Religion – a fairy tale for adults?

[naomi24]

http://www.bostonstan...ries-poster-1-3962839

Well, as the report asks, "what do you think? Should Mr Richards be allowed to display his poster?"

[Nibble]

So much for the 1st Amendment in the US

http://en.wikipedia.o..._in_the_United_States

Freedom of Speech ----- NOT on religious grounds then????

ps Don't upset the "Moral Majority" -- hypocrites

[naomi24]

Nibble, this is Boston, Lincolnshire.

[Nibble]

Same results....

http://www.abouthuman...r-freedom-speech.html

[dunr]

Why not? There is no evidence to support religion.
The only thing believers can do is quote from the "Good Book" !!! or say we have to have faith !!!
Religion is slowly being driven into a corner, the sooner it vanishes the better - for the whole world & for more peace in this world.

[jake-the-peg]

//key point is that the offence is committed if it is deemed that a reasonable person would find the content insulting.//

I think this is the rather arbitary law that was being protested about (by Stonewall?) the other week.

I don't think a reasonable person in the UK would find this insulting.

I'm pretty sure Richard Dawkins has said and published stuff at least this strong and stronger and not attracted any legal interest.

This sounds like a case of poor judgement on behal of the local police

[Old_Geezer]

I thin it is a grey area. If one believes in freedom of speech then there is a case to allow it. But rarely do folk mean total freedom of speech when they claim to support free speech: most believe there is a responsibility to filter what you might like to say. Enticement of violence, as an obvious example, is rarely supported.

In this case there is an argument that it is insulting and thus likely to cause offense. My personal opinion is that if it caused someone that much offense then they must be fairly "thin skinned", and probably do not have a lot of confidence in the beliefs they hold. But it seems the way of society these days to be overly sensitive to causing offense, giving the offended the benefit of the doubt, and being as PC as one can be.

[Infomaniac]

Churches put up signs such as "Jesus loves you" and although I don't believe that it doesn't offend me - let those who believe it believe it. Nor should anyone reading this gentleman's poster be offended if it is contrary to their beliefs. Some people are over-sensitive and are apparently offended by any statement that disagrees with their own opinions.

[jomifl]

An interesting point is that if you are an atheist and publicly display material that states a fact but upsets people you are committing an offence. If you are a church that displays material that is untrue and insulting, such as 'jesus loves you' then that is your freedom of....?

[vulcan]

It would appear that the church and religion operate under different laws then the rest of us. If I stand outside somebody's house, shout at them and play my favourite music, I would be told to move on and then be arrested if I didn't. However the police deem it perfectly ok for a bunch of religious people to do this once a week for at least an hour, to me. These are the sort of people who would be offended by this poster, free speech to them is only acceptable if it supports their cause. The only thing Mr Richards did wrong was to make the poster too small.

[mibn2cweus]

Personally, I find the statement ‘Religions are fairy stories for adults’ rather insulting to most of the fairy tales I've read which at the very least admit to being what they really are. Nevertheless, I would not deny anyone the freedom to express an opinion that does not entail eternal damnation for those who disagree.

[keyplus90]

I think he is trying to convince himself and no one else. So why not put poster facing inside where he could see every time he try to look throught the window. At least it would remind him what he believes in.

[beso]

Personally I find the promotion of a book that exalts genocide as evidence for the existence of a supreme deity and tells us to look eagerly towards a time where billions will die at its hands, quite offensive.

Had the Bible been first published today there would be outrage.

[beso]

"This is balanced with a right to free speech and the key point is that the offence is committed if it is deemed that a reasonable person would find the content insulting."

By definition, religious people are demonstrably not reasonable, therefore they are not covered. I would like to see someone take on this proposition in the courts.

Moreover, why should it cause them any distress? They claim to have faith in their beliefs. How miserably thin that faith must be.

A church on the main thoroughfare in our town displayed a sign saying "ONLY A FOOL WOULD DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD".

This statement is clearly insulting but I wasn't distressed by it because I have no respect for their stupid beliefs.

[RATTER15]

Keyplus,
>>I think he is trying to convince himself and no one else<<

how did you come up with that amazing little gem.

You really would love to believe that atheist are trying convince themselves wouldn't you.

[Hopkirk]

What about the drivers of the buses with this advert.

http://artthreat.net/...loads/atheist-bus.jpg

Are the Police going to warn them?

[Zacs-Master]

Jeez, I better take my 'F*** Off Jehovas Witnesses' poster down.

[pdust]

it should be up to him to display it or not, its his opinion, anyone who doesnt agree can ignore it....theres no bad words or anything on it *shrugs*

[naomi24]

//…..if it is deemed that a reasonable person would find the content insulting.//

Curious statement, that. ‘A reasonable person’. Doesn’t everyone think he/she is ‘reasonable’? As Beso says, religious convictions are demonstrably unreasonable – so who can we rely upon to determine what is reasonable and what is not? The religious and their apologists? Clearly not - but, as usual, the rest of society is expected to keep their opinions to themselves in deference to outlandish beliefs.

Keyplus, despite the undeniable evidence against your arguments you continue to lie to yourself. ;o)

[ludwig]

I'd guess he's sick of god-botherers knocking on his door, and it's his equivalent of zacs-masters 'F off JWs' sign.

Of course he should be able to display it.

[beso]

naomi //so who can we rely upon to determine what is reasonable and what is not? The religious and their apologists? Clearly not - but, as usual, the rest of society is expected to keep their opinions to themselves in deference to outlandish beliefs. //

Of course. Otherwise the religious will get up in arms in defence of their faith as directed by their heroic founders who justified genocide in the name of their gods.