Insulting a religion vs insulting people

[Estro Felino]

The title of the thread is very clear. There is a big difference between these two situations...and the law of my country makes such a distinction.
For example...I can say that Christianity sucks or that Christians are stupid people...and that can be said in a book, in a newspaper article, or publicly.

What I cannot do is insulting a determined person...like Mr Xyyy. I can insult Christians in general because "Christian" is an undetermined term...so according to the ius civile, there is no determined person that can call for the hedonic damage and sue me.


Do you agree with such distinction?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can or cannot do according to whom?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The title of the thread is very clear. There is a big difference between these two situations...and the law of my country makes such a distinction.
For example...I can say that Christianity sucks or that Christians are stupid people...and that can be said in a book, in a newspaper article, or publicly.

What I cannot do is insulting a determined person...like Mr Xyyy. I can insult Christians in general because "Christian" is an undetermined term...so according to the ius civile, there is no determined person that can call for the hedonic damage and sue me.


Do you agree with such distinction?

To me, its a moral thing. In some cultures, if you insult the family, you insult all; or insult one, you insult the whole family.

Religion is a personal thing. I dont know about protestants, but catholics believe the body in christ, not the person of christ, not the individual person, becomes in christ through the body. So if you insult catholicism, you insult catholics (body), you insult the body, you insult christ. Its not a legal or by the dictionary. Its a moral standard that I personally uphold when disagreeing with other persons faith.

1. I love the Church; I disagree with the doctrine; and, I dispise human sacrifice (Im not generalizing a whole group of People, but the Specific doctrine a christian believes in.). Im specific.

2. I dont like you Michael, but your family is cool. That one depends on the culture. Cultural sensitivity. Not so much here in the city areas of the states. Most likely in rural areas.

3. I hate United States. Why? Is it the government? Why? Is it our politics? Why? Is it trump? Yes. You insult the US, one if our core tenants is politics. You dont care for that, we assume you dont like a given party. We guess maybe trump.

Now you are talking about the people. You dislike US, you dislike the people who make it up.

But thats usually on a slide since we arent close to our government culturally, as an Islamic country and people are to theirs.

Its a moral issue. Depends on how people see others in relation to another individual or as a group.

 

[joe1776]

How would one insult a belief system since it has no feelings? As I see it, when you say "Christianity sucks!" you're insulting Christians who, in your mind, believe in a suckish religion.

On this site, we're well behaved if we attack the argument but not the opponent. Shouldn't it be the same offline?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My answer varies depending on if we are talking just about government and legal policy or just personal opinions on the nature of such insults, or private institutions such as here on RF.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The title of the thread is very clear. There is a big difference between these two situations...and the law of my country makes such a distinction.
For example...I can say that Christianity sucks or that Christians are stupid people...and that can be said in a book, in a newspaper article, or publicly.

What I cannot do is insulting a determined person...like Mr Xyyy. I can insult Christians in general because "Christian" is an undetermined term...so according to the ius civile, there is no determined person that can call for the hedonic damage and sue me.


Do you agree with such distinction?

Italy still has blasphemy laws, although they are decriminalized and (I believe) not enforced.
So when you say the laws of your country separate individual from religion, it appears to be more the enforcement of laws which does so.

 

[Estro Felino]

Italy still has blasphemy laws, although they are decriminalized and (I believe) not enforced.
So when you say the laws of your country separate individual from religion, it appears to be more the enforcement of laws which does so.

Indeed...it is decriminalized...and by the way, its obsolescence is proved by the fact that no serious courthouse would consider the idea of starting a trial for such an insignificant matter.

Totally different than what happens in UK, where people are banned, expelled, or jailed in a very Orwellian way.

 

[outlawState]

Do you agree with such distinction?

The area you touch on is political rights versus freedom of religion. People have a political right not to be insulted. "Religion" or moral systems as such are impersonal and have no such right. I think the distinction is a valid one in practice, at least from a practical point of view, and agreeable to keeping the peace, otherwise you would have endless street fighting.

Also it depends on the nature of the insult. It seems to me that UK law clearly distinguishes between putting youtube videos of people flushing korans down the toilet, and engaging in psuedo-intellectual discussion about why Islam is a pile of horse manure. You can say and mean exactly the same thing in a legal way, and in an illegal way. The law is capable of construing your motive: i.e. to inform versus to merely insult.

Often people who insult in gratuitous ways are not equipped with intellectual arguments to defend themselves in Court. Take burning the Koran. Most people don't actually understand that an English language Koran is not the true Koran, but only an interpretation. A valid defence would be that one was only objecting to an English language interpretation, not the Koran itself.

