Print

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

[Esna Pitoojee]

True. But then, modern 'blasphemy laws' like the one in Germany don't legislate against the statement 'God does not exist.' though. If you will, they are called 'blasphemy laws' only due to their historic predecessors, but then I'd argue they still legislate - with reason - against certain types of blasphemy, that is those types that defame and slander a religion and thus acts that conflict with the right to freedom of belief.

This, I think, is a critical point: Just because certain laws share a name ("blasphemy") with laws used by more oppressive regimes, it's a mistake to treat them all the same. Western blasphemy laws have more in common with hate-speech laws than anything else (whose existence is an entirely separate debate and not one I'll get into here). If we treat them the same just because they share a name, we may as well start campaigning against governments' right to impose martial law because some dictatorships have used it as an excuse to crack down on opponents.

So, combined with the points that Aldrith and Orange laid out earlier (that it is not the mandate of the UN to enforce protection of beliefs, and that the law seems to be primarily aiming at those who aren't going to listen anyhow) I cannot say I support this petition. There are more effective ways to go about trying to end the abuses perpetrated by certain governments than an overly-broad and misaimed petition like this.


EDIT:

Kala, I think the best way to answer this is to straight-up say it's not about ideas. Were it just about ideas, the discussion would be a lot simpler.

When one says something that slanders or defames a religion, members of that faith will not merely take it as an insult against an intangible concept, but as an insult against themselves as believers, against figures they regard as real, tangible historical figures. I do not think that most of us would become upset about a debate over a concept, but the moment that turns personal it's an entirely different matter; religion produces those kinds of deep, personal bonds and it's a mistake to act like they don't exist.

[BloodBird]

Ummm... who are referring to Kala? Me, being the OP?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I guess Kala is responding to me, as she took that quote from me. So, here's my response:

Neither slander nor defamation imply that the object of slander or defamation has the capacity to feel insult in itself. Slander and defamation imply that a reputation is hurt by untrue statements. You can bring the Christian idea of God into disrepute by false and unsupported, malicious statements.

But then, according to the thought of human rights you don't need to protect the 'Christian idea of God' because it has in itself a quality that compells us to talk truely and non-maliciously about it (concepts & ideas have no interest in being talked about truthfully) - and the same is true for a naturalist idea of a mechanistic universe, but indeed - like Esna said - these should be protected becuse slander against those ideas and concepts touches those that hold these world views and thus impinge on their right to freely express their worldview without fear of ridicule, their beliefs being misrepresented etc.

So, those that excercise their right to freedom of belief have an staked interest in and a right to the non-malicious, truthfull treatment of the beliefs they adhere to.

I'd like to avoid giving an explicit example of slander of a religion or worldview. I'll try to give one that is generalized:

"The god of x is P." With x denoting a specific religion and P being attributes that depict the concept of God held by the religion x in a wrongful manner that is harmful to the reputation of that concept.

Similar statements can be made of non-religious worldviews or religions that lack a concept of god:

"The worldview x is P." With x denoting a specific wordlview and P being attributes that depict the worldview x in a wrongful manner that is harmful to the reputation of that worldview.

Ofc. such statements would need to be made in public to really qualify as being able to hurt the reputation of said concepts/worldviews. Given that a simple tweet that was only meant to reach your friends can nowadays turn public quite fast, we need some legislation there, but that is true in general with hate speech/slander/defamation/libel laws.

[Kala]

Kala, I think the best way to answer this is to straight-up say it's not about ideas. Were it just about ideas, the discussion would be a lot simpler.

When one says something that slanders or defames a religion, members of that faith will not merely take it as an insult against an intangible concept, but as an insult against themselves as believers, against figures they regard as real, tangible historical figures. I do not think that most of us would become upset about a debate over a concept, but the moment that turns personal it's an entirely different matter; religion produces those kinds of deep, personal bonds and it's a mistake to act like they don't exist.

I'm not acting like they don't exist, of course people care deeply about their beliefs and faith and are entitled to, I'm just saying that insult being taken doesn't necessarily mean insult was intended and how that would fit into slander or defamation re: blasphemy. (and a little uncertain on the definition of those in this context).

Ummm... who are referring to Kala? Me, being the OP?

Sorry for the confusion :p I never quite mastered the 'quote from' bit and writing (quote) (/quote) just became a habit... Just try and identify your own words everybody!

(I meant Nicoletta Mithra).


To Nicoletta:

Hm.  Well, I can understand the malicious part - but bringing the Christian idea of God into disrepute by false and unsupported statements seems a bit nebulous?  How can it be proved the statement is false and unsupported?  I get you could make a statement about Christians as a group that was untrue, but I'm less certain about God.

