(January 15, 2015 at 6:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 3:38 pm)Alex K Wrote: Is this anything but an exploitation of a recent tragedy for some cheap points against church critics? That makes it particularly despicable.

The topic is hot at the moment, and people are interested in the reasoning of theism. I've seen a video of a comedian having the offense explained to him. He saw the point and changed.

There's a lot of distasteful, in my opinion, pressure from secularists to assert their identity over everyone elses.

I think is an interesting discussion. Interesting to hear the opinion of Muslims. Interesting the discussions on freedom of speech and incitement.

Distasteful? Like calling atheists immoral? Equating us to Hitler and Stalin? Distasteful like condemning gays or denying women control over their bodies?

Every atheist here has been called names and been called evil, in all sorts of media all over the world and quite a few in face to face life.

FYI, a secularist isn't just an atheist, but anyone who knows government needs to stay neutral on the issue of religion and defends free speech).

AU is a multi religious org that defends separation of church and state. http://www.au.org

Now again, bitching is going to happen, it is impossible for 7 billion humans to always say nice things about each other. If the worst any human gets from another human is a "fuck you" or "bullshit".. without dying or being assaulted or arrested, they've had a good day.

And as I have said in other threads as well, there ARE oppressed Christians and Muslims and atheists and gays worldwide who DO have to fear assault or arrest or the death penalty by the state, merely for leaving a religion, or saying their god does not exist.

You are not oppressed Froodo merely because we don't buy your claims and pick on your claims. You get to go to bed at night where you live without fear and so do I.

What those cartoonist did as far as work was blasphemy to get people to think. They went after everyone including atheists. No one group or religion or politician or holy person deserves a taboo, no one.

You don't censor content. You censor people because of their content. People have certainly been removed because of their bigotry or extreme language.

---

Yes Brian like calling atheists all of those things. Incitement is a thing. Whoever does it.

I disagree about secularists. The ones I've heard have an agenda to deny the identity of theists. They want to remove the right to love God.

(January 15, 2015 at 7:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You don't censor content. You censor people because of their content. People have certainly been removed because of their bigotry or extreme language.

---

Yes Brian like calling atheists all of those things. Incitement is a thing. Whoever does it.

I disagree about secularists. The ones I've heard have an agenda to deny the identity of theists. They want to remove the right to love God.

NO. Outright censorship is not what anyone should advocate.

Of course free speech is regulated as it should be. You cant sell porn to a 5 year old. You cant yell fire in a theater. The limit is when it incites violence or calls for violence. Merely getting your god picked on or having your feelings hurt does not condone censorship.

Now I am going to make up a god name and you tell me which is an arrestable offense?

FOR EXAMPLE

"Fuck your almighty snarfwidget up the ass"

Or

"Go kill snarfwidget followers"

The first is offensive, the second is illegal.

Depicting Mo, or Jesus or Vishnu or even politicians or celebrities in offensive ways isn't calling for the deaths of their fans.

The price of living in a free society is that sometimes you will get your claims picked on.

(January 15, 2015 at 7:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I disagree about secularists. The ones I've heard have an agenda to deny the identity of theists. They want to remove the right to love God.

You say, "deny the identity of theists" I say, "teach theists that there is a time and place for their religion and that places like governemnt law and education aren't one of them." These places need to stay neutral, which is the goal of secularism.

No one's trying to remove god, fr0d0, although, I understand if you fail to realize this due to the fact that the idea of feeling persecuted is built into your religion. We're just trying to eliminate the special privelage religion has demanded over the centuries and pointing out that acknowledging your religion in public arenas is giving it special privelage over the large variety of beliefs that many others hold.

Treating your beliefs equally to all others is not infringing on your religious beliefs whatsoever, so stop with the whiny melodrama.

(January 15, 2015 at 7:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You don't censor content. You censor people because of their content. People have certainly been removed because of their bigotry or extreme language.

Certainly not. We never ban anybody who hasn't explicitly violated the rules of the forum (and rarely ever without going through layers of lesser punishments first). If extreme language itself was bannable, I wouldn't fucking be here. If bigotry itself wes bannable, you wouldn't be here.

Quote:I disagree about secularists. The ones I've heard have an agenda to deny the identity of theists. They want to remove the right to love God.

This absolutely untrue claim is the 21st century equivalent of blood libel, used by Christians to further justify forcing everybody else to live according to their interpretation of God's laws.

(January 15, 2015 at 7:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You don't censor content. You censor people because of their content. People have certainly been removed because of their bigotry or extreme language.

---

Yes Brian like calling atheists all of those things. Incitement is a thing. Whoever does it.

I disagree about secularists. The ones I've heard have an agenda to deny the identity of theists. They want to remove the right to love God.

Yes we do get called evil and equated to Hitler, the difference is when they do that we respond with "fuck you" or are polite about it and explain to them why they are wrong, or we walk away and ignore them. If they run a business we boycott them.

What we do not do is use "Never" as a tactic to avoid getting offended.

The problem with what you say is "who gets to decide" and since power shifts over time if an atheist majority were to rise would you really want us deciding what you can or cannot say?

No we do not want to remove your legal rights, we do think it would be a good idea for you to let go of an old book and the idea of an invisible friend.

I think the really obnoxious thing about this (other than the obvious fact that religion doesn't deserve exempt from mocking, far from it) is that this guy is making a declaration that most effects people he has absolutely no control over, that will benefit mostly his organization, and offering nothing in return.

Who's most likely to criticise religion? Atheists. Who gets no perks from people tip toeing around religion? Atheists. Who doesn't give a crap what religion wants? Atheists. Who's demanding people not insult religion? Not an atheist.

Look, pope, dude, let's be honest here.
Almost anything someone says will offend someone else.
I could say, "The sky looks nice today," and someone would be offended by that.
Also, if you can't defend your religion, maybe it deserves to be mocked.

(January 15, 2015 at 9:01 pm)Invisible Sky Fairy Wrote: I think the really obnoxious thing about this (other than the obvious fact that religion doesn't deserve exempt from mocking, far from it) is that this guy is making a declaration that most effects people he has absolutely no control over, that will benefit mostly his organization, and offering nothing in return.

Who's most likely to criticise religion? Atheists. Who gets no perks from people tip toeing around religion? Atheists. Who doesn't give a crap what religion wants? Atheists. Who's demanding people not insult religion? Not an atheist.

Not true, there are PC atheists that buy the taboo line along with PC theists.

But you are right that the powers of all religions like the Pope, or a Rabbi or an Imam, and even the Dali Lama, then they call for censorship in regards to not picking on anyone elses religion, they have no problem allowing their followers to pick on the religions of others.

It is still as you said a tactic to make the powers look good and does nothing for those who are not followers. It really is a slick way of saying "It is ok when I do it, but not when you do it".

Sorry Francy, not going to limit my freedom of speech because you don't want your feelings hurt. Suck it.