'Freedom' of speech

[thegreekdog]

While both cases are provocations, one is just trolling while the other machiavelically wants to hurt and cause havoc

So in your view it's acceptable to troll when you know full well that not only are you going to grossly offend a truck load people but could also provoke an atrocity while doing so (Charlie Hebdo), so long as you are not actively calling for such an attack?

Given that it seems highly unlikely that the comedian's words were intended as an incitement to terrorism, this means the comedian's case is as almost exactly the same as that of the guys at Charlie Hebdo, whom you have vigorously defended. Multiple people in this thread are pointing this out and you are burying your head in the sand and ignoring them.

The problem here wdk is that you are not listening. Yes, Dieudonné s words ARE intended to incite terrorism. This guy has been slowly drifting towards madness in the past 10-15 years and is a really dangerous man. This man is a deep hater. If you don t know anything about him or about the different video he posts, stop assuming stuff about him.
This comes from someone (me) who has been closing his eyes, trying to see everything coming from him as trolling. But he obviously believes what he says. I ve watched tons of his stuff, believe me.

I'll caveat (because I feel like I have to do this) that I think both the comics and this comedian (if that's what we're calling him) should be protected free speech.

What you're saying, I think, is that because the comedian is drifitng towards madness and because he is a hater and because he believes what he says, he is inciting terrorism. That sounds very dangerous inasmuch as you're making those comments because of the content of his speech, not the results.

The charlie hebdo drawings falls under the context of "grow a pair dude", while Dieudonné s words under "flaming".
While both cases are provocations, one is just trolling while the other machiavelically wants to hurt and cause havoc.

I don't agree with "flaming" being unprotected free speech. I suspect many people would view the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as flaming. It depends on your point of view which is precisely why there should be virtually no (or no) restrictions on free speech. Speech shouldn't be protected just because the majority of people agree with it.

The only way I would support an arrest of someone like the comedian was if he actually said something like "We need to go commit violence right now" (or, the US statement is that you are not permitted to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater). I would view the comedian's speech as being necessary to have MORE protection primarily because it's a minority opinion and is semi-political in nature.

I do wonder how it would be seen in the U.S.

[_sabotage_]

Don't wonder. We have been arresting kids for making social network posts, bribing judges and sentencing the kids to private prison. We suspend kids who eat pop tarts into the shape of a gun. We arrest people for Facebook posts.

We tap phones, emails, internet posts. We have CIA editing stories in our news headquarters. We have disinfo agents and agitators posting online, joining movements. We have agents inciting terrorism and then arresting the "terrorists".

We arrest whistleblowers. We deny FOIAs on how WTC 7 collapsed, due to "national security". We search and invade each other's privacy at airports. Make a joke and they can legally disappear you.

The only thing the media posts is the government position. We have no investigations and anyone who says they are required are branded as weirdos.

Wonder all you want about how it would be seen in the US, wonder forever if the responses haven't answered you yet.

[Dukasaur]

This is very disappointing.
France is the birthplace of the Enlightenment.

Of all the French contributions to civilization, the wisdom of Voltaire, along with Bastiat, Bayle, Diderot, and others, was the greatest and longest-lasting.
It is very sad to see France forget the lessons taught by its own great men.

You seem to forget that though Voltaire was a very wise and great man, between his time and now there was a second world war. The limits to free speech in several parts of europe were implemented or at least popularized because of the Nazi's. People saw the danger of free speech. In my own country the topics of 'racism' and 'nationalism' were shunned for decades in aftermath.

So with all due respect to Voltaire, but even in his wisdom he did not see the dangers of absolute free speech.

You're reversing cause and effect. We didn't turn our back on Enlightenment principles because of World War II, we got World War II (and WWI, and Abyssinia, and etc., and etc., and etc.) because we turned our back on the principles of the Enlightenment.

(By we, I mean the world in general, not giving the blame to any specific people or nations.)

[Metsfanmax]

My slightly related evolution on the topic as it pertained to America/Obama not being present at the march in France.

Me: 'Thoroughly disappointed America is not showing a face or lending any support in Paris.'

Me at the end of the day 'Religious extremism and Freedom of Speech...shouldn't be a stretch to assume these are fundamentally important issues to a majority of Americans and a rare occasion for our country to be united on something, for once in a generation. Then again, America 2.0.... who the hell are 'we' collectively? To try to offer an example on how to fight religious extremism when 'we' are too scared to even calI radical Isam by name???, Who are we to stand for Freedom of Speech, when political correctness dominates not only what we say or don't say but even think and don't think, what our schools teach and don't teach, who gets fired and who can keep their job, accept certain words from a certain races as totally normal, but another race says it they can be forced out of business, and for any who don't go along with whatever feels right it's they are ostracized and categorized by hateful terminology. .I guess my original take was based on what I thought was important and what I thought we should strive for,. Absorbing America 2.0 in the correct and current context, I realize any possible talk from America at the march about Freedom or Liberty is going to be met by claims of hypocrisy, and the claims won't be without merit either. The constant task of working towards a more perfect union may have peaked.'

