Poland fines singer for bashing Bible

laws tend to favour the predominant religion of that country

insult Buddha or the Thai royal family in Thailand and you will be lucky if you just get a good kicking

try a similar stunt directed at Islam in Saudi Arabia and let me know how you get on

want me to post some examples of religious intolerance? Many of them are directed against the good old US of A so don't be getting upset now

there is still time to repent, you know

At least Poland is not deporting people to face charges for "crimes" that are not even crimes in the deported persons home country where the said "crime" was commited.

I don't believe in it too.
If someone respect you're rights to not believe in the Bible then it's ok. You see, it all comes down to the words one uses. If you use mean words which are dissmisive or despicable then someone can feel insulted with your language and attitude. It's not offensive to say that you don't believe in Bible but it's offensive to say that Bible is ridiculous or that people who believe in it are ridiculous. Do you understand the difference now?

Still even if her statements were dismissive I think it's a bit silly to bring such small things to court. Also the case of boys who were imitating Pope on a video...

On the other hand the court obviously saw nothing against the law in Nergal distroying on stage the Bible... it's seems that Poland is full of contradictions.


No, you're worng. Insulting someone's religious feelings is a kind of offence which is bring to court only if there is a comaplaint from another person. If a Buddhist brought a complaint then there would be the same court hearing.

As for my personal opion insulting religious feelings is a term too broad and vague. That's why I would change it to make punishable only the acts of spreading hatered on the religious background or obvious provocations based on religious hatered (so destroying religious symbols as a way of a demostration of a hatred should be punished).

It wasn't until the 19th century that bacteria in water was identified as the cause and it was a scientist who discovered it by pin-pointing the water pipe that was the source of a cholera out break.

I'd give you the name and dates but that bastion of 'Free-Speech', the USA, has shut down Wikipedia.

isn't it clear where this can go?


what constitutes "mean words" or being "dismissive?" As another member stated, when we allow those in government to decide such things then it can only go tits up unless those in government are our moral compasses.

You seem to be arguing more the technical side of legalities and not defending the decision. I'm not attacking you but I'm using the defense of this law (I think you're doing an admirable job) as way to reflect the very problem with the law.


exactly why i'm not so sure it's a great example, extreme is extreme and even modern purification methods can be defeated by inclement weather or unexpected seepage. Suffice to say, if the writers did drink more wine than water, then Doda is probably on to something.

obviously, obviously and obviously. why are you telling me this.


yes. i'd like you to post some examples of someone making a similar comment to Doda's in the USA and having to pay a fine for it. thanks!


Tell you what.....what if my religion said that it's sacrilegous to eat beef. Like.....it's absolutely forbidden. Then I move to Poland, turn on the TV, and someone says, "boy oh boy, I loooooove to eat beef! Cow meat is the most delicious, I think I'll eat it every day!" and then, on TV, took a big bite out of a beef patty.

Could I then take that person to court....in Poland?

Thanks, Hythorn sorted my confusion between Typhus and Typhoid culminating with the discoveries of L.Pasteur.

JohnnyM was saying in another thread there is a work-around if you disable Javascript to access wikipedia. Though it seems to work on Firefox just fine, anyway.

I am sorry, I don't do specific requests

however there are plenty of examples of where American nut cases shot doctors for performing abortions
personally I think I would much rather pay a fine

there are examples of religious intolerance from across the world so it is not confined just to bashing the Catholic Church
although there are plenty of examples of Catholic bashing too

it is a quite a big collection of articles but it is well worth having a look at
however it is 3.4 Mb so I am not sure if there is some strange forum law against uploading JPEGS
having never done it before it could be a bit challenging
now that I have built this up, what is the betting that I cannot upload it?

tell you what, let's wait five mins to see if a mod pops up like a jack-in-the-box advising me not to upload it
and if we don't hear anything I will have a stab at posting it

in the meantime you can contemplate what the future might hold for you, once you shuffle off this mortal coil
it will do you a power of good - contemplating an eternity in damnation... unless....

ooooooooof course not. Geeze, what was I thinking. I could've sworn you had just offered.

"want me to post some examples of religious intolerance?" -hythorn, 8 minutes ago.


off topic.


again, off topic. who cares? nobody here is claiming differently, including myself.


pwwaaahahahahahahahaha! what a crackpot!

Fuzzy, re-read my posts and you will see that I was offering to post examples of religious intolerance
not specific requests

there's a good lad

For Doda's trial they brought language experts.


The passage goes more less like that:*
who publicly promote fasistic or other totalitarian system or exhort to hatred on the background of the difference in nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or of being non-religious (bezwyznaniowość?) is subjected to the punishment of a fine, a limitation of freedom or jail sentence up to 2 years.

*it's my own translation and because of my poor English it might be flawed.

There is another passage about insulting the above groups written in more less the same manner. As you see religion is treated here as a one of the points of tolerance. It's not like someone is favoring any religion or there has been an exclusive religion tolerance passage (at least I don't know about it).


You can take it to court but it will probably be rejected. It would be a different situation if someone was forced to eat a beef.

ok here goes...

this is the first time I have uploaded a file...

feelling a bit apprehensive but let's see how we get on

You are right on your money. The fact is that she didn't say anything about Buddhism because her aim was to insult religions people care about in Poland.

That is premeditated action and for that reason I think that she should be fined.

