What if you met an adult who still believed in Santa Clause. Based on faith. Would you consider this person admirable for having such strong faith, such strong belief without evidence? Or would you consider him a fool for believing in something so preposterous without any evidence?
Du tar nok feil. Det er en lov kjent som rasismeparagrafen. Denne skulle etter planen "skjerpes", dvs. inkludere blasfemiske ytringer. Dette var bare ett utrolig lite gjennomtenkt forslag fra noen lite intelligente kristne i regjeringen (derav Navarsete, det nautet),
The law mentioned was in fact a modification of a present law on racism, and was only proposed by some ignorant Christians in the government, but never even made it to a vote. It all got a little out of proprtion.
How are blasphemy laws any different than so-called "hate-crime" laws? As a person who believes strongly in "free speech", I oppose both.
Unfortunately, in some countries, saying that homosexuality is a sin is considered a hate crime. So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose.
A hate crime has to actually be a crime, motivated by hate, IMO.
A baseless murder is bad.
But if it happened because the victim is part of some group or category of people, then not only is it as bad as in the first case, but it also goes to spread fear and oppression among the group members. Therefore hate-crimes make sense, in this way.
Simply calling gays sinful is not a hate crime. Its an incorrect belief, and can be dogmatic and dangerous, but thats another topic.
If calling homosexuals "sinful" is, as you put it, "dangerous", then why not make it unlawful? I think that a person can be fined in Canada if they call it sinful.
Also, what does it matter if someone murders a person because of, let's say, their skin color, as opposed to murdering them in a simple robbery? The person is still dead either way.
Thus, the only thing hate crime laws do is to punish thoughts. Do you really want the government to punish "wrong" thoughts? Not me.
"Do you want government to punish "wrong" thoughts? Not me. "
That is my point. It has to be a crime, murder or just discrimination.
"The person is still dead"
BIG difference. Which is why we have the law. Hate crimes, including murder, swastikas on graves, or shooting up a UU Church, cause more harm than just to individuals. They spread fear, hate, oppression etc, to the ENTIRE group of people. Treating it as normal crime doesnt account for this.
"Treating it as normal crime doesnt account for this."
This may be where we disagree. I think executing someone for murdering someone for their money OR for murdering someone because of their skin color is all the punishment needed.
Anything more than that, you are then also punishing thoughts. Even if the thoughts are ugly to you and me, they are still thoughts and we should be allowed to have them.
"They spread fear, hate, oppression etc, to the ENTIRE group of people."
There is an old saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect (nor should it) our feelings from being hurt, nor from being hated. If "oppression" takes the form of anything like that, then such people need to develop thicker skin.
Its not a protection of feelings. Its a protection against crimes motivated by hatred.
Too many people are winy about stuff. like you are instantly a nazi if you criticize anything about Jews or Israel. Or when some christians barked at the moon when someone legally put a sign up that said that god is imaginary.
But this is not name calling. Its being targeted for being different.
Wiki it. I am against hate speech laws. (unless its hateful threats) But I am for hate crime laws.
Crimes motivated by hatred, or greed are still crimes. Motivation should not be a factor in dispensing justice (punishment).
What I'm really concerned about (and it seems you are too) is using the government to for thought control.
Nevertheless, I DO understand what you are saying regarding hate crime laws (see my next comment). I just don't think it's the way to go. Swift justice and a good, moral upbringing will do far more for various hatreds than a government imposed law.
When the government imposes extra penalties for "hate", they are in effect, saying that this THOUGHT or "hate" (whatever it happens to be) is wrong and we should not think differently from what the government thinks we should.
And THAT is the problem I have with "hate crimes". What you and I consider "hate" may not be what someone else considers "hate", and such laws can thus be used to afford certain people extra protections, which is not right, IMHO.
The hate crime laws show that the society acknowledges that not only bad what you did is bad, but even more disturbing is WHY you did it.
