By US standards, the Europeans are deprived of speech, because holocaust denial is illegal. I look forward to your comments :)What a ridiculous statement. A specific exclusion to a law in a region with good reason does not lead to the conclusion that Europeans are deprived of speech.
Exactly my point. (Though maybe I didn’t word it correctly)
It might be possible that different places may need different standards of free speech.
At the end of the day, who decides what is allowed and not allowed?
Isn't blasphemy a crime that warrants death in many Islamic countries? What could be more blasphemous than saying there is no Allah or that Mohammad was just a man? I know there are many passages in the Quran that state non-violence and tolerance for other religions, but there are also many passages that are far less tolerant. The Bible is also full of contradictions and passages of intolerance of other religions but, in practice, if I was blasphemous in a Christian country I think I wouldn't be worried about being arrested, let alone executed.You bring up an interesting point Scott. We agree that freedom of speech and beliefs is fundamental need of any society. But who defines when that freedom has been realized Take Europe for example while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf page 2-3 But this is not the case in the US. As US holocaust museum website states: ...in the United States denying the Holocaust or engaging in antisemitic hate speech is not illegal, except when there is an imminent threat of violence. Many other countries, particularly in Europe where the Holocaust occurred, have laws criminalizing Holocaust denial and hate speech. http://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion So even if we agree (for sake of arguement) that some countries may be oppressive because of how they deprive people of freedom of speech, how do we decided when that freedom has been met? By US standards, the Europeans are deprived of speech, because holocaust denial is illegal. I look forward to your comments :) I think we deviated a bit from the original point that was trying to be made about all extremist religions being alike. My point was that the fundamentals of Buddhism or Jainism are very passive compared to the fundamentals of Islam or Christianity. Thus, "extremists" of these religions would not be alike. But to your point about freedom of speech: It's curious that holocaust denial is illegal in some European counties. The basis of this restriction, however, doesn't seem to be religiously based. Despite the obvious connection to Judaism, this seems to be some over-compensation on their part and based more on PR for their image. I would have to assume that the punishment is something less than death, as well. :-) How do we decided when that freedom has been met? I think laws in general should be separated from morality. For something to be illegal then it needs to be detrimental to minors or non-consenting adults. Detrimental could be defined as actual harm or even an increased risk of harm. Most laws, of course, don't meet this standard but that's how I would define freedom of speech as well.
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Christian wing nuts aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however. But they have in the past. Do they get a pass because they did it a long time ago?Some Christians are still fighting over religion, and dying for it. The problem with Muslims is that their religion is still stuck in the 15th Century. They never had an enlightenment. But, IMO, all theistic religions are responsible for many deaths, of their own believers and of people theirreligion thinks of as apostates. Theistic religions hold people back from developing a rational mind and a moral compass. LoisYou can't look past your anti-theism and learn that biology is the cause of religious violence, not religion itself. I need to amend myself here, by pointing out that biology is the cause of religion as well. Yes blame it on biology. That's a good excuse to do nothing to try to turn things around. Just let "biology" unfold as it will. Don't do anything to try to control its destructive aspects. Do you do your best to keep from eating poisonous food or feeding it to your family? Why bother? It's biology! When your you or your kids are sick or injured do you just let yourself and them die? That's biology, too. Why interfere with it? Just lie back and allow biology to take its destructive course. Who cares if people die? Lois
Exactly my point. (Though maybe I didn’t word it correctly) It might be possible that different places may need different standards of free speech. At the end of the day, who decides what is allowed and not allowed?This is a difficult point to swallow for Americans I.J., or even to understand as we pride ourselves on the freedom of the individual to do or say pretty much what we please. And restriction of free speech is one of the ultimate no nos. The problem is that with our messianic attitudes we believe in blanketing the World with our particular philosophy and find it hard to believe that other cultures don't reflect our brand of individualism. That's the culture that our ancestors founded and it is flourishing. But free speech doesn't mean the same thing in different cultures due to their own unique histories, e.g. modern Germany. Holocaust denial is outlawed for obvious reasons, namely the smoldering sparks of National Socialism. There are even laws outlawing the symbols of organizations declared illegal in Germany. Contrast that with the Confederate Flag here. It has only been outlawed on public property, i.e. Civic buildings such as courthouses. Neo Confederates can use it at rallies and monster truck pulls. Hate speech, which is illegal in most European countries is allowed here with some restrictions of course. So, at the end of the day what is allowed is generally up to what the culture will allow, unless one lives in a totalitarian state under either a dictator or theocrat. Cap't Jack
