International law against "slandering religion"?

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like the existing libel/slander laws in the UK broadened to include this.

I identify myself, spiritually, as Pagan. A pretty eclectic one, but a Pagan nevertheless. At the moment, as the law stands, if someone points at me and says 'That Red Haired Grrrl regularly kidnaps small children and sacrifices them to Satan!', the onus would be on them in a court of law to prove that I did. To say anything about a named person that will tend to affect their reputation and public standing - and accusing them of a criminal act certainly would do so - is slander under British law, or libel if it's in writing. This law is applied with some success. I personally know a Wiccan gentleman who was accused by a tabloid newspaper of obscene acts which he would never dream of carrying out, and who went to court and won damages and an apology from the newspaper concerned. This is how the law is supposed to work, to protect innocent people.

However...if you say 'Pagans go round kidnapping small children and sacrificing them to Satan!'...that is perfectly permissible, and UK law doesn't seem to care how many blameless people who identify themselves as Pagan lose their jobs because of it, or have their homes or businesses torched, or are refused the right to adopt a child - and yes, all these things have really happened, so much so that the Pagan Federation now has a legal department to deal with such incidents. But basically, the law protects a named individual, but not members of a named group, even though a blanket accusation may affect them in similarly damaging ways.

Religions should be open to criticism and discussion. People should be free to express their opinions. But, they should not be free to suggest anything about a religion that cannot be proven to be true, but which - if people believe it to be true - may have very serious real-world consequences for individuals of that religion.

No, you didn't. You quoted narratives and made blanket assertions without citing example, instance or situation. Now you have proven further conversation to be pointless, as you have only responded in a reactionary and somewhat immature manner.

Game over, man... game over.


M.

BS, Raggy. If you expect us to believe you reason as to 'they will', then 'why?' has to be explained. You can't make BS asserertions without backing them up with anything more than hyperbole and bible-speak. It's only your opinion that gay marriage will do this, but without you explaining why it will, your comment is just meaningless twaddle, like everything else you say. I may not agree with the idea of gays marrying, but at least I'm not stupid enough to come out with a inane statement like yous and not back it up with the reason why. On this issue, I just keep my opinion to myself. Now, back to the topic at hand, and stop making Freud's case for him.

Voted the bottom option..I would if I could draw.

I think laws should be secular, so they are neutral to different religions and the non religious.

That would work, everyone obeys laws..

You're joking, right? Do you think everyone would suddenly find virtue & restraint under a society that is even more godless?

Well it hasn't worked under the present model, given the fact that religions and religious ideals (mostly Christian and Islamic at the moment, but not disregarding Sikhs and Hindus) have caused most of the fighting and wars throughout the ages, from the very inception of those ideologies up until the present. So just because a society doesn't proclaim a god or ideology as it's ruling body, doesn't mean it can't fucnction in a totally civilized manner.

They have already had blasphemy laws and they were abused, and are either already abolished, due to be abolished or fallen into disuse. Slander refers to transitional communication and Libel is written. If you don't want to distinguish between the two use defamation. These laws are for *individuals* once we get defamation of concepts then we really are taking the biscuit.

No I think it would be a bad idea, mostly because those that want it are looking at freedom from being offended or general one-up-manship rather than a genuine cause against defamation.

1. i was being sarcastic
2. religion has added much more to the chaos of our society then it has virtue and restraint.

Oh, we already have laws against defaming non-persons.



You might want to edit your post so that your comments are not interpreted as defaming those fine and delectable flour cakes. "Taking the biscuit" has some negative connotations.

Based on what?

I have been wondering: Has society become more blatantly violent today?

I am aware violence has been a part of society since it began but has secularism created a safer society?



I really think it's bs to say Religion has caused blah blah blhah blhah blahksdhlablhah. If anything the materialist desires and irreverent lifestyles which places selfishness above giving is the cause of chaos.

Well, the divorce rate is highest in the Bible Belt. America (less secular/more religious) doesnt seem to be any more civilized than Europe, where religion plays less of a role in life. You could compare crime statistics to some measure of religiousity. Religion reminds me of the 'ethics education' programs that many US business schools have launched. Little evidence that talking the talk leads to walking the walk.

lol, I wouldn't consider Americans religious. An ape can call itself religious but wouldn't know a thing about worship and devotion.

Well, compared to Europe, more Americans say they believe in God, more Americans attend religious worship services on a regular basis, etc. There is no doubt that much of western Europe is more secular than the US, which could be relevant to your question about secularism and a safe society.

The veggies that came up with those laws should have been tossed into the compost with the rest of the organic waste. Defamation of inanimate objects? FFS, where are yhese ret*ds coming from?

Sue me if you feel aggrieved, but as I am Australian and don't fall under these BS laws, the youmay as well be pissing in the wind.