Religion Laws

[The mekanik]

While listening to the radio yesterday evening I heard about a new, and somewhat interesting law:

Under the new Religious Harmony act it becomes illegal to criticise religion in any form. Including satire comedies etc.

Rowan Atcinson Is addressing the House of commons today to defend himself

Sorry will continue later

[HStorm]

This law's been in the pipeline since a few months after 9/11 I'm afraid. Although there are some positive aspects to it i.e. better safeguards against preaching of religious hatred, for the most part it's exactly the kind of mind-controlling political correctness that we dread, as it will leave an awful lot of room for interpretation as something far more extreme. Atkinson's fear, and it's all too understandable, is that it'll become illegal just to tell jokes about religion, or to make even the most dispassionate observation about it that can be seen as unfavourable.

It's yet another dangerous development.

[ringmasterrob]

Very dangerous, oppressive and just plain unnecessary and that hardly covers it. This law to be honest sounds like a complete and utter joke, hence I am very skeptical in even accepting that it's real. Yet another civil liberty being steamrollered over in the name of political correctness. Even when I was a Christian I did not take offence to satire about christianity as it knew when to stop, it was just a bit of light ribbing after all. I personal an all in favour of equality and havign an open and even mind but this law just takes things beyond the extreme.

[The mekanik]

My appologies for the vauge starting post (it was somewhat shambolic) but i was under pressure from the fascist librarians.

This was indeed the first I had head of the law, and it would appear that labour is trying to make this law a reality.

What would this mean for british comedy? And further more to that effect, if this can happen, what would be next? The banning of criticism of goverment? That would be the end of the critique, for sure.

[Naselus]

The government wouldn't have the nerve to ban critism of itself. it'd never get through parliament, and they'd get hideously drubbed in the press for years as they tried to push it through.

The religeous law is an unfortunate sideline. It's a sad fact that we have to follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit. This is because of lawyers, who should all be taken out and shot at the first opportunity.

The letter of the law has to be drafted to preclude all forms of abuse, and so there's no grey areas, just black and white. This means comedy, which lives in those grey areas, is very vunerable to legal stupidity such as this. Bit of a bugger, eh?

[Thanatos]

I think you may be over-reacting. While I do not consider the law necessary, as any seriously harmful incitement is probably already covered under existing law, Atkinson and others may be exaggerating its implications. I may very well be mistaken, but what little I do know leads me to view this law as unnecessary and a minor waste of time and money but not a serious affront to free speech.

[Naselus]

As it happens, I've been thinking quite a bit about this, and I've decided we're not over-reacting at all.

Why is it that religious beliefs are so bloody untouchable? They're mainly a load of unsupportable bunk and they use that unsupportablity to try and defend themselves. You can't walk on water, so that's suppost to somehow PROVE Jesus is the son of God. Bullshit. In my mind, it mainly proves that someone somewhere was fibbing.

If I suddenly start insisting that the moon is made of f**king cheddar, then people would laugh at me as a total moron, and frankly I'd hope for no less. On the other hand, if I say that the universe was made in seven days by a big invisible dude with no apparent motive, then that's totally untouchable, and I could get you arrested if you criticise it under this new law. If I'd written this under that new law, I'd be a criminal. Why? Because I mocked a frankly absurd piece of halfwitted foolishness and named it for what it was.

I can't stand racism, because that's prejudism against people for something they have no control of. But people actually choose to believe the most nonsensical explaination, and put great faith in a bunch of bedtime stories, rather than try and understand anything else. Religion is there so you don't have to think, but some of these people are quite capable of rational thoughts. So they're doublethinking to avoid having to look any deeper into it. And now you won't be allowed to criticise that, but we can criticise the Party members in 1984. Go figure.

Here's another example. Anyone remember when the Pope said that condoms don't stop the spread of AIDS? That's obviously f**king nonsense, but Catholics have to believe the Pope, and now we can't say "look, he was talking shite, he's an old man and he falls asleep in the afternoons, just ignore him", because THAT WOULD BE CRITICISM OF A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Will should nip in to tell us of the damage that'd do to the rubber industry in this country somewhere about now. We can't turn around and say "Look, we're hopelessly overpopulated and we've got a leathal killer virus, so for our sake and your blasted God's use a damned condom", because it'd be illegal. And I, for one, think that's shooting yourself not just in the foot, but every major appendage, before going for a 50 mile hike in the Himalayas in your beachwear.

Rant over. Sorry, was a little pissed off there. Feel much better now though, it was very theraputic.

[Gamgee]

I agree entirely, what does make religion so untouchable? I honestly have no idea. If I was to accuse religions of offending my scientific views no one would care, yet if I accused religion of being mind control for the masses I'd be hung drawn and quartered.

