Really Europestan?

[Lewkowski]

http://www.china.org.cn/world/Off_th...t_40341952.htm

"A Danish man has been charged for burning the Quran and then uploading the vedio online, the first such case under Denmark's blasphemy law in 46 years, a Danish prosecutor said on Wednesday.

The 42-year-old, whose name was not revealed, published in December 2015 a video on Facebook recording his burning of a copy of Islam's holy book in his back yard, according to a statement from the country's prosecuttor's office.

"It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion," Attorney General Jan Reckendorff said in the statement."

I'd expect to see this in totalitarian third world shit holes not a Western Democracy.

[Aimless]

Very odd. If they were serious about enforcing this law they wouldn't have time to prosecute any serious criminals. It doesn't look like a simple matter of eg. being able to get a conviction either. Guessing there are some very specific requirements for applying this law and getting a conviction, requirements that are rarely fulfilled. In all likelihood, this case will eventually lead to a repeal of the law, which may also be the prosecutor's intention.

[Aimless]

See the recent German case about insulting foreign autocrats for a similar example.

[RandBlade]

Ridiculous decision to prosecute.

[Aimless]

If it leads to a repeal of the law then it was an excellent decision.

[RandBlade]

Bullshit that's not a prosecutors decision or purpose, that's for politicians to act on. Nor are citizens supposed to be used as pawns for a prosecutor to abuse in order to attempt to force politicians into changing the law, that's a very sick game you're suggesting is played there.

[Aimless]

You're right, a prosecutor's purpose is to prosecute people (preferably successfully) for violating the law, which appears to be what this prosecutor is doing. A repeal would simply be a good outcome of him doing his job. In light of your recent defense of indeterminate extrajudicial detention and torture you can just get right the fuck off of that high horse "sick game" indeed, what a load of tosh.

[RandBlade]

I never defended indeterminate extrajudicial detention and torture.

[Veldan Rath]

So if Loki had mad the same argument as Rand, you would agree?

[Aimless]

So if Loki had mad the same argument as Rand, you would agree?

Which one do you mean?

[Flixy]

Weird, I do support a repeal of blasphemy laws and don't think this should have been prosecuted.

[Hazir]

Oh God, is there still a chance ANYONE would be convicted of blasphemy in The Netherlands after the Little Donkey ruling?

[RandBlade]

Which one do you mean?

That it's a ridiculous decision to prosecute?

Or that prosecutors prosecuting dodgy cases in order to persecute someone on an obsolete law in order to attempt to force politicians to act is not appropriate?

[Aimless]

*shrug* You may think it's somehow more appropriate for a prosecutor to undermine the law by choosing not to enforce laws that are still on the books than for him to enforce the law and eventually prompt a change in the law. In some countries that's how it works. Where I live the the decision to prosecute is not only up to prosecutorial discretion but also governed by laws, regulations and conventions. On the bright side, there is typically a great deal of leeway wrt the punishment, both on the prosecutor's end (ie. wrt the punishment sought) and on the judge's end. If Denmark is even remotely similar the prosecutor is just doing his job and you'll have to make up your mind as to whether or not you really think a prosecutor should do his job. As it is now, you're giving us contradictory signals Ã* la the Trump administration.

[Veldan Rath]

Over here there is prosecutional discretion in many cases.

[Hazir]

Over here there is prosecutional discretion in many cases.

In Holland we have it too, but a decision to no prosecute may be challenged in court by interested parties.

[Loki]

As nutty as trying to ban abortion because of some people's religious beliefs?

[Lewkowski]

As nutty as trying to ban abortion because of some people's religious beliefs?

Do you think killing infants is OK? If you don't why do you think location is relevant?

[Veldan Rath]

As nutty as trying to ban abortion because of some people's religious beliefs?

Seriously Loki?

I'm an atheist, and abortion is not something that I'm 100% comfortable with. Wanna try again?

[Loki]

Are you in favor of banning everything you're "not comfortable with"? Do I have to explain what other kind of behavior this logic has been used to ban?