The thing to do is never do something that leaves one without a defence. Cleverness is required. There are ways of doing things. Therein lies wisdom, to find the right way.

 

[Estro Felino]

Often people who insult in gratuitous ways are not equipped with intellectual arguments to defend themselves in Court. Take burning the Koran. Most people don't actually understand that an English language Koran is not the true Koran, but only an interpretation. A valid defence would be that one was only objecting to an English language interpretation, not the Koran itself.

The motive is absolutely irrelevant, juridically speaking, because mulcts (fines), for example, imply that the common good or the public interest were threatened by a specific action.

If I burn a Bible publicly, my action can provoke the reprobation of Christians who witness my actions, but none of their rights was violated.

Besides...let's be honest...the English judiciary doesn't give a damn when Christianity or Buddhism are bashed.

It becomes vile only when it deals with that religion.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

You can say whatever you want but those examples would make anyone look stupid - because such things are said by stupid people.

 

[outlawState]

It becomes vile only when it deals with that religion.

There is that aspect of course. The one with the bigger political representation has the bigger right to be more offended. But the right not to be offended has its intellectual limits. The judiciary like picking on people who appear stupid. Once they realize they have some intelligence, they respect you more.

That is why I said it takes wisdom; and in any case, ultimately there is little value in insults alone. The aim should be to communicate a meaningful point, although I think the point about Islam being a fascist religion is actually served quite well by making martyrs of people objecting to it.

 

[Estro Felino]

There is that aspect of course. The one with the bigger political representation has the bigger right to be more offended. But the right not to be offended has its intellectual limits. The judiciary like picking on people who appear stupid. Once they realize they have some intelligence, they respect you more.

Actually your discourse is about morality. The law is supposed to be secular and amoral, so it cannot punish people for being "immoral" or "stupid".

Do I consider people -who have fun bashing religions gratuitously - childish and stupid? Of course I do.

If someone offends Jesus, I suffer, because I am a Christian...but my suffering has no juridic relevance.

 

[outlawState]

The law is supposed to be secular and amoral, so it cannot punish people for being "immoral" or "stupid".

I don't agree in that this analysis is too simplistic. I am talking about the practice of law - practice shows that stupid people are more likely to suffer under the law than clever people. To a Christian the law may appear amoral, but the law is not supposed to be amoral, nor is it always amoral. It is moral in the eyes of those who create and adjudicate under it.

Secular does not mean lacking in all morality although to a Christian it may have that connotation in some aspects. Thus contract& property law is secular, but is tries to be moral. There is quite a lot of law that is moral. It is when it comes to religious morality that not only the law but the practice of law tends to go astray, because the authors of it, and the judges, are beholden to vested political interests and do not apprise the higher points of religion.

The practice of law is also immoral in that it picks on people who appear stupid, or who seem to have behaved irrationally, although their behaviour may be quite rational in their own eyes. In respect of this category of person many miscarriages of justice occur, and it is especially prevalent with people who appear to act dishonestly. Thus, if your wife commits suicide, your are far more likely to be wrongly charged with her murder if you are having an affair with someone else. E.g. "The finger of suspicion began to point at Eddie, with what looked like a clear motive – his affair with Sandra Davies."

Denial of freedom of religion appears stupid. Thus people who insult Islam will be punished. Contrariwise, it seems to be accepted that Islam's hatred of Christianity is perfectly rational, and so it is not generally punished.

So the secret is to understand how things appear to the political classes.

If someone offends Jesus, I suffer, because I am a Christian...but my suffering has no juridic relevance.

Christ is indeed being trampled on daily by the political classes and the politicians.

 

[Milton Platt]

The title of the thread is very clear. There is a big difference between these two situations...and the law of my country makes such a distinction.
For example...I can say that Christianity sucks or that Christians are stupid people...and that can be said in a book, in a newspaper article, or publicly.

What I cannot do is insulting a determined person...like Mr Xyyy. I can insult Christians in general because "Christian" is an undetermined term...so according to the ius civile, there is no determined person that can call for the hedonic damage and sue me.


Do you agree with such distinction?

I see no reason you should not be able to insult a person. Maybe you shouldn't......but that is another question.

 

[Sunstone]

In some ways, there is not much difference between insulting a person and insulting a religion. It can be just as wounding to some people if you directly insult them or if insult their religion. This is because of human nature. We're a species capable of identifying our selves with something, very much including a religion.

It goes a bit deeper than that, of course. When we self-identify with something, anything, we develop a tendency to defend that thing as if it was physically and psychologically us -- and of course, in a way, it now is.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I see no reason you should not be able to insult a person. Maybe you shouldn't......but that is another question.

Because your spirit should make you quite unable.