Jump to content
TheOldBarn

Should Denigrating A Religion Be Illegal?

Recommended Posts

This child molester charge against Muhammand is completely bogus. At that time old men were regularly married to very young girls, (one of the Crusader Kings was married to a girl of 9) but the marriages were not consummated until the normal age (around 12/13 as you had to get started early because 1 of 2 children was expected to die) unless the old man became very sick, and then the girl could be a possible backup to keep the bloodline going.

 

Personally I think you could handle the problem rather easily by making slander/libel laws applicable to religious leaders. After all, if you say Muhmammad was a pedophile you're saying the the same thing by implication about most devout muslims and that would give them an actionable case against you.

 

And as the SCOTUS has recently removed the "absence of malice" press protection (thus bringing us into line with most of the rest of the civilized world) the case could be made to stick, and movies like this would have to be historically accurate, or pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This child molester charge against Muhammand is completely bogus. At that time old men were regularly married to very young girls, (one of the Crusader Kings was married to a girl of 9) but the marriages were not consummated until the normal age (around 12/13 as you had to get started early because 1 of 2 children was expected to die) unless the old man became very sick, and then the girl could be a possible backup to keep the bloodline going.

 

Personally I think you could handle the problem rather easily by making slander/libel laws applicable to religious leaders. After all, if you say Muhmammad was a pedophile you're saying the the same thing by implication about most devout muslims and that would give them an actionable case against you.

 

And as the SCOTUS has recently removed the "absence of malice" press protection (thus bringing us into line with most of the rest of the civilized world) the case could be made to stick, and movies like this would have to be historically accurate, or pay.

Thank you for such an intelligent, reasoned post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally against unnecessary laws, and free speech is vital if a person has any chance at freedom.

 

the entire problem here is not exposure to things like the Islam video...the real problem is LACK of exposure.

 

in the 60's capt kirk kissed uhura on screen. the first televised "interracial" kiss.

certain people lost their fkn minds!..on the show Rosanne there was the first woman on woman kiss :)....again certain people went ape shit.

but in time when the idea became less shocking and more mainstream, eventually things of this nature were not even noticed.

 

we have the same problem here

 

the people exploiting these videos to advance their own agendas fully realize the value of shock. but it will not last for long.

in time, the middle east will have their own simpsons, that will morph into their own beavis and butthead, which will morph into their own southpark. and then all media "shock" goes out the window.

Edited by lostphoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing any ideology is pointless using circle logic when all debates are centered around character's rights issues. What is a character? A performing artist playing a role other than what the gender has always been as themself. this character is directed by another off stage and behind the scenes.

 

Why do people become actors and actresses? Other people pay to escape their own lives by fantacizing they are something else besides themselves. Now, whom sacrifices the most, the actor on stage trying to escape their ancestry following orders, or the audience paying what they earn in reality to escape their character roles as society's children?

 

Now is the director, a capitolist or a capitalist? Aren't priests directors of the soul theology? Aren't priests the directors of political ideology, and philanthropists the directors of economic possibilities where symbolic values are larger than life?

 

Now where does all this thinking come from that defines literal truths, figurative truths, and literal truths that suggest right and wrong canot exist without three arenas of interpretation in cirlce logic of morals, legalities, and ethics.

 

The liberal arts and metaphysical wonders how a box has 8 corners and a sphered shape planet only 4? North, south, east, and west hemispheres. Look if the 0 & 180 longitudes are what separate east and west doesn't the 90 & 270 separate front and back to north and south. That makes 6 not four. Where are the other two?

 

Are the other two hemispheres being in the moment and not in the moment?

 

Sole,

 

Art is truth. That's what makes it art. It may fall on a false perception of what actually is, that much is very much debatable. Acting is a form of communication. Acting is how humans interact. We all act. What is symmetry, what is not? After all, we do live in an implausible Universe, or perhaps multiple ones... Why so much antiquity when there always seem to be new room for more, or is there?

 

You equate structures, what are the different applications of any math, geometry, the coiled coil, or Algebra. The geodesic dome invented by the engineer Carl Zeiss who worked for an optical company, became the focus of Buckminster Fuller ---

Snelson and Fuller worked developing what they termed "tensegrity," an engineering principle of continuous tension and discontinuous compression that allowed domes to deploy a lightweight lattice of interlocking icosahedrons that could be skinned with a protective cover. Although Fuller was not the original inventor, he developed the intrinsic mathematics of the dome, thereby allowing popularization of the idea — for which he received U.S. patent 2,682,235 [2] 29 June 1954.[3]

 

I bring this up only because I know little about mathematics of course, but what you get at here relates to everything. Where ideology of any sort is only self-serving at best, and orthodoxy in any discipline sits only waiting to be torn to shreds on its heels, we do need more of how-to think ways, to allow each and everyone of us the capability to really use this thing we call the brain.

