General Discussion > The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion
Abolish blasphemy laws
orange:
How in the world does that work, if in espousing a world view conviction, one defames other world view convictions?
Publicly distributing the Quran for free in a market (manner suitable to disturb the public peace) has the potential to defame/slander Christian and Jewish worldviews. The Quran fundamentally challenges the foundation of Christian belief. (Qur'an on Christianity) Thus such an action is illegal?
Can the series Cosmos not be shown in Germany, since it fundamentally challenges the world view of those who ignore the scientific process (scientism?) and presents evidence against beliefs such that the world is only 5,000 years old and could disturb the public peace?
It would seem that the very act of proselytizing could result in defaming a world view and thus up to 3 years imprisonment.
BloodBird:
--- Quote from: orange on 21 Jun 2014, 09:52 ---How in the world does that work, if in espousing a world view conviction, one defames other world view convictions?
Publicly distributing the Quran for free in a market (manner suitable to disturb the public peace) has the potential to defame/slander Christian and Jewish worldviews. The Quran fundamentally challenges the foundation of Christian belief. (Qur'an on Christianity) Thus such an action is illegal?
Can the series Cosmos not be shown in Germany, since it fundamentally challenges the world view of those who ignore the scientific process (scientism?) and presents evidence against beliefs such that the world is only 5,000 years old and could disturb the public peace?
It would seem that the very act of proselytizing could result in defaming a world view and thus up to 3 years imprisonment.
--- End quote ---
And this is why, blasphemy laws are a very bad idea that leads to more crap than we honestly need.
Besides, there are perfectly capable laws against defamation and spreading libel, it would count for being treated as shit over one's faith as well. Religions do not need a specific set of laws.
Nicoletta Mithra:
First off different rights/laws clash all the time.
But then, espousing one world view conviction doesn't mean one is defaming another. If your world view conviction is fundamentally entwined with defaming another, you should take pause and think.
That said, I don't see where the Qur'an defames/slanders Christian and Jewish worldviews. There is a difference between challanging something (even fundamentally) and defaming/slander, though you can challange in a way that is slander and slander in a challanging way. Alas, the internetcommunity seems to have forgotten that one can come withpout the other and they are not the same, it appears.
The series Cosmos can of course be shown in Germany. No, scientific progress is not scientism. Science as a practice is merely dedicated to methodological atheism and not a basic wordlview (in fact it's not a world view at all, but a practice). How you interprete the findings of science, whether you embrace them as Truth or simply as the result of empirical study is up to you and what really makes up your world view. Yes it presents evidence (not proof!) against the belief that the world is only 5000 years old, but it's not slander or defamation. If you say that people who chose to believe that the world is 5000 years old regardless of scientific evidence are all 'stupid (sub)humans' that should all be euthanized, then this is an entirely different matter and you're kind'a inciting hate crimes and violence.
And yes, the act of proselytizing could result in defaming a world view, so you better take care to proselytize in another way. It's not that difficult to do so in a civilized way.
I really think that people opposed to modern 'blasphemy laws' just want an excuse to slander and defame people and their world views, because they themselves think them silly (or 'evil') or simply because they lack the capacity to envision to challange someone in debate without taking refuge in slander and defamation.
Also, again: Mordern 'blasphemy laws' are not religion specific, but rather reflect the special protection the most core and fundamental world views should enjoy given their specific position as being fundamental beliefs.
Lyn Farel:
I think what Orange said points at what I find dangerous with such laws. They are extremely vague and entirely depend on what people call offense, defamation, world views, and how all of this offends their world view to a point to disturb public peace. I think you will find as many interpretation of said laws as you will find people being offended over anything.
Like Muhammad caricatures... :roll:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 21 Jun 2014, 10:38 ---I really think that people opposed to modern 'blasphemy laws' just want an excuse to slander and defame people and their world views, because they themselves think them silly (or 'evil') or simply because they lack the capacity to envision to challange someone in debate without taking refuge in slander and defamation.
--- End quote ---
That's really probable.
On the other hand it's rather easy to say that. It could also be really easy to say that some religious people support those laws because they are just the same way unable to debate without taking refuge behind censorship and blasphemy laws....
We can go really far with that kind of suppositions.
Desiderya:
@Orange: It's actually been critized for being way too vague. But it's one of those rarely used laws, and some political parties would love to see it in a much harsher fashion (such as to stop being able to use the pope in caricatures of questionable taste (sounds familiar?) on the cover of a satiric magazine, or to defend the society against the menace of shows like Popetown).
@Nicoletta:
I think it's perfectly sane to call people like this naive, stupid or simply ignorant on this basis, quite depending of the magnitude of the (objectively) shown disconnection to reality. It is just much, much more difficult to call out certain religious beliefs for being balls-out-crazy than it is with other beliefs (such as popular conspiracy theories - you'll find remarkable similarities), simply due to the fact that this is religious, and therefore somehow sacrosanct.
Calling for euthanasia is something else since it doesn't really matter why you want to euthanize a group of people, because regardless of the reasons, this is actually a crime. Also why are we talking about euthanizing people in the first place?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version