|
| Thread: Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas] |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted February 07, 2012 03:47 PM |
|
|
Guys, please stay on topic.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 03:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What happens if the organization that spreads hate propaganda is known to actually materialize the things that it preaches?
Then we're not talking about speech any longer and we should be in another thread. Organizations can't be put on criminal trial, but they can be listed on a civil suit.
I'm not really sure if we are talking about the same thing. I'll clarify: the organization in question preaches violence against certain group of people and some of its members (most likely not all) actively commit violence against the said group. Will the organization as a group entity still remain legal and its more "dedicated" members will be charged as individuals or the "materialized" violence can be used as a proof that the organization is hostile towards the integrity of the society and thus can be legally banned?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 04:05 PM |
|
|
Overpopulation doesn't just mean that there are many people in any given stretch of land, but that there are too many to sustain them.
If you read the article you'll see that contraception is listed as a means to keep it in check or even avoid it, because 40% of all born children are unintended, so contraception would obviously limit that.
So contraception would have led to less overpopulation in the past while it would help to reduce overpopulation in the present.
Now note, that I didn't say that the Catholic Church was THE ONLY THING responsible for overpopulation, but if you look especially to Africa, where the Christian influence is strong, there can be not the slightest bit of doubt that "No contraception" policy has desastrous consequences for demographic developments, overpopulation effects and the inability to slow down the demographic explosion (not to mention the aids problem).
What's more, this is not a commandment of God or Jesus.
RESPONSIBLE in this case means, that in 3rdworld regions where the Catholic belief is strong, the "No contraception" thing has had and still has desastrous consequences, when a more responsible point of view and teaching would have been much more helpful for the people living there.
If you administer something you are responsible for the consequences, whether it's a medicine or preaching.
Is this off-topic?
No, it's not, because it's just an example for the fact that while you are free to speak you are also responsible for the result of your words.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 06:26 PM |
|
|
As a person who went to Catholic School we did a lot of fundraising for CAFOD. We did massive ongoing school projects and had many church members dedicate their time to working overseas in Africa (mainly) and some Asian countries. Therefore I think I need to clarify a few things regarding your perceptions of the Catholic Church in Africa and overpopulation.
Firstly, Africa had a high birth rate before the Catholic Church set up ministries. As with most poor countries there is a high birth rate, as there is high infant mortality. And both of these have nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
There is also the Aids Crisis. Certain belief's which are neither Christian nor Catholic, believe that Aids can be cured by having sex with a virgin, no matter how young she is. Also there are many places in Africa where the men may have several wives, spread out over a large area (these wives might not even know of each other), plus the prostitution brought on by poverty. Often means these men bring Aids home and infect their wives, getting them pregnant and passing on the disease to the unborn child. What many ministries out in Africa are trying so hard to combat is educating people about the problems of promiscuity and the risks. The percentage of men who are married, frequenting prostitutes and passing on diseases to their wives is unbelievably high. That is anti-Catholic actions and teachings, something that CAFOD, the Catholic Church and other religious Ministries have tried hard to combat. What the Catholic Church actually promote, especially in this situation is Abstience. It doesn't turn round at say "oh no contraception for you. Just carry on infecting each other".
I know all this for a fact. I've grown up in a Irish Catholic family who have many priests and nuns (who have years of Missionary experience behind them), as personal friends.
The real reason behind the 'no contraception' rule is a very simple one. It is there to make people aware of their responsibilities, not to treat sex as a sport/be promiscuous etc. It doesn't mean that sex cannot be fun, but that you can have fun with a person special to you, who you are in a relationship with and that you love each other, so that if a pregnancy is the outcome, you will stay together as a family and bring up your child together.
I grew up in London and Britain has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world. Why? because there are no morals (religious or otherwise) taught in school/contraception is freely available in schools etc/the sexualization of our young impressionable children. Which kind of begs the question "How the hell does that correlate?". Just by throwing contraceptives at people in Africa, doesn't mean that they will use them. The most common response is that the men don't like the way they feel.
Its about educating people and if the Catholic Church are trying so hard to do that, as well as other organisations and Ministries, they should be applauded, not vilified just because you don't like religion.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What many ministries out in Africa are trying so hard to combat is educating people about the problems of promiscuity and the risks. The percentage of men who are married, frequenting prostitutes and passing on diseases to their wives is unbelievably high. That is anti-Catholic actions and teachings, something that CAFOD, the Catholic Church and other religious Ministries have tried hard to combat. What the Catholic Church actually promote, especially in this situation is Abstience.
How can the Catholic Church - or anyone else for that matter - entertain the thought that this concept might work, when it didn't even work in their own ranks? ABSTINENCE? Time-proven FAILURE. The biggest of them all.