 

Acting and art is truth you see. It's not believing.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This child molester charge against Muhammand is completely bogus. At that time old men were regularly married to very young girls, (one of the Crusader Kings was married to a girl of 9) but the marriages were not consummated until the normal age (around 12/13 as you had to get started early because 1 of 2 children was expected to die) unless the old man became very sick, and then the girl could be a possible backup to keep the bloodline going.

 

Personally I think you could handle the problem rather easily by making slander/libel laws applicable to religious leaders. After all, if you say Muhmammad was a pedophile you're saying the the same thing by implication about most devout muslims and that would give them an actionable case against you.

 

And as the SCOTUS has recently removed the "absence of malice" press protection (thus bringing us into line with most of the rest of the civilized world) the case could be made to stick, and movies like this would have to be historically accurate, or pay.

Now hold on, what you are saying is completely false. Saying Muhammad is a pedophile, rather it's true or false, is not implying that all or most Muslims are pedophiles. That's simply absurd.

What you are proposing is the destruction of free speech and that is simply something we can not stand for. If these rumors of Muhammad are in fact false, the Muslim people have every right to inform the world of it. But limiting free speech is not the way to solve the problem. Religion already has enough power in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally against unnecessary laws, and free speech is vital if a person has any chance at freedom.

 

the entire problem here is not exposure to things like the Islam video...the real problem is LACK of exposure.

 

in the 60's capt kirk kissed uhura on screen. the first televised "interracial" kiss.

certain people lost their fkn minds!..on the show Rosanne there was the first woman on woman kiss :)....again certain people went ape shit.

but in time when the idea became less shocking and more mainstream, eventually things of this nature were not even noticed.

 

we have the same problem here

 

the people exploiting these videos to advance their own agendas fully realize the value of shock. but it will not last for long.

in time, the middle east will have their own simpsons, that will morph into their own beavis and butthead, which will morph into their own southpark. and then all media "shock" goes out the window.

"I am totally against unnecessary laws, and free speech is vital if a person has any chance at freedom."

Exactly.

 

The impact that tv shows like this actually have on the progression of society is amazing. People actually have to be exposed to things before they gain acceptance of it. Even before the first woman on woman kiss on Rosanne, the show All In The Family was one of the first to expose us to a lesbian relationship. The show Will & Grace was probably the biggest impact as far as media bringing acceptance of the gay community. And of course shows like Glee continue that process. (personally, I'm not a fan of Glee but I respect the show for that reason) Prejudices come from ignorance and TV can play an important part in conquering that ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I started the correct thread, but my thoughts about freedom of speech and [butt openings] who use such a thing to demean others and create chaos, well, how can you make it against the law or persecute that?

 

The [excrement] gets next to the fan and fly's like all kinds of nonsense we in the US see every day. It's a headache, a lot of this [excrement] is floating around and bits and pieces of [excrement] fly into ear canals and people get ear infections because of it. People who work by heavy machinery all their lives finally get hearing aids and what do they hear... Well, they pull them out, they were better off not hearing all this crap they might think.

 

Then, orthodoxy, nonsensical ideology, or the wrong article of argument, gets sauntered about so people forget right quick what they were talking about.

 

Then it splinters into some kind of moral dilemma so deep in philosophical concrete, where people puke at it, and then it holds all this this puke one calls the glue, it holds all this nonsense, the aggregate.

 

They plow all over places with this cement, it cracks eventually over time like a boat made out of cement would float.

 

Cement boats? Nobody in their right mind would try to use cement to build a boat that could float, they'd use cement maybe as an anchor,

 

Yeah we all would do that.

 

You fill a plastic jug with aggregate and glue, let it harden, and heavy as it is remember what the spam you did it for. It was to dock your banned word boat.

 

Peace!

 

I think I started the correct thread, but my thoughts about freedom of speech and [butt openings] who use such a thing to demean others and create chaos, well, how can you make it against the law or persecute that?

 

The [excrement] gets next to the fan and fly's like all kinds of nonsense we in the US see every day. It's a headache, a lot of this [excrement] is floating around and bits and pieces of [excrement] fly into ear canals and people get ear infections because of it. People who work by heavy machinery all their lives finally get hearing aids and what do they hear... Well, they pull them out, they were better off not hearing all this crap they might think.

