Pope Opens Mouth; Inserts Foot

[CapnAwesome]

I think once one personally becomes the subject of a very public 'satire' one gets to say 'that's what you get.' When someone else bloodies your nose for the same offense...

Or does freedom of speech only work when speaking against religion?

There for sure are Atheists who are not in favor of the freedom of speech for similar reasons to the pope. Not nearly as many of them though.

[Cyberman]

I think once one personally becomes the subject of a very public 'satire' one gets to say 'that's what you get.' When someone else bloodies your nose for the same offense...

Or does freedom of speech only work when speaking against religion?

Will it tickle your martyr chip if I say "yeah, if you like"?

[fr0d0]

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.

None of that addresses my problem fnm but thanks for the input.

You know, I think, that I don't agree with religious involvement in education or government. In my case those would be straw men arguments that you are making.

What I'm hearing secularists say is that no one has a right to be offended about their beliefs. Trying to enforce their own belief system upon the whole population. They seriously want this made law. This to you would be like a religious group saying that you must obey their particular dogma. You are in fact being hypocritical.

[Lucanus]

Hold on: is insulting a religion a dogma? I mean of course it's distasteful and it might offend someone, but freedom of speech implies that offensive things can also be said (of course barring full-on hate speech).
I mean, I could walk in the park, step on a piece of dog shit, and say something along the lines of "Fuck Jesus in the nailholes": it's very bad taste, but it doesn't mean I should get arrested for it. Nor should religious people take offense at that - "the fool said in his heart there is no god" - would you take offense at something said by a fool?

[Cyberman]

They just can't stand it when people laugh at them.

In that, they are all alike.

Maybe if they got rid of the stupid hats?

Interestingly, "Pope Francis" is an anagram of "penis for cap".

[Lucanus]

They just can't stand it when people laugh at them.

In that, they are all alike.

Maybe if they got rid of the stupid hats?

Interestingly, "Pope Francis" is an anagram of "penis for cap".

i don't have enough kudos for this

[fr0d0]

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

No we don't and fuck you for saying so.

I think you do. Racist and supremicist, even extreme feminist are views that we don't tolerate. Misogynism and extreme right wing we tolerate. The rules can be an excuse to exact an agenda. We all need to be vigilant of that. Your knee jerk reaction is dangerous. It looks like I hit a nerve, rather than you making a calm assurance that you wouldn't like to be perceived as acting with bias, which I'm sure is your intention. I'll take it as the later anyway, despite the staff attacks. Let's carry on with civility shall we.

[robvalue]

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.

You realize that you don't have to be atheist to be secular, right? Everyone in America who isn't opposed to the first amendment is a secularist.



Fuck the pope, what utter bullshit nonsense. I guess I should expect no less arrogance from a man who thinks he is qualified to speak for god (in god's perpetual absence). There is no free speech if you can't say anything that might insult someone. There would be no speech at all.

If you're quivering with fear every time someone says "jesus wasn't real" then how strong is your faith? How true is your religion? And where is your god, that you have to rely on censorship to keep spreading his messages?

[Roxy904]

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.

None of that addresses my problem fnm but thanks for the input.

You know, I think, that I don't agree with religious involvement in education or government. In my case those would be straw men arguments that you are making.

What I'm hearing secularists say is that no one has a right to be offended about their beliefs. Trying to enforce their own belief system upon the whole population. They seriously want this made law. This to you would be like a religious group saying that you must obey their particular dogma. You are in fact being hypocritical.

Everyone's allowed to be offended. No one is trying to take away your God, (as he doesn't exsist.) But no one is forcing a belief upon you or anyone. Separating Church and state is not forcing beliefs on anyone.

[robvalue]

How could you possibly enforce a law saying you have no right to be offended? Is Frodo suggesting some sort of Minority Report situation where you arrest people if they are about to have an "offended" state of mind? And again, secularist does not mean atheist.