Slashdot Mirror
In Greece, 10 Months In Prison For "Blasphemous" Facebook Page
First time accepted submitter etash writes "A bit more than a year ago a man was arrested in Greece for satirizing a dead monk, after the far-right party golden dawn, petitioned for his arrest. A couple of days ago he was given a ten-month sentence. What actually enraged the religious Greek blogosphere was not the satire. He wrote a fictitious story about a miracle done in the past by this specific monk. The story was then sent to [a religious blog] and then in a matter of days it was copy pasted and presented as true by most of the religious and far-right blogs and news sites. The final act of the dramedy took place when he came out and revealed that the story was not real; he intended to show the absurdity and the lack of reliability of these sites."
EU law covers freedom of speech/expression. The question is whether he can stay out of jail while appealing this bullshit. The Mediterranean countries are our own domestic third world, but with really good food.
He wrote a fictitious story about a miracle done in the past by this specific monk.
If he really wrote it then it wasn't fictitious. You may be looking for the word "fictional".
Thankfully the Separation of Church and state is still "mostly" intact in the USA. Though Texas and several other States like Louisiana and Missouri are working to change that, and a couple have been bitten in the butt by their attempt to get state funded religious Schools mean that ALL religions get to have them!
This is just more proof that religion is just evil. It is a means of controlling what you believe. This is why the religious right in the USA is determined to get creation in the schools. So they can indoctrinate children before they learn critical thinking and realize that it is just a means of controlling them.
EU or specific member countries also have laws that prohibit certain types of speech. For example you can't deny holocaust or promote Nazi ideology. I believe some of EU countries have specific laws that prohibit denigration of religion.
One sheep's "blasphemy" is another man's truth.
Government and law should stay the hell out of religious debates.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
So what if he had? Oh, right, insulting religion is illegal in many European countries.
A Pastafarian after my own heart. You WILL be touched by HIS noodly appendage.
Well -since i am a Greek- let me explain.
That guy did a hoax/satire using a dead Greek Christian monk highly respected in my country - it wasn't his first hoax/satire against Christianity...
That was noticed by a right-wing political group and they used an old law for "protecting the religious beliefs/feelings of people against mockery" (created many decades earlier for protecting the Muslim minority) to instil -in an ironic way... we are Greeks...- a sense of logic!
The guy said in an interview he gave in the Greek media that even the police officers and the prosecutors were really upset that they had to charge him... but "dura lex, sed lex" - don't worry, he is not going to jail or anything like that.
The golden dawn petitioned for the arrest of a dead monk, so this guy satirised the monk and got arrested for that?
thank you. i was really stumped by how to parse that sentence. Your interpretation is correct. the only question is how this heinous crime got pinned on this guy. Golden Dawn must know people in the police dept and planted evidence.
Is that the approx. 2000 year old Gospel accounts illustrate precisely that this behaviour occurs in organised religion, that it's not right, and that a good teacher teaches against such stuff. How can so many from so many Christian churches read their Bible regularly and not see this???
John_Chalisque
Except for the part where education doesn't work with religious fundamentalists. "Thou shalt remain ignorant of anything not printed in this book" is a tenet of most religions, and is dogmatically followed by the fervent believers.
I'm not saying you should pass a law making religious people believe a thing or not believe a thing. I'm just saying you shouldn't have any laws at all regarding religion, especially those that promote respecting it, honoring it, denigrating it, or providing tax evasions for those that practice it.
John
Blasphemous
The reason that denying the holocaust is illegal is entirely because of public opinion - or rather public fear as to what it might lead to. ... why single out just the one false statement from all the other false things idiots say?
Germany outlaws both Holocaust denial and various expressions of Nazi culture. They rightly recognize that the danger those pose is political and those would be rallying cries to restore the threat to being a present danger again. There are still neo-Nazis in Germany waiting for their chance. Do you want to give it to them unimpeded? Anti-Semitism is on the rise again across Europe already despite the mass slaughter that is still within living memory and taught in schools.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
There are plenty of neo-Nazis here in the good ol' US of A. The difference is that we have freedom of expression, where if a handful of skinheads goosesteps up and down the street yelling "Sieg heil!", there are a hundred non-skinheads who yell "go home you morons" at them.
The rest of us watch them on the TV, and either abhor, admire, or ignore the actions of one side or the other.
It's important that these idiots be allowed to express their stupid opinions. The basic idea is that it helps avoid creating the "poor suppressed martyrs" who use that to draw other people who feel outcast into their secret clubs.
Does this strategy work? Well, the neo-Nazis here are very marginalized.
John
Including Atheist fundamentalism, apparently...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
"Thou shalt remain ignorant of anything not printed in this book" is a tenet of most religions, and is dogmatically followed by the fervent believers.
I'm going to quibble over this point. It is not a tenet of most religions. It is a tenet of a few religions, and some of them have been very loud.
(They've also made good villains with which to smear other religionists. You've been suckered.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
What you're saying is that Nazism is so toxic and so powerful that it overwhelms the minds of those it is exposed to, such that they cannot control themselves. If that's what you believe, then you've already lost. No law can save you from such a force.
"RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice gave a legal opinion (in case C-274/99) in 19 October 2000 that criticism of the EU, its institutions or its leading figures was akin to blasphemy. Further, that, because laws against blasphemy were acceptable both under the common law of England and the existing European Human Rights Convention, it then followed that punishing someone for allegedly criticizing the EU was not an infringement of free speech
This opinion was given as a result of a case against a British European Commission official Bernard Connolly, who had written ‘The Rotten Heart Of Europe’, a book critical of the EU.
The European Court of First Instance found against him, ruling that the EU may restrict political speech to protect its interests."
-- http://www.theeuroprobe.org/?p=469
What you're saying is that Nazism is so toxic and so powerful that it overwhelms the minds of those it is exposed to, such that they cannot control themselves. If that's what you believe, then you've already lost. No law can save you from such a force.
Well, that's not what they believe in Germany. They believe that there are different kinds of assholes, and nazi assholes are such bad assholes that they should be removed from the streets and put into jail.
Does this strategy work? Well, the neo-Nazis here are very marginalized.
Excellent post and as far as I'm aware you're quite right, Neo-Nazism simply hasn't become a real problem in Western democracies. That's despite the full availability of some of the most emotive and powerful imagery ever employed (such as Hitler's speeches, the Swastika, etc.) which is all still here and just as potent even after all these years.
Free speech for these people and other groups like them is a critical safety valve for society. It also allows the public to judge the words and deeds of said groups for themselves without '3am disappearances' hiding the true extent of a movement.
Yet despite this I've had some (quite heated) arguments with otherwise normal people who would have the Neo-Nazis thrown in prison if they could. Why is this concept of freedom of speech so hard for some people to grasp, even as they enjoy the benefits of a free society?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I'm Greek. What's really amusing is that the Golden Dawn party - right wing nuts that they are - are simply using a thin guise of Christianity themselves, and that only to better appeal to the masses. In the eighties the exact same individuals were in the same party publishing their material openly worshiping the ancient Dodecatheon. That's right, Zeus, Hera, all those deities. It came pack and parcel with preaching their nationalist superiority ideals.
They were at best marginalized if not outright ridiculed until the financial crisis hit. Once they realized a whole lot of people were desperate and looking for someone to hate, someone to blame for their misfortunes they also figured out this was a prime opportunity for them to rise in actual power. They reshaped their speeches, packaged their image a little better to appeal to senior citizens and angry young men then pointed a finger to immigrants, Jews, you name it - while of course suddenly featuring a deep faith in all things Christian. Complete with hatred and barely restrained racism, because of course that's what Christianity is all about.
The worst part of this? They have an excellent chance in being a kingmaker in the next elections. It will come down between the current conservative government and a leftist coalition of political powers in Greece, but it's quite likely neither will have the majority on their own. And the Golden Dawn is squarely third in the polls right now... and of course they'll be able to make a deal so that a government can be formed at all.
Neonazis in power. It's a nightmare.
Meh.
Hitler's speeches are in German, and the US public mainly only has memories of the swastika as symbolizing an evil enemy. Thus, swastika-wearing, Hitler-quoting neo-Nazi movements have little resonance with Western/US audiences; the insidious power of Hitler's own words and symbols has little resonance with the American people. However, more "home-grown" groups, promoting similar ideologies but without swastikas or German-language slogans, do get a significant amount of traction in the US --- if you wrap up the ugliest racism, xenophobia, and far-right authoritarianism in an American flag, you can attract quite a following. So, while Nazis-calling-themselves-Nazis are only a fringe joke in the US, Neo-Naziism by other names is far from being "not a problem."
You're claiming a non-criminal act should be a criminal act because anyone who does it is a criminal? How about we stick to criminals performing actual criminal acts? That's less psychotic...
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
> He wrote a fictitious story about a miracle ... he intended to show the absurdity and the lack of reliability of these sites.
So, its basically along the lines of Sokal Affair. ...except for the arrest and incarceration of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Anaxagoras, Socrates, Aristotle. In ancient Greece (or Athens, specifically), the charge of impiety was sometimes used for political reasons (i.e. to dispose of people that the public, or at least a few influential individuals, found to be a nuisance or an menace). Sounds like there was a political angle to the modern case as well. The more things change... Here's a link to an article about the history of this practice. That said, what was this guy trying to accomplish by mocking a dead monk? Not a cool thing to do, whatever your religious views.
There are plenty of neo-Nazis here in the good ol' US of A.
There are in fact very few neo-Nazis in the good ol' US of A. And those that do exist tend to be at the fringe of society, freaks, or offering calculated offense. That wasn't always the case. The US government suppressed the German American Bund Nazi movement in the US during WW2. Returning veterans had little love for the Nazis after having fought them tooth and nail across Europe only to arrive at the concentration and death camps.
Some things are not purely a question of free speech. Have the anti-Klan laws been revoked? Have the civil rights laws been allowed to lapse?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Excellent post and as far as I'm aware you're quite right, Neo-Nazism simply hasn't become a real problem in Western democracies.
As you say, "awareness" is part of the problem. You aren't aware, and neo-Nazism is a problem in Europe.