I mean, I could *say* I thought the Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal and provide evidence for that, but that would be contrary to how many would see God.  I think it would upset people.  But I'm not sure it would make it defamation or slander (or even malicious if I believed it and argued the point). But to some people, that would clearly be bringing God into disrepute and be false, no?

Does that constitute "The god of x is P." With x denoting a specific religion and P being attributes that depict the concept of God held by the religion x in a wrongful manner that is harmful to the reputation of that concept?

Or are we talking about deliberate misrepresentation of a religion and their beliefs to depict things contrary to their doctrine? (and presumably making out that you have evidence of that when you do not, as otherwise it could simply be "I think Christians believe this" and be wrong, by ignorance or mistake?)

I can understand that bit.  And I can absolutely understand the malicious bit (and how it relates to hate speech or harassment) but it's the defamation/slander aspect to concepts and worldviews that trouble me.  The groups that espouse those views - fine, if they've set about explaining the belief systems underpinning worldviews and someone is deliberately misrepresenting them to target that group, I can see it.  But for things that are up for debate anyway, how can you confidently say a stance is wrongful?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I mean, I could *say* I thought the Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal and provide evidence for that, but that would be contrary to how many would see God.  I think it would upset people.  But I'm not sure it would make it defamation or slander (or even malicious if I believed it and argued the point). But to some people, that would clearly be bringing God into disrepute and be false, no?

Does that constitute "The god of x is P." With x denoting a specific religion and P being attributes that depict the concept of God held by the religion x in a wrongful manner that is harmful to the reputation of that concept?

No that is a different matter, it is a proposition of the form "I think y." with y="The god of x is P." Here you explicitly qualify your statement as being merely what you think. If you said: "The Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal." that would be a sentence of the form "The god of x is P.". Now, does it fullfill the requirements to the P's for it to be defamation/slander?

Or are we talking about deliberate misrepresentation of a religion and their beliefs to depict things contrary to their doctrine? (and presumably making out that you have evidence of that when you do not, as otherwise it could simply be "I think Christians believe this" and be wrong, by ignorance or mistake?)

I can understand that bit.  And I can absolutely understand the malicious bit (and how it relates to hate speech or harassment) but it's the defamation/slander aspect to concepts and worldviews that trouble me.  The groups that espouse those views - fine, if they've set about explaining the belief systems underpinning worldviews and someone is deliberately misrepresenting them to target that group, I can see it.  But for things that are up for debate anyway, how can you confidently say a stance is wrongful?

Now, first, we're speaking here about the Christian concept of God, not your concept of God or your concept of the Christian concept of God. So, what the Christians belief is in that regard is mainly up to the Christians. You can point out what seems to be inconsistencies, but you can't dictate what the Christian conception of God is as, say, an atheist.

That said, aside from diliberate misrepresentations, there are misrepresentations that grow out of what can be described as 'willfull ignorance'. If you don't seek to educate yourself what the Christian perpective is, but insist that your interpretation of the bible shows clearly that God is P, therfore the Christian God must be P, as there can't be another interpretation of the bible... well...

But all that is of course a bit theoretic. In practice, it oftentimes isn't that much of a problem as in sensible processes you have the option to retract or clarify your statement. In the process of that it usually becomes quite clear if you intended the slander or not. Like if you said: "The Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal." and Christian X said: "That's not true, that's slander!" And you respond with: "Well, what I meant is, I think 'The Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal.', for reasons a, b, c." than it is clear that you didn't intend to defame the Christian concept of God.

On the other hand, if you say: "No, that's the truth and you're dumb for not seeing that!" It's quite clear that your intentions are not benign at all.

It's a general problem with laws though that they are general rules, that need to be fitted on individual cases. That's what the judges and courts are there for, no?

[Desiderya]

Of course it's legit to challange that, as long as you do so in a respectful manner.

Maybe just grow up and stop feeling you need to be allowed to resort to slander and defamation to challange religion. Also, grow up a little and don't get offended so easily if science gets challanged.

These are not magically becoming my words just by repeating the phrase over and over. But let's cut the sophistry as this is going nowhere and most definitely not worth my time anymore.

[Vikarion]

I disagree with the idea that humans have "natural rights". We don't. That is to say, insofar as a right exists, it exists because we agree to create it. You can claim a right to life all you want, for example, but neither a lion nor a microbe will care. Rights exist only as constructs, as general rules for ways in which to treat others in order to have a society where we are better off.

As such, the idea that slander and defamation are something that we have a right to be free from is itself a construct to be questioned. My belief, and a belief usually held in the U.S. court system, is that something only functions as slander or defamation if it is not true. So the idea of blasphemy laws as a defense against an  assault on the beliefs of others is already fairly questionable, under that rule.

One could argue that the feelings of others are more important than telling the truth, but this is an argument that most people don't seem to personally desire to have inflicted on them in the majority of cases, and, moreover, tends to become pretty impractical pretty rapidly. Personally, I value knowing truth quite a bit more than feeling blissfully ignorant of reality.

