More censorship of atheists on campus

Fair point - latter part of that argument is retracted. It's probably more of a demographic/location-based issue.

I'm an atheist. And sometimes I really am ashamed of what a bunch of self righteous ********s some of my fellow atheists are.

Are you serious? While I don't agree with suppression of freedom of speech, this is clearly just intended to poke fun at religious people. It's practically hate speech.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is childish and redundant.

Just because Atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean they're critizing religious followers. Atheists stating that there is no hell is the exact same amount of "ridicule" as Christians saying that there is one.
You have yet to show how Atheist societies ridicule religion significantly more than religious societies ridicule atheism.

Just a reminder - atheists have yet to take offense on Christmas decorations, call to prayer, religious posters etc. So what is so new and different about a poster on the flying spaghetti monster?

I'm sure that there is a "no drinkers" or "no drug users" society. Would you still be offended at those?

However, atheists do believe in the big bang. Point is: atheism is a big part of a person's life. Just as christianity or islam may play a big part in yours. Of course a society that links to a big part in your life is rectified. You're getting caught up in formalities. Whether the society has to do with "do's" and "dont's" has nothing to do with it.

I can't believe you took offense on the fact that I mentioned atheism as a 'belief'. FOR GOD'S SAKE I put it in apostrophes in order to highlight the ambiguity of the word. Some people are just butt hurt at everything.
This just shows how sensitive you are.

I'll have you know I was put on this planet to save us all from socialists.

Well, what an original and interesting opinion this is.





'Whilst I don't agree with suppression of freedom of speech, I don't think people should be allowed to mock other people'.

I hope you can see the problem here.




Of course it's childish. That's the point.

If people want to have a society for people who don't believe in God, or don't play football, or don't like movies, that's fine by me.

The LSBSU isn't like the ULU, it is directly controlled by the university. It is therefore subject to PSED.

Article 10 of the ECHR

Of course it's childish. That's the point.

I was hoping to see some evidence that this is true though - In particular, evidence that it is subject to ECHR rather than PSED, since that is what you quoted below.

"2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

I think the Student Union could argue that its actions were in accordance with the bit of the article I've highlighted above, believing that literature designed to mock could risk creating tension and disorder

This is utterly asinine and I think you know it.

If liking movies were an element in political discourse you might have a superficially plausible comparison. Even then, atheism would be a stance on a matter (religion) which is popularly debated, where it is socially acceptable for those who take (one of several of) the opposite stance(s) to proselytise as much as they like.

This is utterly asinine and I think you know it.

If liking movies were an element in political discourse you might have a superficially plausible comparison. Even then, atheism would be a stance on a matter (religion) which is popularly debated, where it is socially acceptable for those who take (one of several of) the opposite stance(s) to proselytise as much as they like.

Personally I'd disagree with such an argument. It's one thing to express lack of belief in God, state that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, or otherwise wear the label of "atheist". I don't think any Student Union would have a problem with that. But there's a fine line between believing something yourself, and ridiculing that fact that someone else believes something different.

What you are saying is that there is a difference between believing something yourself and expressing that belief publicly.

It is not even about expressing one's beliefs in a polite way. No doubt these people believe religion to be ridiculous. Should people only be allowed to express inoffensive beliefs?

In any case, if a religion cannot handle a bit of criticism, even mockery, that does not speak well to its intellectual credit. You are attempting to justify attempts to stymie intellectual debate.

You seem to be confused. Any derogation must be prescribed by law. Where is this derogation prescribed by law? Please cite the act.

Just as, I would expect to be completely permitted to hand out "Atheists are all stupid and going to hell" leaflets in a public place, but I don't think I'd be allowed to do it in a school, university, workplace etc. which may have stricter rules than the outside world.

I'm usually told by atheists that atheism is the lack of a stance on the matter - merely a default position. I agree that it is popularly debated - I see nothing strange about having a debating society, with a focus on topics of religion.

In general, I think people should be allowed to express whatever offensive beliefs they like, and mock whatever they like. If people want to hand out literature in the street like that, go right ahead. In the specific case of a student union, I can see why they wouldn't want to permit offensiveness or mockery, because it's in their interests for good and friendly relations to exist amongst all its members, rather than tension.

Just as, I would expect to be completely permitted to hand out "Atheists are all stupid and going to hell" leaflets in a public place, but I don't think I'd be allowed to do it in a school, university, workplace etc. which may have stricter rules than the outside world.

Public order act 1986. Various sections on fears of disorder and provocation.

Ignore him, he likes to annoy people. He does thus across most threads that he posts on. He also claims to be a right winger but believes in left wing ideals (which makes no sense).

He is also racist.

I wouldn't bother debating with him.