Bob the builder a great Theologist

Your concept is far from immaculate :innocent: It’s good but it’s not an immaculate conceptualization

1 Like

The (second-century) Protevangelion Jacobi (Infancy Gospel of James) is hardly a reliable source on the life of Jesus! There were many such gospels.

His wife’s name was Yasodhara. He also had concubines. He left them all to become a forest renunciate.

1 Like

Ah, I’m clearly far from enlightenment. But how old were they?

I don’t want to be prosecuted in Austria (or anywhere), so I won’t play devil’s advocate for the anti-Christians. :speak_no_evil:

Sakyamuni Buddha and Yasodhara? Same age. Born on the same day, or so the legend goes. Married when they were both 16.

They’d be entitled to a council flat in the UK

I’m going to continue the blasphemy discussion here (even though this thread was supposed to be about a guy called Bob, or something).

My advice:

  1. As a general rule, don’t click on clickbait. Life is too short for that.

  2. As a general rule, people who write articles using CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis are not very intelligent and/or are targeting a not very intelligent audience. Even when they tell you the truth, they’re still bad sources.

  3. If you want to prove cause and effect, you can’t just point out a correlation, cross your arms, and smugly proclaim victory.

You have two things here. First, you have an example of an effort to change civilization (stop Islamophobia). Then, you have an example of civilization being changed (an Islamophobe gets arrested). Ergo, it seems, one has led to the other, and we all urgently need to vote for anti-Islam politicians because they are the only ones who can save us from this madness.

Is there any substance to this? :ponder:

The first part – some people wanting to stop Islamophobia and being willing to restrict freedom of speech in order to achieve that goal – is not in dispute. How extreme the mainstream versions of it are (or how mainstream the extreme versions of it are) is another question.

As for the second part…

I won’t spend a lot of time pointing out flaw after flaw in the article (that would be easy and boring). The main point is the criminal case, which you can easily find out more about, if you want to look.

Robot translation:

“Using marks [symbols] of unconstitutional organizations” refers to what’s commonly known as the Nazi symbol ban, which is actually a ban on the symbols and propaganda of various organizations, ranging from the original Nazi Party to various Communist parties to ISIL. That law is serious business in Germany. Even crossed-out swastikas were banned until 2007. Your destroy-civilization-through-anti-Islamophobia conspiracy didn’t write that law, and it has no special anti-Islamophobia provisions.

As for the other charge, “cursing denominations, religious communities and belief groups” refers to § 166 of the Criminal Code, the German version of the Austrian blasphemy law we discussed earlier. In both countries, these are simply the modern versions of the ancient/medieval European (Christian) blasphemy laws. Once upon a time these laws only protected Christianity, but now they’re universal, though without any special anti-Islamophobia provisions. As the ancient proverb says, good for the goose, good for the gander. :yin_yang:

Also found in the Wiki article:

  • A 2011 study showed an average of 15 blasphemy convictions per year in Germany.

  • Over the last few decades, the “center-right” parties have repeatedly been the ones insisting on keeping or even strengthening the blasphemy law (even in the wake of Charlie Hebdo), while the leftish parties have been the ones trying to relax or abolish it.

  • There was no equivalent law in East Germany. (Where’s that time machine when we need it? I’ve found a great place for you to vacation while you recover from the horrors of Malaysia! :rainbow:)

  • The Netherlands – probably one of your favorite countries to avoid – stopped prosecuting blasphemy in 1968 and abolished it in 2012.

Incidentally, Canada repealed its blasphemy law this past December. Yes, Justin’s Canada! :astonished: I’ll give you a minute to catch your breath. :dizzy:


So, to return to your bullshit clickbait article that’s supposed to prove that leftist parties in western countries are part of the conspiracy to destroy civilization under the cover of anti-Islamophobia…

No, Germany just proved that German law trumps German law, and it was written long ago.

But here’s the real kicker. Note that the article is dated August 22, 2017, 10:50 am. There is no update.

To return to Wikiland…

:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

sprach … frei = freisprechen 3rd person singular past simple indicative active with direct object between the two halves of the verb = acquitted

:doh: :wall: :roll: :idunno: :whistle:

Okay, I am not a professional German ==> English translator, and neither is the robot, but whatever that actually means, I’m not trembling in fear of this grand conspiracy of yours.

To return briefly to your complaint:

Your point being what, that non-existent laws are destroying civilization? Lots of laws don’t get passed. Lots of old laws don’t get enforced. There are non-binding resolutions (and even theoretical laws with no actual capability of enforcement) that get passed all the time, about all kinds of things. This is what keeps you up at night? :strawberry:

Go ahead, shock us. But please, please, make meaningful contributions to the discussion, not more of that sloppy copy pasta bullcrap.

Thank you and have a pleasant day! :bowing:

1 Like

Bans on Nazi and some communist symbols in Germany. Disregarding this law could end is heavy jail time. Is that not a ban on freedom.of expression ?
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-confusing-rules-on-swastikas-and-nazi-symbols/a-45063547

It’s not a ban on freedom of expression. It’s a restriction.

Freedom of expression is very tricky when it comes to what could be seen as hate speech or incitement to violence.

Are you serious, have you been living under the rock where Islam gets special treatment over any other religions?

Even on here, I speak out against Islam. Posters are saying I’m attacking Muslims and think they’re all bombers and I’m alt right and might shoot up a mosque. People criticize all the other religions here and no one says that about them. In public, I’m at risk of losing my job, media blowing it up etc.

Many of the laws have been used to silence people, they might get dropped but the charges are very real. There is an active push to from many different groups to give Islam more protection.

https://gatesofvienna.net/2016/01/a-possible-charge-of-incitement-against-heidi-mund-for-her-public-prayers/

I remember this women, charged with inciitment for violence after being kicked out of a church for opposing a Imans call to prayer…a church dedicated to Martin Luther no less.

1 Like

Umm they’re hate speech and blasphemy laws. They are literally designed to silence people from using “hate speech” and “blasphemy”. You have not even come close to showing they are being particularly applied to protect Islam, regardless of your agitated rhetoric.

So what? What does one thing have to do with the other.

gatesofvienna.net” lol. That’s convincing.

You can find a better article of Mund yourself if you don’t think it happened. It’s mostly in
German.

So what? How are they not related. People pushing limit free speech on criticism of Islam is not relevant to more instances where people are silenced due to threat of the penalty of law?

Hate speech laws and laws similar to that are pretty ambiguous and it’s been used to suppress people’s views on all fronts. But it’s been particularly used to suppress ideas on one side. It may have been used to prevent critical of the church before which I find equally ridiculous. But today there’s been pushes by pro Muslim groups and pro Israel groups to include any criticisms against them.

1 Like

Any people can push for anything they want. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

You haven’t shown this.

No, but it’s a growing number and I see more and more people welcome the idea of not just having hate speech laws, but expanding it. Maybe not today, but big changes often happen slowly and gradually.

I’ve shown you examples, but you’re not satisfied because some of the laws are old. But as I explained it’s how the law is going to be used that is also important. Not saying hate speech laws don’t silence a lot of other things. They do, I’m against them in general. But hate speech is overwhelmingly used to attack one side of the political spectrum.

1 Like

A few examples aren’t going to cut it. When you have hate speech laws which are being applied, that a few such cases have occurred isn’t surprising. Especially if you do something like this last yoyo. Let me know when you’ve assembled something convincing that these laws are being selectively applied. You don’t get to just jump to me assuming it. I’m out until then

1 Like

I’m not sure if we’re still also talking about blasphemy or if we’ve switched entirely to hate speech. Remember those Geman parties who tried to strengthen/keep or relax/abolish the blasphemy law? Which parties were they again? :ponder:

Hate speech is something we hear about more and more. We also hear about religious toilet paper and presidential pee-pee tapes and so on, more and more. Society and its standards of behavior have changed rapidly and unevenly in recent history, and some people are having a hard time coping.

That Canadian blasphemy law arguably didn’t need to be repealed, because it was already unconsitutional. It was probably constitutional in 1982 (year of the current constitution), but things like that happen when you have a living tree.

Germany and neighboring countries have different cultures and different laws because they have different histories. You can’t expect them to adhere to Anglo-American standards all the time, or vice-versa.

True. Also, many changes happen faster now than they would have in former centuries. That doesn’t prove your conspiracy theory, though.

It’s not that the laws are old. It’s that they don’t give any special treatment to Islam, which you want us to believe they do. The fact that they date back to whatever decade or century simply shows that they couldn’t have been written as part of a movement that emerged later. (While we’re at it, I’m willing to bet the legislators did not have blue hair.)

True.

I think we’re feeling a little overwhelmed lately by your bias and crappy sourcing.