'Like 1930s Germany': Greek Far Right Gains Ground
Nowhere else in Europe are neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists profiting as greatly from the financial crisis as in Athens. As they terrorize the country with violence, the police stand back and prosecutors are powerless.
Marian Kotleba: Slovakia’s New Neo-Nazi Governor Only Latest of Right-Wing Extremists Emerging In Eastern Europe
Kotleba, whose organization has long agitated against Slovakia’s Roma (Gypsy) minority, branding them as “parasites,” once belonged to the now-outlawed Neo-Nazi Slovenská Pospolitos (Slovak Community) movement that praised the Nazi puppet government that ruled the country during World War II. Bloomberg reported that Kotleba openly admires praised Jozef Tiso, president of the Nazi satellite state in Slovakia during World War II, which dispatched thousands of Jews to Nazi concentration camps. Kotleba, a 36-year-old former high school teacher, has been notorious for sporting Nazi-style uniforms in public, and also repeatedly arrested and sued for spreading racism and hate (no such charges have ever stuck, however).
Russia: Far-Right Nationalists And Neo-Nazis March In Moscow
Neo-Nazis form expanding networks beyond national borders
The cooperation between right-wing extremists from different countries is gaining strength. Experts warn that this phenomenon could have dangerous consequences.
Neo-Nazi parties on the rise in Europe, Jewish group warns
BUDAPEST, Hungary -- The World Jewish Congress said Tuesday it is greatly concerned about the emergence of what it called neo-Nazi parties in Europe, singling out Greece's Golden Dawn, Hungary's Jobbik, and Germany's National Democratic Party.
A study presented at the congress's assembly in Budapest, the Hungarian capital, highlighted the links among the growing strength of such extremist groups, the European economic crisis and latent Nazi-type tendencies in Europe.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Thanks Fjord, some interesting information and links.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
...if a handful of skinheads goosesteps up and down the street yelling "Sieg heil!", there are a hundred non-skinheads who yell "go home you morons" at them.
Does this strategy work? Well, the neo-Nazis here are very marginalized.
Basically I agree strongly with what you wrote in both philosophy and practice. But I cut Germany some slack here, using the US as the example.
Nazism was a “philosphy” that was harnessed to the state within living memory. As a result there are plenty of remaining artifacts around from old driving licenses or professional certificates (e.g. Opticians) or marriage licenses that are still valid documents (old German driving licenses had no expiration dates) which bear swastikas and other nazi references. There are still old granddads who had fun shooting guns in the war. I know one friend’s dad, drafted at 17 in 1944, who's main memories are crazy russians running through hi farm trying to defect to the west. Plus learning to shoot. But every once in a while he uses an old aphorism from his childhood that's not only disturbing, but doesn't even agree with how he lived his life. I am sure there are living grandparents with stories they learned in school in the 30s and who were happy with those times. So since the wound is still fresh, this is a part of trying to heal it.
Compare that to the US. The civil war ended in 1865 but old southern racists survived well into the 1920s (even reaching the presidency, with Wilson) and the Jim Crow legacy continued into the 1960s and beyond. The reconstruction program which was killed early in the US was the equivalent of the reconstruction of Germany, which, in these laws, continues to this day.
I agree with Brandeis that "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" so feel free speech should be extremely free. But the German's position shouldn't be rejected out of hand.
If Nazi ideas are so readily identifiable as bad ideas, how do they spread to begin with? How do they gain power?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Nazism clearly has limits since it does not come to power everywhere it exists. But it also is certainly not powerless since it did come to rule in Germany, and it still draws adherents to itself even today.
The Germans are arguably quarantining a vulnerable population.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I am happy to oblige, and no offense intended. Have a great day.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The truth is that not even the various Churches believe in many of those supernatural gurus or miraculous places. But they can't deny them, because people like to believe in them and they can't afford losing more faithful; because locals earn a lot from religious tourism and the Churches get their share of that money; and possibly because advocating for rationality in religion-based matters for them would be like throwing stones in the proverbial glass house.
About 5 euros. Ba dum tish.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
This issue internationally shames the Greek government. Unfortunately, the crisis has also put a toll to our democracy. The government in order to pass the austerity measures finds allies in the neo-nazi party golden dawn.
Please make this issue known all over the world. Petition to stop the economic pressure on Greece and to protect the freedom of speech of its citizens.
By the way, the guy they sentenced was amazing at redeculling the neo-nazi propaganda of monk prophets and their conspiracies.
Including Atheist fundamentalism, apparently...
What book would that be then?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Dude, eristic argument is the mainstay of civilization. We're always engaged in the internecine struggle to discredit other parties to our own ends. I'm doing it right now.
More interestingly, this is perhaps the founding principle of the human language capacity.
The Argumentative Theory
From the text itself:
What this fellow did is conduct a hack against pompous insularity. Take a turd, disguise it with some food colouring, put it on their plate when they aren't looking, then watch the gobble it up while the pound the table exclaiming "We don't eat turd!"
What you end up demonstrating is that they distinguish turd from non-turd mainly by social optics, and not by its sensory quality.
