h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was glad to hear the BBC ignored all the before-the-fact complaints.

It seemed to me the judgement was made on the correct basis - was any reasonable person likely to be offended by *watching* the programme.

People who had already decided to be offended and still watched it, and people who took offence at the very idea of the programme in the first place *should* be ignored.

An extremist atheist might be offended by the idea that the BBC produces programmes supporting religion where people put forward religious 'theories' as fact, but a reasonable person just watches something else and doesn't whine about it.
Someone whose family was wiped out by someone driving a high-performance car might find a motoring programme upsetting, but a reaonable person just watches something else.

Someone who effectively says "I want eveyone else to treat *my* feelings as special" realy needs to learn to grow up.
A black-and-white Sunday School approach to religion isn't really sustainable in the modern world.

Yeah I am thinking about starting a pressure group called "Rational Voices" to complain about any religeuos content on the BBC.

Anyone with me?

Heard on the Radio that the blokey heading up whichever religious group it was that had organised a lot of the complaints, is now going for a private prossecution against the BBC using the Blasphemy laws.

Is it not time that Blasphemy was removed from the statute books (in the UK) since it is a protection law for a specific religion (or maybe all gods, must check the wording). Whatever, it protects a view of the world which is increasingly in the minority, thereby applying the beliefs of the minority to the majority who do not believe.

Given the increasing irrelevance of religion to the masses (despite what the census says, church congregation figures tell a very different story) should the law still be there?

I think not.


(or should I move this to a new thread on its own?)

What *is* blasphemy anyway?

I presumably have a right to deny the existence of a God or Gods, or to define God(s) as I see fit?

I'd have thought it's only when blasphemy extends to the point of making a reasonable person fearful of practicing their religion (and so my fredom of speech seriously infringes their religious freedom) that they have some kind of case.

I'm not sure that hurting the feelings of a few insecure extremists really counts for much. I can only hope that a private prosecution costs them a great deal of money.

Blasphemy is 'gross irreverence towards God'. The Christain god under UK laws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1329823,00.html
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5760&title=Bishop%20calls%20for%20repeal%20of%20Blasphemy%20Law

Ah, would appear it is being reviewed in line with the incitement to hatred ref. religions law stuff that Blunkett was going to put through.

So we may well lose it, only to gain something even more controversial. Always the way.

There are a few cases where I think upsetting people's feelings should be a consideration. If a program was broadcast on such a subject I feel it should be one done with sensitivity and after the watershed.

Insulting people's beliefs is nowhere near hurtful enough to warrant censorship in my opinion.

<>

What would, then?

Or do you apply this unconcern only to 'religious' people? Would insulting the beliefs say, of animal rights extremists, or Vegans, or BDSM fans be actionable in your view?

not in mine
personally I don't set out to deliberately insult peoples beliefs but some people take offence very easily
a blanket ban on offending people would make debate about religion or politics impossible

I'm not responsible for someone else's beliefs, nor should I be limited by them.
If an animal rights extremist is offended by me eating a steak, they should go and look in the window of a vegetarian resaurant. As long as I'm not actually standing outside their house slaughtering animals, the possibility of *their* being offended shouldn't *legally* limit my actions.
Whether I choose to limit my words or actions *out of courtesy* is another matter, but the law really should butt out except in really extreme cases. In fact, the more the law interferes, the *less* courteous I think people are likely to be.

Possibly the best analogy for extreme vegetarians regarding JStO would be a publically funded meal where there was a small, perfectly well labelled carnivore room but vegetarian options elsewhere. If extreme vegetarians started picketing the carnivore section, or even went and sat inside it and then later complained about the smell or taste of meat, most reasonable people (including most vegetarians) would think they were a bunch of whining losers.

In any case, I'm not sure that even the most extreme vegetarians are currently supporting legislation outlawing criticism of vegetarianism. Seems even the least secure veggies aren't as insecure as some religious types.

Fundamentally, I see no logical reason why anyone's religious beliefs or feelings need or deserve any kind of special treatment under the law.
Given the plurality of religious views, it's an absolute certainty that some religions are objectively wrong, and it's quite possible that they all are. I don't see how the law can justify any defence of a set of views that are partially or completely incorrect just because *some* of the believers get especially upset at criticism.

If people are mentally incapable of dealing with humour or criticism, they should go and live in a closed community where the media can't reach them, not just try and make everyone else live the same dull life they do.

