that's as important as the legal principle at stake.

The purpose of the demonstration isn't to demonstrate any legal principle - I can't see that it has any purpose more than just to demonstrate pettyness.

oldrnwisr

dvpower wrote: »

The purpose of the demonstration isn't to demonstrate any legal principle - I can't see that it has any purpose more than just to demonstrate pettyness.

I've already said that the purpose of the demonstration is irrelevant. The right to march through the streets, a right being exercised by catholics is also a right guaranteed to everyone under the Spanish constitution. That's the legal principle, excercising your constitutional rights. The atheist groups in this story, however petty or vindictive they may appear to be are entitled to be just as offended by the idea of a catholic procession through the streets as catholics are by theirs and are entitled to make those objections clear using a procession of their own.

dvpower

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I get the impression you are trying to deliberately misinterpret what I said and are veiling it with a rhetorical question, would I be correct?

No

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Maybe you could have another crack at understanding and addressing my post.

I think you may be misinterpreting my last post - I'm sure not deliberately.

dvpower

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The atheist groups in this story, however petty or vindictive they may appear to be are entitled to be just as offended by the idea of a catholic procession through the streets as catholics are by theirs and are entitled to make those objections clear using a procession of their own.

Every man is as entitled as the next to be offended, but they wouldn't necessarily have the same reason to be offended by the catholic procession as the catholics would be to be offended by theirs.
Their demonstration is a direct protest aimed at the catholics whereas the catholic procession is a commeration of the death and resurection of their deity (or somesuch).

Stercus Accidit

dvpower wrote: »

I think you may be misinterpreting my last post - I'm sure not deliberately.

I can see this is going nowhere, my opinion still stands though, and it has nothing to do with "freedom of thought" by any interpretation, nor does it hinge on whether or not the objections to freedom of speech are religiously based, or otherwise as mentioned in your second post aimed at me. Clearly some wires got crossed here.

oldrnwisr

dvpower wrote: »

Every man is as entitled as the next to be offended, but they wouldn't necessarily have the same reason to be offended by the catholic procession as the catholics would be to be offended by theirs.

Agreed.

dvpower wrote: »

Their demonstration is a direct protest aimed at the catholics whereas the catholic procession is a commeration of the death and resurection of their deity (or somesuch).

OK, I don't want to keep going around in circles here because I think we're both pretty much on the same page. Whether or not the demonstration was a direct protest should not have had any bearing on whether it was allowed. Whether or not the groups in question should have organised this march is a different question entirely. My answer is that I don't really care but if I had to come down on one side or the other then I would say no if for no other reason than it makes the rest of us look like assholes.

strobe

dvpower wrote: »

The purpose of the demonstration isn't to demonstrate any legal principle - I can't see that it has any purpose more than just to demonstrate pettyness.

The fact that what happened happened shows that it had more purpose than that surely Dv.

Ye know?

Improbable

Should declare an "atheist week" where nobody can say or do anything provocative about/against atheists. See how well that goes down. Then again, it would probably be seen as yet another attempt by atheists to undermine the beliefs of the religious. Damn, back to the drawing board.

dvpower

strobe wrote: »

The fact that what happened happened shows that it had more purpose than that surely Dv.

Ye know?

I can't say for sure what was in their mind when they planned their demonstration. Maybe they knew it would be banned and wanted to demonstrate some kind of inequality, but I suspect that their motives were more base.

Maybe they should organise a march to protest the banning of their march. I'd support that - they should probably wait till after Easter, just so there's no confusion.

Handsome Bob

Galvasean wrote: »

Freedom is wrong!

...

:pac:

Shenshen

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Were these guys planning any protests outside Mosques for Ramadan also ?

Not a bad idea... Picnics outside mosques for Ramadan. Now all I'd need is a Mosque within some 200 km from where I live.

Shenshen

antiskeptic wrote: »

Imagine some or other group decided that they wanted to protest against whatever it is that the St. Patricks Day parade is supposed to represent ... and had their march banned.

Freedom of speech doesn't give every muppet the right to stick his oar in precisely whenever it is he wants to stick it in.

I can't help wondering what the world would look like now if the followers of Mithras had succesfully outlawed the Christians stealing one of their most important holidays by doing exactly the same as the Mithrasians, but claiming to do it in honour of Jesus...

Galvasean

I see the protestors are being labelled as 'militant atheists' in the media. I suppose that phrase is not meant to be taken as a positive, but when walking down the street is as militant as you get.....

Bullseye1

Atheists sure love having a go at Catholics but not Jews, Muslims, etc. Maybe they don't believe is equal opportunity.

Galvasean

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Atheists sure love having a go at Catholics but not Jews, Muslims, etc. Maybe they don't believe is equal opportunity.

Except the Jews, Muslims etc. of Spain make up a tiny percentage of the population and don't have a national 'holy week' dedicated to their religion.
Do try and read the thread before making a point that's already been discussed. It saves us all time and effort.

The Mad Hatter

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Atheists sure love having a go at Catholics but not Jews, Muslims, etc. Maybe they don't believe is equal opportunity.

