Religions > Atheism > Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Clint Clark" |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2004 07:40:32 PM |
| Object: |
Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the new law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the Editor
of the London Times at
This is a copy of the letter I sent:
--
Dear Editor,
My name is Clint Clark and I am in support of dropping the new British law
that would limit the freedom of speech related to "satirists and writers who
may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief, practices or
leaders."
All things considered, the new law is ridiculous. It would be like limiting
satire or discontentment with government leaders and their bizarre behaviors
or choices. Old Testament religions (those that use the Old Testament in
their religious practices -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism)
began as a form of government, which is an historical fact. And in Islam
today, it is a fact that they still use it as their form of government (no
separation of Church and State). So, are they going forbid the population to
poke fun at governments too?
Religion, unlike color, race, or ethnic origin, is a type of government,
because it directly impacts (directs and deters) the social behaviors of an
immense group of people. And, just like secular laws, religious laws state
which behaviors are punishable. In other words, which actions in society
have negative consequences attached to those actions. By their own
definition then, Old Testament religions are a form of government. Tell them
to get rid of their laws for society to live by, and we will stop poking fun
at them. If they want to be a governing body, then we are certainly going to
be poking fun at them from time to time.
If you really want to get into the root and truth of the whole issue, read
"The Gospel Writers" for some effective ammunition against these religious
manipulators of government and society: http://www.thegospelwriters.com/
One of the issues is, just like any government or large corporation, they
don't want any negative P.R. that would effect consumer confidence of
potential "consumers of religion." Which is ridiculous again. Suppliers of
religion (services and products) are the only major vendors in the civilized
world that are allowed to take money for a product and service that has
never been proven to do what they promise it will do. A vendor that cannot
provide proof that their product or service works, is usually required to
pull their product and service off the market. Have you personally talked to
any satisfied customers in the last ten years, who have received
"immortality in a place of love and beauty where they can be reunited with
dead relatives" in exchange for the money and work (tithing or inheritance)
that they paid out over many years for this product and service? Truthfully,
even though we are told a few have returned from this place, we've never
heard or seen one product and service testimonial in over one hundred years.
I wonder why that is? If it's such a good deal, you would think there would
be thousands coming back to give product and service testimonials. Maybe the
place went out of business and they forgot to tell the salesmen?
Sincerely,
Clint Clark
--
Also, I thought the group might enjoy the new cartoon I added to my book
online at: http://www.thegospelwriters.com/detox_l.html
.
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
07 Dec 2004 04:37:11 AM |
|
|
"Clint Clark" <composer@iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:kS7td.454956$wV.408291@attbi_s54...
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the new law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the Editor
of the London Times at
I hope he hasn't written in. -- "Baldrick, I'm going to write a letter, and
to make it look especially vicious, I'm going to write it with blood...your
blood, to be precise. Here's a knife." -- BA2, EP5
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
07 Dec 2004 07:17:59 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:40:32 GMT, "Clint Clark" <composer@iastate.edu> wrote:
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the new law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the Editor
of the London Times at
This is a copy of the letter I sent:
--
Dear Editor,
My name is Clint Clark and I am in support of dropping the new British law
that would limit the freedom of speech related to "satirists and writers who
may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief, practices or
leaders."
What no one has mentioned, and what it is really all about, is the fact that
Moslems are extremely sensitive to criticism and the government doesn't want to
alienate them. Because, by and large, Moslems run their life by their religion,
covering everything from how you wash yourself to what banks you can put your
money in, they see any jokes about themselves as a personal affront or
blasphemy.
Also, most Moslems in the UK are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi descent, so there
is a tendency to consider attacks on Islam as attacks on that community,
bringing in a racist element.
Christians and other religions have long had fun poked at them, and rightly so,
from Dave Allen to the Vicar of Dibley.
As far as I am concerned, religions are philosophies and are fair game.
JPG
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
07 Dec 2004 08:01:41 AM |
|
|
JPG wrote:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:40:32 GMT, "Clint Clark"
<composer@iastate.edu> wrote:
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the
new law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the
Editor
of the London Times at
This is a copy of the letter I sent:
--
Dear Editor,
My name is Clint Clark and I am in support of dropping the new
British law
that would limit the freedom of speech related to "satirists and
writers who
may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief,
practices or
leaders."
What no one has mentioned, and what it is really all about, is the
fact that
Moslems are extremely sensitive to criticism and the government
doesn't want to
alienate them. Because, by and large, Moslems run their life by
their religion,
covering everything from how you wash yourself to what banks you can
put your
money in, they see any jokes about themselves as a personal affront
or
blasphemy.
I wonder why? I know they have a sense of humor. They all laughed
real hard when the WTC was knocked down.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
06 Dec 2004 09:01:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:40:32 GMT, Clint Clark wrote:
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the new law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the Editor
of the London Times at
This is a copy of the letter I sent:
--
Dear Editor,
My name is Clint Clark and I am in support of dropping the new British law
that would limit the freedom of speech related to "satirists and writers who
may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief, practices or
leaders."
...
