muslims practice hate speech, mockery and criticism of Christians,Jews, apostates and hypocrites as a religious requirement, should this be allowed?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 1^st, 2014 at 7:23pm:



Yes.  Islam is not above mockery and criticism.

What the blazes is special about Islam? Nothing except its violence. It's followers will kill you if you mock and criticise it.  And that's enough for you to bend over and spread your cheeks in submission.


Pathetic little submissive.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 1^st, 2014 at 9:06pm:


Of course not. It merely means that even you cannot bring yourself to publicly take the stance which Gandalf attributes to a "vast majority" of Australians.

Do let us know when you make your mind up.

Quote:


Would you mind quoting me saying these dishonest things Brian? I merely pointed out that even you cannot bring yourself to publicly take the stance which Gandalf attributes to a "vast majority" of Australians. Is that a misrepresentation?

Quote:


Of course. No point rushing to take a stance on freedom of speech. You must approach it carefully, making sure there is no possible excuse for you to abandon all principles.

Karnal wrote on Nov 1^st, 2014 at 9:31pm:


Karnal, we are talking about freedom of speech. We are talking about the right to criticise and mock religion. Even you ought to be capable of taking a principled stance on this.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 10:13am:


You tell us the difference between hate speech and free speech.

Go on.

When you can be convicted for 'hate speech' because your audience laughed when you read out bits of the Koran you know that hate speech is not something based on honest principle of fairness but is rather a blunt instrument to prevent free speech.  'Hate speech' is a ridiculous thing. You are either right or you are wrong or half wrong, half right. If you cannot speak your mind, what is the point of discourse? Argue your case and let your listeners decide whether you are right or wrong.

You cannot have a discussion with someone who will kill you or sue you for what you think or say.

freediver wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 8:05am:


Even the 2007 FD was capable of taking a principled position on this.

Why don't you ask him?

Soren wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 9:21am:


Agreed. I don't think anyone in their right minds would ever advocate doing away with religious criticism.

The case that led to the proposed changes to the Racial Vilification Act, however, was about willful omissions of fact and porkie pies against specific individuals on the basis of their race. The Libs wanted to change the act to thank News Ltd and Bolt (the defendants in the case) for their support during the election. The Libs reversed their position when they saw how little support it had in the community. Read: the Jewish lobby wasn't happy. News and Bolt stand guilty of racial vilification; a civil ruling.

Religious criticism and healthy skepticism is crucial to Western reason. It brought us out of the Dark Ages. I have my own religious beliefs, and I actively criticize them and hold them up to the light. I would never defend my own beliefs on the basis of what I see as hearsay or intellectual argument (book learning). I can't - I don't really know. You are perfectly entitled to criticize my beliefs, and you'll get no argument from me. I don't even discuss my beliefs in public forums like this. They're personal.

Claiming Muhamed is the final prophet or Jesus is the only way to God is a way of closing debate, not opening it. Anyone who offers these axioms is a fair target for criticism, but they are unlikely to change their beliefs based on criticism. People rarely do.

If people believe such things, it is best to accept their beliefs. Our society is based on this. It's not fair to label people terrorists because they have dogmatic or inflexible views. They just have dogmatic and inflexible views. You'll never change them.

Villifying individuals based on their race or religious views is another matter - entirely outside criticism of religion. We do have the liberty, for example, to claim that one underage marriage is an "epidemic", and the Daily Telegraph certainly did this. We don't have the liberty to target a certain individual as a "paedophile" because he or she questions such claims. This fits within the civil laws of libel and slander. It's not "illegal", but it is contestable. Rulings can be made to retract and compensate for damages.

In many ways, the internet changes things. It is far more possible now than at any other time in history to propagate lies and systematically distribute them. Still, it was always possible to do this. Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake" line was a lie that spread through word of mouth alone. Such lies have led to revolutions. It's not possible to ban them or make their propagation illegal.

It's possible to question them, but in such times such questioning is never tolerated. During the English Civil War, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution and Civil War, thousands were killed for questioning lies. Throughout the time of the Soviet Union, questioning the state was almost impossible. It is fundamental to civil society that we have the liberty to question such things.

It is not fundamental that we should have the liberty to spread lies ourselves. It's not illegal to do so, but it's not a right, and nor should it be. Brian is right on the money on this point - the liberty to propogate lies is not a human right. 

The religion of Islam in Australia in no way threatens anyone's way of life. There is no basis for banning it. It is not deemed to be a dangerous cult, as for example, Scientology was in two Australian states prior to the 1980s. It does not have a revolutionary creed as, for example, the Communist Party of Australia had when Menzies unsuccessfully attempted to change the Constitution to ban it. In Australia, Islam threatens no one at all. If I'm mistaken, please show me where. We've had this argument here for years, and so far, no one has been able to show me what threat Islam places on my security.

There are no grounds for banning Islam or banning individual religious beliefs - just as there are no grounds for banning religious criticism. So far, I haven't read anyone here advocating the banning of criticism. I have, however, seen plenty of calls to ban Islam.

The problem is not only are such calls impossible, they're unconstitutional. Given they would require a referendum to make possible, they will never happen.

Religious criticism is important, but religious freedom is important too. In Australia, you'll never change this.

It's time to get over it.

freediver wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 1:15pm:


It's the Freeedom equivalent of Taqiyya, no?

You can Google it.

I know. I blame Islam.