Quote:
The real reason behind the 'no contraception' rule is a very simple one. It is there to make people aware of their responsibilities, not to treat sex as a sport/be promiscuous etc. It doesn't mean that sex cannot be fun, but that you can have fun with a person special to you, who you are in a relationship with and that you love each other, so that if a pregnancy is the outcome, you will stay together as a family and bring up your child together.
These ideas of the Catholic Church are nearly as old as the Catholic Church and stem from the belief that all sexual acts must be an expression of love and at least open to the possibility of procreation.
It is, as far as I know, NOT a stance that is justified by God's word - God doesn't say anything about that. It's instead something like guessing - what would God want and what would he have said, if he HAD said something about that.
If I'm not wrong, Jews used a sponge as a contraceptive in ancient times.
Which means, that the Church has simply no business preaching this.
There is no authority of ANY kind behind that, except a worldly one. They make up an opinion and sell it as God's own.
Quote:
I grew up in London and Britain has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world. Why? because there are no morals (religious or otherwise) taught in school/contraception is freely available in schools etc/the sexualization of our young impressionable children.
You may want to read this article Teenage Pregnancy
and ask yourself a couple of questions - why Britain and especially the US have so many teenage pregnancies compared to Germany and Scandinavia where higher teen percentages have sex and the aoc is lower.
In any case your reasoning is plain wrong.
Quote:
Its about educating people and if the Catholic Church are trying so hard to do that, as well as other organisations and Ministries, they should be applauded, not vilified just because you don't like religion.
You are wearing the wrong glasses - the Catholic Church is trying to educate people TO THEIR WORLDVIEW, instead of helping them and doing what is best for THEM.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 07:34 PM |
|
|
Wait a moment. Did meroe suddenly turn out to be a die-hard fanatic overzealous religious "nut"? And to think I used to adore you!
Oh well. I forgive you for being religious and I hope we can still be friends, despite your apparant disabilities.
Now from a serious atheist view point of this topic, which is very much needed!
I don't get how you people can expect this "free speech". What's next? You expect free air? Free water? Free toilets? Free beds? Nothing in life is free! Well except for the.. free parts. But that's beside the point! I understand all the hippies who wants everything for free, I mean who doesn't? If you lived back in the stone age, I tell ya, you'd be praying to your gods all day long and only the real deals, you know the atheists, would provide with food and children and stuff. No I must retract that, because after all, if there were no advantage to religion over a course of thousands of years, how did it survive to this day? Though on the other hand, it's not like that it may have been either an advantage nor a disadvantage and as such, one would expect a fluctuation around a mean value, you know like a bell shape. But this is beside the point. The point I'm making is that free speech is something everyone should have. Stuff like slander is of the past and should be kicked out of the laws. The limit to free speech is not what you can say, not how you say it, but that you should only be allowed to do as you want within the environment suited for it. So you can't just walk into someones personal space and yell at them or polute the air with noise and yell free speech. Free speech is the right to say you opinion.. to anyone who wants to listen! Not forcing someone to listen. So if you read this post, I wonder if I have somehow forced you or if I am applying free speech or maybe it does not apply to the forum at all after all? This is a place controlled by the administrator and anything you write can be deleted at will. Still do we not in a way still have free speech in that we can write whatever we want, we'll just be risking censorship at worst? I personally believe so.
So as you can see, the atheist way and the religious way can work hand in hand. We do not need a common belief to be able to work and function together. We only need the desire to work and function together. Let there be peace!
Edit: Agnostics may of course not join the club of utopia. I mean, we need to have someone to pull the hate on and since it can't be common problems such as death, disease, poverty, etc. then let's choose those who actually have a more sceptical approach!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 07:46 PM |
|
|
|
Seriously: this thread is for discussion of free speech, not Catholocism's view on abstinence or birth control. Posts on those topics can be directed elsewhere. I'll delete posts from this point forward that I judge are not on the topic of free speech.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 07:50 PM |
|
|
Oh, the irony of it. 
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Seriously: this thread is for discussion of free speech, not Catholocism's view on abstinence or birth control. Posts on those topics can be directed elsewhere. I'll delete posts from this point forward that I judge are not on the topic of free speech.
"Are the catholic church responsible for the unwanted pregnancies its policies force?"
This is free speech at its finest.
____________
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 08:44 PM |
|
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So as you can see, the atheist way and the religious way can work hand in hand. We do not need a common belief to be able to work and function together. We only need the desire to work and function together. Let there be peace!
