Should it be against the law, in the United States, to blaspheme or "insult a Deity"?

[Warren DeMontague]

Simple question.

86 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes. Blasphemy or Deity-insulting is not or should not be protected speech, under the 1st Amendment.
	0 (0%)
	No. Blasphemy or Deity-insulting is constitutionally protected speech.
	86 (100%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. WTF is this? It is protected speech!

[Warren DeMontague]

4. yeah, that is my take, too.

Ive seen people argue the other position, though, which is why I asked.

[NightWatcher]

2. If your all-powerful supreme being gets his feewings hurt by what I say

Maybe he ain't all that tough to begin with.

[NanceGreggs]

16. It has nothing to do with ...

... any "supreme being getting their feelings hurt". It has to do with offending those who adhere to religious beliefs by insulting those beliefs, and their religion as a whole.

This notion that anyone believes their deity is personally offended is beyond ludicrous.

[PeaceNikki]

17. Oh hey, I'm still waiting for the official list of "Religions Deemed "not real" by Nance".

Or is it literally limited to Scientology?

[NanceGreggs]

22. If you believe that Scientology is a religion ...

... go right ahead and believe that. Who's stopping you?

I expressed my belief - i.e. Scientology is not a religion. Are you trying to convince me otherwise?

Why should you care what I think of Scientology, or anything else? And if you don't care, why do you persist on bringing up the topic? What possible purpose would there be in doing so, other than - well, I think you can figure out what the rest of that sentence would be.

[beam me up scottie]

23. Maybe because PeaceNikki is tired of the hypocrisy?

I know I am.

You scold others for being insulting to religious people while insulting another group of religious people.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth all the time must be exhausting.

[NanceGreggs]

26. I don't consider Scientologists ...

... to be "religious people". Ergo, it would be impossible for me to insult them on the basis of their "religion" or their "religious beliefs".

And let's not even go near the "hypocrisy" thingy. There's nothing more hypocritical than self-proclaimed progressives discussing the "need" to mock the religious beliefs of others.

You'll note that I did not mock Scientology, or its adherents. I simply expressed my opinion that it is not a religion. I feel no "need" to make fun of those who think it is.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Yes, we know all about your belief that scientologists aren't "real" religious folks.

There's nothing more hypocritical than self-proclaimed progressives discussing the "need" to mock question the religious beliefs of others.

There, fixed that for ya.

[NanceGreggs]

42. Check out ...

... http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026639038

In Defense of the NEED to post blasphemous caricatures

There are many responses citing the "need" to mock others' religions, and the alleged purpose to be served in doing so.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Yes, but we're discussing your need to question only one group of religious folks.

I'm an equal opportunity mocker.

[NanceGreggs]

49. I didn't "question" Scientology.

I expressed my opinion that it is not a religion.

No questions were asked, no "mockery" ensued.

So you're an "equal opportunity mocker" - good for you! I'm sure that makes you feel good inside - for what reason it does, I can't begin to fathom.

[beam me up scottie]

51. You claimed their religion isn't real when they obviously think it is - that's offensive.

Do you wag your finger at DUers who mock other beliefs?

Or is religion special?

[NanceGreggs]

61. Do you stalk everyone on DU?

Or just me?



Just wonderin' ...

[beam me up scottie]

62. LMAO! You're stalking me, Nance!

I was here first.



If you don't like my questions, ignore me, but don't think you can scare me off by hurling silly paranoid accusations around.

Stalking...




Or you could answer the question, why should religious beliefs get special consideration on DU?

[NanceGreggs]

70. If you think respecting others ...

... is a matter of giving them "special consideration", you've answered your own question.

G'night!

[beam me up scottie]

71. Do you respect Darth Cheney, Nance? How about lil boots Bush?

Do you go around accusing people who mock them on DU of being intolerant?

Just wonderin.

[NanceGreggs]

76. Conflating religious beliefs ...

... and political beliefs is just too damned stupid to respond to. Really.

[beam me up scottie]

78. No, it's not stupid at all. We should be able to criticize and mock any harmful ideology.

Religion is not some sacred truth that needs to be defended from its critics.

[NanceGreggs]

98. You are free to do as you please.

And if criticizing and mocking the religious beliefs of others is what gets you off, so be it.

Most people have better things to do with their lives - but some people apparently don't.

Nighty-night - and don't let the Catholics, the Muslims, the Jews, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, the Buddhists, and all of those other people bite!*

(*Actually, there is little chance of them biting. They actually DO have better things to do with their lives than spout BS on a message board.)

[beam me up scottie]

100. I don't need your permission, although giving it seems to be "what gets you off".

What gets me off is telling religious apologists to stuff their self-righteous holier-than-thou proclamations demanding that others respect hateful beliefs.

When religion stops harming people I'll shut up, until then you'll just have to keep clutching those pearls and deal with it.

[PeaceNikki]

102. Sang it , sister!

[beam me up scottie]

122. Way down upon the swaaaaaaaaneeeeeeee riverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

[NanceGreggs]

104. As I said ...

... whatever gets YOU off is what you should pursue. And it's become increasingly apparent what it is that gets you off.

So go to it. You don't need my permission, nor was I extending said permission.

Do what you need to do, dude ...

[beam me up scottie]

111. Why do you care so much how and why I get off?

Seems more than a little perverted.

Maybe you should talk to someone about that.

[NanceGreggs]

115. I don't care what gets you off.

Maybe you should talk to someone about why you think I do.

[beam me up scottie]

117. Then why do you keep bringing it up?

It's really quite disturbing.

And you keep referring to me as a man, why is that?

[NCTraveler]

251. We should all mock/question the beliefs of Scientology.

It is not a real religion in any way. When the leadership doesn't think it is a religion, should we? Doing any thing less than maligning scientology is to support abusive labor practices, theft and fraud.

[beam me up scottie]

257. Why would you want to mock only one kind of religious belief?

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Nance herself said "everyone who has a religious faith should be free from being "mocked" by those who don't share that faith."

Obviously at least some scientologists believe it's a religion, so why are they less worthy of Nance's "respect" than others?

That sounds bigoted to me.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. What's your definition of "religion"? Is it possible it's subjective and impervious to your scorn?

[NanceGreggs]

33. The better question would be ...

... what is a Scientologist's definition of religion?

If there are any Scientologists here, I would really like to know their thoughts on the topic.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. Which leaves the question I asked you open and unanswered.

[NanceGreggs]

146. Deal with it. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

157. God DAMN that hurts... it's gonna leave a mmmmmmark.

Um, not.

Tell ya what though, it's a chickenshit way of getting around a question. Congrats.

[tkmorris]

142. Boy did you avoid that question

YOU are claiming that Scientology is "not a religion" I think it is an entirely reasonable question to ask what criterion are required of a religion that you think Scientology does not fulfill. I know you don't want to answer that, and I think it's bloody obvious WHY you don't want to answer it, but it's a perfectly valid question.

So I'll ask as well. What is your definition of a religion?

[NanceGreggs]

144. Exactly what led you to think ...

... that I owe you, or anyone else, an explanation of what I think, and why?

[cherokeeprogressive]

158. Simple: Claiming that something ISN'T what someone else claims it IS.

Or does that go straight over your head?

[AlbertCat]

186. I don't consider Scientologists to be "religious people".

"Ergo, it would be impossible for me to insult them on the basis of their "religion" or their "religious beliefs".


She said....insulting every Scientologist in the same breath. I'll bet you could insult anyone!


I find it interesting that you consider YOUR ideas about Scientology to be the default everyone should go to.... even Scientologists!

What arrogance.

"I don't consider Italians to be patriotic people. Ergo, It would be impossible to insult them based on their "patriotism" or their "patriotic ideas".

[NanceGreggs]

190. Well, talk about false equivalencies ...

I'll say it again. I do not believe that Scientology is a religion.

If you (or any Scientologists here) would like to explain what the tenets of their "religious faith" are, I'd be interested in hearing about them.

[NCTraveler]

252. Looks like you pissed a Sino off. nt.

[beam me up scottie]

258. You're saying I'm a scientologist?

Nance said she is "free to say all kinds of offensive, hurtful, humiliating things to others."