[Loki]

Do you think killing infants is OK? If you don't why do you think location is relevant?

You might want to look up the medical definition of an infant.

[Enoch the Red]

Are you in favor of banning everything you're "not comfortable with"? Do I have to explain what other kind of behavior this logic has been used to ban?

I think what Veldan is pretty clearly getting at is an argument can me made against abortion that is not based on religious beliefs or convictions.

[Loki]

I think what Veldan is pretty clearly getting at is an argument can me made against abortion that is not based on religious beliefs or convictions.

It would be a bullshit argument. Abortion is restricted most in countries where the public is most religious and countries where religious authorities have the most power.

[Enoch the Red]

It would be a bullshit argument. Abortion is restricted most in countries where the public is most religious and countries where religious authorities have the most power.

Want to give that another pass? Or is this the best you can do?

[Aimless]

You don't have to be religious to think abortion should be banned, but I don't think there are many ways to justify such a ban without invoking arguments more grounded in faith--religious or otherwise--than in eg. a secular science-based worldview, especially when it comes to the earlier stages of pregnancy. There are questionable justifications purely based on non-religious ethical calculus but those run into problems when the rights of a fetus have to be weighed against those of the mother.

Squickiness is of course not something we should generally create controversial legislation around and I don't think that was Veldan was suggesting either.

[Enoch the Red]

...I don't think there are many ways to justify such a ban without invoking arguments more grounded in faith--religious or otherwise--than in eg. a secular science-based worldview, especially when it comes to the earlier stages of pregnancy. There are questionable justifications purely based on non-religious ethical calculus but those run into problems when the rights of a fetus have to be weighed against those of the mother.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I'm uncertain what secular science has to do with ethics, unless you are using it to determine viability - which is a constantly shifting target and probably not the best ethical arbiter. In short, any number of ethical constructs, secular or otherwise could have logical arguments for or against abortion.

[Lewkowski]

I'd also argue that morality based on religion that empowers your convictions isn't a religious law. For example if someone said "I think welfare is important because Jesus taught us to feed the poor." Is not a religious law, the law is the law the rational behind the creation of the law that some people *may* have does not amount to a religious law and a violation of separation of church and state. As you can find non-religious reasons to outlaw abortion (rights of the father, rights of the baby, intrinsic value of a child etc) an anti-abortion law is OK.

[Loki]

Want to give that another pass? Or is this the best you can do?

Secular countries don't ban abortion. As religious countries become more secular, they lift bans on abortion. The individuals most supportive of abortion bans are religious. Care to try again?

I'd also argue that morality based on religion that empowers your convictions isn't a religious law. For example if someone said "I think welfare is important because Jesus taught us to feed the poor." Is not a religious law, the law is the law the rational behind the creation of the law that some people *may* have does not amount to a religious law and a violation of separation of church and state. As you can find non-religious reasons to outlaw abortion (rights of the father, rights of the baby, intrinsic value of a child etc) an anti-abortion law is OK.

And how's that different to banning giving religious offense on social grounds (i.e. it stops people from rioting)?

[Enoch the Red]

Secular countries don't ban abortion.

Except when they do, but that's really a sidebar, because this is one impressive strawman you are floating.

As religious countries become more secular, they lift bans on abortion. The individuals most supportive of abortion bans are religious. Care to try again?

The argument has nothing to do with laws in religious or secular countries, or even the average ideological makeup of the proponents or detractors. The argument was whether or not religious belief was a prerequisite for an opposition to abortion. It is not.

But I am very interested in the price of fish in Hindustan.

[Veldan Rath]

Are you in favor of banning everything you're "not comfortable with"? Do I have to explain what other kind of behavior this logic has been used to ban?

Gods you can be sanctimonious.

Did I say I wanted everything banned I'm uncomfortable with? Or even abortion? No, I did not.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, or at the very least out of your ass to score cheap 'debate' points.

As Enoch pointed out, I was putting forth that abortion does not require a religious stance to not be a fan of.

But feel free to twist that as you see fit.