Bill decriminalising vilification of religion approved: 'A sad day for Malta' - Archbishop

[trotsky]

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160712/local/bill-decriminalising-vilification-of-religion-approved-a-sad-day-for.618649

Archbishop Charles Scicluna this evening described today as “a sad day for Malta” as Parliament approved the Bill decriminalising the vilification of religion.

In a tweet, he said: "Demeaning God and man indeed go hand in hand. A sad day for Malta. Lord forgive them: they do not know what they do."

Must be a pretty weak and pathetic god the archbishop worships, if it needs to be protected by human laws. A victory for free speech!

[Warpy]

1. It always amazes me how small the god of the pious is

Not only must his honor and supremacy be protected by civil law, he's at a pious man's beck and call, taking orders to smite the wicked, praised when he smites the wrong people and misses one of the pious.

And he always needs money.

[nil desperandum]

2. And he apparently

has a lot of influence on the outcomes of sporting events...except it would appear he has to make a coin flip to decide which prayers to answer and which to ignore regarding those sporting events.

[skepticscott]

9. Not only small, but weak

you'd think if being insulted honked him off, he'd be able to do something about it himself. You know, like smiting or some such shit.

[guillaumeb]

3. What an excellent post, trotsky.

No, not yours, but this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113747991

Good news about religion.

[Lordquinton]

4. What about the actual topic

What are your thoughts about the RCC's statement against free speech?

[guillaumeb]

5. Intolerant and sad.

What did you think my response would be?

I have no respect for bigotry of any kind. Religious, skin color based, political, linguistic based. It is all hate speech.

[Lordquinton]

6. So then why did you try to deflect from it?

Hiding bigotry won't make it go away, it grows in the shadows.

[guillaumeb]

8. I responded as I did because in an earlier exchange,

Trotsky mentioned that positive news about religion is something that has also been posted by him/her. (I use both pronouns because I have no idea which applies.)

[trotsky]

14. Please don't hijack my thread.

Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

15. I am trying to be "fair and balanced".

You are welcome.

[trotsky]

16. OK then, point me out the threads where you criticize religion.

If you're all about being "fair and balanced."

[guillaumeb]

18. I have criticized actions of people many times at DU.

But I do not attribute their actions specifically to religion, I attribute it to the specific people taking the actions.

I do not criticize belief or non-belief, believing that either is a personal choice.

A small number of Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/whatever doing violent things in no way reflects on the enormous mass of the believers who do not behave this way.

So why should I criticize the act of believing in a creator, or a philosophy?

[trotsky]

19. Nope, not the same.

Nice try, though. On par with all your other lame attempts.

[guillaumeb]

20. What you mean is I did not respond in a simple religion=bad

sentence that validates what you appear to think.

This is obviously my own interpretation, based on those of your posts that I have read. If that is not true, if you in fact believe that religion can be an occasional force for good, please say so and I will modify my feeling.

[trotsky]

21. Nope, you're still stuck on the same straw man.

This one:

"A small number of Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/whatever doing violent things in no way reflects on the enormous mass of the believers who do not behave this way. "

NO ONE HAS CLAIMED OTHERWISE. What HAS been claimed, though, is that elements in those religions CAN be interpreted to endorse or even command violent acts. You can't argue that point, so instead you just fall back on your straw man, accusing those of speaking out against those teachings of religion of broadbrushing all the followers of said religion.

So, you gonna stop doing that now?

[guillaumeb]

22. Of course people can use religious teachings as a justification for doing

what they want to do. And I have said that numerous times. Just as I have said that patriotism, or any belief, can be used as a justification for doing many things. US patriotism was used to justify genocide against the First Peoples.

But I would not say: "NO ONE HAS CLAIMED OTHERWISE" unless you are simply speaking for yourself.

[trotsky]

23. But what you refuse to acknowledge...

is that sometimes, the religious teachings ARE the reason for a person doing something. They aren't justifying something USING religion, they are following the religion as they believe it requires. There is a difference between those things, and I'm not sure if you simply don't understand it, or if you don't WANT to understand it.

And no, I haven't seen anyone on DU blame all followers of a religion for the actions of a few. If you have any proof otherwise, please present it, or quit with the innuendo.

[guillaumeb]

25. From your response:

is that sometimes, the religious teachings ARE the reason for a person doing something. They aren't justifying something USING religion, they are following the religion as they believe it requires. There is a difference between those things, and I'm not sure if you simply don't understand it, or if you don't WANT to understand it.

The key words, in my view, are "as they believe it requires". And I am interpreting this to mean "as they believe it requires them to act/behave". If that indeed is your meaning, we are in agreement.

So if one believer feels that their faith particular justifies their using force, the question then becomes:
A) Do the majority of the believers share and act on this belief? If yes, then one could make the argument that the belief system is based on violence.
B) If no, if the majority of believers do not share this belief, do not behave violently, then it is a matter of competing groups of believers. Or competing interpretations of what it is to be a believer.

Your feeling?

[trotsky]

27. So your position basically comes down to the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

The fatal flaw in that logic is the realization it means when a majority of Christians thought their faith commanded them to convert or kill heathens, then that was true Christianity. Are you willing to accept that conclusion?

[guillaumeb]

28. Here again is my actual reply:

The key words, in my view, are "as they believe it requires". And I am interpreting this to mean "as they believe it requires them to act/behave". If that indeed is your meaning, we are in agreement.

So if one believer feels that their faith particular justifies their using force, the question then becomes:
A) Do the majority of the believers share and act on this belief? If yes, then one could make the argument that the belief system is based on violence.
B) If no, if the majority of believers do not share this belief, do not behave violently, then it is a matter of competing groups of believers. Or competing interpretations of what it is to be a believer.

Your feeling?

I never said that there is a "true Christianity". And your assumption/statement that "when a majority of Christians thought..."etc. is just that, an assumption without evidence. If a particular King or Pope initiated a Crusade, that was an action taken by an individual. It does not mean that most or every believer in the country agreed.

So your conclusion is flawed because belief is not a popularity contest where the most popular position is the correct one. In my personal view, the only "true Christian" was Jesus. All others are followers.

[trotsky]

29. You're desperately trying to wriggle off the hook.

Yes, at one time, a majority of Christians felt it was their duty to convert heathens. You seem to cling to the notion that no, somehow only a few Christian leaders did and the masses didn't. There is no evidence of that. The "just following orders" excuse is as lame as when it was used at the Nuremberg trials.

So according to your logic, that's what Christianity was at one time. Violent, aggressive, assertive, hateful. Because that's how a majority of its followers viewed it.

You realize too that because there are 1 billion Catholics, you've just essentially defined Christianity as Catholicism, right?

Keep digging. This is fun.

[guillaumeb]

31. And you desperately keep trying to reframe arguments so that you

can claim a victory.

My words about the Crusades were not meant as anything other than an example of a leader making a political decision and cloaking the politics in religion. So this defining so-called defining is your imagination.


And your assertion that:
"Yes, at one time, a majority of Christians felt it was their duty to convert heathens..." is just that. An assertion without factual basis. What do you or anyone know what a worker in the Middle Ages felt about anything?

That would be as ridiculous as me claiming that millions of atheistic Communists killed Christians to promote atheism as a state religion.

[trotsky]

32. Nope, you err once again.

How on earth do you have any knowledge about whether a centuries-dead individual made a decision for political reasons when they actually claimed it was for religious reasons? You don't. You assert without evidence in order to confirm your preconceived bias: that religion is never bad, and cannot be used to justify bad actions, that when it appears to be, then it was only "used" by people who had other motivations.

Yours is an entirely dishonest whitewashing of history, and an approach that spreads and reinforces bigotry against non-religious people. You need to stop it.

As for the support for my statements, I suggest we go with what people themselves claimed at the time, and what today's religious extremists are now claiming: that they are what they say they are, and that their actions are in accordance with their religion. You are saying that all those people lied or are lying. Prove it. Time to put your money with your mouth is.

(BTW, atheists were imprisoned and/or killed under Stalin too, so try and fold that into your false comparison!)

[guillaumeb]

33. You, again, missed the points.

Perhaps speed reading?

Reread what I said, slowly this time, and my comments about atheists were framed as just as ridiculous and baseless as your assertions about what Christians thought.

As to preconceived bias, yours shows. It is as obvious as your constant attempts to reframe my statements so you can better respond to them.

[trotsky]

34. Tell me how you know all those people are lying.

Without your nasty personal attacks.

Go ahead.

[guillaumeb]

35. You actually made the claim as to what Christians believ(ed).

The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim that Christians believed it was acceptable to kill and/or convert non-Christians.

As to personal attacks, when you claim that I am saying something that is unsupported by my actual posts, what am I to think? Honest misreading or agenda?

[trotsky]

36. Yes, based on what they themselves claimed.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native_Americans_and_Christianity#Christian_views_towards_the_.22Savage.22

Amongst the earliest harshest remarks about the Native Americans came from Christian sects, such as the Puritans, who saw themselves as those who would lead Native Americans on the true path to God. Through out the sixteenth century to the American Revolution, the goal of English missionaries was to reduce the Native Americans from savagery to “civility.” The quickest way to do this was to rid the world of the savage, either by conversion or death.

