Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

2517
Yes, that would be good. I have never understood when the government stood by and let extremists preach death and sedition. There has been a period of political correctness lasting years when we should have been arresting people who were preaching death. We have a reputation for being a very tolerant society, but that has led to being taken advantage of.

cynic
It won't last long.

Tolerance could become something of the past. Since the sickening murder of Drummer Rigby, it has been noticeable there is an increasing level of support for our armed forces coupled with a near almost xenophobic patriotism. Neither is necessarily a bad thing, but as ever, the pendulum has a habit of swinging to far. Unless politicians address the issues of unchecked immigration, foistered upon the UK by membership of the EU, there is eventually going to be a severe backlash. Even more so when some of those migrants wish to impose their culture, whether that be religion or language on our own society. The imbalances need to be addressed and addressed quickly.

PS I see the fuckwit formerly known as Fishfinger has been doing himself proud recently, Tanker seems normal by comparison.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22663819

Seems the UK dosn't need Europe after all

cynic
Do you think one of our problems is that we are too tolerant and too political correct? Being upset by a comment about your religion is a pretty mild thing. What does it matter if I call Jesus or Muhammed a dickh**d? If I call you similar then you are unlikely to issue a fatwa. (maybe a Jewish fatwa - I-could-lose-a-bit-of-weight-but-who-knows-I-really-coulnt-say WA).

I can't discuss this without getting a bit political. Under the Blair/Brown government the UK became obsessed with political correctness. I am not recommending out and out sustained abuse, but holding up people's belief to ridicule is par for the couse. It should, in fact, be expected if you choose to believe in things without evidence. The underlying principle is that it is really not that importan and anyone suggesting a violent response or even death should be arrested at once.

freedom of speech paradoxically comes with responsibilities and thus certain restrictions and even consequences ..... assuredly one of those restrictions is being conscious of the sensibilities of others, though if that is followed to the nth degree, then one would scarcely be allowed to say anything at all - probably not even to discuss the weather!

there have always been radicals of all colours and creeds who will choose to offend or to take offense at almost anything ..... however, there are also "normal" people who find certain descriptive words offensive where others do not .... for example, i have no problem if some describes me as a yid or a tight-arsed jew, though i would hope the utterance was more light-hearted than malicious ..... from my side, i would NOT tease a moslem about his god, as i know that can easily cause offense, though again i accept that the infamous cartoons of a danish paper 2/3 years back were "fair play"

People should confront these ultra sensibilities. If people were unafraid to offend Muslims and any other militant faith followers such as Hindus and Sikhs then perhaps the importance of it all would lessen. I often joke with religious people that I know. I use an Algerian butcher at least once a week. They make their own sausages. The butcher came out from the back the other day and announced to me that he was now selling Halal pork sausages. The butcher's shop was full of muslims, including a few in traditional clothes with one woman in a burka. Their reactions were priceless. He then proceeded to hold up an empty sausage skin. This was followed by much laughter (and probably relief).

"ultra sensibilities"? ..... that's a matter of opinion, but going out of one's way to offend, in the broadest sense, is just bad manners - and yes, i know i am often guilty of that myself

i suspect that as immigrant groups (allow themselves to) become more integrated with mainstream society, most will generally but slowly lose their thin-skinned sensitivities and understand that teasing and derogatory comment are not necessarily meant maliciously

the "hard-liners" on all sides will forever try to promulgate discord, for whatever reason they like to imagine

There was this drunk Jock a big mouthed daffy [ Fred ] ? and a thick Mick ...............

At least we have no blasphemy laws any longer. They only applied to Chrtistanity and were abolished in 2008. The more religions have fun poked at them and they were held up to ridicule, the more desensitised they will become. Once they realise that aggressive responses won't get them anywhere hopefully they will stop worrying about it. This has certainly been the history of Christian sensitivity to comments about Jesus etc.

With abolishment of our blasmephy laws you say anything you like about religion, so long as it is not personally specific. Hopefully, we are well on the long road to a secular society. We need now to stop maintaining faith based schools with government funds and remove their charitable status. If people want a faith based education then they can pay the full cost and that should apply to all religions.

Religions themselves should not have charitable status and should be treated as businesses. It has turned out that the Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII was no bad thing. We would do well to follow his lead. When you think of the wealth of the CoE and Catholic Church in the UK, we could solve our debt problem with a bit of confiscation once again. Then there are the other 'religions' such as Scientology which have extensive property.

wrong-headed argument; that's akin to thwacking a child because he hit another and saying, "Don't hit another kid!" .... you're tending towards being as intolerant as those about whom you complain

I can see where you are coming from, but the alternative is that we walk on egg shells. At the moment we are worried about upsetting religious people by criticising their beliefs. If we make comments about Islam for instance we risk violent reactions. We are far too careful. I am a firm believer that ALL subjects are fair game for humour however dark or unpleasant. There are few things less important than upsetting people. People who believe in silly things and want to propagate those beliefs deserve to have fun poked at them even if only to show up the absdurdity of it all. Just listen to Lenny Bruce.

why should religion be a "silly thing" just because it does not fit your own (non)beliefs? ..... freedom of speech also includes freedom to worship as one wishes and being ridiculed for so doing is a sign of gross intolerance on your part ..... on the other hand, generalised satire and criticism are certainly acceptable, so long as it is aimed with a genuine point and not just gratuitous abuse

Well, why should the state subsidise those who believe in extra terrrstial beings without proof and want to educate their children in the same beliefs? I am happy for them to be deluded if they so wish. But why do we treat their organisations as special and give them money to continue their indoctrination of the next generation?

It is also so middle ages!

now you're not only getting very silly indeed but getting far away from the original question about freedom of speech

Well, why should the state subsidise those who believe in extra terrrstial beings without proof and want to educate their children in the same beliefs?

No.

They should send their offspring to Eton, which I "believe" is subsidised by peculiar "tax" allowances.

But I prefer them not to be deluded anymore than they are now!
----------

That really is nothing to do with the argument. The allowance that Eaton gets is one of charitable status, which I agree should be stopped for all schools. I am concerned about grant maintained schools. I am not opposed to faith schools for people who are prepared to pay the full price of the cost of the school. I just don't want the rest of us who don't believe in extra terrestrials to contribute to them.

people who talk that much about nothing not surprisingly make not much enough money to let it go..:)
anyway terrorists - death penalty.I would apply Hammurabi's code.

Hays - the charity commission is very strict in ensuring that the rules are properly followed to allow the continuation of charitable status ...... i think, but am not 100% certain, that even "faith schools" have to allow admission to at least a reasonable % of "others"

fwiw, the school i attended was originally founded "for the sons of clergy", and though we all had to attend chapel (big deal!), anglicanism was certainly not forced upon us and there was assuredly a good selection of other races and creeds and no doubt many of the others came from agnostic/atheist families

there is also a very tenable argument that a child is better brought up with a certain set of "religious rules" (= moral values) than none at all ..... my own children were not brought up as jewish, though it is a matter of fact that they are .... with hindsight, i think they would have benefited from learning about their cultural heritage which de facto, would have included a certain amount religious instruction in its broadest sense

Catholic schools only have to let in other pupils if they have spare places. I tried at one point get one of my sons into the Jesuit college that I went to. They wanted baptism certs and a letter from my parish priest. I said that we did not go to church and I was refused. I asked about non Catholics attending and was told that there were no spare places for them.