Always the rule with those engaged in pompous insularity is that no outsider has standing to challenge their practices unless first vetted by the gatekeepers of the pompous insularity itself.
In order to achieve this, you'll have to master the extremely arduous standards of the profession (prestige barriers are usually high) in the pursuit of an outcome (deflating the eminent within that profession) that will have you black-listed from any form of employment where you could ever hope to receive a personal gain in exercise of the mastery you slaved to achieve. And then the gate keepers mock you when you say "thanks, but no thanks".
It's so much easier to sneak a poop pie onto the buffet table and watch them eat it smacking their lips.
It's the same deal with a packet filter in network security: hard crunchy outside, soft chewy inside. The professional walls are exceedingly hard to breach, but the defences inside those walls (which involve hard intellectual work to sustain) have long since gone to the dogs, yet they behave externally as if their house is in perfect order. This is an eternal story.
What it comes down to is whether one regards this kind of hack, which begins with a small deception, as a valid form of whistleblowing.
Why is this concept of freedom of speech so hard for some people to grasp, even as they enjoy the benefits of a free society?
I once asked the same question. The answer is because they've never been in a non-free society and don't understand how things can go wrong when you become too afraid to speak your mind any more.
But as you say freedom of speech so those people opinion are as good as yours
That is not what freedom of speech means. Although it does mean that government doesn't get to pick favorites with respect to peoples' opinions.
sicne germany is considered a democracy with freedom, it seems those rule aern't as bad as you purport...
Well, sure it could be a lot worse. Getting shot for having insufficiently glowing praise of the Glorious Leader (or because someone had to make quota on their inspiring fear to-do list) is a bit worse than getting fined or whatever for having a fairly radical viewpoint for a rather slimy ideology which lost a big fight a lifetime ago.
By the way in some country like germany, the USA IIRC *requested* those banning rule.
Because the US never does the "Do as I say, not as I do" thing, amirite? All you need to know is that similar attempts to restrict such speech are heavily resisted in the US and have never been successful.
However, more "home-grown" groups, promoting similar ideologies but without swastikas or German-language slogans, do get a significant amount of traction in the US --- if you wrap up the ugliest racism, xenophobia, and far-right authoritarianism in an American flag, you can attract quite a following.
Citation needed. The KKK is probably even more marginalized than the Neo-Nazis (probably because they look so ridiculous with those white hoods). There's no racist groups in the US that have any significant power whatsoever.
"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."
"Study to show yourself approved."
Must be why Christians started almost all the universities in the world.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
That's a great point, that there are still some Germans living with their past. But when the war ended, it was clear that Nazism was defeated then and there. Our legacy of slavery moved at a different pace. After the U.S. Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment simply abolished slavery. There were no other laws that suddenly gave the freed slaves any big pile of extra rights, privileges, protections, or reparations that didn't apply to others. Nothing told the rest of the population they had to be treated equally. And nothing punished the people who had treated them unjustly - the men in power did not give up their power. So the freed slaves had to make their own way in a country that was still very hostile towards them, and they fought for every step of progress.
A hundred years later, progress towards equality remained pitiful, so we still had to pass explicit anti-racism laws to deal with that legacy. One difference with those laws and the anti-Nazi laws is that they make illegal the act of racism only in certain practices, particularly those where people intersect with the government: hiring, schools, public transit, voting, etc. But nothing in the laws prevents hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan from existing, and they are still free to spew their ignorance, and even to run for office. Under our system, nobody's going to defend anything about them except their right to free speech.
And this is where the analogy is further strained by the big difference between the cases. In the case of slavery there was a group of people being treated unjustly by the laws, while in Germany there was a group of unjust people passing unjust laws. Trying to restore free speech isn't about trying to claim the Nazis were treated unfairly after the war they caused, it's trying to let the civilized people police themselves.
More to your point, I think a hundred years after the Civil War it was embarrassing how little progress the US had made towards equality. So I understand Germany's national desire to keep Nazism locked in a coffin, as people have proven themselves very very slow to change, even across generations. Perhaps in a hundred more years they'll be in a position to enjoy free speech.
We'll see. I think Germany is a lot more progressive in most ways than the U.S., but there are still restrictions we're really not used to.
John
Actually communism has been suppressed to varying degrees in many countries. Even in Europe they aren't allowed to overthrow the government and go straight communist but have to participate in the usual political process. That means they have to keep winning elections, which eventually doesn't happen.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
> Except for the part where education doesn't work with religious^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fundamentalists. "Thou shalt remain ignorant of anything not printed in this book" is a tenet of most cults.
FTFY.
Cult:, noun, any group of people who believe their way is the only way.
Examples: Fundamental Atheists, Fundamental KingJamerVersion'ers, etc.
> Does this strategy work? Well, the neo-Nazis here are very marginalized.
Agreed. Only cowards censor.
Citation given.