Example: Killing someone because you want money, or because you hate "Their Kind".
Society doesn't wag its finger at people for liking money, only for killing. And to not wag its finger at the fact that there is hatred basically makes it seem like its accepted by society.
Although even if it does they'll just re-propose it with a new title and a different face. Just like the creationists do with creationism. And they'll try again
I would guess that's because most people don't bother to do anything about it I guess... Like me. I'm a member of the curch, even though I'm an atheist... ; )
85% of the population are members because the church put the entire population into the register when they digitalized. Also, newly born are automatically registered.
And there is no good way of getting out, so most people dont.
we've had the law a long time and it was removed, it was also worded so that it dose not inhibit critiquing religion. One person was convicted for blasphemy in 1730 and he burned a church. one blasphemed public decency in 1886, what ever that means. He got 60 days in prison. It is supposed to stop mocking people of a faith not the faith in the same way laws against racism exists.
Do you have any overriding law or constitutional provision that explicitly protects free speech? That makes it so a law can't be passed inhiniting free speech? I am always surprised Britain has the "Official Secrets Act" and no real protection for free speech.
We don't care if you make grammatical mistakes when you talk. You have a good head on your shoulders and we appreciate how much bullshit you cut through in these videos.
It is a very scary thing. Religious people can say nearly any stupid, hateful thing they wish about atheists and some others and we're not allowed to challenge them on it.
I think it would be hilarious if atheists started assign god to their actions, objects, and feelings. Therefore, negating any action or criticism against their person.
It would be classic.
"Sir, you can't hit people with sticks. This is ridiculous."
"My god is working through me right now. Are you insulting his action?"
I think Norway, which has long been one of the most free/liberal nation is bowing to threats of the intolerant. I think the Norwegian people need to learn from the mistakes of other nations. They must not be complacent, they must not just say "well I don't agree with that". What they must do is what we Americans used to do before with fell victim to our on complacency; RISE UP! Public dissidence against this fascist law is the only way to dispel it.
this really bothers me. i have been hoping america could become more tolerant and progressive - led by northern europeans. but it seems you folks are losing it.
Blasphemy laws are a blasphemy. So the whole thing is an infinite contradiction.
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
What if you met an adult who still believed in Santa Clause. Based on faith. Would you consider this person admirable for having such strong faith, such strong belief without evidence? Or would you consider him a fool for believing in something so preposterous without any evidence?
pogueuk 2 years ago 3
Du tar nok feil. Det er en lov kjent som rasismeparagrafen. Denne skulle etter planen "skjerpes", dvs. inkludere blasfemiske ytringer. Dette var bare ett utrolig lite gjennomtenkt forslag fra noen lite intelligente kristne i regjeringen (derav Navarsete, det nautet),
The law mentioned was in fact a modification of a present law on racism, and was only proposed by some ignorant Christians in the government, but never even made it to a vote. It all got a little out of proprtion.
Onnarashi 2 years ago
How are blasphemy laws any different than so-called "hate-crime" laws? As a person who believes strongly in "free speech", I oppose both.
Unfortunately, in some countries, saying that homosexuality is a sin is considered a hate crime. So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
A hate crime has to actually be a crime, motivated by hate, IMO.
A baseless murder is bad.
But if it happened because the victim is part of some group or category of people, then not only is it as bad as in the first case, but it also goes to spread fear and oppression among the group members. Therefore hate-crimes make sense, in this way.
Simply calling gays sinful is not a hate crime. Its an incorrect belief, and can be dogmatic and dangerous, but thats another topic.
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
If calling homosexuals "sinful" is, as you put it, "dangerous", then why not make it unlawful? I think that a person can be fined in Canada if they call it sinful.
Also, what does it matter if someone murders a person because of, let's say, their skin color, as opposed to murdering them in a simple robbery? The person is still dead either way.
Thus, the only thing hate crime laws do is to punish thoughts. Do you really want the government to punish "wrong" thoughts? Not me.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
"why not make it unlawful?"
freedom of speech?
