BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 05:18 AM

Er, you did base your rather persistent attack on travellers on a very small number of convictions, Keith. As a man who purports to come from a scientific background you should realise that using a tiny handful of cases to depict an "over-representation" is statistically extremely unsafe. In fact, you'd have been laughed out of the lab for doing that at my university. You and bobad did the same thing with regard to the numbers of alleged antisemitic hate attacks on Jewish people in the UK, relatively tiny set alongside the overall numbers of Jews and the population of the country as a whole. That isn't to say that the crimes aren't despicable, but you misused the figures in order to get us to think that there's a terrible crisis around antisemitic hate crime, which there isn't. Well you're not the only one around here from a scientific background. You may think you can fool some of the people some of the time...

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 05:54 AM

"If I said that, QUOTE ME liar."
This is your response to Lox's challenge on your implant claim
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 10:28 AM
"Your position that British Pakistanis struggle daily to suppress a desire that they, and no other people have,"
I am sure other people do have it, especially if living a sexually repressed lifestyle."
Not only does it attack Pakistanis, it implicates other racial groups - like Rumanians
Don't call me a liar Keith and stop humiliating yourself - it's embarrassing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Stu
Date: 12 May 17 - 06:36 AM

Bloody hell. This discussion was getting interesting back there. Can we just let the usual old crap flow and get back to the subject?

You're not going to change the views of those involved, so let's move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 06:52 AM

Agreed
Let's move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 17 - 07:51 AM

Steve,
Er, you did base your rather persistent attack on travellers on a very small number of convictions, Keith.

It was not persistent nor an attack.
It was based on all the convictions any of us could find since the new laws came in in 2011.

Jim, you do tell lies about me and the quote neither attacks nor implicates anyone.

Move on?
Stop making false accusations and I won't need to refute them.
I keep asking you to stick to the subject and drop the personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 17 - 08:00 AM

Obsessives are unable to control themselves - it's a mental illness.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 08:13 AM

That's two more content-free snipes on two threads this morning, bobad. You're stalking.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 17 - 08:38 AM

And there's another one.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 17 - 08:50 AM

You'll notice that Shaw the hypocrite makes no comment about his pal Carroll's obsessive stalking of Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 May 17 - 09:12 AM

"Obsessives are unable to control themselves - it's a mental illness."

Bob - errrmmm... kettle... black..?????

hah.. the absurdity.. the irony... 🤡


Right then.. now can we please have our thread back before it get's hijacked even further...

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 May 17 - 09:26 AM

Someone said the point was being missed - if the point was about how awful religious ideas are, I think it's being made. My point about "harm" is being illustrated beautifully.

If the point was that the blasphemy charge failed for lack of outrage, that is pretty funny too.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 17 - 11:36 AM

if the point was about how awful religious ideas are, I think it's being made.

Ideas like love your neighbour and even your enemy?
Identify some awful religious ideas please.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 May 17 - 11:44 AM

oh come on Keith..

you know fully well.. you can easily identify a list for us...


Christians and Humanists could find plenty to agree on
that requires no kind of god as a basis for good respectful mutually beneficial social conduct..

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 17 - 11:57 AM

So they are not all awful.
What ideas would a humanist and a Christian disagree on?

Life after death for one, but is that an awful idea?
Many find it comforting and where is the harm?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 12:14 PM

Awful religious ideas? How about centuries of antisemitism by the Catholic Church, the collusion of the pre-war Pope with fascists, death for apostasy in Islam, ritual genital mutilation of boys and girls, the Spanish Inquisition, institutional cover-ups of sexual abuse, the denial of contraception and family planning advice to poverty-stricken women in the third world, Limbo, original sin, telling people that mythology is the truth, telling us all that we are sinful wretches who need to be "saved," institutional homophobia, the institutional denial of equality for women, sainting wicked people such as Mother Teresa...stop me somebody... 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 17 - 12:22 PM

In the past, very bad things were done by and to everyone.
If religion had not been invented, they still would.
None of those are regarded as "religious ideas."