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Christian wing nuts aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however. But they have in the past. Do they get a pass because they did it a long time ago?Some Christians are still fighting over religion, and dying for it. The problem with Muslims is that their religion is still stuck in the 15th Century. They never had an enlightenment. But, IMO, all theistic religions are responsible for many deaths, of their own believers and of people theirreligion thinks of as apostates. Theistic religions hold people back from developing a rational mind and a moral compass. LoisYou can't look past your anti-theism and learn that biology is the cause of religious violence, not religion itself. I need to amend myself here, by pointing out that biology is the cause of religion as well. And you can't look past your theism and realize that it isn't just biology but the religion that springs from it that causes and justifies violence. Everything we do springs from biology. Is that any reason to throw up our hands and let biology run its course? You apparently don't interfere with biology when you're sick, do you? You must have never had a vaccination against any disease. You just say. "It's biology." It's easier and more effective to fight the products of biology than biology itself. Fighting biology is like fighting nature. Fighting religion is like fighting a disease that springs from biology. Let it be and it will grow and fester and eventually kill us all. But, hey, that's biology, that little scamp! Lois
You can't look past your anti-theism and learn that biology is the cause of religious violence, not religion itself. I need to amend myself here, by pointing out that biology is the cause of religion as well.Why not both? It's a bit like the saying "guns don't kill people people do" It's not true, guns kill people, bullets kill people, people kill people and so on. It's never either or since there are lots of determining factors. Biology seems the least interesting determining factor to look at. What we're interested in is environmental factors, since those are things we can change more readily and with less ethical problems. I'd be very surprised if religion isn't one of the environmental factors.
And you can't look past your theism.You need to pay better attention around here.
Everything we do springs from biology. Is that any reason to throw up our hands and let biology run its course? You apparently don't interfere with biology when you're sick, do you? You must have never had a vaccination against any disease. You just say. "It's biology." It's easier and more effective to fight the products of biology than biology itself.The ability to fight "biology", is also biology. Some people have it and some don't.
Fighting religion is like fighting a disease that springs from biology. Let it be and it will grow and fester and eventually kill us all. LoisClassic paranoia.
Fighting religion is like fighting a disease that springs from biology. Let it be and it will grow and fester and eventually kill us all. LoisClassic paranoia. Really? Then why did the leaders of Western Europe, under pressure from the people fighting their wars for them, create the modern nation-state and take the power away from the Pope and the Spanish Inquisition? Why are laws of religious tolerance now considered superior to theocracy? Why do we require our President to have some actual reason to kill people beside that they have a different idea about what the Trinity is?
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.I think you should say 'all terrorists'. If they are Fascist, Marxist, Islamist or Christianist, they somehow feel that their identity, future or way of life is threatened.And with the religious based groups I do think they share a common trait, that links them with political party, namely their beliefs are Right/conservative. And that's why I always get a chuckle when the Right Wingers of Faux News or wherever denounce things like Sharia law, Muslim terrorists, etc....their underlying beliefs are roughly the same. I want to scream out to them, "wait, you denounce Sharia Law in one breath, then in the next tell me how school prayer should be legal?" Faith in a god renders people blind to such contradictions. Lois
Isn't blasphemy a crime that warrants death in many Islamic countries? What could be more blasphemous than saying there is no Allah or that Mohammad was just a man? I know there are many passages in the Quran that state non-violence and tolerance for other religions, but there are also many passages that are far less tolerant. The Bible is also full of contradictions and passages of intolerance of other religions but, in practice, if I was blasphemous in a Christian country I think I wouldn't be worried about being arrested, let alone executed.You bring up an interesting point Scott. We agree that freedom of speech and beliefs is fundamental need of any society. But who defines when that freedom has been realized Take Europe for example while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf page 2-3 But this is not the case in the US. As US holocaust museum website states: ...in the United States denying the Holocaust or engaging in antisemitic hate