Yes, "radical" Islamists (the type that blow up bombs on buses) are a menace to modern liberal society, and to some extent this is the fault of Islam as a whole. But when secularists in the US make comments about "radical" Christians who hate gay people, you interpret it as part of a "war on religion" that needs to be stopped because our First Amendment protects our freedom to practice our religion. If the First Amendment protects Christianity, it also protects Islam, and so when you say we need to "fight religious extremism" it is hard to take that seriously when if I said that about a Christian you would feel personally attacked.

way to equate blowing up/murdering random human beings to not embracing homosexuality. Usually we know you are just verbalextremistfanmax, but I actually believe you right now. All I can say is LULZ

If extremely religious Christians were blowing up random people and yelling 'Jesus is Love' every time, I would be personally condemning and talking a lot of shit about radical Christians and radical Christianity.

I understand all that. My point wasn't to equate the actions of extremist Christians and extremist Muslims, it was to observe that you are not really trying to fight religious extremism, you are just trying to fight Islam.

[thegreekdog]

To be fair to PS, based on his various youtube posts, links, etc., he's more concerned with how Christians are treated for not wanting to participate in gay events (weddings, parades) rather than how Christians who "hate gays" are treated. I suppose one could make the argument that Christians not participating in gay events means they hate gays.

[Metsfanmax]

I suppose one could make the argument that Christians not participating in gay events means they hate gays.

I would make that argument, but that's actually besides the point. The fact that he regularly comments on things like gay weddings and gay pride parades is exactly my point: I haven't seen him spend any time calling out the actual Christian religious extremists out there, people like David Duke and other Klan members, or even people like Larry McQuilliams who actually do try to kill people in the name of Christ. So I don't buy for one second that his goal is to root out religious extremism in general, his goal is to call out a religion that he doesn't like. Yet when I do the same to his religion, he feels personally persecuted. So PS, just please be honest about what it is you are actually doing. If you don't like Islam, at least be honest that this is your motivation so that we can have a true conversation.

I'll be perfectly upfront and say that I don't like Islam, if it makes you feel any better.

[Donelladan]

It depends on your point of view which is precisely why there should be virtually no (or no) restrictions on free speech.

thegreekdog -you are arguing that France should have no restriction on free speech - why not, but doesn't adress the OP.
The OP was saying France is hypocrite and only allow one kind of free speech.

Reality is: France has laws that limit free speech and the comedian could be judge guilty of breaking this law. Charlie Hebdo was also accused of breaking a similar law limiting free speech btw. So the answer to the OP is : No - France isn't hypocrite, but France do not have total free speech as US do.

If you define free speech as the right of "being allow to say absolutely whatever you want" then France do not have free speech.
We consider that free speech has to be limited. We may be wrong and maybe free speech should not be limited. But regarding our current law, the french comedian should be prosecuted. Simply following the law.

[thegreekdog]

It depends on your point of view which is precisely why there should be virtually no (or no) restrictions on free speech.

thegreekdog -you are arguing that France should have no restriction on free speech - why not, but doesn't adress the OP.
The OP was saying France is hypocrite and only allow one kind of free speech.

Reality is: France has laws that limit free speech and the comedian could be judge guilty of breaking this law. Charlie Hebdo was also accused of breaking a similar law limiting free speech btw. So the answer to the OP is : No - France isn't hypocrite, but France do not have total free speech as US do.

If you define free speech as the right of "being allow to say absolutely whatever you want" then France do not have free speech.
We consider that free speech has to be limited. We may be wrong and maybe free speech should not be limited. But regarding our current law, the french comedian should be prosecuted. Simply following the law.

You are correct that whether or not France has free speech (or what level France's free speech is as compared to other states) is not relevant for purposes of the OP. I was merely responding to other comments.

However, as you may see in my first (or second) post in this thread, I asked how France defines "inciting terrorism." No one has yet to define that for me, so I can't determine whether the publishing of an anti-Islam cartoon is inciting terrorism or whether what this comedian said is inciting terrorism. It seems to me that either both things incite terrorism or neither incites terrorism as the only difference I see is in the content: the cartoon denigrates Islam; the comedian denigrates Charlie Hebdo or is supportive of Islamic extremism. You are correct that whether or not I agree with France's law is irrelevant to the OP, but I'm still struggling to figure out how France defines the terms in its law.

[thegreekdog]

I suppose one could make the argument that Christians not participating in gay events means they hate gays.

I would make that argument, but that's actually besides the point.

The pope would disagree. Not that you care what the pope thinks.

The fact that he regularly comments on things like gay weddings and gay pride parades is exactly my point: I haven't seen him spend any time calling out the actual Christian religious extremists out there, people like David Duke and other Klan members, or even people like Larry McQuilliams who actually do try to kill people in the name of Christ. So I don't buy for one second that his goal is to root out religious extremism in general, his goal is to call out a religion that he doesn't like. Yet when I do the same to his religion, he feels personally persecuted. So PS, just please be honest about what it is you are actually doing. If you don't like Islam, at least be honest that this is your motivation so that we can have a true conversation.

Again, to be fair, it's not like I see anyone else calling out these Christian terrorists.

I'll be perfectly upfront and say that I don't like Islam, if it makes you feel any better.

