Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Silver

Trying to stop criticism

When people try to stop you having your say, many fall back on the tried and trusted: racist, fascist, sexist and so on. Muslims are no different and accuse critics of islamophobia (now why should anyone fear muslims?) Muslims have their supporters in non-muslims and their cry is often one of fascist but here is why these would-be muslims are wrong in their attempt to hide muslim intolerance:


The Islamofascists are the Fascists, Not Geert Wilders


Quote:
Fitna contains “shocking images,” yes. But those images are not only real, they expose the violence and hate of Islamic fascists against non-Muslims and even Muslims themselves. Not only do we see images of 9/11, the London bombing, the Madrid bombing, clerics calling for violence against the West, etc., we also see the image of a Muslim woman’s severed head; another woman in a burka about to be executed; female genital mutilation, Muslim children covered in blood from the Ashura ritual, and so on.

A healthy society would be stirred by such images to stand for freedom, to support moderates and reformers, and tackle the fascists of our own time, not least of all by exposing their aims, ideology, and crimes. Yet, the response of Britain and the Netherlands has been to attempt to prevent Wilders from speaking, and to force their societies to turn a blind eye to the most grotesque injustice.



http://europenews.dk/en/node/25036


.
Lexilogio

Some people are prejudiced though.
Silver

We all have prejudices but that should not stop the free speech of others. We live in a democracy and not a theocracy, where laws try to control how we think and act. To quote an American bumper sticker: If you don't like the way we live, feel free to leave.
Judders Lady...

Then again why should anyone leave; surely freedom of speech means we also have freedom to say we don't want to hear it? :shock:
We shouldn't have to read it, either.
Lexilogio

And when the free speech is incitment to violence? Should we have to put up with someone egging someone else to kill another?
What about racist bullying? The constant - you can't do this - because you're...
Pukon_the_Treen

Freedom of speech should mean just that; free to say what you like, as long as it isn't slanderous, inciting some criminal offence or endangering others (like falsely shouting fire in a crowded cinema which is a public order offence).

There should not be any such thing as 'freedom from offence'; there can't be a sensible way to protect people from hearing or seeing things that may upset them without imposing a dangerous level of censorship on society.  Simply being offended, even deeply spiritually offended should not be a sufficient reason to censor anyone or anything.  You are obviously free to voice your counter opinion as loudly as you like, but not free to insist upon censorship.

I hate it when people say freedom of speech comes with a 'responsibility'.  Trite ill-thought out nonsense!  It should not come with any responsibility, at least not a responsibility that can ever be enforced by law.  We might hope that people think before they speak, but we cannot compel them to do so by law.  Don't forget that the people we allow to decide what constitutes what is the 'responsible' and socially acceptable thing to say and what isn't could well be the very people we want to protest against.

It's crazy to willingly allow ourselves to be censored in such a way simply for the sake of some wounded sensibilities.
Judders Lady...

In a perfect world no one would say anything wrong. The world isn't perfect so we need laws to protect the weak and vunerable in our society.
Pukon_the_Treen

Lynne

Quote:
In a perfect world no one would say anything wrong.


What do you mean by 'wrong'?

Quote:
The world isn't perfect so we need laws to protect the weak and vunerable in our society.


No, we need laws to preserve freedom, allow a plurality of opinions and to protect society from tyranny.  Who gets to decide which opinion is wrong and which is right?  Those who rule us?  That's naive; any censorship by the state can and will be misused sooner or later to stifle opinions for no other reason than because they are considered by those in government to be threatening to their power.

Government tyranny is the most pressing threat to our cultures, not Muslims offended by words they don't have to hear and images they don't have to see.  Vulnerable minority groups are protected by existing laws; there is no need to force people by law to speak in particular ways and suppress certain opinions to offer them further protection.
Farmer Geddon

Isn't "freedom of speech" just another way of "voicing an opinion"?
Judders Lady...

Quote:
"Pukon_the_Treen"]Lynne

Quote:
In a perfect world no one would say anything wrong.


What do you mean by 'wrong'?



The reason I used the Word wrong is because anything that can be said which is wrong will fit under the one banner. The reasons for it being wrong is also debatable.

Quote:

Quote:
The world isn't perfect so we need laws to protect the weak and vunerable in our society.


