Topic: Freedom of speech

[TepidT2O]

I don't see how that contradicts with what I said. Religion might not deserve to belong in the same class as sexual orientation or race, but it's more than simply a choice too.

But insulting the religion would not insult the person who didn't believe in the religion.


I suppose I am quite strongly culturally Christian Protestant.  I was (literally) dragged to church by my parents for 16 years.  But Jerry Springer the musical offended me not one iota.  It offended my mum mind, but then, she had never seen it, didn't know what it contained and didn't know who Jerry Springer was or the context of the satire.

[saoirse08]

A Freedom of speech and censorship thread without Bill Hicks...

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/06/23/bill-hicks-censorship-freedom-of-speech-letter/

Censorship and What Freedom of Speech Really Means: Comedian Bill Hicks’s Brilliant Letter to a Priest:

Dear Sir,

After reading your letter expressing your concerns regarding my special “Revelations,” I felt duty-bound to respond to you myself in hopes of clarifying my position on the points you brought up, and perhaps enlighten you as to who I really am. Where I come from — America — there exists this wacky concept called “freedom of speech,” which many people feel is one of the paramount achievements in mankind’s mental development. I myself am a strong supporter of the “Right of freedom of speech,” as I’m sure most people would be if they truly understood the concept. “Freedom of speech” means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with. (Otherwise, you don’t believe in “freedom of speech,” but rather only those ideas which you believe to be acceptably stated.) Seeing as how there are so many different beliefs in the world, and as it would be virtually impossible for all of us to agree on any one belief, you may begin to realize just how important an idea like “freedom of speech” really is. The idea basically states “while I don’t agree or care for what you are saying, I do support your right to say it, for herein lies true freedom."

While I’ve found many of the religious shows I’ve viewed over the years not to be to my liking, or in line with my own beliefs, I’ve never considered it my place to exert any greater type of censorship than changing the channel, or better yet — turning off the TV completely.

In support of your position of outrage, you posit the hypothetical scenario regarding the possibly ‘angry’ reaction of Muslims to material they might find similarly offensive. Here is my question to you: Are you tacitly condoning the violent terrorism of a handful of thugs to whom the idea of ‘freedom of speech’ and tolerance is perhaps as foreign as Christ’s message itself? If you are somehow implying that their intolerance to contrary beliefs is justifiable, admirable, or perhaps even preferable to one of acceptance and forgiveness, then I wonder what your true beliefs really are.

If you had watched my entire show, you would have noticed in my summation of my beliefs the fervent plea to the governments of the world to spend less money on the machinery of war, and more on feeding, clothing, and educating the poor and needy of the world … A not-so-unchristian sentiment at that!

Ultimately, the message in my material is a call for understanding rather than ignorance, peace rather than war, forgiveness rather than condemnation, and love rather than fear. While this message may have understandably been lost on your ears (due to my presentation), I assure you the thousands of people I played to in my tours of the United Kingdom got it.

[B0151?]

But insulting the religion would not insult the person who didn't believe in the religion.


I suppose I am quite strongly culturally Christian Protestant.  I was (literally) dragged to church by my parents for 16 years.  But Jerry Springer the musical offended me not one iota.  It offended my mum mind, but then, she had never seen it, didn't know what it contained and didn't know who Jerry Springer was or the context of the satire.

So if someone said Islam was an inherently violent religion, you can't see how that might offend a non-believing Muslim with religious friends and family, born into that religion and came out the other side?

Not that you shouldn't be allowed to say that, but there are many things you can say about religions that might insult more than the belief in a higher being.

[KiNki]

If you were culturally Jewish but didn't believe in it, insulting the Abrahamic God would not insult you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPrS4h2ZCKg 

[TepidT2O]

So if someone said Islam was an inherently violent religion, you can't see how that might offend a non-believing Muslim with religious friends and family, born into that religion and came out the other side?

Not that you shouldn't be allowed to say that, but there are many things you can say about religions that might insult more than the belief in a higher being.

Wouldn't offend me if someone said it about Christians.  Why would it?

People say things that I don't agree with all the time, doesn't make it offensive.