And she chose only one kind of believers to disrespect while insisting it's wrong to mock others.


Looks like I pissed off a fan of a hypocrite.

[PeaceNikki]

266. I was made to believe that you were an Operating Thetan IV. Why the fuck were you auditing me?

[beam me up scottie]

267. The Evil Atheist Vermin Conspiracy's home office sent me out to investigate you.

They use OT IV to throw applicants off.

Occasionally when I spend too much time GD I get a little too fond of the grape, so maybe they meant wino?

[PeaceNikki]

268. Shit, they must be the ones who called my mom!!!

Actually, my mom did post in A&A today. But only cuz I told her it was awesome.

[beam me up scottie]

269. That's great!

I haven't been to the office yet, I'll stop by after I k&r TheMastersNemesis' thread :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026655485

[PeaceNikki]

24. I believe they are all equally bullshit peddled by hucksters.

You were the one who shook fingers at others for mocking and criticizing religion, yet feel perfectly justified in proclaiming one and just one "not real". Which is weird and naturally leads to questions as to how a person performs such mental gymnastics.

[NanceGreggs]

32. I never said Scientology is "not real".

It is very real. The mere fact that it exists does not make it a religion.

If you feel a need to mock the religious beliefs of others, that's your problem. I don't know what purpose you think it serves, or what goal you think it accomplishes - other than being obnoxious and offensive.

[11 Bravo]

48. Damn, Nance. I believe you've done been swarmed!

I miss your regular posts from back in the day, but I'll be fucked if I don't now understand your leave of absence.

[NanceGreggs]

52. Hey, old friend!

Yeah, I just had a PM exchange with another old-timer. We discussed how if this was DU "back in the day", posts actually encouraging the mocking of other people's religious beliefs would have raised the ire of everyone here - the deeply religious, the MOR faithful, and the atheists alike.

It was a great time to be part of this on-line community. Now we're down to self-proclaimed "progressives" who want everyone they don't agree with off of their lawn.

I'm only back because it's fish-in-a-barrel season - and the fish are more than plentiful.

[MADem]

103. +1,000! nt

[Chathamization]

114. Well, at least people aren't launching personal attacks at Nance

Eh, let's see...

"Talking out of both sides of your mouth all the time must be exhausting."
"I suspect maybe she's not a "Real Athiest™""
"You look silly on this topic."
"She is so clueless!"
"You need a fucking history lesson."

Nope, no personal attacks, nothing but well reasoned arguments here!

[beam me up scottie]

120. Let's take a look at Saint Nance's posts, then:

There's nothing more hypocritical than self-proclaimed progressives discussing the "need" to mock the religious beliefs of others.

good for you! I'm sure that makes you feel good inside - for what reason it does, I can't begin to fathom.

Do you stalk everyone on DU?

Conflating religious beliefs ...

... and political beliefs is just too damned stupid to respond to.

And if criticizing and mocking the religious beliefs of others is what gets you off, so be it.

Most people have better things to do with their lives - but some people apparently don't.

As I said ...

... whatever gets YOU off is what you should pursue. And it's become increasingly apparent what it is that gets you off.

If you feel a need to mock the religious beliefs of others, that's your problem. I don't know what purpose you think it serves, or what goal you think it accomplishes - other than being obnoxious and offensive.

Why do I feel like I've ventured into FreeRepublic?

I feel like I'm at FreeRepublic because that's where a lack of tolerance, along with a complete disrespect for others, is considered a virtue.

Lash out all you want. And if you believe you're accomplishing anything by doing so, keep at it.

It would seem obvious that you're not achieving anything - but you g'head and rant and rave all you want

Because - just in case you haven't noticed - I am not the least bit interested in what people like you think, or do.

It's basic reading comprehension - you should try it sometime.

[tkmorris]

143. She seems like a nice lady

I almost wish I wasn't married.

[beam me up scottie]

147. *sol*

Snorted out loud!

This is who I hear in my head when I read her posts:

[PeaceNikki]

149. This is who I hear.

[beam me up scottie]

150. Oh Jeebus Cripes, their names are even similar.

It's all clear to me now.

[Violet_Crumble]

288. And that's only in this thread. There's heaps more peppered round DU...

[beam me up scottie]

289. :D

I missed out on so much...maybe that's a good thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

290. Here's something you might have missed today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=178734

[PeaceNikki]

293. :o

[beam me up scottie]

294. You just made my day!

For you --->

[beam me up scottie]

34. Imagine if one of us were to question the beliefs of muslims and claim their religion isn't "real".

But IOKIYNG

[PeaceNikki]

39. I suspect maybe she's not a "Real Athiest™"

[beam me up scottie]

43. I do believe you're right.

No Real™ atheist would single out only one religion to question.

Arguing over which religious group is the real deal is a theist thing.

No True Scotsman and all that.

[Violet_Crumble]

221. Not all of them. I followed the Church of bluejuice until its sad demise last year...

No-one better shit on my religion. Even though it's now defunct, I'm always ready to push this particular religious belief onto others. You'll understand if you watch this clip where they go into some detail explaining their beliefs. Watch it all the way through. Skip the ad, though. There's no religious message in that and ads are fucking boring...

And here's another of their hymns which kind of reminds me of some of the posts in this thread....

&list

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. It's about the 1A, and there's no gray area, period.

.

[backscatter712]

37. Nobody has the right to not be offended.

Seems to me that if people get upset over something like people drawing naughty pictures of your deity, they need to find something else to think about.

If they think it's OK to shoot people or saw people's heads off because they're offended, they need to be institutionalized. At the least.

[NanceGreggs]

46. It's not a matter of ...

... having the "right to not be offended". It is a matter of having the decency to NOT be offensive when no purpose is served in being so.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Do you scold people who mock Republicans too?

Or does your outrage-o-meter only register mocking of one kind of belief?

[NanceGreggs]

94. Well, as we all know ...

... adherence to religious beliefs is EXACTLY the same as adhering to political beliefs.

Why do I feel like I've ventured into FreeRepublic?

(That's a rhetorical question. I know exactly WHY I feel that way.)

[beam me up scottie]

97. You feel like you're at FreeRepublic because you're protecting religion from its victims.

I don't have to respect hateful religious beliefs because you're offended by my criticism.

[NanceGreggs]

101. I am an atheist.

Therefore, I am not offended in the least by your childish need to disrespect religion.

I feel like I'm at FreeRepublic because that's where a lack of tolerance, along with a complete disrespect for others, is considered a virtue.

[PeaceNikki]

106. The religious have well funded, hugely successful, coordinated attacks against MY fucking

"sacred values" of autonomy and civil rights.

Why do you refuse to see that some of us have very deeply held beliefs which are being literally infringed upon by organized groups of people? Why on earth do you think it's so fucking indecent for US to be offended and lash out on them?

Seriously... WTF?

[NanceGreggs]

112. So fight the infringers ...

... instead of fighting the religion they believe in.

Lash out all you want. And if you believe you're accomplishing anything by doing so, keep at it.

It would seem obvious that you're not achieving anything - but you g'head and rant and rave all you want.

[PeaceNikki]

116. Will do!! And you keep on wagging that finger thinking you're some moral arbiter.

[NanceGreggs]

123. And you keep pretending ...

... that disrespecting the religious beliefs of others is "moral".

Say g'night, PeaceNikki - we're done.

[PeaceNikki]

125. Challenging misogyny and homophobia is moral.

Defending it and demanding we respect it is shameful.

You're very disrespectful to my deeply held beliefs

[beam me up scottie]

130. Defending that ideology because it's religion is unconscionable.

STOP ATTACKING POOR DEFENSELESS OPPRESSED RELIGION PEACENIKKI!

[beam me up scottie]

129. We're being called intolerant for disrespecting religion and SHE feels like she's on FreeRepublic?

[PeaceNikki]

131. If I call my beliefs "sacred" will she respect them?

No. She won't. Because not EVERY belief is worthy of one's respect. I get that. You get that. Our pal Nance doesn't get that but she thinks everyone else is "indecent". HER disrespect is obviously justified. Ours is raving mad and worthy of scorn.