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 12:35 PM

The notion of life after death does a huge amount of harm, actually. First, it's a lie. Second, religions use it as a blunt instrument of control over their flocks, imposing conditionality on it by inventing heaven and hell, reward or punishment contingent on the right kind of behaviour here on earth - behaviour as defined by the religion. It wouldn't be so bad if that "right kind of behaviour" was always part of some agreed universal moral code, but it isn't. You won't be getting to heaven anytime soon if you make so bold as to practise your homosexuality, for example. Finally, it's a massive conceit. You're already a winner by virtue of having made it on to planet Earth in the first place. The chance of you being you, what with the lottery of trillions of possible permutations of eggs and sperms, was vanishingly small, yet here you are. But that isn't good enough for you. You want exquisite eternal life on top! Well bugger off. You're having your go right now, right here. Give it your best shot, be nice to others and be satisfied with it. And enjoy life sans sword of Damocles!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 12:41 PM

If they are ideas that emanate from religious custom and practice, now or in the past, they are religious ideas. You don't get to cherrypick the unpleasant ones away. And many of the items in my list are current, not just in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 01:51 PM

It is not about "Bad Things" per se being talked about here Keith
It is the uses of religion to carry out "bad things" that is under discussion.
Religion, through its misuse by the church, is historically the main cause of mass bloodshed and terror recorded and that is an ongoing fact
The inquisitions started in the 12th century; the last execution was carried out in Spain in 1826
Some rack record of bloodshed and terror
It is the misuses of religion that is under discussion, not general "bad things"
No other organisation was in a position to create terror under the threat of "eternal damnation"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 03:18 PM

Of course, it's worth mentioning that there is a "massive over-representation" of Christian clergymen who have been found to have been raping and sexually and physically assaulting children in their care and using the status that their position in the church to allow them to do so.
This goes back many decades - probably centuries
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 May 17 - 04:17 PM

Steve calls Christian beliefs a lie , which us begging the question. But he wants us to believe he is tolerant of what Christians believe . Then of course we have the usual dredging up of clergy abuse , as though we condone them ! . And from this they equate biblical ( and otherwise traditional ) beliefs about morality as though we were actively and vindictively persecuting others for their lifestyles.. ....                                     Btw I may not be active here over the next week as we are away in Scotland and don't know about wi fi availability

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 04:44 PM

Beliefs are not lies. Assertions CAN be lies. Please don't misrepresent me. Just read whst I type.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 04:55 PM

Just read WHAT I type, even!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 May 17 - 05:12 PM

Read the thread, Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 May 17 - 05:18 PM

Steve calls Christian beliefs a lie , which us begging the question.

Well, pete, young earth creationism is certainly a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 05:55 PM

"Begging the question" either means employing a circular argument (the meaning I prefer) or "raising the question" (a disappointing degradation of the meaning of the term that we now have to live with). Come back, MGM, all is forgiven. It does seem that Pete understands neither meaning, poor chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 May 17 - 06:55 PM

ok.. I'm prepared to accept a historic bloke called jesus may have existed..
bit of a bolshy young smartarse lefty trouble maker...
good at conjuring and magic tricks to drum up a crowd at political rallies...

..and that he'd be absolutely dismayed at all the bollocks that's been written about him..
and all the problems caused to humanity over 2000 years in his name...

But god is more of a problem.. it'd take an astounding leap of faith
to accept that he's been a more benign influence on history than his
arch enemy "The Devil"...

Some classic comic book heroes and villains are probably more believable.. and nicer blokes...

Anyway.. headphones on for vintage rock and roll and a bottle of cuban rum..
I may be some time... 🎸

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 17 - 07:22 PM

The last burning organized by the Inquisition was in 1834, when the Spanish Inquisition was officially abolished. But though Torquemada's legacy has been laid to rest, the Inquisition lives on.

