Slashdot Mirror
Man Arrested In Greece For "Blasphemous" Facebook Page
An anonymous reader writes "A 27-year old man was arrested yesterday in Greece (Greek-language original) by the electronic crime police, for creating a Facebook page "Geron Pastitsios" which made fun of an extremely respected Orthodox Christian monk who lived in Mount Athos, as well as the Greek Church. The arrest came promptly after the Greek far-right party — which holds 7% of the parliament seats — submitted an official petition asking the government to take down the page. The charges that the young man faces are 'blasphemy' and 'disrespect to the religious beliefs of others.'" What would the UN say?
'blasphemy' is anachronism from middle ages. 'disrespect to the religious beliefs of others.' is exactly what he have done.
And it should be legal.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
By holding onto one set of beliefs, you implicitly disrespect all other sets of beliefs whether you want it or not.
Ezekiel 23:20
and this 'news for nerds'...
You realize the tagline/motto is gone, right?
For this sort of behavior on the part of others claiming to be Christians. I don't want to be persecuted for speaking my mind and what I believe, and so I do not believe anyone should be arrested or harmed for speaking out or posting things online. There is a fine line to walk when things become violent (death threats) or obscene (pornographic), but in so far as possible we need to be open and free in dialog if we want to have civil and prosperous societies.
This is one of the few things that is still great about the US (where I live), though it is slipping day by day even here. But arresting someone for what they post? Or worse, in Islamic areas, killing people for what *others* post? I don't see how that sort of behavior can lead to anything good.
William George
"Your Rights Online". Sounds like a nerd issue to me.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Doesn't blasphemy require attacking actual deities or assorted holy objects/texts/persons, rather than mere religious functionaries, however pious?
If anything, isn't it (in the context of an ostensible monotheism, like eastern orthodoxy) verging on blasphemy to assert that satire against a mere man is blasphemous?
Obviously, religious functionaries have the same interest in conflating their own status with the priviliged status accorded to dieties, just as politicians generally do their best to conflate their own persons and administrations with lofty things like 'Nation' and 'The Office of the President'; but, in both cases, it is actually a vital part of the protection of the genuinely venerated things to mock and dissuade the assorted grifters who attempt to parasitize them. Not doing that swiftly turns your religion into a cult or your government into an autocracy...
The extreme right-wing party in question - let's call it what it is, neofascist - has been a much mocked tiny minority for the last thirty years or so in Greece. They ran magazines praising the values of Hitler's Germany, the old dodecatheon (I kid you not) of Zeus and Hera and kept to their own niche of society talking about ancient aliens that gifted the race with superweapons waiting for the day to come to rise again. But no more. When the economy took a dramatic downturn they turned their preaching toward populism instead. Gone are the mentions of the Gods from any speeches or articles now that they figured they can catch a lot more followers (and votes) by supporting the most fanatical aspects of the Orthodox Church instead. So this is what it's all about. An opportunity to appeal to the masses as defending Christianity when several of their higher ups weren't even Christians up to a few years ago, and a party openly supporting racism making a bid for political power any way they can get it. They could care less about the venerable monk.
As per usual, it's sloppy shorthand for "do not like".
As per usual, it's just someone calling a political party what it calls itself. They are talking about Golden Dawn. If you'd like to go into Wikipedia and change the political position of Golden Dawn to "do not like" from "Far-right" I think you will find that both liberal and conservative editors will tell you to take a hike.
My work here is dung.
-- Roman law maxim
Non-Linux Penguins ?
I have a religious belief that free speech is sacred, and any restriction on that speech is disrespectful to my religion.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We're harassing the hell out of some guy who made a 2nd-rate movie about Muhammad and making sure the world sees him being put into the back seat of a car.
First I've heard of it. Who's "we"? Last I heard the guy is still pretty anonymous.
Then our government buys airtime on Pakistani TV to apologize for his actions.
Er, no, that's to explain to the people of Pakistan that the US government does not have any control over what individuals say and that in America there is freedom of speech.
This freedom stuff is fragile so pay attention!
Yeah. Pay attention.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
'blasphemy' is anachronism from middle ages. 'disrespect to the religious beliefs of others.' is exactly what he have done.
And it should be legal.
It should be mandatory. All religions are crazy.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
By holding onto one set of beliefs, you implicitly disrespect all other sets of beliefs whether you want it or not.
Untrue. I'm a Christian, but the year I was in Thailand I gained a LOT of respect for the Bhuddists. It depends on what beliefs you're talking about. I don't have to believe in reincarnation or karma to respect those who do.
However, when a belief is obviously brain-dead stupid, like electing someone who is exactly like Bush will have a different result than the clusterfuck that was his administration, I can't respect that. Stupid doesn't deserve respect.
Free Martian Whores!
If your argument is that you should be free to offend something imaginary, then you'll lose the argument because the people you're arguing with don't believe it is imaginary. The key to the success of American religious tolerance is not that we believe religion is imaginary and therefor that various beliefs are harmless. The key to our religious tolerance is that we believe people have an inherent right to be wrong. We believe in conversion by choice, and that conversion by sword is not allowed.
If you expect to make the argument that because their god is imaginary Muslims shouldn't get upset at offenses, you're not arguing for religious tolerance; you're arguing that your religion is better than theirs.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Minor correction: the church rarely burned anyone at the stake. In fact, they rarely had the authority to do any such thing. Most actual religious executions were carried out by secular powers. This includes everything from Christ's crucifixion to the Spanish Inquisition. If you weren't unlucky enough to reside in Italy, the chances of the church directly burning you at the stake was quite minimal. In other words, the politicians of the day were the one's directly responsible.
Furthermore, if you looked for where the science stayed alive, and where mathematics was cherished during the Dark ages, you would find it in monasteries and whatnot. (And in other parts of the world naturally; the Dark ages were only dark for Europe after all.) At that point in European history, the Catholic church was the only one willing to commit the resources to support intellectuals. Sure, most of the intellectuals they supported were intellectuals working in theology. But not most by a long shot.
I'm no fan of the Catholic church, but your hatred wrongs them, and the rest of all religions along with them. Religion has been, historically, one of the most philosophic endeavors civilizations would support. Intellectually driven people have been, as often as not, employed by 'the church.'