You are the one accusing them, and modern day Islamic radicals, of NOT following their religion, despite them saying so.

So where's your proof that they're all lying? Still waiting. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to understand the proof you've presented, after all, you told me to read more slowly. I must be really, really stupid.

[guillaumeb]

37. As I said in an earlier post, Jesus is the first Christian.

All others are followers. But when there is no litmus test for who is or what makes a Christian, where is the proof that Christians agree on something?

If someone claims to be acting in accordance with their religious beliefs I will take them at their word. That does not imply that I agree with their beliefs, nor does it imply that I agree with their actions. Nor does it imply that any particular believer speaks for all believers.

As to the reading more slowly comment, in a previous post you misread what I said about atheism. I actually said that any attempt to judge atheists by the actions of any one particular atheist(s) was equally ridiculous as judging belief by one believer.

[trotsky]

38. You're even wrong about that. Jesus was a Jew.

Who gets to define the litmus test? Don't you see the problem with that? You'll define it so that Christians are people who largely agree with your beliefs. Another Christian may define it to exclude you. If you both believe that Jesus was the son of a god and sacrificed himself for your sins, is that enough? If a person believes that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad was his prophet, is that enough to be a Muslim? Can a Muslim eat pork and still be a Muslim? Have a dog? Be homosexual? Be a woman and wear a bikini and still be a Muslim? Do you decide? If not, who does?

I think you would do very well to read the article I posted here, because that addresses the exact position you've taken on countless threads here on DU.

Let's compare to something that's not a religion. Who's a Democrat? Can you be a Democrat and be anti-choice? Can you be a Democrat and be pro-war? I guarantee you each and every person on this site disagrees with at least one item in the party platform, so are we all Democrats or are none of us? Who decides?

And I didn't misread anything. I'm pointing out the difference when it comes to justifying things based on atheism versus justifying them based on a religion.

[guillaumeb]

39. I repeat myself, at the risk of seeming rude:

All others are followers. But when there is no litmus test for who is or what makes a Christian, where is the proof that Christians agree on something?

If someone claims to be acting in accordance with their religious beliefs I will take them at their word. That does not imply that I agree with their beliefs, nor does it imply that I agree with their actions. Nor does it imply that any particular believer speaks for all believers.

As to the reading more slowly comment, in a previous post you misread what I said about atheism. I actually said that any attempt to judge atheists by the actions of any one particular atheist(s) was equally ridiculous as judging belief by one believer.

I actually made the point that there is no litmus test.

Second:
As to Jesus, the title Christ comes from the Greek word christos, meaning chosen one. The early followers of Jesus adopted the name Christian in reference to this. Just as Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was the first Muslim even though he was not born a Muslim.

[trotsky]

40. Well you've already implied I'm slow and/or stupid, so you crossed the rudeness line a while back.

You've made it clear on multiple threads that you think Muslims who engage in terrorism aren't real Muslims. You appear to have a litmus test for measuring when someone is following their religion, i.e., is a true believer. But now you say there isn't a litmus test? Maybe it's just me being stupid again, but it seems you are taking contradictory positions.

Let me know when you have the proof that every religious believer who disagrees with your interpretation of their religion is simply lying.

[guillaumeb]

41. What I tried to make clear in multiple threads is that no one person

defines what it is to be a believer. I believe that I previously said it in this particular post. I have said numerous times that people claim to be motivated by many things. Call it belief "A". This says nothing about belief "A" other than the person claiming the motivation believes it.

And I have repeated in this particular thread that I feel there is no litmus test for what defines a believer. This makes the third time that I have stated and reiterated this.

Your last sentence has nothing to do with anything that I said here, so at this point I have no idea what the particular point is that you are making.

As far as rudeness, I have implied nothing about your intelligence. But my previous post contained the phrase that I do not believe in a litmus test for belief, so I do question how you can reverse that to ask about my litmus test.

This conversation, in my view, points out the limitation of this type of conversation/debate format.

[trotsky]

42. "no one person defines what it is to be a believer"

That's great, although I have yet to see anyone claim otherwise - in fact, I've been arguing that the entire time. YOU don't get to decide what it is to be a believer any more than anyone else. So congrats on dispatching that straw man, I guess.

Since you admit there is no litmus test for belief, that means all your previous claims that religious terrorists couldn't be acting on their religion are now invalidated. This appears to be your roundabout way of admitting you have no proof whatsoever that believers acting poorly are lying about their belief. Thank you.

