Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

Well, you did previously state that you supported blasphemy laws.

No, I hope I didn't.

Yes, you did:

I would and do support blasphemy laws, in the sense that such laws seek to prevent insult-attacks (as opposed to courteous criticism or comment) on the faith of others.

To be fair, you did qualify your support. But support it you did.

This is partly because I feel that we should, but also, as I have explained in more detail in previous posts, it's a pragmatic recognition of the universal human trait of being emotionally bound to certain beliefs, often religious ones, to the point where they will act, often violently, to any perceived challenge to their faith. In detached terms, this is probably something we would get rid of if we could. But AFAIK we can't. So we would be silly to ignore this; we must accept it. Because it *is*, not necessarily because we approve of it. Acceptance is not support.

True, we likely can't get rid of this impulse completely. Although I would (and have) argued that pandering to it makes it worse (because it encourages violent outrage) but right now we are not doing enough to prosecute the people who conflate criticism of their beliefs with criticism of them personally in order to justify being violent. Instead prosecute those who do the criticism for incitement.

But the fact that we are unlikely to be able to eliminate it entirely does not mean we should accept it. We are never going to stamp out murder or theft. Doesn't mean we accept it. We still prohibit it and prosecute those that persist in doing those things, largely because we know that if we don't, it will only encourage people to do them more.

And we are not in agreement as you seem to think that we should placate those who would react violently when their beliefs are criticised in order to minimise violence.

See above. Here, we are discussing laws. And laws are only effective if the population are willing to follow them. If we introduce laws that cause widespread civil disobedience, we gain nothing, and lose quite a lot. I.e. we'd lose all laws, which would make social governance problematic... It's not to minimise violence that I propose this, it's to retain some sort of rule of law. Fair and just (for all) law.

But we don't have "fair and just (for all) law", with respect to the criticism of Islam. We have mob rule. We can legally criticise Christianity or other religions in ways we don't dare for Islam because the adherents of Islam are far more likely to react with violent outrage. But Muslims are still in a small minority in the UK. And those that are violent extremists are a minority within the Muslim population. The vast majority of the population would like to see a fair and just application of the law for all and that does not include pandering to extremists.

In fact, precisely the opposite is happening. The two tier approach our authorities have been employing is causing resentment and unrest in the wider population and stirring up anti Muslim sentiment. Precisely the opposite of what that want. This will only get worse if this approach continues.

[Good_Egg]

I think our primary requirement of laws is that they are just and fair to all.

No disagreement there. But you haven't said what other requirements you have of law.

Any law that covers some religions, but not all, is (IMO) an unjust law, and therefore (also IMO) unfit for purpose.

So we agree in principle. But you seem reluctant to apply this principle - to come out and clearly condemn as unjust any law based on a concept of "Islamophobia" because it covers one religion but not others.

I did say this,

I think that all are also agreed that blasphemy laws, in their traditional form, no longer have a place in modern life.

That just says that you don't agree with blasphemy laws as such because you think they are old-fashioned. But you seem to be in favour of a law against insults, and accepting of an attitude held by some religious people that "I am insulted by blasphemy against my religion" which together amount to much the same thing.

What he has suggested is that any law - just or unjust in itself - has the potential to be unjust if it is applied "to the letter". His example was someone forced at gunpoint to commit rape.

There are many examples. Maybe some illustrate our point better than others do. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the basic issue of needing laws and courts (etc) that can deal with real-world crimes, criminals and victims in a fair and just manner.

If there are many examples you should have no trouble giving us a good one...

I am unconvinced by your proposition that "real-world" conditions require not applying the letter of the law. (Whilst agreeing that sentencing should take relevant factors into account).

Seems like you're wanting "wiggle room" to apply the law in a way that is partisan, favouring those groups you sympathize with, whilst pretending that your idea of the law is just to all. But maybe I've just not understood your point for want of a good example.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, you did previously state that you supported blasphemy laws.

No, I hope I didn't.

Yes, you did:

I would and do support blasphemy laws, in the sense that such laws seek to prevent insult-attacks (as opposed to courteous criticism or comment) on the faith of others.

To be fair, you did qualify your support. But support it you did.