Hmm... that seems weird. Here are some questions that may help clarify:
(1) Do you not like religion?
(2) Do you not like organized religion?
(3) Do you not like certain organized religions?
(4) Do you not like religious extremism?
(5) Do you not like religious people?
(6) Do you not like religious people who are part of organized religions?
(7) Do you not like religious people who are part of certain organized religions?
(8) Do you not like religious extremists?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a religious person who is part of an organized religion. So hopefully you don't say "yes" to (5), (6), or (7).

[thegreekdog]

Alright kids. Here's what I have on French free speech (from wikipedia... use at your own risk):

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: "The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary] to respond to the abuse of this libert, in the cases determined by the law."

The Press Law of 1881 - guarantees freedom of the press with exceptions.
The Pleven Act of 1972 - prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults
The Gayssot Act fo 1990 - prohibits any racist, anti-Semite, or xenophobic activities, including Holocaust denial.
The Law of 30 December 2004 (what a tastefully named law) - prohibits hatred against people becuase of their gender, sexual orientation or disability
Public Health Code (1970) - punishes the positive representation of drugs and the incitement to their consumption
Internal Security Enactments (2003) (what a horribly named law) - an offense to insult the national flag or anthem

So, it looks like France prohibits a whole bunch of speech. Any the comedian and Charlie Hebdo appear to violate lots of these things.

[saxitoxin]

It depends on your point of view which is precisely why there should be virtually no (or no) restrictions on free speech.

thegreekdog -you are arguing that France should have no restriction on free speech - why not, but doesn't adress the OP.
The OP was saying France is hypocrite and only allow one kind of free speech.

Reality is: France has laws that limit free speech and the comedian could be judge guilty of breaking this law. Charlie Hebdo was also accused of breaking a similar law limiting free speech btw. So the answer to the OP is : No - France isn't hypocrite, but France do not have total free speech as US do.

If you define free speech as the right of "being allow to say absolutely whatever you want" then France do not have free speech.
We consider that free speech has to be limited. We may be wrong and maybe free speech should not be limited. But regarding our current law, the french comedian should be prosecuted. Simply following the law.

No one (or at least not me) is saying France is hypocritical because it's unevenly applying the law. I'm not an expert in French law.

The reason France is hypocritical is because it presented itself as some kind-of bastion of free speech in the days after the attack, prior to unleashing a wave of arrests. Hollande said the Hebdo attack was an attack on "freedom of expression." There can be no attack on freedom of expression in a country that has no freedom to express. Therefore, the Hebdo attack was just a simple assault that doesn't merit dragging people halfway across the world for solidarity marches.

[Phatscotty]

My slightly related evolution on the topic as it pertained to America/Obama not being present at the march in France.

Me: 'Thoroughly disappointed America is not showing a face or lending any support in Paris.'

Me at the end of the day 'Religious extremism and Freedom of Speech...shouldn't be a stretch to assume these are fundamentally important issues to a majority of Americans and a rare occasion for our country to be united on something, for once in a generation. Then again, America 2.0.... who the hell are 'we' collectively? To try to offer an example on how to fight religious extremism when 'we' are too scared to even calI radical Isam by name???, Who are we to stand for Freedom of Speech, when political correctness dominates not only what we say or don't say but even think and don't think, what our schools teach and don't teach, who gets fired and who can keep their job, accept certain words from a certain races as totally normal, but another race says it they can be forced out of business, and for any who don't go along with whatever feels right it's they are ostracized and categorized by hateful terminology. .I guess my original take was based on what I thought was important and what I thought we should strive for,. Absorbing America 2.0 in the correct and current context, I realize any possible talk from America at the march about Freedom or Liberty is going to be met by claims of hypocrisy, and the claims won't be without merit either. The constant task of working towards a more perfect union may have peaked.'

Yes, "radical" Islamists (the type that blow up bombs on buses) are a menace to modern liberal society, and to some extent this is the fault of Islam as a whole. But when secularists in the US make comments about "radical" Christians who hate gay people, you interpret it as part of a "war on religion" that needs to be stopped because our First Amendment protects our freedom to practice our religion. If the First Amendment protects Christianity, it also protects Islam, and so when you say we need to "fight religious extremism" it is hard to take that seriously when if I said that about a Christian you would feel personally attacked.

way to equate blowing up/murdering random human beings to not embracing homosexuality. Usually we know you are just verbalextremistfanmax, but I actually believe you right now. All I can say is LULZ

If extremely religious Christians were blowing up random people and yelling 'Jesus is Love' every time, I would be personally condemning and talking a lot of shit about radical Christians and radical Christianity.

I understand all that. My point wasn't to equate the actions of extremist Christians and extremist Muslims, it was to observe that you are not really trying to fight religious extremism, you are just trying to fight Islam.

Yes, you are equating the two. AGAIN! verbalextremismfanmax, pretty sure I said talking shit about radical Islam, not 'fighting Islam'. PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN! lulz Let me help you on this one. This is religious extremism against homosexuals.

New video has surfaced showing ISIS throwing men off of a building in front of a crowd. Their crime? Being gay.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/01/16/isis-throws-men-to-their-deaths-for-being-gay-n1944080

What is the religious extremism against homosexuals you accuse Christians of, that I'm supposed to be 'fighting'? Why are you so quiet about how radical Muslims treat gays?

