Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Silas Vitalia]

Wait to the FSM thing or the kill them all and let (x diety) sort them out thing because I think you may be over reacting either way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Real quick I'll give a more eloquent response a bit later:

1. Joking, of course!

2. Possibly getting upset for (half jokingly) disparaging someone's religion gets into meta-irony territory in a thread about abolishing blasphemy laws.

3. We should all free to believe in whatever we like, but this might also mean either all of it's ok, or none of it is.   To wit, Muslims can't draw a picture of the Prophet, but Danish cartoonists can and should, however mockingly they choose.  Dick move, yes, but one culture's bugaboos shouldn't infringe on other culture's either.

Super interesting topic, Lunarisse I'll respond to you more at length privately later I hope!

[Aldrith Shutaq]

I read this entire thread without realizing it was about real life until I finally checked the forum.

I thought we were talking about Amarr RP.

Funnily enough, the solution to this real-world problem is the same as the fictional ones with the Amarr: leave them alone and let them sort it out. Civilizations only change when the change comes from within their own societies, otherwise any outside ideas are labled as foriegn infulence and are immediately rejected. Europe used to be just as bad as any other religion-based society out there, but then they had the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and things went on from there. Any other society is capable of the same sort of change, it just requires a century or two of stability, peace and hopes for prosperity. Alas, these are things many nations in the world now lack, due in no small part to western interventionalism in the first place.

Cultural interventionism never, ever works unless you completely subjugate the population you are trying to change. If the liberal democratic west wants to launch a full-scale war on religious states, slaughter their leaders, destroy the holy sites and make anyone who grumbles about it disappear, then by all means, let's go save the world. If not, then shut up and put up. Patience is what wins the day in the end. Religious fundamentalism arises most strongly in an environment of disparity and conflict, and these two factors must be emlinated before real change can occur, as pointed out by many others in this thread.

[Lyn Farel]

Cultural interventionism is mostly a tool for memetic warfare and a matter of expanding one's own sphere of influence.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

What I was about to post 2 days ago when my i-net broke:

1) [Citation needed.] I will believe this claim when I read it myself, from what I've seen of Richard Dawkins what you claim may very well have been a satirical example of why blasphemy laws are bullshit.

He stated this in a talkshow, where he claimed that belief in God is a delusion and a dangerous one at that (he said both quite publicly in The God Delusion and The Root of All Evil). Asked what should be done with theists that don't want to give up on their 'delusion' he said something along the lines of (I paraphrase): As they are a potential dangerous to society, they should be placed in psychiatric institution and treated for their delusion there. Anyhow, his characterisation of theism as 'dangerous delusion' really does implicate such a treatment already.

That said, I'll try to dig up that talkshow for you. I follow him as he think he's a good educater of the general public about scince - although unfortunately he does that less and less - and simply a horrible example of a scientist thinking that he's more elegible to talk about philosophy (of religion) and theology then philosophers and scientists. Still, I'm not doing an index of what he said nor am I aiming to build an archive of Darwkins. So, I might not find it.

2) Fun fact for you: Blasphemy laws exist in quite a few places, not just in the middle east, and are being enforced in many of them. The Islamists want more of it, for instance in places like Europe.

Fun fact: I live in Europe. I'm well aware of 'blasphemy laws' here. Germany has one:

§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations
        (1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.
        (2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise.

I don't think it's so bad, really. It even protects the world view of atheists, too. I'm quite in favour of sensible blasphemy laws as it protects the right of people to be treated with dignity in regard to their most fundamental and core world views. That there are blasphemy laws that aren't as good as we'd like them to be doesn't mean they are bad in themselves.

Also, it shouldn't be that hard to show basic respect for one another, neither for religious people nor for non-religious ones. Wilders, who is as right wing as it gets, by the way is no fan of freedom of religion as far as it considers Islam...

3) I agree completely, this is why I find it offensive that people are killed for being homosexuals or a minority faith like Christianity in muslim nations and beyond.

And this is why, I signed the petition long ago. It just did not occur to me to share it around until recently.

The right to be treated according to human dignity is in the human rights convention and already is of higher concern then the right to freedom of expression, thought and opinion as well as freedom of religion and world view, as all these are deduced from the dignity of the human being and are thus, if you will, special cases of being treated accordingly.

Declarations of such nature need to stay general though, unless you get a race of who else wants to be named specifically: Polytheists, Animists, then Buddhists, Christians and ever more specific confessions and religions as well as specific wordviews. That'd be kind'a over the top.

[Desiderya]

Dig it up, because I'd be surprised if it's not in the context of really far out behaviour (certain versions of creationism, hearing the voice of god, etc).

But let's make it short:

Hitler Stalin Jews Muslims Religion War RAAAA!

There,

/thread

[Lyn Farel]

Fun fact: I live in Europe. I'm well aware of 'blasphemy laws' here. Germany has one:

§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations
        (1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.
        (2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise.

I don't think it's so bad, really. It even protects the world view of atheists, too. I'm quite in favour of sensible blasphemy laws as it protects the right of people to be treated with dignity in regard to their most fundamental and core world views. That there are blasphemy laws that aren't as good as we'd like them to be doesn't mean they are bad in themselves.

Wow. I find those rather repulsive and abhorrent. Why do they have to insert religion in simple, mere defamation laws ? Why does religion have to play some kind of special snowflake here ?

Defamation done in a manner to disturb public peace should be enough...

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Simply because defamation of religions or similar basic world views is not simple, mere defamation. It goes against the most basic, meaning producing belief systems people can hold. And that's a given, whether you like it or not.

I always notice that if I debate with people who attack religion in EVE and then I go to counter by applying the same 'arguments' they use to their most core beliefs (like naturalistic scientism, most often). Religion, just as any other basic (whether 'secular' or not) word view plays a 'special snowflake' role by their very nature, as the part of our beliefs that produce the meaning of all other beliefs we hold. It's not about religion per se, but about this basic function that is, even in our modern societies, mainly fulfilled by religions or other metaphysical belief systems (yah, naturalistic scientism is a metaphysical position).

As such, these most basic belief systems should reasonably be assigned with special protection. I don't see anything about that which qualifies to be described as 'repulsive' or even 'abhorrent', unless one is of the (in my opinion quite misguided) opinion that religions should vanish from the face of earth anyway, because they are all 'evil'. Special status should be coming with special protection. It's a basic concept of all constitutions based on the rule of law.

[Lyn Farel]

There are laws for specific blasphemy against naturalistic scientism ?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations
        (1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.
        (2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise.

Naturalistic scientism is a world view conviction, so the german 'blasphemy law' encompasses the special protection of that, just as it does with Christian konfessions, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc. We even have a world view association that is pushing naturalistic scientism and they as well are protected by that law, just as christian churches etc.

By the way, in german the law isn't really called 'blasphemy law', that's what it was called in the past, now - after changing it quite a bit - it's simply the law about 'defamation of creeds, religious societies and world view associations'.

As such, the law isn't really against 'blasphemy' but against inciting hate, discrimination (and violence) against basic, fundamental world views - whether they are religious or non-religious.

[Lyn Farel]

Ah I see !

Though I still find that kind of laws rather dangerous... 

[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]

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.

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... 

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.

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?