Sorry, I had forgotten. Still, my qualification rescues me, thankfully. It says what I meant to say, so I am relieved.

This is partly because I feel that we should, but also, as I have explained in more detail in previous posts, it's a pragmatic recognition of the universal human trait of being emotionally bound to certain beliefs, often religious ones, to the point where they will act, often violently, to any perceived challenge to their faith. In detached terms, this is probably something we would get rid of if we could. But AFAIK we can't. So we would be silly to ignore this; we must accept it. Because it *is*, not necessarily because we approve of it. Acceptance is not support.

True, we likely can't get rid of this impulse completely. Although I would (and have) argued that pandering to it makes it worse (because it encourages violent outrage)...

I'm OK with that; it makes sense to me. Although hoping to modify what seems to be a Very Basic Urge seems ... optimistic? If I thought I could change it, I might even try. But I think it's part of being human, so I just accept it. I don't have to like it, if I don't want to, but I must accept it, just as I must accept other things in the real world that appear to be as consistent as this human quality does.

...but right now we are not doing enough to prosecute the people who conflate criticism of their beliefs with criticism of them personally in order to justify being violent. Instead prosecute those who do the criticism for incitement.

In returning to your basic theme, you seem to be pulling away from what you said immediately before?

But before I say anything else, let me reiterate: I support laws that require us to respect the faiths of others. I do NOT support a law that applies to Islam, while failing to provide the same protection to the Church of Gaian Daoism [of which I am the only member, AFAIK ].

If the incitement is real, then criticism or even prosecution is appropriate, IMO. And provoking others by attacking that which they hold most dear *is* a crime, I think. We all know that humans can be provoked in such ways. It's common knowledge. Just because you or I do not share their adherence to their faith does not mean it's OK for us to trivialise or otherwise demean their faith. It's no different from the bloke who walks into the pub, looking for a fight — i.e. specifically seeking out an opportunity to hurt/harm someone — saying "'Oo you lookin' at?"

Your Right to Insult nurtures, supports, provokes, and causes violence and hurt. The sad thing is that that's what it is supposed to do; it's what the insulter *intends* it to do. And the insulter might bluster rubbish like "well, they shouldn't be so sensitive", or whatever. But we all have things that we cannot abide being attacked. The insulter might have said instead "well, they shouldn't be so *human*", because that's all that is happening. One human being is doing something to another human being that will cause them harm and misery, and likely lead to violence. Why would anyone want their right to hurt others to be enshrined in law? I just don't understand it.

But the fact that we are unlikely to be able to eliminate it entirely does not mean we should accept it.

Y'know, I rather think it *does*.

We are never going to stamp out murder or theft. Doesn't mean we accept it. We still prohibit it and prosecute those that persist in doing those things, largely because we know that if we don't, it will only encourage people to do them more.

Murder and theft are things we might choose to do. Our devotion to (say) our faith is quite different, as I'm sure you know.

And we are not in agreement as you seem to think that we should placate those who would react violently when their beliefs are criticised in order to minimise violence.

See above. Here, we are discussing laws. And laws are only effective if the population are willing to follow them. If we introduce laws that cause widespread civil disobedience, we gain nothing, and lose quite a lot. I.e. we'd lose all laws, which would make social governance problematic... It's not to minimise violence that I propose this, it's to retain some sort of rule of law. Fair and just (for all) law.

But we don't have "fair and just (for all) law", with respect to the criticism of Islam. We have mob rule. We can legally criticise Christianity or other religions in ways we don't dare for Islam because the adherents of Islam are far more likely to react with violent outrage. But Muslims are still in a small minority in the UK. And those that are violent extremists are a minority within the Muslim population. The vast majority of the population would like to see a fair and just application of the law for all and that does not include pandering to extremists.

I'm not clear whether this refers to our law(s), or only to social conventions. Treating your neighbours decently is not "pandering to extremists". They are only *extreme* in your eyes because they expect and require decent treatment. What I expect, and I suppose you do too , is that these neighbours, whatever their faith, treat *us* decently too, in return. Mutual decency, not extremism.