[Phatscotty]

To be fair to PS, based on his various youtube posts, links, etc., he's more concerned with how Christians are treated for not wanting to participate in gay events (weddings, parades) rather than how Christians who "hate gays" are treated. I suppose one could make the argument that Christians not participating in gay events means they hate gays.

And that is the argument of the destroyerfanmax.

I suppose one could make the argument that Christians love gays, and that they can still have love for another human being, even if they did commit adultery or take the Lord's name in vain. Argument being, to be Christian is know forgiveness and be forgiving and understanding that everyone makes mistakes and nobody is perfect. One could make the argument that does not mean they 'hate' them.

[betiko]

It depends on your point of view which is precisely why there should be virtually no (or no) restrictions on free speech.

thegreekdog -you are arguing that France should have no restriction on free speech - why not, but doesn't adress the OP.
The OP was saying France is hypocrite and only allow one kind of free speech.

Reality is: France has laws that limit free speech and the comedian could be judge guilty of breaking this law. Charlie Hebdo was also accused of breaking a similar law limiting free speech btw. So the answer to the OP is : No - France isn't hypocrite, but France do not have total free speech as US do.

If you define free speech as the right of "being allow to say absolutely whatever you want" then France do not have free speech.
We consider that free speech has to be limited. We may be wrong and maybe free speech should not be limited. But regarding our current law, the french comedian should be prosecuted. Simply following the law.

No one (or at least not me) is saying France is hypocritical because it's unevenly applying the law. I'm not an expert in French law.

The reason France is hypocritical is because it presented itself as some kind-of bastion of free speech in the days after the attack, prior to unleashing a wave of arrests. Hollande said the Hebdo attack was an attack on "freedom of expression." There can be no attack on freedom of expression in a country that has no freedom to express. Therefore, the Hebdo attack was just a simple assault that doesn't merit dragging people halfway across the world for solidarity marches.

well, to be honest, the american way of freedom of speech is not of my convenience and i'm very happy about the way we handle it here; not by patriotism, just because it's what i think is better for a society. You are free to think what you want of this.

[thegreekdog]

It depends on your point of view which is precisely why there should be virtually no (or no) restrictions on free speech.

thegreekdog -you are arguing that France should have no restriction on free speech - why not, but doesn't adress the OP.
The OP was saying France is hypocrite and only allow one kind of free speech.

Reality is: France has laws that limit free speech and the comedian could be judge guilty of breaking this law. Charlie Hebdo was also accused of breaking a similar law limiting free speech btw. So the answer to the OP is : No - France isn't hypocrite, but France do not have total free speech as US do.

If you define free speech as the right of "being allow to say absolutely whatever you want" then France do not have free speech.
We consider that free speech has to be limited. We may be wrong and maybe free speech should not be limited. But regarding our current law, the french comedian should be prosecuted. Simply following the law.

No one (or at least not me) is saying France is hypocritical because it's unevenly applying the law. I'm not an expert in French law.

The reason France is hypocritical is because it presented itself as some kind-of bastion of free speech in the days after the attack, prior to unleashing a wave of arrests. Hollande said the Hebdo attack was an attack on "freedom of expression." There can be no attack on freedom of expression in a country that has no freedom to express. Therefore, the Hebdo attack was just a simple assault that doesn't merit dragging people halfway across the world for solidarity marches.

well, to be honest, the american way of freedom of speech is not of my convenience and i'm very happy about the way we handle it here; not by patriotism, just because it's what i think is better for a society. You are free to think what you want of this.

Hmm... it sure looks like patriotism to me.

The Internal Security Enactments? Yeesh.

[saxitoxin]

It depends on your point of view which is precisely why there should be virtually no (or no) restrictions on free speech.

thegreekdog -you are arguing that France should have no restriction on free speech - why not, but doesn't adress the OP.
The OP was saying France is hypocrite and only allow one kind of free speech.

Reality is: France has laws that limit free speech and the comedian could be judge guilty of breaking this law. Charlie Hebdo was also accused of breaking a similar law limiting free speech btw. So the answer to the OP is : No - France isn't hypocrite, but France do not have total free speech as US do.

If you define free speech as the right of "being allow to say absolutely whatever you want" then France do not have free speech.
We consider that free speech has to be limited. We may be wrong and maybe free speech should not be limited. But regarding our current law, the french comedian should be prosecuted. Simply following the law.

No one (or at least not me) is saying France is hypocritical because it's unevenly applying the law. I'm not an expert in French law.

The reason France is hypocritical is because it presented itself as some kind-of bastion of free speech in the days after the attack, prior to unleashing a wave of arrests. Hollande said the Hebdo attack was an attack on "freedom of expression." There can be no attack on freedom of expression in a country that has no freedom to express. Therefore, the Hebdo attack was just a simple assault that doesn't merit dragging people halfway across the world for solidarity marches.

well, to be honest, the american way of freedom of speech is not of my convenience and i'm very happy about the way we handle it here; not by patriotism, just because it's what i think is better for a society. You are free to think what you want of this.

