A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument



 Religions > Atheism > A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "spakka"
Date: 10 Jan 2005 08:40:12 PM
Object: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument
<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm
Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.
"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."
.

User: "Denis Loubet"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 10 Jan 2005 08:45:25 PM
"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.01.10.21.44.58.160734@mail.invalid...

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."

What smarmy dishonesty. That's Christians for you.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.

User: "Flangehead"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 10 Jan 2005 11:02:07 PM
"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."

From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to begin
legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a blasphemy
investigation..."
Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?
-- Chris
.
User: "Jez"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 03:05:50 PM
Flangehead wrote:

"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."




From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to begin
legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a blasphemy
investigation..."

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?

Yip...still is.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
User: "kathryn"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 05:10:52 PM
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:ybGdnc9PAL3Tdn7cRVnysg@pipex.net...

Flangehead wrote:

"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."




From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to
begin legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a
blasphemy investigation..."

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?

Yip...still is.

--
Jez

Not that that actually stops anyone
.


User: "Graham Kennedy"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 10 Jan 2005 11:39:39 PM
Flangehead wrote:

"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."




From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to begin
legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a blasphemy
investigation..."

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?

Technically yes, but only for blashphemy against
the official religion. But the last prosecution
was in 1977, so it's been a while. It's thought
by many that the Human rights act of 1998, which
requires the law to be interpreted in accord with
the European convention on Human rights, pretty
much makes it impossible to bring a blasphemy
prosecution. But this has never been tested.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 10 Jan 2005 11:40:47 PM
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:07 -0800, "Flangehead"
<jlcanorby@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote:

"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."



From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to begin
legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a blasphemy
investigation..."

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?

Certain forms. A while back Mary Shitehouse brought a private
prosecution against a magazine for publishing a poem about a gay
Jesus.

-- Chris

.
User: "Mark Stahl"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 12:23:13 AM
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:th46u0pktoapriiqmt4fkm6h1jvr2p1f5o@4ax.com...

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:07 -0800, "Flangehead"
<jlcanorby@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote:

"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said
they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."



From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to begin
legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a blasphemy
investigation..."

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?


Certain forms. A while back Mary Shitehouse brought a private
prosecution against a magazine for publishing a poem about a gay
Jesus.

Wow. Did she lose?
.
User: "The other Donald"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 02:35:34 AM
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:e8KdnY82Apv8hn7cRVn-2w@giganews.com...


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:th46u0pktoapriiqmt4fkm6h1jvr2p1f5o@4ax.com...

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:07 -0800, "Flangehead"
<jlcanorby@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote:

"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said
they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."



From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to

begin

legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a blasphemy
investigation..."

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?


Certain forms. A while back Mary Shitehouse brought a private
prosecution against a magazine for publishing a poem about a gay
Jesus.


Wow. Did she lose?

Or was her defense built like.....c'mon, wait for it....
..
..
..
..
..
..a Brick Shitehouse?
You really didn't think I was going to pass that one up, did you? It was a
bad joke, ripe for the picking.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 03:03:47 AM
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:23:13 -0500, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:th46u0pktoapriiqmt4fkm6h1jvr2p1f5o@4ax.com...

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:07 -0800, "Flangehead"
<jlcanorby@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote:

"spakka" <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said
they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."



From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to begin
legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a blasphemy
investigation..."

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?


Certain forms. A while back Mary Shitehouse brought a private
prosecution against a magazine for publishing a poem about a gay
Jesus.


Wow. Did she lose?

I think she won. It was an obsolete law that was still on the books.
.

User: "Levy Oates"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 07:49:23 AM
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:23:13 -0500, "Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu>
wrote:

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?


Certain forms. A while back Mary Shitehouse brought a private
prosecution against a magazine for publishing a poem about a gay
Jesus.


Wow. Did she lose?

No, she won.
"The editor of Gay News, the late Denis Lemon, was fined £500 and sentenced to
nine months in prison - suspended for 18 months. Gay News was fined £1,000. "
Source: http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/070502ev.htm
The UK government is attempting to introduce a similar law of "incitement to
religious hatred" which will extend this protection to all other religions. It
is intended to get the muslim vote back for the ruling party after its support
for GWB's little tantrum in Iraq. There are concerns that freedom of speech will
be seriously compromised by this act.
---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
User: "Therion Ware"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 08:23:46 AM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:49:23 +0000 in alt.atheism, Levy Oates (Levy
Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:23:13 -0500, "Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu>
wrote:

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?


Certain forms. A while back Mary Shitehouse brought a private
prosecution against a magazine for publishing a poem about a gay
Jesus.


Wow. Did she lose?


No, she won.

"The editor of Gay News, the late Denis Lemon, was fined £500 and sentenced to
nine months in prison - suspended for 18 months. Gay News was fined £1,000. "

Source: http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/070502ev.htm

The UK government is attempting to introduce a similar law of "incitement to
religious hatred" which will extend this protection to all other religions. It
is intended to get the muslim vote back for the ruling party after its support
for GWB's little tantrum in Iraq. There are concerns that freedom of speech will
be seriously compromised by this act.

Damn right, although the law proposes to protect atheists as well, the
potential for frivolous lawsuits is incredible. As usual our wonderful
government hasn't thought through the implications of the proposed law
and the courts will doubtless go through a very sticky time while
precedents are established.
I made enquiries to the Home Office about the legislation, and
received the reply below:
Reference: T22035/4
Dear Therion Ware,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.
The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.
The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.
The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.
Yours Sincerely
Race Equality Unit
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
User: "Ash"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 10:26:25 AM
Therion Ware wrote:


On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:49:23 +0000 in alt.atheism, Levy Oates (Levy
Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism


The UK government is attempting to introduce a similar law of "incitement to
religious hatred" which will extend this protection to all other religions. It
is intended to get the muslim vote back for the ruling party after its support
for GWB's little tantrum in Iraq. There are concerns that freedom of speech will
be seriously compromised by this act.



Damn right, although the law proposes to protect atheists as well, the
potential for frivolous lawsuits is incredible. As usual our wonderful
government hasn't thought through the implications of the proposed law
and the courts will doubtless go through a very sticky time while
precedents are established.

I made enquiries to the Home Office about the legislation, and
received the reply below:



Reference: T22035/4


Dear Therion Ware,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.

The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.

The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.

The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.

Yours Sincerely


Race Equality Unit

Are they going to define hatred?
.
User: "Therion Ware"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 11:43:58 AM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:26:25 +0000 in alt.atheism, Ash (Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

Therion Ware wrote:


On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:49:23 +0000 in alt.atheism, Levy Oates (Levy
Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism



The UK government is attempting to introduce a similar law of "incitement to
religious hatred" which will extend this protection to all other religions. It
is intended to get the muslim vote back for the ruling party after its support
for GWB's little tantrum in Iraq. There are concerns that freedom of speech will
be seriously compromised by this act.



Damn right, although the law proposes to protect atheists as well, the
potential for frivolous lawsuits is incredible. As usual our wonderful
government hasn't thought through the implications of the proposed law
and the courts will doubtless go through a very sticky time while
precedents are established.

I made enquiries to the Home Office about the legislation, and
received the reply below:



Reference: T22035/4


Dear Therion Ware,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.

The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.

The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.

The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.

Yours Sincerely


Race Equality Unit



Are they going to define hatred?

Hatred (N). The state of affairs existing between Gordon and Tony.
.
User: "Ash"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 02:49:47 PM
Therion Ware wrote:


On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:26:25 +0000 in alt.atheism, Ash (Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism




Therion Ware wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:49:23 +0000 in alt.atheism, Levy Oates (Levy
Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism


The UK government is attempting to introduce a similar law of "incitement to
religious hatred" which will extend this protection to all other religions. It
is intended to get the muslim vote back for the ruling party after its support
for GWB's little tantrum in Iraq. There are concerns that freedom of speech will
be seriously compromised by this act.



Damn right, although the law proposes to protect atheists as well, the
potential for frivolous lawsuits is incredible. As usual our wonderful
government hasn't thought through the implications of the proposed law
and the courts will doubtless go through a very sticky time while
precedents are established.

I made enquiries to the Home Office about the legislation, and
received the reply below:



Reference: T22035/4


Dear Therion Ware,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.

The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.

The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.

The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.

Yours Sincerely


Race Equality Unit



Are they going to define hatred?



Hatred (N). The state of affairs existing between Gordon and Tony.

haha
I can't bring myself to worry about this. Sayiong religious books are
idiotic and filled with hatred and that believes are sub normal mornos
clinging desperately to an obvious fantasy because their own lives are
sad and pathetic isn't icniting hatred. Contempt maybe, but not hatred
.


User: "Jez"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 03:08:01 PM
Ash wrote:

Therion Ware wrote:


On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:49:23 +0000 in alt.atheism, Levy Oates (Levy
Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism




The UK government is attempting to introduce a similar law of
"incitement to
religious hatred" which will extend this protection to all other
religions. It
is intended to get the muslim vote back for the ruling party after
its support
for GWB's little tantrum in Iraq. There are concerns that freedom of
speech will
be seriously compromised by this act.




Damn right, although the law proposes to protect atheists as well, the
potential for frivolous lawsuits is incredible. As usual our wonderful
government hasn't thought through the implications of the proposed law
and the courts will doubtless go through a very sticky time while
precedents are established.

I made enquiries to the Home Office about the legislation, and
received the reply below:



Reference: T22035/4


Dear Therion Ware,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.

The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.
The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.
The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.
Yours Sincerely


Race Equality Unit




Are they going to define hatred?

I guess that would be disagreeing with anything Tiny Blur says.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 10:54:16 AM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:26:25 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

Are they going to define hatred?

If they define it properly "you're an evil sinner" is hatred.
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 12 Jan 2005 12:51:38 AM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:54:16 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:26:25 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

Are they going to define hatred?

If they define it properly "you're an evil sinner" is hatred.

Definitely religious, whether hatred or not. Even if those in
nominally 'Christian' countries don't see it.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.



User: "John Popelish"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 04:42:25 PM
Therion Ware wrote:

Damn right, although the law proposes to protect atheists as well, the
potential for frivolous lawsuits is incredible. As usual our wonderful
government hasn't thought through the implications of the proposed law
and the courts will doubtless go through a very sticky time while
precedents are established.

I made enquiries to the Home Office about the legislation, and
received the reply below:

Reference: T22035/4

Dear Therion Ware,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.

The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.

The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.

The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.

Yours Sincerely

Race Equality Unit

A potential interpretation of this act would allow many people to sue
printers of the Bible.
--
John Popelish
.


User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 10:31:20 AM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:49:23 +0000, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:23:13 -0500, "Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu>
wrote:

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?


Certain forms. A while back Mary Shitehouse brought a private
prosecution against a magazine for publishing a poem about a gay
Jesus.


Wow. Did she lose?


No, she won.

"The editor of Gay News, the late Denis Lemon, was fined £500 and sentenced to
nine months in prison - suspended for 18 months. Gay News was fined £1,000. "

Source: http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/070502ev.htm

The UK government is attempting to introduce a similar law of "incitement to
religious hatred" which will extend this protection to all other religions. It
is intended to get the muslim vote back for the ruling party after its support
for GWB's little tantrum in Iraq. There are concerns that freedom of speech will
be seriously compromised by this act.

The problem here is that religious loonies can't tell the difference
between action and reaction.
They don't think proselytising to the point of religious harrassment,
taking pot shots, lying about people outside their religion etc are
"religious hatred".
But they do think responses telling them where to shove it, are.
.
User: "JPG"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 01:32:32 PM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:31:20 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:49:23 +0000, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:23:13 -0500, "Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu>
wrote:

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?


Certain forms. A while back Mary Shitehouse brought a private
prosecution against a magazine for publishing a poem about a gay
Jesus.


Wow. Did she lose?


No, she won.

"The editor of Gay News, the late Denis Lemon, was fined £500 and sentenced to
nine months in prison - suspended for 18 months. Gay News was fined £1,000. "

Source: http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/070502ev.htm

The UK government is attempting to introduce a similar law of "incitement to
religious hatred" which will extend this protection to all other religions. It
is intended to get the muslim vote back for the ruling party after its support
for GWB's little tantrum in Iraq. There are concerns that freedom of speech will
be seriously compromised by this act.


The problem here is that religious loonies can't tell the difference
between action and reaction.

They don't think proselytising to the point of religious harrassment,
taking pot shots, lying about people outside their religion etc are
"religious hatred".

Too right. So their saying atheists will burn in hell forever is not religious
hatred?
Wankers.
JPG


But they do think responses telling them where to shove it, are.

.





User: "spakka"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 10 Jan 2005 11:06:58 PM
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:07 -0800, Flangehead wrote:

From the article: "He said his group would meet lawyers this week to begin
legal action, adding he did not ask the police to undertake a blasphemy
investigation..."

Is blasphemy against the law in Britain?

Only the beliefs and tenets of the Church of England are protected.
.


User: "Levy Oates"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 07:51:44 AM
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:40:12 GMT, spakka <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."

It wasn't my fault your honour! All I did was leave a note on the table saying
his wife had been cheating on him and that the two of them were upstairs right
now. I just happened to use a loaded automatic weapon as the paper weight. How
can I *possibly* be held responsible for what happened? I'm a good God-fearing
Christian and would never dream of using violence myself...
---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 11 Jan 2005 01:16:44 PM
In our last episode <a817u0t23t01jqla8ml62iibiief631ag3@4ax.com>, Levy
Oates lept out of the bushes shouting:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:40:12 GMT, spakka <usenet_spam@mail.invalid> wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC staff
involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting in abusive
phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."


It wasn't my fault your honour! All I did was leave a note on the table
saying his wife had been cheating on him and that the two of them were
upstairs right now. I just happened to use a loaded automatic weapon as
the paper weight. How can I *possibly* be held responsible for what
happened? I'm a good God-fearing Christian and would never dream of using
violence myself...

Well, it's the excuse they use for their gawd who created everything,
knowing how everything would work out, but dodges responsibility by saying
"you *coulda done something *else!"
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.


User: "Kevin Anthoney"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 10 Jan 2005 10:25:58 PM
spakka wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."

Does he think it was the atheists who were whining about blasphemy?
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
User: "stoney"

Title: Re: A particulary nasty 'No true Scotsman' argument 15 Jan 2005 05:11:45 AM
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:25:58 +0000, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:

spakka wrote:

<Background: Some Christian cunts published private numbers of BBC
staff involved in the screening of Jerry Springer musical resulting
in abusive phone calls to them and their families>

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice, who posted the phone numbers on their website, said they
had nothing to do with the alleged abuse.

"We totally abhor stuff like that, it does no credit to the cause of
Christ," Mr Green said. "But I was a bit naive in thinking perhaps our
website would only be visited by Christians."


Does he think it was the atheists who were whining about blasphemy?

Lying assholes like Green are unable to think.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.



  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER