Don't poke fun at the foibles of the church

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you are so concerned about freedom and censorship then why don't you complain about the removal of the "The Biggest Sh*t thread" or whatever it was called ?

Well, it wasn't a thread I was interested in or read beyond the first page, I hadn't noticed it was gone.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Well, it wasn't a thread I was interested in or read beyond the first page, I hadn't noticed it was gone.

If you are interested in real freedom, meaning freedom for everybody not disciminating against ideological or religious beackground you should really pay attention to these things. It is not just about you and your ideological friends you know.

It may be a good thing to read the "Civil Liberties" thread Shavixmir initiated in the Debates Forum and my comments in the same thread on his opening post.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm sure I can find all forms of human madness well represented on the internets. So what? Folks on debating sites are self-selected and tend not only to start off with radical positions (to make the debate interesting) but they get more radical as the debate progresses. Why should I take the views of blowhards on the internets as representative? What reason is there for thinking that religious freedom is really under attack in the Western world?

What reason is there for thinking that religious freedom is really under attack in the Western world?

Do you think the French Government's ruling banning religious accessories (scarves, crucifixes etc.) being worn by schoolchildren constitutes a restriction on their right to freedom of religious expression?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Aardvarkhome: "No one is banning religion in Europe."

This is a statement I would not like to repeat after reading the European debating sites. Especially the Dutch liberal masses are quite in favour of it.

Aarvarkhome: " I think you have given a misleading impression in your post"

You obviously only read the papers.

Freedom of religion is protected under European Law enacted by member countries. While the proposed constitution does not assert the primacy of christianity there is nothing in the constitution to restrict religious freedom. In the UK there is detailed legislation outlawing discrimination on religious grounds. There is draft legislation to make denigrating a religion an offence (perhaps I would be prosectuted under that law when it is enforced).

I'm not as well informed as you on the situation in the Nederland but I thoink a proposal to ban religion would have made the news in the UK (the murders certainly did). I know France has restircted religious symbols.

Curtailing the actions of extremists and banning religion per se are two very different things!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]What reason is there for thinking that religious freedom is really under attack in the Western world?

Do you think the French Government's ruling banning religious accessories (scarves, crucifixes etc.) being worn by schoolchildren constitutes a restriction on their right to freedome of religious expression?[/b]

While in the UK criticising religion may become an offence within the next year

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]What reason is there for thinking that religious freedom is really under attack in the Western world?

Do you think the French Government's ruling banning religious accessories (scarves, crucifixes etc.) being worn by schoolchildren constitutes a restriction on their right to freedome of religious expression?[/b]

Well, it certainly is a restriction on religious expression. Whether there is a fundamental right to such expression, and, if so, whether such a right extends to French public schools are other questions. Further, are their competing rights, more central to the primary function of schools, that are served by this restriction? I've read that some Jewish organizations support the ban, as they expect it to decrease violence against Jewish children.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Freedom of religion is protected under European Law enacted by member countries. While the proposed constitution does not assert the primacy of christianity there is nothing in the constitution to restrict religious freedom. In the UK there is detailed legislation outlawing discrimination on religious grounds. There is draft legislation to make denigrat ...[text shortened]...
Curtailing the actions of extremists and banning religion per se are two very different things!

There is draft legislation to make denigrating a religion an offence (perhaps I would be prosectuted under that law when it is enforced).

Not quite.

5. What will the new offence not cover?

Of themselves, the following would not be caught by the offence:

- Criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; for example by claiming that they are false or harmful;
- Proselytising one’s own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practising theirs; for example Christians claiming that Jesus Christ is the way the truth, the life and the only way to God, Muslims exhorting people to submit to the will of Allah, or Atheists claiming that there is no God;
- Telling jokes about religions;
- Publishing or reading from religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur’an.
- Of themselves these activities do not meet the criteria of the offences. However if a person were to use threatening, abusive or insulting words/actions with the intent or likely effect that hatred would be stirred up whilst undertaking the actions listed above, then by definition, they could rightly fall into the scope of the offence.
In a presentation at the Houses of Parliament, Trevor Philips reminded us that Bernard Manning, Lenny Henry, Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown had not been prosecuted for any racial jokes under the existing offences. In particular there have been no prosecutions for jokes directed at the Jewish community, who are protected by the incitement to racial hatred provisions, regardless of whether jokes are racially or religiously motivated. If this protection of the Jewish community didn’t penalise rabbi jokes, there are no grounds to believe that extending the protection to other faith communities will prevent jokes about them.†

---
† http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/faith/crime/faq.html

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, it certainly is a restriction on religious expression. Whether there is a fundamental right to such expression, and, if so, whether such a right extends to French public schools are other questions. Further, are their competing rights, more central to the primary function of schools, that are served by this restriction? I've read that some Jewish organizations support the ban, as they expect it to decrease violence against Jewish children.

