I heard the stage-curtains went up in flames during one show (possibly at a theatre in Norwich).

A member of the audience said ‘tears (of laughter) were still rolling down my face as I was carried out by a fireman”.

Or, on reflection, I think you would.

Or, on further reflection, I don’t think you would but you’d say so here for the sake of it.

i.e his experience was of a religion that was cruel, intolerant and narrow minded.

I would say that he found those who preached from the pulpit more common than the religion itself.

We see, and the great argument is – utilising the word “religion”. I do oft scratch my head at that – the religion I know and poorly practice is one of love, enlightenment and tolerance. Yet I have hear vile speakers who will take one except from the Bible and go on a spree of hatred.

The history of human kind (Religion-wise) is paved in bloodshed – I would never argue that point. Yet all that bloodshed was and still is propagated by those who wish to use religion, of many faiths, to control the rest of us. As a Liberal and a Christian I cannot agree with that no matter which faith is doing the book thumping.

No I wouldn’t.

“You’d expect the government to license theatres so that they were safe (e.g. adequate fire precautions) and you’d expect that license to include a requirement for third-party liability insurance which your hypothetical theatre owner wouldn’t get in those circumstances. ”

Nope, if you enter a theatre you’re doing so voluntarily and therefore have to accept its conditions. If it became known that certain theatres were dodgy people wouldn’t go to then.

“You would expect the government to do this for theatres, sports arenas etc because it simply isn’t practicable for each individual who wishes to use them to undertake their own risk assessment.”

Agreed, they can use the theatre equivalent of Which instead.

You can be tolerant and respectful of a religion or belief whilst still criticising it.

Yes, or you can treat it with the hatred and ridicule it might deserve. Samuel Butler’s Way of All Flesh is full of hatred for Christianity as practised by nineteenth century Christians, i.e his experience was of a religion that was cruel, intolerant and narrow minded. His Erewhon ridicules religious hypocrisy. Do you think such disrespectulness should be banned by some law or other? Shouldn’t the cruel, intolerant and narrow minded be treated without any respect at all?

It’s the blanket portrayal of Islamic culture in non-Western countries as incapable of evolving, purely top-down & adding no value to people’s lives. And of all believers being intellectually inferior to enlightened liberals.

Some expressions of political Islam are clearly attempts to use religion for political gain. But effective challenges to those orders are as likely to come from Muslims who can reconcile their faith with opposition to cruel establishments as they are from exporting liberal values with no understanding of local culture.

You wrote” Journeyman,frankly its comments like that ,that make me see it as a form of cultural imperialism too ”
I am afraid I am a littile confused as to your reaction:Perhaps I misunderstand. Or perhaps you misunderstand me.
Is it not reasonable to assume that,as with all many religions, in particular the Jeudao-Christian and Islam are comprised of two essential parts.Those that having administrative control of the religion and from my perspective at the same time being much to aware and cynical as to believe in their own doctrine,and the gullible masses that are manipulated into taking it literally,thereby maintaining the position of the upper echelon.
Are you religious perhaps and as my observation offended your sensibilities`.?
Just so I know.
We are talking here about the O.I.C,s “criminalization of the defamation of Islam” proposal are we not ?.
And If so would it not be reasonable for me to assume that our Westen freedoms are percieved as a factor that could undermine its existence, much as 16th century Christianity was not particularly fond of scrutiy itself,for the same reasons.

I do agree – I would rather unity in a nation than a theocracy. I am 100% behind a secular nation, and I may add that I believe all nations should be the same in that respect.

Re: Romans – good one!

#26 “What I do find is that all of us have a strength from our faith – once you need declarations such as this all it means is that it is your loss of faith in the very thing you believe in.”

agree with that too. BUT let’s not forget Romans 14.

My view is that a strong secular state ought to give preference to no religion (or none) over another (or none), but create a space/spaces in which believers are able to live out their faith in the the context of their religion (where a religion is seen as a practice), which requires the state to create an atmosphere in which the religion has the potential to flourish. Beyond providing those religions with enough protection to stand or fall on their own merits, the role of the state is to ensure people are free to join and leave different religions as they see fit.