 

Then, orthodoxy, nonsensical ideology, or the wrong article of argument, gets sauntered about so people forget right quick what they were talking about.

 

Then it splinters into some kind of moral dilemma so deep in philosophical concrete, where people puke at it, and then it holds all this this puke one calls the glue, it holds all this nonsense, the aggregate.

 

They plow all over places with this cement, it cracks eventually over time like a boat made out of cement would float.

 

Cement boats? Nobody in their right mind would try to use cement to build a boat that could float, they'd use cement maybe as an anchor,

 

Yeah we all would do that.

 

You fill a plastic jug with aggregate and glue, let it harden, and heavy as it is remember what the spam you did it for. It was to dock your banned word boat.

 

Peace!

 

Hey, I meant to use FXCK, and SH*T, here. Oh, but what the Fock is the use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do need to point out that not all Muslims are like this. Some are perfectly nice, good people. But I also don't really feel too bad that they have this image around the world because the halfway sane ones don't do more to condemn the crazies among them. Until they do this they will always be known as a group of hate, anger and violence.

 

 

This then raises another question... Why aren't, nor have there been these many years, USA Christians who have not, for the most part, taken to the streets in the thousands to protest the killing and wounding and displacing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens by USA made armaments and our military for what 19 or so Saudi Arabian citizens did on 9/11? Further, why has the USA not supported the military man/woman who comes back from these wars? They need jobs, housing, education and mental health therapy, etc. Sorely lacking. Something to think about as we greatly exceed the speed limit getting to theme parks, and to get our alcohol, to have fun, etc. It's like this topic doesn't exist in most "Christian" thinking.

Edited by Cara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and the wiccians would get along well.

 

And...ironically, in the 21st century some of those "old" religions turn out more rational than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I started the correct thread, but my thoughts about freedom of speech and [butt openings] who use such a thing to demean others and create chaos, well, how can you make it against the law or persecute that?

 

The [excrement] gets next to the fan and fly's like all kinds of nonsense we in the US see every day. It's a headache, a lot of this [excrement] is floating around and bits and pieces of [excrement] fly into ear canals and people get ear infections because of it. People who work by heavy machinery all their lives finally get hearing aids and what do they hear... Well, they pull them out, they were better off not hearing all this crap they might think.

 

Then, orthodoxy, nonsensical ideology, or the wrong article of argument, gets sauntered about so people forget right quick what they were talking about.

 

Then it splinters into some kind of moral dilemma so deep in philosophical concrete, where people puke at it, and then it holds all this this puke one calls the glue, it holds all this nonsense, the aggregate.

 

They plow all over places with this cement, it cracks eventually over time like a boat made out of cement would float.

 

Cement boats? Nobody in their right mind would try to use cement to build a boat that could float, they'd use cement maybe as an anchor,

 

Yeah we all would do that.

 

You fill a plastic jug with aggregate and glue, let it harden, and heavy as it is remember what the spam you did it for. It was to dock your banned word boat.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

Hey, I meant to use FXCK, and SH*T, here. Oh, but what the Fock is the use?

 

I do get it. However...in Capitola ca., there is the remnants of a WWII era Cement boat,the hull of what was a decent size freighter. It ran aground and they used it as one end of a fishing pier. Over decades...it had deteriorated so people can't go on out to the boat part anymore. In WWII, the War effort used all available steel. WWII Battleships had hulls often 8"-10" thick. They were intended to shoot it out with other battleships firing shell of 14" to 18" diameter. A few freighters were made using ferro-cement, Concrete with a lot of rebar. Doable...not ideal.

 

as to speech...we have limits. Yelling Fire in a crowded theatre, just to create chaos...is the classic example and it is ALSO...the exact PURPOSE of this "film". It was made and mutated to offend,to incite riots to create a LOT of ill will and violence. this is incitement. This is accessory to murder. People HAVE been prosecuted for WORDS. Consider Charlie Manson. His words, not direct deeds, put him in prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever wonder why the circle of life happens to be perfect for the support of carbon based life forms?

 

Sure. I've pondered that and related things for decades. It's ...however..a bit off topic and the sort of thing that is a bit too extensive for the context of an internet forum.

