Not only the Koran but the Bible also gets treated as sacred!
"Police singer Dorota Rabczewska has been fined for saying she doubted the Bible "because it's hard to believe in something that was written by someone drunk on wine and smoking some herbs."
A Polish court slapped a fine on a popular singer who bad-mouthed the Bible - the latest episode in which authorities grapple with religious defamation in a traditionally Catholic country that is growing increasingly secular.
Dorota Rabczewska, a singer who uses the stage name Doda, said in a 2009 interview that she doubted the Bible "because it's hard to believe in something that was written by someone drunk on wine and smoking some herbs."
A Warsaw court ordered her to pay a fine of 5000 zlotys ($1827) for offending religious feelings.
The case comes months after another Polish court let off a death metal performer, Adam Darski, who tore a Bible during a 2007 performance. It deemed his act artistic expression.
Source
19 comments:
Notice how it's always the Bible, never the Quran or the Torah, just the Bible.
Here in america she could count on the leftists ACLU and SPLC to defend her
Two Coffees:
Having arrived at the Gates of Heaven, Barack Obama meets a man with a beard. ‘Are you Mohammed?’ he asks.
‘No my son, I am St. Peter; Mohammed is higher up.’ Peter then points to a ladder that rises into the clouds.
Delighted that Mohammed should be higher than St. Peter, Obama climbs the ladder in great strides, climbs up through the clouds and comes into a room where he meets other bearded man.
He asks again, ‘Are you Mohammed?’
‘Why no he answers, I am Moses; Mohammed is higher still .’
Exhausted, but with a heart full of joy he climbs the ladder yet again, he discovers a larger room where he meets an angelic looking man with a beard. Full of hope, he asks again, ‘Are you Mohammed?’
‘No, I am Jesus, the Christ…you will find Mohammed higher up. ‘
Mohammed higher than Jesus! Man, oh man! Obama can hardly contain his delight
and climbs and climbs ever higher.
Once again, he reaches an even larger room where he meets this truly magnificent looking man with a silver white beard and once again repeats his question, “Are you Moammed?” he gasps as he is by now, totally out of breath from all his climbing.
‘No, my son…. I am Almighty God, the Alpha and the Omega, but you look exhausted. Would you like a cup of coffee?”
Obama says, Yes please. As God looks behind him, he claps his hands and yells out:
“Hey Mohammed – two coffees!”
Keep your trust in God… your president is an idiot…
so is this site now celebrating the suppression of speech.
well, I guess it's more important that your side wins than having principles.
-nick p.
Nick p obviously sees no fault in a double standard
I hate a double standard too. But I have a problem. I know that Scientology is the single biggest pack of lies in history....
But the bible and koran have such long histories of being packs of lies I feel bad slighting them by singling out the Scilons.
I'm with Nick.
This story should be an affront to the people who believe in the principles underlying this website.
If you are offended to different treatment for your beliefs you do not retaliate with more intolerance.
I think the comment was stupid and ignorant - but should not be criminal and everyone who is a supporter of the First should see this.
make that 'offended BY different treatment'
Anon 4:17 - Hubbard's folly is indeed a pack of lies but given that Mohammed has led far more people astray I would say his book is the biggest pack of lies. It all depends of course on how you measure it.
The world would be such a more peaceful place without the scourge of religion.
Poland should never have been allowed membership of the EU for various reasons, including suppressing criticism of the Catholic Church and its dogmas; but then again which country in the EU actually really qualifies to be a member according to the EU's own complex rules? The EU is more like the 'The Emperor's New Clothes' (to quote an author from about the only EU country that might just qualify!).
A person who beleives everything they read about in ORIGION OF THE SPEICHES and the NEW YORK TIMES
I guess you are proof that birds never evolved - at least not enough to spell!
jonjayray,
I see one standard. I don't care why someone does something. Motivation is secondary because we live in a society where laws are the rules which we decide to live. So long as the rules are enforced across the board and without prejudice, our society will remain strong.
A perfect example of this is Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell. I can't stand either person because I see them as the same. Self-aggrandizing, arrogant bastards who think they are better than most.