No, we need laws to preserve freedom, allow a plurality of opinions and to protect society from tyranny.  Who gets to decide which opinion is wrong and which is right?  Those who rule us?  That's naive; any censorship by the state can and will be misused sooner or later to stifle opinions for no other reason than because they are considered by those in government to be threatening to their power.


Everything, as the bible clearly shows about the world,  is about human struggle for power and fear of being ruled by tyrants under a dictatorship which is  it's oil which fuels it  being so.
Quote:

Government tyranny is the most pressing threat to our cultures, not Muslims offended by words they don't have to hear and images they don't have to see.  Vulnerable minority groups are protected by existing laws; there is no need to force people by law to speak in particular ways and suppress certain opinions to offer them further protection.


Laws have never protected from Tyrants in some Countries. I agree on the threat of Goverments making their own rules which oppress and take the right of the idividual away so limiting their right to choose. and oppressing even the basic right of opinion. You worded that quite well or were you copying?
Judders Lady...

Lucifers Duck wrote:
Isn't "freedom of speech" just another way of "voicing an opinion"?


Being vocal is not as important as the words we say.
Opinion is not as strong as when we speak facts.
So 'freedom of speech' is about more than "opinion" it is also about the "facts" and being able to speak the truth rather than voicing just a personal opinion which can be bias in itself. We all have a basic idea of right and wrong within us.

Love Lynne.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
You worded that quite well or were you copying?


My own words.  I accept that as a compliment and thank you.
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
You worded that quite well or were you copying?


My own words.  I accept that as a compliment and thank you.


I was just speaking the truth. You are welcome.

Love Lynne.xx :)
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Laws have never protected from Tyrants in some Countries.


Never?  There are certainly occasions where people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by fear and hate into granting governments the power to bypass the laws which are designed to curtail their powers and prevent tyranny, but this is something that we have to be permanently vigilant about.  Just because the safeguards don't always work, that is no reason to give up the struggle and let them violate us as they want to.

Quote:
anything that can be said which is wrong will fit under the one banner.


Well yes, the banner being “anything that I personally believe to be objectionable” but obviously that is a highly subjective category.  On many issues your idea of a 'wrong' subject for public discussion will not be the same as mine, so the only sensible thing to do is throw the whole field wide open and hope that people are mature enough to hear issues that they personally find objectionable without feeling the need to stifle anyone else.

If it turns out that people are not mature enough to be able to hear options that they dislike then tough; they should attempt to gain maturity quickly, or their fear and anger will be exploited by political entities with their own agenda.
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Laws have never protected from Tyrants in some Countries.


Never?  There are certainly occasions where people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by fear and hate into granting governments the power to bypass the laws which are designed to curtail their powers and prevent tyranny, but this is something that we have to be permanently vigilant about.  Just because the safeguards don't always work, that is no reason to give up the struggle and let them violate us as they want to.


Then, there is honesty and the realisation that being manipulated means just that. "Fear" and "hatred", being two of the major causes of destruction and why tyrants get into power. I think you missed your calling, you should have been a politician.( meant in a nice and positive way.)

Quote:

Quote:
anything that can be said which is wrong will fit under the one banner.


Well yes, the banner being “anything that I personally believe to be objectionable” but obviously that is a highly subjective category.  On many issues your idea of a 'wrong' subject for public discussion will not be the same as mine, so the only sensible thing to do is throw the whole field wide open and hope that people are mature enough to hear issues that they personally find objectionable without feeling the need to stifle anyone else.


Perfect world
we can hope! But what about when those people take it beyond voicing opinion to doing harm?
Quote:

If it turns out that people are not mature enough to be able to hear options that they dislike then tough; they should attempt to gain maturity quickly, or their fear and anger will be exploited by political entities with their own agenda.


I think you are being naive if not deliberately unfair.  You're basically saying, anyone who objects to what they consider a wrong opinion being voiced is automatically immature. :shock:  Many people disliked the things Hitler taught and did. Maturity was never an issue and still isn't an issue when considering wrongs and rights. We shouldn't have to listen to racial, sexist, or religious bigotry. People can have their opinions but it more likely those who would hurt someone for their belief, who are the real threat to society and freedom of speech.

Love Lynne.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
I think you missed your calling, you should have been a politician.


Thank you; I have considered it but I am afraid of losing my integrity.

Quote:
Your basically saying, anyone who objects to what they consider a wrong opinion being voiced is automatically immature.