In fact, precisely the opposite is happening. The two tier approach our authorities have been employing is causing resentment and unrest in the wider population and stirring up anti Muslim sentiment. Precisely the opposite of what that want. This will only get worse if this approach continues.

Propaganda is an insidious thing. It's not our "authorities" that are causing resentment*, it's the media, fanning Tommy Robinson's flames. How do we think people like Farage and Trump got into positions of power? Propaganda. With the full support of the (mainstream) media, public attitudes have been changed, quite radically, and then inflamed. It's a common trick employed by the rich. They say to the poor "you see that bloke, who's just a little richer than you? Well it him that's taking your jobs, your houses, and so forth! He's taking what's yours!" And so on. The sick truth, as we all know, is that it's not that bloke, it's the rich who are taking all the stuff for themselves. It's situations like this for which guillotines were invented, IMO.



* — they're far from getting everything right, but I don't think they're the cause of resentment. They are merely (and infuriatingly) incompetent sometimes.

[Fried Egg]

This is partly because I feel that we should, but also, as I have explained in more detail in previous posts, it's a pragmatic recognition of the universal human trait of being emotionally bound to certain beliefs, often religious ones, to the point where they will act, often violently, to any perceived challenge to their faith. In detached terms, this is probably something we would get rid of if we could. But AFAIK we can't. So we would be silly to ignore this; we must accept it. Because it *is*, not necessarily because we approve of it. Acceptance is not support.

True, we likely can't get rid of this impulse completely. Although I would (and have) argued that pandering to it makes it worse (because it encourages violent outrage)...

I'm OK with that; it makes sense to me. Although hoping to modify what seems to be a Very Basic Urge seems ... optimistic? If I thought I could change it, I might even try. But I think it's part of being human, so I just accept it. I don't have to like it, if I don't want to, but I must accept it, just as I must accept other things in the real world that appear to be as consistent as this human quality does.

While I doubt the followers of any religion like hearing their religious beliefs criticised, mocked or contradicted, most of them do not react with such violent fury as many of the Islamic adherents do. This suggests that it is not some universal characteristic of human nature that we must accept and learn how to accommodate. There is something unique about the culture of Islam that makes it's followers far more intolerant and combative towards it's critics than most other religions.

(Maybe something to do with the fact that their doctrines literally tell them to go out and kill apostates.)

But before I say anything else, let me reiterate: I support laws that require us to respect the faiths of others. I do NOT support a law that applies to Islam, while failing to provide the same protection to the Church of Gaian Daoism [of which I am the only member, AFAIK ].

Yes, indeed. But the reason why it seems we are only acquiring blasphemy laws for Islam is because it is driven by the extreme reaction of some of the adherents of Islam, something not exhibited by the followers of other religions. As we saw in the recent case of Hamit Coskun, the fact that people attacked him during his protests against Islam were taken as evidence of his intent to incite violence. If that's not the height of absurdity, I don't know what is.

It's not clear to me whether you support this kind of victim driven notion of perceived harassment or whether it should rest on some form of more objective criteria?

Your Right to Insult nurtures, supports, provokes, and causes violence and hurt. The sad thing is that that's what it is supposed to do; it's what the insulter *intends* it to do. And the insulter might bluster rubbish like "well, they shouldn't be so sensitive", or whatever. But we all have things that we cannot abide being attacked. The insulter might have said instead "well, they shouldn't be so *human*", because that's all that is happening. One human being is doing something to another human being that will cause them harm and misery, and likely lead to violence. Why would anyone want their right to hurt others to be enshrined in law? I just don't understand it.

It's not about the people, it's about the ideas. Some ideas are just bad, dangerous or evil. If we lose the right to criticise them because their followers will get mad means that they will persist for longer than they need to.

Now we don't need to actually get into Islam itself to consider whether it is or isn't a "bad" idea. The point of my argument here is simply we only know when ideas are bad when they get criticised. It is fundamentally important for the progress of the human race that bad ideas can get called out and not good for humanity if people are intimidated into silence over them.

So no, it is not just human nature to react so violently when their beliefs are criticised. There seems to be something unique about the culture of Islam that causes it. To my mind, the fact that the followers of an idea react so violently to it's criticism is further evidence of it being a bad idea.