[Macphisto80]

I agree with what you're saying to some extent, and I'm sorry if I seemed rudely dismissive when I thought you had missed my point, but I still think the point you raise about religion not being a choice is correct only as far as children are concerned. They may be born into it, they may then have that religion inculcated and brainwashed into them, but they reach the age of reason where that is no longer an excuse and it then becomes a choice. I'm speaking from experience with a gang of Irish Catholics dragging me up and forcing me to church every week     I'm not saying that it is an easy choice to make, especially for those in the circumstances of living in a particular culture or country, but it is still a choice that is open to them, unlike the other real life scenarios I've used. As for being identifiable by sight, well most sexualities and a lot of disabilities are not immediately evident on sight, so it's not about that. It's that at no point in the future can you change them by any desire or force of will, unlike religious ideology. Unless some people really can pray the gay away   

Without disregarding the rest of your post, that part stood out. Yes, freedom of speech is a grand thing and all, but where religion is concerned with it. certain head cases - and you get them in all religions - who do like to take it and use it as a excuse to spew bigoted bile really do need silenced. It's usually the more harmful stuff, dressed up as religious doctrine, that does the damage; but then again, you can blame human nature to those that listen. It's not the preacher, it's what they preach that matters.

[QC]

In the wake of the atrocities in France

What should be allowed to say, not allowed to say?

Should we be allowed to offend? Where is the line drawn?

The line is where freedom of expression infringes on the ability of people to practice their religion of choice. This would be where the expression incites hatred etc.

[Canada Loves Anfield]

The irony of talking about it on RAWK

[Corkboy]

Incredibly naive of those on here that dismiss religion as a choice. You may have been lucky enough for religion to be a choice for you, but dont think it's true that everyone in the world is in the same boat.

If you bombard a developing infant mind with a religious view of the life and the universe, and everyone that surrounds you does the same, then that developing brain stands very little chance of making an objective choice when they're old enough to reevaluate. Sure it happens, but only in a very tiny minority of cases. It's true for a Catholic kid growing up in Recife, a Jewish kid in Tel Aviv, a Muslim kid in Karachi.

This is nonsense. I am from a country where the population has shifted from massively religious to very secular in one generation. When I was a kid, the Catholic church ruled everything and everyone, now most people don't listen to anything they say. I'm 44, I got bombarded with religion as a child and I'm atheist. Most of my peers are the same, atheist, agnostic, couldn't give a fuck. 

[Xabi Gerrard]

This is nonsense. I am from a country where the population has shifted from massively religious to very secular in one generation. When I was a kid, the Catholic church ruled everything and everyone, now most people don't listen to anything they say. I'm 44, I got bombarded with religion as a child and I'm atheist. Most of my peers are the same, atheist, agnostic, couldn't give a fuck. 

Yes, because the Irish experience is representative of the majority of the world isn't it?

You just said yourself that there was a shift in the population from religious to secular. So the constant religious inputs you and your countrymen/women were getting have either stopped or been mixed with secular messages - something that kids in Pakistan, Colombia, etc dont get. It is therefore harder for them to make an objective informed choice than it is you and your friends.

To suggest that a 44 year old Irishman is exposed to the same religious environment as, say, a Pakistani or Nigerian is pretty silly.

[TepidT2O]

Yes, because the Irish experience is representative of the majority of the world isn't it?

You just said yourself that there was a shift in the population from religious to secular. So the constant religious inputs you and your countrymen/women were getting have either stopped or been mixed with secular messages - something that kids in Pakistan, Colombia, etc dont get. It is therefore harder for them to make an objective informed choice than it is you and your friends.

To suggest that a 44 year old Irishman is exposed to the same religious environment as, say, a Pakistani or Nigerian is pretty silly.

You may in effect be forced to practice the religion, but you can still chose in your own mind whether you believe it.  Even if it's too dangerous to say so.

[electricghost]

Without disregarding the rest of your post, that part stood out. Yes, freedom of speech is a grand thing and all, but where religion is concerned with it. certain head cases - and you get them in all religions - who do like to take it and use it as a excuse to spew bigoted bile really do need silenced. It's usually the more harmful stuff, dressed up as religious doctrine, that does the damage; but then again, you can blame human nature to those that listen. It's not the preacher, it's what they preach that matters.

An example.. It says in the Bible gays should be stoned to death, which I would say is bigoted bile. Should the Bible be banned if this needs to be silenced ?

[B0151?]

Wouldn't offend me if someone said it about Christians.  Why would it?

People say things that I don't agree with all the time, doesn't make it offensive.

If there is the possibility of my friends or family being treated differently and discriminated against as a result of their religion being under attack, then I would feel some type of way. I wouldn't say "well, stop being a Muslim then." Maybe you would, that's you. All I know is if I did start hammering Islam and Sikhism on Facebook every day, I have some friends that aren't particularly strong believers, but it would make them feel uncomfortable, probably because of the current tensions more than anything. It's not surprising someone with beliefs and a culture that is not native (or normal? I don't know) to this country might feel more threatened than you would. Not many in Europe get discriminated against because they look Christian (it's hard to look Christian obviously), but if you look Muslim, it's a different ball-game.

My points are probably quite jumbled, but I want to reiterate that I think living in a tolerant integrated society is key to a happy society. I think people are more likely to integrate with other people if they are not made to feel uncomfortable. I think integration is key to breaking down barriers and anything that gets in the way of two families who are completely different to each other living next to each other and being happy neighbours comfortable with the differences upsets me. A lot of the time, I think upsetting people does just drive people apart, creates tension, and makes people less likely to live in harmony together.

[Xabi Gerrard]

You may in effect be forced to practice the religion, but you can still chose in your own mind whether you believe it.  Even if it's too dangerous to say so.

If everything you've been taught between the ages of 0-10 has been through a religious lens, and everyone you know believes the same thing, it is very very very hard to dismiss your entire worldview, especially if theres no encouragement to.

Of course technically you can, but cant you see how much more difficult it is than it is for someone not born into devout religion?

[macca888]

An example.. It says in the Bible gays should be stoned to death, which I would say is bigoted bile. Should the Bible be banned if this needs to be silenced ?

I don't see how that would work to be honest. They'd probably fall asleep after one too many joints.

[TepidT2O]

If everything you've been taught between the ages of 0-10 has been through a religious lens, and everyone you know believes the same thing, it is very very very hard to dismiss your entire worldview, especially if theres no encouragement to.

Of course technically you can, but cant you see how much more difficult it is than it is for someone not born into devout religion?

No I can't.  But I can see how difficult it would be to admit it in a violent society where punishments can be 1000 lashes.

[KiNki]

You may in effect be forced to practice the religion, but you can still chose in your own mind whether you believe it.  Even if it's too dangerous to say so.

Dave allen got death threats and criticism.  His satirisation of catholicism perhaps led to the rest of ireland finding a voice that matched their minds.  Perhaps that's what islamic leaders are afraid of. 

[TepidT2O]

If there is the possibility of my friends or family being treated differently and discriminated against as a result of their religion being under attack, then I would feel some type of way. I wouldn't say "well, stop being a Muslim then." Maybe you would, that's you. All I know is if I did start hammering Islam and Sikhism on Facebook every day, I have some friends that aren't particularly strong believers, but it would make them feel uncomfortable, probably because of the current tensions more than anything. It's not surprising someone with beliefs and a culture that is not native (or normal? I don't know) to this country might feel more threatened than you would. Not many in Europe get discriminated against because they look Christian (it's hard to look Christian obviously), but if you look Muslim, it's a different ball-game.

My points are probably quite jumbled, but I want to reiterate that I think living in a tolerant integrated society is key to a happy society. I think people are more likely to integrate with other people if they are not made to feel uncomfortable. I think integration is key to breaking down barriers and anything that gets in the way of two families who are completely different to each other living next to each other and being happy neighbours comfortable with the differences upsets me. A lot of the time, I think upsetting people does just drive people apart, creates tension, and makes people less likely to live in harmony together.

Discrimination/ being treated differently are different issues though (though they are often linked).