 

If there is some base to build a wise religion on, it may be NOT some magical,irritable,invisible monarch but a reality that we happen to be partners in something special and rare...LIFE. In the Star Wars movies, Lucas came up with "the Force" a sense we all have a bond we do not know how to sense or employ. We happen to see and not fully see how Bees and ants are individuals but very programmed to function as a unit. People are more conflicted. We have contrasting instincts as individuals and as members in communities.

 

The evolution of earth as a support system,enabled life to generate initially...then evolve. What is...is what thrived in the CONTEXT of this environment. Some speculate that other elements might, somewhere, work as a base for life and a chain of evolution. We have not,however, found the trick to synthesize that. As is evident...Carbon as a base works rather well. That life went from various tiny,simple forms to people...is quite remarkable. May the Force be with you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the difference between Manson and the situation with these videos:

 

Manson spent a lot of time and energy getting into the heads of his followers and then ordered them to kill people for him. Yes, the actual killers are at fault for their actions but it was Manson that ordered the death of those victems.

 

This video may have been made to offend, but the makers of this video did not order anyone's death or suggest that the Muslims should kill those people at the embassys. That's how they chose to react.

 

There's a huge difference between those 2 situations. If I convince a group of mentally unstable people to kill Mickey Mouse (using this example because he is fictional) I should be arrested for it. If I call Mickey an a-hole and the Mickey Mouse fan club decides to slaughter guests at Disney World, that's on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This then raises another question... Why aren't, nor have there been these many years, USA Christians who have not, for the most part, taken to the streets in the thousands to protest the killing and wounding and displacing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens by USA made armaments and our military for what 19 or so Saudi Arabian citizens did on 9/11? Further, why has the USA not supported the military man/woman who comes back from these wars? They need jobs, housing, education and mental health therapy, etc. Sorely lacking. Something to think about as we greatly exceed the speed limit getting to theme parks, and to get our alcohol, to have fun, etc. It's like this topic doesn't exist in most "Christian" thinking.

Hey if you're expecting me to defend Christians here you're in the wrong place my friend LOL. Of course, the military doesn't necissarily mean Christian though. And the Iraq bombings was done by our government. Of course when the Republicans are in power there's not much difference between government and crazy Christians.

I see differences between these two situations, but what we did in Iraq wasn't right. And I agree that I would like to know why more Christian groups don't decide to protest these actions when not only were they not justifiable but directly against what their "saviour" stood for. A lot of times it seems the most Holier-than-thou Christians are the first ones to say "bomb them" whenever a country is doing something we in this country may not agree with. So I like to direct this question to them, What Would Jesus Bomb!

 

Bush & his guys went into Iraq knowing that Saddam was not connected to Al Qaeda and knowing that the WMDs did not exist. He lied and told us that he was freeing the people of Iraq from an evil, oppresive dictator. Freeing them by bombing schools and hospitals? I'm doubting the guy that had to pull the body of his burned up 5 year old daughter from the rubble of her school felt very liberated. It's not exactly hard to imagine why they don't really like us much over there. Makes you wonder if places like that were purposely targeted to insure fighting would occur...

 

I find very intersting errors in what Bush and his goons told us and the actions they took. It basically boils down to this: We have been attacked. A group in Afghanistan named Al Qaeda, which is ran by Osama Bin Ladin, is responsible. So we're going to go over there but I, George Bush, am going to lose interest in Osama fairly quickley (Bush said in an interview at the time that he didn't give much thought to Osama Bin Ladin. Except for when they needed a boogyman to scare American into doing what they wanted, of course). Now most of the 9/11 attackers are from Saudi Arabia. But I, George Bush, am great friends with the Saudis (even though they are one of the worst countries in terms of oppressing their people) so we aren't even going to think about doing shit there. However there's a chance that this Saddam guy from Iraq might be connected to Bin Ladin, the guy I don't care about, so let's bomb the hell out of that country.

 

The decision of the Christian people to either support of not to support the Iraq war come down to this question: are you

just Christian or actually Christ-like. Because if you support the Iraq war than I, a very proud atheist, am more like your god than you are. And FYI, I'm talking about Jesus, not Ronald Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey if you're expecting me to defend Christians here you're in the wrong place my friend LOL. Of course, the military doesn't necissarily mean Christian though. And the Iraq bombings was done by our government. Of course when the Republicans are in power there's not much difference between government and crazy Christians.

I see differences between these two situations, but what we did in Iraq wasn't right. And I agree that I would like to know why more Christian groups don't decide to protest these actions when not only were they not justifiable but directly against what their "saviour" stood for. A lot of times it seems the most Holier-than-thou Christians are the first ones to say "bomb them" whenever a country is doing something we in this country may not agree with. So I like to direct this question to them, What Would Jesus Bomb!