Well of course you're happy. You don't like what Dieudonné says and now armed police will silence him for you. A couple hundred years ago you and the rest of the villagers would have to organize your own mob and provide your own pitchforks. Now you have a professional mob on standby to stop people from stepping out of line. Just like Glenn Greenwald said, "“free speech,” in the hands of many westerners, actually means: it is vital that the ideas I like be protected, and the right to offend groups I dislike be cherished; anything else is fair game."

[_sabotage_]

Have we made it to the different-different is still same-same phase? If so, can we move to the consolidation of paradigm phase?

[Metsfanmax]

The pope would disagree. Not that you care what the pope thinks.

The pope can't "disagree" with a fact, which is that many Christians hate gay people because the Bible says that homosexuality is sinful. If the Pope (who nominally leads one Christian sect) says that true Christians don't hate gay people, and some Christians go on and do it anyway, then it means I'm not the only one who doesn't care what the pope thinks.

Again, to be fair, it's not like I see anyone else calling out these Christian terrorists.

That is the point I making. The only people who do call them out are left-wing secularists who regularly point out the problems of religion. The vast Christian majority of this nation pays no mind to it.

I'll be perfectly upfront and say that I don't like Islam, if it makes you feel any better.

Hmm... that seems weird. Here are some questions that may help clarify:
(1) Do you not like religion?
(2) Do you not like organized religion?
(3) Do you not like certain organized religions?
(4) Do you not like religious extremism?
(5) Do you not like religious people?
(6) Do you not like religious people who are part of organized religions?
(7) Do you not like religious people who are part of certain organized religions?
(8) Do you not like religious extremists?

(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes, and I dislike some more than others. My tolerance of religion is proportional to the amount of cultural pluralism it supports.
(4) Yes
(5--8) I don't dislike people who are religious because they are religious, similar to the way that I don't dislike people who are libertarian just because I disagree with their personal political philosophy. I have a few good acquaintances who are quite religious and though I think a little less of them for it, it doesn't mean I dislike them.

[thegreekdog]

The pope would disagree. Not that you care what the pope thinks.

The pope can't "disagree" with a fact, which is that many Christians hate gay people because the Bible says that homosexuality is sinful. If the Pope (who nominally leads one Christian sect) says that true Christians don't hate gay people, and some Christians go on and do it anyway, then it means I'm not the only one who doesn't care what the pope thinks.

The pope isn't disagreeing that some (I'm not sure where you get many) Christians hate gay people because the Bible says that homosexuality is sinful. What the pope is saying is that we shouldn't hate gay people (because we shouldn't hate any sinners) and that not participating does not make you a hater. This is neither here nor there, but it continues to boggle my mind that otherwise intelligent people can't comprehend that religious people can also be intelligent (or reasonable).

In sum - you took the quote out of context there kiddo.

Again, to be fair, it's not like I see anyone else calling out these Christian terrorists.

That is the point I making. The only people who do call them out are left-wing secularists who regularly point out the problems of religion. The vast Christian majority of this nation pays no mind to it.

On the other hand, I don't see Christian fundamentalists killing thousands of people because they don't like what they say or do. And I do see a "nominal" Christian leader telling the members of the church he "nominally" leads to knock off the hate. I'm not defending the people that you mentioned; I just don't know that they have quite the same impact as other religious extremists. I shouldn't be expected to concentrate on the small fire in front of me when a large conflagaration is occurring to my right.

And in the interest of full discosure, I dislike Christian fundamentalists as much as Muslim fundamentalists; I just see more Muslim fundamentalists taking violent action so I concentrate on that more than the other. If Muslims wanted to not participate, I'm cool with that (same as with Christians). If Christians want to start killing people, I'm not cool with that (same as with Muslims). It's safe to say I'm not cool with killing people on a general basis (no matter the reason) and I think the "nominal" leader of my religion would agree with that.

I'll be perfectly upfront and say that I don't like Islam, if it makes you feel any better.

Hmm... that seems weird. Here are some questions that may help clarify:
(1) Do you not like religion?
(2) Do you not like organized religion?
(3) Do you not like certain organized religions?
(4) Do you not like religious extremism?
(5) Do you not like religious people?
(6) Do you not like religious people who are part of organized religions?
(7) Do you not like religious people who are part of certain organized religions?
(8) Do you not like religious extremists?

(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes, and I dislike some more than others. My tolerance of religion is proportional to the amount of cultural pluralism it supports.
(4) Yes
(5--8) I don't dislike people who are religious because they are religious, similar to the way that I don't dislike people who are libertarian just because I disagree with their personal political philosophy. I have a few good acquaintances who are quite religious and though I think a little less of them for it, it doesn't mean I dislike them.

Okay.

[Metsfanmax]

The pope isn't disagreeing that some (I'm not sure where you get many) Christians hate gay people because the Bible says that homosexuality is sinful. What the pope is saying is that we shouldn't hate gay people (because we shouldn't hate any sinners) and that not participating does not make you a hater. This is neither here nor there, but it continues to boggle my mind that otherwise intelligent people can't comprehend that religious people can also be intelligent (or reasonable).

What makes you think that I think this has anything to do with intelligence? I don't think intelligence has anything to do with whether or not you hate gay people. If I say that someone hates gay people, I am not calling them stupid, I am calling them intolerant. In fact I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that they are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible, because hating gay people is probably no less valid of a conclusion from that roiling mess of a document than loving everyone everywhere.

