Why is Racism A Crime.

[fluffybiscuits]

Fluffy .......you clearly you didn't read or didn't understand the opening post. Nothing you have posted here is relevant to the question posed.

What do you mean nothing I posted is relevant? All of the info I posted is relevant and I gave a reason as to why people become racist. Either through limited resources or inhereted prejudices from peers . Racism is a crime as its unfair, it marginalises people. Blasphemy on the other hand? Its not a crime as god does not exist, you cannot base a crime on something that does not exist. Perhaps I am over simplfying it but this is what makes sense in this crazy world.

[riposte]

Racism is a crime as its unfair, it marginalises people. Blasphemy on the other hand?.

Fluffy ........ I already set out some of the reasons why Racism has been made a crime in this post ....... but could you deal with the question at the end of the post......

http://www.politicalworld.org/showpo...77&postcount=5

[fluffybiscuits]

I tried by helping you understand why racism exists...

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

What is interesting here is that Anti-Semitism is included in laws in countries all over the world as being racist ...... whereas Anti-Catholism, Anti-Buddhism, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Islamism or Anti-Hinduism is not,

Can anyone here explain that?

I doubt that. If anyone said all catholics should be killed because they were catholic in any of the countries I can think of which would certainly take action against someone saying that about jewish people I believe they would be charged with the same charges.

What countries were you thinking of?

[riposte]

If anyone said all catholics should be killed because they were catholic in any of the countries I can think of which would certainly take action against someone saying that about jewish people I believe they would be charged with the same charges.

Who said anything about "anyone saying all catholics should be killed because they were catholic" 4. Extension of an opponent’s proposition. http://www.politicalworld.org/showpo...34&postcount=1

Anti-Catholicism is perennial but no one is equating it with genocide.

[fluffybiscuits]

Who said anything about "anyone saying all catholics should be killed because they were catholic" 4. Extension of an opponent’s proposition. http://www.politicalworld.org/showpo...34&postcount=1

Anti-Catholicism is perennial but no one is equating it with genocide.

DId you see what I wrote on why racism exists? Its a point worth remembering. You cannot insult someone for something that does not exist, you can ridicule them for believing in fairytales. Racism however is a real world issue...

[C. Flower]

Who said anything about "anyone saying all catholics should be killed because they were catholic" 4. Extension of an opponent’s proposition. http://www.politicalworld.org/showpo...34&postcount=1

Anti-Catholicism is perennial but no one is equating it with genocide.

People have certainly been killed for being Catholic.

Anti-semitism is I believe a term meaning hatred of Jews, irrespective of whether or not the Jews in question are religious or not. It's associated with ethnicity.

There is a form of incitement of irrational hatred for groups of people that is very dangerous - and inevitably ends in deaths. It can be hung onto racism, or onto religious sectarianism, gender or sexuality, probably a lot of other things.

Blasphemy is different. It offends the religious beliefs of a person, but is not an attack on the person that holds the beliefs. A statement of belief made by one person can appear blasphemous to someone else.

The "film trailer" was blasphemous, but the reason I objected to it was not blasphemy, but that it was designed to stir up antagonism between different religious groups.

[riposte]

People have certainly been killed for being Catholic.

Anti-semitism is I believe a term meaning hatred of Jews, irrespective of whether or not the Jews in question are religious or not. It's associated with ethnicity.

There is a form of incitement of irrational hatred for groups of people that is very dangerous - and inevitably ends in deaths. It can be hung onto racism, or onto religious sectarianism, gender or sexuality, probably a lot of other things. .

We are in 100% agreement thus far Cass.

Blasphemy is different. It offends the religious beliefs of a person, but is not an attack on the person that holds the beliefs.

I have already said three times on this thread that I don't favour laws against Blasphemy......... however .....how can you be sure of the motivation of anyone who attacks another's beliefs.

If I call your mother a lot of dirty names ...... am I just attacking your mother (who isn't within hearing distance) ......... or am I attacking you?