Based in Vatican City, the Holy Office of the Inquisition is still one of the most powerful branches of the Church hierarchy. In 1965, the P.R.-sensitive Pope Paul VI rebranded the Inquisition as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, but it was still basically the Inquisition.

The modern church lacked the political power to institute wide-ranging reigns of terror and torture around the world, so the Congregation has to settle for sternly admonishing its targets these days. What a comedown!

Instead of being the most feared institution in the entire civilized world, the Congregation had to settle for making obscure theological pronouncements — in Latin, no less. So just in case you actually wanted to care about what they had to say, you wouldn't be able to read it anyway. In 1966, Paul VI even revoked its ability to ban books, leaving the Inquisition toothless and largely irrelevant going into the 21st century.

Source: http://www.rotten.com/library/history/inquisition/

The new inquisition is being waged by FOX news and Pence claiming that a genocide against Christians is killing torturing raping and causing irreparable harm to Christians by ISIS and radical Islam.
What we need is a good war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 May 17 - 08:21 PM

i was enjoying raw raucous rock n roll - devil music..
when an angry voice in my head said STOP !!!

GO UPSTAIRS AND PEE OR FACE MY WRATH !!!!!

so I took off the headphones and followed that command...

Now an angelic voice is saying settle down peacefully and listen to Sandy Denny or Lindisfarne...

phew.. what if I'd been listening to punk rock..!!!???

..yesterday's thunder and lightning storm was maybe too close for mere coincidence...

This is a multiverse full of uncanny mysteries... 😇

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 May 17 - 08:38 PM

Thne Inquisition was a church court, used mostly to determine the orthodoxy and condemn heresy. It got out of hand now and then, especially during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in 15th-century Spain. It did not issue punishments directly - that was done through governments.

It was renamed the "Holy Office" in 1908, and became the "Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith" (CDF) in 1965. It still functions as a church court, but its primary function is to determine the official teaching of the church. The worst punishment it can issue nowadays is to cancel a theologian's license to teach as a Catholic theologian.

Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of CDF during the reign of Pope John Paul II.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 May 17 - 08:55 PM

DISCO !!! spoketh the Lord..

what.. I thought.. I only just settled down to listen to early &0s commercial pop folk music
according to your last command..
make your mind up...

My mum is only 85 and diagnosed with dementia..

how old is god...?????

ok then lord.. oops upside your head... YMCA... 🕺

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 May 17 - 08:57 PM

"early 70s".. damn that devil and his cheap plastic keyboad from hell

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 May 17 - 10:28 PM

DISCO.. 2 CDs of 12 inch remixes..

I despair at this emptyness in my heart.. if only i had a god to fill it...

or alka seltzer and a few slices of bread, 2 pints of water, and a good nights sleep...

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 May 17 - 10:33 PM

21st century.. there is a cure for religion...


... education...

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:23 AM

"Some rack record "
My Freudian slip - must remember it for the future
Should read "back record" of course
I'm not too happy to see this turn into an attack on religion' I don't think this is of any value at the present time
Recent events and revelations have created a situation where religion is now finding its own level in the minds of the present generation
Even in 'Holy Ireland', it's former dominance in the nation's politics is being challenged and gradually removed - the last-ditch seems to be in education, where the church still clings on desperately to their ownership of schools and minds.
Eventually, some bright spark has to take the case to the International Courts and demand that Ireland produce an education system that caters equally for non believers and those of all faiths.
I've said often enough that we spent nearly half a century working with devout believers and in that time we came to respect their beliefs without sharing them
Among those was Tom Lenihan, a fine singer from a few miles from here who we first met and befriended in 1975 and continued to record up to his death in 1990.
Antother friend, the late Tom Munnelly, summed up old Tom's religion perfectly in the his book/cassette collection of Tom's songs, 'Mouunt Callan Garland".