Yes, we can agree that everyone has a right to express their opinions and work to preserve that right. Let's not allow government to become a "benevolent dictator" that can dictate the things we can say about genocides, football games, or anything else.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 10:45 AM |
|
|
So let's make something of an experiment.
I'm going to make use of my right of free speech in a number of given situations, which I describe, and give a reaction. Your opinion is asked.
1) A white man in a pub says to a black man: "You are a member of an inferior race, and I'm a member of a superior race. Go back to the jungle where you belong and stop molesting our sweet girls".
The black man gets up, says, "I show you inferior", and punches the white man. Free speech? Offense and just reaction?
I) Same situation, The white guy says: "You blacks are an inferior race, and the whites are a superior race. You should all go back to the jungle where you belong and stop molesting our sweet girls".
The black man gets up, says, "I show you inferior", and punches the white man. Free speech? Offense and just reaction?
i) An organization openly puts forth the credo, that "blacks are an inferior race, and whites are a superior race. Blacks should all go back to the jungle where they belong and stop molesting our sweet girls". The office of said organization is vandalized, graffiti is sprayed to the wall, that say "racist pigs" and other, worse, things. A known member of said organization is molested and beaten up by a gang of masked people, allegedly black, who are reported to have commented their act with, "we'll show you inferior". Free speech? Reaction too harsh?
2) In a bar a black gay declares that he is "gay and I like to stick it up a guy's @ss, especially when it belongs to a sweet young white fella." A white guy stands up and breaks his nose, commenting, "disgusting, godless filth". Free speech? Understandable reaction?
3) Two people get into a talk. One word gives another, until one guy says, "oh, come on, I think, they are using this Hitler guy as some kind of bogeyman, nowadays. He can't have been so bad, after all he wanted to get rid of Stalin and those Russian commie pigs. Those concentration camps are just a lie the jews tell, so that everyone feels pity with them and supports them and whatnot."
The other guy politely states, that he is a jew, and lost his uncles and aunts, while his mother had luckily survived with the CC tattoo to prove it. The other guy comes back with, "What, you are one of those guys who mutilate their childrens's ****s, allowing them to become the greedy basterds you are! Your lot just called in the loan on my house! That Hitler guy should have really done the whole lot of you, and not just a couple of them!"
The two start punching each other. Anything wrong with using free speech?
III) A neo-nazi Organization openly protests against the "holocaust lie, which is a bold lie of the people who killed their and our savior. Their own god did not want them anymore, punishing them roaming round the wworld without a home, and now, utilizing the lie, they succeeded in stealing themselves a new home, supported by all their rich, fat cousins pulling the strings of the United States. Support the just fight of the Arab peoples against the Jewish imperialism and boycott all Jewish banks. A list of all Jewish banks can be downloaded as a pdf under the following link".
Free speech? What reaction of Jewish organizations would be correct, if any?
4) On a fine day, someone starts a speech in the pedestrian zone: "Allah told us to veil body and face of our daughters and wifes, so that they cannot be lusted after. Now look at you! You women are clad and look like *****s, so don't be surprised, when you are treated like *****s. Are you not ashamed to..." A guy with his girl friend - who is clad according to the sunny day - steps up to the speaker and asks loudly: "Diy you just call my friend here a *****?" The other guy pauses, looks at her and says: "Aren't you ashamed to present her this way in public, so that everyone can see everything about her? You let her look like you want to sell her to the highest bidder." A broken nose stops the guy. Free speech? Just compensation for offending a girl?
I think you get the gist.
Opinions anyone?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 11:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's not allow [...] a "benevolent dictator"
Well Mvass is certainly going to be sorry, when he reads this. On a serious note, yes, I agree with your point in general.
@JJ
My opinion of your scenarios rests on that a person should both be able to express themselves freely and on the same time not having to deal with others unsolicited, no matter what part of the sensory organ they trigger. Therefore, in my opinion your scenarios are respectively:
1) Offense (by both parties), though it depends on the context. I imagine the white man just talks unsolicited.
I) Offense (by both parties). I again imagine it to be unsolicited.
i) If the organization is private, so you've to seek out their information, then it's free speech. The reactions with vandalism and violence are offenses.
2) Depends on how he declares it. If he makes his statement public in a way no one can avoid to hear, I'd say it's an offense. If he just talks privately and the white man happens to over hear it, then it's free speech. The white mans reaction is an offense.
3) Free speech, as the conversation is not forced by one part onto a given topic (i.e. it's not that someone just walks up to you and say you're bad). Both parties are free to stop the conversation. Though the violence is an offense.
III) It's offense, as it's public encouraging of discrimination. Had they only kept at the "holocaust didn't happen", and didn't apply "lie" then I'd say it'd have been free speech, though not certain if public protests in such a regard would be okay. I mean I don't think anyone can public protest, if they want 2+2=5, or similar. I'd personally ignore something like this, from the perspective of the targets.
