| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:22:36 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Files: | 1,025 |
| Messages: | 90,666 |
Britain used to have blasphemy laws, mostly to protect Christianity
against abuse, but the last conviction under those laws was registered
in the 1970s. The blasphemy laws were finally abolished altogether in
2008. However, increasing demands from Muslims mean that we are seeing
an emergence of new blasphemy laws. This video looks at how these new
rules are emerging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZjkbVuWU_0 [11 minutes]
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Britain used to have blasphemy laws, mostly to protect Christianity
against abuse, but the last conviction under those laws was registered
in the 1970s. The blasphemy laws were finally abolished altogether in
2008. However, increasing demands from Muslims mean that we are seeing
an emergence of new blasphemy laws. This video looks at how these new
rules are emerging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZjkbVuWU_0 [11 minutes]
The discussion of the conspiracy to get the fatwa issued against Rushdie
had a lot of information I was unfamiliar with. It's shocking that
Rushdie was criticized by government ministers and that opposition M.P.s contributed to scapegoating him for their own political gain. Even
opposition politicians who defended Rushdie quickly turned on him.
The videographer credits television comedian Rowan Atkinson for lobbying
to get the censorious hate speech bill -- modern anti-blasphemy
legislation replacing the recently repealed blasphemy legislation --
toned down slightly.
But did this truly originate in 1988 with opposition to his book or was
this a long-standing issue in UK society? He didn't convince me that
this was the origin.
The anti-blaspheming violence in the UK has been almost entirely Muslim against Muslim. Huh. Censorship doesn't reign in violence. Who knew?
I wonder if prosecuting violent offenders opposing the free exercise of religion by others, throwing the book at them, might reign in violence.
On 2025-05-15 11:14 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Britain used to have blasphemy laws, mostly to protect Christianity >>>against abuse, but the last conviction under those laws was registered
in the 1970s. The blasphemy laws were finally abolished altogether in >>>2008. However, increasing demands from Muslims mean that we are seeing
an emergence of new blasphemy laws. This video looks at how these new >>>rules are emerging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZjkbVuWU_0 [11 minutes]
The discussion of the conspiracy to get the fatwa issued against Rushdie >>had a lot of information I was unfamiliar with. It's shocking that
Rushdie was criticized by government ministers and that opposition M.P.s >>contributed to scapegoating him for their own political gain. Even >>opposition politicians who defended Rushdie quickly turned on him.
That surprised me, too. Then again, I'm sure we've both seen politicians >change their views 180 degrees when the wind seemed to be shifting.
The videographer credits television comedian Rowan Atkinson for lobbying
to get the censorious hate speech bill -- modern anti-blasphemy
legislation replacing the recently repealed blasphemy legislation --
toned down slightly.
Atkinson has been a real fighter for free speech. He's definitely one of
the good guys.
But did this truly originate in 1988 with opposition to his book or was >>this a long-standing issue in UK society? He didn't convince me that
this was the origin.
I'll bet it was already there before then although it may not have been
all that visible yet. It probably goes back to the days when the second >Muslim in Britain talked to the first Muslim and they agreed that these >infidels weren't getting with the Islamic program.
The anti-blaspheming violence in the UK has been almost entirely Muslim >>against Muslim. Huh. Censorship doesn't reign in violence. Who knew?
I wonder if prosecuting violent offenders opposing the free exercise of >>religion by others, throwing the book at them, might reign in violence.
I'd love to see it tried!
I was very surprised to see Leo Kearse practically doing a victory dance
in his latest video. He seems to think the tide is turning against the >woke/multiculturalism/open-borders crowd. I truly hope he is right but
the "progressives" seem deeply ensconced just about everywhere in the
West so I'm not counting on it being over yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gePgY6A5Cq4 [11 minutes]
Britain used to have blasphemy laws, mostly to protect Christianity
against abuse, but the last conviction under those laws was registered
in the 1970s. The blasphemy laws were finally abolished altogether in
2008. However, increasing demands from Muslims mean that we are seeing
an emergence of new blasphemy laws. This video looks at how these new
rules are emerging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZjkbVuWU_0 [11 minutes]
If you don't think a not insignificant number of Democrat politicians would >like to bring this sort of thing to America, I have a few bridges to sell >you.