[beam me up scottie]

133. She'd say your beliefs weren't as worthy of respect as a "real" religion.

As long as it's part of some ancient god bothering belief system, it's perfectly acceptable to preach bigotry.

Teh Religion is sacred, no matter how hateful and harmful the beliefs are, they're off limits to criticism.

[NanceGreggs]

226. So in other words ...

... you think disrespecting religion is tolerance? Seriously?

What's really sad is that you don't understand the difference between standing up for people's rights to adhere to a faith and standing up for that faith itself.

But please proceed with the notion that disrespecting religion equals tolerance - that's just too laughable.

[beam me up scottie]

227. No, Nance, telling folks to respect bigoted religious beliefs is a Republican thang.

What's really sad is that you don't understand the difference between standing up for people's rights to adhere to a faith and standing up for that faith itself.

No one, let me emphasize that: NO ONE ON DU is trying to keep religious people from exercising their right to believe.

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true, that straw man won't breathe just because you're giving him mouth to mouth.


You're not some caped crusader defending believers from persecution, you're being an apologist for religious beliefs that are used to persecute others.

But please, proceed with the notion that ancient bigoted belief systems need to be protected from their critics.


Watching you flail around is great dinner theater.

[NanceGreggs]

229. Nowhere have I told anyone ...

... to "respect bigoted religious beliefs".

What I have said all along is that one need not DISRESPECT the religious beliefs of another for no other purpose than to do so.

That is exactly what Geller did - the person/event that has prompted all of these "religion" threads. She mocked someone else's religious beliefs for the SOLE purpose of doing just that; there was no other purpose to be served.

Nowhere have I said that anyone is obligated to respect, adhere to, or accept the religious beliefs of others. What I have said is that everyone who has a religious faith should be free from being "mocked" by those who don't share that faith.

Believe me, I am the last person on earth who would be "an apologist for religious beliefs". But I find it abhorrent that anyone would think that disrespecting another person on the basis that they HAVE a religion they believe in is in any way a progressive idea, or an appropriate way to conduct themselves.

I am not flailing, my dear - I am trying to communicate a rather simple concept, which you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to grasp.

[beam me up scottie]

230. "everyone who has a religious faith should be free from being "mocked"

What I have said is that everyone who has a religious faith should be free from being "mocked" by those who don't share that faith.

You're actually advocating censorship of religious criticism.

That opinion, much like Geller, is both delusional and dangerous.





Congratulations, Nance, you've finally come out against free speech.

People who don't belong to a certain religion shouldn't be allowed to mock that religion.

How dreadfully authoritarian of you.

And it's the end result of your flailing around trying to paint me as the one in the wrong.

[AlbertCat]

236. And it's the end result of your flailing around trying to paint me as the one in the wrong.

It also patently unrealistic and delusional, like religions.

Since religion is basically a denial of reality, it should be criticized and mocked often.

[beam me up scottie]

261. Nance only wants people to criticize one group of religious believers.

I'll take an atheist who is consistent over a choosy faitheist any day.

[NanceGreggs]

240. Do you not understand the difference ...

... between something that shouldn't be done and something "not being allowed" to be done?

That's a rhetorical question - because apparently you don't know the difference.

Your First Amendment rights guarantee your freedom to be as verbally obnoxious as you want to be. That doesn't mean that you have to be obnoxious, does it?

If I said that you shouldn't point at overweight people and call them "disgusting fatties", does that mean I am saying that by law, you shouldn't be allowed to do so? Are people who choose not to be offensive somehow the victims of censorship?

I am free to say all kinds of offensive, hurtful, humiliating things to others. But as a decent human being, I choose not to offend others when they have done nothing to warrant it - and being a person of faith is not, IMO, something that, in and of itself, warrants ridicule.

In addition, if you have actually read and understood what I have been saying all along, I said nothing about mocking or criticizing a religion per se - I have spoken only about ridiculing and mocking individuals because they belong to a religion, and for no other reason beyond that fact.

This discussion is over. When I have to explain the difference between being prohibited by law from doing something and being respectful of others because it's the decent thing to do, I have to accept that the person requiring such an explanation does not have the intellectual capacity to understand that difference in the first place.

[beam me up scottie]

259. So mocking religion is the same thing as calling people "disgusting fatties"?

In what world is laughing at a chosen ideology the same thing as body shaming?

I am free to say all kinds of offensive, hurtful, humiliating things to others.

You're comfortable declaring scientologists aren't "real" religious people, but you freak out because others mock deities?

Not only are you an apologist for certain religions (the ones you deem worthy of respect), you're one of the worst hypocrites I've ever seen on DU.

[NanceGreggs]

263. One more time ...

There is a difference between mocking the outdated dietary laws intrinsic to Orthodox Judaism and saying to an Orthodox Jew: "I think you're an idiot for practicing your religion".

Where did I "freak out" because others mock deities? I haven't said anything even remotely like that. My defense has been NOT of religious beliefs, but of the individuals who practice those beliefs.

If your take on my comment was that a "chosen ideology is the same as body shaming", there is no point in continuing the conversation. Apparently nuance is way over your head, along with simple reading comprehension.

I am totally not interested in your opinion of me, or anything else. And I am not going to waste any more of my time continually defending what I DIDN'T say.

Bye now!

[beam me up scottie]

264. Keep hurling those straw men! Who said people are idiots for practicing their religion?

No one here said anything like that, you're making shit up. DU doesn't allow people to call believers idiots.

And I am not going to waste any more of my time continually defending what I DIDN'T say.

And you keep doubling down on the hypocrisy, too.


You said believers in scientology aren't real religious folks, even though some obviously think they are.

I don't consider Scientologists

... to be "religious people".

So you're basically telling them

I think you're an idiot for practicing your religion

How are you any better than the imaginary people you keep wagging your finger at?

[beam me up scottie]

113. Well any real atheist can see you're just being hysterical.

There's no good reason to dis religion, PeaceNikki!



No real liberal would ever rant and rave about injustice!

Lash out all you want.

Nance doesn't care.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Why should we tolerate hateful religious beliefs?

You feel like you're at FreeRepublic because you're getting the vapors over all of this disrespectful criticism of religion that DU liberals dole out with such glee.

Those nasty lgbt people, feminists and other people fed up with being treated like second class citizens by the religious are just too childish and intolerant to grok why they should tolerate that which doesn't tolerate them.

Keep on digging, though, you're doing a marvelous job showing us why we despise religion and it's crusaders.

[Arugula Latte]

179. Why does religion get a Magical Superimpermeable Protective Holy Bubble?

Because it involves baseless supernatural superstitious beliefs? Why does that make it special, particularly when compared to political beliefs?

[beam me up scottie]

188. Ikr? Why should women and lgbt people respect people who treat us like we're second class citizens?

Westboro Baptists believe AIDS is a gift from god?

Respect them.

Christians that want to force women to give birth?

Respect them.

Muslims beat a woman to death because they thought she burned a koran?

Respect them.

The Vatican lying about condoms causing AIDS?

Respect them.



Someone on DU is confused about what deserves respect, and it's not us.

[NanceGreggs]

191. Please provide a link ...

... to where I have ever said that religion should get "Magical Superimpermeable Protective Holy Bubble" - or anything to that effect.

My only weighing-in on recent DU discussions about the topic of religion has been to say that mocking another's religious beliefs, simply for the sake of doing so (a la Geller's stunt) serves no purpose other than to be offensive.

If you feel a need to offend the faith of others simply because your First Amendment rights allow you to do so, have at it.

[Arugula Latte]

207. Your need to protect the feelings of believers in misogynistic and homophobic sects is a bit strange

to a lot of us progressives ... and it seems needlessly selective.

[NanceGreggs]

213. And your need to mischaracterize ...

... what other people say is more than a bit strange.

One of the downfalls of message boards is that anyone can claim to be a "progressive" - even when their thinking is anything but.

There's a lot of that going around lately - just like there are a lot of RW trolls here who claim to be "Democrats", and claim to speak on their behalf.

[Yorktown]

219. Your need to protect religions is strange

It's religion that brings millions in the US to stop chhildren from learning how the universe and life came into being on this planet.

The problem is not 'fringe' members of Christianity, it's a majority of priests and believers in the US. The problem is therefore religion itself.