speech is not illegal, except when there is an imminent threat of violence. Many other countries, particularly in Europe where the Holocaust occurred, have laws criminalizing Holocaust denial and hate speech. http://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion So even if we agree (for sake of arguement) that some countries may be oppressive because of how they deprive people of freedom of speech, how do we decided when that freedom has been met? By US standards, the Europeans are deprived of speech, because holocaust denial is illegal. I look forward to your comments :) I agree. They don't have free speech if one or many subjects are off limits. Those countries that have laws against holocaust denial are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They would be much better off having a free and open conversation about it. The United States has not gone down in flames because holocaust deniers have free speech. In fact, deniers are usually shown to be complete fools. Lois
Exactly my point. (Though maybe I didn't word it correctly) It might be possible that different places may need different standards of free speech. At the end of the day, who decides what is allowed and not allowed?In the US everything is allowed on public property as long as it isn't disrupting government meetings or other free speech. Anyone can say anything he likes in a public street, for example. Such a person could be arrested for disturbing the peace by being too loud, or for causing panic for example, or for impeding the free flow of traffic. But he would not be arrested for the content of his speech. He could alsoprint out his diatribe and hand out copies on the street. He might be arrested for littering, but not for what the flyers state. Lois
Fighting religion is like fighting a disease that springs from biology. Let it be and it will grow and fester and eventually kill us all. LoisClassic paranoia. Really? Then why did the leaders of Western Europe, under pressure from the people fighting their wars for them, create the modern nation-state and take the power away from the Pope and the Spanish Inquisition? Why are laws of religious tolerance now considered superior to theocracy? Why do we require our President to have some actual reason to kill people beside that they have a different idea about what the Trinity is? Democracy. Lois
Exactly my point. (Though maybe I didn't word it correctly) It might be possible that different places may need different standards of free speech. At the end of the day, who decides what is allowed and not allowed?In the US everything is allowed on public property as long as it isn't disrupting government meetings or other free speech. Anyone can say anything he likes in a public street, for example. Such a person could be arrested for disturbing the peace by being too loud, or for causing panic for example, or for impeding the free flow of traffic. But he would not be arrested for the content of his speech. He could alsoprint out his diatribe and hand out copies on the street. He might be arrested for littering, but not for what the flyers state. Lois Interesting But I don't think that accurately reflects American law http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/what-constitutes-imminent-lawless-action But agreeing for sake of argument that America is as you say Lois, I dont think anyone would declare the European nations to be "facist" or "dictatorships" Most would simply say "Lets agree to disagree". But at what point do we say "I disagree to disagree". For example ***Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their Time. Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 ***So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, blasphemy was considered “against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak). *** Many founding fathers were NOT christian http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/ ***Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. The point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. Just as how we respect the founding fathers, in spite of their differences, we should respect other nations definitions of "free speech"
How do we decided when that freedom has been met? I think laws in general should be separated from morality. For something to be illegal then it needs to be detrimental to minors or non-consenting adults. Detrimental could be defined as actual harm or even an increased risk of harm. Most laws, of course, don't meet this standard but that's how I would define freedom of speech as well.Thanks Scott. Interesting comments :) What is considered harmful, however, may vary from place to place. If one for example takes the example of the founding fathers out of context, they may try to apply blasphemy laws everywhere in the US. But historical documents shows that they made their laws because of the sensitivities of their people (which is also seen by the fact that they weren't always christian). So if different societies have different sensitivities (at least the ones that are reasonable of course), then won't the definition of free speech change?
And you can't look past your theism.You need to pay better attention around here.
Everything we do springs from biology. Is that any reason to throw up our hands and let biology run its course? You apparently don't interfere with biology when you're sick, do you? You must have never had a vaccination against any disease. You just say. "It's biology." It's easier and more effective to fight the products of biology than biology itself.The ability to fight "biology", is also biology. Some people have it and some don't.
