thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: Archbishop of Canterbury: "Death to Free Speech" |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has called for new laws to protect religious sensibilities that would punish �thoughtless and cruel� styles of speaking.
Dr Williams, who has seen his own Anglican Communion riven by fierce invective over homosexuality, said the current blasphemy law was �unworkable� and he had no objection to its repeal.
But whatever replaces it should �send a signal� about what was acceptable.
This should be done by �stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours� that have the effect of silencing argument.
The Archbishop, delivering the James Callaghan Memorial Lecture in London this afternoon, said it should not just be a few forms of extreme behaviour that were deemed unacceptable, leaving everything else as fair game.
�The legal provision should keep before our eyes the general risks of debasing public controversy by thoughtless and, even if unintentionally, cruel styles of speaking and acting,� he said.
The last conviction under Britain�s blasphemy law was in 1979. The Government recently indicated it is willing to amend the Criminal Justice Bill to abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
The High Court last month refused to allow a prosecution of the director general of the BBC for blasphemy over the screening of the controversial musical, Jerry Springer - The Opera.
In 2006, Parliament passed the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which creates an offence of inciting or �stirring up� hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. But the act was so watered down during its passage through Parliament that its critics fear it will be almost useless.
Dr Williams said: �It is clear that the old blasphemy law is unworkable and that its assumptions are not those of contemporary lawmakers and citizens overall. But as we think about the adequacy of what is coming to replace it, we should not, I believe, miss the opportunity of asking the larger questions about what is just and good for individuals and groups in our society who hold religious beliefs.� |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3272730.ece
Awesome. When Rushdie was slapped with the fatwa by the cavemen in Iran this was the reaction from "religious leaders":
One might have thought that such arrogant state-sponsored homicide . . . would have called forth a general condemnation. But such was not the case. In considered statements, the Vatican, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the chief sephardic rabbi of Israel all took a stand in sympathy with � the ayatollah. So did the cardinal archbishop of New York and other lesser religious figures. While they usually managed a few words in which to deplore the resort to violence, all these men stated that the main problem raised by the publication of The Satanic Verses was not murder by mercenaries but blasphemy.
From God is Not Great
The followers of space-god's and defenders of bronze age ideas of 'knowledge' have all wised up and are using the language of anti-racism to protect their absurd little fears/fantasies from criticism.
 |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