And the creation myth should be ridiculed as any dumb idea should be.

[NanceGreggs]

225. I don't protect religions.

What I would protect is the right of those who believe in one to not be mocked, ridiculed, or told they have "dumb ideas".

What is truly laughable is watching the self-proclaimed "progressives" on this site promoting the idea that mocking other people's beliefs is a "progressive idea" - and acting as though they are any different than Fundies who think mocking someone's non-religious beliefs is not only acceptable, but necessary.

"I will mock you because you believe in religion/ I will mock you because you do not believe in religion."

Two sides of the same coin. Two groups of lemmings following each other off the same cliff. Being a progressive means defeating your political enemies by being better than they are, not by emulating them.

[Yorktown]

228. Religions are harmful ideologies

Not teaching children the Big Bang or Darwinian evolution removes scientific truths from them.
Telling believers blaphemers, gays and adulterers should be punished make them haters.
In both cases, Christianity and Islam, the ideology itself is causing harm.
Therefore those ideologies NEED to be debunked. And irony, mockery are non violent tools.

And your sentence "I will mock you because you believe in religion" is a straw man.
I have not seen anyone here recommending to mock people (the believers)
It's all about mocking hurtful ideologies, the religions.

If not, then you are de facto placing all ideologies beyond criticism.

[Arugula Latte]

242. Riiiight -- I'm not a progressive because I think we should be free to criticize & satirize

misogynistic and homophobic institutions, beliefs, and practices. That is a truly odd conclusion you've drawn there.

[NanceGreggs]

243. For the zillionth time ...

I have not said anything about criticizing or satirizing beliefs and practices. I have done so in my own writings.

What I AM talking about is the difference between criticizing (or outright blasting) the Catholic Church and its tenets and mocking an individual because they are Catholic.

Do you get the difference? I am absolutely blown-away by the fact that so many people here cannot grasp that simple concept.

[Arugula Latte]

244. If someone says "women are inferior because they came from Adam's rib" I am not

going to pretend that belief is worthy of respect, because they are a fucking idiot for believing that that primitive mythology is true AND because they are spouting harmful bullshit that has been used to oppress women for centuries. I don't care that that belief is from a supernatural/religious text -- they should be countered, not just kowtowed to -- which was the treatment most believers have been used to until the advent of the Internet.

[NanceGreggs]

245. Who said you had to respect ...

... anything about any religion?

Do you understand the difference between having zero respect for a faith and being deliberately disrespectful of an individual who adheres to that faith?

[Arugula Latte]

246. So in my example it is disrespectful of me to call out someone who says women are inferior

because of Adam's rib ... yet you say nothing about believers disrespecting non-believers by asserting their precious "faith." That doesn't seem to concern you at all.

I have Christians knocking on my door to tell me I'm dead wrong about god/Jesus -- is that disrespectful of them?

[NanceGreggs]

248. First of all ...

... not every Catholic believes in/adheres to the church's teachings. I doubt you'd easily find a practicing Catholic in this day and age who believes "women are inferior because of Adam's rib", or the like.

Secondly, your point about being disrespected as a non-believer: do I care? No. I live life according to my own beliefs, not according to what others think of me.

"I will mock you because you DO NOT believe in religion."

"I will mock you because you DO believe in religion."

Two sides of the same coin. Two mindsets that are eerily similar.

[Warren Stupidity]

235. "adherence to religious beliefs is EXACTLY the same as adhering to political beliefs"

ok so explain exactly what the difference is.

[backscatter712]

59. Why is it decent to not offend people demanding to inflict their superstition on me?

I don't have any obligation to look after their feelings if they're going to act like babies when someone insults their imaginary friend. I'm not their parent.

I'm an atheist. I offend simply by existing.

I think it serves a very high purpose to defy superstition and assert freedom from religion by being deliberately offensive to religious authoritarians.

[LostOne4Ever]

63. "I'm an atheist. I offend simply by existing."

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The Truth has been spoken!

+infinity [/font]

[NanceGreggs]

68. Well, you just go with that then.

Because - just in case you haven't noticed - I am not the least bit interested in what people like you think, or do.

If you think it "serves a high purpose" to insult other people - well, what can I say? You g'head and pursue that "higher purpose" to your heart's content.

I really don't give a fuck.

[Yorktown]

220. Mockery of dumb ideas is natural and healthy.

It's a natural human reaction to laugh when seeing something ridiculous.

Why should silly ideas not entice laughter just because they are called a religion?

You are a bit like the Jorge of 'The Name of the Rose' by Umberto Ecco. Jorge wanted to stop monks from reading Aristotle's book on Comedy, because comedy disrespected religion. Jorge killed a few monks in the process.

I'm sure you don't kill people to preserve the respectability of religion.

But the Garland shooters did.

[Logical]

67. So any belief to you is sacred? Roman gods? Aztecs? nt

[NanceGreggs]

72. When others hold religious beliefs to be sacred ...

... what is your point in ridiculing them for their beliefs?

What purpose is served? What satisfaction do you find in doing so? What greater good is advanced? What is accomplished?

And "because my First Amendment rights say I can do so" is not a good argument - in fact, it's the most piss poor argument offered on the subject to date.

[Logical]

81. LOL, so you are OK with people using religion to attack gays? Wow, you are fucking clueless....

of what religion has done and continues to do!

I will continue to ridicule religion as it ignores logic and people use it to attack people.

You need a fucking history lesson.

[NanceGreggs]

95. So you're okay with ...

So what you're really saying is ...

So what you meant was ...

So what you truly believe is ...

Why don't you try addressing what people actually say, instead of pretending they said something different?

It's basic reading comprehension - you should try it sometime.

[Logical]

99. You look silly on this topic. And refuse to address the direct question. Do you have an issue....

we me insulting religions that insult gays???? Yes/No. East=y even for you!

[NanceGreggs]

128. This discussion ...

... about disrespecting other people's religious beliefs has nothing to do with insulting gays - or anyone else.

I look silly on this topic? I am the one sticking to the topic. You - not so much. In fact, not at all.

[Logical]

134. Simple question for you Nance , can I disrespect a religious belief....

That insults gay people? And tells gay people are going to hell?

Is that okay with you? Or is that just wrong because they believe that?

How can you be this clueless?

[beam me up scottie]

139. The pope just sent out priests to forgive women for having abortions.

Do I have to respect them too?

[PeaceNikki]

83. Their "sacred beliefs" include interfering with the autonomy of women and LGBT

and, as such, will be mocked, criticized, ridiculed and put on display for their foolishness as often as possible.

The day they stop trying to legislate and otherwise force their beliefs on society is the the they will get respect from me. Until then, fuck 'em.

[Logical]

84. She is so clueless! +1000 for your post. nt

[PeaceNikki]

86. RESPECT THEM FOR THEIR SACREDNESS, LOGICAL!!!!!!

What the ever living fuck?

[840high]

88. ,+1

[beam me up scottie]

91. +1,000,000

No shit.

[beam me up scottie]

93. Why should someone else's HATEFUL beliefs about others be respected?

Such an epic fail.

[Oktober]

138. I'm waiting for a reason I should care...

Why is it odd if you think gremlins live in your walls but we should respect and take folks seriously who things winged angels are watching them from the clouds instead?

[NanceGreggs]

148. I don't think you have grasped the concept ...

... that I personally don't give a flyin' fuck what you care about.

Have I NOW made that perfectly clear?

[Oktober]

151. Thought you were discussing...

... on this discussion board and I, along with a myriad of others, made our rebuttals.

Now, I can see that it's tough because you seem to have been knocked around a bit in this one, and the other threads as well, but that is no reason to get testy.

If you've got a logical point based on fact and not emotion, this would be the time to make it.

At this point, it's getting kind of embarrassing for you.

[NanceGreggs]

160. I am not the least bit "testy".

I got "knocked around" on a thread on a message board? Wow. I wonder how I will survive ...

[Logical]

172. Then why get rude? I think you realize you looked terrible in this post. nt

[NanceGreggs]

204. OMG!!!

I am mortified!

My entire existence depends on how I "look" on DU!!!!

Oh, woe is me - what shall I do?

Seriously, my life is over.

