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.

Petallus - Not impressed with Higgs because he's a polite atheist? Or because he is an outstanding innovative theoretical physicist? With a mind of his own?

Whoops, wrong thread!

I loved Jerry Springer The Opera.

Still wrong thread. I was very impressed with Higgs.

Now going over to see what I said that I didn't mean to.

Which thread was it lilygran?

John Rutter on religion. But as our dear children have only gone home this morning, I may be so disoriented that I've got that wrong, too!

It was page 1 of this thread and I was talking about Myers who doesn't like Higgs and wrote a really silly article about polite atheists, quoted on the thread.

I really like Higgs and his views. I relate to them so much.

The nature of truth and fact is very interesting. One of the things that I was taught during my SW training was that "there is truth in feeling." In other words, if I am presented with a client who believes something is true (even if to me it had no reality) then to them it IS true and I would need to start where they are and work from there. That would not mean that at some point I might not need to challenge their belief if it was patently false; but that I would get nowhere in helping them if I immediately dismissed what for them is real; and if I expressed my disagreement in strident terms.

If the experience of a Christian is that they obtain comfort from prayer/ religious observance, then for them that is evidence; just as the outcome of an experiment is evidence for a scientist. That is why they continue their observance, because for them the effects are real and positive.

I am not defending the indescribable evil wrought by many of the world's religions; just observing that "reality" is experienced differently by different people.

I remain a confirmed "don't know" because I firmly believe that the answers to the really big questions are not available to us at this point of the universe's development; I am sure I will die not knowing. I do not feel in a position to tell anyone else that they are deluded - for all I know if I had shared their reality/life experiences I might share their view.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to religions for the good they have done; and we can all be justifiably angry about the bad.

Expressing views in "strident" terms and using words liked "deluded" are instruments to close dialogue and make the person being addressed more firmly entrenched in the their views and less open to persuasion or discussion. That works both ways.

Going back to the question "what about holocaust deniers?", here's my answer, spoken by Christopher Hitchens.

My view is that it is not a crime to deny the holocaust. It is stupid and possibly/probably delusional, but not a crime. Hitchens puts it better than I ever could.

Bags I can't find the bit where Hitchens talks about holocaust deniers and I can't wade through any more of his stuff I'm afraid.

To clarify, I wasn't questioning whether the holocaust took place or not. I assume without question that it did.

I just used the topic as an example of an area where there is not freedom of speech.

Other areas are anything we consider to be sexist or racist.

So, if we say we believe totally in free speech, what do we do about these sorts of topics?

Is it still our right to express ourselves as we wish?

Well said Mishap

I think it is still our right to speak about them, yes. You do not have to 'wade through' Hitchens stuff to find what he says about holocaust denial: I put a link up to a speech he made in Toronto. It's not long.

Esentially, it boils down to Who Decides what we are free to hear? I am not willing for someone else to tell me what I may read or listen to.

Inciting to violence on the strength of delusional beliefs is not the same as merely expressing an opinion. I'm not in favour of the former; I am in favour of the latter. I think the dividing line might be tricky sometimes, but we should still strive to maximise freedom of speech, and not to limit what people are allowed to say, or even think.

Doesn't it also come to 'is it right to do or say things that are going to hurt others' ?

Bags I missed the first part of Hitchens' speech which I have now listened to.

I certainly didn't have to 'wade though it'. In fact, I was enrapt. Hugely impressive and just what I think myself, except I would never have been able to formulate and express my views anywhere near as brilliantly as he did.

I'm a fan now. I shall read some of his books. I already have his autobiography (Hitch 22).

petallus He's one of the best public speakers ever imo. Always convincing. Erudite.

alie, I cannot always know what other people will be hurt by. Neither can anyone else. Some things which may be hurtful to some are still the truth and should be said (or allowed to be said at least). Again, Who Decides? You? Me? Some violent extremist? Hurting someone physically is not the same at all because it's quite obvious to almost everyone what will hurt. Words do not harm anyone – only interpretations.

That's not to say someone can go around being bitchy on purpose. But saying political or other controversial things that others will not like should not be assumed to be deliberate nastiness rather than someone expressing an opinion which they are perfectly entitled to have even if they are wrong.

And expressing opinions, even faulty ones, that no-one actually has to listen to or read if they don't want to is quite different from focussed, systematic bullying by text or whatever.

mishap what an excellent post. Agree +++.

Interesting interview here with Prof Jim Al Khalili about his kind of atheism.

Good article. Thanks for the link, anno. Isn't it great that there's a whole spectrum of ways to look at and speak about what matters to you? Some people prefer one end of the spectrum to the other. Some can cope with it all. #lovediversity #lovefreedomofspeech

As this is a religon area I thought it would be ok to say what I feel about religon. I am a Roman Catholic and if it were not for my beleif I truly dont know how I would have gotten through my life to be honest..

cheeluthat's a nice post.

Lucky you!

* Mishap* thank you so much for that - articulate and sensitive too. I agree.

Although nobody has a right to go through life without being offended, many followers of the Abrahamic religions certainly think they do.

As I saw it well-put recently (can't remember where or by whom) Christians want a free ride, in an armoured car.

PZ Myers is, and I think rightly, opposed to accomodationism, and says so. I like that...