Interesting

Stephen 'Birdshit' Geen tried a private action against the BBC for showing Jerry Springer: The Opera in 2007. Thrown out.

The last successful action was brought in 1977, when Mary Whitehouse won against the editor of Gay News, for publishing the poem The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

'Blasphemy' in this country was limited to affending against Christianity.

Good riddance.

Goodness Riverwalk you are right - that had passed me by. Glad I know now - some hope then for good sense!

Has anybody been prosecuted for blasphemy recently?

I thought the blasphemy laws had been abolished in the UK? If they haven't then they ought to be!

Isn't that just in Germany? You could see why they might be somewhat sensitive on the subject. As for the blasphemy laws - they are a disgrace!

What about being a holocaust denier. Even more of a test.

I emphasise that I personally don't question it at all but some people have done and have been imprisoned for it,

Who supports the idea to abolish blasphemy laws then? That's the real test of support for freedom of speech.

I am a great believer in freedom of speech.

I certainly don't care what atheists and Christians say, even though I might feel frustrated/bored at some of it.

However, there is so much we are not allowed to say in our society, some of it bringing down criminal proceedings on our heads.

I don't think I have either, nanado. I've been talking about other outspoken atheists. Can't be bothered to go and check whether I've happened to mention on this thread that I'm an atheist, as I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't had the feeling this thread was about us; it seemed to me to be about Richard Dawkins and Peter Higgs in the first instance, and most of the discussion has been about what can be said and what can't be said by and about such people. Someone who believes in Freedom of Speech as much as I do ought to ba able to argue the same whatever their personal stance on religion ('ought' being the significant word in that last sentence). I hope I could. I mentioned that if the pope and the archbish can preach so can Dawkins (if that's what he does).

Nanado - perhaps you haven't felt driven to?

It appears to be a thread about what other people such as Dawkins thinks.

Interesting! D'you know I've not once on this thread taken the opportunity to express my own views on religion and spirituality. How has that happened?

I agree anno that it's an easy thing to say, but much harder to put into practice successfully as the written word is equally easy to misinterpret, as Bags has said.

'attack the view point not the poster' - yes indeed Nanado. You can reiterate this time after time but still a number of people who hold the viewpoint being criticised will feel themselves under attack. Which is why I tend to confine myself - on matters to do with religion - to stating my own (humanist) position and withdrawing from any argument.

Yes, I find the relational aspect pertinent when engaging in debate, and there are various dynamics at work - here's just two which exist.

One is debating online, where there is no body language to assess. It is purely the written word, which as we all know, emoticons or not, can be misunderstood.

Two is in person, face to face. If someone, with smiling eyes and laughing face said they thought I was delusional, well then, I would understand much more instantly that it was said with no harmful intent. It might well have been said with conviction, but the manner in which it was relayed would, to some extent, influence my emotional reaction.

However, if it was said with cold, flat eyes and a tone of voice which I found unpleasant, then my emotional response might well be quite different.

.......until such time as I had analysed and unpicked it all and discovered they (and I) might possibly all have been talking gibberish, of course

While we're all exchanging compliments in the spirit of good will and harmony I'd like to say that is a very relevant point nightowl. There's a fine line between rudeness and bluntness, and it does depend on the relationship between the parties. I think as we get older we either become more sensitive to the feelings of others or go the other way and think we have the right to 'say what we feel'. Just because some people feel confident to handle words such as 'delusional' being thrown at them does not mean everyone is happy to be tagged as such, and it is a wise person who can put themselves in someone else's shoes.

As has been said many times on GN, attack the view point not the poster.

gagagran, it is kind of you to say so. soop and butty too. Thank you all

I think it is true that anyone has the right to say they think someone is delusional but how it will be received will also depend on the relationship between the people concerned. If, for example, my son said he thought I was delusional in certain beliefs ( a not unknown occurrence) I would be equally robust in my response. I might even tell him I thought he was a prat. However, if someone I hardly knew said the same thing, not only would I think they were quite rude, but I would be less inclined to pay much respect to their argument. So while they may have a right to say that, they may have to accept that it would not be a good way to convince me of their views. They may not care of course, it really would depend on why they were saying it in the first place.

Thanks soop for such a kind comment.

Thirded!

B A balance between the content of what is said and how that content is expressed would be a perfect scenario, but of course it all depends upon an individual's differing perceptions on the specific issue debated, as you pointed out.
I agree, in principle, that no one can hurt/insult another by being called, let's say, delusional, as it is in receipt of the comment that decisions about one's emotional responses are made. However it can take, in my view, a robust and finely tuned emotional intelligence to be able to receive such a comment with pragmatism, if strong feelings are attached to a counter-argument.
Freedom of speech is vital, but with such freedom comes responsibility, and I feel it needs to be used with insight, care and consideration.

Having said that, delusional or not , as always you make a great deal of sense.

bags I'll keep that in mind !!!

Gagagran With reference to Bag's excellent debating skills...I second the motion...

Bags I am constantly amazed by the power of your debating skills and the respect and patience which you always show. I wish we had a "New Years Honours" poll on this forum because I would nominate you as the kindest, most logical, and interesting debater of all. I wish I had your skill. (and I agree with everything you say)

Quite apart from anything else, if someone thinks I'm deluded, they might be right, in which case I'd be grateful to them for 'sorting me out'. I think a lot of the people who feel they have benefitted from the words of outspoken atheists feel like that towards their 'rescuers' from religious oppression. Atheistical outspokenness has helped a lot of people to break free of thoughts and beliefs that made them unhappy. That's good. Long may it continue.

It is a skill to be honed, and a difficult one at that (not that you, butty, have ever transgressed in this regard, as soop says. Neither has she), but the how can be concentrated on to the detriment of the what. Also, what one person may find acceptable may not be acceptable according to someone else because of their differing perspectives on the same issue.

Thinking further, then, I still think someone has the right to tell me I'm deluded about something (or several things). I think they also have the right to express themselves in such a way that they think they are insulting me. Whether I feel insulted is up to me.

That said, it's always worth coming back to something jessm and others have highlighted a few times, which is that what's important in forum discussions is to play the ball, not the person. Easier said than done sometimes, but a good ground rule.

Some people seem not to like how outspoken atheists express themselves. Atheists, like non-atheists, still have the right to express themselves as they choose. Liking how or what they say are separate issues from the issue of their freedom to say what they think in the way they choose.

And it's OK to get exasperated and to express that, as Myers does in the quote above.