[Logical]

171. LOL, taking an ass kicking in this thread has made you grumpy! Nap time!! nt

[NanceGreggs]

187. Poor Logical ...

... doesn't know the difference between grumpiness and bemusement.

And what do you think constitutes an "ass kicking"? People on this site disagreeing with me? Welcome to the internetz - where it happens all the time!

I'm an Obama supporter and a Democratic Party supporter - so I'm pretty used to being disagreed with here on DemocraticUnderground these days.

I also think there is no purpose in mocking the religious beliefs of others. It accomplishes nothing. So again I've gotten used to DU as it now is, where people actually advocate such behaviour.

[beam me up scottie]

192. You really believe that?

I'm an Obama supporter and a Democratic Party supporter - so I'm pretty used to being disagreed with here on DemocraticUnderground these days.

From what I've observed lately people aren't disagreeing with you because you're such a good Democrat.

[Logical]

194. Mocking people who thinks all gays go to hell is 100% ok, maybe you agree with the religion?? nt

[NanceGreggs]

200. Have you bothered to check out ...

... the OP? It's about "Should it be against the law, in the United States, to blaspheme or "insult a Deity"?

If you want to discuss something else, why don't you start a discussion thread on THAT topic?

"Mocking people who thinks all gays go to hell is 100% ok" has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So please start your own thread on THAT subject, instead of trying to hijack this one.

[Warren Stupidity]

233. say you are saying the holy books of the abrahamic faiths are "beyond ludicrous"?

They all clearly indicate that their gods are massively offended by blasphemy, offended to the point where death is appropriate.

[alarimer]

274. So what if they're offended?

No one has the right to be free from being offended.

[NanceGreggs]

276. And no one *needs* to be offensive ...

... just for the sake of being so.

I didn't think that was too difficult a concept to grasp. Apparently for many here, offending others on the basis of their faith - or the mere fact that they have a faith - is somehow necessary. It serves no purpose, it has no goal, it accomplishes nothing.

I am quite appalled to see self-proclaimed "progressives" touting the idea that a lack of tolerance for the religious beliefs of others is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged.

Appalled - but not surprised. I wonder how many actual "progressives" are still posting here among the RW trolls claiming to be "progressives" - or even Democrats.

"No one has the right to be free from being offended." I've seen that talking point raised over and over - almost as if on cue.

Apparently "leave those who adhere to a religious faith should be free to do so without ridicule" is not an acceptable position to take on DU these days.

More's the pity. Tolerance of others' religious beliefs used to be something progressives took pride in - now it is something to be ridiculed - at least according to the alleged "progressives" who post on this site.

[Oktober]

286. "leave those who adhere to a religious faith should be free to do so without ridicule"

Why should they be?

What if they consider ridicule to be the fact that the world makes use of the scientific method and the theory of evolution and germ theory and the science of deep space and deep time and throwing that in their face is somehow wrong?

That's just as stupid as trying to protect the feelings of someone from a little doodle of a pedophile warlord with a beard and a sword.

I have yet to understand why stupidity and willful ignorance should be tolerated or coddled.

[MohRokTah]

3. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. eom

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I used to have that bumper sticker.

[haikugal]

6. Not just no, hell no! nt

[Major Nikon]

7. "a Deity" implies there are more than one

I only have time to insult one.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I dont even have time to insult the dainty doilies my doggie does doo-doo on.

I am a VERY busy man.

[Shoulders of Giants]

9. Absolutely it should be allowed. And some deities deserve to be insulted anyways.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Zeus has persistent foot odor.

Unfortunately they don't have socks, on Mt. Olympus.

[backscatter712]

79. And Thor is always leaving Mjolnir on the toilet!

[TheKentuckian]

181. Don't try to lift the hammer, lift the seat.

[True Blue Door]

10. Insulting deities is a civic obligation.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. You are GOD DAMN right it should be legal!!! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!(nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

13. by Jove, I think you've got it.

[libdem4life]

35. I was just going to say that some people I know would have little to say, in that case.

Not a lot of them, mind you, but mostly acquaintances. LOL.

[Arugula Latte]

178. ... on a cracker.

[beam me up scottie]

14. Waiting for the but-heads to show up.

[PeaceNikki]

15. Lol @ but-heads

[beam me up scottie]

45. Like ringing a dinner bell.

[KinMd]

18. I wouldn't do it but..

it should not be a crime

[NanceGreggs]

19. Is there anyone here ...

... who has suggested that such a law should exist?

Or is this another one of those "some people are saying" posts that has no basis in what anyone is actually saying at all?

[Chathamization]

118. Looking at the results of the poll, the answer to that question seems to be "no."

But I don't doubt that straw man will continue to have a long and healthy life, since it seems the people pushing it don't really care what was actually said.

[NanceGreggs]

119. Yeah, it's "Strawman Underground" now.

Hey, let's debate what nobody said!

[Chathamization]

162. I suppose it's easier than actually addressing an opponents arguments

But it seems that if you feel the need to ignore what your opponent is saying, you probably don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Of course starting an OP with "A lot of people around here have been saying [insert some junk you just made up]" is a good way to hide your deception, since people have no idea what posts you're referring to (and therefore, have a difficult time seeing that you're inventing arguments that were never made).

[ileus]

20. Depends on which Deity...

[Lars39]

21. Nope, and after observing Southern Baptists for the last 35 years or so,

what is deemed blasphemy can be voted on at the SB Convention every year. While seeming to be arbitrary, it is totally agenda driven.

[libdem4life]

36. They have equal ambiguity about the definition of "sin", as well. Lots of "depends".

(not the Walgreen's version).

[Binkie The Clown]

25. No. (Except, of course, for the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

His divine noodlehood (may he reign in marinara) must always be respected.

[Salviati]

27. You can't lock people up just for something they say...

...even if they are being assholes.

[hrmjustin]

29. Hell no and I say that as a believing Christian.

[niyad]

38. this is a joke, right?

[napi21]

40. NO! But there SHOULD BE some way to insert a little logic into some brains.

For ANYONE to deliberately try to incite another group is just wrong. No matter what is being said, if the intent is to nothing more than to generate intense anger and hatred in someone else, there's no reason to do it at all.

Unfortunately, there's no way to make people actually THINK before acting.

[oberliner]

183. What about Republicans?

Is it ok to incite them and make them angry?

[napi21]

195. You don't have to even try to icite a Pubbie!

Anything,everything and everyone that disagrees with THEIR beliefs gets them insane!

[Rex]

41. If you can prove any deities exist, I will consider the question. nt

nt

[rug]

47. Has anyone proposed that?

[ann---]

54. However

inciting a riot (or other illegal action) by blasphemous
cartoon contests against a deity should be against the law.

[beam me up scottie]

56. So blasphemy should only be legal if it doesn't provoke people to violence?

[backscatter712]

73. Gives ISIS a heckler's veto.

This is why blasphemy should always, always be protected by the First Amendment, even if it results in people suffering from religious dementia acting out in violence.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Yep, and if they do act out it's on them.

No one else is responsible for their lack of impulse control.

[backscatter712]

64. Oh for fucks sake.

Because there are religious extremists who are brain-damaged enough to think it's actually OK to shoot someone over a picture, we have to be restrained by law so we don't hurt their feelings?

That's incredibly stupid.

The First Amendment protects freedom of expression.

No. Fucking. Buts.

See, the First Amendment protects my right to say what I think as an atheist, that Islam is easily weaponized superstitious hokum, and illustrate my point with this:

[beam me up scottie]

66. GASP!

I just threw my sandal at the screen, see what you made me do???

Ban hammer time!

Offense: provoking other people to violence

Seriously,

[Dr. Strange]

74. So cartoon contests involving Moses and Mohammad are okay?

Edited to remove Jesus--Christians consider him to be a deity.

No cartoons drawing Jesus, please!

[beam me up scottie]

80. |:-}

Whaddaya gonna do about it?

[X_Digger]

90. The fuck, you say.

Are you sure you're on the right site?