I'm not clear whether this refers to our law(s), or only to social conventions. Treating your neighbours decently is not "pandering to extremists". They are only *extreme* in your eyes because they expect and require decent treatment. What I expect, and I suppose you do too , is that these neighbours, whatever their faith, treat *us* decently too, in return. Mutual decency, not extremism.

I agree. I just don't agree that criticising ideas that others hold dearly constitutes indecent treatment.

[Fried Egg]

Some points I intended to respond to but missed:

Murder and theft are things we might choose to do. Our devotion to (say) our faith is quite different, as I'm sure you know.

People may get upset when their beliefs are criticised but it is very much a choice if they decide send death threats or attack people. My point remains that just because you can't eliminate something doesn't mean you accept and tolerate it. You still try to minimise it.

Propaganda is an insidious thing. It's not our "authorities" that are causing resentment*, it's the media, fanning Tommy Robinson's flames. How do we think people like Farage and Trump got into positions of power? Propaganda. With the full support of the (mainstream) media, public attitudes have been changed, quite radically, and then inflamed. It's a common trick employed by the rich. They say to the poor "you see that bloke, who's just a little richer than you? Well it him that's taking your jobs, your houses, and so forth! He's taking what's yours!" And so on. The sick truth, as we all know, is that it's not that bloke, it's the rich who are taking all the stuff for themselves. It's situations like this for which guillotines were invented, IMO.

I don't doubt that genuine racists (such as Tommy Robinson) will latch on to theses issue for their own insidious motives. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) detract from the fact that the two tier approach employed by our authorities is stoking up a genuine grievance. When harmless childminders (like Lucy Connolly) are doing prison time after a moment of anger led them to post something hateful on social media (that they deleted shortly afterwards) but roving gangs of young Muslim men with machetes are politely asked to go put their weapons back in the Mosque, we know something is wrong. When the authorities turn a blind eye to organised gangs that have raped and abused thousands of young girls because the perpetrators are Pakistani Muslims and their victims are working class white girls in the name of promoting multicultural and social cohesion, people are going to get angry.

Don't trivialise the plight of the victims of this two tier policing by dismissing it as right wing propaganda.

[Pattern-chaser]

While I doubt the followers of any religion like hearing their religious beliefs criticised, mocked or contradicted...

I don't dismiss the rest of what you wrote, and I will return with other comments. But one observation seems central to your position. You fail, or refuse, to distinguish "criticism", or even (seriously-considered) "contradiction", from "mocking" insults. You interchange all these words as though they all mean the same thing. But of course, they don't. The former terms are argumentative (in the philosophical, not everyday, sense of the word), while the latter is insulting, intentionally so.

Insults offer nothing constructive, except to those actively seeking confrontation and violence.



In this, I think I am roughly typical of humanity. Inquire about my beliefs, and I will happily discuss them with you. Insult my beliefs, and I will oppose you. Humans are like that; nearly all of us are like that. You won't get through to us with insults.

[Fried Egg]

While I doubt the followers of any religion like hearing their religious beliefs criticised, mocked or contradicted...

I don't dismiss the rest of what you wrote, and I will return with other comments. But one observation seems central to your position. You fail, or refuse, to distinguish "criticism", or even (seriously-considered) "contradiction", from "mocking" insults. You interchange all these words as though they all mean the same thing. But of course, they don't. The former terms are argumentative (in the philosophical, not everyday, sense of the word), while the latter is insulting, intentionally so.

Insults offer nothing constructive, except to those actively seeking confrontation and violence.



In this, I think I am roughly typical of humanity. Inquire about my beliefs, and I will happily discuss them with you. Insult my beliefs, and I will oppose you. Humans are like that; nearly all of us are like that. You won't get through to us with insults.

It is not I that fail to make a distinction between criticism and mockery - it is devout followers of an idea. Any criticism is treated as a personal insult.

However, I do think there is a place for satire/mockery. Often a point can be made far more effectively with satire than it can with plain argument. And, as I have stated previously, protests are never considerate and courteous. They are always forthright, blunt and mocking.