What does the right to religion mean if you are not allowed to express it, even in a manner that does not violate the rights of others?

Some more info on the law:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14480_1.html

In your opinion, does the existence of this law support (not necessarily prove) ivanhoe's asssertion that religion is under attack in Europe?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]There is draft legislation to make denigrating a religion an offence (perhaps I would be prosectuted under that law when it is enforced).

Not quite.

5. What will the new offence not cover?

Of themselves, the following would not be caught by the offence:

- Criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its follow ...[text shortened]... event jokes about them.†

---
† http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/faith/crime/faq.html[/b]

Phew!!!

Thats OK then. Those nice people at the Home Office seem to have covered all the bases.

I'm sure there will be few prosecutions under the new law; I think it was intended to mute criticism of religion. It is a pernicious law

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What does the right to religion mean if you are not allowed to express it, even in a manner that does not violate the rights of others?

Some more info on the law:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14480_1.html

In your opinion, does the existence of this law support (not necessarily prove) ivanhoe's asssertion that religion is under attack in Europe?

Nobody is preventing the expression of religion tout court. The restriction is on one form of religious expression in one specific public arena. Again, it is an open question whether the right of religious expression is so broad that this restriction is wrong. Again, it is an open question whether there are other competing rights of the State, the students, etc. that are furthered by this restriction.

No, obviously this is not evidence of an "attack on religion". First, the restriction only concerns one narrow form of expression. Second, the restriction only applies to one narrow public arena. Third, I see no reason to think that restricting X is equivalent to an attack on X. Fourth, the intent of the law is not the restriction of religious expression itself, as though that was valuable to the French in and of itself.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, it certainly is a restriction on religious expression. Whether there is a fundamental right to such expression, and, if so, whether such a right extends to French public schools are other questions. Further, are their competing rights, more central to the primary function of schools, that are served by this restriction? I've read that some Jewish organizations support the ban, as they expect it to decrease violence against Jewish children.

Bbarr: "I've read that some Jewish organizations support the ban, as they expect it to decrease violence against Jewish children."

..... doesn't this practical reason to support such restrictions on religious expressions in certain public spheres make your toes curl ?

Originally posted by bbarr
Nobody is preventing the expression of religion tout court. The restriction is on one form of religious expression in one specific public arena. Again, it is an open question whether the right of religious expression is so broad that this restriction is wrong. Again, it is an open question whether there are other competing rights of the State, the st ...[text shortened]... tion of religious expression itself, as though that was valuable to the French in and of itself.

Coming on the heels of that despicable silencing of aardvarck's joke thread, they got a lot of gall to complain about the dress code in France.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Bbarr: "I've read that some Jewish organizations support the ban, as they expect it to decrease violence against Jewish children."

..... doesn't this practical reason to support such restrictions on religious expressions in certain public spheres make your toes curl ?

Do you have a foot fetish?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Coming on the heels of that despicable silencing of aardvarck's joke thread, they got a lot of gall to complain about the dress code in France.

RHP is a private business, a chess community. Everybody has the right to freely express his or her opinions unless it violates the ToS.

Purposely and structurally devoting a whole thread on offending a part of the RHP community is simply not done according to the ToS.

Maybe you should join other organisations where such obvious bigotry is bon ton.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]To tell a joke which stereotypes Germans as nazis is not at all the same as saying that all Germans are nazis.

Perhaps it is your father who should be answering this question. No offence intended.

Whether I find a joke offensive or not depends on a lot of factors, though. It depends on who is telling the joke, to whom ..., and how.

Who was telling this joke? To whom? How?[/b]

"Perhaps it is your father who should be answering this question. No offence intended."

Point taken (why not my mother, by the way? ). I think my parents' answer wouldn't be much different, though. But maybe my grandparents' answer, if they were still alive, would. My parents were only children during the war.

"Who was telling this joke? To whom? How?"

Which one?