[Codeine]

164. No it should not, and it's stupid to even suggest it. nt

[HubertHeaver]

182. It is creating a public nuisance.

Or maybe an attractive nuisance.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

254. If i burn down a CVS because you mocked my belief in Leprechauns, are YOU the guilty one?

[DawgHouse]

55. No, it shouldn't be against the law

[BlancheSplanchnik]

57. I'd never insult any diety.

It's the goddammed spooge brains who commit atrocities, teach hate, hypocrisy, fear and coercion in the name of deities whom I curse.

[backscatter712]

58. My newest discovered way to insult Islam...

Listening to Al Namrood.

It's even more fun than drawing naughty pictures of the Prophet Muhammed.

Al Namrood (Arabic for The Unbeliever) is a Saudi Arabian black metal band. They're openly anti-theistic, they throw around a lot of Satanic (or Shaytanic) imagery. Their guitarist and bassist calls himself Mephisto.

They have to do all of their studio sessions and recording in absolute secrecy, because if the Saudi government catches them, they'll chop their heads off. Because of censory assholes who whine about being offended, that insist on murdering anyone that offends them.

Here's a good article about them.

http://www.vice.com/read/anti-religious-black-metal-band-in-saudi-arabia-666

[DanTex]

60. Hell yes! It's Yahwey or the highway!

[Blue_In_AK]

65. It shouldn't be illegal, but

I personally see no point in doing it just for the sake of pissing someone off. Live and let live.

P.S. So I guess this makes me a "but-head," right? So sue me...

[Terra Alta]

69. I, personally, wouldn't do it

but it is free speech and should be protected.

[cherokeeprogressive]

75. It should be required.

You silly thing... asking silly questions.

[PeteSelman]

82. Fuck no.

What's the point of free speech if you can't insult mythological figures?

[99Forever]

85. Most forms of dirt stupid hatred are quite legal.

Why shouldn't these be?

[backscatter712]

87. I keep reading in that supposedly magic book that gay sex insults a deity.

Should the LGBT community be banned?

[PeaceNikki]

89. Also women who are not submissive.

We're insulting to them.

[backscatter712]

92. Ever eat shellfish or pork? Wear blended fabrics?

You're insulting the deity!

[Arugula Latte]

287. Injecting a little levity here ...

[BainsBane]

96. 156 to 1

But you'll keep claiming people want censorship because it saves having to think about what their actual arguments are. Same story, different subject, same strawman.

[Chathamization]

126. DU needs to follow Oklahoma and place a ban on Sharia Law ASAP

I've been shocked by how many people here want to implement Sharia Law. Errr, no, I can't provide any examples...but trust me on this one.

[Warren DeMontague]

135. No, most people don't. Most people understand the 1st Amendment.

And that's what this thread is about, nothing more.

[beam me up scottie]

140. One person said it should be illegal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6648811

[Warren DeMontague]

141. and other people have been making the same argument.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6645312

[beam me up scottie]

144. Well the 1st Amendment isn't important to some people.

Let's just do away with hate speech and the bigots will shut up and go away.

Kumbaya.

[BainsBane]

282. No, incitement of violence

with the direct intent to do so is not protected speech, regardless of whether it is religious or not. It's the calling fire in a crowded theater thing. That is already illegal.

[Historic NY]

105. The poor Spaghetti Monster would be sauced.

[Yorktown]

154. You disrepected my god. I kill you.

[truebrit71]

108. No. They are all equally non-existent.

...

[guillaumeb]

109. Is there a competition on DU among atheists

to see who can come up with the silliest reason to insult religion? IS this an example of progressive tolerance, as opposed to right wing intolerance?

I can certainly see why one poster is confused.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. It's a simple question.

Either answer it, or don't.

[guillaumeb]

165. It is a simplisitc question.

Similar to Oklahoma passing a law to ban the near impossibility of Sharia Law becoming the Law in Oklahoma.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. Well, i happen to think the 1st Amendment is pretty fucking important.

And I am not about to start apologizing for that fact.

[guillaumeb]

196. I agree that the First Amendment is crucial. eom

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

255. Indispensable. At the same time we can say we will do almost anything including risk

our lives for someone like Geller, a complete waste of space, a total bigot/racist pile of human stink, to say anything she wants.

We should protect her right the way the ACLU protected the Nazi's in Skokie...

Protect the messenger while simultaneous loudly denouncing the message.

In this case the message had nothing to do with faith or cartoons but her intentional act to cause violence. Still, protect it we must

[Yorktown]

155. Any ideology can be criticized. And mockery is a good tool to expose the silliness of religions.

Read the 'holy' books, they are laughable.

Why shouldn't people have a right to laugh at silly stuff?

Education is on the rise, and religion is getting exposed: the king has no clothes.

[guillaumeb]

166. You are undoubtedly correct.

The best way to have a discussion with people is to start by mocking their beliefs.

[PeaceNikki]

168. The entire purpose of this site is to "mock other people's beliefs".

Ever hear of "Top 10 Conservative Idiots", for example? That's mocking the deeply held beliefs of millions of Americans.

Outrage!!!!!!

[guillaumeb]

169. Understood.

But other than a venting experience, how does mockery ever lead to dialogue? Mockery is such a negative experience, and a negative tactic. Is this nothing more than a contest to see who can appear more iconoclastic?

Plus there is a large amount of anger apparent in these type of conversations. Anger, like mockery, like cynicism, are very negative emotions. It just seems to lead into an echo chamber of nastiness with each voice trying to out do the others.

I understand the importance of venting, of talking about what hurts, what angers, but to progress means moving past that.

[PeaceNikki]

170. But but but, nothing.

The entire point of this site is to rally people with like beliefs, point out what is wrong with Republican ideology and mock, satirize and criticize those whose very deeply held beliefs differ from our very deeply held beliefs.

Serious question: what's so very different about doing the same with religion? Why is it so taboo to some to do the same with religion?

[guillaumeb]

197. I understand your point.

But moving past the need to criticize, when does one unite with people with similar politics? We need more unity and less quarrelling about religion.

[PeaceNikki]

199. We need less religion in secular society and in politics.

That would negate the need for quarreling. It's interesting that you put the onus on those of us whose rights are being trampled upon to "stop". No, they should stop.

[guillaumeb]

201. I believe in the absolute separation of church and state.

And no, I do not see groups of atheists trying to impose their beliefs on anyone. I have had many theists come to my door to try to convince me to attend their church. Never with atheists.

And not just your rights as atheists are being trampled. ALL our rights are being assaulted by those who would establish a theocracy in the US. We probably agree on far more than we disagree on. I simply feel that all people with common values should work together on common goals.

[Lordquinton]

231. Anger is a powerful, scary emotion

Some would say if you aren't angry you aren't paying attention. In fact it's often used in your context as a way to silence "Oh, you're just angry, you should calm down" the stereotype of the "Angry atheist". You see it in the condemnation of what's going on in Baltimore, and Ferguson "Why are they so angry, they should calm down and deal with it peacefully"

The condemnation of anger is often used by the powerful to keep the powerless down, shame their anger, and you can shame them into passivity, and they will not overthrow those in power.

I am angry about a great many things, why aren't you?

[guillaumeb]

247. Anger, like acid, can as easily harm the user.

Anger must be directed, but it also must be balanced by understanding. I do not condemn those who are angry. Many people in the US have much cause to be angry. But anger rarely solves anything. Solutions take work.

I was a Union representative for over 33 years. When I trained people, I always emphasized that if a Rep gets angry in a discussion, that discussion will probably not resolve anything. Solutions generally come when both sides see a win. That does not mean abandoning principles, or allowing a contractual violation to occur without union action being taken, but it sometimes meant showing management how following the contract would lead to better attitudes on the job and better productivity.

I have been a union member for 40 years, an activist for nearly that long. I also belong to a social justice group. There are many issues that need improving in this country, but anger rarely solves things.

[phil89]

177. If an adult

believes in talking snakes, donkeys and invisible magic beings, they are going to be mocked, not met half way by rational adults, and deservedly so.

[Yorktown]

214. Satire is effective.

It gets messages across faster. An time is running out.

How long before a religious world war if religions are respected?

[guillaumeb]

253. Satire IS effective.

But the best satirists target the powerful, not the average people. Charlie Hebdo generally targets ordinary believers. Jonathan Swift targeted the powerful in England not ordinary Englishmen.