Besides if these laws are passed wouldn't that mean philosophers would be out of a job? Let’s see that’s about 2000 years of philosophy down the drain. I know a fair few religious people, and they do not take offence at my staunch atheist views. I once read an interesting paradox, can an omnipotent God create a rock he can't lift. Pointless legislation has in effect made the application of logic illegal.


Science too, regularly contradicts religion, for example, Christian creation beliefs. So if this law is passed does that mean we are not allowed to speculate on the beginnings of the universe because we might "incite religious hatred"? Does relativity and quantum mechanics actively discriminate religion in some way? I think not. Let’s blow up the CERN particle accelerator because it might uncover evidence that contradicts our religious beliefs.

This legislation is completely absurd, I have no problems with people following a particle faith, and I admire their dedication, but what right does anyone have to say I can't criticise those beliefs?

[Naselus]

It's even worse when you consider that the people through history most responsible for inciting religious hatred are, um, religions. Christianity has wiped out numerous other faiths on it's merry way, Islam is currently involved in the fight against the infidels, the Jewish hate the Muslims, Sihks hate Hindus and visa versa... Only the Buddists haven't done any of it, and they don't believe any of it exists anyway.

This law is at best unnecissary, and at worst an infringement on freedom of expression. It depends on the wording, naturally, but if contradiction could be proven as criticism then a dangerous precident is set.

[ringmasterrob]

What do you officially need to be a religion? If we could make a 'religion' with absurd beliefs like the moon is made of fine cheddar and meet the official criteria to be a recognised religion then do our views that would previously have been sneered at suddenly become infallible logic? If my religion states that all believers must bang their head against a wall as a special prayer, and my religion is official, then it would be illegal to say 'You stupid berk'. Is this really the kind of country we want to live in where stupidity can be hidden behind the shield of religion?

[modeski]

I was hoping they'd make "Jedi" an official religion after I put that down on my census form, but alas no.

I'm absolutely aghast at this new law. I mean, I'm against censorship in principal, but this is a step too far. Religion plays a large part in so many comedian's acts - Bill Hicks, Billy Connolly and Eddie Izzard spring immediately to mind, having listened to them all recently. But it's not just stand ups who will be affected by this, its all of us. Yet another erosion of our civil liberties.

There is one reality that many people need to wake up to: You don't have the right not to be offended!

If I am offended by someone or something I don't get all indignant and try to shut them down, or prevent other people from hearing/seeing it; I walk away, turn off the TV or change the channel. I can't stand religion on TV, whether it be Songs of Praise (and I even sang on that in the late 80s), or the heaven and earth show, or raving roger's evangelical miracle mission - or the thought of the day from some archbishop or other...I can't stand it. So I don't watch it or listen to it. I remove it from my field of perception. Bingo, it's gone and I'm a happy bunny.

It's sad but not surprising that censorship continues apace. The louder people try to stifle criticism, the more light they shed on the fragility of their standpoint. The whole idea of religion is laughable. The moment you put religion under any kind of scrutiny, it's illlogical and flimsy basis falls apart. How many of us were scolded as kids for asking where god came from, or why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible?

Religous leaders have been bemoaning the decline of organised religion in this country for decades. Stifling criticism about religion in this manner won't solve anything for them. If anything this policy will go against them. I hope there will be a significant backlash against it, and that the argument is made for tolerance - supposedly a "christian" virtue.

[Incubus]

Let me just get this straight before this becomes a "burn the Christians" debate.

Christians in the early days had the wrong idea. The true belief is that you shouldn't force people to conform. God gave humans free will; why should we go against that?

5 mins later - Have just realised that this topic will now turn into a scrutinisation of Christianity - shoot.

[ringmasterrob]

Nah, there are enough topics on here that discuss Christianity already. The fact is that this applies to ALL religions, and criticism of them and I think Modeski has hit it on the head by saying that simply stifling criticism isn't going to suddenly cause people to pile back in to organised religion en masse. In fact it's more likely to discourage people from getting themselves into something that they dare not disagree with. A believe that this is a law that should be limited to inciting religious hate (how exactly this law could be enforced well is open to further debate) and shouldn't cover comedy and general criticism.

[Naselus]

Then what about Jehova's witnesses?

It does raise an interesting idea though. What if Athiests and Angostics views are included under this law? That'd really bugger up all those high-street crusaders who have a go at you for not believing. They'd be breaking the law, and you could get them arrested. But surely that'd be persecution for their beliefs, so it'd actually be an unworkable law?