 

Bush & his guys went into Iraq knowing that Saddam was not connected to Al Qaeda and knowing that the WMDs did not exist. He lied and told us that he was freeing the people of Iraq from an evil, oppresive dictator. Freeing them by bombing schools and hospitals? I'm doubting the guy that had to pull the body of his burned up 5 year old daughter from the rubble of her school felt very liberated. It's not exactly hard to imagine why they don't really like us much over there. Makes you wonder if places like that were purposely targeted to insure fighting would occur...

 

I find very intersting errors in what Bush and his goons told us and the actions they took. It basically boils down to this: We have been attacked. A group in Afghanistan named Al Qaeda, which is ran by Osama Bin Ladin, is responsible. So we're going to go over there but I, George Bush, am going to lose interest in Osama fairly quickley (Bush said in an interview at the time that he didn't give much thought to Osama Bin Ladin. Except for when they needed a boogyman to scare American into doing what they wanted, of course). Now most of the 9/11 attackers are from Saudi Arabia. But I, George Bush, am great friends with the Saudis (even though they are one of the worst countries in terms of oppressing their people) so we aren't even going to think about doing shit there. However there's a chance that this Saddam guy from Iraq might be connected to Bin Ladin, the guy I don't care about, so let's bomb the hell out of that country.

 

The decision of the Christian people to either support of not to support the Iraq war come down to this question: are you

just Christian or actually Christ-like. Because if you support the Iraq war than I, a very proud atheist, am more like your god than you are. And FYI, I'm talking about Jesus, not Ronald Reagan.

 

Posted Yesterday, 12:24 PM

 

"Do need to point out that not all Muslims are like this. Some are perfectly nice, good people. But I also don't really feel too bad that they have this image around the world because the halfway sane ones don't do more to condemn the crazies among them. Until they do this they will always be known as a group of hate, anger and violence."

 

 

My reply:

This then raises another question... Why aren't, nor have there been these many years, USA Christians who have not, for the most part, taken to the streets in the thousands to protest the killing and wounding and displacing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens by USA made armaments and our military for what 19 or so Saudi Arabian citizens did on 9/11? Further, why has the USA not supported the military man/woman who comes back from these wars? They need jobs, housing, education and mental health therapy, etc. Sorely lacking. Something to think about as we greatly exceed the speed limit getting to theme parks, and to get our alcohol, to have fun, etc. It's like this topic doesn't exist in most "Christian" thinking.

 

 

Today:

No, the only expectation I might have when I reply to a comment a member of the forum makes is that it might be answered. I raised a question to balance out your initial comment above. Since you commented on Muslims not doing more to condemn the actions of other Muslims, I also ask the same of our country, which is considered to be a Christian nation, but it (my question) should really also go further and include all adult citizens of the USA (the government is the people, including the military) no matter religious or not.

 

Yes, I know you are an atheist - I couldn't care less what anyone believes or disbelieves - don't get the Reagan thing, though...

 

hagd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When every religion stops thinking they are better than the rest, we will be better off. But no, bashing any religion in speech should not be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Yesterday, 12:24 PM

 

"Do need to point out that not all Muslims are like this. Some are perfectly nice, good people. But I also don't really feel too bad that they have this image around the world because the halfway sane ones don't do more to condemn the crazies among them. Until they do this they will always be known as a group of hate, anger and violence."

 

 

My reply:

This then raises another question... Why aren't, nor have there been these many years, USA Christians who have not, for the most part, taken to the streets in the thousands to protest the killing and wounding and displacing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens by USA made armaments and our military for what 19 or so Saudi Arabian citizens did on 9/11? Further, why has the USA not supported the military man/woman who comes back from these wars? They need jobs, housing, education and mental health therapy, etc. Sorely lacking. Something to think about as we greatly exceed the speed limit getting to theme parks, and to get our alcohol, to have fun, etc. It's like this topic doesn't exist in most "Christian" thinking.

 

 

Today:

No, the only expectation I might have when I reply to a comment a member of the forum makes is that it might be answered. I raised a question to balance out your initial comment above. Since you commented on Muslims not doing more to condemn the actions of other Muslims, I also ask the same of our country, which is considered to be a Christian nation, but it (my question) should really also go further and include all adult citizens of the USA (the government is the people, including the military) no matter religious or not.

 

Yes, I know you are an atheist - I couldn't care less what anyone believes or disbelieves - don't get the Reagan thing, though...