Anyway, I do appreciate both of them because they displayed that in a fight with no one to root for, the outcome can have a positive affect for all of us.
With Flynt, it was his publishing of a parody of Falwell's first sexual experience involving some sort of farm animal.
Falwell sued, on the basis that it was libel and caused damage to his reputation.
Falwell lost because he was considered a public figure and therefore opened himself up for possible ridicule, even if the story was a lie. In fact, because the story was so outrageous it was thought that no one who actually knew of Falwell could believe it.
But then Flynt sued Falwell for republishing the story in a newsletter sent out by Falwell's church. Flynt said that Falwell had reprinted copy written material without consent or payment.
In this case, the court ruled that it was acceptable to republish the article because it fell under Fair Use law, because (a) it was not used to generate revenue (b) it was related to the church by extension of including Falwell.
In both cases, I think the correct decision was made and in both cases, I thought the plaintiffs/defendants were repugnant and not worthy of much, in my eyes.
Now if you are dissatisfied with the how the law is applied, then by all means, put them on display and draw as much attention to them as possible.
We all have viewpoints and ideas about how we should all live, but we must always be vigilant so that our ideology does not cause us to lose site of our principles.
If you wanted to be a site that talked about how bad Christians have it compared to Muslims, alright then. Have at it and make it the best site you can. But you have a site that is dedicated to the idea that expressing one's self is a right endowed by our creator and then turn on that idea because you don't agree with that particular speaker. It seems short-sighted and hypocritical.
I enjoy many of the stories on this site, but lately (or perhaps it has always been this way and I have been more forgiving of it) this site seems more dedicated to cheerleading YOUR causes, rather than the cause of Free Speech.
I guess I'm just hoping that this site doesn't go completely on the other site with "Christians always right, most others usually wrong". If it does, of course, that is your right. But that does not mean that you will have me as a follower for much longer.
-nick p
Nick
I am an atheist so I don't support Christians out of belief --only out of fairness. They are probably the most discriminated-against group today
jonjayray,
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your response.
I spoke about what I see as something askew in regards to how this site is based on the idea that speech should be something that needs to be protected by governments who wish to impose their will onto others. And your response is to say that you are an atheist?
As a long time reader of this site, I am aware that you are an atheist, as am I. My previous comments were not intended (and never mentioned) to disparage you because you are religious, rather you, much like those you rail against, have chosen one set of speech that is more favorable than others. Now this does not always occur, but as I stated, it appears to be occurring with much greater frequency and I find that a bit distressing. Not because the stories you post are not actually occurring, but because the stated goal of this site is to point out and ridicule those who attempt to suppress speech because they do not like the content. And when you seemingly celebrate the story associated with these comments you not only go against the stated goals of YOUR website, but betray the trust that has been developed within this community. Perhaps not the more verbose among the community, who are more than happy to applaud along side you when people suppress speech in favor of Christianity, but to those who found this site and believed in its mission and purpose regarding all speech.
As I stated previously, if the goal of the website is to promote the idea that Christians have it harder than anyone else that is fine. However, that is not the raison d’être of this site. And not because I want it to be, but because that is what you have stated.
To be honest, I don't know where I'm going with these comments. I suppose to express my frustration at what I see as someone who is slipping down the slope toward...not repression, but it certainly feels wrong to me when someone who claims to be an advocate for free speech appears to side with the suppressors of speech.
Can we all remember that once we allow the government to punish those whose only crime is speech, then we are all subject to the same punishment?
We need neutrality from the government on basic speech, otherwise we run the risk that in the not too distant future it will be our speech that may be considered taboo.
-nick p
Yes, it's been said before that this site is supposed to be just about "free speech" but the moderator, JonJayRay, while claiming to be an atheist, supports theists while expressing very anti-atheist remarks, and supports conservatives and US republicans while openly denouncing "leftists" (which just seems to have become a very vague term); and he is also very anti-gay while claiming to be so tolerant of his apparent gay relatives.
Clearly this site is dominated by US religious conservatives more that about just the virtues of free speech in general
We didnt come from dinasours anonn 4:18 you darwinist fool
You're right that humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but birds did if "we" is referring to your species.
Post a Comment