[TepidT2O]

Dave allen got death threats and criticism.  His satirisation of catholicism perhaps led to the rest of ireland finding a voice that matched their minds.  Perhaps that's what islamic leaders are afraid of. 

I've always hugely admired Patrick Keilty.  I know he's probably a cock, but his mocking of the paramilitaries after his father was killed by them was an incredibly brave and enlightening thing.

Monty Pythons received death threats too.  So did Tom Holland, he wrote the shadow of the sword a book about the origins of Islam (and how little historical support there is for much of it), he released a TV program on C4 and got horrific death threats.  Just for questioning.

[Xabi Gerrard]

No I can't.  But I can see how difficult it would be to admit it in a violent society where punishments can be 1000 lashes.

Mate, if you really think, say Iranians or Saudis, would suddenly renounce Islam if their opressive governments were removed you are seriously deluded. You're always going to get stories of people that are punished by fucked up regimes for changing their religious beliefs but thats the tiny tiny minority.

Did you know in the Shah's time in Iran, he tried to make the country more Western by banning the hijab. Thousands of women were punished because they refused.

These sensationalist stories that you seem to base your knowledge of muslim countries on are not indicitive of the way people in Muslim countries feel about their religion - they may well hate their governments but the vast vast majority will still be Muslims when the next regime they get are in power.

[Fiasco]

The irony of talking about it on RAWK

To be fair though RAWK could get into trouble if certain things are posted in here, hence why I believe the mods err on the side of caution. Maybe it does go too far in some cases but I can understand why that is so.

[TepidT2O]

Mate, if you really think, say Iranians or Saudis, would suddenly renounce Islam if their opressive governments were removed you are seriously deluded. You're always going to get stories of people that are punished by fucked up regimes for changing their religious beliefs but thats the tiny tiny minority.

Did you know in the Shah's time in Iran, he tried to make the country more Western by banning the hijab. Thousands of women were punished because they refused.

These sensationalist stories that you seem to base your knowledge of muslim countries on are not indicitive of the way people in Muslim countries feel about their religion - they may well hate their governments but the vast vast majority will still be Muslims when the next regime they get are in power.

What sensationalist stories are you talking about? When have I mentioned sensationalist stories?

If you mention Iran, you must also acknowledge that significant tranches of Iranian society were much more liberal and women chose to wear (shock horror) mini skirts.

They chose not to follow Islam, they are no longer allowed this freedom of expression.

They are not allowed to renounce Islam, of course some of them would renounce it if they were allowed to, they did before the Shah was deposed. 

Very poor example.

[Corkboy]

Yes, because the Irish experience is representative of the majority of the world isn't it?

Please. You started the generalising, I provided a sizeable exception.

Sure it happens, but only in a very tiny minority of cases. It's true for a Catholic kid growing up in Recife, a Jewish kid in Tel Aviv, a Muslim kid in Karachi.

I suppose Ireland is quite tiny, though. Still, if we can do it...

[Macphisto80]

An example.. It says in the Bible gays should be stoned to death, which I would say is bigoted bile. Should the Bible be banned if this needs to be silenced ?

Where does it say that in the Bible? Post the paragraph or the parable. Certainly, no priest I ever heard reading from it in my time in church ever stated such things to his audience. You also have to take into consideration that there are effectively two Bibles: the Old and the New, and in the Old, there are some very archaic things, to put it mildly, that many of the crack pots latch on to. For example: the World being flat and all life on it having took form in 7 days. People actually believe that.

[Corkboy]

Where does it say that in the Bible? Post the paragraph or the parable.

New International Version
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 Leviticus 20:13

source

[B0151?]

Discrimination/ being treated differently are different issues though (though they are often linked).

They are often linked, being treated differently can be a very ostracising feeling. Religion is just more complicated than choice. We have a lad from Kuwait staying with us at the moment and obviously where he comes from is directly linked to the fact we got told (by the Language School that arranges the lodgings), 'no pork please'. I think some examples of free speech make discrimination more likely and drive tension up, so I am not a fan of that free speech when it is practised and I think it can have such an impact that saying "stop believing in it then" is not really a helpful and realistic solution when it comes to trying to get everyone to live in that ideal harmony. I don't know the best way forward, and I believe in free speech, but I don't think fighting religion is going to bring those who might be on the outer reaches of society inwards.

