The Hazards of Belief

silverharp · 23-02-2017 09:34AM

would he have been charged in Ireland if something similar happened?

http://www.thelocal.dk/20170222/danish-man-who-burned-koran-charged-for-blasphemy

A man who filmed himself burning the Quran has become the first person to be charged under Denmark's blasphemy law in 46 years.

The 42-year-old filmed himself burning a copy of Islam's holy book in his back yard in December 2015. He then posted the video on the anti-Islamic Facebook group, "Yes to freedom - no to Islam" along with the words, “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns."

Danish prosecutor Jan Reckendorff announced his decision to bring charges in a press statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.

“It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion

Peregrinus · 24-02-2017 02:57AM

Most likely not, for two reasons.

One, I don't think there's any desire to prosecute anyone, ever, for the blasphemy offence. So, as a matter of policy, prosecution is unlikely.

Two, in order to commit the offence it's not enough to "publish or utter matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion"; you must actually "cause outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion", and in addition you must have intended that when you published the material.

This guy published the material by posting it to an anti-Islamic facebook page. That suggests the audience he was targetting was people wh already thought like him. I'm not seeing any evidence of intent to cause outrage among a substantial number of Muslims. And, without that evidence, any prosecution must fail.

Is there any offence, other than the blasphemy offence, that might be relevant here? Possibly, yes, though I think a prosecution would be a bit of a stretch. It's an offence under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 s. to distribute, show or play a visual recording that is "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or . . . likely to stir up hatred" against a group on account of (among other things) their religion.

You could argue that the purpose or likely outcome of making this tape and circulating it to a group of Islamophobes is to arouse and intensify their hatred against Muslims.

Frankly, though, I don't think a prosecution would succeed here either. Just an image of him burning the Qu'ran wouldn't be enough; the tape would need to include some explicitly anti-Muslim (and I think not merely anti-Islam) speech.

silverharp · 24-02-2017 09:34AM

it will be interesting to see how the case goes there and what arguments are used. It appears to be a kite flying exercise with the goal of making the Quran a "protected" book of sorts and if he was found guilty there is probably recourse to EU court.

silverharp · 24-02-2017 10:39AM

no good deed goes unpunished

http://www.thelocal.ch/20170224/winterthur-mosque-presses-charges-against-duo-who-reported-imam-for-inciting-murder

Winterthur mosque presses charges against duo who reported imam for inciting murder

The association that runs the An’Nour mosque in Winterthur has lodged a complaint with police against two members of the congregation thought to have reported their imam for inciting murder – a day after ten people were arrested for allegedly beating up the duo in revenge.
On Tuesday morning police in the canton of Zurich arrested ten suspects in a raid on a dozen houses in Winterthur.

One was later released, but eight adults and one juvenile remain in custody, accused of having beaten up and threatened two individuals at the mosque last November.

The pair are thought to have tipped off a journalist about a controversial sermon given by the mosque’s imam in which he called for the congregation to kill Muslims who do not participate in common prayer.

The reporting of the sermon in early November led to the arrest of the imam, who is now facing criminal proceedings for inciting crime and violence.

Now, the association that runs the mosque wants to press charges against the pair for allegedly secretly filming the controversial sermon, according to 20 Minutes.

The public prosecutor confirmed the news to the paper on Wednesday.

Zurich lawyer Andreas Meili told the paper that theoretically a prison sentence is possible, if it is found that the pair’s secret filming violated rights to privacy.

silverharp · 01-03-2017 09:43PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdypDLtpc5M

Cabaal · 02-03-2017 02:19PM

Not sure if a hazard, but its messed up

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39139750

good to hear it was impounded

silverharp · 02-03-2017 02:29PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Not sure if a hazard, but its messed up

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39139750

good to hear it was impounded

I'd heard it was impounded because of an outdoor advertising regulation? otherwise free speech in my book

Michael OBrien · 02-03-2017 02:57PM

"Mr Arsuaga claimed the slogan on the bus stated only "a fact of biology that is studied in schools"." I love how they like to play innocent when they know it is a strike against transgenders. Also it is NOT a fact of biology, hence why medical experts in fields that reference such biology recognise that its not that clear cut.
Catholics have no problem with a ghost impregnating a virgin and giving birth to a supernatural entity that rises from the dead and flies into the stratosphere on water vapour, but draw a line in the sand that a woman or man might have a less than clear cut gender or that homosexuals are natural.

One eyed Jack · 02-03-2017 09:07PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

"Mr Arsuaga claimed the slogan on the bus stated only "a fact of biology that is studied in schools"." I love how they like to play innocent when they know it is a strike against transgenders. Also it is NOT a fact of biology, hence why medical experts in fields that reference such biology recognise that its not that clear cut.

Is it not a fact of biology that is taught in schools?

Catholics have no problem with a ghost impregnating a virgin and giving birth to a supernatural entity that rises from the dead and flies into the stratosphere on water vapour, but draw a line in the sand that a woman or man might have a less than clear cut gender or that homosexuals are natural.

I like how you like to play the innocent when it comes to a strike against Roman Catholics, particularly when most theologians would recognise it's not that clear cut.

oscarBravo · 02-03-2017 10:18PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it not a fact of biology that is taught in schools?

Are you arguing that everything that's taught in schools is axiomatically true?

One eyed Jack · 02-03-2017 10:30PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you arguing that everything that's taught in schools is axiomatically true?

Good grief no, just pointing out that Michael appeared to be suggesting that Mr Arsuagas claim is incorrect or intended to be deceptive or ambiguous in some way -

Mr Arsuaga claimed the slogan on the bus stated only "a fact of biology that is studied in schools".

I don't think there's anything incorrect in that statement. It is taught and studied in schools as a fact of biology that men have a penis, and women have a vulva.

oscarBravo · 02-03-2017 10:43PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Good grief no, just pointing out that Michael appeared to be suggesting that Mr Arsuagas claim is incorrect or intended to be deceptive or ambiguous in some way -

Mr Arsuaga claimed the slogan on the bus stated only "a fact of biology that is studied in schools".

I don't think there's anything incorrect in that statement.

There are two things incorrect in it. One is the idea that the slogan on the bus is a "fact", and the other is that it's "only" a statement of a fact.

You've accepted that not everything taught in schools is a fact, so we're agreed that that's one thing that's incorrect. As for it being "only" a statement of a fact, it's clearly much more: it's intended as an attack on transgender people, and the wide-eyed ingenuity act isn't fooling anyone.

It is taught and studied in schools as a fact of biology that men have a penis, and women have a vulva.

That doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make the reasons for putting it on a bus any less nefarious.

One eyed Jack · 02-03-2017 11:20PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for it being "only" a statement of a fact, it's clearly much more: it's intended as an attack on transgender people, and the wide-eyed ingenuity act isn't fooling anyone.

As wide-eyed ingenuity acts go that aren't fooling anyone, a statement like this, isn't fooling anyone either -

The bus is believed to be a response to posters put up in northern Spain by a transgender rights group, which read: "There are girls with penises and boys with vulvas. It's as simple as that."

That doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make the reasons for putting it on a bus any less nefarious.

What it is, as far as I can see, and I don't judge either statement as nefarious in it's intent, is a challenge to the first statement.I wouldn't encourage anyone to blindly accept as fact without question, that which they are simply told to accept is true.

That, to my mind at least, is motivated by nefarious intent, and people should absolutely have the freedom to challenge ideas and question them. If we blindly accept truths as fact, then are we actually any closer to gaining any greater understanding? I don't think we are, not if we seek to silence people whose ideology is worlds apart from our own. That creates an unquestioning echo chamber, which I for one at least, would want no part in.

oscarBravo · 03-03-2017 10:05AM

The statement by the transgender rights group is one of inclusivity. It has no negative impact on any cisgender people whatsoever; it doesn't try to dictate to anyone what their gender is.

You can't say the same of the retaliatory statement. It tells transgender people: this is what your gender is. Deal with it.

The statements are not equivalent.

silverharp · 03-03-2017 11:11AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The statement by the transgender rights group is one of inclusivity. It has no negative impact on any cisgender people whatsoever; it doesn't try to dictate to anyone what their gender is.

You can't say the same of the retaliatory statement. It tells transgender people: this is what your gender is. Deal with it.

The statements are not equivalent.

In fairness I'd object if I saw those posters floating around where I lived

EDIT: Image here - http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1839D/production/_94892299_transposter.jpg

robindch · 03-03-2017 12:18PM

^^^ Image removed and replaced with link to image to avoid frankly obvious problems.

silverharp · 03-03-2017 12:28PM

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Image removed and replaced with link to image to avoid frankly obvious problems.

No problem, at least you agree its problematic , its not exactly something I'd like seeing poster size in a public space.

Michael OBrien · 03-03-2017 12:45PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it not a fact of biology that is taught in schools?

Is it? Then it is wrong. The issue is that it is not a fact of biology, and looking to the least credible sources for science in our educational systems is not an honest way of portraying what people think of as true.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I like how you like to play the innocent when it comes to a strike against Roman Catholics, particularly when most theologians would recognise it's not that clear cut.

I don't think you know what 'play the innocent' means.
I was raised catholic, and catholics are taught what I said, only with some flowerly words to make it more mystical (e.g. holy spirit instead of ghost). Theologians don't matter, you can get theologians to disagree on anything you want and will pronouce that the 'real' meaning of a passage is anything they want it to say. They don't reflect actual beliefs at all held by 99.99% of catholics.

seamus · 03-03-2017 12:56PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it not a fact of biology that is taught in schools?

Well, break it down there for a second.

Define "man", for a start.

You can be born with male DNA and with female genitalia. How does this pair up with the "if you were born a ____, then you are a ___" decree?

The biology that's taught in schools is heavily simplified. It's not incorrect, it just should never be assumed to be the full story from beginning to end. Particularly where it comes to genetics, there is far too much complexity to be adequately covered in a school curriculum. It's a doctorate all on its own.

And that's before you even consider the idea that "man" is in fact a philosophical concept and not one that is tied to genetics.

One eyed Jack · 03-03-2017 01:02PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The statement by the transgender rights group is one of inclusivity. It has no negative impact on any cisgender people whatsoever; it doesn't try to dictate to anyone what their gender is.

It's intent is to exclude people who disagree with them, and if anyone dares make their disagreement public, they will be punished in public. That's not inclusive.

You can't say the same of the retaliatory statement. It tells transgender people: this is what your gender is. Deal with it.

The statements are not equivalent.

Isn't that what some people who are transgender will try and enforce upon everyone else? That they get to decide their gender, and the rest of society should "deal with it"? That's a political position on a social construct, it sure as hell ain't biology, and it certainly isn't in any way scientific. The statements are entirely equivalent but opposing perspectives on the issue of gender identity.

Michael OBrien · 03-03-2017 01:03PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As wide-eyed ingenuity acts go that aren't fooling anyone, a statement like this, isn't fooling anyone either -

Quote:
The bus is believed to be a response to posters put up in northern Spain by a transgender rights group, which read: "There are girls with penises and boys with vulvas. It's as simple as that."

This IS a fact. It is not generalizing or slurring anyone. What is your problem with this slogan? There is no comparison.

Michael OBrien · 03-03-2017 01:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's intent is to exclude people who disagree with them, and if anyone dares make their disagreement public, they will be punished in public. That's not inclusive.