4) Offense again. Again because it's unsolicited in public and a personal description of something intentionally negatively charged. The violence is also an offense.
I'd also like to point out that in my opinion, free speech is not that there won't be consequences for what you say, but that you can say it despite the consequences. Which all these are examples of.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 12:07 PM |
|
|
Forfy, let me just add that the law knows "provocation" as a mitigating circumstance. In fact, you could take the viewpoint, that "self-defence", is murder, but with the mitigating circumstance of being provoked into it. (Even though I have no interest in debating that.)
However, if you - or someone dear to you, like for example, your mother - is "offended", an eventual violent reaction may be seen as provoked.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 12:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's offense, as it's public encouraging of discrimination. Had they only kept at the "holocaust didn't happen", and didn't apply "lie" then I'd say it'd have been free speech
Why the addition of "lie" will make it an offense as opposed to free speech? Following the same logic, I could say "9/11 was orchestrated by CIA, Osama was their agent and everything which is publicly "known" about the event is a lie" and this in your opinion would be an offense, right?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 01:32 PM |
|
|
@Zenofex
I think so because the word lie implies intend, while the word wrong or false only is applied to the information in question and not the one who informs.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 02:03 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 14:04, 08 Feb 2012.
|
Heh, ask Elodin about the meaning of "lie" - he uses the word in every possible context that involves atheists, communists and Democrats and will certainly provide you with many alternative meanings. Or maybe not.
Anyway, the question is whose intent? The person who's claiming that something is a lie is not necessarily claiming that the other person in front of him/her is actually the one who has fabricated the lie. In fact, very few people say "You lie" directly and when they do it, they usually have solid evidences or first hand experience that the other person knows that what he/she's saying is not the truth. So if a some neo-Nazi fine boy says that the Holocaust is a lie, it's pretty safe to assume that he means that it's a lie invented by the rich and influential Jews or something like that, not someone's personal lie. Actually the latter sounds pretty ridiculous.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 03:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Forfy, let me just add that the law knows "provocation" as a mitigating circumstance.
As far as I know, in the US being verbally insulted is not considered a mitigating circumstance in a criminal lawsuit.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 03:41 PM |
|
|
In other words, If you say to me, "you are a &%*#§, your mother blahblabla, and your children blahblah", and I slap you for it, you can go to the cops and say, "hey, that guy just slapped me!"
If there is a lawsuit, whether criminal (assault), or civil (compensation), the fact that you insulted me severely is irrelevant?
So would the US law expect me to file a lawsuit because you said to me, "you are a &%*#§, your mother blahblabla, and your children blahblah", or would the US law expect from me, to say, "No, "YOU are a &%*#§, YOUR mother blahblabla, and YOUR children blahblah", or would the US law exect from me to just ignore the offense because the courts are drowning in lawsuits anyway, and offending someone verbally is just not worth the bother, while slapping someone, provoked or not, is a crime?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 04:09 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:18, 08 Feb 2012.
|
Quote:
In other words, If you say to me, "you are a &%*#§, your mother blahblabla, and your children blahblah", and I slap you for it, you can go to the cops and say, "hey, that guy just slapped me!"
If there is a lawsuit, whether criminal (assault), or civil (compensation), the fact that you insulted me severely is irrelevant?
I'm not a lawyer, but yes, that's my understanding. Also, generally speaking, mitigating circumstances are often only considered in the phase of sentencing and don't really affect the criminal charge, per se.
These things do vary from state to state, but, for instance, in the state of Arizona, you can see in section 13-702(D) that mitigating circumstances only come into place during sentencing, and "being insulted" isn't one of the possible mitigating circumstances specifically listed. Of course, a judge has some leeway to do what he wants, as, for instance, the fifth mitigating circumstance is the rather vague "5. Any other factors which the court may deem appropriate to the ends of justice." But even so, this doesn't affect the actual CHARGE - only how the offender is punished for it, within a range determined by statute, should he be proven guilty by a jury.
Which is to say, if two people are arguing, and one of them throws a punch, the one who throws a punch is guilty of assault/battery. The reason DOES matter for determining what charge to file, but only insofar as how premeditated the assualt was, and whether a deadly weapon was used, etc.
Arizona statue as an example:
http://www.esia.net/arizona_statutes.htm
EDIT: This appears to be quite different from, say, Germany's laws where it is apparently illegal to insult another person's religion, let alone so much that someone is provoked into assaulting you.
(See sec 166 here: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#BXI)
|
| |
|
|