Sorry, but this doesn't support your assertions at all. Many of the things on your list there aren't racist at all. Anti-gay groups and sentiment (which of course does seem to be the current focal point for a lot of the right-wingers) has nothing to do with racism; gay people come in all races. Anti-immigration sentiment isn't necessarily racist either; try illegally immigrating into various European countries or Canada and see what happens to you there. Every nation has the right to set immigration laws and limit immigration. In Canada, you need either a job offer for a job they couldn't find a citizen to take, or $300K to deposit into a Canadian bank account, before you're allowed in. Anti-immigrant groups are simply against immigration. Anti-Muslim groups aren't necessarily racist either, they're against a certain religion. Try traveling to Mecca and reciting Bible verses in public and see what happens to you there; most religions are intolerant of other religions. While many of these issues are indeed strong among conservative groups today, to call them "racist" is simply a way of attempting to marginalize them rather than discuss the issues and deal with them directly, and is why this country is so hopelessly polarized, because people on each side utterly refuse to engage in any debate any more, and simply cast the other side as "evil".
As for the rest, those are all pathetically small splinter groups that no one takes seriously. Black separatists? Really? How many of those are out there? "Christian Identity"? I've never even heard of that group. Holocaust deniers are about as numerous and taken as seriously as flat-earthers. KKK and neo-Nazis are the same. The rest are groups less numerous than that.
World War II is a fascinating study of whether secularism is a problem or not with government. There are very credible arguments that had it not been for secularism in government, the facist leadership of Italy and Germany would never have been able to come to power.
Both the Lateran Treaty (Italy) and the Reichskonkordat (Germany) were treaties signed between the Papacy and the respective governments. In both of these treaties, the Papacy agreed to supress political activism from priests, bishops, and cardinals within the church. Essentially it was the destruction of political Catholicism in Italy (Populist Party) and Germany (Center Party). Both of those political parties greatly opposed and stood in the way of the facist parties and were the predominant party opposing the facists. While we can never know what would have happened had both of those parties been allowed to persist it is certainly possible that neither Mussolini's facists or the Nazis would have been able to secure enough power within their respective governments in order to take control as they did.
This concerns me because it looks like, at least to me, that in the US we're seeing a similar trend. While it's not as codified as the Lateran Treaty or the Reichskonkordat, the ability of religious groups to be involved in politics is extremely limited through due to tax exemption which serves as a chain to prevent political speech. This isn't as extreme as what happened in Germany after the Center Party was dissolved, churches that were perceived as advocating a political position could see priests or bishops imprisoned and those that did speak would often times have vandalism or other property destruction applied against the churches or the members of the churches.
I do believe it's a valid question to ask whether a democracy is better off or worse off is religious groups are permitted political talk.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Even if it's a tenet of numerically few religions then it's not simply that those religions have been loud, but that they make up the vast majority of the world's population.
The world's population is 7bn and Christians and Muslims combined make up 4.09bn of that alone. Hinduism has the Vedas, that bumps it up to 5.09bn, and Buddhism has the Tipitaka which is at least another 0.5bn taking it to 5.59bn. Atheists make up about 1.1bn, so of the global population of 5.9bn religious folk, 5.59bn at least have a holy book or scripture that they adhere to.
So what you're really saying is that 300m of 7bn people may not have a religious scripture to adhere to, but even that could be wrong because frankly I don't know enough about those religions but wouldn't be surprised if they also had religious texts at their core. So unless you're going to pretend that you were just referring to the Koran and that the bible doesn't exist or whatever then I don't really understand where you're coming from.
I think you paint a misleading picture by suggesting that those religions that follow a holy scripture are simply loud. They're not, they're the vast majority of religious folk, in fact, the vast majority of people in the world, by a wide margin.
That's a great point, that there are still some Germans living with their past. But when the war ended, it was clear that Nazism was defeated then and there. Our legacy of slavery moved at a different pace. After the U.S. Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment simply abolished slavery. There were no other laws that suddenly gave the freed slaves any big pile of extra rights, privileges, protections, or reparations that didn't apply to others.
Actually the end of the war was a slow and messy affair (the break in Japan was cleaner) and various successor movements do break out around Europe from time to time (look at the current government in Hungary for example, as well as some parties in the balkans, perhaps including, to reconnect to TFA, Breaking Dawn). Postwar by Tony Judt is a good summary.
In the US those other laws you talk about were passed and implemented, but reconstruction was rolled back after a change in government. It's a nice A/B experiment, actually.
Surely such a nice bunch of Christians would just forgive him?
Islam does not command its followers to ignore all but that which is stated in Qur'an. It even has passages promoting learning and science. I'm sure it's the same with Christianity. In the end, the problem's with people sadly not knowing their scripture and subscribing to silly notions such as "The God of the Gaps"/doing unnecessary things not stated in their holy book which have been passed down by word-of-mouth. The Islamic Golden Age shows that religion and science can coexist perfectly well.
He should have gotten a nobel for literature instead of a jail term.. Those sites never check their facts. "proof of noahs flood by drowned dinosaur !" "engraved rock proved with carbon 14!" etc etc.. I have a pastor ('Whaaat?') that I check in with often, and I really like him, but he never checks out his stories, and it's seriously affecting his credibility.. Some knowingly misrepresent these facts, not caring, as long as it supports their stories, and these are the worst...
