The hypocrisy of blasphemy: How can religion be against free speech?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I keep reading about Muslims who want to have "blasphemy" bans, and now the Pope is saying "you can't mock religion". And yet these religions (Islam and Christianity) have within them doctrines that are incredibly offensive. Homosexuals are an abomination? We should kill apostates? Stone people to death for X, Y, and Z? These people should be careful what they wish for. They should be fighting to protect freedom of speech, not to end it. If we start censoring everything that offends people, the holy books should be the first books we ban, not books of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, to be fair to them, they are quite explicit about how the only things which should be banned are the things that they disagree with. If they agree with what someone is saying, that person's right to free speech is something that they feel should be inviolate.

 

[arkirk]

I just received an email from a very liberal friend of mine whose wife has devoted her life to defending human rights, and to a lot of Muslims. It was a rant about the hypocrisy he felt was coming from the French and our government. His complaint is in part valid in that it appears that Hollande is making a real thing of freedom of expression to prop up public support for his rapidly developing security state and military activity. Watching Obama carry on about it is also a bit on the sick side. Like many conflicts in this world, this incident and what follows from it is a case of wrong versus wrong. Obama and the French president don't really support the atheist comic magazine. They support ramping up anti Muslim sentiment in support of their continuing aggression in the ME and Africa. That is unfortunately very clear to me. They obviously don't support free speech or they would face up to the criticism of Snowden and others who are concerned with our governments' march into totalitarianism with all its attending cloaks and daggers.

I suppose it would be "insensitive"of Charlie Hedbo to challenge that...and also dangerous. That organization has just lost 12 of its number to assassination, having assassinated nobody themselves. On the other hand, the U.S. with its drones and the French with its warplanes and troops in former colonies continue their killing, their spying, their cheating. The OTHER SIDE...pretty much is doing the same, threatening and killing people who do not wish to kill anybody and certainly don't wish to be killed.

My Marxist friend heaped a lot of his criticism on Charlie Hedbo that I feel as an atheist is downright misplaced. He characterized religion as the cry of an oppressed people who needed some consolation for their woes. He may be right about that, but I do not appreciate any of these ideas if they condone murder...especially of cartoonists.

 

[dismal]

I keep reading about Muslims who want to have "blasphemy" bans, and now the Pope is saying "you can't mock religion". And yet these religions (Islam and Christianity) have within them doctrines that are incredibly offensive. Homosexuals are an abomination? We should kill apostates? Stone people to death for X, Y, and Z? These people should be careful what they wish for. They should be fighting to protect freedom of speech, not to end it. If we start censoring everything that offends people, the holy books should be the first books we ban, not books of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Is the Pope saying you can't mock religion or you shouldn't?

If he's stating his belief or what he thinks Catholics must do not to be horrible sinners I can choose to simply not give a crap.

If he wants to use laws or violence to stop people from doing it we have a problem.

 

[Trausti]

Islam is inherently offensive to Christianity because it denies the divinity of Christ; the converse is also true, as Muhammad is no prophet to the Church. But what of the Jews? How offensive that a bunch of upstarts appropriate your stone-age beliefs saying (1) we got your messiah or (2) we are the final revelation of your beliefs? This is why I worship the invisible pink unicorn (pbuh).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Institutional religion typically and historically is and has been about obedience to dogma. How could it be for free speech?

 

[Angry Floof]

I keep reading about Muslims who want to have "blasphemy" bans, and now the Pope is saying "you can't mock religion". And yet these religions (Islam and Christianity) have within them doctrines that are incredibly offensive. Homosexuals are an abomination? We should kill apostates? Stone people to death for X, Y, and Z? These people should be careful what they wish for. They should be fighting to protect freedom of speech, not to end it. If we start censoring everything that offends people, the holy books should be the first books we ban, not books of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Is the Pope saying you can't mock religion or you shouldn't?

If he's stating his belief or what he thinks Catholics must do not to be horrible sinners I can choose to simply not give a crap.

If he wants to use laws or violence to stop people from doing it we have a problem.

I don't think he wants to use laws or violence to stop people making fun of his stunted belief system, but he is arguably the most powerful religious mouthpiece in the entire world, meaning he uses something quite powerful - his influence over millions - to stop people making fun of his backward religion.

I think this is just as dangerous as the same mouthpiece telling the world that using condoms causes HIV.

 

[Angry Floof]

Institutional religion typically and historically is and has been about obedience to dogma. How could it be for free speech?