And most blasphemy pretty easily falls under the "it's true" umbrella. For example, I can say that the God of the Bible seems to be a pretty murderous asshole with a penchant for racism, sexism, and sadism. Is this blasphemy? Yes. Is it true? Well, according to the Bible, God flooded the earth and decreed death for several hundred offenses, including violating the Sabbath by picking up sticks on it (Exodus/Numbers). He also had one chosen people, and referred to every other ethnic group on the face of the earth as "dogs" (Gospel of Matthew, I believe). He had an immense number of laws directed at controlling and even oppressing women, all the way through the New Testament, from the death penalty for being raped in a city and not being heard to scream, to having to marry your rapist (if you weren't betrothed), to not being allowed to speak in church. Oh, and he will torture you after death if you don't love Him with all your heart and seek forgiveness for even thinking about something wrong (again, Gospel of Matthew).

That's blasphemy, but it's all true. If that is an attack on those who cling to the Bible as a textbook for belief, well then - and I say this as someone who once did also so believe - good. If your beliefs can be truthfully explained with the effect of making you feel offended, devalued, and violated, the problem with is not the person criticizing you - it's you.

Without people blaspheming God, I never would have woken up to the falsehood of my own fundamentally held beliefs - and yes, they brought me a lot of security and peace. But I was not better off believing a lie. It really is better to have one's own beliefs criticized, examined, and scoured, by rigorous examination, by insult, by satire, by contempt. Sure, it hurts. So does surgery and dentistry.

I don't see blasphemy laws as protecting my dignity. I see them as a condescension, as a statement that I must be protected from painful criticism, and as a threat, as an attempt to control what I am allowed to hear. I'd rather live in a society with a minimum of that, thanks, and I don't think that it's a human right to impose that sort of control on either my tongue or my ears.

[Esna Pitoojee]

Kala, I think the best way to answer this is to straight-up say it's not about ideas. Were it just about ideas, the discussion would be a lot simpler.

When one says something that slanders or defames a religion, members of that faith will not merely take it as an insult against an intangible concept, but as an insult against themselves as believers, against figures they regard as real, tangible historical figures. I do not think that most of us would become upset about a debate over a concept, but the moment that turns personal it's an entirely different matter; religion produces those kinds of deep, personal bonds and it's a mistake to act like they don't exist.

I'm not acting like they don't exist, of course people care deeply about their beliefs and faith and are entitled to, I'm just saying that insult being taken doesn't necessarily mean insult was intended and how that would fit into slander or defamation re: blasphemy. (and a little uncertain on the definition of those in this context).

In most of the reasonable applications of blasphemy laws I've seen, intent was taken into heavy consideration in the final ruling. If someone seemed to have set out to insult people and get them riled up, then they were convicted. This is why I say some blasphemy laws seem to have more in common with hate speech laws than anything else: In practice, they aren't used to say "don't express a disapproval of a religion" so much as "don't go out there to start shit with follows of a religion."

[orange]

Nicoletta, let's take a specific example.

Do you think the below statement slanders and defames modern polytheistic Hellenismos?

They are a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past.

I think it does and that it was the Father's intent to defame/slander Hellenismos.  I think Father Kollas should at least be tried for violating Articles 198 and 199 of the Greek Penal Code (Greek Blasphemy Laws).  (Note: Greece does not treat all religions equal in the eyes of the law.)

Or should Father Kollas be permitted to speak his mind (and presumably speak for the community of Greek Orthodox priests) with regards to neopolytheism?

[Silas Vitalia]

Vikarion I've often disagreed with so very many things you've written but that might be your best post ever.

Super double plus good, and I'm with you on that.

Despite much of the unpleasantness that can come with freedom of speech, I absolutely cherish the right to both offend and to be offended by others.  Both are necessary in a free society in my opinion. 

[Vikarion]

Vikarion I've often disagreed with so very many things you've written but that might be your best post ever.

Super double plus good, and I'm with you on that.

Despite much of the unpleasantness that can come with freedom of speech, I absolutely cherish the right to both offend and to be offended by others.  Both are necessary in a free society in my opinion.

Ooooh, a compliment cookie! OMNOMNOM. 

And thanks. I absolutely agree about it being necessary for a free society.

[BloodBird]

Lots of good responses here so far. However, I'd still love to know what many of you think signing the petition itself, yes or no, and if you think it might achieve anything of note. Orange don't seem to think so, but I remain carefully optimistic that it might.

[Vikarion]

Lots of good responses here so far. However, I'd still love to know what many of you think signing the petition itself, yes or no, and if you think it might achieve anything of note. Orange don't seem to think so, but I remain carefully optimistic that it might.

