Regardless, what bearing does it have on the right to express his views on religion when specifically asked? See, it's not required to follow anyone blindly regardless of their opinion. Personally, I think it was an unfortunate and insensitive thing to say, especially considering his own battle with bipolar disorder, as long as he was represented accurately. There is nothing in the atheist contract to say that I must agree wholecloth with everything he or any other prominent atheist says or believes. So I'm left wondering why you would deflect to it?

I don't think it has any bearing on his right to express his views.
I was just surprised by his rape comments and had to blurt something out.
It's what I do.

(May 10, 2017 at 9:26 am)Cyberman Wrote: Regardless, what bearing does it have on the right to express his views on religion when specifically asked? See, it's not required to follow anyone blindly regardless of their opinion. Personally, I think it was an unfortunate and insensitive thing to say, especially considering his own battle with bipolar disorder, as long as he was represented accurately. There is nothing in the atheist contract to say that I must agree wholecloth with everything he or any other prominent atheist says or believes. So I'm left wondering why you would deflect to it?

In response to your op, maybe Fry should take his own advice and "grow up".

Maybe he should. As I said, his views are his own and nobody is required to agree with them.

On the other hand, he wasn't the one who brought blasphemy charges; he's not the one who apparently believes in a magic invisible friend that needs others to take offence on its behalf.

The irony here is that historically the group who suffered the most from similar accusations in Ireland were protestant Christians...

(May 10, 2017 at 10:19 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The irony here is that historically the group who suffered the most from similar accusations in Ireland were protestant Christians...

Humans do love easy targets. My greatgrandparents fled Ireland way back when, all of them from the same village and all of them notified they had less than 24 hours in Ireland, one way or the other. Their crime? Not conforming.

Theists crying that their invisible sky daddy is being insulted...classic. One would think if their god is as great as they perceive him to be that god could stand up for himself without his followers intervening on his behalf.

Precisely why laws prohibiting and sanctioning blasphemy are ludicrous at best (in terms of a victimless crime, as this case illustrates) and oppressive at worst (as when they are invoked for the purpose of censorship). That would be the case regardless of the religious affiliation or otherwise of the accused.