Is it OK to joke about religion?

and I will say again, I have absolutely no problem with jokes about religion. But when 'humour' is used as a veil for provocation, attack and incitement to hatred it should be condemned at every turn.

I was wondering how long it would be before you got that point in to your speech.

There are people getting murdered every day in Iraq and other places but your sexuality is the driving point?

Nice.

I'm glad someone brought up those Jews. Will they stop at nothing to rule the world and kill all the dune-coons?

Only when there is a 'r' in the month...

Next question.

no, of course it isn't but it doesn't surprise me that someone as peabrained as you might think that is what I meant. I suggest you read back. BadDoggie had asked whether I thought I should be forced back into the closet. It was not, therefore, me who brought it up.

Oh, i'm peabrained?

Take a look back over your own postlog and see how many have not had your sexuality involved?

As a guy out you are a sound guy but online i tire of your constant homo posts.

The more posts of his I read, the more I think he's totally gay.

lol, this post is so totally "right on" i nearly choked on my cornflakes. old women, children and the disableds. possibly some cute little bunnies too

as far as I am aware, the us army don't actively try and kill Iraqis, but may have killed some by (regretable) accident.

and the people who indiscriminately kill the most innocent old women, children and disableds on purpose are...moslem iraqi suicide bombers

yes in your view "america started it", but who are the murderers on purpose? moslems, blowing up their own countrymen on purpose for their twisted giant skyfairy wankfest

Fuck off. You don't kill 200,000 people by accident.

@Bell the Cat - have you any evidence anyone accidentally killed was in fact trying to get their bread in a market place? also that they were cowering in their homes? how do you know they arent all hard bastards who stand and take it?

as per usual, youre making it up as you go.

wow and topic went from 0 to hero in less the twenty seconds. I'm going to throw my two sense in just because I'm that self centered. I think freedom of speech is a thing that should be guarded in the upmost. I also think that making jokes is one of the best forms that humans have with coming to deal with things. I also think mockery is the best form of avoiding an issue. I find it funny how we try to dehumanize groups of people by giving them nicknames and generally taking the piss out of them. be it homosexuals, muslims, atheists.. the list goes on. As long as we can pigeon hole things we feel ok attacking it or dismissing it.

I think religion can be a great thing, it can give people something to believe in and help them deal with issues that they may otherwise not feel up to dealing with. It can also be used as a tool to retain ignorance and as a excuse to do horrible things. I think the answer to the original question 'is it OK to joke about religion?' is a clear yes of course we should be able to joke about something as serious as that. Now given the fact that we can all agree, I would hope, that the response to the cartoons run by the danish newspaper was completely immoral. I think the real question is, is it morally OK to mock a religion or for that matter anything to try and insight violence?

Let's flip the coin for a second. Let's say that cnn runs a serious of cartoons making fun of blacks in a clearly racial way. A large group of black people go out in new york to protest and it turns violent somebody grabs a random white person and he gets beaten. Who is to blame for all this hoopla?

I don't know, but I would like to go on record as saying that I have never tried to pigeonhole a homosexual

I someone does protest to much

actually, no I am not.

The figure of 20,000 has been specifically extrapolated from media reports and refers to non-combattant CIVILIAN deaths. It is a conservative estimate (you may remember the Lancet originally said they thoughht 665,000 civilians had died). The Body Count website gives further details

There have been several market place attacks reported in the worldwide media. This one, reported in the LA Times refers to British troops spraying a packed market with bullets:


That one was at Majar-al-Kabir but estimates suggest this incident was far from being isolated and coalition troops opened fire on market places dozens of times.

eh? that body count website states 20,000 not 200,000?

and they make no separation between civilians killed by americans and civilians killed by moslems

I have to admit I just repeated Wheel's 200,000 but 20,000 is the most reliable estimate IMHO. There are actually several estimates out there ranging from this 20,000 at the lowest through estimates around the 100,000 mark up to the Lancet estimate of 665,000 civilian deaths.

The reason a distinction is not made is because most of the deaths occur in combat situations where the civilians are 'collateral damage'. In any case I was reacting to this odious remark:


as if killing any Iraqi civillian in crossfire or collateral damage would make you feel safer. Sick

More straw men. It was BushCo on behalf of oil firms, Halliburton and other companies which profit off the manufacture and supply of war materiel and services.