You're saying that all the major world religions are anti-science. This would seem to be demonstrably false from looking at history.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Try traveling to Mecca and reciting Bible verses in public and see what happens to you there
Well in theory I thought they venerated many of the same prophets. I would be interested to see the reaction, though.
"Racism" is used a lot of the time to mean "disapproving of any certain group of people." I would assume it's something to with "everyone knows that racism is A Bad Thing," whereas if you call it by other names, it doesn't strike the same chord.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You *do* know that the IMF introduced these "austerity measures" to collapse the Greek economy, right? Just like they're doing it to collapse the others with "austerity measures" It's all based on "neo-classical" economics. the main goal of which is to introduce a global currency market. They (the fed) have already swiped all the gold from these countries that relied on them to keep it safe. That prevents any countries from trying to create a currency based on a gold standard. Now that that's done, all they have to do is bankupt the smaller countrires such as yours, and then go to the bigger ones such as Spain, Portugal, and Germany etc, Only China, Russia, and, believe it or not, Iceland, stand in the way. This ain't yer granny's economics 101, that's for sure!
Blasphemy makes no claim about whether the statement is true or false (like some interpretations of libel). So yeah, GP can be considered blasphemy depending on how hard-ass one is about it.
"Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable."
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
"Fundamental Atheists"
Who the hell are "Fundamental Atheists"?
SPLC has this uncanny tendency of labeling people and groups as "neo-Nazi" or "hate" when they really aren't, but they tend to disagree on some political tenet. For example, they consider anti-federalism (promotion of states rights and limitation of the federal government) to be a reliable indicator of a "hate group", which is obvious BS.
Neither the anti-Klan laws nor the civil rights laws have anything to do with freedom of speech - they regulate specific actions, not mere speech.
Both Lateran Treaty and Reichskonkordat was signed by the governments that were already fully fascist and Nazi, accordingly. In case of Reichskonkordat, for example, the concentration camp in Dachau was already operating for 3 months by the time it was signed, and communists and other prominent political opposition was already routinely rounded up and shipped there.
On the other hand, political Catholicism elsewhere didn't show any sign of condemning totalitarian and destructive regimes so long as they openly supported it. Ustashe is a very prominent example.
OTOH, the notion that religious political speech in US is limited is quite outlandish. The entire political right in US is dominated by religious arguments! Churches as organizations may not be able to get into politics, but their members can and do while openly declaring their religious affiliation.
That's not suppression, that's just enforcing the same rules for all. And it goes equally for the Nazis: they'd have to win elections, which so far they don't manage to do.
And if they do win elections, meaning that the majority of the population supports them... do you seriously think that a hate speech law will prevent a takeover?
In the most narrow sense, that is largely, but not completely, correct. Some of the anti-Klan or civil rights laws related laws do in fact touch questions of free speech or expression. Some examples:
Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates Ban on Wearing of Klan Masks
DOJ Attorney Cracks Down on Anti-Muslim Hate Speech
The Law and Your Job - Sexual Harassment
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It's worth noting that Holmes came to reconsider his "yelling fire in a crowded theater" idea, and in fact later wrote a minority opinion in strong defense of expansive Free Speech in Abrams v. United States.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Historical circumstances notwithstanding, I'm far from convinced the Catholic school system here in Canada has any right to exist. Certainly I don't believe it should be receiving any funding from the State particular to its outdated special status.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
That answer makes no sense, seeing as how every society around the world in the last generation (or more) has been non-free. Nobody has been "enjoying the benefits of a free society" for a long time.
I've been enjoying freedom in my "non-free" society for my entire life. Sure, there are growing constraints on my freedom, but it's not as you say.
Well, that's not what they believe in Germany.
Who is this "they" you speak of? Clearly some people don't feel that Nazism ought to be outlawed, as they are practicing it.
nazi assholes are such bad assholes
What makes them bad is doing bad things, and those bad things are illegal on their own.
they should be removed from the streets and put into jail.
If and when they should ever come to power again in Germany, or anywhere else that forbids the freedom of thought and expression, rest assured that they will use this fact to portray themselves as victims.
What comfort it will be to their victims to know it was illegal to be a Nazi once.
It is an idea, and ideas have no power except what people grant to them. What you're saying is that people can't be trusted to hold beliefs. You want control over their minds, and that makes you no better than a Nazi.
World War II is a fascinating study of whether secularism is a problem or not with government.
Religion has no explanatory power over the behavior of people. Wars have been fought, peaces have been made, and commerce has variously flourished and foundered without regard to religious affiliation.
If you examine the matter closely, there is really no such thing as religion or secularism. Two people who claim to follow the same religion can disagree vehemently over something, and a militant atheist is indistinguishable in fervor and tenor from a religious fanatic.
There should be no tax exemption for "religious" organizations because there should be no tax on organizations. The government is not empowered to impede freedom of assembly, and it is certainly not empowered to elevate some organizations over others and thus dictate what is and what is not acceptable belief.
Larry Flynt sums it up best himself: "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I'm the worst.
Anti-science works in gradients. It's possible to support some science but ignore that which is in conflict of religious teachings.
So yes, religion has to be inherently anti-science to some degree because religious believe fundamentally requires you to cast out the scientific method, but this doesn't mean they're wholly anti-science.