"Do you want government to punish "wrong" thoughts? Not me. "
That is my point. It has to be a crime, murder or just discrimination.
"The person is still dead"
BIG difference. Which is why we have the law. Hate crimes, including murder, swastikas on graves, or shooting up a UU Church, cause more harm than just to individuals. They spread fear, hate, oppression etc, to the ENTIRE group of people. Treating it as normal crime doesnt account for this.
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
"Treating it as normal crime doesnt account for this."
This may be where we disagree. I think executing someone for murdering someone for their money OR for murdering someone because of their skin color is all the punishment needed.
Anything more than that, you are then also punishing thoughts. Even if the thoughts are ugly to you and me, they are still thoughts and we should be allowed to have them.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
"They spread fear, hate, oppression etc, to the ENTIRE group of people."
There is an old saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect (nor should it) our feelings from being hurt, nor from being hated. If "oppression" takes the form of anything like that, then such people need to develop thicker skin.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
Its not a protection of feelings. Its a protection against crimes motivated by hatred.
Too many people are winy about stuff. like you are instantly a nazi if you criticize anything about Jews or Israel. Or when some christians barked at the moon when someone legally put a sign up that said that god is imaginary.
But this is not name calling. Its being targeted for being different.
Wiki it. I am against hate speech laws. (unless its hateful threats) But I am for hate crime laws.
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
Crimes motivated by hatred, or greed are still crimes. Motivation should not be a factor in dispensing justice (punishment).
What I'm really concerned about (and it seems you are too) is using the government to for thought control.
Nevertheless, I DO understand what you are saying regarding hate crime laws (see my next comment). I just don't think it's the way to go. Swift justice and a good, moral upbringing will do far more for various hatreds than a government imposed law.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
"But I am for hate crime laws."
When the government imposes extra penalties for "hate", they are in effect, saying that this THOUGHT or "hate" (whatever it happens to be) is wrong and we should not think differently from what the government thinks we should.
And THAT is the problem I have with "hate crimes". What you and I consider "hate" may not be what someone else considers "hate", and such laws can thus be used to afford certain people extra protections, which is not right, IMHO.
BillTheCat7 2 years ago
...cont
The hate crime laws show that the society acknowledges that not only bad what you did is bad, but even more disturbing is WHY you did it.
Example: Killing someone because you want money, or because you hate "Their Kind".
Society doesn't wag its finger at people for liking money, only for killing. And to not wag its finger at the fact that there is hatred basically makes it seem like its accepted by society.
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
Although even if it does they'll just re-propose it with a new title and a different face. Just like the creationists do with creationism. And they'll try again
metalsam09 3 years ago
Yeah, probably... :(
TeaPotAgnostic 3 years ago
I subscribed by the way. Thank's for commenting back to my comment.
metalsam09 3 years ago
Have you heard of the UN resolution trying to make blasphemy illegal in all member nations?
metalsam09 3 years ago
Yes, I have... I realy can't believe that it's happening! We're in the year of 2009. Those things belongs to the dark ages.
TeaPotAgnostic 3 years ago
I agree. I hope it fails
metalsam09 3 years ago
The muslims are using a $70 billion dollar fund set up by Saudi Arabia to propagate islam world wide. That money buys a lot of political influence
KasparHauser4 3 years ago 2
It's pretty insane that Norway, of all countries, could even consider this for a second. Never mind try to pass it as a law...
mecher3k 3 years ago
I would probably be in jail if im in norway
Nades129 3 years ago
No matter......the law did not pass and the turkish newpaper lied :)
Even though it is scary enough that such a law was even proposed.
Cheers :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
The CIA factbook says that 85% of the population of Norway belongs to the "Church of Norway".