No no; objecting is fine, objecting is good, but when that objection manifests itself as the need to silence others rather than reply to them, then that is immature.
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
I think you missed your calling, you should have been a politician.


Thank you; I have considered it but I am afraid of losing my integrity.


If you believe you can lose your integrity then how can you feel secure about anything you believe? Your opinions and who you are all are based within your own honesty. Are you saying you cannot control who you are or what you believe if representing a constituency in a position of power?
If you cannot be bought or made to bend then why not be a politician?

Quote:

Quote:
Your basically saying, anyone who objects to what they consider a wrong opinion being voiced is automatically immature.


No no; objecting is fine, objecting is good, but when that objection manifests itself as the need to silence others rather than reply to them, then that is immature.


Okay! I get that!
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
If you believe you can lose your integrity then how can you feel secure about anything you believe? Your opinions and who you are all are based within your own honesty. Are you saying you cannot control who you are or what you believe if representing a constituency in a position of power?
If you cannot be bought or made to bend then why not be a politician?


Idealism is something of a luxury; once you get involved in politics I think idealism can very easily take a back seat to pragmatism.  I think politicians are (on the whole) lying callous monsters who manipulate and deceive people in their desperation to hold onto power, but I think most of them started out as idealists; something about the job just brings out the worst in them.

I am involved in a couple of political protest groups, but I have no wish to enter the system myself; power corrupts, and all that stuff.
BevIsHopeful

On the OP, I saw a film the other day based on the relationship between a prison guard and Nelson Mandela during his almost thirty-year imprisonment.  

In one scene, the guard and his young children witness the beating of a black woman in the streets, but not before the baby she cradled in her arms was hurled out of her reach.  Later, when the guard's daughter lay crying over having seen such horror, her mother tried to console her by telling her it was "God's will" to keep the blacks under control.  Otherwise, they would take over and kill all the white people, God's own!

Maybe it has something to do with living through the seventies, but I can see how such an argument would persuade, and I was taken aback at how easily we can use religious purity in an effort to condone racism and to the extreme violence, like the kind we've experienced in the terrorist attacks.  

I think that's the ugly side of all religions, and the muslim religion is not at all alone on this.
Ketty

BevIsHopeful wrote:
I think that's the ugly side of all religions, and the muslim religion is not at all alone on this.


Certainly human beings can exhibit their most ugly side often in the name of their religion.  The significance being, it's their man-made 'religion' and not from the Lord.

Everyone who truly loves and follows Christ Jesus knows we're ALL made in God's image . . . the colour, size or shape of the outer wrapping is insignificant.
BevIsHopeful

Amen, Ket!  It's awful when religion gives God such an ugly face.   :evil:
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
If you believe you can lose your integrity then how can you feel secure about anything you believe? Your opinions and who you are all are based within your own honesty. Are you saying you cannot control who you are or what you believe if representing a constituency in a position of power?
If you cannot be bought or made to bend then why not be a politician?


Idealism is something of a luxury; once you get involved in politics I think idealism can very easily take a back seat to pragmatism.  I think politicians are (on the whole) lying callous monsters who manipulate and deceive people in their desperation to hold onto power, but I think most of them started out as idealists; something about the job just brings out the worst in them.

I am involved in a couple of political protest groups, but I have no wish to enter the system myself; power corrupts, and all that stuff.


If everyone thought that way, then only the corrupt would be in power and so pointless joinging protest groups. You have to be willing to act by taking the place of those in power to ensure justice and change.
Silver

BevIsHopeful wrote:
Amen, Ket!  It's awful when religion gives God such an ugly face.   :evil:



You would think that if there were really a God, while he might find people of other religions and atheists a nuisance, he would keep his wrath for the people who misrepresented him and used him, and smite them.
BevIsHopeful

Silver wrote:
BevIsHopeful wrote:
Amen, Ket!  It's awful when religion gives God such an ugly face.   :evil:



You would think that if there were really a God, while he might find people of other religions and atheists a nuisance, he would keep his wrath for the people who misrepresented him and used him, and smite them.


If you base your faith mainly on the teachings of Jesus, the latter are the only ones he smites.  His woes indicate the Pharisees are the main example of the religious types that anger him most.  They tend to be pompous and misuse their authority, which they claim is directly from God.   He and Paul also indicate they are "believers" who use legalism to judge and/or burden others as well.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum