13th January 2010
“Just because extremist members of one faith create a climate of fear by taking the law into their own hands (or threatening to) doesn't necessarily mean that the law should be stretched to protect the sacred images of all faiths.”
Richard Morrison
January 13th, 2010 at 2:07
The law shouldn’t be stretched to protect ANY “sacred images of faith”.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:04
If you allow and protect one; when you must allow and protect all…equally. One must have freedom from religion to have freedom of religion.
Solomon:
With hell being in the mind and thus the eye of the beholder, might I ask? Are you a cleric?
January 13th, 2010 at 3:21
I do not have any context for this statement – which Richard Morrison said this and why? At first glance it is nonsensical – I agree with Thomas and I believe I agree with John (at least what I think I understand John to be saying.” If I had to guess, it would be someone “misuing some “sacred image”" – say from Islam or Christianity, and someone claiming adherence to such religion claiming to being offended and wanting retribution. So, to a point I also agree with Mr. Morrision = not extending. (Unless of course all symbols have no protection and thus this protection is extended to all.
YSG
January 13th, 2010 at 3:59
I am unsure of the context this quote was is referring to. It seems to me that the law should apply equally across all faiths. This quote seems to imply that all legitimate faiths are not treated equally. If so, I’d have to disagree with it. The law should be stretched to protect all sacred images, regardless of a few extremists.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:23
Dear John,
I’am no cleric. I’am an ordinary happy normal average man who fear & love god & supports truth.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:07
I couldn’t dig up the context either. You could take this a couple ways. The way I’d guess it’s intended is that Morrison is against stretching an existing law, say a hate crimes law, to cover the desecration of images some religion happens to claim as “sacred”, what ever that might mean. I agree – such an abrogation of society’s freedom of expression would be intolerable.
We must not cower before those that would make it illegal to publish a cartoon.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:33
No “sacred” symbols ought to be protected from criticism (including parody, satire, etc…); but physical pieces of property owned by individuals and organizations should be protected from vandalism, theft, and the like. I am assuming the quote refers to the former, so I am in agreement.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:34
It’s from:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article4767183.ece
January 13th, 2010 at 11:04
“Christ is risen …” very funny. Under no circumstances should we censor any material that contains religious images. People should not feel afraid to depict god, christ and muhammad whether it is done to amuse, annoy or simply shock.
This was allowed because the blasphemy laws in the UK have been abolished (thank christ!). However Islamic nations (Saudi in particular) seem to be pushing for anti-blasphemy laws in the west and Africa.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:10
I have no real problem with the “Christ is risen” uh, thing. The “art” display sounds more stupid than shocking. If the purpose is to offend (some) Christians, then yippee for him, he succeeded! If the purpose is to be generally shocking, then here’s your brownie point! If the purpose is to point out the humanity of Christ, then thanks, but I already knew that. If the purpose is to make the connection between pop culture and sexuality, then I’m glad to see you finally caught up with the rest of us. If he’s trying to be funny, then hey, what the hell, “Christ is risen” in this context is kinda funny. The offended litigant is the one making this newsworthy. Probably too stupid to even get it.
Symbols of any kind – as symbols – religious or otherwise, belong to everybody and can be used by anybody in whatever manner they see fit. Get over it. There should be no laws against “blasphemy”
January 13th, 2010 at 12:16
LOL, just reading,Ped you just thanked someone who you claim doesn’t exist?Tech is scratching his head.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:28
I have a question. Can somebody give me proof that God don’t exist ? To clear the air once and for all. I can not give any proof of God’s existence. How ever I can not give any proof that he doesn’t. Meanwhile I can live without an answer to that question. I’m not searching, I’m very content with my life.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:53
Tech
The traditional approach would be to say that it is up to the person making the positive assertion to provide the evidence. Therefore it is up to theists to provide proof that their otherwise invisible and un apprehendable deity exists. Also philosophically it is impossible to prove a negative so for an atheist to demonstrate that there is no possible way for a god of any description to exist is futile. For this reason atheists will usually (though not always) say there is PROBABLY no God. We would however be open to changing our opinion should proof of hs existence appear.