Although I have no clue what that means.
snownet 3 years ago
I would guess that's because most people don't bother to do anything about it I guess... Like me. I'm a member of the curch, even though I'm an atheist... ; )
TeaPotAgnostic 3 years ago
Isn't it something to do with taxes? There's an Atheist Experience clip here about it, I think.
mikefoz 3 years ago
Found the clip.
Sadly (I guess) they are talking about Denmark.
watch?v=XXYttx5cUHw
mikefoz 3 years ago
good show regardless
snownet 2 years ago
85% of the population are members because the church put the entire population into the register when they digitalized. Also, newly born are automatically registered.
And there is no good way of getting out, so most people dont.
mortenlu 2 years ago
there is no new law for blasphemy in norway
joshguitarTube 3 years ago
Comment removed
joshguitarTube 3 years ago
So the very religious USA with its 1st Amendment protections for free speech is now better?
ShaundalynChic 3 years ago
we've had the law a long time and it was removed, it was also worded so that it dose not inhibit critiquing religion. One person was convicted for blasphemy in 1730 and he burned a church. one blasphemed public decency in 1886, what ever that means. He got 60 days in prison. It is supposed to stop mocking people of a faith not the faith in the same way laws against racism exists.
Ishta5 3 years ago
Do you have any overriding law or constitutional provision that explicitly protects free speech? That makes it so a law can't be passed inhiniting free speech? I am always surprised Britain has the "Official Secrets Act" and no real protection for free speech.
ShaundalynChic 3 years ago
As far as I know there are only 2 countries with constitutions. The US and Japan, well actually I think there are a few African countries with it.
mecher3k 3 years ago
Norway could still pass a law protecting free speech. At least have something that memorializes its importance.
ShaundalynChic 3 years ago
We don't care if you make grammatical mistakes when you talk. You have a good head on your shoulders and we appreciate how much bullshit you cut through in these videos.
As for the blasphemy thing
*collective facepalm*
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
So no one can have contempt for a religion and speak about it?
1984, here we go.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Is it a mistake that the article is dated as
" Thursday, 16 February 2006 "
Hercules2345 3 years ago
TeaPotAgnostic: I wouldn't take the word of an islamic newspaper on this, or anything, for that matter. The proposed law was pulled on February 5th.
For more information, google this: "Senterpartiet trekker blasfemi-forslag"
CrimsonScythe 3 years ago
Yes, I know the date were wrong, but I've read most of the other stuff in VG and heard about it in the news...
TeaPotAgnostic 3 years ago
That's a joke - you can go to prison for blasphemy? I thought we lived in the year 2009, not 1209?
I think I'll make a video about this in a day or so.
Nys0 3 years ago
It is a very scary thing. Religious people can say nearly any stupid, hateful thing they wish about atheists and some others and we're not allowed to challenge them on it.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I think it would be hilarious if atheists started assign god to their actions, objects, and feelings. Therefore, negating any action or criticism against their person.
It would be classic.
"Sir, you can't hit people with sticks. This is ridiculous."
"My god is working through me right now. Are you insulting his action?"
lol^^
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
I think Norway, which has long been one of the most free/liberal nation is bowing to threats of the intolerant. I think the Norwegian people need to learn from the mistakes of other nations. They must not be complacent, they must not just say "well I don't agree with that". What they must do is what we Americans used to do before with fell victim to our on complacency; RISE UP! Public dissidence against this fascist law is the only way to dispel it.
Thank you once again for you video.
Teenagefreedomfightr 3 years ago
So much for freedom of speech. That is an outrageous backward step. If any Norwegian parliamentarians are listening, fuck your God. :)
lonerook860 3 years ago
this really bothers me. i have been hoping america could become more tolerant and progressive - led by northern europeans. but it seems you folks are losing it.
windham666 3 years ago
Very sad day... :(
spaceagebachelor 3 years ago
Ledsen att höra. Du får söka asyl i Sverige.
FalleJr 3 years ago
Jeg får vel det... : P
TeaPotAgnostic 3 years ago