The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
How do I offend an atheist?
Aldo
Hippo HoorayRegistered User regular
Hippo HoorayRegistered User regular
Background:
In the Netherlands you are not allowed to offend a Christian. Lately questions have arose why we have this law while we are so proud of our Freedom of Speech. The opposition asked minister Hirsch-Ballin why we had this law and why it was only for Christians. They argued that we should get rid of this law, because it was absurd that one group of people got favoured over others. The minister agreed but came to a different conclusion: outlaw offending anyone of any religion. While he was at it, he also said that atheists/agnostics should get the same sort of protection. What should be noted is that there are already similar laws in place as there are in the USA: hate-speech, any form of discrimination and offending others is not allowed.
Question:
How is it even possible to offend an atheist in the same way one can offend a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc?
Why do we even need laws to protect these groups, while we already have perfect laws against discrimination, hate-speech and other comments of offensive nature.
(I'm sorry, I do not have access to English sources, only a Dutch one)
In the Netherlands you are not allowed to offend a Christian. Lately questions have arose why we have this law while we are so proud of our Freedom of Speech. The opposition asked minister Hirsch-Ballin why we had this law and why it was only for Christians. They argued that we should get rid of this law, because it was absurd that one group of people got favoured over others. The minister agreed but came to a different conclusion: outlaw offending anyone of any religion. While he was at it, he also said that atheists/agnostics should get the same sort of protection. What should be noted is that there are already similar laws in place as there are in the USA: hate-speech, any form of discrimination and offending others is not allowed.
Question:
How is it even possible to offend an atheist in the same way one can offend a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc?
Why do we even need laws to protect these groups, while we already have perfect laws against discrimination, hate-speech and other comments of offensive nature.
(I'm sorry, I do not have access to English sources, only a Dutch one)
Aldo on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
duly noted.
I've seen Atheists get just as defensive as Religious people... I don’t think they have a monopoly on it.
Generally it usually happens when someone tries to tell them that they will burn in hell for not believing.
It's comparable to someone threatening me that Santa Claus won't give me gifts this year: I don't believe Santa is real, so the threat is meaningless to me.
Y-you don't believe in Santa?
Well thats fine, but by that logic any religious person should just be able to say "well I dont subscribe to your point of view" as well. Turn the other cheek, as it were.
People dont work that way. I'd feel pretty annoyed if someone judged me like that simply because I didnt believe the same thing. It becomes a moral judgement rather than purely about whether heaven/hell exist.
On a separate note, this is how I feel about American laws regarding public drunkenness. We already have laws protecting citizens from assault, or laws regarding disturbing the peace or being a public menace. What the hell is the point of just being drunk in public. What the fuck is the harm?
The huge number of people who claim to be christian but only ever show up twice a year for christmas and easter are basically symptomatic of how difficult it is to be openly atheist in many social circles. People do what it takes to be accepted into that social group, because the benefits are often perceived as outweighing the benefits of being open about one's beliefs.
I used to be atheist and got peeved at stuff like this:
That's Bush Sr. BTW.
Oh yeah, and telling women who have abortions that they are murderers and God hates them or any harassment of an individual by a person spouting religious dogma as support, that offends me.
So um, pretty easy to offend people who are atheist or agnostic, in fact I don't think what stands on existence you take would greatly influence a person's core ability to be offended unless that faith teaches emotional control and extreme tolerance.
No.
Nononononononononono.
Where is this US legislation that outlaws offending others. It doesn't fucking exist. We have some new and fairly retarded 'hate speech' legislation in the UK, and similarly, doesn't outlaw offence. Do you know why? Because you cannot outlaw offending someone, because offense is a) defined by the offendee, not the offender, and b) so subjective that it isn't rationally possible. I can call myself an atheist and literally take offence at anything someone else with a religious bent does - in fact, I can take offence at the mere fact they are religious. It is utterly ridiculous and unsupportable to start arresting or censoring people based on my whim.
Nobody ever has a right not to be offended.
PS Given events in the past 8 years or so, I think the Dutch should perhaps be less 'proud' of their free speech, open their eyes a bit and turn more attention to giving it CPR. Like we similarly should be doing in the US and the UK.
The Hague - The PvdA ((left centre party that is part of the coalition of three parties that makes up the government)) wants to get rid of the prohibition of blasphemy but encounters in minister Hirsch Ballin a smart pleader.
Minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin is going to research whether the prohibition of blasphemy can be extended to include other philosophies/views of life other than the christian one, including nonbelievers. In april he will come with a letter about this.
This manoeuvre of Hirsch Ballin is seen as an attempt to try to prevent the abolishment of the prohibition. During a discussion in parliament thursday the PvdA declared to be in favour of an abolishment. This created a large majority in favour to remove the prohibition out of the law books.
The PvdA, being very well aware of how sensitive this subject is to their coalition partners ((who are both christian parties)) has formulated carefully so that it's unknown when the prohibition has to be abolished. The cabinet should chose the 'next suitable moment', according to PvdA-member of parliament Heerts.
During the debate SP, VVD, Groenlinks and D66 ((other parties)) attacked the PvdA on this. 'That is when hell freezes over', says Halsema of Groenlinks. ((some other comment here but I don't know how to translate it.))
Hirsch Ballin suprised the parties by approaching some ideas from the debate postively. SP-member of parliament De Wit remarked that the prohibition was only aimed at the christian god. In the same debate Groenlinks said that an extra line could be added to another law to explicitely outlaw 'beliefcompulsion/beliefpressure', which includes intimidation in case of someone leaving a religion.
From this Hirsch ballin distilled that he could concede to both of these requests by expanding on the article on prohibition of blasphemy by including the expansions asked for by Halsema and introducing other gods than the christian ones.
Crucial is whether de PvdA waits for teh letter of Hirsch Ballin, or is going to push ahead with the idea of abolishing the article on blasphemy.
Ok in all seriousness the easiest way to offend an atheist is to act like an intolerant judgmental idiot. Frankly they dont want to hear about how they are going to your imaginary hell any more than any other religion. The difference is as opposed to defending themselves with their faith in allah, buddah, FSM, whatever the atheists just tell you to stop being a hypocritical intolerant judgmental idiot.
Thats usually when the fighting starts.
Actually...
as ashamed as I am to admit it, the United States does, in fact, guarantee its citizens some semblance of a right not to be offended, in the form of anti-obscenity laws, which have been repeatedly (albeit unfortunately) ruled Constitutional. The whole complicated history of jurisprudence surrounding obscenity is really judges trying to find an acceptable balance between the perceived "right" of the public to prevent public display of "obscene" material and the guaranteed right in the first amendment to free speech. Unfortunately, only a few Supreme Court Justices (notably Justices Black and Douglas) had the vision to see that any definition of "obscene" would hinder real political speech, which is explicitly protected by the first amendment.
Really? Thought those had been repealed, or at least found so consistently against that they were de facto ineffectual.
Oh well, knew it was only a matter of time before you colonials messed it up. We'll have our New World back now thankyouverymuch :P
Nope. Obscene speech isn't protected, though, of course, political speech is. Part of the criteria for obscene speech is that it has no literary or artistic merit, is not political, and explicitly appeals to prurient interest.
So no, you can't wear a shirt with a picture of hardcore anal sex on it in public.
Ah, but there is a world of difference between offensive speech not being protected, and someone having a protected right not to be offended.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact! We need to teach opposing theories, such as creationism in schools too!
(At least it manages to offend me every single time)
Cat's example holds more value: certain towns in the Netherlands can best be described as orthodox Christian communities and only people of that specific religion live there. If I would want to live there as an atheist (or member of any other religion, for all that matters) I would get a lot of shit, ranging from "you should join our church, we're awesome" and "repent thee heathen!" to outright violence. However, aren't these rights already protected by the anti-discrimination laws? Do we need another set of laws to protect the same thing?
Thanks for the translation of the article, Dakeyras.
*edit: to answer my own question: nah, we don't.
To be honest it offends the scientist in me more than the atheist.
Keep religious nonsense and science separate!
What about "Science is just a belief, anyhow!"
Again, argh. Fools. If they just pulled the finger out and got qualified, followed scientific rules, actually did some work, they'd be more than welcome to disprove evolution or gravity or whatever. That's the fun of science, anyone can completely destroy lifetimes of work with some cunning thinking and luck. That's what makes it exciting. If it was all cast in stone and unmoving, copied out of some arbitary ancient book, then yes, it would be a belief, but it isn't.
Besides you can't exactly not believe in science. You would just have to live in a cave or something and eat raw roots or something.
Especially people who think I just don't go to church because the pastors aren't cool enough, but I should totally go to their church because theirs is totally awesome
Oh Jesus Christ... I never realized that until just now. Dear lord, that's so fucking true. They always say that!
"No, it'll be fine, come on. My pastor is totally the coolest person I know. You'll love it!"
I've just discovered a horrible truth!
I actually find it offensive both on my part and the insulter's, however, since I believe everyone deserves the credit of being able to do things on their own.
I would say that if I were kicked out of a friend's household just for being agnostic then I'd be pretty pissed as an agnostic, regardless of their reasoning.
So yeah, it's definitely possible to offend an atheist, just like any other person who has an opinion about the nature or existance of the Divine. I personally like being offended by beliefs(2); it makes me think about my own worldview and why I believe that way.
Disclaimer 1) : I
Disclaimer 2) I don't like being offended by potty jokes; those are just gross.
I might contend that no one can like being offended, just like no one can be raped willingly. If you enjoyed the comment, it's not offense.
But I'll try.
You're close-minded, backward and stupidly superstitious for believing in any sort of all mighty being, and so, I would assert, is any one of your family members who thinks God is real or acts in "mysterious" ways. If scientific advancement is a progressive process pushing religion out the door, as it should, your grandmother is probably really dumb.
Yo mama is fat.
Simply assert that by not following your religion, I am amoral or immoral or evil or anything along those lines.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
"But sir, everyone, all at once?"
"Yes!"
"But, we have so many cars and trucks on the road, people may be confused!"
"I have thought of this. That's why, starting next week, we will have commercial traffic switch over first."
Why would an atheist go to a church?
By "hippie" I mean free love and in-breeding, so your women have probably slept with everyone, including each other. I hope you like STDs.
Now I dare you to learn from my insults.
Also, Aldo, it's worth noting that the U.S. doesn't have anti-hate speech laws. The only real limits on freedom of speech is speech which does actual, tangible harm to people, and not even all of that is verboten.
Being an atheist myself, I went to church for quite a while about a year ago. I never claimed to be Christian nor removed the label of atheist. So why did I go to church? Well, simple. I have an open mind. I don't think that anyone is right when it comes to religion. I don't believe there is a God nor a higher power, but I don't have such a close mind that I'm not willing to consider other possibilities that will disprove my thinking.
Have I been offended as an atheist? Yes. By whom, you may ask. Christians. Though I do not believe in heaven or hell, I do know that heaven is where good people go and bad people go to hell. Simple enough, though a bit more complex in the eyes of a Christian, but that's about how it's summed up. So knowing this, for a Christian to call me a God-less heathen fuck and express their deep despise of "my kind" and threaten me with eternal damnation in hell, I kind of take offense to that. Mainly because of the hypocrosy that the statement is laced with.
And yes, the above statement was said to me, though not the exact words, the general concept is there.