Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Here is the official link to the House of Commons to have the blasphemy laws struck from the Criminal Code. Yup, you and I can go to jail for saying there is no magic man in the sky.
It needs 500 signatures to be presented, but it is almost there and has only been up today, and it has until October 20 to get there. It would be great to see 5,000 or more. So far it has one of the highest number of signatures of the active petitions out there.
Help spread the word through your social media and forums you take part in.
I'd forgotten about that myself, but one of the agenda -points is to get blasphemy laws removed - whether ever used or not - so that the statute can be wagged at those countries that do use it.
"No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject."
So they basically don't want someone going on an ill intended potty mouth rant. And think of it, if you where up for trial would you want someone ranting pottily with malice against you?
Be sincere, stick to the facts (I know, hard to do when dealing with religion) and keep it clean and you will have no problems.
"No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject."
So they basically don't want someone going on an ill intended potty mouth rant. And think of it, if you where up for trial would you want someone ranting pottily with malice against you?
Be sincere, stick to the facts (I know, hard to do when dealing with religion) and keep it clean and you will have no problems.
Except that the clause you cite uses the terms "good faith" and "decent language" which are entirely subjective and would have to be litigated in a substantive action over this law. Doubtless the clause was added to give the law a patina of reasonableness while being vague enough to get passed over the objections of the ideologues who wanted the law in the first place.
I agree that the law should be stricken. Just as laws against spitting chewing tobacco and other anachronisms of less enlightened eras. If I were a Canadian citizen, I'd endorse this effort.
When there is no problem trouble makers entertain themselves by creating one. These people are simply not intelligent enough to understand the concept of God...a thing that is out of our realm of physics. I just wish that people would show some privacy and real dignity...I do not want to know what you believe in or what you do not believe in...I do not want to or need to know what you do in your bedroom either...so just shut up and live your life....we have real problems in the world to deal with.....we do not need to debate God...which existence can not be proven or disproven...it is a useless argument.
When there is no problem trouble makers entertain themselves by creating one. These people are simply not intelligent enough to understand the concept of God...a thing that is out of our realm of physics. I just wish that people would show some privacy and real dignity...I do not want to know what you believe in or what you do not believe in...I do not want to or need to know what you do in your bedroom either...so just shut up and live your life....we have real problems in the world to deal with.....we do not need to debate God...which existence can not be proven or disproven...it is a useless argument.
The repeal of blasphemy laws is what we are discussing ... not the (non)existence of any deity. This is instead about the right of a group holding a particular belief to impose that belief on others in such an extreme way that people can be imprisoned simply for offending someone or making them uncomfortable. Which would be as silly as a law prescribing sanctions for someone disparaging smoking, or high heels, or coonskin caps.
If there is "no problem" them there should be "no problem" deleting a law that is antiquated and of no use to anyone. If there is any resistance to repealing this law than there IS a problem, obviously. But if there is no resistance ... given there is "no problem" ... then it should just be a no-brainer. Any debate should be basically pro-forma. Just repeal a law that no one cares about. If there is "no problem" then no one should even expend the effort to suggest that people should just go away and not ask for the law to be repealed, now should there?
I agree that the law should be stricken. Just as laws against spitting chewing tobacco and other anachronisms of less enlightened eras. If I were a Canadian citizen, I'd endorse this effort.
In which case you will have a bunch of Canadians walking around hacking out a juicy brown wad of Skoal or Copenhagen onto the sidewalk and going into a vulgarity filled anti-religious diatribe.
Do you want to give parents in the U.S. a convenient scapegoat to blame for their children's moral compass going askew leading to them going down the wrong path?
"No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject."
So they basically don't want someone going on an ill intended potty mouth rant. And think of it, if you where up for trial would you want someone ranting pottily with malice against you?
Be sincere, stick to the facts (I know, hard to do when dealing with religion) and keep it clean and you will have no problems.
Do you subscribe to the idea that the laws should apply to all equally?
Belief in a deity or subscription to a religion is at bottom, an opinion about something. Why should some people enjoy a protected status for their opinion, while others are denied the same?
If two people got into a heated debate about religion, the religious person is not enjoined from engaging in a "potty mouth rant" against the non religious person's opinions. But the religious person requires some special protection against the same? The religious person could describe an atheist as blithering idiot, but the non religious person could not say the same of Pat Robertson?
This is another example of what I have often described as religious exceptionalism. There would be a howl across the land if this sort of law was applied to any other topics of discussion. What would happen if one political group had this sort of law limiting what their opponents could say about them, but left them free to say whatever they wished about the opponents? If such an arrangement would not be tolerated for political opinions, why should it be acceptable for religious opinions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