As far as todays quote goes I’m with Oxymoronic Christhinker here,and it’s good to see a theist thinking this way.
January 13th, 2010 at 13:59
If this quote is referring to pictures of Mohammad, as a few of you pondered, then it does not apply at all. There are no “sacred images” of this ummm, deity allowed by it’s religion. Therefore any picture intended to portray her/him/it should be considered irrelevant to this quote.
Tech,
No, I do not think there is any evidence to conclusively show that any of the tens of thousands of gods, including yours, do not exist. However, large problems can be shown in the materials you use to insist that he does, primarily your bible. Since you appear to have no interest in exploring that avenue, there is little to discuss. That is unfortunate, because much can be learned from all in here.
January 13th, 2010 at 14:36
Mr. holy smokes.The Bible is the book I try and live by.If you want to quote the keeping each verse in full context. I will gladly discuss it with you.The Bible wasn’t written to prove there is a God. It was written as a road map to live our lives by. Its up to every child of God if he uses the Bible or not. I’m glad that i’m in possession of such a book.
January 13th, 2010 at 15:15
tech:
If it was it failed.
It was written by ignorant, nomadic tribesmen and thus encompasses their preoccupations and dubious moral codes. How is this a good guide to life in the 21st century?
January 13th, 2010 at 15:23
tech:
If you mean a creator god then yes – because a creator god is an obvious logical fallacy.
- if god created the heavens and the Earth then he must be a complex entity, more complex than the heavens and Earth themselves
- if the heavens and Earth require god to create them then god himself requires an even more complex god to create him.
- this second god requires an even more complex god and so forth.
This is obviously ridiculous so QED the heavens and Earth were not created by a complex entity, commonly know as “god” and a creator god cannot exist.
January 13th, 2010 at 15:51
I thought that a pair of mice created the earth? Isn’t the answer life’s most important question 42? Praise be to FSM that superstition is not the answer to all difficult questions.
January 13th, 2010 at 16:30
Can you justify that statement? If the Bible is a road map, who wrote it and what moral authority do you think they possessed?
January 13th, 2010 at 16:32
Hi Tech,
You stated earlier that you were not aware of any evidence to show that your God exists. Then you went on to exclaim that, “you know he does.” The only source that I am aware of to make you aware of this god is the bible. If there is another source, please elaborate. What, EXACTLY are you using for a source to make you believe that your god exists?
You might also ask yourself the following question; If the bible never existed, would I still believe in god? If your honest answer is no or maybe, then it seems likely that you are using the bible to bolster your belief, even if you do not yet realize it.
January 13th, 2010 at 16:34
Oh, you also stated that the bible is a book that you try to live by. Which part or parts?
January 13th, 2010 at 16:57
I just read the article where this quote came from. It makes no sense, even in the context of the article itself. Not unless he is implying that favoritism is already being handed out to Muslims regarding Mohammed images, (solely over the fear of backlash), and not to other faiths. Is there any truth to this in the UK?
January 13th, 2010 at 16:57
I agree with you all, when you say you don’t believe in God I believe you. I won’t try to change you minds.You can all believe what you like. For the most part I’ll just read and laugh.
January 13th, 2010 at 17:21
Well Tech,
It’s a shame that you are not willing it investigate further. Understanding your affliction is almost as import as admitting you have a problem. Please let us know if you change your mind because we can help you. Yes, …laughter is good for you, so keep watching
)
January 13th, 2010 at 17:22
To be fair Hypatia, although this argument satisfies Occam’s Razor and I would use it myself in some circumstances, it is not really that clear cut. Just because stopping at an uncreated universe avoids the infinite regression amd multiplication of entities does not in itself mean those entities cannot exist.
I actually think Deistic concepts of God are harder to argue against, than specific Theist ones. Yahweh for example has defined characteristics that were he to exist would be very obvious to us. That they are not disproves Yahweh.
January 13th, 2010 at 17:22
Of course we should not allow ourselves to be coerced or manipulated by fear.