[Corkboy]

I don't think Holocaust denying should be a crime (as it is in certain countries). I also have difficulties with criminalising racism.

[TepidT2O]

I don't think Holocaust denying should be a crime (as it is in certain countries). I also have difficulties with criminalising racism.

You mean racist language surely?

[Xabi Gerrard]

What sensationalist stories are you talking about? When have I mentioned sensationalist stories?

The "thousand lashes" quote you made - apologies, I assumed you were talking about the sensationalist stories we often here in the West about Muslims that get a thousand lashes (or worse) for renouncing Islam. Your post sounded (to me at least) as if the only thing holding Muslims in Muslim societies back from making an informed objective choice about religion is fear of the government. It isn't.

If you mention Iran, you must also acknowledge that significant tranches of Iranian society were much more liberal and women chose to wear (shock horror) mini skirts.

They chose not to follow Islam, they are no longer allowed this freedom of expression.

They are not allowed to renounce Islam, of course some of them would renounce it if they were allowed to, they did before the Shah was deposed. 

Very poor example.

Funny you mention this. My mum and her three sisters, as well as their friends, were amogst these women you talk about that wore "(Shock horror) mini skirts" in Tehran in the Shah's time. They were Muslim then. They are muslim now. Maybe not the type of Burqa clad Muslim of popular Western imagination, but they're still Muslims and always were.

When you say "They chose not to follow Islam, they are no longer allowed this freedom of expression" that's fundamentally wrong. You're wrong to think that women dressing more liberally means they were renouncing Islam.

Dont let the Islamist view of how a woman should dress/behave take over your image of muslim women.


 

[Bird Bird Bird The Bird Is The Word]

Where does it say that in the Bible? Post the paragraph or the parable. Certainly, no priest I ever heard reading from it in my time in church ever stated such things to his audience. You also have to take into consideration that there are effectively two Bibles: the Old and the New, and in the Old, there are some very archaic things, to put it mildly, that many of the crack pots latch on to. For example: the World being flat and all life on it having took form in 7 days. People actually believe that.

The passage is as follows, this is from the King James version, apologies if you're familiar with another translation of the text.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill*

*except the gays, throw a stone for me"

There's also an illustration of God winking cheerfully with a rock in his hand.

[TepidT2O]

They are often linked, being treated differently can be a very ostracising feeling. Religion is just more complicated than choice. We have a lad from Kuwait staying with us at the moment and obviously where he comes from is directly linked to the fact we got told (by the Language School that arranges the lodgings), 'no pork please'. I think some examples of free speech make discrimination more likely and drive tension up, so I am not a fan of that free speech when it is practised and I think it can have such an impact that saying "stop believing in it then" is not really a helpful and realistic solution when it comes to trying to get everyone to live in that ideal harmony. I don't know the best way forward, and I believe in free speech, but I don't think fighting religion is going to bring those who might be on the outer reaches of society inwards.

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your intentions are obviously positive. However, restricting free speech will not bring harmony to society, it will actively discriminate against large groups of people who do not agree with the majority.

[Macphisto80]

New International Version
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 Leviticus 20:13

source

Old Testament, then. Like I said, all the head cases take the stuff from that literally. Those fundamentalist Christian eejits that picket dead soldier funerals in America, and all the preacher loonies. All I learned from that book as a kid was Adam and Eve, and that was that, and it was told like it was to kids: as a story. I think Noah is from that too, if I'm not mistaken?

[Corkboy]

You mean racist language surely?

Or writing or singing or shouting or whatever.

[macca888]

The "thousand lashes" quote you made - apologies, I assumed you were talking about the sensationalist stories we often here in the West about Muslims that get a thousand lashes (or worse) for renouncing Islam. Your post sounded (to me at least) as if the only thing holding Muslims in Muslim societies back from making an informed objective choice about religion is fear of the government. It isn't.