 

hagd

 

Okay, let me explain the Reagan comment because I see now that my wording may have been confusing. My guess is that you're not a Republican, if you are you wouldn't be here. When I was saying "you" in that last part I actually didn't mean YOU (Cara) I meant Republicans or really anyone who supports the Iraq war. The Reagan thing was kind of a joke because it seems Republicans today are so in love with Ronald Reagan that they seem to follow him like a religion follows a god. So if you thought I was actually talking about you, I apologize. As I've said before it's usually 3am when I'm posting so I don't always choose the right wording.

 

Now, I'm not exactly sure what the hostility I felt in your response was for, especially due to the fact that I agreed with you. In my oppinion I feel that I am being fair to the Muslim world in what I said. And I completely agree that our actions as a country were very wrong too. And there is quite a few people, mostly on the liberal side, that have disagreed with those actions but I fully believe there should be more.

 

Again, wasn't directly pointing out to YOU that I was an atheist, but simply trying to make a point to anyone that reads my posts. I agree that this has become a Christian nation and that's very unfortunate as this country was built on the principle that each individual has the right to choose their own beliefs. As an atheist and as a man that wants to see the world become a better place, I hold the right to speak freely of the evils of religion and would love to see a world free from religion. But I'm not in any way for outlawing religion. I believe as an American, that people have the right to be Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologist, Satanist or to not believe in any religion or god at all. Hell, if someone wants to worship ancient Roman gods that's fully their right to do so.

 

And may I ask what "hagd" means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched portions of the "Innocence of Muslim's" and would liken it on par with Monty Python's "Holy Grail" or Mel Brooks' "History of the World" lampooning of Judea/Christian beliefs; without the benefit of writers, actors, talent, lighting, etc. Any analysis at all reveals it to be below standards one would expect from a first year film student while attempting humor to cover a blatant disdain of Islam. Ban it? Absurd! Punishment? Can you say "Inquisition,(here we go)"?

For all of recorded human history throughout the world; however long one supposes that to be; we have subjugated ourselves to strength, intellect, superstitions, god(s), religions, royalty and all manner of self-appointed leaders. It has only been in the last 100 years that 20% or more of earths population was freed from the notion they were ruled by man-gods (China and Japan emperors for example). The greatest strides forward in governance ensuring individual freedom have been made recognizing man's obligation to mankind, not by divine decree.

Others have stated their particular belief structure as a point of comparative reference, which I appreciate and will return in kind. I categorize myself as a non-spiritualist, non-superstitious individual free to pursue most any endeavor, appreciative of the time and country I live in where such "blasphemy" is a matter of personal opinion and not dogma. I don't consider myself atheist nor agnostic; wicca, voodoo, mother-earther, nor any thing else for that matter; as I feel they still impart some sense of self aware "soul".

Should denigrating a religion be illegal? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best to keep church and state separated. If we make laws prohibiting the denigration of religion, we violate the 1st-amendment.

 

Better to burn the flag than the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched portions of the "Innocence of Muslim's" and would liken it on par with Monty Python's "Holy Grail" or Mel Brooks' "History of the World" lampooning of Judea/Christian beliefs; without the benefit of writers, actors, talent, lighting, etc. Any analysis at all reveals it to be below standards one would expect from a first year film student while attempting humor to cover a blatant disdain of Islam. Ban it? Absurd! Punishment? Can you say "Inquisition,(here we go)"?

For all of recorded human history throughout the world; however long one supposes that to be; we have subjugated ourselves to strength, intellect, superstitions, god(s), religions, royalty and all manner of self-appointed leaders. It has only been in the last 100 years that 20% or more of earths population was freed from the notion they were ruled by man-gods (China and Japan emperors for example). The greatest strides forward in governance ensuring individual freedom have been made recognizing man's obligation to mankind, not by divine decree.

Others have stated their particular belief structure as a point of comparative reference, which I appreciate and will return in kind. I categorize myself as a non-spiritualist, non-superstitious individual free to pursue most any endeavor, appreciative of the time and country I live in where such "blasphemy" is a matter of personal opinion and not dogma. I don't consider myself atheist nor agnostic; wicca, voodoo, mother-earther, nor any thing else for that matter; as I feel they still impart some sense of self aware "soul".

Should denigrating a religion be illegal? No.

Very smart and very true. Though atheist simply means "somebody who does not believe in God or deities". But hey, call it whatever you'd like. I still consider you on my side :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...