Atheist convicted of putting rude pictures in prayer room

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Knorf

It always amazes me how so many people of faith have so little of it.

Oh noes, the prayer room had some offensive cartoons left in it. My faith has been besmirched!

If I drew cartoons of your mom in sexual poses, I wouldn’t blame you for being pissed off at me, even if it didn’t affect your faith in your mom.
Drawing cartoons of religious figures in sexual poses may be a dickish thing to do, but it shouldn’t be illegal. Leaving sexually explicit cartoons, whether they involve religious figures or not, in a public place, where people who don’t want to see them (including children, grieving family members, etc.), on the other hand…

[Hal_Briston]

@Marley23

It looks like the guy’s crime was essentially blasphemy. Religions don’t deserve any particular protection and religious people don’t have a right to avoid ever being offended. Harrassing people because of their religion is another problem, but I don’t think putting some pictures in a public place qualifies.

Bingo – Blasphemy is no longer on the books, and this is simply an end-around run.

Actually, this will likely end up perfectly. Since there’s no “1st Degree Being A Fricking Dinkus” with which to charge him, they arrest him for this. It will ultimately get tossed out, but now everyone knows he’s a fricking dinkus.

[SecondJudith]

I don’t know, I think if someone went to a gay nightclub and put up homophobic cartoons, or to an Asian students’ association and put up racist cartoons, that would be harassment, and so is this.

[Yllaria]

@Thudlow_Boink

. . . Drawing cartoons of religious figures in sexual poses may be a dickish thing to do, but it shouldn’t be illegal. Leaving sexually explicit cartoons, whether they involve religious figures or not, in a public place, where people who don’t want to see them (including children, grieving family members, etc.), on the other hand…

This is the nub of it for me. I wouldn’t approve of him posting rude pictures in the airport restroom.

[KarlGauss]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

. . . over-reacting? . . .

Yeah, it sure is. Up to seven years imprisonment? That is over-reacting. For blasphemy. In 2010.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said the prosecution had brought blasphemy laws “in through the back door”.

He said: "This is a disgraceful verdict, but an inevitable one under this pernicious law.

"It seems incredible in the 21st Century that you might be sent to prison because someone is ‘offended’ by your views on their religion.

"The blasphemy law was abolished three years ago, but it lives on under the guise of religiously aggravated offences and is several times more dangerous.

That’s it in a nutshell: this guy was found guilty of blasphemy; they just call it “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.

I’m not so sure it will be thrown out eventually, tho. This happened in the UK, and I’m not familiar enough with UK justice to have any idea how it will play out.

I’m curious to know if an atheist could have someone proselytizing arrested tho.

[Skammer]

@SecondJudith

I don’t know, I think if someone went to a gay nightclub and put up homophobic cartoons, or to an Asian students’ association and put up racist cartoons, that would be harassment, and so is this.

This is how I see it. Seven years in prison is excessive, but I don’t have a problem with this being a crime.

[Shodan]

@Marley23

. It seems to me that if anybody is publicly known to be an atheist, they’re treated like a militant.

Only the ones going out of their way to be offensive.

@Skammer

So religious harassment should not be a crime?

No, it shouldn’t.

Wow.

But this applies only to religious believers, right? So it would be fine if someone were to call Obama names. Because he is a Christian.

@Terry Sanderson

It seems incredible in the 21st Century that you might be sent to prison because someone is ‘offended’ by your views on their religion.

That is incredible. It doesn’t seem to have happened in this case, which makes it even harder to believe. No one is offended by his views; they are offended by his actions.

Regards,
Shodan

[matt_mcl]

@Marley23

You know, I thought “militant” meant someone with such intense fervor he might be expected to go to war over his convictions.

(irrelevant parenthesis) Oddly, in French, “militant” simply means activist. It is therefore not an oxymoron to speak of des militants pacifistes.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@matt_mcl

(irrelevant parenthesis) Oddly, in French, “militant” simply means activist. It is therefore not an oxymoron to speak of des militants pacifistes.

Passive activists?

[billfish678]

@Thudlow_Boink

Passive activists?

A hell of a lot better than active Pacifists let me tell you, aka dirty hippies.

Obviously, this quickly gets into a free speech issue. And, IMO, I think this a spin on it some folks don’t consider.

Of course it should not be a crime to think or say something offensive because of the content. “XYZ is a fracking doo doo head!”. Think it, say in conversation, print up flyers, make a website about it. Have a ball. The content itself is NOT illegal.

However, IMO at some point, your unpleasant to some speech and how you go about it starts to invade other folks space. At that point its not that your getting in trouble just ABOUT what you said. Its THAT in COMBINATION with getting in other peoples faces about it.

Obviously, again, you still have problems with were to draw the line when looking at it that way, but IMO its not quite the same intellectual assault on freedom of speech when analyzed in that light.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@KarlGauss

Yeah, it sure is. Up to seven years imprisonment? That is over-reacting. For blasphemy. In 2010.

Let’s try to keep in mind that he hasn’t been sentenced to ANYTHING yet, let alone the maxiumum sentence allowable. Do you really believe that is the sentence he’s going to get? For blasphemy? In 2010?

(gosh it is fun to do the short sentences to show emphasis and outrage)

@shiftless

While I agree with what Sleeps With ButterFlies says, have you ever read a Chick tract? Evil, hateful images and words, they are everywhere and yet no arrests that I have ever heard of.

Yes I have read them and think they’re deplorable. I guess I’m confused with how that relates to anything I’ve said though.

[YogSothoth]

Trying to convince people with science, evidence, and reason doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Thus, I support the actions of any atheists to mock or otherwise denounce religion. They used to have to kill us to stop us, now they can’t. If the religionists cannot listen to reason, then mock them.

[Knorf]

@Aries28

…but it still was a jerkish thing to do.

It sure was.

I wouldn’t do it.

But, did you read the article?

The chaplain at the airport, who was “severely distressed” by the discoveries in November and December 2008, immediately reported the images to the police, prosecutors said.

This is what I’m :rolleyes: about.

You throw the shit away, not call the police.

Taylor, who has been released on bail, will be sentenced on 23 April.
The maximum sentence for such an offence is seven years in prison.

Going to prison for this is beyond idiotic. Idiocy brought on by someone who’s faith can’t handle some offensive cartoons. Such people deserve to be mocked.

[Acsenray]

The guy was being a jerk.

There should be no punishment for being a jerk.

[friedo]

@Hal_Briston

Actually, this will likely end up perfectly. Since there’s no “1st Degree Being A Fricking Dinkus” with which to charge him, they arrest him for this. It will ultimately get tossed out, but now everyone knows he’s a fricking dinkus.

Sounds like he should have been arrested for littering.