How *do* you insult the beliefs of BDSM fans?

<>

Good question! The point I wanted to make is that simple courtesy *should* stop people from setting out to hurt, insult, upset or denigrate any section of the community or their beliefs.

Many here are so smug about how they think 'religious' people should just stop getting upset about things like the JStO, and go away and stop expressing their anger. I simply asked, would you say the same to other interest groups?

I think there's a wee bit double standard here. The same people who say "Oh, get a life" to groups they disapprove of, would be the first to complain at anything *they* saw as racist, heterosexist/homophobic, etc. Believe me, you ain't offended anybody until you've got on the wrong side of animal rights activists!

Potholer, the problem is twofold. First, none of the religions will accept that theirs is wrong; that's why they call it a "Belief". Second, many Christian sects believe they have been told by God to evangelise and spread their own particular set of beliefs to as wide an audience as possible, suppressing all other belief systems.

One person's belief is another's heresy; for example, I personally believe that the Catholic rejection of birth control is simply their way of making sure that their followers multiply faster than any other sect, and thus become the defacto majority religion in as many countries as possible. I'm sure that by stating this belief I've offended somebody.

not just Christians
many Muslims believe they have a duty to try and spread Islam

personally I don't have a problem with that so long as its done peacefully, outside the school system, and there isn't a state religion (so I'm not very pleased with the situation in the UK)

<>

Not so much offended as amused... I first heard that particular piece of paranoia from some of the extreme Protestants who hung around small town in the 1960s. So, if you hoped to offend, you didn't, , at least not me.

PS - Why the word 'sect'? Was that part of the wish to offend as well?

I wasn't wishing to offend, just pointing out that something that would seem reasonable to one section of the population can be seen as offensive to another. That was the first example that came to mind.

I always thought the word "sect" was used when discussing different Christian... er... sects...? What would you suggest as an alternative?

denomination is probably less likely to offend than sect but its better than calling them cults

I just looked it up, and the first definition is:

"A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice."

So referring to any single Church as a Christian sect seems to be a fairly reasonable definition, in terms of one specific set of beliefs under the wider umbrella of Christianity.

>>"I simply asked, would you say the same to other interest groups?"

Yes - the law should protect the average citizen from any extremists trying to limit their actions.

>>"I think there's a wee bit double standard here. The same people who say "Oh, get a life" to groups they disapprove of, would be the first to complain at anything *they* saw as racist, heterosexist/homophobic, etc."

I think you've got that point backwards. It's the *homophobes* who can't handle people just living their own lives in a way that the homophobe chooses to take offence at who are the real problem. People who can't read the word 'gay' without immmediately imagining bu££$ry really should go and visit their nearest shrink.

Gay men aren't generally against other men being straight any more than black/brown/yellow people are against other people being white. What they are rightly against is inadequate people who have nothing better to do than be against *them*.

I'm against religious extremists trying to limit freedom of expression in *precisely* the same way I'm against homophobes trying to limit freedom of sexuality and racists striving for some mythical pure nation.
It's perfectly logical to be intolerant of intolerance.

>>"Believe me, you ain't offended anybody until you've got on the wrong side of animal rights activists!"

I'm aware of that. Though most are reasonable people with heartfelt beliefs, a few are simply scum looking for an arena to cause trouble in where they can feel justified. Some thugs have terrorised people near where I live into avoiding contact with a particular farm, and even went so far as to dig up and cart off the body of a relative of one of the fram owners some months ago. The body is still missing.
The ironic thing is, the farm used to be a mixture of regular farming and raising guinea pigs for scientific use. After the hate and violence campaign, they've lost their farmworkers and have to put their efforts 100% into raising guinea pigs. Some victory.

"Denomination" is good too.

Although it's a peculiarly Christian word, while "Sect" can be used for a subdivision of any religion. It's not an insult.

As Blackberry Cat said "denomination".

I must explain my reaction to what you put... I grew up with Presbyterian ancestry and a mother who retained of her own upbringing, only an animus against Catholics. I heard such things as the 'trying to outbreed us' theory (not from her but from people of her generation) and somehow I ended up with the idea that Catholics had horns and a tail! Then I met some...

So, I react (maybe over-react) against statements that seem to me to be the same kind of prejudice.

There's an atheist on h2g2 who always makes a point of saying 'sect' because he wants to offend, he's acknowledged that much. I apologise for assuming that your use of the word was similar.