Thank god we have a 1st Amendment and our right to free speech isn't whatever >51% of Congress says it is.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
If you don't think a not insignificant number of Democrat politicians would >> like to bring this sort of thing to America, I have a few bridges to sell
you.
Thank god we have a 1st Amendment and our right to free speech isn't whatever
51% of Congress says it is.
We're about to lose the Establishment clause in the Oklahoma case in this term of the Roberts court as we will have public monies subsidizing
the religious education of children.
Alito and Thomas are just itching
to make the free exercise clause superior to speech/press. When that
happens, we lose America.
I don't want the church lady telling me how to worship and how to live.
On May 15, 2025 at 2:09:46 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
If you don't think a not insignificant number of Democrat politicians would >>> like to bring this sort of thing to America, I have a few bridges to sell >>> you.
Thank god we have a 1st Amendment and our right to free speech isn't whatever
51% of Congress says it is.
We're about to lose the Establishment clause in the Oklahoma case in this
term of the Roberts court as we will have public monies subsidizing
the religious education of children.
While I don't agree with that, I also don't agree that doing it constitutes the establishment of a state religion.
Alito and Thomas are just itching
to make the free exercise clause superior to speech/press. When that
happens, we lose America.
I don't want the church lady telling me how to worship and how to live.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-15 11:14 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Britain used to have blasphemy laws, mostly to protect Christianity
against abuse, but the last conviction under those laws was registered >>>> in the 1970s. The blasphemy laws were finally abolished altogether in
2008. However, increasing demands from Muslims mean that we are seeing >>>> an emergence of new blasphemy laws. This video looks at how these new
rules are emerging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZjkbVuWU_0 [11 minutes]
The discussion of the conspiracy to get the fatwa issued against Rushdie >>> had a lot of information I was unfamiliar with. It's shocking that
Rushdie was criticized by government ministers and that opposition M.P.s >>> contributed to scapegoating him for their own political gain. Even
opposition politicians who defended Rushdie quickly turned on him.
That surprised me, too. Then again, I'm sure we've both seen politicians
change their views 180 degrees when the wind seemed to be shifting.
The videographer credits television comedian Rowan Atkinson for lobbying >>> to get the censorious hate speech bill -- modern anti-blasphemy
legislation replacing the recently repealed blasphemy legislation --
toned down slightly.
Atkinson has been a real fighter for free speech. He's definitely one of
the good guys.
One of them. Rushdie lobbied for it too but he was targeted with
attempted murder. What seemingly disinterested party believes in free exercise of religion in the UK, or free speech/publishing to discuss or criticize religion?
Voters don't appear to be interested in throwing political parties out
of office for supporting modern laws criminalizing blasphemy.
No one seeks to preserve the "fundamental rights of all Englishmen".
But did this truly originate in 1988 with opposition to his book or was
this a long-standing issue in UK society? He didn't convince me that
this was the origin.
I'll bet it was already there before then although it may not have been
all that visible yet. It probably goes back to the days when the second
Muslim in Britain talked to the first Muslim and they agreed that these
infidels weren't getting with the Islamic program.
Undoubtably a third Muslim who had begun to question the religious
beliefs he was raised on.
The anti-blaspheming violence in the UK has been almost entirely Muslim
against Muslim. Huh. Censorship doesn't reign in violence. Who knew?
I wonder if prosecuting violent offenders opposing the free exercise of
religion by others, throwing the book at them, might reign in violence.
I'd love to see it tried!
I was very surprised to see Leo Kearse practically doing a victory dance
in his latest video. He seems to think the tide is turning against the
woke/multiculturalism/open-borders crowd. I truly hope he is right but
the "progressives" seem deeply ensconced just about everywhere in the
West so I'm not counting on it being over yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gePgY6A5Cq4 [11 minutes]
I don't have time to watch that right now, but I don't see that as the fundamental problem. Progressivism used to promote liberal values as
part of overall reform of society in support of individual right and in opposition to corruption. For decades, they've rejected liberalism to a greater or lesser extent.
We expect this.
We don't expect the elites of society to require everybody to
infantalize Islam, the conclusion of the first videographer, treating
all of its adherants as immature and incapable of living in a society embracing Western values. Instead of promoting liberty for all and
teaching them its benefits, the elites are attempting to force everybody
else to reject Western values so these horribly immature people can feel better about themselves, if not superior.
That came out of left field. Why?