Austin (Texas), like many U.S. cities, has several channels on cable
TV set aside for community access. These channels are required by
charter to be dedicated to free speech, yet the cable companies and the
city are planning alterations that would add restrictions to each
channel. They want to dedicate one to "inspiration", one to education
programming and one would remain undirected free speech.
I mention this because one of the conditions of having a show on the
inspiration channel is you can't say anything negative about any
religious tradition. Sounds a lot like what the UK has already done.
There's a lot of protest over these proposed changes, so we hope they
won't be put into effect. But just in case, one of our group's
producers is already kicking around an idea for a half hour show
criticizing various religions so it can be aired on the inspiration
channel, leading to us being punished somehow, thereby giving us grounds
to file a legal challenge. Unfortunately, I understand other groups are
also planning that, so it may be a race to see who can get sanctioned
first.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
06 Dec 2004 11:32:18 PM |
|
|
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4is3463uodka.1gsejogsv3dzs.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:40:32 GMT, Clint Clark wrote:
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the new
law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the
Editor
of the London Times at
This is a copy of the letter I sent:
--
Dear Editor,
My name is Clint Clark and I am in support of dropping the new British
law
that would limit the freedom of speech related to "satirists and writers
who
may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief, practices or
leaders."
...
Austin (Texas), like many U.S. cities, has several channels on cable
TV set aside for community access. These channels are required by
charter to be dedicated to free speech, yet the cable companies and the
city are planning alterations that would add restrictions to each
channel. They want to dedicate one to "inspiration", one to education
programming and one would remain undirected free speech.
I mention this because one of the conditions of having a show on the
inspiration channel is you can't say anything negative about any
religious tradition. Sounds a lot like what the UK has already done.
There's a lot of protest over these proposed changes, so we hope they
won't be put into effect. But just in case, one of our group's
producers is already kicking around an idea for a half hour show
criticizing various religions so it can be aired on the inspiration
channel, leading to us being punished somehow, thereby giving us grounds
to file a legal challenge. Unfortunately, I understand other groups are
also planning that, so it may be a race to see who can get sanctioned
first.
I wonder if this affects The Atheist Experience call-in show? And I think
the "inspiration" channel needs to be carefully examined to make sure they
aren't dissing atheists.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
07 Dec 2004 06:57:10 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:32:18 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4is3463uodka.1gsejogsv3dzs.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:40:32 GMT, Clint Clark wrote:
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the new
law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the
Editor
of the London Times at
This is a copy of the letter I sent:
--
Dear Editor,
My name is Clint Clark and I am in support of dropping the new British
law
that would limit the freedom of speech related to "satirists and writers
who
may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief, practices or
leaders."
...
Austin (Texas), like many U.S. cities, has several channels on cable
TV set aside for community access. These channels are required by
charter to be dedicated to free speech, yet the cable companies and the
city are planning alterations that would add restrictions to each
channel. They want to dedicate one to "inspiration", one to education
programming and one would remain undirected free speech.
I mention this because one of the conditions of having a show on the
inspiration channel is you can't say anything negative about any
religious tradition. Sounds a lot like what the UK has already done.
There's a lot of protest over these proposed changes, so we hope they
won't be put into effect. But just in case, one of our group's
producers is already kicking around an idea for a half hour show
criticizing various religions so it can be aired on the inspiration
channel, leading to us being punished somehow, thereby giving us grounds
to file a legal challenge. Unfortunately, I understand other groups are
also planning that, so it may be a race to see who can get sanctioned
first.
I wonder if this affects The Atheist Experience call-in show? And I think
the "inspiration" channel needs to be carefully examined to make sure they
aren't dissing atheists.
Maybe even this newsgroup. I can see myself being prosecuted
for writing here anything that is regarded by Christians as inciting
religious hatred. Not that I ever do but the charges can still be made
and I could be forced to defend myself in court causing me loss
of time and the expense of engaging a lawyer a penalty I can ill
afford. Still I guess freedom of expressuion is something that aught
to be defended no matter how much it costs. There is little more in
life that is more worth or moral.
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
07 Dec 2004 12:57:19 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:32:18 -0600, Denis Loubet wrote:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4is3463uodka.1gsejogsv3dzs.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:40:32 GMT, Clint Clark wrote:
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the new
law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the
Editor
of the London Times at
This is a copy of the letter I sent:
--
Dear Editor,
My name is Clint Clark and I am in support of dropping the new British
law
that would limit the freedom of speech related to "satirists and writers
who
may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief, practices or
leaders."
...
Austin (Texas), like many U.S. cities, has several channels on cable
TV set aside for community access. These channels are required by
charter to be dedicated to free speech, yet the cable companies and the
city are planning alterations that would add restrictions to each
channel. They want to dedicate one to "inspiration", one to education
programming and one would remain undirected free speech.
I mention this because one of the conditions of having a show on the
inspiration channel is you can't say anything negative about any
religious tradition. Sounds a lot like what the UK has already done.
There's a lot of protest over these proposed changes, so we hope they
won't be put into effect. But just in case, one of our group's
producers is already kicking around an idea for a half hour show
criticizing various religions so it can be aired on the inspiration
channel, leading to us being punished somehow, thereby giving us grounds
to file a legal challenge. Unfortunately, I understand other groups are
also planning that, so it may be a race to see who can get sanctioned
first.
I wonder if this affects The Atheist Experience call-in show?
It's expected to do so. AE is on Channel 10, which I think is
destined to be the inspiration channel, so we'd have to move to the
education channel.
ACAC is already moving in the Austin Music Channel equipment. The AMC
is the ostensible reason for these changes since they want to clear room
on the free stations to fit the AMC in after hours (10pm and later) so
they won't have to give up any commercial channels, and it's a good
excuse to juggle the programming. Since we're getting the equipment,
I'm assuming the channel changes are going forward, but definitely not
without a ton of opposition from many of the producers.
And I think
the "inspiration" channel needs to be carefully examined to make sure they
aren't dissing atheists.
That's been discussed, too. If any call-in shows were to be
scheduled, it would be a simple matter to just phone in and get one of
them to say something negative. If not, someone would have to actually
watch the tripe they air.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
07 Dec 2004 08:03:15 AM |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:40:32 GMT, Clint Clark wrote:
Dear group,
I think we should support Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist
Association in their efforts to try and get parliament to drop the
new law
prohibiting freedom of speech, by all of us sending a letter to the
Editor
of the London Times at
This is a copy of the letter I sent:
--
Dear Editor,
My name is Clint Clark and I am in support of dropping the new
British law
that would limit the freedom of speech related to "satirists and
writers who
may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief,
practices or
leaders."
...
Austin (Texas), like many U.S. cities, has several channels on
cable
TV set aside for community access. These channels are required by
charter to be dedicated to free speech, yet the cable companies and
the
city are planning alterations that would add restrictions to each
channel. They want to dedicate one to "inspiration", one to
education
programming and one would remain undirected free speech.
I mention this because one of the conditions of having a show on
the
inspiration channel is you can't say anything negative about any
religious tradition. Sounds a lot like what the UK has already done.
There's a lot of protest over these proposed changes, so we hope
they
won't be put into effect. But just in case, one of our group's
producers is already kicking around an idea for a half hour show
criticizing various religions so it can be aired on the inspiration
channel, leading to us being punished somehow, thereby giving us
grounds
to file a legal challenge. Unfortunately, I understand other groups
are
also planning that, so it may be a race to see who can get sanctioned
first.
You shouldn't let these plans be known. The (Christian) guys in charge
will come up with a plan (like a 3 second delay) to prevent it. Don't
advertise your punches.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
07 Dec 2004 06:02:42 PM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2004 06:03:15 -0800, jwk wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
Austin (Texas), like many U.S. cities, has several channels on
cable
TV set aside for community access. These channels are required by
charter to be dedicated to free speech, yet the cable companies and
the
city are planning alterations that would add restrictions to each
channel. They want to dedicate one to "inspiration", one to
education
programming and one would remain undirected free speech.
I mention this because one of the conditions of having a show on
the
inspiration channel is you can't say anything negative about any
religious tradition. Sounds a lot like what the UK has already done.
There's a lot of protest over these proposed changes, so we hope
they
won't be put into effect. But just in case, one of our group's
producers is already kicking around an idea for a half hour show
criticizing various religions so it can be aired on the inspiration
channel, leading to us being punished somehow, thereby giving us
grounds
to file a legal challenge. Unfortunately, I understand other groups
are
also planning that, so it may be a race to see who can get sanctioned
first.
You shouldn't let these plans be known. The (Christian) guys in charge
will come up with a plan (like a 3 second delay) to prevent it. Don't
advertise your punches.
Actually, there are three Mormons on the BoD, and we've had problems
with them before, things like our show being the one to be postponed for
Mormon conferences.
The access TV producers as a group have already announced their
intentions of dealing with these proposed changes anyway they can; they
are *not* quiet little wallflowers hoping things will work out, so it's
not like anything we'd do would be a surprise to the board anyway.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
08 Dec 2004 08:24:47 AM |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004 06:03:15 -0800, jwk wrote:
You shouldn't let these plans be known. The (Christian) guys in
charge
[snip]
Actually, there are three Mormons on the BoD,
I thought Mormons *were Christians. I'm pretty sure they would insist
they are.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Support for Rowan Atkinson and the British Humanist Association |
08 Dec 2004 09:35:20 AM |
|
|
jwk wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004 06:03:15 -0800, jwk wrote:
You shouldn't let these plans be known. The (Christian) guys in
charge
[snip]
Actually, there are three Mormons on the BoD,
I thought Mormons *were Christians. I'm pretty sure they would insist
they are.
The deciding factor for me is the fact that most Christians do not
recognize Mormons as Christians. The LDS religion denies several important
Christian doctrines (they hold that the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit are three separate and distinct beings, for example, and deny the
eternity of God) while holding a great many beliefs that run counter to
traditional Christian doctrine (the idea of three different heavens,
marriage "for time and eternity", baptism for the dead, "As man is, God
was. As God is, man may become", the belief that God has a wife, the
belief that Satan is Jesus' brother, among many others.)
Ok, not exactly an atheist response but hey, I spent several years
studying for the ministry. It kind of sticks with you :-P
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in
the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny." - James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
