Religious Hypocrisy!

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:

>My emphasis throughout<

A militant atheist who left leaflets mocking Jesus Christ, the Pope and the Koran in the prayer room of an international airport has gone on trial charged with religious harassment.
...
The materials dumped by Harry Taylor at Liverpool's John Lennon airport included "sexually abusive and sexually unpleasant cartoons", a jury heard yesterday. One image showed a smiling Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of "no nails"A further cartoon showed two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: "Not for women or gays, obviously." glue. In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise are told: " Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." A further cartoon showed two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: "Not for women or gays, obviously."
He said: "The airport is named after John Lennon and his views on religion were pretty much the same as mine. I thought that it was an insult to his memory to have a prayer room in the airport."
The leaflets were discovered by Nicky Lees, the airport chaplain, who told the court she felt "deeply offended and insulted" by their contents.
...
He said: "Of course people have a right to speak freely and have a right to insult people. It is one of the most important rights we have and it must be jealously guarded.

"But it is a right not without some prescription. Mr Taylor exceeded that right."
...
The defendant from Salford, Greater Manchester is charged with three counts of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under the Crime and Disorder Act.
...

For debate:

It can be reasonably assumed religious folks would be able to place their sacred texts and literature (with all its hateful and violent language regarding "others") throughout this airport (as evidenced by having a place of worship within). Is it fair that an atheist be denied the right to respond?

Are laws designed to restrict the insulting of one group (religion) that itself insults others fair?

What do these religious folks fear from having their tactics turned on them?

[Vanguard]

From the article here:

>My emphasis throughout<

A militant atheist who left leaflets mocking Jesus Christ, the Pope and the Koran in the prayer room of an international airport has gone on trial charged with religious harassment.
...
The materials dumped by Harry Taylor at Liverpool's John Lennon airport included "sexually abusive and sexually unpleasant cartoons", a jury heard yesterday. One image showed a smiling Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of "no nails"A further cartoon showed two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: "Not for women or gays, obviously." glue. In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise are told: " Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." A further cartoon showed two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: "Not for women or gays, obviously."
He said: "The airport is named after John Lennon and his views on religion were pretty much the same as mine. I thought that it was an insult to his memory to have a prayer room in the airport."
The leaflets were discovered by Nicky Lees, the airport chaplain, who told the court she felt "deeply offended and insulted" by their contents.
...
He said: "Of course people have a right to speak freely and have a right to insult people. It is one of the most important rights we have and it must be jealously guarded.

"But it is a right not without some prescription. Mr Taylor exceeded that right."
...
The defendant from Salford, Greater Manchester is charged with three counts of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under the Crime and Disorder Act.
...

1. It can be reasonably assumed religious folks would be able to place their sacred texts and literature (with all its hateful and violent language regarding "others") throughout this airport (as evidenced by having a place of worship within). Is it fair that an atheist be denied the right to respond?

Assuming you are correct about religious folks being able to leave hateful and violent language then I agree there would be a double standard. I personally find all such uncharitable tracks - religious included - to be offensive.

2. Are laws designed to restrict the insulting of one group (religion) that itself insults others fair?

I would imagine it is all matter of degree. All else being equal it is not fair. As an aside, I'm surprised the article opened with allegations of sexual inappropriateness but immediately went on to discuss other offenses. The article didn't clarify the issue with sexual abuse until the very end.

3. What do these religious folks fear from having their tactics turned on them?

What leads you to believe it is about fear? If I had to guess it is more about a religious narrow-minded entitlement that until recent history has been honored at the expense of denying other's the right of dissent.

What I don't get is this type of reaction in Britain? It seems one could probably get away with something like this in the US more readily although the US is generally considered much more religiously inclined than just about every other European country.

Go figure.

[cnorman18]

What's this? The famously secular UK considers this a crime, while the famously fundamentalist US does not? How very strange.... Perhaps the hype on both is not as reliable as is so often supposed. Don't forget that it is the UK where one, single, official State Church is directly supported by taxes collected from everyone - several steps farther, and in my opinion much more objectionable, than merely being exempt from some taxes, as churches are in the US. Funny how you see some on this forum regularly outraged about the latter, but never the former.

I consider the religious tracts of Jack Chick, at least some of them, to be as offensive and obscene as any of the materials mentioned here. It would be interesting if some of them were left in the facilities of some atheist or secularist organization and some atheist brought charges under these statutes. Would they be enforced as enthusiastically then?

[Lux]

It can be reasonably assumed religious folks would be able to place their sacred texts and literature (with all its hateful and violent language regarding "others") throughout this airport (as evidenced by having a place of worship within). Is it fair that an atheist be denied the right to respond?

He should have the right to spread his atheistic message, but not in a disrespectful, mocking way, which seems to be the case. I can understand why people felt insulted by his drawings.

Are laws designed to restrict the insulting of one group (religion) that itself insults others fair?

Well, it's true that certain religions insult groups such a homosexuals, women, members of other religions, atheists, etc. However, the solution to this is not to give those groups the right to publicly mock or insult back. That would just make for an even less civilized and less accepting society. I don't believe religious groups are legally allowed to walk up and down an airport shouting anti-atheistic messages, so us atheists should certainly not have the right to stamp offensive drawings in a public place, either.

What do these religious folks fear from having their tactics turned on them

Unfortunately a lot of religious people part from the premise that their faith is right and everyone else's is wrong. So by spreading an anti-atheistic message, they believe they are doing a good deed, while if someone spreads an anti-religion message, they consider it blasphemy and a hate crime.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 4:

He should have the right to spread his atheistic message, but not in a disrespectful, mocking way, which seems to be the case. I can understand why people felt insulted by his drawings.

I make no distinction between drawings and words. If one group has a right to spread their message I contend other groups have right to spread theirs.