Just another one of the many reasons I disagree so vehemently with religion(s). The Islamists and their threats and actions against those who do or would draw pictures of their sacred Mohammed are heinous.
But we allow and have been totally misled for millenia by religions that not only threaten us in this life, but follow us into the afterlife.
Religions will continue to manipulate ignorant peoples until these people become intelligent enough to cast off such ridiculous falsehoods such as the supernatural and an afterlife.
January 13th, 2010 at 17:24
Not favouritism but fear. One of the models in the artwork featured christ with an erection. The main complaint from the very few christians who were offended was that the artist (or the gallery) would never depict or commision art that showed Muhammad in the same way.
It’s not a very good argument but it does highlight how terrified people are of poking fun at Islam and it’s prophets.
You only have to look at people like Salman Rushdie and Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard to realise why people are so fearful.
In fact I always think twice about some of my comments on here regarding the Islamic faith.
This is not a good situation to be in.
January 13th, 2010 at 17:32
Hypatia just laid out the best rebuttle to the existence of a creator god. Thank you Hypatia.
“if the heavens and Earth require god to create them then god himself requires an even more complex god to create him.”
This one piece of reasoning illustrates the logical fallacy that will be committed if one were to continue the “existence implies creator” reasoning. It’s called an infinite regression.
I’ve always wondered how the religious get around this without using an infinite regression and so far my religious friends have explained to me (because I am such a moron) that God is supernatural and therefore his existence was not created. The problem is that they arrived at “God is a creator” because they have deduced that if something exists then it was created. So either god doesn’t exist or god is an exception (supernatural). My question for the religious becomes then:
Why does an explanation of the natural world require a super natural entity?
Kirk Cameron uses the watch example that “the watch is complex and therefore implies a creator.” This example uses (like all other religious examples of “existence implies Creator”) a NATURAL entity creating something of natural material. They cannot supply an example of SUPERNATURAL to NATURAL except for the god creating existence.
Why the inconsistency?
January 13th, 2010 at 17:52
You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.
- Carl Sagan
I don’t necessarily believe that this quote refers to all people; but after a couple of months of Solomon’s and tech’s antics it has become clear to me that this quote epitomizes their belief system.
I don’t have any more time than I did in the past and yet now I read 3X as much material too get the same amount of substance and quality.
I’m not saying they deserve no response, but they do seem to be ‘playing’ or ‘baiting’ us, to command too much response. The thought of all these great minds wasting their time on 2 people who care so little for reason or understanding is undermining our site.
I will make more of an effort to resoind to anyone whose first initial is within my modified alphabet:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRUVWXYZ
January 13th, 2010 at 18:00
Magic, Hypatia,
I’ve read the arguments.
I’m skeptical, as I am of everything.
I believe we have evolved through evolution. It would seem that ‘natural selection’ would need to be our ‘designer’ and I don’t know how to attribute more intelligence to mother nature.
The onset of 2 cells dividing doesn’t seem to me that the one must be smarter than the other.
January 13th, 2010 at 18:08
Come on Tony you can do better than that.Why if it weren’t for Solomon and myself, you guys would have nothing to talk about. Tony, also make up your mind is there an after life or not its seems as thought you’re not quite sure.You are grasping at straws the lot you.
January 13th, 2010 at 18:43
Tony, how do you know there is a T and S in the alphabet ?I mean what proof do you have?
January 13th, 2010 at 18:49
AtheistMC – I agree with you that deism is harder to rebut. Further I think it can’t be rebutted because you can’t prove a negative. But importantly, I think it requires no counter argument because of its benign nature. I think of deism as a respectable, though unprovable, blandness because one its own it doesn’t inform ones actions. Spitting distance from pantheism, really.
January 13th, 2010 at 18:50
Oops! Forgot to change back into my usual garb.
January 13th, 2010 at 19:52
I can understand the theist argument for the existence of god. It’s a complete nonsense of course but I can understand why some people need it in their lives.
Deism on the other hand makes no sense to me. Dreamt up by atheists who couldn’t fully let go of the god idea and whose father walked out on them as a child. Maybe psychology isn’t my strong point!
