Crosswords0 min ago
Russian Parliament Passes New Blasphemy Law
84 Answers
http://
Why? This can only be a retrograde step, surely?
Why? This can only be a retrograde step, surely?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Bert, I truly cannot see a comparison between religion and sexuality. Where is the similarity? The first is a choice, the second is not, so why is that argument threadbare? Do you take personal offence at criticism of the ideology of politics? If not, then why take personal offence at criticism of the ideology of religion?
@naomi24, we cannot agree. Judaism, for instance, is no more or less of a choice that any specific sexuality. And even allowing that one's sexuality is not a choice, one's actual sexual behaviour certainly is. So your argument for differing between the legality of offensiveness about the one or the other is, as I said, threadbare. Either both are wrong, or both are right.
@LazyGun, my first post argued for the equal legality or illegality of offensiveness about religion and offensiveness about sexuality. Your first post which I quoted seemed to be pointing out a difference between them, from which I thought you were trying to justify a difference in legality.
Then in your second post you seem to be agreeing that there should be no difference. Yes, of course I am as // happy with the concept of a blasphemy law, where religion ... can claim protection from criticism ... because it offends the sensibilities of some of the religious // as I am with the concept and, indeed, the actual implementation of a law in this country which protects sexual minorities from criticism because it offends their sensibilities. I thought you would be, too.
Pre-Enlightenment thinking is, essentially, believing in the conclusions due to your own prejudices and preconceptions simply because you can string together words that make them sound logical and reasonable. Naomi24 is more prone to that than you are.
Then in your second post you seem to be agreeing that there should be no difference. Yes, of course I am as // happy with the concept of a blasphemy law, where religion ... can claim protection from criticism ... because it offends the sensibilities of some of the religious // as I am with the concept and, indeed, the actual implementation of a law in this country which protects sexual minorities from criticism because it offends their sensibilities. I thought you would be, too.
Pre-Enlightenment thinking is, essentially, believing in the conclusions due to your own prejudices and preconceptions simply because you can string together words that make them sound logical and reasonable. Naomi24 is more prone to that than you are.
So the actual LoB and the putative LoM should both be banned, Khandro? An attitude I expect from the (mainly unaware) enemies of civilisation on these threads, but you? Please tell me you don't mean this. I thought that having read the Poverty of Historicism you would have read his other work The Open Society and its Enemies. Were he writing today he might well include a resurgent Islamic theocracy in his list. Not that Islam's intellectual credentials should be compared with those of Plato and Marx. But who needs credentials when you've got potentially thousands and possibly millions of bullies and thugs on your side?
@ bert
In this post, you argued as follows
"Whatever is the problem with that? Even here in Britain, it is against the law to be deliberately offensive about someone else's sexual orientation. Would that it were equally illegal to be deliberately offensive about their religious orientation, but somehow that counts as 'free speech'."
My point is, you are incorrect. You can be deliberately offensive about someone elses sexual orientation, or their race. It is not a crime to be offensive in this country. It is not against the law.People might well judge you as being offensive, or rude,obnoxious or a boor, but it is not illegal. That IS free speech. What is against the law is to incite hatred against someone because of their sexual orientation or race, or religious identity, come to that.
Thats why I would not want protesters waving "behead those who insult islam" charged for blasphemy, but I would want them arrested and charged for incitement to murder, because it would be a hate crime.
I do not know the ins and outs of russian jurisprudence, but this law that we are discussing is a specific protection for religion - a wholly unneccessary law, one that can be used as a tool of suppression and repression.
In this post, you argued as follows
"Whatever is the problem with that? Even here in Britain, it is against the law to be deliberately offensive about someone else's sexual orientation. Would that it were equally illegal to be deliberately offensive about their religious orientation, but somehow that counts as 'free speech'."
My point is, you are incorrect. You can be deliberately offensive about someone elses sexual orientation, or their race. It is not a crime to be offensive in this country. It is not against the law.People might well judge you as being offensive, or rude,obnoxious or a boor, but it is not illegal. That IS free speech. What is against the law is to incite hatred against someone because of their sexual orientation or race, or religious identity, come to that.
Thats why I would not want protesters waving "behead those who insult islam" charged for blasphemy, but I would want them arrested and charged for incitement to murder, because it would be a hate crime.
I do not know the ins and outs of russian jurisprudence, but this law that we are discussing is a specific protection for religion - a wholly unneccessary law, one that can be used as a tool of suppression and repression.
@naomi24, I think politics is so unlike religion or sexuality that it should be quite okay to criticise the first, but not the next two. You seem to be saying that politics and religion are so unlike sexuality that it's okay to criticise the first two, but not the third. That's just the fundamental disagreement about thesimilarity of things.
Bert, //Naomi24 is more prone to that than you are.//
I take that as a great compliment – thank you - but actually I think the prejudices and preconceptions here are coming from you. In an effort to cling to the antiquated misconception that regardless of its impact upon the world religion must remain beyond criticism, you are defending a law that restricts other people’s freedoms. As I said earlier, this law is an excellent example of the impact that religion has on society – whether society wants it to or not – in this instance the curtailment of the fundamental right of every human being to freedom of speech. Who was it who said ‘Your rights end where mine begin’?
//You seem to be saying that politics and religion are so unlike sexuality ……..//
They are.
I take that as a great compliment – thank you - but actually I think the prejudices and preconceptions here are coming from you. In an effort to cling to the antiquated misconception that regardless of its impact upon the world religion must remain beyond criticism, you are defending a law that restricts other people’s freedoms. As I said earlier, this law is an excellent example of the impact that religion has on society – whether society wants it to or not – in this instance the curtailment of the fundamental right of every human being to freedom of speech. Who was it who said ‘Your rights end where mine begin’?
//You seem to be saying that politics and religion are so unlike sexuality ……..//
They are.
There is nothing surprising about this law. Every state tries to get religion on their side and every religion tries to get the state on their side.
Mutual dictatorship. As Emperor Constantine said when he imposed Christianity upon the Roman Empire " You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours ". OK ! They were not his exact words but his meaning was clear.
Even during Stalin's day the Russian Church was not closed down. All they had to do was not rock the boat and they didn't. If you doubt that just think about the speed they were back in business after the collapse of communism.
Putin is just gathering ever more power, this time through proxy.
He can claim any opposition is against the church and throw the book at them. He can legally say that because the church is a part of the state.
Mutual dictatorship. As Emperor Constantine said when he imposed Christianity upon the Roman Empire " You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours ". OK ! They were not his exact words but his meaning was clear.
Even during Stalin's day the Russian Church was not closed down. All they had to do was not rock the boat and they didn't. If you doubt that just think about the speed they were back in business after the collapse of communism.
Putin is just gathering ever more power, this time through proxy.
He can claim any opposition is against the church and throw the book at them. He can legally say that because the church is a part of the state.