I don’t have an study of how the law is applied at my fingertips and don’t have time to look for one. I could give you isolated example after isolated example of (western country) blasphemy prosecutions in relation to Christianity, but it would be tedious and not even very relevant, and then you would just complain about harsher blasphemy laws in non-western countries.

If we’re talking specifically about hate speech (not blasphemy), then of course the vast majority of cases in western countries will involve the targeting of minorities. Simple math could tell you that. Since 2001, of course the number of cases in which Muslims and Arabs are targeted has increased. That doesn’t mean comparable crimes targeting non-Muslims or non-Arabs are subject to different legal standards.

When you have something credible about Islam getting special treatment (compared to other mainstream religions) under the laws of western countries, please let us know. :sleeping:

If you bothered to investigate, that is an EU position.
European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law :: Gatestone Institute
That would apply , in theory to 26+ Western Countries . Do you need more examples? It is perfectly ok to criticize any other Religious Deity.
I have to commend your post

  1. 10/10 for Virtue signalling
  2. 1/10 for understanding where the “evil” policies of the Nazi party came from.
  3. 1/10 for not understanding that Fascism is born out of the very policies that progressives are seemingly pursuing at the moment.
  4. Implying ( maybe you don’t agree) that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong and not virtuous…because ( insert suitable proselytising)

@yyy I am sure you can do better.

There IS an inherent bias in many Western Cultures due to minority groups , of many types, receiving a disproportionate amount of attention , simply to satisfy the Social Justice extreme and to virtue signal , in an attempt to win votes. It does not work. Those policies can create more division in societies than the intention .
I am more “right” than I was simply at the frustration at seeing the lack of real discourse around. by all means debate , but try to do it in a fair way.
Apologies if this is not eloquently constructed , but I am falling asleep .
Peace.

The UK used to have a blasphemy law (maybe still does). As I recall, the only person ever prosecuted under it was a guy who made a gay porn movie featuring Christ on the cross, being pleasured by Roman soldiers.

I remember the outrage when Life of Brian was introduced. Nobody was prosecuted as I recall? People are being prosecuted today , under the excuse of “hate speech” . some extremists may deserve to be , but the inequality that I mentioned earlier , is that there is little being done to the equivalent hate speech protagonists , wishing death and destruction to many . It does not fit the “Agenda” . The left won’t criticise any anti-Gay sentiments or Women’s rights violations that they support ( in theory) , because the hate is only directed towards the right , it would appear. Anything that dilutes the Groupthink ideology must be evil. but hate speech is ok from the “repressed minorities”…that fits.

So, to demonstrate an official EU position, you give us an article by…

:drum:

…an American fake news “think tank” with a funny habit of changing its name every few years. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Also, a website where the top link in the sidebar is “Denmark in a State of Unreported Collapse”. :runaway:

Seriously?

At least the website is courteous enough to provide a link to an actual ECHR press release about the case it spends a whole article misrepresenting, which turns out to be…

:drum: :drum:

the same freaking case from Austria we already talked about! :wall:

The Whatever-It’s-Called Institute’s main point:

No, as you would know if you bothered to read the judgement I quoted extensively the other day in this very thread, the court affirmed a member state’s right to interpret international human rights law in accordance with its own national standards, instead of being obligated to change its own law to conform with foreign opinion.

In other words, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed Austria’s sovereignty. Last time I checked, that was exactly the opposite of what pan-European (and global) institutions were accused of doing by Euroskeptics (and anti-globalists).

The whatever-it’s-called institute’s article goes on to insinuate that this case was prosecuted at the behest of the dreaded Islamo-Globalist Conspiracy! :runaway: and not because there was a violation of the 1974 Criminal Code of Austria. (Incidentally, would you prefer the 1852 Criminal Code with a maximum sentence of 10 years of hard labor?)

Btw, the judgement is still pending one last appeal, so we may not have heard the last of this.

And again, I am not taking a stance on whether or not the ECHR should interpret international law the way it does. I’m not even taking a stance on whether Austrian law should be what it is. But it is what it is, and it’s not what those echo chamber websites keep feeding you.

Don’t make me start Trump-meming this thread… :no_no:

I was talking about blasphemy and law. That segued into hate speech and law, but now you’re getting away from law and into identity politics in general. I think that’s a discussion worth having, but I won’t be part of it (here).

Can Shia do better? :praying:

@discobot fortune

1 Like

:crystal_ball: Without a doubt

2 Likes