Should religion ever stand in the way of free speech?
 

In the UK it's now illegal to condemn any religion. This is a rule that, whilst covering all faiths, seems put in place solely to address a certain rise within the West of what's been called Islamaphobia, that has emerged largely since 9/11.

The repercussions of this ruling on principles of free-speech are obvious. Should a religious doctrine ever be exempt from a people's right to criticise it or does such criticism inevitably lead to an increase in the likelihood of a new Holocaust?

I was concerned last year at the prohibitions on scholars, especially Jewish ones, espousing any pro-Isreali ideas. Touchy subject, of course, but discussion is important. I suspect the legislation you're talking about is more attempting to prohibit the sort of holocaust denial or anti-Western 'democracy' or anti-Islamic type things. We're all still free to discuss what we like, how we like - the legislation, to my mind, means more that people can't publically spread poisonous bullshit about religions, of the holocaust denial/ violent anti-Western democracy type. I haven't read the minutes of the House of Lords (for many years, if I'm honest) but I'm in favour of anything restricting the likes of the BNP/ NF/ 'Holy Jihad' (for want of a better term)/ Holocaust denial or whatever.

While I have no time for the views of any of these groups, I think it's important that they have an opportunity to speak. The day people are able to decide what others can and can't say only leads to problems in the future.

What if you condemn all religions?

you cannot place a belief 'above' another belief simply because it is religious.

by this logic it should be illegal to condemn ANY belief or idea.

you cannot place a belief 'above' another belief simply because it is religious.

by this logic it should be illegal to condemn ANY belief or idea.

wow could someone please delete a couple hundred of those duplicate posts?

Free speech should NEVER be limited. (with the obvious expection of yelling "fire" in a crowed cinema which will start a mass panic or similar situations, and personal insults). I believe that every opinion has to be heard and none should be banned. Even outrages, discusting opinions. They should notbe banned, but confronted. Banning them is intellectually lazy and doesn't help. Creating taboos won't solve anything, but open debate can change things.


Freedom of Speech should especially not be limited because of religion. The latest developements in Europe concerning free speech are alarming and a serious threat to the free character of this continent.

religious types should be thrown into the ocean with rocks around their necks...

^^ so would that earn me prison or what?

god, i hate religion!

no, really...

religion should stand in the way of everything. let jesus into your hearts and if you disagree you will die.

(i am joking)

your all heathen scumbags.

I too think they have a right to speak; there's a difference between intelligent, or even provocative debate and erroneous, misleading, hate-fuelled bullshit. I throw holocaust denial into the latter category; I consider a debate on stronger immigration laws/ 'what is nationalism', even one that runs counter to my (predictable) personal views as necessary.

The BNP have, on several occasions, shown themselves capable of constructing intelligent and considered debate - even though I largely vehemently disagree with their premises/ conclusions. Conflated with this, lamentably, is the capacity of a great many of their ranks, all the way up to the top of the organisation, to utterly undermine their points by revealing themselves to be spiteful, sub-rational cunts. For every well constructed economical theory (and, to be fair, I consider their economic policy to be one of the better constructed ones of the incidental national parties) there's a stereotypical skinhead cunt spouting fear-induced bullshit about a ill-perceived 'other' based on half-baked notions of their 'separation' from the other due to some plain wrong holy cow notioin of ethnicity.

I had a conversation with a paid-up member of the BNP last year. I wasn't persuaded by his arguments, but they weren't ill-considered until I asked him whether I, as a first-generation descendent of Irish people, should be 'sent home' as he saw it. At which point he started trying to say something about the Caucasus and North-Europeans, by which token I ostensibly 'belong' to Italy, Spain, Germany, Norway (etc) but not to the Balkans, Greece, Russia (etc). Utter, utter bullshit, and that's always the problem - the argument is only rational up to the point where the protagonist (me) demands a line to be drawn - none of those lines are satisfactory to a sense of ration, and the argument reveals itself as fearful nonsense.

Basically, my point is that people should be allowed to have whatever opinions they like, no matter how absurd or idiotic; at the point where it cannot be defended within a reasonable debate, or backed up with actual facts (as in the case of holocaust denial) it becomes hateful nonsense, and should quite rightly be prohibited with the utmost severity.

Dude... I'm like, so, like, totally meh at that statement. Y'provocative cunt.

I'd have to question the credibility of any society that DOESN'T freely criticise religious dogma. This is the 21st century, for fucks sake.

ha, im truly rendered speechless at the stupidity of some laws so i find myself unable to discuss them seriously. in a way i am happy to have been brought up in a strict catholic atmosphere because it gave me something to rebel against. whereas england after wallowing in comfort seems to be bending over & surrendering to buggering by the ayatollahs. didn't we read the other day that the holocaust had been banned from history lessons? but seriously... are they trying to neuter thought in the name of social harmony?

those kind of laws are very anti-secular and anti-atheist as well, while not a concern such as muslims condemning jews, and christians and jews condemning muslims, curtails many ideas that are against church doctrine, and would fall in line with established laws

but that kinda of rule is very pro-monarchy as well since the sovereign is the supreme governor of the church of england, and in theory any anti-monarchist talk could be construed as violation of law of condemnation of religion let alone the official religion of the state

alot of this is theory, and it would take substantial bending of focus of the law to it's own means, but then again when have people in positions of power ever abused it, ever, in the history of the world?

I'm now more set than ever before on saying farewell to the UK. I can no longer defend a nation that seems hell bent on pandering to reactionary extremists. Its government couldn't even find the courage to properly defend the Danes when they were criticised over the publication of certain cartoons.

Britain, as far as I'm now concerned, can go fuck itself.

Right. Being an idiot comes with its own repercussions beyond judicial scrutiny. Then again, George W. has been elected twice.

A couple of schools chose not to teach the Holocaust, teaching it hasn't been banned.