I don't believe religious groups are legally allowed to walk up and down an airport shouting anti-atheistic messages, so us atheists should certainly not have the right to stamp offensive drawings in a public place, either.

They've got a church within the airport for that. Again, I make no distinction between drawings and words. If the one group is allowed to spread their message, the other group should be allowed to spread theirs.

Unfortunately a lot of religious people part from the premise that their faith is right and everyone else's is wrong. So by spreading an anti-atheistic message, they believe they are doing a good deed, while if someone spreads an anti-religion message, they consider it blasphemy and a hate crime.

In some cases I consider blasphemy my civic duty. I see no reason to molly-coddle those who refuse me rights while using their own to condemn me.

[Lux]

I make no distinction between drawings and words. If one group has a right to spread their message I contend other groups have right to spread theirs.

It makes a difference whether they spread it publicly or privately. I know many religious groups have been known to spread their message in a disrespectful way, but I can't assume that the one in the airport did so. So why should this or any other atheist feel insulted and compelled to insult back?

They've got a church within the airport for that. Again, I make no distinction between drawings and words. If the one group is allowed to spread their message, the other group should be allowed to spread theirs.

The church in the airport wasn't forcing anyone to listen to their preaches (I assume), whereas the guy with the drawings was posting them in a public place, with the obvious intention of mocking the other group.

In some cases I consider blasphemy my civic duty. I see no reason to molly-coddle those who refuse me rights while using their own to condemn me.

I consider blasphemy my civil right. But I also consider it my moral and civic obligation to respect other people's beliefs, even if I disagree with them in every possible way.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

It makes a difference whether they spread it publicly or privately. I know many religious groups have been known to spread their message in a disrespectful way, but I can't assume that the one in the airport did so. So why should this or any other atheist feel insulted and compelled to insult back?

I've had plenty enough experience to know bullies are more likely to correct wrong behavior when they have the tables turned. I see little difference here. Many theists think nothing about how their sacred texts insult others, and showing them a bit of it back is a reasonable act, IMO.

I note the problem seems to be with placing material in the prayer room, and there could be legitimate debate about whether that was cool. Ultimately I'd say if the area was open to all, then the dude had a right.

The church in the airport wasn't forcing anyone to listen to their preaches (I assume), whereas the guy with the drawings was posting them in a public place, with the obvious intention of mocking the other group.

Do you really think this religious group wasn't distributing their documents and such elsewhere within the airport? I find that hard to believe.

I consider blasphemy my civil right. But I also consider it my moral and civic obligation to respect other people's beliefs, even if I disagree with them in every possible way.

To me it's not so much about respecting beliefs as it is about freedom of speech. Say what you will, but then let me talk.

[Lux]

I've had plenty enough experience to know bullies are more likely to correct wrong behavior when they have the tables turned. I see little difference here. Many theists think nothing about how their sacred texts insult others, and showing them a bit of it back is a reasonable act, IMO.

I note the problem seems to be with placing material in the prayer room, and there could be legitimate debate about whether that was cool. Ultimately I'd say if the area was open to all, then the dude had a right.

I know some theists think that way, I've heard about what I am/what will happen to me when I die more than once Still, I think that "an eye for an eye" is not the way to go. I like to think that I'm more civil and way more polite than the people who tell me I'm going to hell, and I pride myself on that. I consider it one of the better parts of being an atheist; not pushing my own beliefs down other people's throats.

Do you really think this religious group wasn't distributing their documents and such elsewhere within the airport? I find that hard to believe.

I hope they weren't. But if they were, I would need to see one of those documents and it would have to contain offensive material before I changed my mind and said what the drawing guy did was OK. I can't just assume the worst...

To me it's not so much about respecting beliefs as it is about freedom of speech. Say what you will, but then let me talk.

I'm all for freedom of speech. I'm just one to think that if we can express our ideas without offending others, we should try to do so.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

I know some theists think that way, I've heard about what I am/what will happen to me when I die more than once icon_chuckel Still, I think that "an eye for an eye" is not the way to go. I like to think that I'm more civil and way more polite than the people who tell me I'm going to hell, and I pride myself on that. I consider it one of the better parts of being an atheist; not pushing my own beliefs down other people's throats.

For sure, discretion has it's value. I don't consider distributing drawings, books or pamphlets "pushing down throats" unless a captive audience is involved.

I hope they weren't. But if they were, I would need to see one of those documents and it would have to contain offensive material before I changed my mind and said what the drawing guy did was OK. I can't just assume the worst...

Do you not think the Bible doesn't contain condemnation and insults for atheists?

I'm all for freedom of speech. I'm just one to think that if we can express our ideas without offending others, we should try to do so.

Oh yeah, back to discretion, and I can agree. I still don't think what the guy did was so bad as to get the courts involved.

[ChaosBorders]

From Post 4:

He should have the right to spread his atheistic message, but not in a disrespectful, mocking way, which seems to be the case. I can understand why people felt insulted by his drawings.

I make no distinction between drawings and words. If one group has a right to spread their message I contend other groups have right to spread theirs.

I don't believe religious groups are legally allowed to walk up and down an airport shouting anti-atheistic messages, so us atheists should certainly not have the right to stamp offensive drawings in a public place, either.

They've got a church within the airport for that. Again, I make no distinction between drawings and words. If the one group is allowed to spread their message, the other group should be allowed to spread theirs.

I think a distinction should be made between drawings and words though. If someone puts something in text, I don't have to read it. If someone makes a drawing, I can't NOT see it if my eyes land on it.

I don't mind atheists putting around 'propaganda' the same as religious groups if that's really their desire, but there's a line of civility that should be respected and just because sometimes members of one group fail at that doesn't make it a good thing for the other members to start crossing it too.