You're right, it can't. That's why nothing short of global agreement that religious beliefs get no special protection and that dogma is a disease of humanity no matter what "goodness" is pasted onto it is the only way we will ever have a chance of seeing the end of religious bigotry and violence.

 

[arkirk]

Islam is inherently offensive to Christianity because it denies the divinity of Christ; the converse is also true, as Muhammad is no prophet to the Church. But what of the Jews? How offensive that a bunch of upstarts appropriate your stone-age beliefs saying (1) we got your messiah or (2) we are the final revelation of your beliefs? This is why I worship the invisible pink unicorn (pbuh).

And what does your Unicorn deny? I better not see him appearing in any comic books.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So when Muslims stand up and say we should ban cartoons of Mohammed, why do we not raise a brow at them and ask if they also agree with banning religious hate speech against homosexuals, non-believers, and apostates?

Seems like a great opportunity to create an empathy connect in them and move them away from the hateful side of Islam.

 

[dismal]

Is the Pope saying you can't mock religion or you shouldn't?

If he's stating his belief or what he thinks Catholics must do not to be horrible sinners I can choose to simply not give a crap.

If he wants to use laws or violence to stop people from doing it we have a problem.

I don't think he wants to use laws or violence to stop people making fun of his stunted belief system, but he is arguably the most powerful religious mouthpiece in the entire world, meaning he uses something quite powerful - his influence over millions - to stop people making fun of his backward religion.

I think this is just as dangerous as the same mouthpiece telling the world that using condoms causes HIV.

He's entitled to his opinion. You and I are entitled to disagree with it or not listen at all.

It would be just as wrong to use laws or violence to silence him as it would be for him to do the same to us.

- - - Updated - - -

So when Muslims stand up and say we should ban cartoons of Mohammed, why do we not raise a brow at them and ask if they also agree with banning religious hate speech against homosexuals, non-believers, and apostates?

Seems like a great opportunity to create an empathy connect in them and move them away from the hateful side of Islam.

But they don't think saying those things is bad. Their values are different than the average poster on an atheist message board.

 

[Angry Floof]

He's entitled to his opinion. You and I are entitled to disagree with it or not listen at all.

It would be just as wrong to use laws or violence to silence him as it would be for him to do the same to us.

Really? Ya think?

Are you hoping someone will assume that's the argument, that someone wants to hypocritically stifle the Pope's expression of his opinions? If so, let me clear that up.

The argument is that the Pope, having world-leader level of influence over a great many human beings, is accountable for the shit he spews and he is open for ridicule and questioning. Unless he decides to renounce the RCC and his fraudulent claim to spiritual authority, he has no choice in that.

Just because millions more will not question is no reason that those few of us willing to do so shouldn't.

I, for one, prefer that his speech never be stifled or curtailed in any way. We need to be talking about what people of influence are saying to suggestible people. The fact that every individual is also responsible for questioning what takes up residence in their own heads is irrelevant to this.

 

[Valjean]

You could say that a simple picture is less a threat to religious belief than the irreconcilable doctrinal differences of an alternate religion. A picture or a variation of dress or behavior is more symbolic than substantive. A community of believers with contradictory, heretical doctrinal differences, on the other hand, might pose a real threat.
Christians, a Hindus or a Baha'is walking the streets pose an existential threat, they're potential corruptors of youth, exemplars of a functioning alternative belief system, yet it's images, uncovered hair or mixed classrooms that incense the fundamentalists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Their values are different than the average poster on an atheist message board.

Do you really think so? Are you friends with any muslims and do you discuss this point you make that their values are different? If you're dealing with a religious terrorist then I don't disagree with you. But the vast, vast majority of muslims are not religious terrorists obviously.

 

[dismal]

He's entitled to his opinion. You and I are entitled to disagree with it or not listen at all.

It would be just as wrong to use laws or violence to silence him as it would be for him to do the same to us.

Really? Ya think?

Are you hoping someone will assume that's the argument, that someone wants to hypocritically stifle the Pope's expression of his opinions? If so, let me clear that up.

The argument is that the Pope, having world-leader level of influence over a great many human beings, is accountable for the shit he spews and he is open for ridicule and questioning. Unless he decides to renounce the RCC and his fraudulent claim to spiritual authority, he has no choice in that.

Just because millions more will not question is no reason that those few of us willing to do so shouldn't.

