15,000 atheists in London rioted after a blank sheet of paper was found on a cartoonist’s desk.

You can’t judge it on a handful of bombthrowers.

Well, if you want to be a closed-minded bigot, you can.

To be sure, those Secular Humanists weren’t representative of Secular Humanism and Christians do the exact same thing.

A pretty weird attitude. Where does that leave me, an atheist in a secularized society?
Why should religious people have an immunity from criticism and ridicule that no-one holding rational ideas has? Is this some kind of diminished capacity thing? The poor dears can’t help themselves so let’s humour them?
Does this apply to fundamentalist Mormons and Aryan Nations Christians or is it PC to mock religious minorities as long as they are white and western (and unashamedly unenlightened)?
Can I mock protestant fundies if some of my ancestors were members of the same church?
If I change religion a few times, am I allowed to mock them all or just the latest one or two?
Does this apply to religious people criticizing other religions (some can be pretty uncomplimentary about the other, false faiths)?
Do heretic sects of a religious group qualify for immunity from criticism by the orthodox,
or if the orthodox are sufficiently upset, does this mean that the heretics are guilty of offending them?
Does this apply only to world-views incorporating some supernatural entity, or can I claim this right too?
I’m looking for guidelines here, people.

I think I’ll keep on mocking, if and when I’m inspired. Now of course there’s mockery and mockery, and a time and place for everything. Pick your fights.
And CB’s position in the original post is good.

My implication (“obviously a lot more to it”) was (clearly, I think) precisely the opposite of your interpretation. My point was that “riot caused by cartoon” is as ridiculous as “riot caused by interracial juvenile kissing”.

Radical Islamic groups’ agit-prop or anger at US and Israeli actions or white supremacist ideology or exacerbation of racial tensions due to intensified labour market competition or whatever (having nothing to do with cartoons or kissing) are the rational causes of inherently irrational behaviour. I make no claim to originality (or even to not stating the bleeding obvious) with this.

But, no, I don’t believe that it was justified to kill Emmett Till because he allegedly whistled at a white girl. Glad to have cleared that up.

(1) I don’t think the law against blasphemy ever existed to prevent Christians being offended. That’s a modern justification (on secularist terms). I know this idea is terribly old fashioned; but people did used to think that Christianity was true, that other religions were false, that God existed, and that it was possible to defame Him – hence the blasphemy law. (And given that framework there can’t be multi-religion blasphemy laws, as at least one of the religions covered must be false.) Your suggestion that “everyone ought to get the same level of protection against being offended” doesn’t cut it. The blasphemy law isn’t and wasn’t about offence, you could be done for blasphemy without ‘offending’ anyone.

(2) There’s a substantial body of opinion that the blasphemy law has since been rendered inoperative by UK law by the passage of the Human Rights Act. VoE may have no certificate, but that may be the fault of the people who own it. The BBFC don’t classify things on their own initiative. Unless VoE has been re-presented to the BBFC for classification (since 1989), then there hasn’t been any chance for them to get a certificate since then.

I can. Talking about what other people ought to do is a lot like talking about the weather.

Haven’t you heard? Bush’s Supreme Court just granted Cert to a case that might result in Roe.v.Wade being overturned!

Why am I not surprised.

Luke 22:
35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], “When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
They said, “No, not a thing.”
36 He said to them, “But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.
37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”
38 They [the disciples] said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“It is enough,” he replied.

Haven’t you heard? Bush’s Supreme Court just granted Cert to a case that might result in Roe.v.Wade being overturned!

THEOCRACY COULD WELL BE DESCENDING UPON AMERICA! (And I don’t mean the good kind where we respect Muslim views on not printing pictures of the Prophet (pbuh))

I’m going to try to state this just as extremely as I can hoping that somebody will get it.

Just imagine that you go live in some foreign country, and as a christian you join an american christian church. This country has a number of other religions that differ significantly in their theology. But they all agree on a few things. They all meet in the open, under the trees, and never hold religious services in a building. None of them display any religious symbols or icons. And they all show child pornography during their services. So it happens that the government has some laws about religion. Church property is not allowed to have any buildings on it, and services must all be outdoors. No religious symbols such as crosses are allowed. And child pornography must be shown at every service.

Would it be acceptable for christians to get special treatment? We would be demanding things that no other religion in the nation cares about. When Chris says to give equal protection against being offended, is he talking about protection to the point that your church’s average blood pressure rise is the same as everybody else’s, or is it they all live under the same rules?

If it’s the same exact rules, how do we decide what those rules should be? I keep hearing people say “Those cartoons weren’t offensive, they were kind of funny actually” like they should be the ones to decide what other people will be offended at. Should LGF be the ones to decide what’s offensive? I can easily imagine christians in 1300 deciding that jokes about jews eating christian babies were not actually offensive at all—kind of gross, but really pretty funny….

I don’t see any standard here at all. Do we just let everybody decide for themselves when they’re offended, and then if they have enough money they can take the other guy to court and drive him bankrupt?

Do we need to create some kind of standard or should we just argue with each other about whose motives are impure and who’s inconsistent and who’s a No Good Shit?