Religious Criticism

[the lynx]

I'm actually religious too but I believe in moderation, mutual respect and tolerance.

You wouldn't preach Atkins diet and wave that diet guide book to, say, a large woman, who is pretty happy with her triple nacho meals, no matter how unhealthy you think she is.

[PNGMK]

Less than 7% of wars have had a religious basis. Most have had a power basis and atheists are just as guilty of that as any other. I can find the citation if you need it.

I am curious about this 7%. I would expect close to 100% to be greed or power based. Religion just was and is still used as a convenient and effective tool to manipulate the masses.

Google throws up a lot of responses but the actual article I want to quote (with a nice bar chart) eludes me still....

[scarbowl]

Seems like many people confuse expressing opinions with intentionally insulting someone. The first should be protected, the later s just another type of violence.

"Another type of violence?" Offensive speech, intentional insults, are not violence. The violence is perpetrated by those who are insecure in their own faith and whose prophets are too weak to stand up to scrutiny.

How is insulting someone's faith an act of violence? If it is, then jokes about fat people, insulting the Labor Party, and requiring your wife to wear a burqa should be punishable offences as well!

[x9200]

How is insulting someone's faith an act of violence? If it is, then jokes about fat people, insulting the Labor Party, and requiring your wife to wear a burqa should be punishable offences as well!

So you think only physical force can hurt or do damage. There is no such thing like psychological violence or emotional abuse. Right.

[Strong Eagle]

Seems like many people confuse expressing opinions with intentionally insulting someone. The first should be protected, the later s just another type of violence.

The problem with this type of thinking is: Who gets to decide what "insulting" is. Again, I'll use the cartoon of the prophet as an example. In our western world, poking fun at anything and everything is fair game. In Islamic cultures it is not. Who gets to decide whether or not the cartoon is "insulting"?

Or, how about "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano? Tons of people were insulted, infuriated even. A lot of others couldn't care less. Who gets to decide.

Or, look how "hate speech" laws on US college campuses have seriously damaged free speech. People now believe it is actually OK to shut someone up because you don't like what they are saying.

WHO GETS TO DECIDE????

[PNGMK]

Seems like many people confuse expressing opinions with intentionally insulting someone. The first should be protected, the later s just another type of violence.

The problem with this type of thinking is: Who gets to decide what "insulting" is. Again, I'll use the cartoon of the prophet as an example. In our western world, poking fun at anything and everything is fair game. In Islamic cultures it is not. Who gets to decide whether or not the cartoon is "insulting"?

Or, how about "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano? Tons of people were insulted, infuriated even. A lot of others couldn't care less. Who gets to decide.

Or, look how "hate speech" laws on US college campuses have seriously damaged free speech. People now believe it is actually OK to shut someone up because you don't like what they are saying.

WHO GETS TO DECIDE????

It's all part of the perpetual power struggle. I never expected free speech to last as long as it has anyways.

[x9200]

Seems like many people confuse expressing opinions with intentionally insulting someone. The first should be protected, the later s just another type of violence.

The problem with this type of thinking is: Who gets to decide what "insulting" is. Again, I'll use the cartoon of the prophet as an example. In our western world, poking fun at anything and everything is fair game. In Islamic cultures it is not. Who gets to decide whether or not the cartoon is "insulting"?

Or, how about "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano? Tons of people were insulted, infuriated even. A lot of others couldn't care less. Who gets to decide.

Or, look how "hate speech" laws on US college campuses have seriously damaged free speech. People now believe it is actually OK to shut someone up because you don't like what they are saying.

WHO GETS TO DECIDE????

Yes, you are completely right. It is a problem. I only see any conviction possible if the case is very convincing. In practice it simply means that majority of the cases would be just dismissed. And there is also collateral damage for sure.
But this sort of problems are not that unique. Many cases of fraud face similar dilemma. Fraud happens only if the doing is intentional and intentions are what sits inside of someones head. Still people get convicted.

[earthfriendly]

I view censorship to be a form of tyranny. Dictating to people what they can say and do. It is dumping down. Protecting people from their own fragile ego because they cannot handle opinions that are different from their own. It does not help to promote tolerance. Although I would also say it is important to cultivate self censorship. Some words and actions are simply destructive in nature and does not advance the human race.

[Strong Eagle]

It is a problem. I only see any conviction possible if the case is very convincing.

But again, who sets the rules? The fact of the matter is that speech in and of itself cannot be considered violent.

[x9200]

It is a problem. I only see any conviction possible if the case is very convincing.

But again, who sets the rules? The fact of the matter is that speech in and of itself cannot be considered violent.

The society? It is not any different with the physical violence/other cases of emotional abuse and many other things. It is just less or more obvious but always subjective.
If in a packed bus one touches a girl (on the bus braking) and smiles some specific way (sexual abuse?)... or what can be safely said to a black person if one is white (racism?).. or what a boss can say at work criticizing his employees (mobbing?). Who set these rules?

The whole legal system is very social/morality based and in many places not deterministic at all. I don't think it can be much better. We never experience true freedom anyway.