grum – Member
teasel – again then, by your logic weren’t slavery abolitionists just ‘offended on someone else’s behalf’? Oh I forgot you don’t have an argument.

teasel – Member
You don’t have a clue what my viewpoint is.

I love the internet

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person’s colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3]

Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]

I’ve always argued that religion should be not be covered under this legislation.

Religion is an opinion, no more and no less.

I try not to hate people because of their opinions, but sometimes those opinions are so vile it just can’t be helped.

Not using lame “Clarksonisms” such as “Religionists” would be a good starting point

Actually I chose the word carefully, as I wanted to avoid reference to any one particular religion. In my book they are all as bad as each other, and there is little to chose between them. I started off with believers, but in context I felt it would be taken as a Christian reference, thus the offensive Clarksonism.

Yes, but the religious people aren’t popping up on here saying ‘atheists, what a bunch of ignorant cretins’ every two weeks, are they? They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments.

I suspect the frequency of appalling and hypocritical behaviour on the part of the “religionsists” of the world may have more influence on the frequency of said threads than the fact that people who post may or may not be athesists. Its a bit like seeing a comet ala Chelyabinsk recently, you can argue that people should simply ignore it, but the reality is that its going to provoke a reaction, and perhaps some pointing and staring.

Just moving on one step, tell me more about these stupid arguments by atheists…….

nealglover – Member
Lifer, Yes your right I should have.

“harass” does seem quite relevant.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Bear in mind that’s harass in the legal definition, not the ‘criticism is harrassment’ definition.

mitch – wasn’t meaning to say that all religious people are like that, more that it seems to be allowed/justified to express what would normally be considered bigotry/ignorance if you dress it up as a religious belief.

I don’t think religion should be exempted from the same standards applied to everyone else, which seems to be what is generally demanded.

I love the internet

This thread is evidence that sharing ones viewpoint is…er…pointless, Alex.

Carry on…

@barnsleymitch – surely by the admissions in your post you cannot be a Catholic.
If the organisation to which you say you belong has rules precluding the belief in those elements you cannot belong to it. Or is that splitting hairs?

Yet the religious are allowed to insult people quite freely (gays, non-believers, women etc) and that’s just tickety-boo

No it’s not.

questioning someone’s position and pointing out the quite obvious contradictions is simply debate.

That’s absolutely correct, but that’s not what I’m arguing against. It’s the constant insults that I have an issue with.

I try not to hate people because of their opinions, but sometimes those opinions are so vile it just can’t be helped.

Vile opinions are vile irrespective of whether or not they are religious. Likewise, benign opinions. A great many religious people do not hold vile beliefs.

I’ve always argued that religion should be not be covered under this legislation.

You can argue that as much as you like.

But it is included. So that’s the way it is currently.

Actually I chose the word carefully, as I wanted to avoid reference to any one particular religion. In my book they are all as bad as each other, and there is little to chose between them. I started off with believers, but in context I felt it would be taken as a Christian reference, thus the offensive Clarksonism.

The word you were looking for is “Religious” 😉

I suppose what I’m saying, admittedly not very well, is that just because someone is religious, or has faith, whatever, they don’t always follow doctrine blindly. Fair enough, I could be accused of cherry picking which bits of Catholicism I agree with, but hey ho, I’ll deal with that when I have to. Or not, depending on your viewpoint 😉

You don’t have a clue what my viewpoint is.

So you are awful at explaining yourself and what you think?
Grum is right about a meme on here about handwringing and being offended for others ..like compassion or empathy are bad things and we should ignore everything that does not affect me drirectly.

by that argument i should not be worried if they rape women ..its a crap argument – if its not yours I would stop articulating it and say what you think

You can argue that as much as you like.

But it is included. So that’s the way it is currently.

Yes, I know.
Awful, isn’t it?

A piece of legislation ruined to appease the religious.
A huge opportunity missed.

he is right about a memem about handwringing and being offended for others that seems to be crop up on here

I’m not handwringing btw, I am arguing against poor thinking.

You’re arguing against human nature.

Probably.

Calling it human nature doesn’t excuse it though.

I am arguing against poor thinking.

So are we strangely enough

(Edit: We being the non religious)

by that argument i should not be worried if they rape women ..its a crap argument – if its not yours I would stop articulating it and say what you think

WTF…?!

Huge leap there, fella…

🙂

Rusty Spanner – Member
An excellent piece of legislation ruined to appease the religious.
A huge opportunity missed.

Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?

Calling it human nature doesn’t excuse it though.

But there is an excuse.

Some opinions are so vile that they need to be challenged.
And sometimes, just sometimes, ridicule is the only appropriate method.

Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?

How is that relevant?

Bear in mind that’s harass in the legal definition, not the ‘criticism is harrassment’ definition.

I realise that yes.

But ……

A simple test, we throw them all into Grafton Water, those that float we burn as witches.

(I fully expect the “Edinburgh Defence” to be deployed 😐 )

…hang on a minute – who’s saying what? I’ve lost track, and now I don’t know who to argue with next.

I suppose what I’m saying, admittedly not very well, is that just because someone is religious, or has faith, whatever, they don’t always follow doctrine blindly. Fair enough, I could be accused of cherry picking which bits of Catholicism I agree with, but hey ho, I’ll deal with that when I have to. Or not, depending on your viewpoint

Yup I think most people get that, but I suppose I start to wonder why you would still call yourself a catholic if you are opposed to quite a few of the core beliefs that the leaders of the church get very het up about (never mind all the scandals/cover-ups etc). It’s entirely up to you of course and I’m not judging you for it, but it seems a bit odd to me.