In sum - you took the quote out of context there kiddo.

I was addressing the actual argument. Your argument is that one guy in one sect of a Church says "here's the proper way to interpret this document." Someone else says "no, this is the proper way." If you don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope in interpreting scripture, then what he says on the subject has no special relevance to you. So even if my criticism is restricted only to Protestants and their derivatives, it's still valid, because they're basing their belief on the same books. But also I was saying that for many Catholics, what the Pope says doesn't actually matter to their understanding of their own faith, and you don't get to say "well then they're not true Catholics." That's wrong for so many reasons, not the least of which is that the Pope was elected by a bunch of old white guys who were selected by previous Popes and therefore there is no reason to expect that he represents the median view of Catholics. I mean, for quite a while now the Catholic Church has been basically okay with the ideas of evolution and big-bang cosmology, but what percentage of Catholics agree with the Pope's views on that?

On the other hand, I don't see Christian fundamentalists killing thousands of people because they don't like what they say or do. And I do see a "nominal" Christian leader telling the members of the church he "nominally" leads to knock off the hate. I'm not defending the people that you mentioned; I just don't know that they have quite the same impact as other religious extremists. I shouldn't be expected to concentrate on the small fire in front of me when a large conflagaration is occurring to my right.

Yes, but if you look back in history, you can find many examples of Christian fundamentalists killing thousands of people because they don't like what they say or do. And if you look at the Bible, you can find justification for it. There are real differences between Christianity and Islam, but the most relevant one for today is that most of the Islamic world does not really accept the idea of separation of church and state. If you believe that your country has to be governed by the religious principles you follow, then you naturally get genocides and civil wars. Christians had that too, but for the most part Christians have accepted that the legal system shouldn't take your religion into consideration. (At least in principle.) That doesn't mean that we should look charitably on the beliefs of Christians about homosexuality or abortion, it just means that as of now, Christians are better at compartmentalizing their religious beliefs.

And in the interest of full discosure, I dislike Christian fundamentalists as much as Muslim fundamentalists; I just see more Muslim fundamentalists taking violent action so I concentrate on that more than the other. If Muslims wanted to not participate, I'm cool with that (same as with Christians). If Christians want to start killing people, I'm not cool with that (same as with Muslims). It's safe to say I'm not cool with killing people on a general basis (no matter the reason) and I think the "nominal" leader of my religion would agree with that.

I mostly agree with you on this. (I was calling Phatscotty out for not being honest about his motives, not because I disagreed with the primary content.) However, I believe that the general acceptance of religious belief as a core part of a person's identity is what makes it possible for there to be people who fly planes into buildings on account of their beliefs. "Tolerant" religious folks like yourself say it's OK for there to be people who define themselves first and foremost as Muslims, and that is a necessary condition for extreme actions taken in the name of defending that religion.

[thegreekdog]

I was addressing the actual argument. Your argument is that one guy in one sect of a Church says "here's the proper way to interpret this document." Someone else says "no, this is the proper way." If you don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope in interpreting scripture, then what he says on the subject has no special relevance to you. So even if my criticism is restricted only to Protestants and their derivatives, it's still valid, because they're basing their belief on the same books. But also I was saying that for many Catholics, what the Pope says doesn't actually matter to their understanding of their own faith, and you don't get to say "well then they're not true Catholics." That's wrong for so many reasons, not the least of which is that the Pope was elected by a bunch of old white guys who were selected by previous Popes and therefore there is no reason to expect that he represents the median view of Catholics. I mean, for quite a while now the Catholic Church has been basically okay with the ideas of evolution and big-bang cosmology, but what percentage of Catholics agree with the Pope's views on that?

That was not my argument. My argument was that the pope would disagree with the contention that non-participation means the non-participants hate gays. To put it another way, the pope is not going to officiate a gay marriage in the Catholic faith, and he would contend that does not mean he hates gays.

I don't know what percentage of Catholics agree with the Church's views on homosexuality, evolution, and the big-ban theory. I suppose we could find out, so let's do that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... -marriage/ - 54% of US Catholics are good with gay marriage (the numbers are lower in Europe and Latin America and stand at 1% in Africa).

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publ ... evolution/ - 68% of white Catholics and 53% of Hispanic Catholics believe in evolution (those are US Catholics only).

Maybe I misrepresented my view on this; you (and others) ascribe a worldview to someone based solely upon their religious beliefs. I continue to find that mind boggling, not just because it's a stereotype and not just because it is antithetical to the views of that particular religion, but because the statistical data doesn't support your belief.

it just means that as of now, Christians are better at compartmentalizing their religious beliefs.

Yeah, so that's why I'm okay with concentrating on Muslim extremists instead of Christians. Yeah, some Christians did some bad shit 500 years ago, but some Muslims did some bad shit today. So I'll forgive PS for not caring about Christian extremism.

I believe that the general acceptance of religious belief as a core part of a person's identity is what makes it possible for there to be people who fly planes into buildings on account of their beliefs.

