what happened to free speech

[KaiserWilly]

Getting bored with this thread - its been done to death now.

We need to be fair in our dealings with people, whatever their background and engaging in an inclusive debate is better than creating animosity.

The French have a word for people like you: bien-pensant.

Seems like some people only play the freedom of speech thing against minorities and foreigners. When was the last time you read something good about migrants or muslims in the mainstream media? Are we saying these people are all bad.

When was the last time that you read something good about the BNP and the EDL in the MSM? Are we saying these people are all bad?

- what about the holocaust deniers - should they have their freedom of speech? In some European countries its a criminal matter so a custodial is a likley outcome..

Yes, they should. Just to show that their arguments are rubbish.

Freedom of speech has to be used in a befitting manner and in line with social and custom norms and not used as a political tool to further the bigotry of some people.

In the West is a social and custom norm to examine the beliefs of your own religion. If Muslims don't like it, they can bugger off to Saudi Arabia.

[chef]

I'm bored with this idiotic bigot, can someone tell me how to add him to my ignore list please?

EDIT: doesn't matter, I've sorted it.

[speling bee]

So mrdonuts starts another jonny foreigner bashing thread but gets told to wind his neck in by Admin, then this climbs out from under his rock.



Quel surprise

What was the name of the that used to do this to "encourage debate", David Camp? Sommat like that.

Camp David was Causus Deli - nasty little pieces of work.

[xoggoth]

Freedom of speech has to be used in a befitting manner and in line with social and custom norms and not used as a political tool to further the bigotry of some people

What does that have to do with the issue raised? I don't agree with that "Religion of Piss" stuff anymore than you do, it's counterproductive, but this was not some deliberately insulting program, just a history program examining the background and origins of one of the world's major beliefs.

There is a basic fact here that is being ignored, our tradition of freedom of speech, of being free to examine issues impartially, has been curtailed, not just to avoid offence to a minority but because members of that minority, yet again, have threatened individuals with violence.

As I say, we should not insult for the sake of it but, if you cannot challenge the basis of religious beliefs, how can you argue against the practical consequences of the religion? If I believe in secular society and a Muslim does not, then how can I argue my own case if I am not allowed to even suggest that the prophet was a fallible man and not guided by god?

There are constant double standards here. If this had been a history of Marxism and some left wingers had made similar threats, would there be all these excuses? If Marxists were coming to the UK in large numbers and challenging capitalism, would we be barred from suggesting that Marxism was a flawed idea? As soon as religion is involved, especially if it's a creed largely held by non whites, that allows all the cards of racism, Islamophobia etc to be played, shutting down any freedom to discuss the issues .

[speling bee]

What does that have to do with the issue raised? I don't agree with that "Religion of Piss" stuff anymore than you do, it's counterproductive, but this was not some deliberately insulting program, just a history program examining the background and origins of one of the world's major beliefs.

There is a basic fact here that is being ignored, our tradition of freedom of speech, of being free to examine issues impartially, has been curtailed, not just to avoid offence to a minority but because members of that minority, yet again, have threatened individuals with violence.

As I say, we should not insult for the sake of it but, if you cannot challenge the basis of religious beliefs, how can you argue against the practical consequences of the religion? If I believe in secular society and a Muslim does not, then how can I argue my own case if I am not allowed to even suggest that the prophet was a fallible man and not guided by god?

There are constant double standards here. If this had been a history of Marxism and some left wingers had made similar threats, would there be all these excuses? If Marxists were coming to the UK in large numbers and challenging capitalism, would we be barred from suggesting that Marxism was a flawed idea? As soon as religion is involved, especially if it's a creed largely held by non whites, that allows all the cards of racism, Islamophobia etc to be played, shutting down any freedom to discuss the issues .

So is thete insufficient criticism of Muslims in society?

[d000hg]

xog I've never met a Muslim that wasn't open to such discussion 1-on-1.

[xoggoth]

So is thete insufficient criticism of Muslims in society?

Erm? Don't think there's some quota. Just saying that we should all be free to express our own beliefs as long as we are not deliberately offensive and how can you possibly do that without challenging the beliefs of others?

xog I've never met a Muslim that wasn't open to such discussion 1-on-1.

Me neither and I've known a couple of pretty strict ones, but personal experiences (unless you've known vastly more than me) are not a good guide to anything. Stats from reputable sources mean more.

[speling bee]

Erm? Don't think there's some quota. Just saying that we should all be free to express our own beliefs as long as we are not deliberately offensive and how can you possibly do that without challenging the beliefs of others?


Me neither and I've known a couple of pretty strict ones, but personal experiences (unless you've known vastly more than me) are not a good guide to anything. Stats from reputable sources mean more.

My apologies for mis-understanding.

[Mich the Tester]

Erm? Don't think there's some quota. Just saying that we should all be free to express our own beliefs as long as we are not deliberately offensive and how can you possibly do that without challenging the beliefs of others?


Me neither and I've known a couple of pretty strict ones, but personal experiences (unless you've known vastly more than me) are not a good guide to anything. Stats from reputable sources mean more.

Agreed on both counts, however; 'reputable sources' is very much open to debate even in the case of the national statistics offices in democracies. Remember also that many statistics are filtered and selected by journos before being presented to the public. Plus; within reason people choose whether to be offended. I can choose to be offended by someone calling me a cretin, but it doesn't bother me. However, if I was being told every day that I don't fit in to society and then some person in authority decides to say the same thing, I might be offended (or actually scared, which is perhaps the other side of the same coin. I think it's important to be very careful in interpreting statistics, especially if you're one of the more ejumakated (a la ZG) people in society.

[d000hg]

To be honest I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile a strong faith [in many religions] with a tolerant free position. If the religion you fully believe to be true has facets which are in some way intolerant, then society telling you "you have freedom of religion as long as it doesn't conflict with our humanist position" doesn't get you anywhere... watering down your religion to avoid offending other people is not being true to your beliefs if they do come from a higher power (which you believe they do).

In fact even an atheist probably should actively work to stamp out religion rather than preach tolerance, precisely because it's not rational or reasonable to expect the religious to fit their religion inside a humanist-defined boundary, once you get that they believe what they do is from God rather than man.

I don't know if Islam really preaches much bad stuff but I'm sure it has some; Christianity certainly teaches stuff which is very counter-cultural to modern western civilisation, first and foremost that Christians are to spread Christianity - which immediately falls foul of the 'tolerant' position "believe what you like but don't tell me about it"... telling people about it is part of what you believe in the first place.

Tricky. From a logical standpoint there is not an answer which CAN fit both mindsets except where you have a religion which is very wishy-washy. Like CofE, which is what happens when a proper religion does try to fit in... it loses all its potency which comes from teaching a different world view, and still annoys atheists!