And Liquidus, we're not having a go at Christianity in particular, we're just using Christian examples since they're the ones people are most familiar with. I think all religions are equally misguided, including those who think that Science is infallible and always correct. There's a reason that scientists refer to their work as 'Theory', and that's because they're (supposedly) waiting to be proved wrong.

It's just that Christians are the ones who tend to go for converts. Muslims don't, there's large sections of the Jewish faith that believe you CAN'T (and what would this law mean for them? They believe you can't become a Jew, and yet people who have converted believe you do. If a converted Jew tries to go into a synagogue, who's going against who's beliefs?), Sihks and Hindu's don't. Buddists sometimes do, but not particularly aggresively (and has anyone noticed that the ones who do seem to be wasted? Do they hand out morphine cookies at their meetings or something?). It's Christian sects that aim for aggressive and widespred conversion, and it doesn't matter if they claim that they're 'spreading the good word'. They're blatantly not, they're trying to gather strength behind their ideas.

Oh, and since God is infinite and omnipotent, it follows that everything that happens must be God's will. So how can you have free will and yet also believe in your God? It's inherently contradictory.

I don't mind what you want to believe in, but I do protest if the law tells me I can't make a joke about something. Your beliefs, and Osama bin Laden's, and the Dalai Lama's, are all completely unsupportable, much like the cheesy moon example, and to be honest that's just ASKING for jokes to be made about it. I just want the right to be able to. I don't want you to stop believing, if everyone did then who can we make fun of?

I think the most important thing of all is that religions aren't held as untouchable. Due to the who 'indoctrination of the young' thing religions practice, which I mentioned elsewhere, it's only through exposing the sheer silliness of some beliefs that people get to make up their own minds. All the religions do it; you have to raise you kids to believe the same as you or THEY WILL BE CAST DOWN INTO HELL!!!!!!!!! So that means kids don't get the opportunity to choose. I don't care if you decide on your faith when you're fifteen, or fifty, but at five days it's a bit much to expect a kid to weigh up the various theories and ideas and make a suitable theological choice. And it's only through people pointing out flaws that kids later decide if they really do believe or not.

[HStorm]

Which is essentially what happened with me (I used to be Jewish, but I became an atheist when I was 14, and then agnostic when I was about 20).

Liquidus, don't develop a persecution complex, we're not ganging up on the Church in particular, or any one religion in particular. In fact, this thread isn't criticising religion directly at all, it's criticising the unnecessary and authoritarian kinds of legislation that the Government keeps introducing. Rather than taking things personally, analyse the rule itself that the Government's trying to introduce and give us your thoughts on that instead, because we'd appreciate a more committed religious perspective on this.

[Thanatos]

Remember, this is a law against incitement to religious hatred, not against criticising religions.

[HStorm]

We do realise that, Thanatos. What worries us is that the Government's definition of "religious-hate incitement" might be the same as the definition of "religious criticism". And, as you say, this new legislation is unlikely to achieve anything that the current Law already deals with, so why should they be allowed to take the risk?

[Thanatos]

I agree that they shouldn't pass it, and I oppose the legislation, I just don't think it's worth opposing as violently as you all seem to.

[ooohcarrots]

this is one of those silly laws that has no definite place to draw the line and everyone gets confused about whats what...

criticism is good because it gets people talking! its the key to understanding each other becasue it actually gets us to discuss things!

and theres too much comedy genius out there to get rid of religion jokes - i agree with whoever mentioned billy conolly and eddie izzard. you dont have to take it as slander - its taking the rip out of what seems completely absurd, and in most cases, waht really is absurd - 'no-arms christianity' - genius... hehe

[HStorm]

Yesterday, the new religious-hatred legislation was finally put to the vote in the House of Lords... and the Government was defeated. It was happening almost simultaneously with a spectacular defeat for Tony Blair in the House of Commons over more anti-terrorism reforms, the second defeat he has suffered since he came to power; both of them in the current term.

Interestingly, the defeat in the Commons was by just one vote. And most amusingly, one of the MP's who didn't bother to vote was... Tony Blair!

[modeski]

hstorm said:

Yesterday, the new religious-hatred legislation was finally put to the vote in the House of Lords... and the Government was defeated. It was happening almost simultaneously with a spectacular defeat for Tony Blair in the House of Commons over more anti-terrorism reforms, the second defeat he has suffered since he came to power; both of them in the current term.

Interestingly, the defeat in the Commons was by just one vote. And most amusingly, one of the MP's who didn't bother to vote was... Tony Blair!

Ahahah. This makes me laugh, heartily. I've never been much of a fan of the House of Lords, but from time to time the old duffers serve a purpose.

[HStorm]

The HoL isn't that bad these days anyway, not now it's been reformed.

But yeah, it's had me sniggering since yesterday too!