And I believe that factors other than religion will lead people to fly planes into buildings. In fact, the motives behind many Muslim terrorists attacks appear to be of the "get off our land" variety.

[Metsfanmax]

That was not my argument. My argument was that the pope would disagree with the contention that non-participation means the non-participants hate gays. To put it another way, the pope is not going to officiate a gay marriage in the Catholic faith, and he would contend that does not mean he hates gays.

Yes, but would you trust him if he says that? There's a lot of people who secretly dislike gay people but cannot say that because it's no longer politically correct to say in Western society. At any rate, my original point was not that "non-participation" always implies intolerance, it is that there's a very large number of people for whom their non-participation can be explained because of their intolerance. Your observation that there are some people for whom this is not true doesn't really mean anything. I am worried about the people who do believe it, and again they can find just as much justification for it in the Bible as the Pope does for his view. (If it is even true that the Pope is fine with homosexuality, which I doubt.)

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publ ... evolution/ - 68% of white Catholics and 53% of Hispanic Catholics believe in evolution (those are US Catholics only).

Look more carefully at the question. When they phrase it as evolution in terms of natural selection, only 32% agree. The headline question is so vague that it is hard not to agree (and still amazingly, 32% of white Catholics disagree) -- humans have certainly changed quite a lot even in the last 6,000 years.

But even if 68% of white Catholics agreed with evolution by natural selection (that is, the view held by the scientific community), the point is that there would still be a third of them who did not, and so "the Pope says this" is not a very helpful argument when 1/3 of his nominal followers don't even listen to him.

Maybe I misrepresented my view on this; you (and others) ascribe a worldview to someone based solely upon their religious beliefs. I continue to find that mind boggling, not just because it's a stereotype and not just because it is antithetical to the views of that particular religion, but because the statistical data doesn't support your belief.

A religious belief is a worldview. It would be rather remarkable if you began to deny that. If you think you are just part of a group of people who believe that you should be nice to your neighbor and you shouldn't steal things, that's not religion, that's modern liberal society. You only get to claim "religious belief" when you hold some particular metaphysical belief about the way the world is or ought to be. You don't get to walk that back just because that leaves you open to criticism. Own it.

I believe that the general acceptance of religious belief as a core part of a person's identity is what makes it possible for there to be people who fly planes into buildings on account of their beliefs.

And I believe that factors other than religion will lead people to fly planes into buildings. In fact, the motives behind many Muslim terrorists attacks appear to be of the "get off our land" variety.

The motives behind many Muslim terrorist attacks appear to be of the "we hate non-Muslims" variety. How many times do Islamic terrorists have to say that they want to kill people for not believing in Allah before we start accepting that this is an actual thing people believe?

[thegreekdog]

Yes, but would you trust him if he says that? There's a lot of people who secretly dislike gay people but cannot say that because it's no longer politically correct to say in Western society. At any rate, my original point was not that "non-participation" always implies intolerance, it is that there's a very large number of people for whom their non-participation can be explained because of their intolerance. Your observation that there are some people for whom this is not true doesn't really mean anything. I am worried about the people who do believe it, and again they can find just as much justification for it in the Bible as the Pope does for his view. (If it is even true that the Pope is fine with homosexuality, which I doubt.)

I would trust him (but I'm Catholic). The Pope is fine with homosexuality; he's not fine with gay sex or gay marriage. Eventually, I think the Catholic Church gets there (like it did on evolution, etc.). Catholics are good at ignoring what is in the Bible.

the point is that there would still be a third of them who did not, and so "the Pope says this" is not a very helpful argument when 1/3 of his nominal followers don't even listen to him.

I agree. I was (and am) fine with gays and gay marriage before the Pope said it was okay to be fine with it. But I'll tell you (anecdotally) that I know plenty of Catholics who were only fine with gays when the Pope said it was okay to be fine with it. Obviously statistics don't back that up when you have 99% of Africans hating the gays.

A religious belief is a worldview. It would be rather remarkable if you began to deny that. If you think you are just part of a group of people who believe that you should be nice to your neighbor and you shouldn't steal things, that's not religion, that's modern liberal society. You only get to claim "religious belief" when you hold some particular metaphysical belief about the way the world is or ought to be. You don't get to walk that back just because that leaves you open to criticism. Own it.

You clearly don't understand religion or religious people. Obviously (or maybe not to you, secular person that you are), "modern liberal society" is based upon religious views. The belief in the metaphysical is limited to how the world is or the world ought to be; it's what has happened before and what is to come. Further, while I agree that religion is a world view, it is not THE worldview nor is it the only worldview that one may hold. I am not defined by my religion (as you are not defined by your lack of religion). Osama bin Laden and George W Bush were not defined by their religions and their worldview and acts taken were not defined by religion only. There may be people that only define themselves based on their religion or lack thereof, but good luck trying to find those people. Your insistence that religion defines a person, ironically, will give you a very narrow worldview. Of course, you would likely say, for example, that I'm not really religious because I don't believe or ascribe to every single thing in the Bible (or every single thing the Catholic Church says I should do). But, again, you clearly don't understand religion or religious people.

The motives behind many Muslim terrorist attacks appear to be of the "we hate non-Muslims" variety. How many times do Islamic terrorists have to say that they want to kill people for not believing in Allah before we start accepting that this is an actual thing people believe?