Fighting religion is like fighting a disease that springs from biology. Let it be and it will grow and fester and eventually kill us all. LoisClassic paranoia. Like religions have used for millennia? But it's ok for religion, right? That's different. Lois
Exactly my point. (Though maybe I didn't word it correctly) It might be possible that different places may need different standards of free speech. At the end of the day, who decides what is allowed and not allowed?In the US everything is allowed on public property as long as it isn't disrupting government meetings or other free speech. Anyone can say anything he likes in a public street, for example. Such a person could be arrested for disturbing the peace by being too loud, or for causing panic for example, or for impeding the free flow of traffic. But he would not be arrested for the content of his speech. He could alsoprint out his diatribe and hand out copies on the street. He might be arrested for littering, but not for what the flyers state. Lois Interesting But I don't think that accurately reflects American law http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/what-constitutes-imminent-lawless-action But agreeing for sake of argument that America is as you say Lois, I dont think anyone would declare the European nations to be "facist" or "dictatorships" Most would simply say "Lets agree to disagree". But at what point do we say "I disagree to disagree". For example ***Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their Time. Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 ***So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, blasphemy was considered “against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak). *** Many founding fathers were NOT christian http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/ ***Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. The point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. Just as how we respect the founding fathers, in spite of their differences, we should respect other nations definitions of "free speech" No one has ever claimed that democracy is uncomplicated or not contradictory. It is both. It can and does change and evolve, though, by the will of the people, which it has done from the beginning. Definitions of free speech have also changed. It all depends on how the governed see it, instead of a dictator. I prefer the people over a dictator, myself. I have never seen any indication that we don't "respect" other nations' ideas of free speech. We may disagree but we don't attack them for it. I don't know of any American who has gone to Germany and started preaching holocaust denial, for example. And if one did the US government would not say he shouldn't be arrested just because it's not illegal here. LL
Exactly my point. (Though maybe I didn't word it correctly) It might be possible that different places may need different standards of free speech. At the end of the day, who decides what is allowed and not allowed?In the US everything is allowed on public property as long as it isn't disrupting government meetings or other free speech. Anyone can say anything he likes in a public street, for example. Such a person could be arrested for disturbing the peace by being too loud, or for causing panic for example, or for impeding the free flow of traffic. But he would not be arrested for the content of his speech. He could alsoprint out his diatribe and hand out copies on the street. He might be arrested for littering, but not for what the flyers state. Lois Interesting But I don't think that accurately reflects American law http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/what-constitutes-imminent-lawless-action But agreeing for sake of argument that America is as you say Lois, I dont think anyone would declare the European nations to be "facist" or "dictatorships" Most would simply say "Lets agree to disagree". But at what point do we say "I disagree to disagree". For example ***Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their Time. Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 ***So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, blasphemy was considered “against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak). *** Many founding fathers were NOT christian http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/ ***Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. The point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. Just as how we respect the founding fathers, in spite of their differences, we should respect other nations definitions of "free speech" No one has ever claimed that democracy is uncomplicated or not contradictory. It is both. It can and does change and evolve, though, by the will of the people, which it has done from the beginning. Definitions of free speech have also changed. It all depends on how the governed see it, instead of a dictator. I prefer the people over a dictator, myself. LL Exactly democracy can change and evolve. It is also possible to have religious values compatible with democratic ideas. To take an example comparing the founding fathers with some traditional religious laws (color coded to make comparison easy) ----------- FOUNDING FATHERS------------------------ Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 ------------------- QURAN COMMENTARY BY MUHHAMED SHAFI USMANI------------------------ according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it [blasphemy] means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problem and rulings remain exempt from its perview. Maariful quran Commentary on 9: 12-16 http://www.islamicstudies.info/maarif/ page 321
As an atheist, I'd survive for only a short time in a Muslim community since they execute infidels. I'd have no such worry with the Jains since they won't harm anyone or anything at all.Pardon??? http://vimeo.com/26921384 http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_otherrel.shtml http://www.truejihad.com/pages/true-jihad.php http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/ Isn't blasphemy a crime that warrants death in many Islamic countries? Some thing we should know about "Islamic countries" There are more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, and, while most have elements of Shariah in their civil and family law, only two have it as their criminal codes....The countries that do not have Shariah as their criminal codes have modeled their laws on European and American models, some borrowing from Roman law and others from British common law. Phillip Giraldi Ex-CIA agent http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/
I know there are many passages in the Quran that state non-violence and tolerance for other religions, but there are also many passages that are far less tolerant.You will find this lecture by an American scholar relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzXMAtAhftk
All religions which proclaim eclusive truth and the demand for rejecting all other proclaimed truths are by definition (exclusivity) antagonistic.
This presents an odd cunundrum, the more I believe in my god, the more I reject your god. Thus zealotry in the practice of these type of religions inevitably leads to armed conflict.
But in the end it is a matter of “RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE”!
IT IS A MORAL COMMAND THAT “ALL MEN ARE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS”.
Wars fought in the name of religion are IMMORAL by the very act of violationg this fundamental Humanitarian Command in favor of a God.