STW towers clearly tolerates religion-bashing and the lack of moderation suggests that it may even encourage it.

STW tolerates religious, or indeed any, debate. Threads get closed when they get out of hand.

What’s the alternative to this perceived “lack of moderation?” Censorship? Would you rather that any discussion about religion was immediately closed?

Most threads on this topic are merely rehashes on a rotating 48 hour basis of entrenched positions

Don’t read them, then?

You do have to respect other people’s right to hold a different opinion on subjective matters

Correct. But,

– and that means not slagging them off

Incorrect. Or rather, ‘slagging them off’ is perhaps a bit strong; abusing someone isn’t nice irrespective of the reasons why. That’s not a religion issue, that’s being a decent human being issue. But if someone is allowed to have wild and crazy ideas, then someone else is allowed to challenge that. You can’t have it both ways.

in other words, I absolutely respect someone’s right to hold a different opinion. But that’s not the same thing as respecting that opinion, and it’s a fallacy to group the two together.

Now there IS a sign of madness…. talking to myself…

Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer… (-:

I’m a Catholic, admittedly more by the way I was brought up, but religious all the same. I’m pro gay marriage (good job really as I have a gay son), I’m not anti abortion,

You’re not a very good Catholic, then. Sounds a bit like calling yourself a non-smoker, apart from cigarettes.

Have you considered changing denominations to something that better represents your world view?

But if someone is allowed to have wild and crazy ideas, then someone else is allowed to challenge that. You can’t have it both ways.

Or to paraphrase Gypsy Rose Lee.

“If you don’t like being laughed at then you shouldn’t have such funny ideas!

Rusty Spanner – Member

“Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?”

How is that relevant?

Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being ‘wrongly’ prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is ‘ruined’. No?

To bring this back to the initial mention of the pope.

Does anyone else find it weird that when top religionists (the current ex pope and mother theresa spring to mind) are honest and reflect on their beliefs (pope in his speech and m.t. in her biography) they talk about how god often seems absent and how its all a bit of a struggle to believe.

Doesn’t that seem a bit weird?

Its like they almost realise the truth but can’t quite take the next step.

I could almost feel sorry for them, if it wasn’t for the other evils they’d perpetrated and supported in the name of their imaginary friend.

Cougar – all those points being tackled with such a strong tone. A booming voice – almost god-like…

🙂

I was christened as a catholic after being born premature and not being expected to survive. Also, I suspect an element of my mam wanting to piss my dad off, an ex catholic and very vocal anti religionist. My own views are clearly not in line with the churches, and I have to agree, that doesn’t make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.

Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being ‘wrongly’ prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is ‘ruined’. No?

No, it doesn’t.
Just because a law has not yet been incorrecty applied does not mean that the law itself is not dangerous.

Your argument is irrelevant and incorrect.

“Now there IS a sign of madness…. talking to myself…

Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer… (-:”

Dear dear C …. I held your view once, not so long ago…. as you well know.

I’m really glad I dont any more.

I can’t understand how, if you don’t believe in the concept of heaven and hell, you’d get so upset if a religious person thinks you’re headed to hell in a handcart. I’m all for a bit of handwringing but this does seem a bit on the sensitive side to me.

Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer… (-:

See? Even the modz are laughing at the devout. Seems ernie was right. 🙂

Rusty Spanner – Member

“Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being ‘wrongly’ prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is ‘ruined’. No?”

No, it doesn’t.
Just because a law has not yet been incorrecty applied does not mean that the law itself is not dangerous.

Your argument is irrelevant and incorrect.

Well I kind of like ‘evidence’, ‘proof’ and ‘examples’. It’s just as relevant as your unsupported opinion (I’ll call it a ‘hunch’) that this law is ‘ruined’ and now potentially ‘dangerous’.

Rusty spanner, I’m a bit confused now.

A couple of pages back when someone suggested people had a right not to be insulted based on their religion you said that they didn’t and you could say whatever you wanted to them and there was nothing they could do about it.

When it was pointed out that this wasnt actually the case, you said you had been arguing against religion being part of that legislation for years (but you seemed not to be aware of it previously?)

darcy, as I mentioned before, a good friend’s mother is a devout born-again Christian, and she really strongly believes all of her kids are going to be damned to a fiery hell for eternity unless they repent and find Jesus. She gets really upset about it.

I dunno if offensive is the right word but its certainly abhorrent/tragic.

Neal, the legislation does not provide a right not to be insulted based on religion.

My own views are clearly not in line with the churches, and I have to agree, that doesn’t make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.

WOAH THERE, if you’re going to be reflective, honest and polite you can bugger off this thread. pesky christians with their politeness, i want to be reading athiest fury.

Atheist fury – now there’s a good name for a band!

I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected.

Why?

I have to agree, that doesn’t make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.

You can be a good or a bad Catholic, and a good or a bad person. The two aren’t codependant (despite what the faith might have you believe to the contrary).

Seriously though, I don’t know why you’d want to associate with an organisation whose views were in conflict with your own. Well, I could guess; habit, peer / family pressure, inertia? There’s plenty of ways to be Christian without being Catholic, and plenty more ways still to be religious / spiritual. Western Buddhism, perhaps?

I dunno if offensive as the right word but its certainly abhorrent/tragic.

I guess being raised a catholic in Ireland, then realising it was all bollocks at an early age (aided, surprisingly by the realisation that my mum didn’t really believe it either, but just went along with it because of a devout father) helped me not to give a shit. I do agree with you that it’s a bit tragic though.