Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cameron: "there is a right to cause offence about someone's religion" watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Cameron says it's okay for a publication to cause intentional offence to religions.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30869585

    Is it therefore okay for me as an individual to offend someone because of their religion? Why religion and not race? I'm not saying this as someone who is racist or offensive to religious people but i'm struggling to understand why it's okay to be offensive to religions through free speech but not races.

    Why is it okay to verbally abuse someone, but not physically? Verbal offenses can cause as much harm as physical ones.

    It also raises the question, are we allowed to insult the religion itself only, or are we allowed to offend followers of that faith personally due to their choice of religion?

    "I'm a Christian - if someone says something offensive about Jesus, I might find that offensive, but in a free society I don't have a right to, sort of, wreak my vengeance on them."
    -cameron

    I think this is opening dangerous unknowns.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There should be a right to offend race as well. Whether it's "okay" or not is something else.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by james1211)
    Cameron says it's okay for a publication to cause intentional offence to religions.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30869585

    Is it therefore okay for me as an individual to offend someone because of their religion? Why religion and not race? I'm not saying this as someone who is racist or offensive to religious people but i'm struggling to understand why it's okay to be offensive to religions through free speech but not races.
    I suppose there's an argument to be made that race is inherent, religion is chosen. Seems a bit contrived, though.
    ETA in response to OP's edit: surely you don't think Cameron is wrong in saying that people shouldn't have the right to wreak vengeance if they feel offended?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Oh **** off Cameron

    And he's not a Christian lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BitWindy)
    There should be a right to offend race as well. Whether it's "okay" or not is something else.
    This is kind of my point. It is allowed through free speech, so why isn't it allowed for race too?

    Who decides what "okay" means? This can't always be decided by the state/law.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    There's a difference between criticising a religion and insulting people because of their religion. For example it is ok to say "Jesus is stupid" but not ok to say "you're a Christian, so you're a stupid."


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    There's a difference between criticising a religion and insulting people because of their religion. For example it is ok to say "Jesus is stupid" but not ok to say "you're a Christian, so you're a stupid."


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Jesus himself was a human being, therefore a person.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by kka25)
    Jesus himself was a human being, therefore a person.
    2000 years ago...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    How about everyone gets to say anything they want about anything or anyone and we move past this stupid bull****.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Cameron is another Obama. Always talking about social issues it's just getting annoying now.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Race is something intrinsic about a person that they cannot change... whereas religion is a set of opinions, ideas and beliefs which you have actually chosen. It is always acceptable to "offend" somebody's ideas, in my opinion.

    It is also important to distinguish just causing offence from discrimination.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    2000 years ago...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Still a person. If that's the case, we can only use your logic for some specific people which is pretty much a bias thing to do.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Race is something intrinsic about a person that they cannot change... whereas religion is a set of opinions, ideas and beliefs which you have actually chosen. It is always acceptable to "offend" somebody's ideas, in my opinion.

    It is also important to distinguish just causing offence from discrimination.
    *Claps*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Race is something intrinsic about a person that they cannot change... whereas religion is a set of opinions, ideas and beliefs which you have actually chosen. It is always acceptable to "offend" somebody's ideas, in my opinion.

    It is also important to distinguish just causing offence from discrimination.
    I think society doesn't distinguish these very well. If i walked along the street and walked up to a muslim and said "Allah is a prick" i'd end up in a police cell overnight.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Seaholme got it right. Can we stop making this threads now. The absolute idiocy of the religious who cannot see the difference between rational criticism of their stupid beliefs and irrational criticism of someone based on racial prejudice is bitterly painful to read.

    You're actively making a fallacy of rash generalisation if you criticise someone for their skin colour - unless their excess of melanin is actually going to detriment them and be worthy of criticism, but that's not the reason why people throw racist slurs in 99.9999% of circumstances. Being of a particular race says nothing about one's beliefs.

    Being a "Muslim", that is a follower of "Islam" says a lot about one's beliefs right there and then. We all have the right to go out of our way to offend people who have beliefs we disagree with. Obviously this should not be done "religiously" so to speak, that is, on a principle basis rather than rationality's sake. Often racists internalise a religion's association with a particular race. If someone was more fearful/uncomfortable/annoyed with an arab Muslim than a white Muslim then they would be racist. Anyone who truly dislikes Islam for its ideological reasons would be equally fearful/uncomfortable/disgusted with the Arab Muslim's beliefs and the White Muslim's beliefs assuming they were of a similar sort.

    I don't see why any of this should have to be spelt out. If people cannot see that as obvious then they're deluded and deserve to be offended for that until they get over their severe obtuseness.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james1211)
    I think society doesn't distinguish these very well. If i walked along the street and walked up to a muslim and said "Allah is a prick" i'd end up in a police cell overnight.
    Even if he was a white Muslim?

    What would happen if you walked to an Irish man and said the Popes a child-****er?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because religion is a choice, race isn't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Doesn't matter if race, nationality and the like aren't choices. Comedians, cartoonists etc. should have the right to joke about/publish things related to that if they think it'll entertain & sell. And they do
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Any entity which proclaims authority, wields influence, passes judgment, or pursues an agenda, must be subject to criticism. Religion represents a belief, a movement, organizations and even governments which do all those things. To be subject to criticism is to be subject to offense. Being deliberately offensive towards a religion is not only sometime acceptable, it is often necessary.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Jesus himself was a human being, therefore a person.
    What is your proof that Jesus was a real person? That aside, dead people can't complain against Libel, slander or defamation. The only course of action is blasphemy, not a bright idea in a secular society. I suppose the dead could always appeal to God, if one existed.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 20, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.