Comments on: Christian fundies ecstatic over Lord’s ruling

By: Britain Another Notch More Miserable…Law passes final hurdles to criminalise sexual cartoons that may feature children (but its hard to tell most of the time) « Melon Farmers Blog

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:21:30 +0000

[...] on article from freethinker.co.uk See also People must be free to hold intolerant views about homosexuality [...]

By: gsw

gsw — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:04:13 +0000

Why does it matter what religionist say or think. While I do not suffer fools gladly, I am willing to humour the insane.
Instead, should we not fear what they would do if they ever got into power again? Totally free speech is all that stands between our current freedoms and religious persecution. This is already being undermined by the islamic politicals – we atheists should instead rejoice and shout – voice your crazy opinions as we will voice ours!

By: Stonyground

Stonyground — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:25:15 +0000

I too come down on the side of free speech. Homophobic Christians would have no ammunition to claim persecution when they themselves were criticised if we allowed them to have their say. Let them state their crass opinions and let those opinions be refuted. Reference to the countless idiotic rules in the bronze age book of tripe is always a good start, you know the ones that they ignore because they don’t get to persecute anyone.

Everyone should have the right to say their piece but bigots should be made fully aware that in order to have their say they need to allow everyone who disagrees with them to have their say also. That way those who have an opinion that can be rationally supported are most likely to prevail.

We should also bear in mind that historically some people have been in a minority of one and have had a very unpopular opinion but have turned out to be right.

By: Urmensch

Urmensch — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:58:15 +0000

I am on the side of free speech too. As far as I’m concerned being hated by religious bigots means I’m getting it right.

I also want the freedom to call it as I see it with their bullshit.
We shouldn’t have laws that prohibit people from offending others, whoever they are.

There are laws against incitement to violence etc. which should be enough.
Hatred is an emotion. You can’t legislate on how humans feel or think, only on how they act upon their thoughts and feelings.
After growing up in Ireland I hate Catholicism with a passion. I have yet to punch a priest in the mouth, though.

As far as Lord Waddington, obsessing about the sex others have is probably the closest he gets to it himself.

By: Peter Hearty

Peter Hearty — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:01:59 +0000

I have to go with the free speech argument. It was precisely this argument that many of us used when religious hate laws were going through parliament.

@ remigius

I’d never heard of the Stefan Kiszko case. The fact that Waddington put up such an incompetent defence, and then stalled any subsequent appeal when he became Home Secretary is truly disgusting. The destruction of that innocent person’s life is a terrible tragedy, worse it’s a crime that Waddington and those corrupt police officers should pay for.

By: FrodoSaves

FrodoSaves — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:09:19 +0000

Put a penis in a bottom with permission and it’s a sin against nature. Put it in without permission and it’s the priesthood.

Could we maybe get some clarification on the law here?

By: Rozi

Rozi — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:55:08 +0000

Hmmm… you know what else is ‘unnatural’? Wearing dead ermine.
Christ, what is the point of the House of Lords? They’re a bunch of over rich, head-up-the-arse, wig wearing, posh numpties.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:50:17 +0000

I think you are actually on the wrong side of this one. As much as religious hate speech against gays makes me sick, as does any hate speech for that matter, I don’t think any speech short of direct incitement to violence should be banned.
I would rather these people said what they think and exposed themselves as hateful than were repressed and instead kept it as a secret agenda. Only by hearing what these people actually think can we say how wrong they are and express our disgust at them. There should be no ‘forbidden thoughts’.

Generally love your stuff so keep up the good work…

By: rog

rog — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:05:45 +0000

Freedom of speech means that these homophobic fools should be free to make their ill informed comments [as long as it is not incitement to violence] & in return gay people are free to give them a gentle prodding whenever the mood takes them, seems fair to me.

By: William Harwood

William Harwood — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:59:25 +0000

Catholics are insane.
Mormons are stupid.
Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are contract killers.
Scientologists would have P. T. Barnum beating a path to their doors.
Rugbutters are terrorists.
Jews are Manchurian Candidates.
Indoctrinating children in religion is child abuse.
Self-inflicted celibacy is a masochistic perversion.
Boxing and fox-hunting are institutionalized sadism.
The House of Lords, like Canada’s unelected Senate, has no place outside of a comic opera.
If Joseph Ratzinazi was 1,000 years more evolved, he would be Adolf Hitler.
A law that upholds my right to publish those conclusions cannot be all bad.