People like me have more sense in one finger than you in your whole body. You are an atheist and yet you are keenly interested in religion,in a bad way. So you are not exactly impartial here. Yet I would defend your right to remain atheist and your right to state it publicly, I wouldn't bat an eye if somebody who insulted you on the ground of your beliefs would have been fined.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think that is what freedom of speech is all about - or it should be!
As long as you are not abusing or insulting somebody's beliefs - you should have a right to express your opinions in a non insulting way.

Example:
I think that the Bible is only full of stories which in my opinion are not true but made up by some bronze age storytellers from a desert- it is acceptable.

I think that the Bible is fukcing horrid shyte for brain washed idiots fit to be the middle-ages peasants, written by a bunch of drunken pigs - its totally unacceptable.

Also intent counts - in this case this pop-crap pretend-to-be-singer indented to insult and stir public interest and that alone should be severally punished by making her pay a huge fine - pour encourager les autres!

That singer in question done it solely for publicity and I think that should be severely punished by a much higher fine.

I'm not surprised that you are happy to insult religion as you have a beef with it.
It only shows what kind of person you are - you better stop it!

oh bugger

I cannot get the JPEG to upload

can anyone help?

@Ironside
we may have had our differences in the past but I wholeheartedly agree with you

I suspected Fuzzy feels too strongly about this topic for his own good hence I was enjoying
'witnessing' to him... it is clearly not working as thrice he has turned his back on my kind
request to repent

I am going to have to up the scales here and go for the world's first online exorcism here on Polish Forums
Fuzzy's soul is at stake

Fuzzy change into some loose, comfortable clothing, get a Bible and I will try and save you from the pit

aaaah, OK. so laws should be written based on a popularity contest. you're hilarious.


I prefer not to label myself so no, I am not an atheist.


You sure? If that were true, you would be able to state publicly why you are Catholic and I would be able to tell everyone, honestly, why I am "atheist", or something to that effect. See any problems with that?


Let's put that to the test:

I'd like you, or anyone else for that matter who is Catholic, to tell me why you are Catholic. Go.

But she did! She once said ' I think Buddhism is ridiculous because it was written by Muslims'

(No she didn't really)

I don't want to go into philosophical discussion here but generally law is based on a moral rules which are on the other hand created, in a way, on a "popularity contest". An example: when majority of Polish society will have nothing against gay people then there will be the time when they acquire the rights they demand. So as you see it is based on a popularity contest of some idea.

Nevertheless it has no meaning here because Polish law doesn't favor the Catholic faith in this case, and Ironside wasn't refering to the law but was reflecting why Doda was talking about Christianity not Buddhism.

All Laws in a democracy are based on a popularity contest.

I think what you are not getting is that commonsense has to be applied, that’s why the discretion of a judge and the separation of the legislature are important.

Freedom of speech is not just freedom to accidentally offended, intent has to be considered. As someone said the other day the US founding fathers were spot on in designing the constitution what they couldn’t foresee was the retards that would end up in congress. Take that a step outside the floor and you have all sorts of nutjobs saying anything they like, not to advance a noble cause but to stick it to the man as they see it.

We all restrict our freedom of speech/thought on an everyday basis its called social grace.

popular opinion holds great sway and it works in the US in a similar way

for example, someone has an idea that it would be nice to have a register of sex offenders
so they write a letter to a special man, called a congressman and it is debated in the house and if the other
politics men think it is a good idea too, it gets made into a law - horrendous generalisation of course

still not taken me up on that offer of online exorcism I see

There is a major difference between a government telling the public what they can and cannot say and a government that allows for the society to fend for themselves by using the courts and the country's constitution.

When a country tells you what you can and cannot say = communism.

When a country gives you freedom of speech and allows society to decide for themselves what is acceptable or not with the right to file a court case (not saying you'll win but it's your right to file) = democracy and freedom.

If you pay a court ordered fine (for a lack of a better term) in the USA for offending/insluting someone, it's not because our government and our country's constution deems it illegal.

In many other countries (including Poland), if you do the same, you pay because it is illegal, not because Polish people, or a judge for that matter, sees it that way. It's people suffering penalties because your government said that people aren't allowed to say certain things.

These are different countries altogether.

Everything has its pros and cons, Fuzzywickets.


It's funny you call it like that... it seems the USA is the ONLY non communistic country in the world according to your views.

UK: the case of a woman in London train insulting Black people - wasn't she arrested?
France: John Galliano and his antisemitic rant.
I think you will find similar limitation of free speech in every country except the USA.

As I said each approach has its pros and cons.

She does have the right to say it even though she hasn't researched and doesn't know what she is talking about. Only on certain days was it alright to get drunk. These were festivals devoted to Bacchus. Rest of the time most people were sober. Christians would have looked down on Bacchus. They were not pagans in that sense though they did have a cult of Mary.

She's a singer so what can you expect?

Remind us - what country is the focus of a massive online protest today?

(hint : not Poland, the UK or any European country.)

I recall GW Bush saying, if you are against the war in Afganistan, you are against America = Fascism

and?

Hardly the land of "free speech", is it? Don't throw stones when in a glass house, and all that.

I mean, we all know how you couldn't hack it in Europe, but you really don't have to pretend that America is somehow superior.

1.) SOPA was introduced by a Texan Republican. It has not been passed yet (and probably won't be). Whereas, the law in Poland that will get you fined for having a low opinion about the Bible is very much real and in effect.

I'm not following. Honestly, I don't follow. How does a 24 hour protest of SOPA/PIPA bring you to that conclusion?


Here we go.....ready for it guys? Ready for it?

"Mods?"

-Delphiandomine

is this the new fashion.

if something is bothering u, please use the report feature.

But sopa is more than that it prevents you telling someone where to find such sites.