Funny you mention this. My mum and her three sisters, as well as their friends, were amogst these women you talk about that wore "(Shock horror) mini skirts" in Tehran in the Shah's time. They were Muslim then. They are muslim now. Maybe not the type of Burqa clad Muslim of popular Western imagination, but they're still Muslims and always were.

When you say "They chose not to follow Islam, they are no longer allowed this freedom of expression" that's fundamentally wrong. You're wrong to think that women dressing more liberally means they were renouncing Islam.

Dont let the Islamist view of how a woman should dress/behave take over your image of muslim women.

Yeah, those crazy sensationalist stories


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693

[TepidT2O]

The "thousand lashes" quote you made - apologies, I assumed you were talking about the sensationalist stories we often here in the West about Muslims that get a thousand lashes (or worse) for renouncing Islam. Your post sounded (to me at least) as if the only thing holding Muslims in Muslim societies back from making an informed objective choice about religion is fear of the government. It isn't.

Funny you mention this. My mum and her three sisters, as well as their friends, were amogst these women you talk about that wore "(Shock horror) mini skirts" in Tehran in the Shah's time. They were Muslim then. They are muslim now. Maybe not the type of Burqa clad Muslim of popular Western imagination, but they're still Muslims and always were.

When you say "They chose not to follow Islam, they are no longer allowed this freedom of expression" that's fundamentally wrong. You're wrong to think that women dressing more liberally means they were renouncing Islam.

Dont let the Islamist view of how a woman should dress/behave take over your image of muslim women.


 

I don't.  I know/have known many hundreds of Muslim women.

But I know several people who left Iran because of their religion (or lack thereof) not being tolerated.

I'm not suggesting Iran would suddenly become a secular society, but to suggest there are people in who aren't able to openly say they denounce Islam is just wrong.

On the issue of sensationalist storylines, quite clearly there are people being subjected to 1000 lashes.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693

[Fiasco]

I feel quite bad at times for being so ignorant and oblivious to all this. I suspect I'll be shouted down for it but the thread is about free speech and it's my opinion. I know next to nothing about religion except for the basics and some of the popular stories and whatnot. I just don't give it the time of day and that encompasses any religion. I don't look down on, hate or dislike anybody who is religious, not remotely. It's just something that to me seems so bizarre and contrary to human life in the 21st century that I can't get my head around why it's a massive cause for all these atrocities we see today and in history.

I try to learn more and read more but I just switch off. It goes in and out. It seems so pointless. But as I said, that doesn't mean I am better for it or anything like that. There may well be a God, we all should hope there is. But really it tires me.

Is there something more to it, am I missing the bigger picture?

[TepidT2O]

Perhaps we could bring the thread back to freedom of speech/expression?

[Xabi Gerrard]

I'm not suggesting Iran would suddenly become a secular society, but to suggest there are people in who aren't able to openly say they denounce Islam is just wrong.

Of course it's wrong, no one's disputing that. That's not what we were debating though is it? We were debating how easy it is to choose your faith. Anyway, let's move on.....

[TepidT2O]

Of course it's wrong, no one's disputing that. That's not what we were debating though is it? We were debating how easy it is to choose your faith. Anyway, let's move on.....

Actually we were debating freedom of speech.. Which we seem to have gone some way from!!

[electricghost]

Where does it say that in the Bible? Post the paragraph or the parable. Certainly, no priest I ever heard reading from it in my time in church ever stated such things to his audience. You also have to take into consideration that there are effectively two Bibles: the Old and the New, and in the Old, there are some very archaic things, to put it mildly, that many of the crack pots latch on to. For example: the World being flat and all life on it having took form in 7 days. People actually believe that.

Others have given you the Old Testament verses.

Here is a New Testament one

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1

Romans Chapters 24 through 28

So you can't do what many Christians do and disregard the inconvenient stuff from the OT.

Jesus is quoted as saying not one jot or tittle of the laws will be changed.


Also you refer to those believing things that you don't as "crackpots". How is this not what you are complaining of others doing to you ?


It is very common for priests not to teach these things, they would just rather talk about the nicer stuff, it helps to keep people coming back.