Free speech is sacred!

[rollingrock]

Run time: 06:54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzTA_D5NpU   Posted on YouTube: March 17, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 18, 2009 By DU Member: rollingrock Views on DU: 921

 
Religion is anti-thetical to free speech, free thought.

[Deja Q]

1. And so is every sperm!

I've plenty to go around...

[Fearless]

2. Ewwwwwww!

Care for a turkey baster? http://lezgetreal.com/?p=5444

[rollingrock]

3. People like you need to be neutered

better yet, aborted.

[pleah]

5. LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SkyDaddy7]

4. Pat rocks!!!!

He can tell it like it is in a way that is very funny yet very serious and to the point! Religion does poison everything!

[burning rain]

6. Pat Condell's good...

In these times I'm sorry to say it wouldn't surprise me if he were arrested somewhere in Europe for blasphemy, er, I mean "inciting hatred," or indeed murdered in the name of God.

[humblebum]

7. The problem is not religion, it's fanaticism.

There has been a lot of damage done by fanatical atheists.

[snake in the grass]

8. While it is factual...

...that crimes have been committed by atheists (after all, they make up 0.2% of the U.S. prison population - top 3: Catholics at 39%, Protestants at 35%, and Muslims at 7%), your comparison is weak. There has not been one societal movement composed of atheists, who went out harassing, bombing, maiming, and murdering people in the name of atheism. Not one. I am an unbending atheist and I have no inhibitions with being open about my feelings towards religion, especially when certain individuals feel the need to convert me on a supermarket parking lot or proselytize on a weekend morning at my front door. However, I do not get in other people's faces about my beliefs or how I choose to live my life if left alone. I appreciate your attempt at distinction by claiming that fanaticism, not religion, is the problem, but I must disagree. Religion of any sort is based on the irrational imaginations of those who founded them and perpetuated through tribal pressure by those who follow. This separation from observable reality opens the door to the type of fanaticism you mention and the type of fanaticism that is a danger to our species.

[humblebum]

9. Your attitude is precisely what potentially makes atheism fanatical.

you know as well as I do that the communists were fanatical toward religious people and most of those were atheists.

[snake in the grass]

10. It wasn't done in the name of atheism.

Stalin made himself a god and his version of communism was the state religion, not atheism. He went after anybody who threatened his ultimate authority.
Atheism is not a political doctrine, nor is it a belief system. It is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural and the superstitious. I don't want a cult of personality. I simply want a government that is based upon and acts upon observable reality.

[humblebum]

11. To Stalin it was a belief system. He called it Scientific Atheism.

Between him and Kruschev and Mao plus a few others, anywhere from 60 million on up died. Thousands of churches, mosques, and synagogues were destroyed.
Irregardless, one thing stands out: these acts were not carried out by religious people. If this wasn't done in the name of atheism, it was most certainly fanaticism - which would make fanaticism the motivation. So, if if those numbers are close then that would mean that fanatics butchered far more people than was ever done in the name of religion. It is human fanaticism that causes these things and they come in all flavors.

[rollingrock]

14. How many millions died at the hands of the Inquisition?

too many to count. How many Jews and Muslims have killed each
other in the name of their religion? Too many to count.
And wasn't Hitler a practicing Roman Catholic? How many did Hitler kill? A 100 million?

To say that 'far more died at the hands of atheists than at the hands of Christians/Muslims/Jews' is hyperbole at best.

[humblebum]

18. I think The answer is Nowhere near that many. 60 million is the low figure.

And as far as Hitler goes, he was a passionate student of Neitzsche's works. Kinda hard to be a devout Catholic and a follower of Neitzsche at the same time. Also, add another 2 million for Pol Pot in Cambodia - not done in the name of religion - pure fanaticism.

[snake in the grass]

15. I never said atheists couldn't be assholes.

The problem is with dogma. Atheists do not care for such things as we are open to all discussion and atheism is too narrow a context to include dogmatic, irrational authoritarians. We have nothing to answer for.

While there have been some oppressive secular societies, every theocracy has been a bloody nightmare. I'll take my chances with an enlightened secular government any day of the week.

[CadenBlaker]

13. Atheism

atheism

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

ant: theism. This means, it's simply a lack of belief in Theism. It's that simple.

To say just because Stalin happened to be a non-believer, that he somehow represents ALL non-believers is absolutely ignorant and insane. Stalin was a power hungry dictator who just happened to be an Atheist. Sure the man was trash, and worse than Hitler in many ways, but I sure as hell don't even come close to respecting what he did. In fact, as an atheist, I loathe what he did. I deplore it. I hate Stalin, and anyone who murders innocent people for any reason, one person or 23 million people.

I don't appreciate people linking Atheism to Stalin as if Atheism is some type of religious doctrine. That's complete bull.

[snake in the grass]

20. I agree with you.

I am sick of the comparison as well. Not one person was killed under Stalin for being a non-atheist. Some people choose to be purposefully obtuse.

[CadenBlaker]

12. I love Pat Condell.

He's right. He makes absolute sense. If we allow them to sensor criticism of ANY and ALL religions, then free speech will no longer be free. We all should be able to criticize ALL beliefs, or even NON-Belief. I don't care what the U.N. says, I'll criticize ALL I want and I will not bow to religious extremists who infiltrate world governing bodies.

[humblebum]

16. You should never bow to religious extremists, nor any other kind.

Just because people are religious does not mean extremist. If they are secular or atheist or whatever does not make them not extremists. The UN established that along time ago with Article 18.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

[CadenBlaker]

17. If..

If a religious body is trying to make it so religion can not be criticized or questioned, then they are extremists.

[humblebum]

19. They have no right to be free of criticism, but the same goes for any fanatical group.

If I criticize the Mexican drug cartels, does that mean I am prejudice against Mexicans? And would it be fair for me to scapegoat all Mexicans because some are involved in gangs. Drug lords are certainly not operating in the name of religion, but they are fanatic about power and money.

[humblebum]

21. Definitely agreed. But, by the same token. If someone is creating an

atmosphere of hatred and contempt for a particular group, then that would also constitute a form of extremism.