Vague_Boy Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 The UN is considering implenting a binding resolution forbidding defamation of religion; (making blasphemy illegal My goodness, is that the time? 1555 already. I guess freedom of speech or freedom of intellectual expression doesn't cut much ice with the UN these days. Why not reintroduce the Inquisition and have done with it? "we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out." (Hugh Latimer, as he was about to be burnt at the stake for heresy in 1555.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 The UN can pass what they like and also kiss my rear end. The first Amendment to the US constitution guarantees the right of free speech so all laws curbing the right to criticize anything gasp! (even religion) would have absolutely no validity here in the US. Unfortunately we have a number of politicians who seem to think that there is some kind of national religion. They bring up the christian religion in campaigns and speeches under the guise of "protecting our national culture and identity" I'm a christian of sorts and not ant-religious by any means but I just get annoyed when politicians fail to understand the wording as written by the Founding Fathers that "there shall be no establishment of a national religion" Those men who wrote the constition knew what they were talking about. Their European fore fathers had seen what a mess religion can make of a country when it's mixed with politics The first amendment didn't stop thousands of american's being charged with expressing communist views, resulting in arrests and loss of jobs. Freedom of speech in the US (or indeed anywhere) has never been unconditional. The important debate is where we draw the line. It is too simplistic to view freedom of speech as taking priority over every other freedom. People collectively and individually require some protection from slander and lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 The first amendment didn't stop thousands of american's being charged with expressing communist views, resulting in arrests and loss of jobs. Freedom of speech in the US (or indeed anywhere) has never been unconditional. The important debate is where we draw the line. It is too simplistic to view freedom of speech as taking priority over every other freedom. People collectively and individually require some protection from slander and lies. The McCarthy era was not one of the brightest moments in American history I will admit. There really is no line to be drawn. No entity of any sort can be exempted from critical observation. People in the middle ages were burnt at the stake as heretics for uttering views that offended the church. We are not going back to that time and that way of thinking As far as protection from slander and lies, that exists in the option of the person slandered to file a lawsuit and seek damages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurelCanyon Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 The UN passed a non-binding reolution last year, and it has already been adopted by some countries - read here what happened when an Indian newspaper reprinted an article from The Independent. . Is the bit true where it said I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl. Which "Prophet" was that? Sex with a 9 year old girl how disgusting. Urghhhh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurelCanyon Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 The first amendment didn't stop thousands of american's being charged with expressing communist views, resulting in arrests and loss of jobs. Freedom of speech in the US (or indeed anywhere) has never been unconditional. That was until a very well known broadcaster/reporter had the guts to go on live television and vitualy denounce the McCarthy 'Wich-hunts'. McCarthys public standing nose dived afterwards and he became an item of ridicule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Do labels matter, Isn't Bible believing Christian (without spin) adequate? I am happy to attend any protestant nonconformist free church including Baptist, Methodist, Salvation Army etc. You can align me with John and Charles Wesley, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Billy Graham and the like. . Don't forget Ian Huntley, he thinks ten year old girls aren't 'innocent' as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 [/b] The McCarthy era was not one of the brightest moments in American history I will admit. There really is no line to be drawn. No entity of any sort can be exempted from critical observation. People in the middle ages were burnt at the stake as heretics for uttering views that offended the church. We are not going back to that time and that way of thinking As far as protection from slander and lies, that exists in the option of the person slandered to file a lawsuit and seek damages By admitting a limitation to freedom of speech in the form of slander, you are admitting there is a line to be drawn and that freedom of speech is not absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 That was until a very well known broadcaster/reporter had the guts to go on live television and vitualy denounce the McCarthy 'Wich-hunts'. McCarthys public standing nose dived afterwards and he became an item of ridicule. The fact McCarthy's public standing took a nose dive didn;t stop FBI activities against Martin Luther King or the anti-vietnam war movement. More recently the Patriot Act limits freedom of speech against the US govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gessa Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 The UN is considering implenting a binding resolution forbidding defamation of religion; (making blasphemy illegal, in other words). So, while religious extremists can chant "death to the west" with impunity in mosques around the world (and, equally, fundamentalists like Fred Phelps can declare that 'God hates fags!'), any criticism of religious views or suggestion that there might be a link between extremist religious views and violence, could lead to prosecution. The UN passed a non-binding reolution last year, and it has already been adopted by some countries - read here what happened when an Indian newspaper reprinted an article from The Independent. See here for one take on the story: Lou Dobbs interviews Christopher Hitchens P.S. I'm having trouble with these two links at the moment, so haven't been able to check they work ok. let me know if they don't. I never realised he was anti smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 I never realised he was anti smoking. It as actually an example of a limitation on freedom of speech. The Westboro Baptist church had their freedom of speech limited, by preventing them protesting at homecoming rallies of dead war veterans with their signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11." And rightly so. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and the context of how and where that speech is exercised is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.