As to getting across a message faster, if I call anyone an idiot or a fool the only result will be anger, not dialogue.

How long before a nationalistic war if nations are respected?

[Yorktown]

277. Religion is powerful

Three of them count in the range of one billion subscribers.

And no, there is no way you can make religions evolve with a smile and a nudge.

Because it is politically convenient, Islam is currently being radicalized on purpose.

Satire is the most effective non violent way to burst that bubble.

[guillaumeb]

278. Dialogue is also a good way. But extremists and ideologues

generally seem to choose conflict. And the media does love a good conflict.

Liked your remark:"Because it is politically convenient, Islam is currently being radicalized on purpose."

[Yorktown]

279. Right now, try having a critical dialogue about Islam in Pakistan.

It's just impossible. And it will get worse before things can be mended one day.

Today, Pakistan is one ideological time bomb barrelling downhill.

And the petromonarchies carry on their suicidal schizophrenia:

fight ISIS and the Houthi, but fund Boko Haram and the Shebab..

[guillaumeb]

280. And no one in the US government can give a rational explanation for our actions.

The US supports the Saudis who fund some of the terrorists that the US then fights. Bin Laden was our friend when he fought the USSR in Afghanistan, then our enemy after Sept 11.

And much of this, especially Boko Haram and Al Shabab, are active in Africa where the US has a new regional command dedicated to ensuring US dominance in Africa to ensure access to minerals and metals.

Amazing how policy must twist and turn in support of the needs of the US Empire.

[Yorktown]

284. Do not underestimate the needs of the Caliphal Empire

As things stand, the petrodollars have planted in the minds of the muslim youth bulge this idea that the Xth century Caliphate will bring back a mythical golden age if only everyone followed the radical Islam the Saudi satraps need to stay in power and drink champagne with hookers.

The toxic fumes of religious ideology are fanned for worldly reasons, but are ballooning into a critical mass notwithstanding (see the ISIS volunteers or the Garland lone wolves).

[guillaumeb]

291. religion is often linked to patriotism.

Fight for god and country sounds better than "blood for oil".

[Yorktown]

300. Very true. Religion displays clear parasitic features.

It will latch on to anything to self replicate.

[beam me up scottie]

159. "the silliest reason to insult religion?"

Did religion get its feelings hurt?

How is it progressive to be tolerant of bigoted ideology? I'd argue it's illiberal to be an apologist for it.

If you think the right wing would agree with us you're mistaken, they're very much against any criticism of religion.

The only people who are confused are the ones who think religion deserves some sort of special consideration.

[guillaumeb]

167. see my post #166 eom

[beam me up scottie]

185. I don't want to have a conversation with christian bigots.

I live in the bible belt, I come to DU to get away from them.

[guillaumeb]

198. So you can never find anything to agree on with Christians?

Even the bigots? How about being a good example to show them that even a "godless heathen" can live a good life? (I am being sarcastic with the "godless heathen" part) Surely every one of your neighbors cannot be intolerant bigots?

Are there no social justice groups in your area?

[beam me up scottie]

203. No I don't know any christians.

Seriously, do you think atheists live in bubbles?

We get along with believers irl because we have to, and most of us even manage to love one or two.

But I don't have to pretend I'm fine with ancient bigoted belief systems on DU.

This isn't the real world where being intolerant of religious ideology is considered an attack on religion.


And unless you've lived in the bible belt you have no idea what it's like to be surrounded by hostile intolerant neighbors.

[guillaumeb]

208. I have never lived in the Bible Belt. I live near Chicago now.

My family has lived in the same general area of Quebec/New Brunswick for over 400 years. We understand intolerance. We had it from many of the "Anglophone only" people for centuries. Plus my father's mother was Cree. I have many cousins, aunts, uncles who are full or mixed blood Cree. Intolerance is part of the human condition it seems.

[beam me up scottie]

209. I moved here from Vermont.

To say I suffered from a bit of culture shock is the understatement of the century.

Like I said, unless you've lived here you have no idea just how intolerant christians can be.

The way they express themselves makes the mocking that goes on here look like love pats.

[guillaumeb]

210. you went from Bernie Sanders to the Bible belt?

You DO have my sympathy. Can I ask what state in the south?

My daughter and her boyfriend moved to Lynchburg Virginia for her job. They lived there for 3 years. The boyfriend told me that he thought he was a Libertarian type until they lived in Virginia. He was shocked to find how different Virginia was.

Again, my sympathies.

[beam me up scottie]

212. Oh yeah.

I'm now in Tennessee.

The bigotry down here isn't subtle like up north, it's very in your face. It's common to hear the n-word, and when you object you're called a yankee liberal - like that's a bad thing.

Thanks, and my sympathies to your daughter as well.

[guillaumeb]

215. She is back in Illinois.

But even in the south it is not all KKK and right wing militarism.

Even in country music there are exceptions and there is hope:

There was much criticism of this when it was released, but I feel Brad Paisley better represents what can be.

[beam me up scottie]

217. Country music is an incestuous industry that censors non-conformists.

Trust me, no message gets out if it's not pre-approved by Nashville's hierarchy.

Just look at what they did to Little Big Town's 'Girl Crush'.

Johnny Cash, The Dixie Chicks and many more have been shunned by country music fans. They're told what to like, how much to like it and why they shouldn't like anything else.


Good for your daughter, btw. Glad she's back home.

[guillaumeb]

222. Thanks for the sentiment. Also glad she is back here.

The Paisley song has a lot to recommend. And yes, for much of the music industry the message is monitored. Why does Billy Bragg get zero airplay? Why did Pete Seeger get almost no airplay? It is not just country. And as you noted, Johnny Cash and the Dixie Chicks were barely tolerated at times. Cash when he sang about Indians, Natalie Maines when she sang about Bush.

But I also remember the outrage when John Lennon talked about the Beatles and Jesus. Plus his anti-war statements earned him close FBI surveillance.

Nice sparring with you BMUS.

[beam me up scottie]

223. I'm forced to deal with country music because of where I live.

I have a thing about its image being projected as some sort of Jesus-y kumbaya rainbow full of tolerant folks just strummin on banjos.

It's a lot like my thing with religion - what looks like an overreaction is really just me vomiting up what's been forced down my throat for years.

DU and its members saved what's left of my sanity.


Nice sparring with you too, guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

224. we did not listen to US style country music at home.

Or a lot of music in English for that matter. But traditional music sounds similar in Canada and here. Much of traditional/country music reflects the reality of being poor and working brutally hard. Religion, with the message of equality and eventual reward, is a way of coping with that type of hard life.

In our area, the choice was farming, working at a paper mill, or working at a sawmill. Very similar to life in your current area, and the Appalachian mountains extend north into Canada where they become the Laurentians. Similar looking country, but we had a lot more winter. Church was a social gathering as well as an affirmation of belief/ faith.

I played music in a southern style church in Indiana while in school. That is where I learned to like southern gospel music.

That is only my personal feeling on why religion WORKS for many people.

I am glad DU is/was a lifeline for you. I truly like the discussion here. (99% of the time)

P.S. I do not play banjo. Just guitar, bass guitar, mandolin and uke. And I have all my teeth.

[Lordquinton]

232. It deserves much of it's criticism I feel

kinda side stepping the whole issue.

I didn't want to argue about that, I just wanted to post Colbert's rip on it: "Oopsie Daisy Homophobe,"

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/2sml1x/-accidental-racist--song

[guillaumeb]

250. Side stepping the issue? Yes, a time out, so to speak.

For every loudmouthed Tea Party type in country, there is a corresponding nuanced, thoughtful type. I do not judge all rock music by Ted Nugent.

Thanks for the link. Interesting parody.

[Warren Stupidity]

234. it is religions that produce the silliness we mock, and they do that in an astounding abundance. nt.

[U4ikLefty]

110. It should be against the law to post ignorant push polls on DU.

Punishable by staring at naked pictures of a sweaty Cheney for a week.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. Cyborgs don't sweat, Jacko.