January 13th, 2010 at 20:06
It’s simple. EVERYONE is looking for answers. Theists, Deists & Atheists. We all want to know what makes things tick, aka the preverbal “answers to everything.” The only problem is, that only one admits to a lack of knowledge and corrects itself when wrong, via valid scientific methods. The other two INSIST that they are correct and only correct themselves when a mountain of evidence is laid at their feet.
The funny part is, the unsure third are the only ones actively looking for evidence. Who do we logically place our trust in?
January 13th, 2010 at 20:57
PRAISE MY WONDERFUL LORD.MAY HE HAVE MERCY UPON YOU ALL.
January 13th, 2010 at 20:58
ONE DAY EVERY KNEE WILL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE CONFESS THAT HE IS THE LORD.
January 13th, 2010 at 21:23
Well Tech,
What happened to, “for the most part, I’ll just read and laugh?” Instead you decide to come here and start yelling. Do you enjoy acting like a jerk?
January 13th, 2010 at 21:40
YELLING! Oh you mean the caps on, well if thats being a jerk as you put it, then you are a very childish person. I didn’t look at it as yelling, I guess my mind is much more open that. I taught I was typing not yelling.
January 13th, 2010 at 21:52
No, you were definitely yelling. More to the point, you are merely attempting to get a rise out of people for your own self-pleasure. Do us a favor and adhere to your own comment about watching only. You have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion, other than sounding like a blathering idiot. If you are unsure as to the meaning of the word “idiot” please look it up at http://www.dictionary.com
January 13th, 2010 at 23:05
Tech – can you please explain your motivation for prosthelytizing in this forum? Given the audience, your professions of faith are, um, creepy.
P.S.
All caps are generally understood to be yelling in this context. A minor breech of etiquette.
January 13th, 2010 at 23:46
Capt:
I’d consider it a minor infraction too …if this were the first time.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:33
Dear all,
I’am in. Nobody mention about the small letter “s”. Yee… Haa…I’am in.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:41
Dear All,
When the believers spread truth they call it prosthelytizing. But when they spread fabricated lies they termed it evidence or proofs.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:04
So…believers spread fabricated lies. This is news?
January 14th, 2010 at 2:52
Dear All,
I hate to say this but;
Islam=on the correct path
Atheists,Deists=on a swayed path
January 14th, 2010 at 2:55
Dear All,
Forget my previous post. Heres the revised one.
I’am delighted to say this:
Islam=on the correct path
Atheists,Deists=on a swayed path
January 14th, 2010 at 3:00
Dear Atheists,
Just some points for you all to wonder.
Your lots are all being described in the Qoran;
The Lord says:
When they are told, ‘Believe in the way that the people believe,’ they say, ‘What! Are we to believe in the way that fools believe?’ No indeed! They are the fools, but they do not know it. (Surat al-Baqara, 13)
January 14th, 2010 at 3:06
And some other points to ponder:
The Lord says in the Qur’an:
Do those who take the disbelievers as protectors, rather than the believers, hope to find power and strength with them? Power and strength belong entirely to Allah. (Surat an-Nisa’, 139)
In the Qu’ran, Allah tells us about those who reject Islam and choose to follow other paths.
If the truth were to follow their whims and desires, the heavens and the Earth and everyone in them would have been brought to ruin. No indeed! We have given them their Reminder, but they have turned away from it. (Surat al-Muminun, 71)
January 14th, 2010 at 3:08
Dear CaptainZero1969,
“They” means “your lots” dumb.
January 14th, 2010 at 5:36
Plights of the unbelievers on judgement day.
Qur’an 22:19-22 “fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem” “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods”
Qur’an 48:13 Those who “believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!”
January 14th, 2010 at 10:21
Solomon, anyone can write a book saying other people are stupid, other people are damned. Mankind has been writing books like this since he invented writing. Your Qur’an is just another pathetic example of the genre.
January 14th, 2010 at 14:44
Dear Hypatia,
Can any one create the words or revelations as close to the Qoran.?If you say so call all your allies & create a verse that is as close and as true as the quran without any contradiction.