UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

[Seven]

This really makes me mad:149:

 

[sandandfoam]

We should be able to criticize what we please. This takes away a valuable freedom.

Should we?
For example should holocaust deniers be able to criticize on the basis that the holocaust never happened?
It's illegal to do so in many countries and I do not think those countries are the worse for it.

 

[Seven]

Should we?
For example should holocaust deniers be able to criticize on the basis that the holocaust never happened?
It's illegal to do so in many countries and I do not think those countries are the worse for it.

I'm sure Islamic countries think they would be better off if Islamic criticism was illegal.
Free speech is too important to be interfered with, however noble the reason.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm sure Islamic countries think they would be better off if Islamic criticism was illegal.
Free speech is too important to be interfered with, however noble the reason.

It's interfered with all the time.
E.g the laws about holocaust denial, various political parties were banned from the airwaves here during the troubles, there's a police investigation ongoing here into an artist that painted caricatures of the Taoiseach.

 

[Willamena]

"All the ambassadors I have met with so far have indicated that they consider the text a very good basis for negotiations," [UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay] said. "They said any fine-tuning or improvements should be minimal, and that the fundamental balances contained in the current text should not be reopened. They agreed that this text meets the basic requirements of all concerned, while still being substantive and adding value to the fight against racism, xenophobia and similar forms of intolerance.

Yeah... sounds like a real threat against "free speech".

 

[Judgment]

Should we?
For example should holocaust deniers be able to criticize on the basis that the holocaust never happened?
It's illegal to do so in many countries and I do not think those countries are the worse for it.

Yes. We should be able to criticize anything. I in turn am free to criticize those Holocaust deniers. We can not just sit back and not speak out against what we believe to be wrong. If that was the case - many of these debates could be deemed illegal.

 

[sandandfoam]

Yes. We should be able to criticize anything. I in turn am free to criticize those Holocaust deniers. We can not just sit back and not speak out against what we believe to be wrong. If that was the case - many of these debates could be deemed illegal.

What about when criticism is used to incite rather than debate (or indeed incite under cover of debate)?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) in their proposal to halt criticism of religions, it will be most interesting to see whether or not those proposing this will also live by it and stop their own attacks on the Baha'i Faith (which are paritcularly severe in various Muslim countries, especially Iran)!

Fascinating how that particular exception doesn't seem to bother a lot of them. . . .

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Judgment]

What about when criticism is used to incite rather than debate (or indeed incite under cover of debate)?

It happens - of course - but - to take away the freedom to criticize religious text is nonsense and against everything I believe in. I've grown up in a society where I do not have to fear prison or death for speaking my mind - that is a freedom that I will not let go of easily.

 

[LuisDantas]

Should we?
For example should holocaust deniers be able to criticize on the basis that the holocaust never happened?
It's illegal to do so in many countries and I do not think those countries are the worse for it.

Yes, it should be legal. We ought to have better defenses than the law against such dangers. Law is a very poor substitute for enlightment and discernment.

 

[LuisDantas]

What about when criticism is used to incite rather than debate (or indeed incite under cover of debate)?

It should be faced at the proper level, which is not that of the law.

 

[sandandfoam]

It happens - of course - but - to take away the freedom to criticize religious text is nonsense and against everything I believe in.

Fair enough

I've grown up in a society where I do not have to fear prison or death for speaking my mind - that is a freedom that I will not let go of easily.

That freedom is illusory. Start speaking out in praise of Osama Bin Laden and in favour of jihad against the USA and see how long it takes for them to sling you into a detention centre without trial or access to a lawyer.

 

[sandandfoam]

It should be faced at the proper level, which is not that of the law.

What is the proper level in your view?

 

[LuisDantas]

What is the proper level in your view?

The sociological one, for sure. A culture can not expect to be protected from bad ideas by force of law.

It is only the hearts and minds of people who can effectivelly protect them from the bad fruits of hearts and minds of other people.

 

[sandandfoam]

The sociological one, for sure. A culture can not expect to be protected from bad ideas by force of law.

It is only the hearts and minds of people who can effectivelly protect them from the bad fruits of hearts and minds of other people.

I respect your point of view. But I disagree with it.
Bigots can be prevented from spewing their bile to a wide audience through legal gagging. The laws against holocaust denial are the best example for this that I can think of.
In certain circumstances I think it is appropriate for society as a whole to draw a line in the sand and say this is the limit - no further.

 

[Judgment]

Fair enough

That freedom is illusory. Start speaking out in praise of Osama Bin Laden and in favour of jihad against the USA and see how long it takes for them to sling you into a detention centre without trial or access to a lawyer.

My mind does not go in that direction - so - I do not fear punishments for something I would never say. If someone praises a terrorist and declares they want the destruction of America.... than they are a threat in my eyes. You are free to say these things - but - if your words are of death and destruction... then be prepared to pay the price.

Criticizing religious text is not calling for the deaths of people - unless - it leads in that direction. Then the wrong direction has been chosen. It is not wise for anyone to spread Hate.

 

[sandandfoam]

My mind does not go in that direction - so - I do not fear punishments for something I would never say. If someone praises a terrorist and declares they want the destruction of America.... than they are a threat in my eyes. You are free to say these things - but - if your words are of death and destruction... then be prepared to pay the price.

Criticizing religious text is not calling for the deaths of people - unless - it leads in that direction. Then the wrong direction has been chosen. It is not wise for anyone to spread Hate.

So freedom of speech only extends to speech that is not anathema to you. That's not freedom.

 

[Judgment]

So freedom of speech only extends to speech that is not anathema to you. That's not freedom.

I would say anathema to mankind. There are always limits on freedom - as there should be. Words are powerful and to be chosen carefully.

If you are living in a country and threatening it's destruction - you are a danger to that country.

And.. we are drifting from the main purpose of this thread. Which is a proposed ban on criticizing religion. Not a proposed ban on the criticizing of 'everything'.

 

[sandandfoam]

I would say anathema to mankind. There are always limits on freedom - as there should be. Words are powerful and to be chosen carefully.

Now I agree with you.

I disagreed with this

We should be able to criticize what we please.

 

[Judgment]

Now I agree with you.

I disagreed with this

Fair enough.


I still agree with myself however. I just hope that I continue to choose my words carefully.