[guillaumeb]

202. 30 seconds would seem like a week. A week would seem like an eternity. eom

[Kalidurga]

121. Considering all the havoc deities are alleged to have done...

It should be a requirement. Just a few recent examples: hurricane Katrina, hurricane Sandy, giving Ben Carson the answers to a chem exam, Tebow, and the Fukushima disaster. Not to mention not a single amputee has had a limb grow back.

[Art_from_Ark]

124. It's all Zeus's fault

If he hadn't unleashed all of those horrible things from Pandora's box, everything would be ponies and rainbows today.

[panader0]

127. "Only the road that is no road is long enough to go nowhere."--eridani-san, honored Duer.

[ismnotwasm]

132. No.

[hobbit709]

152. Not only no but HELL, NO!!!

[Calista241]

153. There's a difference between legal and socially unacceptable. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

161. Insulting a diety is not socially unacceptable. It's part and parcel of our culture

to make fun of religions and the so called holy figures in religion. Learn to live with it. Try to look at the bright side of life!

[Liberal_in_LA]

156. nope

[sendero]

163. On the other hand..

... if you walk into a biker bar and shout "you are all a bunch of motherfuckers", you are going to get a beat down and frankly you deserve it.

[Go Vols]

173. :/

[Retrograde]

174. No. If the deity is offended it can do its own smiting (n/t)

[Warren DeMontague]

175. One would think, right?

[Iggo]

180. Of course not. That's completey stupid.

[bigwillq]

184. No (nt)

[bobjacksonk2832]

189. What an absurd question!

We should have the right to insult all deities, regardless of religion. Sadly, the RW nuts would probably try to crack down on this, as per usual.

[Warren DeMontague]

193. Yeah, isn't it? Until recently, I wouldn't have thought to even ask it, not here.

But, then, once upon a time I only thought it was people like Rick Santorum and John Ashcroft, who felt the 1st Amendment was "too permissive".

[Violet_Crumble]

205. I think clumsy mocking that's lacking in humour should be illegal...

There's nothing worse than being given the promise of some entertaining mocking, only to find out that their idea of mocking is getting worked up into a rage and I have to avoid the bits of foamy stuff that keeps on flying off their lips as their heads explode repeatedly. If I wanted that experience I'd go find myself some of those RW religious freaks that hate everyone and everything else but them and their god. They're really dependable when it comes to frothing at the mouth.

Mockery should have some good delivery and be at least kind of funny. Landover Baptist hit the mark for me. That's the sort of thing mockers should be aiming for, imo...

btw, while I haven't seen anyone at DU say blasphemy should be illegal in the US, I have seen people say they think the US should have hate crime laws. Whether I agree or not (I'm ambivalent about the laws we have here), it's not an unreasonable sort of thing to agree or disagree on. I don't know if you've seen the Australian Racial Vilification Act, so here's a link to info about it.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/racial-vilification-law-australia

So how it would appear to work is that if a cartoonist here wanted to draw Mohammed, Jesus, and about 50 Hindu gods with multiple wriggling arms as some statement about religious deities, that's fine. If Pamella Geller wanted to bring her circus of Muslim haters here, including Geert Wilders, and set up an 'exhibition' where she had a picture of Mohammed someone drew but also spews hate against Muslims and urges people to destroy Islam blah blah blah, then it's highly likely she'd fall foul of the laws. She probably wouldn't even get a visa to get into the country in the first place, though. The laws talk about good faith, so motivation does play into things...

[Renew Deal]

206. 256-1 is still considered 100%

[rogerashton]

211. Alles, was nicht pflicht ist, ist verboten.

It should be mandatory.

[Tom Ripley]

216. Jesusfuckingchrist...No!

[Jackpine Radical]

218. Odd's Bodkin, Christ on a crutch, and by the Prophet's beard,

where the hell does this stuff come from?

[el_bryanto]

237. Good thing we cleared that up.

Of course we should all go on pretending that there are many here at DU who want to silence all criticism of religion.

Bryant

[Chathamization]

275. I'm sure we'll get the "I'm sorry my accusations turned out to be BS" post any day now... N/T

[LeftinOH]

239. Hasa Diga Eebowai! (show tune reference)

[we can do it]

241. Insulting an imaginary being a crime?

How about insulting the easter bunny or santa claus, too.

[NCTraveler]

249. Just wanted to give BlueJazz a little company. nt.

[KamaAina]

271. I was wondering about that.

I was like,

[Warren DeMontague]

281. Heh.

See, standing up for an extremely unpopular opinion.

I actually think most of the (admittedly few) people who spent the past week doing mental gymnastics trying to cobble together a legal rationale why they might be able to drum up criminal charges against someone who "caused" people to draw cartoons that "caused" other people to become violent (interesting chain of casuality, no?) realize they're fairly well in the minority and aren't going to weigh in, here.

[PoutrageFatigue]

256. No. That's just fucking stupid.

...

[KamaAina]

260. Note to the two Yes voters: We can see you.

Using the Show Usernames feature at the lower left.

[Chathamization]

270. It seems you actually didn't see them.

Since one posted two posts above you saying they wanted to give the first voter some company.

[LanternWaste]

262. No doubt, we're all all entitled to illustrate our character via valid satire...

No doubt, we're all all entitled to illustrate our character via well-written and humorous satire or (should we lack the cleverness we all too often pretend to posses) simplistic and petulant mocking.

[Arugula Latte]

285. Hey, anything to counter the simplistic & omnipresent scolding and villifying of

of those of us who don't swallow silly mythology ... I got told off by a church sign just yesterday. It mocked me and told me I was on the wrong path because I don't believe in the magical carpenter zombie.

[LanternWaste]

296. While still others have been told no assistance because they were born on the wrong side of an imagi

"I was on the wrong path because I don't believe in the magical carpenter zombie..."

While still others have been told no assistance or food because they were born on the wrong side of an imaginary red and blue line.

[Matrosov]

265. No, fictional supreme sky beings and their superstitious stories need insulting

If people would at least keep their silly superstitious beliefs to themselves, but how many millions have had to die over the centuries because 'my fictional supreme sky being has a larger phallus than yours'? Believing in hateful Abrahamic religions seems to be especially hazardous to the health of the people around you.

[malthaussen]

272. I can think of no legal basis under which such speech could be criminalized. n/t

[countryjake]

273. You mean insulting like this...?

I'd wager that even the participants of that particular demo would be scratching their heads trying to honestly respond to your poll.

I don't think that it's possible to insult something that's imaginary, but it is certainly possible to reap the ire of those who believe in the supernatural, so I do my best to practice tolerance, (until their own intolerance flies in the face of the rational).

When I was a kid first presented with those ominous Ten Commandments, I had a lot of trouble reconciling the first five of them, and got into much trouble by refusing to take that short list seriously. If there would have been a law back then that could have thrown my sharp tongue in jail...

[Warren DeMontague]

283. Jesus Christ is ACTUALLY on a trailer hitch.

I don't know, man, I sort of like it.

[FSogol]

292. Is Tom Brady considered a Deity?

[Capt. Obvious]

295. Your creeping sharia is noted

[Warren DeMontague]

297. Oh, I'm sure Santorum would be on board.

A distressingly wide ideological swath of people don't give a fuck about the 1st Amendment, I've noticed.

[el_bryanto]

298. Yes nearly a percent of DU for example. Shocking. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

299. The people who had lists of decades-old scotus decisions to rationalize their arguments that

Last edited Tue May 12, 2015, 10:06 PM - Edit history (2)

drawing cartoons some find "blasphemous" (i.e. "insulting a Deity&quot isnt protected speech under the 1A... didn't bother to show up in this thread, I noticed.

And Santorum doesn't post here, at least not as far as I know.

But, yes, support for the 1st Amendment is popular on DU, as it should be. That's why the folks who perennially march in here all breathlessly excited that some country like iceland is on the "cutting edge" for proposing banning internet porn (trial balloon went pffffffffffffffffffffft!, sorry), are usually disappointed to find out that, no, most progressives are anti-censorship.

Again, as it should be.

It would be REAL fuckin' depressing if the poll results were much different. Don't you agree?

[Capt. Obvious]

301. One man's sharia law

is another's deeply held religious belief.

[Warren DeMontague]

302. I don't see "Sharia Law" as a real threat in the US.

However, I do take the Dominionist crowd pretty seriously.