The two are mutually exclusive. One is a right, one is a method. Whether or not I have the discretion has nothing to do with my having a right. HAving rights demands accepting responsibility. I accept the responsibility for for what I post in both moral and legal senses which is why I provided my full contact information to EB in case someone decides to sue him for something I wrote. In this way he can allow my comment to stand without fear of legal hassle since he can, upon legal request or action, provide my contact information to any plaintiff whose nose I manage to bend out of joint. That's responsibility.

Responsibility doesn't mean "STFU in case you upset someone". Good taste should not -- and is not -- legislated.

You write about intention -- "You should be able to make jokes but not when they're veiled attempts to incite" -- but that requires thought police. Jyllands Posten was testing just how willing the Danish government was to accept and protect Free Speech, and popular opinion was on their side. One of the cartoonists believed it to be nothing but a PR stunt; the other 11 participated with various depictions from respectful to political. And it wasn't these that pissed off anyone but three additional fakes inserted by imams into a handout which were truly inciting. It wasn't the Danes but the fucking Muslims themselves stirring the shit. Regardless, who makes the determination of intent? It's impossible. Much of what I say about religion could be claimed as intent to incite even though my position is, "Just the facts, ma'am." Who makes that determination?.

It can't be determined. This is why true Freedom of Speech is necessary. Calling you a faggot earlier in the thread could possibly be seen as "hateful" or "inciting" but in the context of my post (confirmed by gay acquaintances) it was perfectly valid, especially since your sexuality is often mentioned in your posts (not that I give a shit whether you like to lick or suck). It was a device to try and drive home a point which you continue to fail to see, because you're still confusing personal and legal restraint on speech.

Social norms prevent me from running up to any Muslim on the street and launching into a tirade against his wife being forced to cover herself from head to te in 40° heat in summer. Free Speech allows me to attempt to engage this person in such a discussion, be it on the street, in a restaurant, at a museum or in my home. I am allowed to call Mohammed a child molester because of Free Speech: under our society's norms, marrying a 9-year-old is unacceptable.

The penne question was not specious. All questions concerning the FSM are relevant; the use of the FSM beliefs and rituals rather than anything from Abrahamic religions allows abstraction in order to prevent personal beliefs and prejudices from colouring the answer. You (rightly) think it's absurd that people might demand the removal of penne from grocery stores and restaurants, and would be outraged that someone would actually harm another person who refused to do so, solely because their spaghetti-and-meatball god said it was necessary. This is the benefit of abstraction. Substitute "depiction" for "penne" and "Abrahamic" for "spaghetti-and-meatball" and we're right back in the thick of it. How is it justifiable in one case but not the other?


I have better things to do all day than think up ways to "insult" Islam, but considering that Muslims are insulted by each other and even moreso by simple facts like "The Koran HAS changed in the past 500 years as proven by the Yemenite find", it requires no effort to "insult" the religion and its followers. I don't care that they feel slighted. They're just as free to mock me for my lack of belief (which makes for great amusement on my part).


And this is what you continually fail to understand. The fact that you're happy to be meek and not upset anyone ever (even though your sexual identity does indeed upset and insult Islamic "sensibilities") doesn't mean the rest of the world should be equally -- legally -- restricted to conversation at the level of Teletubbies and CeeBeebees.

Whether or not you believe it costs you in any way to avoid blaspheming, it does cost. Religion is anathema to science and progress. It's the reason that the Arabic world lost their reign in science in the Medieval period, having become the seat of science and knowledge after the Fall of Rome. Religion is unnecessary. Good people will do good things (or would you argue that rape and murder were perfectly OK until Moses showed up to spoil the party?) and bad people will do bad things. It takes religion to get good people to do bad things, like deny their children basic medical care or fly a plane into a building. This is why I'm a religious antagonist: it does not good, it does much bad, and followers commit the most horrendous of atrocities.


I already answered this a few pages ago: Islam is not about mutual respect; the word means "submission". More importantly, new ideas aren't found through agreement. New knowledge doesn't stem from agreeing with what others have said. Knowledge comes from challenging old ideas and religion most fervently denies and decries such acts. It is anathema to progress. My posts in this thread were intentionally provocational in an attempt to make you see the similarity of that which appears unimportant to you (Free Speech ) and that which is indeed important (freedom of sexuality), and the necessity of such rights even when it displeases or upsets others. You side-stepped or ignored this.


And in that vein everyone should likewise tell you to get your ass back in the closet and be celibate. What's the difference between that statement and "If 'sexual freedom' means a man and another man should be allowed to poke each others' butts then I want nothing to do with it at all"?

Freedom of Speech is the crux of our culture. It is so important that even those we imprison retain that right. Without this right we have no future, unless you only wish to say hello and agree with someone else that the rain today is <good/bad>.

woof.

that is indeed what they claimed. But anyone with half a brain can recognise that the subject matter was chosen precisely because it has been shown time and time again to incite unrest in the moslem world and among moslems worldwide. NO government in the West have banned it and I doubt any ever will but responsible journalists and politicians know that banging the blasphemy drum just upsets a LOT of people and delivers nothing positive in return.

There are sadly very many people that think the world is basically a safe place. And the Danish cartoons did serve to show everyone that there are a lot of nutters out there ready to kill innocent people for no reason.

yeah, perhaps it was positive in the way that it pointed out how many nutters who are against our way of life who live right in our midst. scary.

this is nothing new.

When I lived in pakistan in the 1980s there were riots and bookburnings at Salman Rushdie's FIRST blockbuster "Midnight's Children" as it was seen to be anti-Pakistan. There is a culture of young unemployed young men up to no good hanging around the bazaars. they are referred to in Urdu as "badmarsh". these young men are volatile and thoughtless just spoiling for a riot or a fight (in the same way as british young men look for friday night fights in any market town in the UK). Basically they have rioted in favour of Zia, agains Zia, in favour of the PPP/Moslem League, against PPP/Moslem Leage, in favor of Musharraff and then against him too. All they want is an excuse to riot, whatever the cause.

When the Satanic Verses was published they rioted and burned books largely because it was Rushdie. Most didn't know about the Blasphemy angle. But certain people in the arab media picked it up and reported it as anti-blasphemy rioting and soon Wahabbis in Saudi and revolutionaries in Yemen were also burning the book. In Teheran revolutionary Iran saw an opportunity to ride a populist crest and declared the infamous fatwa.

The Wahabbi connection is important here. Wahabbis believe in uniting the whole moslem world in a grand medieval Ummah ruled by sharia and completely clear of non-moslems. Now the Wahabbis realise that such an objective is not achievable through democratic means in the modern world, so many have turned instead to a revolutionary extreme form of fundamentalism that seeks to bring about the Ummah through a worldwide crisis and mass disorder (in the same way as some Trotskyists seek to create conflict and disorder in order to make their revolutionary objectives more possible).

The Rusdie debacle taught them that blasphemy in the West against islam is an extraordinarily emotive subject even among moderate moslems - particularly when it is whipped up by media and street activists across the middle east and even in Europe. And so, every time there is a possible incident of supposed 'blasphemy' they go hell for leather to try and create riots and bloodshed worldwide.

This was at its most ridiculous in the Sudanese teddy bear debacle. I mean the issue was not even a serious one within Sudan but whipped up by Wahabbi media and activists it turned into a regional crisis.

This is why I say that actions like the Jyllands posten were irresponsible. I genuinely do not believe that there was ever a great mass of people in the moslem world weeping into their pillows because they were so offended. But there bloody well was a very cynically politically driven drive to exploit supposed outrage across the Middle East.

All I am arguing for is that we should not be in the business of making things so easy for these extremists. It really isn't an issue of Free Speech.

Iraq Body Count relies purely on counting up the numbers of dead reported in English language newspapers and is therefore a vast underestimate, since even local reporters stopped operating in most of Iraq in 2004 and in lots of areas civil society and the state both broke down completely and still haven't recovered.