Ultimately, I do not accept that you can insult ideas. Only people. While I realise that arguments that are courteous and respectful are more likely to be accepted as legitimate criticism and not taken personally, I do not think you can (or should) legislate for that.

And I think you are dangerously veering towards victim blaming here. Sure, I would be foolhardy to march down a busy street in a largely Muslim area displaying a banner with cartoon depictions of Mohammed and chanting about the evils of Islam. But that still doesn't justify violence.

It reminds me of that guy arrested near a pro-palestine march for being openly Jewish (it was deemed as provocative). How many court cases for rape was the female defendant accused of dressing provocatively (and thereby bringing it upon themselves)?

In our day to day life most people take care to moderate their own behaviour if it might be provocative to others. Common sense dictates that we do this even if they are technically in the right. But ultimately it is the responsibility of the "offended" to respect the law and not react violently. They are equally free to defend their ideas and criticise (or even mock) the ideas of their critics.

[Pattern-chaser]

While I doubt the followers of any religion like hearing their religious beliefs criticised, mocked or contradicted, most of them do not react with such violent fury as many of the Islamic adherents do. This suggests that it is not some universal characteristic of human nature that we must accept and learn how to accommodate. There is something unique about the culture of Islam that makes it's followers far more intolerant and combative towards it's critics than most other religions.

Recently in the UK, anti-immigrant rioters tried to set fire to a hotel where immigrants and asylum-seekers were housed. They tried to burn them alive! This is pretty extreme, and the villains weren't anything to do with Islam. It's a human thing, sadly.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's not clear to me whether you support this kind of victim driven notion of perceived harassment or whether it should rest on some form of more objective criteria?

In a discussion like this one, so intimately associated with human feelings and emotions, is a search for objectivity even rational, never mind helpful?

It's not about the people, it's about the ideas. Some ideas are just bad, dangerous or evil. If we lose the right to criticise them because their followers will get mad means that they will persist for longer than they need to.

You don't lose the right to criticise anything, you lose only the right to insult. And, since the latter is entirely without value or worth (unless you *want* to nurture and provoke violence?), nothing of note is "lost".

[Fried Egg]

While I doubt the followers of any religion like hearing their religious beliefs criticised, mocked or contradicted, most of them do not react with such violent fury as many of the Islamic adherents do. This suggests that it is not some universal characteristic of human nature that we must accept and learn how to accommodate. There is something unique about the culture of Islam that makes it's followers far more intolerant and combative towards it's critics than most other religions.

Recently in the UK, anti-immigrant rioters tried to set fire to a hotel where immigrants and asylum-seekers were housed. They tried to burn them alive! This is pretty extreme, and the villains weren't anything to do with Islam. It's a human thing, sadly.

While this even was obviously atrocious, I don't see the relevance? My point was, of all the religions, Islam is unique in the tendency of it's followers to react violently to criticism.

You don't lose the right to criticise anything, you lose only the right to insult. And, since the latter is entirely without value or worth (unless you *want* to nurture and provoke violence?), nothing of note is "lost".

But since you can't insult ideas, something is lost. Any heretical statement is insulting to the true believers.

[Pattern-chaser]

However, I do think there is a place for satire/mockery. Often a point can be made far more effectively with satire than it can with plain argument.

Oh, you can *make* your point with satire, very effectively. But can you persuade them to accept it, and even act on it, with satire, or similar insults? No. People react against insults, they're not convinced by them.

If you aim to persuade, then insults are always counter-productive. If you just aim to shout your opinions at the world, then perhaps social media would be a better venue? [Edited to add: Not "you" personally; I suppose "one" would be better.]

[Fried Egg]

However, I do think there is a place for satire/mockery. Often a point can be made far more effectively with satire than it can with plain argument.

Oh, you can *make* your point with satire, very effectively. But can you persuade them to accept it, and even act on it, with satire, or similar insults? No. People react against insults, they're not convinced by them.

If you aim to persuade, then insults are always counter-productive. If you just aim to shout your opinions at the world, then perhaps social media would be a better venue? [Edited to add: Not "you" personally; I suppose "one" would be better.]