I, for one, prefer that his speech never be stifled or curtailed in any way. We need to be talking about what people of influence are saying to suggestible people. The fact that every individual is also responsible for questioning what takes up residence in their own heads is irrelevant to this.

He thinks he's helping people get to heaven, I imagine.

He probably thinks your views are the dangerous ones.

 

[dismal]

Their values are different than the average poster on an atheist message board.

Do you really think so? Are you friends with any muslims and do you discuss this point you make that their values are different? If you're dealing with a religious terrorist then I don't disagree with you. But the vast, vast majority of muslims are not religious terrorists obviously.

Well, I did link a global survey of Muslim attitudes recently. I'd say based on my experience here many people here disagree with beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Stoning for adultery, honor killings, death for apostasy, etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do you really think so? Are you friends with any muslims and do you discuss this point you make that their values are different? If you're dealing with a religious terrorist then I don't disagree with you. But the vast, vast majority of muslims are not religious terrorists obviously.

Well, I did link a global survey of Muslim attitudes recently. I'd say based on my experience here many people here disagree with beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Stoning for adultery, honor killings, death for apostasy, etc.

Aren't we discussing free speech though, primarily? All those issues are free speech issues. I think your typical muslim would understand how his idea of free speech is faulty, if indeed that muslim holds to the things you mention. JP's OP is right on IMHO because it exposes this faulty thinking.

And I take it you've never discussed your point personally with any muslims.

 

[Angry Floof]

Really? Ya think?

Are you hoping someone will assume that's the argument, that someone wants to hypocritically stifle the Pope's expression of his opinions? If so, let me clear that up.

The argument is that the Pope, having world-leader level of influence over a great many human beings, is accountable for the shit he spews and he is open for ridicule and questioning. Unless he decides to renounce the RCC and his fraudulent claim to spiritual authority, he has no choice in that.

Just because millions more will not question is no reason that those few of us willing to do so shouldn't.

I, for one, prefer that his speech never be stifled or curtailed in any way. We need to be talking about what people of influence are saying to suggestible people. The fact that every individual is also responsible for questioning what takes up residence in their own heads is irrelevant to this.

He thinks he's helping people get to heaven, I imagine.

He probably thinks your views are the dangerous ones.

Yes, and? He's free to question my beliefs and offer evidence of what's dangerous. This goes without saying and adds nothing here. I'm not the one expecting, demanding, or asking that my beliefs be protected from questioning. Did you have some other point in regard to my comments?

 

[dismal]

He thinks he's helping people get to heaven, I imagine.

He probably thinks your views are the dangerous ones.

Yes, and? He's free to question my beliefs and offer evidence of what's dangerous. This goes without saying and adds nothing here. I'm not the one expecting, demanding, or asking that my beliefs be protected from questioning. Did you have some other point in regard to my comments?

No, I'll just leave you alone now.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I did link a global survey of Muslim attitudes recently. I'd say based on my experience here many people here disagree with beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Stoning for adultery, honor killings, death for apostasy, etc.

Aren't we discussing free speech though, primarily? All those issues are free speech issues. I think your typical muslim would understand how his idea of free speech is faulty, if indeed that muslim holds to the things you mention. JP's OP is right on IMHO because it exposes this faulty thinking.

And I take it you've never discussed your point personally with any muslims.

Wouldn't you say advocating death for blasphemy or apostasy is somewhat antithetical to free speech?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, and? He's free to question my beliefs and offer evidence of what's dangerous. This goes without saying and adds nothing here. I'm not the one expecting, demanding, or asking that my beliefs be protected from questioning. Did you have some other point in regard to my comments?

No, I'll just leave you alone now.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I did link a global survey of Muslim attitudes recently. I'd say based on my experience here many people here disagree with beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Stoning for adultery, honor killings, death for apostasy, etc.

Aren't we discussing free speech though, primarily? All those issues are free speech issues. I think your typical muslim would understand how his idea of free speech is faulty, if indeed that muslim holds to the things you mention. JP's OP is right on IMHO because it exposes this faulty thinking.

And I take it you've never discussed your point personally with any muslims.

Wouldn't you say advocating death for blasphemy or apostasy is somewhat antithetical to free speech?

No. It's called speech. Not letting them say it is pretty much 'antithetical' to free speech.

Letting people say things, however, does not preclude all manner of legal monitoring of their actions to see if they are planning on killing someone. Because while freedom of speech is a thing. Absolute freedom of action isn't