"Tom was a deeply religious Roman Catholic who practised his faith without ostentation or cant. In all the years of working with him I never heard him say an unkind word word abot anybody. In making such a declaration I am aware that such claims can often be mere well-meaning clichés, but I wish to emphasise that I record it here as an objective statement of fact. This lack of complication of Tom's faith was not an indication of simplicity of mind. The simplicity Tom acquired over the years was that of wisdom and the ability to discard the peripheral while retaining core values. This was illustrated for me one day when I called to keep a recording appointment I had made with him the week before. In the meantime I had discovered that a pilgrimage to the Marian shrine at Knock for the over-sixties had been arranged on the same day. Knowing of Tom's devoutness, I more than half expected him to be gone when I called up to Knockbrack. Sure enough, there was nobody about the house when I arrived. I was walking back to my car when I was hailed from a nearby field. Tom was in there thinning cabbages. I said: 'I heard about the pilgrimage and I thought you'd be gone with them.'
'Why would I travel a hundred miles? If I want God, isn't He here with me in the garden?'
I couldn't argue with that."
Me neither - would that all Christians shared Tom's gentle and compassionate faith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 13 May 17 - 03:36 AM

I'm not too happy to see this turn into an attack on religion

Nor am I. This is a bad law so the focus needs be be on getting rid of it. To succeed in that you probably need to be working on how it infringes free speech and conflicts with human rights. Basing your aehuments on how you dislike religion is pretty much guarenteed to fail and even, in some quarters, be taken as evidence why the law is needed.

Focus on getting eid of the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:36 AM

DMcG, that is the most sensible and pertinent post yet on this thread.
If I had one of those emoji or emoticon thingees (not sure what they're called) showing 'applause', I'd put a row of them here!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:56 AM

There is no discussion on that law.
None of us here support blasphemy laws.

I responded to
"how awful religious ideas are"   by asking for examples of awful religious ideas. I do not think any have been provided.

In earlier centuries religion was ubiquitous. That does not mean that everything bad was the fault of religion. The times were bad.
I do not think Steve made a case for the idea of afterlife being harmful or bad.

Clergy abuse is hardly a religious idea. It is not just clergy. It happens wherever adults get access to kids, religious or not.

Jim says, "It is the uses of religion to carry out "bad things" that is under discussion."

No-one denies religion can be misused. That is not an argument against it.
Education can be misused.
Medicine can be misused.
You will agree Jim that communism has always been misused but you still do not give up on it.

So, where are these "awful religious ideas?"

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:59 AM

Thank you kindly.

In many ways I wish the case had gone ahead. It could have been similar to the Lady Chatterly case in finishing the law off. I have no doubt Steven Fry would have played the entertainment aspect for all it was worth and has enough resources (including expert witnesses) to have demolished the whole thing. Even if he lost i suspect he would think exposing the law to such ridicule was worth it.

Instead, the law sits quietly and threateningly on the books and the first person charged will be a lot less well places than Fry to defend themselves

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:18 AM

"Clergy abuse is hardly a religious idea."
It is the use of religion with the c-operation of the church
"That is not an argument against it."
Doesn't mean to say there aren't other arguments against it - its illogicality, for one.
Education and medican can be used - we are discussing its misuse by the church in the name of religion
Read what I say Keith
I do not advocate that anybody should "give up on it"
I am suggesting that it has no place in politics and it should be arrived at volutarily
You talk about "brainwashing" but seem quite happy that our children are "brainwashed" with religion from the moment they begin to think and understand
The idea that if we don't do as the chusch says we will be condemned to spend eternity in torment seems pretty awful to me - spiritual blackmail
It was current in this part of the world until the sins of the clerics caught up with them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:26 AM

'None of us here support blasphemy laws.'

hmmmmm.........
i'm not sure i know enough about the nature of the law, or the nature of blasphemy.
'blasphemy'....it sounds like bad manners. i don't think we should encourage it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:40 AM

When education is misused, it ceases to be education. A very good example of education being misused is religious instruction in schools. A very good example of education not being misused is the objective exploration in schools of world religions, their origins, history, tenets and effects. No-one should be telling anyone else that there is a God. It's fine to tell people that you believe in a God but absolutely not fine to try to persuade or coerce anyone else to agree with you.

