Then you should be arguing for a change in the law following a legal process outlines in the legal system. Instead you are advocating an ignoring the law in deference to your particular moral system.
No, freedom of speech and expression is not a law per se, it is a human right and that right should not be taken as an absolute right to provoke, ridicule, insult the beliefs of others. I am arguing with those who believe freedom of speech and expression should include freedom to provoke, ridicule, insult the beliefs of others, which is absurd and morally wrong by any standard.
No. Mockery was the method by which he communicated his criticism. His intention was to effect awareness and change by USING humor presented as mockery.
The humor used by Chaucer was not even a mockery because he was using fictional characters. If he was using actual Biblical characters, then, it’s a mockery.
No, Chaucer’s satirical humor was aimed at the Catholic Church, NOT at the Christianity Faith. It was a time (the Medieval era) when the Catholic Church was extremely wealthy and to the public, it seemed hypocritical of the church when it preached against the
sin of greed and yet the church was built extravagantly and its ministers dressed lavishly. The Pardoner, for example, one of Chaucer’s characters in his satire, was use to satirize the corruption practice of the Church. Nothing in Chaucer’s satirical humor touch the Christianity Faith or the sensitivity of the Christians.
The satire was evident in other stories as well, showing the failings of the church and its representatives even though the creed of the church was that those representatives were "right" with regard to the belief system.
Yes, but the point is - it was not aimed at Christianity or to mock and ridicule the Christians, it was aimed at the failure of the church to practice what it preached. The caricature of Muhammad on the other hand, was aimed at Islam and the sensitivity of the Muslims.
Except the teacher who was killed did not present a caricature in order to mock Muhammed, but to teach about a law in Islam. He didn't make fun of anything. He taught about a rule. The insensitivity wasn't in that he was mocking the religion, just teaching about it. Chaucer was much more up front about his attack on central tenets and characters in the church.
The point, which you deliberately ignored, is that showing an image, in any form, of Muhammad is an insult to the Muslims. In Chaucer’s humor, the Pardoner character, was an untrustworthy character whose sexuality is questionable. Now, what if Chaucer depicted Jesus Christ, instead of using a fictional character such as the Pardoner, as the untrustworthy character whose sexuality is questionable in his satirical humor ?? You think that would not upset the Christians around the world ??
Ah, so you would rather voluntarily be imposed upon by the sensitivity of every group and live your life limited by the laws of every sub-category. And when someone says that "according to Raelianism it is wrong to wear shoes" you will take off your shoes. When another religion is offended by your use of the masculine pronoun, you abandon it. You will teach your students how to capitulate an not expect compliance with a secular law. OK. Everyone's law holds sway except the government's.
How could my life be limited by the laws of every sub-category if I choose to be respectful to others Faiths ?? Does being respectful to your parents means you are limited by your parents ??
Yes, you are. You assumed a political leaning in me by pointing out my understanding of teaching methods and the position of a legal system in a secular society. If you can't see that, then that is sad.
Well, I will be assuming if you did not say “
provoking and mocking the beliefs of others is a much more effective way to make the world a safer place”, BUT you did.
It is immoral to change what someone else said and impute the misstatement. I said it was "more effective" not that it was the "best way." Do you always act so immorally?
Well, ‘more effective way’ in fact means it is better than any ‘best way’. If someone said this is the best way, and you came and said ‘no, this is a more effective way’, what you are saying is you have a better way than the best way as proposed by that someone. In other words, you are actually saying there’s no better way to make the world a safe place other than mocking the beliefs of others – now, that’s really immoral.
I think that anyone who resorts to trying to use guilt by association, or who has to misrepresent another's point of view, or who has poor grammar must have had a troubled childhood. I find those behaviors immoral and offensive. Please change how you act to account for my sensitivity. You are, through your behavior, touching on the sensitivity of aspects of my personal and professional faith and you must change or I will go outside the RF rules and hack your account even though what you say is protected under the RF guidelines. Or are you going to insist that my particular sensitivity shouldn't drive your behavior and you can go on misstating my claims, imputing political positions to me and using poor grammar?
Well, I am not here for English grammar lessons, so excuse my grammars. And since when you became so sensitive when you yourself have been defending those who are insensitive to other people’s sensitivity ?? Your flip flop from being insensitive to very sensitive then, back to being insensitive may be a sign of a trouble childhood.
….. or I will go outside the RF rules and hack your account even though what you say is protected under the RF guidelines.
Is that a threat ?? Have you been hacking other people’s accounts just because you have no logical responses to their comments ? Is that what you have be doing ?? Hacking other people’s accounts is not only immoral, but it’s a crime – don’t you know that ? Do you always act and think so immorally ? You need psychiatric help, buddy !
Then you should study the laws of "freedom of speech." The areas subject to prior restraint, at least here in the US, do not include mockery. I can't be held accountable for the wrong conclusions you draw if you haven't studied first amendment law.
Well, just because the First Amendment does not mention mockery, insult or ridicule directly, it does NOT mean they are under the protection of ‘freedom of speech/expression’ rights. Likewise, the First Amendment does not mention rape either – does that mean rape is also protected under the First Amendment too ?? After all, rape is a form of expression too.
And saying that someone who considers mockery protected is "preaching" absolute freedom is similarly erroneous, but you just did it.
Well, if you can mock, insult and upset the sentiments of others under the guise of freedom of speech and expression, then, there’s really nothing you cannot do under “freedom of speech and expression”.
You believe in the right not to be offended. That is not what I believe in. Many people offend me, all the time. A society that has to keep in mind my personal need not to be offended, along with the equivalent preferences of 300 million others will crumble pretty quickly.
You mean you believe that apart from the right to offend, to be offended should also be a right ?? Now I can understand why you said many people offend you, after all, those who offend you are just exercising their rights and likewise, you are just exercising your rights to be offended too. That makes a lot of sense !!
France has laws to protect people from particular types of offenses, like being beheaded. The breaking of those laws can't be defended by pointing to someone whose behavior did NOT break those laws. Until the law says "no one can be offended under penalty of death" the law is allowing people to be offended.
No one is saying beheading or senseless killings should be defended or glorified. Perhaps it should be emphasized that almost all major Muslim leaders and organizations in France also condemned the beheading. So did many Muslims around the world.
Fact is, if we want to stop these senseless killings, then, both sides have to make changes in their approach. Islam and Muslims have been the target of insults, mockery and the likes for a long time and when Muslims are push to the edge and they retaliate, the world expects them to change their ways. Well, if a change in approach is necessary among some over-reacting Muslims, then, society, in this case, the French society as a whole should also re-appraise its understanding of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should never be used to glorify the freedom to insult or to mock.
French leaders and elites who regard freedom of speech or expression as the defining attribute of their national identity, should also concede that there have been a lot of inconsistencies in their stances. Why are those who mock, and provoke Muslims sentiment under the guise of freedom of speech and expression are not brought up to justice while these people are - a French comedian, Dieudenne, has been convicted in Court eight times for allegedly upsetting “Jewish sentiment” and is prohibited from performing in many venues. A cartoonist with Charlie Hebdo was fired for alleged “anti-Semitism”. There is also the case of a writer, Robert Faurisson in the sixties who was fined in Court and lost his job for questioning the conventional holocaust narrative. Many years later, the French intellectual Roger Garaudy was also convicted for attempting to re-interpret certain aspects of the holocaust. Are these people not entitled to the same freedom of speech and expression ?? OR is France practicing double standard when it comes to freedom of speech and expression, like it’s okay to upset the sentiment of the Muslims, but if you upset the sentiment of the French, Jews, actions will be taken against you ??