I am, and will always call myself a Christian, and I do agree with what you say:

Since my ethics, honour code and philosophy are in large part informed and constructed around my spiritual choices, that means the poster has no respect for me, either.

Fortunately, I’m in a position of not having to care very much. Not everyone is so lucky.

If someone wishes to disrespect my faith, then so be it, let’s talk about cricket!

I have mentioned before I am lucky enough to have friends of many faiths and we can discuss that faith openly and, which is the whole crux of this, with maturity not to be offended at what others say. Some of the jokes are, to say the least, close to the skin – yet it is laughed off or groaned at. What I do find is that all of us have a strength from our faith – once you need declarations such as this all it means is that it is your loss of faith in the very thing you believe in.

One reason we need analysis and knowledge of the historical evolution that freedom of speech has taken, is because it is not was never in its evolution,quiet the uncomplex and obvious matter,that many suppose it to be.
The mistake is percieving this freedom to be just one more western , decadent ,hedonistic,extravagance that craves license,out of shear orgastic,sadistic pleasure,to whip up scorn for religion for its own sake. ( Religion having traditionally invited contempt and skeptiscism in the modern West and Atheism in Europe,the status-quo )
The “Holocaust”and other genocidal atrocities have made ther own contribution to this association.
In Canada,Jewish lobby groups spent many years and effort succeding in having legislation introduced to protest their religion from anti-semitic progaganda only to discover that this same restriction has come to back-fire on them,as the same legislation has some strange ability to protect ” radical Islamists”from critisism., if the source of that critisism is white anglo-saxon Canadians–or Jews,it is classified as “hate-speech”.
You wrote “where no one is happy”.
It has been said that if freedom of speech does,nt make hell of a lot of people “unhappy”it is not doing its job.
This freedom is useless if it is not to provoke,ridicule and stimulate self-analysis,because society should be constantly improving itself by becoming ever more educated and aware.
Another misperception is that this freedom is only one pillar of Internatrional Human Rights,out of many,but I percieve it to be the fundamental.central pillar upon which Western civilizations civic freedoms depend upon.

“It is individuals who have rights and not religions,” said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada’s criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life.

There is something fundamentally wrong where the domination of a said body is used to benefit its own ends – that means in a short while that said body will become meaningless and therefore die.

This division between criticising people and criticising a faith is false. You cannot criticise a faith without also criticising those who follow it (which is fine, but it means you should do so respectfully).

But people don’t criticise religiou respectfully, including the author of this article, in choosing the quotations from Johann that he did. The author explicitly states that they cannot respect Christianity or Islam: also Buddhism, which I felt was a little harsh. By calling three of the Big Six childish delusion and making it clear that the disrespect is aimed at anyone who has a spiritual paradigm at all, they’re denigrating my religious practice by implication [1]. Since my ethics, honour code and philosophy are in large part informed and constructed around my spiritual choices, that means the poster has no respect for me, either.

Fortunately, I’m in a position of not having to care very much. Not everyone is so lucky.

[1] I’m not a subscriber to any of the Big Six. I am a spiritually active celebrant of a Census-recognised religion.

Personally , I would remove the blasphemy laws, greatly reduce the scope of the libel laws and guarantee freedom of speech. People have become far too thin skinned , too easily offended and precious.

When I said hate, I meant words that would incite hatred for a certain person or group of people (to the point where violence would be used against them)

@ Journeyman

You can just come out with it. I’m Muslim and I don’t care.

I totally agree with your comment, I just feel we need to have a clear line to show what is allowed and what isn’t. At the moment, we have a grey area, riddled with inconsistencies, where no-one is happy.

There is averygood article in the April edition of Prospect Magazine by Kureishi on the Rusdie affair. Quote

” The attacks on Rushdie showed that words can be dangerous. They also showed why critical thought is more important than ever, why blasphemy and immorality need protection. Bust most people, most writers want to keep their head down, live a quiet life. They don’t a bomb in the letter box. . They have succcumbed to fear. “