Looking at history it's in fact demonstrably true, because there are cases where science conflicted with religion in every case, and those with religious beliefs sided with religion, ignoring the science.
It's not an either-or like you seem to think it is. The world isn't that black or white.
Right, but where conflict occurs those religions do insist that the bible overrides science and similarly as most "theories" in such religious texts do not fit the scientific method then you have to cast aside the scientific method to be a believer in the first place.
So as I said to the other guy, yes, there are cases where science and religion can cooperate, but ultimately religion requires by definition that you cast aside the scientific method which means if you have any religious belief then you inherently have to cast aside fact and reason where it conflicts with that belief.
It's a gradient for sure, but those with religious beliefs are always going to be inherently more prone to ignoring science than those without because it's a simple requirement of belief. That doesn't mean all science, but it does mean ignoring the scientific method, and it does mean ignoring science that conflicts with those beliefs.
Hmm. Let's have a recap, shall we?
Thou shalt remain ignorant of anything not printed in this book.
It is not a tenet of most religions. It is a tenet of a few religions, and some of them have been very loud.
Even if it's a tenet of numerically few religions then it's not simply that those religions have been loud... So what you're really saying is that 300m of 7bn people may not have a religious scripture to adhere to... So unless you're going to pretend that you were just referring to the Koran and that the bible doesn't exist or whatever then I don't really understand where you're coming from.
Oh, but I do know where you're coming from. You're so eager to make your point that you didn't read carefully what was being written. That's not what I said at all. Read it again. Better yet, read what I was responding to. Parse it carefully. Don't read what you thought that it said, or want it to say; read what it actually does say.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You seem to have settled on a conclusion that you put a lot of faith in. I wish you could see the irony.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Looking at history it's in fact demonstrably true, because there are cases where science conflicted with religion in every case, and those with religious beliefs sided with religion, ignoring the science.
Faulty logic.
One could just as easily argue that every time a scientific advance happened, there were religious people who embraced it whole-heartedly. The same argument structure; the opposite conclusion.
Some people reject change. Religion is irrelevant to that behavior.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
There's no faith involved, it's a statement of fact that religious belief does not adhere to the scientific method because it explicitly requires that you put your belief in the unprovable.
The real problem here is that you can't tell the difference between faith and fact, but that's a problem with you, not with me.
If you're saying I put a lot of faith in fact, yes, I do, because fact is fact, faith is not. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.
"Faulty logic."
So you're saying there are no cases in history where science conflicted with religion and those with the religious beliefs opted for faith over science? Because that's exactly what I said.
You see, it's not possible for them to choose science over faith because at that point they have to explicitly accept that their faith is wrong, and so they no longer hold that faith. That's an inescapable logical fact.
That doesn't prevent others who are non-religious also ignoring the science, but it is an inherent requirement that to have some specific faith based belief that you ignore the science when it conflicts, else you simply do not hold that belief.
To claim that you can both hold a religious belief that conflicts with scientific fact and accept that scientific fact creates a paradox, hence, your argument is complete nonsense and really is "faulty logic".
Your anger has blinded you. You're lashing out. Something happened to you, and you seem bent on taking it out on religion as a whole. I've seen it before, typically when parents are too strict, or are hypocrites.
It's ok for people to be different from you. (Some religionist need to learn this too, granted.) It's going to be a rough road because you've engineered a philosophy around religious belief, but you can come to accept that religion doesn't need to be demolished for the world to be a great place.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Um, you sound like you've completely lost the plot.
I guess I'll leave you to it because you sound like you're projecting now, either way nothing you've said is relevant to me.
I guess you just don't like rationality, I guess it's inconvenient to your beliefs.
But that was ultimately my point, so point proven I guess.
No, that's not what I said. And that's not "exactly" what you said, either. (Though it's hard to be sure, your sentence was a bit broken.) I merely pointed out the exact same form could be pointed the other way.
And for the record: Science tries to ascertain truth by narrowing in on it through hypothesis and testing... it does not, indeed cannot, establish "facts". If the scientific facts of years-gone-by contradict the scientific facts of today, were they really facts at all? No. As some philosophers have put it, science can only disprove things. (Which doesn't make it invalid, or useless.)
People of faith (the rational ones, at least) tend to take the long view. If something is true, then it is true. Otherwise, the fad will wear off eventually. There's no need to categorically reject everything that superficially appears to contradict what you already accept. It's ok to say "I don't know, but it will make sense eventually." (This happens in science all the time, by the way.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You see, it's not possible for them to choose science over faith because at that point they have to explicitly accept that their faith is wrong, and so they no longer hold that faith. That's an inescapable logical fact.
Just because some Muslims say it governs every aspect of their lives does not mean other major religions think it's the be-all, end-all. Science and religion can peacefully coexist in the vast majority of cases, it's just that you'll always have a few people taking religion uberliterally and saying you have to choose. And besides, there are plenty of people who cherry-pick which part of their scriptures to believe/practice, who evidently still consider themselves Catholic (or whatever).