I don't know man. What would Osama bin Laden have done if he wasn't Muslim? Would he have planned an attack against the United States? I think so, yes. Based on everything I understand, while his stated motive may have included "we hate non-Muslims" his motive also included "the United States won't leave us alone" and probably also included "I like to exert control and accumulate wealth and power and notoriety." Which, again, is why religion is not a defining worldview for people. You can almost always find ulterior motives to actions taken in the name of religion.

[Metsfanmax]

I would trust him (but I'm Catholic). The Pope is fine with homosexuality; he's not fine with gay sex or gay marriage. Eventually, I think the Catholic Church gets there (like it did on evolution, etc.). Catholics are good at ignoring what is in the Bible.

How can someone be "fine" with homosexuality but not be fine with gay sex?

You clearly don't understand religion or religious people. Obviously (or maybe not to you, secular person that you are), "modern liberal society" is based upon religious views. The belief in the metaphysical is limited to how the world is or the world ought to be; it's what has happened before and what is to come. Further, while I agree that religion is a world view, it is not THE worldview nor is it the only worldview that one may hold. I am not defined by my religion (as you are not defined by your lack of religion). Osama bin Laden and George W Bush were not defined by their religions and their worldview and acts taken were not defined by religion only. There may be people that only define themselves based on their religion or lack thereof, but good luck trying to find those people. Your insistence that religion defines a person, ironically, will give you a very narrow worldview. Of course, you would likely say, for example, that I'm not really religious because I don't believe or ascribe to every single thing in the Bible (or every single thing the Catholic Church says I should do). But, again, you clearly don't understand religion or religious people.

This is a major straw man. It is easier for you to disagree with me if you think I am taking the stance that your religious view is the only one you hold. Obviously it is not, since you ignore many of the things in scripture that tell you to be violently opposed to many of the freedoms we have today. You cannot point me to a statement I made that indicates that I think that everyone who is religious defines themselves solely based on that religion, because I did not make such a statement. The source of the current conversation was my claim that there are many people for whom their religion is such an important part of their identity that they would take violent action in the name of their religion, even today. Somehow you have twisted this into me saying that anyone who is religious is 100% Christian all the time and so therefore I am wrong about everything I say about anyone who is religious. Like, what the f*ck? Can we talk about the actual topic of conversation instead of whatever it is you imagine I am actually thinking?

I don't know man. What would Osama bin Laden have done if he wasn't Muslim?

Can you imagine any individual actually flying a plane into a building full of innocent people, of their own volition, if they don't believe something so fanatically such as that their God literally commands them to do so? There are some examples of such actions that aren't based on this motivation, but they're extremely rare compared to the constant suicide bombing we see carried out in the name of Islam. (The only one I can think of in my lifetime was the Norway shooting a few years back, and even then, Breivik didn't exactly have the average person's beliefs on religion. There could be more though.) Even if we accept that the source of bin Laden's anger against the West is their incursion into the Arab world (and I do not for a second believe that), it takes a special kind of worldview to do that. Religion (and Islam in particular) is a machine for cranking out people who believe things because God told them to believe them. Not every mass murderer does so in the name of religion, but it's way too many to think that there's some sort of coincidence going on here.

Would he have planned an attack against the United States? I think so, yes.

There are a whole lot of people in the Middle East who are angry with the role the United States has played in that region. How many examples can you find of people who took that anger and turned into large-scale violence without invoking their religion as justification for the targeting of innocents?

[Phatscotty]

The pope would disagree. Not that you care what the pope thinks.

The pope can't "disagree" with a fact, which is that many Christians hate gay people because the Bible says that homosexuality is sinful.

Well, it's also a fact that many gays hate Christians. My fact being equal to yours, then you can't disagree either. see how ya are

What do you care what the Bible says is sin? WHAT DO YOU CARE? What's even more funny to me is your comprehension of what sin actually is. Do you really think you of all people are qualified to go into the details of what Christians believe, what the Bible says? You aren't even 101 in these matters. You are novice, you are greenhorn. You prance around like it's this huge weight on you. The most basic understanding of Christianity is that WE ARE ALL SINNERS! AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO SIN AGAIN! AND AGAIN! It's about reflection, thinking about how you impact other people, about self guidance, and to give sin the proper thought about what happened, what you may have done differently, how you could be stronger, how you set your mind to making an effort to make yourself stronger, to be more able to resist whatever temptation has a particular hold on whatever person and is negatively impacting their life.



Humanity figured out a long time ago that giving into every single impulse will only destroy. tolerance builds up, just like drugs, and pretty soon you can eat twice what you used to and still be hungry, pretty soon beating on a spouse becomes a normal reason why the police get called to your residence, pretty soon a murderous thug starts sleeping comfortable, pretty soon the kiddy porn no longer satisfies the born-that-way pedophile and they cannot control themselves, pretty soon when you finally have the chance to get laid you can't get perform cuz your package is all chaffed and what's in front of you could never match up with your chili-bowling Japanese twins and octopus 3-way.

It's important for sinners to think about their sins and to choose to work on it, to pray over it is to focus on it, every single day. And if you believe differently, then live n let live.