You'd swear atheists only ever talked about Catholics. Honestly, where do people get this nonsense from?

gbee

The thing is this, Ramadan does not effect anybody else, having processions and shops closed and street closed and pubs closed, does.

Bullseye1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You'd swear atheists only ever talked about Catholics. Honestly, where do people get this nonsense from?

Mainly on here.

MrPudding

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Mainly on here.

Probably because most of our experience is with catholic / christian type people. We therefore know that side of things better and feel more able to critisise. That said, I Personnaly think that the jewish and muslim religions are just as stupid. In fact, were it not for the institutionalised child raping islam would be my most hated religion. As it stand it is merely second. It is a barbaric, misogynistic, idiotic, old fashioned and stupid religion.

MrP

dvpower

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Atheists sure love having a go at Catholics but not Jews, Muslims, etc. Maybe they don't believe is equal opportunity.

Over at boards.co.id there's a poster giving out that the atheists there are always giving out about the Muslims but never pick on the Catholics

Bullseye1

I'd be interested in reading any thread where the Jewish and Muslim religions have been questioned with equal vigour by the athesists.

Accepting that this is a Christian society and that athesists have had more dealings with that religion, however i do believe that as a result of freedom of speech in western society that Christian beliefs have become an easy target with little or no questioning of Islam or Judasism.

The Mad Hatter

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'd be interested in reading any thread where the Jewish and Muslim religions have been questioned with equal vigour by the athesists.

Accepting that this is a Christian society and that athesists have had more dealings with that religion, however i do believe that as a result of freedom of speech in western society that Christian beliefs have become an easy target with little or no questioning of Islam or Judasism.

All religions are easy targets.

It's certainly not true to say that there is little or no questioning of Islam either here or in the atheist community at large. Judaism I've seen less of, but - again, at least on this site - confrontations with Jewish culture are far rarer. For instance, we don't have in Ireland almost-total Jewish control over the education system.

ShooterSF

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'd be interested in reading any thread where the Jewish and Muslim religions have been questioned with equal vigour by the athesists.

Accepting that this is a Christian society and that athesists have had more dealings with that religion, however i do believe that as a result of freedom of speech in western society that Christian beliefs have become an easy target with little or no questioning of Islam or Judasism.

Here's our very own Draw Mohammad day thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055908791.

All religions should be targeted but in Ireland where Christianity is the one that get's thrown in our face day after day it's gonna be prime target. Why do you think very few of us go on about Zeus or Thor? Not that they're any more (or less) silly but no one is teaching kids in school that Zeus is real or putting down "Born again Norse" on atheists census forms.

Improbable

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Accepting that this is a Christian society and that athesists have had more dealings with that religion, however i do believe that as a result of freedom of speech in western society that Christian beliefs have become an easy target with little or no questioning of Islam or Judasism.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at here. You admit that atheists in Ireland naturally have more knowledge and experience and interaction with catholics than with muslims or jews. But that somehow, we should be obliged to criticise judaism and islam exactly the same amount... I suppose we should criticise the norse religion as much too. And the greek, roman, mayan, aztec religions too.

Zillah

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'd be interested in reading any thread where the Jewish and Muslim religions have been questioned with equal vigour by the athesists.

Accepting that this is a Christian society and that athesists have had more dealings with that religion, however i do believe that as a result of freedom of speech in western society that Christian beliefs have become an easy target with little or no questioning of Islam or Judasism.

The reason we pick on Christianity most is because Christianity is the religion that messes with our lives on a daily basis. Schools, child abuse, homophobia, sexism, Papal visits...I could go on all day.

Anyway, we do pick on the others when they raise their heads. Sam Harris is very highly regarded around here and is probably one of the biggest outspoken critics of Islam in the world. There's also a poster called "dead one" who blunders in here waffling about Allah every now and then, we're no more kind to him than we are Christian posters.

Also, see my first response in this thread.

ShooterSF

Odds on the poster coming back and accepting our points?

Zillah

ShooterSF wrote: »

Odds on the poster coming back and accepting our points?

Pretty slim, I'm almost certain I noticed a doppler effect.

Galvasean

ShooterSF wrote: »

Odds on the poster coming back and accepting our points?

I've seen him (at least I think it was him) 'round these parts before. Usually wafts in complaining about atheists being unfair on Catholics, gets rebutted, complains again, gets rebutted again, wafts away never to be seen again.

Brown Bomber

Zillah wrote: »

.

Anyway, we do pick on the others when they raise their heads. Sam Harris is very highly regarded around here

He's also very highly regarded on Jihadwatch apparently.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/05/sam-harris-losing-our-spines-to-save-our-necks.html

Your in good company it seems.

Actually, I have a question on Harris regarding selective secularism:

On his Project Reason site http://www.project-reason.org/ there is "The Scripture Project" http://www.project-reason.org/scripture_project/

With the stated aim to "make the Scripture Project the best source for scriptural criticism on the Internet."





Naturally you find the punch bags of Atheism - Christianity & Islam. Why no Talmud?

Could you answer that please?...