[guillaumeb]

43. If you need to see this reply as a "victory" of sorts, you are welcome to it.

But what I said is what I have said all along.

And as to terrorists, my position is that terrorists can claim anything as their motivation, but this claim says more about any particular terrorist than it does about the belief system that the terrorist claims to be following.

As to your last point, I pointed out to you in this thread that, any time believers state that they are acting as their religion commands, I would add that this is merely the personal belief of the actor.

[trotsky]

44. No, I wouldn't dream of claiming "victory."

Because you're still engaging in the exact same logical errors. Let's try another angle.

"...any time believers state that they are acting as their religion commands, I would add that this is merely the personal belief of the actor."

In that case, what is the point of religion? You are stating here that religion is essentially meaningless - that anything that happens in the name of religion (good or bad) is solely the result of a person's individual beliefs, and has no connection whatsoever to religions and/or gods.

Are you an atheist after all?

[guillaumeb]

46. In reply to your last question: no, I am a theist.

As to the point of religion, the point of religion is the point of philosophy in general. How to live a good life. But unless you make the claim that all believers must hold exactly the same beliefs your point misses the point. Jesus outlined the basic principles of His philosophy. It is up to believers to follow them.

If a Christian kills someone, is that an indictment of the Christian faith or the individual actor?

I am a Christian.
I have never joined a Crusade. I believe the Crusades were morally wrong and wars of conquest. Because the Crusades were framed and announced as religious exercises does this make me a non-Christian?

Are you an atheist, or an agnostic, or open to whatever?

[trotsky]

47. "Jesus outlines the basic principles"

Which are wide open to interpretation. You appear to be unable to see the fundamental contradiction in your own position.

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

If a Christian interprets that to mean they should kill non-Christians who reject Jesus, who are you to argue with them? You don't get to define Christianity - you admitted it yourself that no single believer defines a religion. That does of course include you, right? Unless you are proclaiming yourself as the sole arbiter of what your religion really is? Are you doing that?

And yes, there are some who would say your opposition to the crusades means you aren't a Christian. Certainly Christians of that era would argue it, and so would some today. They believed (and believe) that the crusades were part of Christianity, because they said so. And then we're back to the same thing you couldn't prove before: that you think they're lying.

We can go around and around on this as much as you like. I've shown how inconsistent and contradictory your position is many times and I'm perfectly willing to continue doing it, because your position is no different than that of the rabid fundamentalist who is so absolutely certain that they and they alone know the true meaning of their religion, and anyone who disagrees is doing so because they're misunderstanding, or misinterpreting the religion, or just "using" it for other reasons.

We can't begin to counter violence in the name of a religion until we acknowledge that the religion itself can be its source. You are completely unwilling to do so, and that's too bad.

[guillaumeb]

48. You failed to answer my question to you. Again. Why?

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

This has been interpreted to refer to the end days and the final judgement.

And the only things you have shown me is your absolute refusal to answer questions about your own beliefs. You can, of course answer the question I asked of you in my last post, or you can continue to ignore questions for whatever reason you have. Yours would be a losing debate strategy in live conversation but you are free to employ it here.

Like DeGrasse Tyson and Dawkins and some few others, you also apparently insist on a literal interpretation of a highly symbolic and allegorical document. Can I assume that you have never taken any classes in Biblical exegesis?

[trotsky]

49. LOL

"This has been interpreted..."

Yeah, by SOME people. Not all, and you have spent this entire subthread telling me how no one believer, or group of believers, can define a religion for anyone else. You keep contradicting yourself with everything you write. Amazing! Do you really not see what you're doing?

I apologize profusely for forgetting to answer your question, but since you are now grasping onto it as some desperate attempt to declare your own "victory" after completely demolishing your own position over and over.

Here's your answer: I'm an atheist who doesn't take anybody's religious text literally. I am open to the possibility of gods existing if anyone could provide even one scintilla of evidence for them. Or at least present a consistent, coherent argument. Still waiting.

(BTW, plenty of Christians interpret the bible literally. And guess what? You don't get to define their religion for them. I'll continue to point out your ridiculous hypocrisy for as long as you want to display it.)

Now answer my questions. I answered yours.

[guillaumeb]

50. You do understand symbolism and allegory. So do many people.

Biblical literalism is a strain of belief. According to Gallup:

Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx

So while there are plenty of Christians, 28% could be called plenty but it hardly represents a majority. That leaves approximately 72% who do not believe in Biblical literalism. Do you feel that you must concentrate on this 28% to the exclusion of the other 72% If so, why? And even of this 28%, what percent engage in acts of violence and claim it to be religiously inspired? An insignificant number.

If you are an atheist, what would you consider evidence? Footprints, a giant fingerprint, a photograph? Given that faith does not require evidence, are you a science based person?

PS. Please repeat your question.

[trotsky]

51. Of course I do.

But no one gets to define anyone else's religion, as you said. You just can't help but sabotage your own arguments. It's a comedy at this point. And argumentum ad populum isn't going to save you, you already humiliated yourself last time you tried that fallacy.

I scrolled back and found your question to answer. You can do the same for me. If you don't, then you forfeit. I will answer no more of your questions until you answer all I have posed to you in this thread. (That's a hint. There are more than one.)

[guillaumeb]

52. Sabotage, humiliate, etc are all attempts at ad hominem.

Why do it at all? And your claims of victory are claims judged and decided by you alone.

I have stated repeatedly that there is no litmus test on what defines a believer, but your arguments constantly refer to Biblical literalists. So you are defining what Christianity is on your narrow terms and then attacking the straw man that you have constructed.

Interresting to see, but hardly a "win".

[trotsky]

53. Please look up "ad hominem." It doesn't mean what you think it means.

So there is no litmus test, except for the litmus test of whether someone is a biblical literalist. Got it.

Too bad you forfeited by refusing to answer my questions. But I completely understand why you want out of this exchange. It's been a disaster for you.

[guillaumeb]

56. At least you are consistent.

And again, you mischaracterize my position so you can "refute" what I do not say.

As I said, you are consistent.

[trotsky]

57. I am tired of your game.

By refusing to answer my questions, you have forfeited the discussion.

[rug]

58. Lol, you've moved from consistency to pomposity.

Very entertaining.

[rug]

7. Must be a pretty weak and pathetic position if it depends on vilification.

[uriel1972]

10. To some "There is no evidence for any gods" is villification...

It's in the eye of the beholder.

[rug]

11. Not really. But to some name-calling is argument.

It has more to do with personality than subject.

[PoutrageFatigue]

24. Yup. Amazing how thin-skinned this omnipotent being seems to be...

...us almost as if it wasn't real...

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. In 2011, 119 people were convicted of 'public blasphemy' in Malta; in 2012, 99

That's in a population of 423,000.

Malta is known as a popular travel destination, and for housing a thriving British expat community. Malta is also one of the most religious countries in Europe, with over 95 per cent of its population belonging to the Catholic Church. The small island nation is also one of the few European Union members to have an actively used blasphemy law. In 2012, 99 people were convicted of “public blasphemy” in Malta. While the number seems high, it may also be viewed as an improvement on the previous year’s 119 sentences. The number of blasphemy convictions in Malta has been large for years. Some observers have estimated that there may be as many as five people charged for blasphemy or “offensive language” per day.

Unsurprisingly, most blasphemy cases are brought by Catholics, and often include accusations of obscenity or indecency. A rather famous case occurred in 2009, when seven people were arrested for “vilifying the Catholic religion” at the annual Nadur carnival. The carnival attendants had dressed up as nuns and Jesus. Local Bishops found this terribly insulting, and called for legal action to defend the rights of the (Catholic) majority. The people in nun costumes were later acquitted because the court decided that nuns were not “ministers of the Catholic religion” and therefore not protected by the law. The man dressed as Jesus, however, received a suspended sentence of one month’s imprisonment.

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4147/malta

[trotsky]

13. No wonder the archbishop was so pouty.

"Unsurprisingly, most blasphemy cases are brought by Catholics"

Oh for the good ol' days when they could just burn the blasphemers at the stake.

[LeftishBrit]

55. Wow.

[Angry Dragon]

17. A belief in a god, lessens man and woman.............

[RussBLib]

26. I've never really understood why a fictional being cannot be criticized?

It really does speak poorly of that particular god if they cannot brook free thought now and then.

Now we have maybe 100 more countries to go that still punish blasphemy.

[trotsky]

30. It speaks directly to religious privilege.

"MY religious beliefs may not be questioned or mocked!"

Even some DUers display this indignation when religion isn't treated with what they believe is appropriate respect.

[RussBLib]

45. they should LEGALIZE criticism of religion

If god is truly all powerful, he can withstand blasphemy and criticism.

Cast off your religious crutches people!

[LeftishBrit]

54. Good for Malta!

I never understand the need for laws against blasphemy, insulting religion, etc. If there really is an all-powerful God (I don't believe there is!), why would he care about what some human twit says about him? And if he does care, surely he could send down a thunderbolt - why does he need legal protection?