I don't think that online petitions do anything, or offline ones, for that matter. But I did sign it.

[Kala]

No that is a different matter, it is a proposition of the form "I think y." with y="The god of x is P." Here you explicitly qualify your statement as being merely what you think. If you said: "The Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal." that would be a sentence of the form "The god of x is P.".

Well, sure.  But I (usually) tend to preface my thoughts with "I think". (I tend to always be explaining myself or putting in disclaimers rather than being more direct, which can make my speech unduly convoluted!)   A lot of people would consider it extraneous and simply say "The Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal," and consider it read that that's their opinion stated (because they're saying it).   

Now, does it fulfil the requirements to the P's for it to be defamation/slander?

I dunno, do you think it does?
It fits the formula you gave, but I think it would be incredibly difficult to establish if that was defamation/slander, personally.

Now, first, we're speaking here about the Christian concept of God, not your concept of God or your concept of the Christian concept of God. So, what the Christians belief is in that regard is mainly up to the Christians. You can point out what seems to be inconsistencies, but you can't dictate what the Christian conception of God is as, say, an atheist.

OK, I think I see.  I was getting stuck on the proving falsehood point on defamation/slander - as with a God you can't see, proof is going to be hard to come across either way.  But by saying "the Christian concept of God is" rather than "God is" there's also the implication of "Christians worship this God" which is demonstrably provable.

(You could say God is an elephant and it can't be disproved, but if you said Christians worship an elephant that could be disproved).

If you don't seek to educate yourself what the Christian perpective is, but insist that your interpretation of the bible shows clearly that God is P, therfore the Christian God must be P, as there can't be another interpretation of the bible... well...

Ok, but lots of people are wilfully ignorant - not just about religion! And there's people all over the internet insisting there can't possibly be any other interpretation than theirs  (and that is the main reason that people are WRONG on the internet). But does that make it slander or defamation?

(I realize that sounds a lot like I'm saying 'ignorance is an excuse' which isn't what I'm trying to get at - I'm trying to get at how you'd establish it was specifically slander/defamation rather than ignorance).

"The Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal." and Christian X said: "That's not true, that's slander!" And you respond with: "Well, what I meant is, I think 'The Christian idea of God is misogynistic and patriarchal.', for reasons a, b, c." than it is clear that you didn't intend to defame the Christian concept of God.

Sure, and having reasons and an argument is going to counter the 'unfounded' part of slander/defamation.  That makes sense to me.

On the other hand, if you say: "No, that's the truth and you're dumb for not seeing that!" It's quite clear that your intentions are not benign at all.

Is it?  A lot of people genuinely believe they are right and others are dumb for not agreeing with them - and can't seem to back up their views or feel the need to. I get how not having an argument covers unfounded, but not bad intentions in necessarily meaning they're deliberately misrepresenting someone's beliefs to damage their reputation.

It's a general problem with laws though that they are general rules, that need to be fitted on individual cases. That's what the judges and courts are there for, no?

Absolutely. 
Though this perhaps seems more nebulous and subjective than most laws to me though, tbh. Stuff people say, unless obviously abusive, seems by definition open to interpretation. vov



Edit: Just reread this and look at that second to last sentence. Though this perhaps seems more nebulous and subjective than most laws to me though, tbh.  I said 'though' TWICE! It didn't need a perhaps! WHY WAS 'TO BE HONEST' NECESSARY.  I AM NOT AN UNTRUTHFUL PERSON.

I tend to always be explaining myself or putting in disclaimers rather than being more direct, which can make my speech unduly convoluted!

 

[Lyn Farel]

What Kala said.

Also, I will not sign the petition, for the reasons explained in the other thread. I think it will be completely counter productive to the goal it seeks to achieve.

Vikarion I've often disagreed with so very many things you've written but that might be your best post ever.

Super double plus good, and I'm with you on that.

Despite much of the unpleasantness that can come with freedom of speech, I absolutely cherish the right to both offend and to be offended by others.  Both are necessary in a free society in my opinion.

As long as it is done with respect and the form, yes. I'm uneasy with the explicit goal being to offend and being offended. The goal should be to point what's your opinion on a sensible matter and why you believe you are right and the other party wrong, not to just curbstomp his feelings and his faith. It solves nothing.

I think that's a common issue with modern western society (especially english/international communities, but not only) that add the emphasis on overly informal relationships, absolutely everywhere, to the point we never know when people are being familiar or not. It has its pros like promoting friendly attitudes, calling everyone by their first names, and that kind of stuff, but it also make people very keen to speak to everyone like they are their buddies, taking huge liberties in how they address even strangers. Especially on the internet, where the culture is mostly anti conformist.

That defamation laws things mostly boils down to what is the intent behind, as Esna pointed out above. And the form, how it was said and done. That's nothing specific to religion eventually.