The latest survey gives 1.2 million extra deaths since the war began. Other figures show the proportion of people directly killed by US bombs and bullets to be around 1/3 of that figure. The 200,000 figure came from the Johns Hopkins University/Lancet survey in 2006 and it will have gone up a lot since then.

it is a conservative estimate that uses verification by English language newspapers as its basis. It probably is an underestimate but in an argument with people who are likely to pick holes in any figure that is brougjt out because of their blind support for the War on terror, this is at least a figure they would find hard to deny.


There were actually two Lancet studies. the most recent one from 2006 claimed 665,000

I'm honestly not trying to be pedantic about this, but a very quick calculation shows that even at this estimate of 665,000, that would mean at least 364 people dying every single day since the war began, and I am willing to bet that that's not the case.

the 1.2 million figure would mean 658 people dying every single day since the war began.

these figures are all totally out of whack

If you could genuinely show me how many people have been killed by allied troops, versus how many have been killed by moslems, I'd be better able to see your point of view but a casual "oh, a third" with nothing whatsoever to back that up apart from a mention on anti war websites isn't a good enough argument

oh and if the figure IS 1.2 million, that means moslems have killed 800,000 of their fellow old women, children and disableds so far. nice chaps.

Unless you can say what the normal, expected death rate is for a country of 25 million+ this is just pure guesswork.


The 1/3 comes from the 2006 Lancet study. 31% were caused by aerial bombardment. The militias, Al Qaeda in Iraq etc don't have planes. Therefore those people were killed by the US and UK.


The same shit would happen pretty much anywhere if it was subject to the kind of treatment Iraq has seen.

So, given the Christian right's views on homosexuality and the necessary dominance of Israel in the middle east does Christianity qualify as hate speech as well?

I thought James Runner made a thoughtful statement that, like many statements in this thread, I have been pondering on. I would welcome more thoughts by J.R. as one who actually teaches religion.

In my opionio, it SHOULD be acceptable to joke about religion. In reality, things can end up being far from ok for you if you tell a joke about religion to the wrong people. and that is just the way it is. Have to pick and choose the forum in which you tell a religious joke or indeed a political joke or many other types of jokes.

It would be interesting for me to hear someone's view on my post about the difference, morally speaking, of making a joke about religion and mocking a religion to insight violence. If this is too on topic I shall cease and desist.

No subject should be exempt from jokes. What is more important is how far the joke goes and if it was made out of ignorance or to intentionally cause offence. Surely your Deity or Deities have a sense of humour. And I have to agree, religion is a joke like most things.

Good points here. I think it was irresponsible of the Danish Newspaper for publishing the image but the act had nothing to do with politics or the Country as a whole. However the reaction was completely out of scope and just further supports the intended message.

I thought it was a good point and one that I do agree with.

An analogy would be the difference between making jokes about black people and making jokes AGAINST them. Most people can tell he difference between the jokes of Bernard Manning in the 70s and more modern black and white comedians who take on the issue of race without portraying black people necessarily as criminal, subhuman or stupid.

However, the issue of jokes, blasphemy and islam is a different matter again as I have noted above.

There is also a difference between a joke about religeous things like popes and nuns etc. And jokes that poke fun at the things that the religeons stands for. Disrepecting their beliefs for example. Personally, I don't want to offend anyone with a joke. But some of the things that religeous people believe in, is beyond the ridiculous. And I have no repect for that at all. And is asking to have the mickey taken.
I've heard people say that we should respect other peoples religeous beliefs. But I have no respect at all for such stuff. And it is sad to see people being suckered by other people. Especially children.

Adopting a religion or rejecting all of them is still a belief. Everyone should be entitled to that choice. In principle, a religious person offending a non-religious person for their view is just as offensive in the reverse. It is possible for two parties to have different or opposing views without losing respect for each other. The universal aim for religion is for its followers to achieve enlightenment with their deity or deities. A person with a short fuse can't achieve that.

I cant think of how a religeous person can make jokes of people being non religeous. But I'm sure someone here can.

Not believing is not a belief, hence the "not" at the front

That's incorrect. Not believing in Divinity or an equivalent entity implies you belief in facts.

...or perhaps you could even be a rationalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist_movement

As I've said before my estranged wife's sister 'lives' with a Catholic Priest.

Would I have been right to start telling anti-catholic jokes at a family get together just to excercise my right to freedom of speech?