A statement of belief made by one person can appear blasphemous to someone else.

I see what you mean ...... if a person says they believe in God ...... they are blaspheming against Atheism ...... NOW that could never be allowed.

The "film trailer" was blasphemous, but the reason I objected to it was not blasphemy, but that it was designed to stir up antagonism between different religious groups.

.......... and that is the reason why Racism was outlawed.

You can never force people to think that all people are equal regardless of colour .......... but you can stop them from saying what they think........ Ask John Terry.

[C. Flower]

[quote=riposte;279900]

If I call your mother a lot of dirty names ...... am I just attacking your mother (who isn't within hearing distance) ......... or am I attacking you?

There is well established protocol on this. If I call your mother something bad to her face, it is between her and me. If I go to you and say "your mother is this or that" then I'm attacking you.

I see what you mean ...... if a person says they believe in God ...... they are blaspheming against Atheism ...... NOW that could never be allowed.

It is not really possible to blaspheme against Atheism, as it isn't a religion.
Atheist can be vilified and persecuted as a group of course, on grounds of their disbelief.

.......... and that is the reason why Racism was outlawed.

There are two sets of laws about racism - equality law and law against incitement to hatred. I think that it would be logical to have the same legal bars to incitement to hatred on grounds of religion (or lack of it) as for ethnicity. This would not however be a blasphemy law - it would be an anti-incitement to hatred law. Someone who simply said that God did or did not exist, on the basis of their personal belief, would not be affected by it.

You can never force people to think that all people are equal regardless of colour .......... but you can stop them from saying what they think........ Ask John Terry.

You can prevent people from being subject to unnecessary and unwarranted abuse.

[riposte]

[quote=C. Flower;279903]

There is well established protocol on this. If I call your mother something bad to her face, it is between her and me. If I go to you and say "your mother is this or that" then I'm attacking you.

.

So if I go to you and say some realy nasty things about your mother ........ I'm attacking you. We are agreed on that.

But If you come to me and say some really nasty thing about my sacred beliefs ........ you are not attacking me.

Where I come from .......they call that double standards.

[Holly]

... So if I go to you and say some realy nasty things about your mother ........ I'm attacking you. We are agreed on that.
But If you come to me and say some really nasty thing about my sacred beliefs ........ you are not attacking me.
Where I come from .......they call that double standards.

We do not choose who our mothers are. Also, using derogatory language about a person's mother is almost never, if ever, meant to denigrate the mother but is clearly intended to insult a person rather than his mother.
Disputing a superstician, on the other hand, may imply a judgement about a believer's credulity but it falls within the domain of intellectual debate ... altogether different from an ad hominem fallacy.

[Apjp]

I have a very interesting and intelligent Libyan friend who I met in France. He couldn't seem to fathom why I didn't believe in a God, and he asked me were young people in Ireland atheist. I said many people were atheist because of the actions of the church. His solution seemed to be that we should pray to our God as catholics without having a middleman like the pope, just like Muslims pray directly to their God. He seemed to miss the point that we just didn't believe in a God.

The only thing about really understanding arabs seems to me to be to step into their shoes a bit. Some of them come from relatively strict cultures where religion is a part of their everyday life. However, the danger of 'western' people is that they place labels on such nationalities/groups by calling them Islamist. In fact in Libya itself he told me there is a secular party that is becoming more popular, that aside from the law on alcohol, Libya is not an 'islamist' country. Some Arab states let you drink alcohol anyways. The demonising of Turkey by the EU is a good example. People like Le Pen in France and the Tea/Republican party in America expose these petty cultural differences in a bid to distract from the real problems.

It would be ridiculous for countries such as Ireland for example, with massive alcohol consumption, to criticize other countries for not consuming alcohol when we look at what damage to society alcoholism does. The simple virtue of not passing judgment on others without first judging yourself is about the only useful thing I ever heard anyone quote from the Bible. Not that anyone quoting from the Bible adheres to it.