Well, I think satire can sometimes be more effective at conveying one's point than careful, detailed arguments. But whatever, even if we accept that mockery and protests are not an effective means of changing minds, that doesn't mean we should ban them.

And I doubt people enraptured with religious fervor are likely to change their mind, even with the most rational and compelling arguments in the world. But this isn't really the point. You may be right about the modes of communication best suited to reaching across the isle (as it were), but there's still quite a leap to go from there to banning them altogether.

I do think there is a legitimate purpose for satire and protest - the use of which does not imply that the speaker only intended to hurt feelings and incite violence.

[Sy Borg]

Ideally, all sides could take the piss out of each other's absurdities without chucking a nellie about it? You know, react to criticism like grown adults rather than infuriated children?

How about reflection when criticised, along the lines of, "Do they have a point?". Of course, if a person or group deludes themselves that they are perfect as they are - no improvements necessary - then obviously no criticism or satire will cut through the ego.

Imagine if secularists, Christians and Muslims actually maturely considered the traditions of their cultures/subcultures, examining the original problems that those traditions were designed to solve, and how a society would look based on their principles - the pros and cons?

Yeah, I know, such a notion is hilarious, akin to wondering if Santa is real.

[Pattern-chaser]

Oh, you can *make* your point with satire, very effectively. But can you persuade them to accept it, and even act on it, with satire, or similar insults? No. People react against insults, they're not convinced by them.

If you aim to persuade, then insults are always counter-productive. If you just aim to shout your opinions at the world, then perhaps social media would be a better venue? [Edited to add: Not "you" personally; I suppose "one" would be better.]

Well, I think satire can sometimes be more effective at conveying one's point than careful, detailed arguments. But whatever, even if we accept that mockery and protests are not an effective means of changing minds, that doesn't mean we should ban them.

Another conflation: "mockery and protests". Mockery is ridicule/insult; protest is simply expressing one's opinions publically, with no insult involved or intended. [Although there are protestors who take advantage of the demonstration to offer their insults publically. ]

Here's another example:

You know, react to criticism like grown adults rather than infuriated children?

There's a rather large difference, I think, between criticism and insult. Accepting and considering the former is grown-up. But when our deeply-held beliefs are insulted ... that's different. And not just for some; this is an empirically-verifiable human trait, seen almost universally across our species. I do not support or recommend this; I simply note that it exists and is widespread; it is typical human behaviour.



If we wish to persuade other humans to accept a particular idea, or point of view, then insults are the *opposite* of what you will need. I won't elaborate further, being an autist, as this is an area where we are notoriously (and deservedly?) ignorant, and unable to grok the whole idea. But there is plenty written down about this, by those who know and understand a lot more about this than I do. I recommend you to them because I don't know any better.



P.S. No, we shouldn't have a blanket ban on all satire. It has its place in our world. But IMO we should require people to show respect for the deeply-held beliefs of others, just as we expect the same from them in return. This is a purely pragmatic and practical requirement, based only on our need to live socially, as our species does. We already injure or kill one another more often than we should. Much more often. IMO.

[Fried Egg]

Another conflation: "mockery and protests". Mockery is ridicule/insult; protest is simply expressing one's opinions publically, with no insult involved or intended. [Although there are protestors who take advantage of the demonstration to offer their insults publically. ]

I'm not conflating anything. Both are two types of criticism that are often seen as insulting. Protest is not merely courteously expressing one's opinion, it is invariably hyperbolic involving ridicule and the shouting of slogans.

I would say that satire is a form of mockery and yet a perfectly valid (non hateful) form of criticism.

I feel that you are being dishonest in deftly swinging between what was intended (by the accused), what was perceived (by the victim) and existed in actual fact (objectively). That allows you to avoid clarifying the distinction between valid criticism and hateful insults.

Don't you realise that merely stating your opinion that Mohammed is not the final prophet of God is considered blasphemous to Islam and likely to be insulting to most devout Muslims?

You're living in a fantasy world in which you seem to think that somehow nobody ever gets offended by reasonably stated opinions. That you can make everyone happy by coming up a rule to separate good and bad speech, in which all good things can freely be said and no one will be offended by it.