And Keith, you don't counter my carefully-constructed argument simply by saying that I haven't made a case and leaving it at that. Save your cyber-ink until you have something sensible to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:44 AM

I don't necessarily think that religions need to be treated with good manners. The privately-held beliefs of individuals are entirely another matter. All organised religions are very damaging and they deserve all the criticism they get.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 06:40 AM

"it sounds like bad manners."
No more or less"bad manners than insulting someone's politics and we'd all be up on our chairs screaming "repression" (I hope) if they were protected by law
If we can have or atheism ridiculed and castigated (the church has been one of the first in that one), then religion should expect similar treatment.
I have to say that I always found myself discussing my attitude to religion far easier to discuss with the Muslims I have met, than I have with Christians
They appear to give the subject more thought than do mat Christians I have met
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 May 17 - 07:01 AM

I am not in agreement with the tenets of Islam, for example. In fact, there are many things I find abhorrent. But my Muslim husband and I have most interesting discussions about our respective religions, without our becoming acrimonious or insulting.

As Jim says, (the less 'fundamentalist') Muslims are very ready to talk calmly and intelligently about their beliefs, and it's fascinating, as long as one can listen without becoming heated and condemnatory.

It's one thing to have interesting discussions, and quite another to have someone's religion shoved in one's face in an attempt to convert, or being dragged before a judge on a blasphemy charge merely for expressing an opinion!.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 May 17 - 07:06 AM

Awful religious ideas part 1. I was taught all these at school

1. Non Catholics cannot get to heaven
2. Unbaptised babies cannot get to heaven
3. Anyone dying in a state of mortal sin goes straight to hell
4. Mortal sins include blasphemy, adultery and 'impurity against nature' (eg homosexuality.)
5. Jews and Muslims will go to hell unless they convert

Part 2. This list is pretty comprehensive. Being brought up initially in the Russian Orthodox faith and then Roman Catholicism I spent my formative years in a state of permanent terror!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 07:35 AM

I am suggesting that it has no place in politics and it should be arrived at voluntarily

I am sure we all agree that Jim.

The idea that if we don't do as the chusch says we will be condemned to spend eternity in torment seems pretty awful to me - spiritual blackmail

And that.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 07:50 AM

Steve,
And Keith, you don't counter my carefully-constructed argument simply by saying that I haven't made a case and leaving it at that.
OK.
The notion of life after death does a huge amount of harm, actually. First, it's a lie.

That is just your assertion with no evidence in support. Hardly a "carefully-constructed argument" !

Second, religions use it as a blunt instrument of control

That is not my experience.

imposing conditionality on it by inventing heaven and hell, reward or punishment contingent on the right kind of behaviour here on earth - behaviour as defined by the religion.

OK, but "the right kind of behaviour" is just being nice. Humanists would endorse the same.

It wouldn't be so bad if that "right kind of behaviour" was always part of some agreed universal moral code, but it isn't. You won't be getting to heaven anytime soon if you make so bold as to practise your homosexuality, for example.

Bad example. Until very recently it was regarded as deviant and to be punished by everyone, religious or not. Atheist regimes like Stalin's and Hitler's were harsher than most.

Finally, it's a massive conceit.

Another assertion without evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 17 - 08:01 AM

What I find interesting about Dave the Gnome's post of 13 May 17 - 07:06 AM is that if someone were to post a similar list of the teachings of Islam he would be one of the first to scream "Islamophobe".

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 May 17 - 08:12 AM

That's complete and utter bollocks poobad. My quotes were about what I was taught and were in answer to a question about examples of awful ideas.

Can you find any examples of me screaming Islamophobe at anyone in response to any such similar list?

Thought not. Usual drivel.

DtG