I would thank you to keep your "inescapable logical facts" (I feel like only one set of scare quotes is insufficient here) to yourself when they deal with something as subjective as religion. Religion means a million different things to a million different people; you have no right to make blanket statements about them all.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Fundamental Atheist, noun: Any atheist is who is unable to respect another person because they simply have a different spiritual belief. Insulting others who don't follow "your" path is the height of arrogance.
As a Mystic technically both Theists and Atheists are ignorant (lack knowledge by definition) about God, however it is up to the individual to decide which out of the 4 paths thats "works" for them. If you are unable to see both the strengths and weaknesses of a path, then you just look like a complete fool.
"As a Mystic technically both Theists and Atheists are ignorant (lack knowledge by definition) about God"
Oh, boy...
The core concepts of religion (the existence of a higher power, the afterlife, etc.) are non-disprovable concepts, so they don't conflict with the scientific method (as they are not covered by it), which works by disproving hypotheses. The rest (disprovable stuff) can be explained as metaphors. I know may people successful in a STEM field who are religious.
For anyone that has missed what is going on in Greece since 2010, with the extreme austerity packages and the humanitarian crisis that is evolving because of them for 4 years now, this decision comes as a surprise.
Of course, anyone living in the country knows that the upcoming elections cause similar and will cause even more extreme measures. There is no real politics going on in Greece right now, only taming the natives, by "whatever means necessary".
"Abashed the Devil stood, and felt how awful goodness is..."
Do you not understand the difference between Theism and Gnosis ??
Atheism (without belief) < ----- > Theism (with belief)
A-Gnostic (without knowledge)
^
|
|
|
V
Gnostic (with knowledge)
"I would thank you to keep your "inescapable logical facts" (I feel like only one set of scare quotes is insufficient here) to yourself when they deal with something as subjective as religion. Religion means a million different things to a million different people; you have no right to make blanket statements about them all."
I don't think you understand logic, and that's okay, your argument is illogical so that makes sense.
Sometimes the facts are such that you can reach a solid logical conclusion, there's no debate to be had, it's simply inescapable for the fact that as I say, otherwise it creates a paradox. Yes you're right, some people may be happy to pretend it's okay for there to be a paradox and dodge questions on how they decide which outcome wins out in the face of that paradox, but that doesn't change the fact there is a paradox, and that the only valid logical conclusion is that which avoids the paradox in the first place.
You may think it's okay for this to be the case, for people to believe in conflicting nonsense without ever being able to resolve that conflict in their head, but inevitably they'll encounter something in life where they have to, and that's where science and religion conflict such that they have to come out on the side of science, or that of religion. You simply cannot escape that, and if you think otherwise, then you are yourself avoiding such a conflict in your mind, and are yourself hence full of nonsense.
I get it I really, do, people like you who have never learned philosophical or mathematical logic do not understand why the things they say are full of illogical nonsense and hence inherently cannot be true, and that's okay, but don't pretend that's something that extends outside of nonsense thinking to those of us who do understand the meaning of logic.
"The core concepts of religion (the existence of a higher power, the afterlife, etc.) are non-disprovable concepts, so they don't conflict with the scientific method (as they are not covered by it), which works by disproving hypotheses."
So you think things like the existence of a higher power, the afterlife and so forth are not themselves hypotheses?
How can you rationally engage in this discussion if you've already made your mind up that your theories are right and everyone elses are wrong by convincing these things are not hypotheses and hence the only other thing they can be is either fact or fiction? By suggesting these are not themselves hypotheses you must declare they are either true or false.
"I know may people successful in a STEM field who are religious."
So do I, but it always ends one of two ways. When religion and science inevitably collide in their lives, which it always eventually does, they either end up accepting the science and recognising their beliefs were nonsense all along, or they end up siding with religion and acting in an unscientific manner making them incompetent.
Even most historical figures show this trait, Darwin being an obvious one, the only exceptions go back far enough where levels of scientific knowledge were low enough and life spans short enough that they never reached that now inevitable conflict in their lives.
The bulk of religion is ultimately hearsay, there is still to this day absolutely zero evidence for any of it's most controversial beliefs, to be a great scientist, or mathematician you ultimately just cannot ever take hearsay for granted as fact, there has to be evidence or proof. That's why the two are always in conflict.
I'm saying that the core concepts of religion are not disprovable, not that they're not hypotheses and that they're absolute truths that should be accepted by all. You can debate those in a metaphysical discussion, but not in a scientific one (due to the way the scientific method works, see Wikipedia). Try disproving the existence of God or the afterlife. The scientific method simply doesn't apply to those situations. In the end, whether you're going to believe or not is entirely your choice, and this discussion isn't going to change anyone's opinions, beliefs or preconceptions. Let's agree to disagree.
This is not exactly freedom of expression. The guy was busted telling a lie. There is no reason to suppose there is an absolute human right to go around telling lies. You might think the lie is justified, or you might think telling lies is ok. Well that's fine as an opinion, but telling lies is not a noble pursuit, even if his end goal was worthy ( which in itself is questionable. What institution is beyond the reach of liers and scammers?). Pretty much ALL societies ban certain kinds of lies.
We should go find a more worthy subject off our pity.