Would it have been WITHIN your rights? Yes., Would it have been clever, smart or appropriate? No. But the fact that it's NOT clever or appropriate should in NO WAY legally prevent you from making statements. It being in that person's house you would hve to weight the consequences of being asked to leave (or being forcibly removed), but that's your CHOICE. You have the RIGHT to do so.

woof.

Well it sounds like you were well aware it will cause offence so its clearly not the time and place. However, if the conversation did bring up the subject then it might be appropriate.

BadDoggie, why don't you just admit it? You're a right wing fucking zealot who thinks that he's got a balanced point of view because he's living in Europe, but in reality you're a right wing flag waving 'with us or against' us patriot who hates muslims regardless of their creed or degree of adherence to the rules of the Qur'an. Sure this is an argument about free speech, but why don't you just come out and say what's really on your mind, you prick.

agreed totally. Look BD, nobody has been suggesting anywhere that jokes about religion should be made illegal.

In the UK, incitement to hatred IS illegal but the cases that face conviction are usually fairly extreme.

Ben Elton's comments about the BBC have nothing to do with law but more to do with the clodhopping oversensitivity of the BBC over a whole heap of issues, including an oversensitivity about islam.

Now coming back to the Jyllands Posten cartoons: It should always be entirely within the rights of the media to publish these cartoons. BUT IT IS NOT CLEVER, SMART, OPR APPROPRIATE. Now do you get it?

Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1shiftoneshiftone

You fucking idiot. Didn't you already make such an accusation which caused everyone to laugh at you?

You fucking blithering twit, Oliver. I will be asking my lawyer tomorrow if such an accusation is actionable. It's one thing to be a hippie idealist and piss and moan about how your friends aren't able to squat in an abandoned building; it's quite another to write character accusations. This no longer falls under the realm of Free Speech but under libel. I will take you to court to protect my good name unless you start a fresh thread with your open apology to me, you fucking Polish-speaking, electronica-listening cunt.

As to Muslims, I don't want 'em here if they want to trample on my rights, and if they don't adherer to the letter of the "law" then they're a bunch of pussy hypocrites, just like the rest of the Abrahamics.


Except your first post on the topic did exactly that, as did your subsequent posts. I'm concerned about all threats to Free Speech as well as to Chilling Effects of laws as well as others' doctrine and action.

Define "incitement". By simply talking in a scholarly manner about how today's supposedly handed-down-from-god and never-changing Koran differs from the Koran from prior to the 10th century found in Yemen, Muslims will be "outraged" and speciously claim I'm "inciting hatred". They use our freedoms against us in an attempt to remove exactly those freedoms. I will not stand by idly.

>> BUT IT IS NOT CLEVER, SMART, OPR APPROPRIATE. Now do you get it?
Yes it is. It got a lot of further discussion rolling. It has also showed what the imams and followers alike are willing to do to the hosts who accepted them. I don't care what colour you are, religion you follow, or political philosophy you subscribe to. If you attempt to restrict my freedom of speech I will fight back because I'm not willing to return to the Dark Ages and superstition.

woof.

Ok, you've got a mental illness, I am not Polish, I don't speak Polish, and I am not a hippy. (Thanks for boosting the stats on my blog by the way)
Trust me, with statements like that, it's not me who's being laughed at. I would love to see any lawyers face when you tell them you want to sue me, you cowardly mendacious piece of slime.

Timeout guys.

This is getting waaay beyond a debate.

No I didn't you fool. Learn to fucking read before you start throwing your weight around in the bigotted manner you have on thios thread. You are NOT the scion of free speech, just a loudmouthed idiot who gets the wrong end of the stick.

BTW, you're not famous are you? No didn't think so.

In English criminal law, incitement is an anticipatory common law offence and is the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime.

incitement to racial hatred in the UK in the 1976 Race Relations act refers to:

* deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
* distributing racist material to the public
* making inflammatory public speeches
* creating racist websites on the Internet (this has been added by court precedent)
* inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

That act was extended in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 to cover incitement to hatred against a particular religious group. This was in part because neoNazi groups had got round the old law and started publishing hatred against moslems rather than "Pakis"

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to insult...especially when accompanied by intent.