Isn't that what some people who are transgender will try and enforce upon everyone else? That they get to decide their gender, and the rest of society should "deal with it"? That's a political position on a social construct, it sure as hell ain't biology, and it certainly isn't in any way scientific. The statements are entirely equivalent but opposing perspectives on the issue of gender identity.

There is a huge difference. The first is seeking personal rights to decide their gender. The second is to force gender on third parties.
Transgenders don't claim that there are no boys and girls. The guys under discussion are claiming there are no transgenders.

One eyed Jack · 03-03-2017 01:19PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Is it? Then it is wrong. The issue is that it is not a fact of biology, and looking to the least credible sources for science in our educational systems is not an honest way of portraying what people think of as true.

What 99.99% of people believe as true is that boys have a penis, and girls have a vulva. I know this is in Spain, but I feel it's worth noting that Germany recognises a third legal gender identity of intersex, so Germans at least will be taught to understand that things are a tad more nuanced when it comes to gender identity and sex determination at birth.

The least credible source for science would also include political beliefs, but science has been driven by politics since the big bang, which was a theory first put forward by a priest.

I don't think you know what 'play the innocent' means.
I was raised catholic, and catholics are taught what I said, only with some flowerly words to make it more mystical (e.g. holy spirit instead of ghost). Theologians don't matter, you can get theologians to disagree on anything you want and will pronouce that the 'real' meaning of a passage is anything they want it to say. They don't reflect actual beliefs at all held by 99.99% of catholics.

Then you'll understand that what people are taught, and what they actually believe, are often two separate and distinct positions. As it happens, I'm Roman Catholic, still am, and I struggle with many of the doctrines of the faith. That's why I suggested theologians, because like the experts in biology you mention, the same can be said of the theologians whi are considered experts in theology, that's why you can get an evolutionary biologist whose social commentary consists of "abort and try again" with regard to the issue of foetuses diagnosed with downs syndrome. He is pushing his own political ideology, because again - that sure as hell ain't science.

silverharp · 03-03-2017 01:22PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Transgenders don't claim that there are no boys and girls. .

Im sure most dont but there is always someone trying to muddy the water :pac:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/2/university-historian-biological-sex-misconception/

University of Toronto historian: Biological sex a ‘very popular misconception’

A lecturer at the University of Toronto says the notion of “biological sex” — that humans are born either male or female — is a “very popular misconception.”
Nick Matte, an historian who teaches a class on transgender studies as a part of the university’s Sexual Diversity Studies program, said the science has long been settled on the matter, reported Red Alert Politics.

Michael OBrien · 03-03-2017 01:38PM

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure most dont but there is always someone trying to muddy the water :pac:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/2/university-historian-biological-sex-misconception/

Just reading that quote does not cause any issue. I said that they don't disagree with there being boys and girls, not that there are ONLY boys and girls. Hence intersex being a third situation.
"that humans are born either male or female — is a “very popular misconception.”" is absolutely true. Hence the effort to inform people that it is a misconception. This does not mean there are no male and females, only that there are MORE than those two outcomes.

Michael OBrien · 03-03-2017 01:47PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The least credible source for science would also include political beliefs, but science has been driven by politics since the big bang, which was a theory first put forward by a priest.

He was also a physicist. That might have more to do with his findings than being ALSO a priest. He advised the pope not to tie their faith to it when the pope wanted to declare the big bang as true to his flock.
Also I said that least credible source IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, not anywhere. Schools are given often outdated science as it takes at least a decade for new science to filter down to school books. They are also heavily simplified so that to give a ground floor understanding of the subject. They are in no way an authority on what is actually true and a good teacher would know that what they are teaching may be outofdate or overly edited.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then you'll understand that what people are taught, and what they actually believe, are often two separate and distinct positions. As it happens, I'm Roman Catholic, still am, and I struggle with many of the doctrines of the faith. That's why I suggested theologians, because like the experts in biology you mention, the same can be said of the theologians whi are considered experts in theology, that's why you can get an evolutionary biologist whose social commentary consists of "abort and try again" with regard to the issue of foetuses diagnosed with downs syndrome. He is pushing his own political ideology, because again - that sure as hell ain't science.

