Thinking Christian

1. David Ellis wrote:

   October 18, 2009 at 8:58 am   Link

   This is one issue, at least, on which we have a concern in common. The atheist blogging community has been criticizing these efforts to create new laws, or interpret existing laws, to limit the criticism of religion for quite a while.

   The really absurd thing about this case is that the Christian defendants may have just as good a case against the Muslim as she has against them—after all she too was offending their religious sensibilities by calling Jesus “just a prophet”.

   The only think I’d criticize about that article is the tendency of Christians to call themselves “persecuted” a bit easily. These laws don’t target Christianity. It would have been more appropriate to say they were being sued, not persecuted.

   True, though, that Muslims seem to be the quickest to sue under such laws.

   Here’s another incident, this time in Canada:

   http://www.legal-project.org/article/106

   There was also an incident in Australia a while back when people protesting the pope were arrested during his visit.

   And then there’s the Irish anti-blasphemy law:

   http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/20/f-ireland-blasphemy-law.html

   Much of the world, including a lot of the “free” world, doesn’t have anywhere near the protection of free speech we do here in the US.
2. doctor(logic) wrote:

   October 18, 2009 at 9:30 am   Link

   I agree with David. What they need in the UK is an ACLU!

   (CAPTCHA: loving mowing)
3. brgulker wrote:

   October 19, 2009 at 12:18 pm   Link

   It would have been more appropriate to say they were being sued, not persecuted.

   I’m not sure what you think the distinction between the two (is in this instance, anyway). These Christians are being persecuted via this particular lawsuit …
4. David Ellis wrote:

   October 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm   Link

   We generally call people persecuted when they’re being singled out for their beliefs, ethnicity, etc.

   These sorts of laws apply to ANYONE belittling ANYONE’S religion.

   The Christians are perfectly capable of counter-suing the Muslim (and seem to have just as good a case).

   Calling that persecution seems a stretch.

   What we have here is simply political correctness (a term I normally hate, but in this case it actually fits) run amuck. Not persecution.
5. brgulker wrote:

   October 19, 2009 at 2:06 pm   Link

   Let’s play a hypothetical game.

   What if the legal case against the Christian couple is unsupportable by the facts (a reasonable possibility, right?)? That is, someone is misrepresenting what really happened in order to pursue a lawsuit disingenuously.

   If that actually is the case — which is what the couple is arguing — then this actually would be a case of persecution, correct?

Comments are disabled for this post