"Protect Our Freedom To Harass!" *Facepalm*

The blogger at "Atheist Revolution" recently discovered the case of Harry Taylor who was arrested for consistently leaving insulting cartoons in an airport prayer room. This is what his reaction was:

( Read more... )



Evidently, posting cartoons that someone in Liverpool considers "religiously offensive" in public can earn one a six-month prison sentence (suspended for two years), 100 hours of community service, and a small fine. And to think that I've always wanted to visit that part of the UK!

The issue here is whether it counts as "in public". Of course, the detail he was missing was that Harry Taylor is a repeat offender and in the past he has left things in Churches, which are much more obviously not public. Now mentioning this case isn't so surprising. The case made quite a stir when the news broke a while back and there's a rather apt response from Paul Sims if you click here.

Certainly my problem here is not the opening post, so much as the comments underneath. They seem to find it impossible to understand that there's difference between "freedom to speak" and "freedom to harass":

"No matter what you say or do, you are bound to offend someone - no one has a sense of humor anymore. To start determining what is offensive to whom is complete waste of time.Just the idea of an airport cahplain or a private prayer room is extremely offensive to me, BTW."

When I pointed out that in the UK the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be allowed groups to picket funerals I was told that they like having their funerals picketed:

"The problem is that once you start letting the authorities decide what is free speech and what isn't you've got some serious problems.

"I'd rather have the Westboro kooks have their say. Then we at least know who the crazies are."

"Yelling about fags at funerals is religious expression - that's how they see it. "

"I want the Westboro crazies to be able to picket funerals without being arrested.... Why? Because I know that American atheists would be the first group to be silenced in the absence of legal protections. "

I'll tell you why we'd ban the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing funerals. Because every time they did it, the police would have to be present to stop retaliation. The number of police required would have to be large because its not a matter of worrying about a few crazies. The protest itself is specifically aimed to provoke. We aren't about to spend a huge amount of money so that the police can protect their right to harass and offend. In short: harassment isn't protected in the UK.

So why are people desperate to protect the right to harass in the US? What am I missing?



Also the fact that the prayer room is open for use by people of all faiths and none confuses them:

"If airports have chapels, I demand atheists get their own room where they can watch Dawkins on youtube and drink cocktails."

It's like talking to children who get upset that there's a mother's day and a father's day, but no children's day.... Nearly every room is a watch Dawkins on youtube and drink cocktails room! :p

Cross posted to atheist_snark

Church Encouraged Girl Not To Report Rape - Told Her To Forgive Instead...

Let me make very clear why I am posting this.

Rape happens in situations where someone is in a position of power over someone else and feels like they can get away with expressing their power in this way. There are people who want to express their power in this disgusting way all over the place. The difference within some religious groups is that there is a feeling that criticism of prominent members undermines the divine authority behind that group's teachings. If a teacher in a state school was accused of rape, on the other hand, it is more often recognised as necessary to investigate. In this latter situation the concern is more that an unscrupulous figure might remain in the school than that their actions might cast doubt on the organisation as a whole. Also, parents don't feel themselves to be members of the school in the same way they might consider themselves members of a Church or of a religious community, so as outsiders they feel more able to judge.

Within a religious group people can feel that others know better than them and that they are not in a position to judge, especially if they are young. The religion makes claims to be able to change people for the better and the limits of the prison system are readily apparent, so they may find themselves thinking that their religious community is actually the best place for this person to remain. Believing that the rape took place might even be viewed by adults as undermining the claims of the religion, because its a clear sign that the people in the upper eschalons of that group are not significantly more moral people than those outside. There may be a view that getting the police involved will bring shame to the group and prevent others from coming to them to be "saved".

... In many ways, this doesn't sound so different from the mentality involved in domestic abuse cases. But I digress....

Marx noted that religion utilises social control, Freud noted that religion utilises psychological control, Nietzsche noted that religion involves unacknowledged and dodgy power drives, and I think all three of these issues can be found in the following article:

Woman: I was afraid to tell of rape

She was silenced in earlier case, she says

 

( Article Under Cut (Trigger Warning)... )



 

 

(Source)

Other related links
Ex-pastor says police failed in old NH rape case
Woman: Church Covered Up My Rape as Teen
Police: Girl raped, then relocated

(Via ONTD_P)

x-posted to Atheism