There is no comparison with theologians and scientists. Scientists work towards disproving current models and testing and challenging models of reality. Peer review is a constant barrage on all new ideas and old ones forever.
Theologians do the opposite. They are not remotely comparible. While some are interesting to read up on, to see how they interpret texts and their insights into their interpretations of scriptures, they do not work from anything similar to the model of science. Hence why there are theologians that support every religious view out there.

silverharp · 03-03-2017 01:52PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Just reading that quote does not cause any issue. I said that they don't disagree with there being boys and girls, not that there are ONLY boys and girls. Hence intersex being a third situation.
"that humans are born either male or female — is a “very popular misconception.”" is absolutely true. Hence the effort to inform people that it is a misconception. This does not mean there are no male and females, only that there are MORE than those two outcomes.

the way I see it is that humans like all mammals are a 2 sex species , simple as, anything else is a genetic disorder. its like saying humans are a binocular species , anyone born with only 1 eye is still human

Michael OBrien · 03-03-2017 02:06PM

silverharp wrote: »

the way I see it is that humans like all mammals are a 2 sex species , simple as, anything else is a genetic disorder. its like saying humans are a binocular species , anyone born with only 1 eye is still human

The issue is that there are exceptions to how we develop and those people end up falling through a gap in our social sphere. The issue is they should have the RIGHT to decide how THEY wish to be classified as they are the exception.
You cannot derive rights of human beings by saying that because they don't match the norm or accepted view, they don't count and the majority gets to dictate their rights to them. they are natural, just not common. They are not making it up for attention. They deserve recognition and equal rights.

One eyed Jack · 03-03-2017 02:07PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Hence why there are theologians that support every religious view out there.

The comparison is valid insofar as biologists and theologians would be experts in their respective fields. Scientists disagree among themselves all the time, and you will easily find scientists who will support every political view out there. Remember the Ugandan scientist who was paid by the State to use magnets to explain homosexuality to the public?

I wouldn't entirely place my faith in science either, not when the peer review system itself is under review for the fact that it has been shown to be biased in a number of ways. I always encourage a healthy degree of scepticism and questioning rather than blind acceptance without question just because it suits us. That too would be a hazard of belief without question.

Michael OBrien · 03-03-2017 02:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The comparison is valid insofar as biologists and theologians would be experts in their respective fields. Scientists disagree among themselves all the time, and you will easily find scientists who will support every political view out there. Remember the Ugandan scientist who was paid by the State to use magnets to explain homosexuality to the public?

I wouldn't entirely place my faith in science either, not when the peer review system itself is under review for the fact that it has been shown to be biased in a number of ways. I always encourage a healthy degree of scepticism and questioning rather than blind acceptance without question just because it suits us. That too would be a hazard of belief without question.

Well the issue is that the fields under discussion are not comparible. Theologians study their holy texts, not god. They cannot go beyond that. At most theologians can find some copies that were older than the copies they previous had, which might spark renewed debate.
Scientists study reality, which expands with new discoveries all the time.
If god was actually around, and theologians could test their viewpoints directly from him, and therefore be falseifiable, you might have a case.
But otherwise you would need to compare theologians to scientists who spend their career trying to interpret Newtons 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica' and work towards proving it true no matter what without ever doing new research on reality at all.

As far as being sceptical of science, of course. Peer review is imperfect, it is however, to my knowledge, the BEST current way of doing science.
Outliers like that scientist using magnets to explain homosexuality gets his credibility utterly destroyed. No one will take him seriously within the scientific community if he cannot back it up with facts. Politics only goes so far. Reality is where its at. IF the science cannot predict things accurately then it fails. No politics can change that. Technology does not work on wishes, it works on facts.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments