Poland has blasphemy laws, too — and they're applying them to throw a pop star in prison. Dorota Rabczewska (careful there, she has also posed for Playboy) has said something absolutely unforgivably awful:
In a television interview last year, Doda explained that she found it far easier to believe in dinosaurs than the Bible; "it is hard to believe in something written by people who drank too much wine and smoked herbal cigarettes."
Polish Catholics weren't too pleased. Under Poland's draconian blasphemy law, simply offending someone's religious sensibilities can earn you hefty fines and even imprisonment.
Wait, that's it? One sentence that suggests that the authors of the Bible had been doped out of their minds, and zoom, off to prison for two years? Touchy little cowards, aren't they…
This is a good comment, too:
How can Europeans cry foul when Muslims are offended by a cartoon, when they themselves press charges and demand imprisonment over something as simple as a pop star making negative statements about their religion?
- Log in to post comments
THey also have a state church. I suppose Catholicism is going back to Creationism, with shit like this.
This is the main reason why my first thought after hearing about the disastrous plane crash that killed off parts of the polish government was "good riddance". They made so many bad decisions...
It baffles the mind that the distance between my native super-secular Sweden and, well, Poland is no longer than the distance between NYC and DC!
This is disgusting. A civilized country should not do things like this. And by the way, in England, Harry Taylor got a suspended jail term for leaving anti-religious cartoons in an airport room.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/atheist-sentencing-creates-a-new.html
Maybe the European Human Rights legislation can be used to right these wrongs? Nothing seems to have happened in the case of Harry Taylor though, so I guess England isn't a civilized country yet. Seeing the gains made by the Xian Right in the recent election helps confirm that opinion.
I don't see anything saying that she'll actually go to prison. The closest I saw was:
Which implies that she may not. Hideous to think that she even could, sure, but one oughtn't be saying that she will if it's still up in the air.
I don't think the Bible writers were drugged or drunk for the most part. Worse, they were piously religious when they did it, which explains a lot.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
How can Europeans cry foul? Quite simply. They firmly believe that the Muslim faith is a false religion, and theirs is true. It amazing how easy it is to rationalize things when you hold this kind of a belief.
I fear the EU-Human Rights enforcing capacity towards major membership countries refusing to comply is severely limited. At most Britain could receive some criticism from this - though not very publicly, as to not fuel the flames of the likes of the BNP by "intruding" on British legal sovereignty.
How can Europeans cry foul...
Oh but, those Poles are No True Europeans.
(Just to get this argument out of the way before it sticks up its ugly head).
That is just silly. She may even well be right. The OT is very, very weird.
Looks like Poland spent decades hammering their way out of the totalitarian frying pan. To jump into another malevolent totalitarian fire.
How many years does one get in Poland if they are a priest and rape kids or protect rapists?
If a priest is raping a kid in Poland, and the kid says something blasphemous during the act, who would get charged?
Someone at Reddit puts this a bit more in perspective. Summary: they have a stupid law, but it remains to be seen if it actually will apply to Doda.
Is it really? Even if that said "the Polish" rather than "Europeans" it would be retarded.
This sort of thing is why I'm glad I live in a country with a bill of rights. There are many things about the US system of governance that I don't like, but the idea of having a bill of rights is absolutely correct, and I think all other countries should adopt the US model in that regard. Clearly spelled out rights which are enforceable in court do a lot to prevent the enforcement of unjust laws.
"it is hard to believe in something written by people who drank too much wine and smoked herbal cigarettes."
Not to mention the raunchy mushrooms gobbled by John the Revelator.
It does bear keeping in mind, however, that all pre-moderns drank wine at every occasion, quite reasonably calculating that the consequences of a string of muddled decisions were better than those of consuming untreated water.
@#12, but Europe is not a country, and many people here get the willies if something like a European Constitution, or even worse, European President, is being mentioned. You see, last time we had a single leader in Europe...
It shocks me that today, in this day and age, people can still get charged with a criminal offense for blasphemy. It's not too shocking, considering the amount of idiots in the world, but still...
Interesting note, she's engaged to Nergal from Behemoth...who is also being threatened with jail for ripping a bible up on stage. You posted that video a few weeks ago.
I've just decided to stop being offended by Polish jokes.
Don't worry; here in Poland we have better tricks up our sleeves. For example, a proposed legislation is currently being debated in our Parliament, which would make in vitro fertilisation a crime punishable by up to 3 years in prison. It seems it has little chance of being passed but the very fact it has been proposed is astonishing.
----
#14 That would come as news to the Spanish, the English or the Russians.
@#12 A bill of rights is not an United States exclusive idea, in fact it is not even an United States innovation.
This along with other assumptions that the US is a 'freer' society then the rest of the world is a debate I get into a lot with my fellow US citizens.
We have more or less the same rights as most of our contemporaries. Though in this instance more :)
How can Europeans cry foul? Quite simply. They firmly believe that the Muslim faith is a false religion, and theirs is true. It amazing how easy it is to rationalize things when you hold this kind of a belief.
Considering that a larger proportion of Europeans than any other place on earth to not have any kind of faith, that's a really stupid statement to make. Also Poland is a major outlier in that respect, they have near-US levels of religiosity.
In any case she would never get convicted, the European Court of Human Rights would not stand for this.
I am not a big fan of Doda (to say the least), but these charges are an obvious embarresment.
However, I do feel the need to out things into a context - Polish blasphemy law has been pretty much dead over the last few years. Mainly due to an even more embarrasing trial of an artist - Dorota Nieznalska - who put a picture of a penis on a cross as a part of art exhibition (which even wasn't about religion). She eventually won an appeal, and the only thing it accomplished was giving some well deserved bad PR for Catholic activist. I'm betting this case will end even faster.
Polish blasphemy law, like any other, is a shameful stain upon our democracy. But it is nowhere as vague and threatening as the Irish one. It speaks explicitly about defacing objects of cult (in public). In other words, had she stomped on the bible on national TV, there would have legal basis to convict her. Mere criticism of Bibles' authors is a different story. I just hope, that this new example of wasting taxpayers money in order to satisfy a bunch of right-wing Catholic bigots will finally lead to a change in the law...
This sort of thing is why I'm glad I live in a country with a bill of rights
The current interpretation of the 1st amendment is great, it affords freedom of speech that is indeed not equaled anywhere.
However European nations (plus Turkey) have the European Court of Human Rights which afford similar, although not quite as strong wrt freedom speech, guarantees. This shit will never pass the Court.
#12 U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
FUCK YEAH!!! WHOOOOOO YEAH!!
Where ever would America be without its Bill of Rights?
"This is a good comment, too:"
It most definitely is not. There is a difference between imprisonment and a triple digit death toll. See this: http://web.archive.org/web/20060404073858/www.cartoonbodycount.com/stats
You should be more cautious in publicly supporting statements. You're not like other kids, you have a responsibility.
You're doin' it wrong.
That begs the question if God is an all-powerful deity why the need for blasphemy laws?
In slightly off topic: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/07/archbishop-sambis-bizarre-war-o…
And now I am. Link failed.
How do these blasphemy laws work? I mean, if one religion or sect considers another one's existence or preachings to be blasphemous (and they probably do or they would all be one big happy group) then how can any religion exist?
"That begs the question if God is an all-powerful deity why the need for blasphemy laws?"
"What does God need with a spaceship?"
Please don't talk about Poland and mix in Europe like it's interchangeable. I could just as easily say "Arizona passed a stupid, racist immigration law? How can the US be so horribly racist?".
It's not the same thing. Poland is very conservative and religious, and the rest of Europe is far more secular and reasonable.
Honestly, this is the kind of tactics that I would expect from theists. Making a point and unfairly generalizing. Kinda pisses me off.
Here's more information on European blasphemy laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#European_initiatives
It's disturbing how quickly people can jump on the hate wagon. The fact is, many of you (including PZ) don't know what you are talking about.
It is extraordinarily easy to take somebody to court in Poland. Basically, anybody can sue anybody for anything, and if you bother to file the suit, it will go before a judge. That doesn't mean that your litigation represents the sentiments of a significant portion of the population. It doesn't mean that there is one shred of support for your case in the Polish law. So, the fact that Doda was sued for her words says nothing at all about the people of Poland, or the state of Polish law - except that it may be too easy to get in front of a judge in this country.
In short, the article that PZ is drawing to your attention is a purely sensationalist rendition of the facts. Thankfully, a couple of people here have drawn attention to the truth. There's no way anybody in Poland would go to jail for what Doda said. It is simply absurd--and irresponsible, and sad--to criticize the Polish people (or the European people, as if you could generalize from Poland to the entire continent!) as PZ and others have been doing here. It's not just that your criticisms are misguided; it's that they are filled with such hatred. Such feelings surely have their role, especially in responses to religion--but you should be more careful before you harness it against those more deserving of humanity.
There is another, more general problem here. It has to do with the way religion works in Poland, and how that is perceived by the rest of the world. True, Poland is a Catholic country. Most Poles will probably tell you they are Catholic. But most of those people are not actively religious, and many don't have strong religious beliefs at all. Catholicism in Poland is, for a large number of Poles, merely a cultural tradition, and not a dogma. Their kids have communion because all the other kids are doing it, and nobody wants their kids to be left out.
Sure, Catholicism is a cultural tradition which needs to be overcome. No doubt about that. But I wouldn't underestimate the Polish people. I certainly wouldn't assume that the majority of them have faith in the Catholic church. For many Poles, priests are about as well-respected as politicians.
Did you know that the Polish people freely elected an open atheist to be their president in 1995, and he remained in office until 2005?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Kwa%C5%9Bniewski
That's gotta mean something, I'd say.
@31
Hear, hear!
Logging in took so long Jason beat me to it.
The people pursuing this or Nergal (the Bible-tearing metal guy) are a vocal minority. Far more people - particularly young people - are (more or less quietly) opposed or unsupportive of the Catholic church.
I agree with Jason on most points. There is just one fact I need to protest. We are not dealing with a private lawsuit. This is a situation where a public prosecutor (paid with our taxmoney) leads an investigation against someone who criticised religion. Sure it will never stand up in a court of law. But it is still outrageous.
A few things.
To those saying that the EU would never allow this:
I'm Irish, we also recently had blasphemy laws introduced in accordance with our constitution. And there is talk of a referendum to decide whether they will be kept. -This will be challenged at the EU level, but the outcome is far from certain.
To the main article:
To equate these fringe views of religious zealots to all Europeans is sloppy and illogical, as others have noted.
To Jason in Poland:
The main article referred to is replete with examples from the last ten years of Polish people having their freedoms limited by court decision in response to their "blasphemy". Are you denying these events took place?
I think you have over-stated your case with regard to the "hatred" of people here. They are largely expressing distaste with these particular decisions, which is an entirely valid thing to do.
And while many do have a Catholic "cultural" heritage in Poland, as they do here in Ireland, much of my own extended family included. That does not excuse allowing the dicatates of a religion interfere with the rights of individuals who do not follow or respect it. These two facts are entirely unrelated and your argument in this regard is irrelevant. The fact is that we are discussing the law at hand, not the population en masse.
@33
Actually it is not that simple.
What happened is that a fellow from a religious organisation (one Ryszard Nowak) informed the prosecutor's office of a possible violation of the law (the law, as we know, unfortunately exists). This is a mechanism which exists in the Polish legal system for citizens to inform law enforcement of crimes.
The prosecutor's office initially refused to investigate, but an appeal by Nowak lead to a court decision that the prosecutor's office closed the case too early (since, however stupid the law might be, there was evidence that it might have been broken). Thus the prosecutor reopened the case.
So it is somewhat unfair to lay the blame on the prosecutor in this case. The law is stupid and it is causing the problems. Still, the case probably won't hold up once it reaches court anyway.
For anyone who can read Polish,
http://dziennik.pl/wydarzenia/article599749/Doda_oskarzona_o_obraze_uczuc_religijnych.html
The law (unfortunately, but nonetheless) exists, and the prosecutor has to investigate any case where an allegation has been made of the law (any law) being broken.
That does not mean charges will be made, or that even if they are that it will stand up in court.
Opposing something quietly is the same thing as giving it tacit support.
@34
The fact is that we are discussing the law at hand, not the population en masse.
... a number of people in this thread have specifically attacked Poland not Polish law.
Yes, the law is what is wrong; but it doesn't reflect the attitude of the vast majority*. That is what Jason was correcting.
*which really is a disinterested "meh".
that vaguely reminds me of the story my dad tells about a dude who got sued by a thief for putting a board with fishing hooks onto the driver's seat of his fiat. I do not vouch for the truth-value of this story.
that's only true up to a point. Abortion and IUD's are (or were last time I checked) illegal, and women still regularly get harassed by doctors for wanting to be on the pill, etc.
Yeah, Polish Catholicism is weird, but it's not "just a cultural tradition" the way it is in the Scandinavian countries, for example.
We see her boyfriend has had an effect on her.
Suddenly, they don't seem such an odd couple. Good for her, even if her music is terrible.
@36
Not at all. Sometimes full-blown marching in the streets is unnecessary; sometimes waiting it out is enough.
A lot of young(er) people don't go to church, except maybe for weddings and other traditional family events where it is "expected" particularly by older, more conservative family members. They don't care much for the church but they also don't see much need for marching in the streets about it. At the moment the Church is doing quite well shooting itself in the foot with things like this case (prosecuting popular stars, that'll work). Eventually the tide will turn; in the meantime most people just get on with their lives. As has been said this law is rarely enforced.
"So it is somewhat unfair to lay the blame on the prosecutor in this case."
I wasn't blaiming the prosecutor. He's just doing his job. But the situation created by this law outrageous.
And I'm sorry to say, but I agree with truthspeaker - a large portion of our society is passive and opportunistic (not as much as most politicians though) effectively allowing the status quo to continue...
@41
I think I'd agree with that, yes. Not sure what to do about it. :(
What is difficult about 'believing' in dinosaurs? Just saying.
To those here who mentioned the young people of Poland becoming disinterested in religion or Catholicism specifically:
what to the numbers of people leaving the Church officially look like?
Here's an article describing the state of the matter (2007):
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,458358,00.html
Apparently, as in many other countries, large numbers of people care little about the doctrines and the pronouncements of the Church, but retain their membership nevertheless. I suppose out of social pressure or laziness.
As the examples from al over the world show, as soon as the Church loses its stranglehold on public opinion and major media, a torrent of financial and abuse scandals gets uncovered and publicized in short order.
Alex P. #39, thanks for the link! I find his music way more likeable than hers.
"I suppose out of social pressure or laziness."
The method for substracting oneself from the official count of catholics isn't that intuitive and not publicized at all.
"The method for substracting oneself from the official count of catholics isn't that intuitive and not publicized at all."
And the Church authorities in Poland did a lot to ensure that the process is as long and unplesant as possible. After all, the statistics which show that the majority of Polish people belong to the Catholic Church are their main argument for having religion at schools, conservative abortion law, no state financed in vitro procedures ect.
@38
I was only speaking about "a large number of Poles." So I agree--while we shouldn't underestimate the Poles, we shouldn't underestimate the influence of religious dogma in Poland, either. (btw, about abortion, at least--some Poles I know have no trust in Catholicism, but still support the anti-abortion laws. The more religious have been trying to make the laws even stricter. For now, you can get a legal abortion in some circumstances. Also, there has been a noticeable rise in feminism in this country, too, which is another factor to consider.)
@34
You like hyperbole, I see. You say the referenced article is "replete with examples." Yet, I see only one example: In 2003, Doda was convicted of "offending religious feelings." That isn't even a very good example, because she eventually won her appeal.
You say, "That does not excuse allowing the dicatates of a religion interfere with the rights of individuals who do not follow or respect it. These two facts are entirely unrelated and your argument in this regard is irrelevant."
The law in question is a means of protecting the expression of religion, and not a means of imposing any religion on others. There is no evidence that the law has ever been used to punish anybody for not following any religion.
That said, the law should be changed. Obviously. But I don't see why that makes any of my points irrelevant.
You say, "I think you have over-stated your case with regard to the 'hatred' of people here."
I disagree.
The previous pope had a longing to bring back the "good old days", which is why he favored such evil institutions as the "Opus Dei" cult. His native Poland is just carrying out his wishes for a cult-controlled state. The Polish Jews are still treated very badly, and you never even see it on the news. Does Poland declare itself to be a religious state, as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Indonesia do?
Blasphemy is the only truly victimless crime.
No offence MadScientist, but what makes you qualified to make such statements about Poland?
Just to clear something out here: when I (and I'm pretty certain this applies to the rest of you too) criticize a nation, in this case Poland, we don't criticize the polish people but rather the nation state as an entity.
And I must say, when it comes to the influence of religion over the freedoms of the polish people, Poland is abhorrent for a 21st century nation. I sympathize greatly with the polish people for having to stand such circumstances and I would urge them to move to change them - although I know I can't demand it in any way.
In the end the polish people decides what Poland is. Yet they also have to accept that such incidences such as this reflect poorly on the image of Poland as a nation. They should also take into consideration how that matters these days.
Somewhat off topic, but here goes:
In EU Catholicism isn't only an annoyance but often a real problem, trying to drag the rest of us EUians back. Unfortunately, Poland is often the forefront in these actions. A recent example was an initiative to create common rules to handle divorce in cases where the married couple were from different countries. Here in Finland it was found unacceptable that a Finnish citizen might be forced to be divorced according to e.g. Polish law, where it takes an extraordinarily long time and a guilty party must be found.
I'm sure similar laws exist in other Catholic countries, but I believe Poland was most against any compromise on this particular case.
The way it played out in the end was, that some kind of agreement was found, but several (mostly northern) countries found it still unacceptable and decided not to sign it.
I'm from Europe and it's widely known that Poland is like European black whole of ignorance and superstition.
They are like catholic Iran, catholicism infiltrated all institutions of society, governmental and civil.
@Jason (#31)
Whoa, there. Hatred? Really? I had to go back and re-read the entire thread after I saw that. There's a lot of snark, sure, and a few comments were kind of callous, but hatred? Come on.
Weed Monkey:
Divorce in Poland takes long mainly because all legal procedures take long (too long). Not because of Catholic bigotry. And as far as I know (unless something changed in the last couple of years), finding the guilty party is optional.
FortKnox:
Jason has generally exaggerated with the hatred argument. But you are working hard to prove him right. Influence of the Church on the political life of Poland is annoying, to say the least. But not much more so than eg. in Italy. And Poland has been truly independent for only 20 years. It is a painful phase we have to get through. Your insults are not helping. And comparing any of the European countries to Iran means you are either ignorant or delibarately populist (and I mean Glenn Beck style)
Fortknox #54
Get real, that's extreme exaggeration. It's obvious that the Catholic church has too much power in Poland, but I highly doubt it's because every Polish wants it to be so. And as they are a part of the EU now, I'm expecting changes to a more liberal direction over time.
Jake666 #56:
Oh really? That was the way it was represented in our newspapers. One lesson more for me not to trust those rags but actually check the facts.
Yep - the newspapers sometimes don't get all the facts right;) On the other hand, I realise that the negative stereotypes about Poland didn't appear out of thin air. Our late president has indeed been one of the main guys trying to hold EU back. On a more positive note, he was considered the worst of the democratically elected presidents so far (while he was alive - sympathy after his tragic death somewhat altered the statistics, but not all thet much)
The law in question is a means of protecting the expression of religion, and not a means of imposing any religion on others.
Can you explain to us how individuals mocking a religious sect prevent the religious from expressing their religion?
Its not that hard and with spokespersons like Zinnia and the dutch minister of science and culture describing the process, and their experience with it, it its hard to say its not getting some well deserved (awesome) publicity.
I mean, who doesn't watch Zinnia and the strident columns of the social dem c elegans genome unraveling minister of science and culture, right?
Precisely because the unsubscribe procedure has the reputation of being ignored an increase in its use should show up as a threat to the vatican bottom line. From what I heard there has been a slight increase noticed by some bishops.
@Jake #666: which part - about the Jews? Ask any number of my neighbors. Of course their own opinion may be a little biased, but the contempt which many of the catholic Poles I've known have for the Jews suggests that there is ample opportunity to develop such a bias.
A pity this procedure doesn't look the same in Poland.
Here, you first need to get a certificate of baptism from the parish in which you were baptised.
Secondly, you need to personally go to your current parish to submit the declaration and the certificate. Again, some priests may refuse to accept it, and then you need to appeal to the bishop.
After you've submitted the declaration, the priest may still give you up to 3 months time to "reconsider". After that, you need to show up at the parish again, this time with two witnesses (preferrably your godparents), to confirm your apostasy...
Now if that ain't malicous obstruction, than I don't know what is...
The law just should not exist and I hope people are as willing as Doda to flout it as people in Ireland are. That said, I especially hope she is not convicted, as she strikes me as the sort of person (skanky public image, has done nude photos, etc.) who people would treat as unsympathetic just for being a hedonistic woman. Ryszard Nowak obviously wants to make an example of her, expecting a huge scandal, so all the more reason to have it blow up in his face.
@MadScientist: If you mean that there is some antisemitism among Catholics in Poland, then you are sadly right (though there is probably less than in much more secular France). But your statement implied that there was some mandated discrimination of Jews in contemporary Poland. And that is simply not true
@ #5;
"How can Europeans cry foul? Quite simply. They firmly believe that the Muslim faith is a false religion, and theirs is true. It amazing how easy it is to rationalize things when you hold this kind of a belief.'
And if one were to hold that both [religions] are false, the need to rationalize in any context is reduced to near nill. These threads and many like them have brought voluminous data, both trivial and of deep thought, that both, nay all religions are false. The cry of foul is thus far easily, readily and correctly sustained.
By the way, I'd be interested to know what is this "European religion"...
#29
I could just as easily say "Arizona passed a stupid, racist immigration law? How can the US be so horribly racist?".
Since a majority in the US support the new Arizona immigration law, I don't think that is an inaccurate generalization.
Why are people so touchy about the h-word? Is hatred something to be ashamed of?
it's inaccurate, in connection to this thread. What more reason do you need for people not wanting you to use it?
It seems accurate to me. Hatred: "intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility."
That looks like a very accurate way to describe many of the posts here, including PZ's.
Really, I think people just don't like the word "hatred." Maybe it's a cultural thing.
there is no extreme hostility here, and more specifically there is no feeling of extreme hostility. no one is hating anything; that's the point.
who said anything about "extreme hostility"?
It says "intense dislike OR extreme aversion OR hostility."
No intense dislike? No extreme aversion? No hostility?
Hey - maybe you don't see it. That's fine. But it seems obvious enough to me.
I'd like to add a few words to this thread:
1. Doda used a very elegant phrase, using words impossible to translate into English. It's sad to see such great insults get so get dulled in translation.
2. Poland has escaped the influence of the Soviet Union partly thanks to those men in black skirts. It was a mostly bloodless revolution. The lack of blood implies a slow rate of change. In 20 years, most of that loud redneck christian population will die away.
3. A vast majority of the Polish peeps are ignorant of religion and that's why they let those rednecks have their say. Political correctness in its worst.
I never thought I'd see mindless Euro-bashing from PZ. That comment in the OP isn't good, it's mindless drivel.
1) Europe is big and diverse. This might be a complicated thing for fat, dumb, parochial Americans who've never left their state let alone the USA to grasp....oh wait, see what I did there...yes that's right I made an unevidenced (and wrong) generalisation about a large and diverse set of people. You know "Americans" aren't like that, *I* know "Americans" aren't like that. We ALL know "Americans" aren't like that. Some Americans are, but very, very far from all. Hmmmm, do you think that might be the case in Europe too? Gosh! Do you think it might even be more so in Europe which is a) not one country like the USA and is hardly monolithic, and b) a series of >20 nations most with individual/different languages and certainly individual cultures the set of which is vastly more diverse than the USA?
2) Some Europeans cried foul over the Jyllands Posten cartoons. More didn't. In fact there were campaigns to have them pubished more widely in several nations. Not just by the usual racists who take any chance to sneak their bigotry in behind a veil of criticising religion (these guys exist and muddy the waters unfortunately) but by human rights and free speech activists, comedians, politicians etc. A little research into this issue in the EU would have shown this.
3) The EU is a complex place, mainly because as I said above it isn't anything like one nation with one language. Even though many nations still have/try to legislate new blasphemy laws etc these things tend to be ineffective on average. Sure, there are more established churches, prosecutions/nuisance lawsuits etc than the ideal (i.e. zero) in many European nations, and these are live issues that need remedy, but in general European nations are vastly less religious than the USA. It's something of a grand irony that the western nation with the greatest paper protection from religion (the USA) is the western nation that suffers from its ravages more than any other. So please, before you make inaccurate criticisms of Europe, try removing the beam from your own eye before considering the mote in someone else's. The sort of nationalistic chest bashing that the comment praised in the OP engages in is more than slightly pathetic.
4) There are plenty of really good criticisms one can make of individual European nation's dealing with religion. The OP references one of them (well, it's a bit inaccurate and hyperbolic, but it's better than the stupid comment at the end of the OP). The way religious discrimination laws are framed in many EU nations (the UK included) do little except maintain religious privilege in society. This a genuinely good thing to beat various European nations up over.
5) There is no European religion. Deal with it. This comment also applies to the catholic church! They are trying very very hard to make a European religion, they've yet to actually manage it. Put it this way, despite the UK having an established church, I see the official religion of the UK being catholicism happening about the same time that people stop making jingoistic comments like the one in the OP. I.e. never. This will be shortly followed by France becoming an officially religious nation.
6) How about this:
.
Bit of a nonsense isn't it really? Fuck jingoism and nationistic wankery whatever its source. Equally fuck religious privilege.
7) Hmmmmm, reading the original article the "quote" appears to be somewhat different:
Well, isn't that interesting. The quote is different from the one in the OP, and in context, whilst far from good, is vastly better than the mindless Euro-bashing (which a depressing amount of posters here seem to think is fine....hmmm wonder why) of the quote in the OP. Seems someone somewhere has been doing some editing. Judging by the comments on the article it seems perhaps even the article's author backed off the original a bit. Whoever made the edits (if that's what happened), they are unmarked. Surely this is an indication of truthiness and reliability in a source...oh wait. It's not.
8) The majority of the "blasphemy laws" in the EU nations are, like in Poland, not blasphemy laws (i.e. laws that are designed to prevent blasphemy) but laws designed to prevent discrimination against, and attacking of people on purely religious grounds. Granted this is a fine hair to split and these laws are still crap law that maintain religious privilege within societies, but they aren't quite what people here seem to think they are.
One reason, certainly not the only one, they exist is because many of the more unpleasant elements of European politics (from the BNP to Jorg Heider's chucking funsters) try to hide their anti-immigrant racism behind criticism of islam/judaism etc. These laws are admittedly a bad solution to this problem, and one born of cultures which wish to maintain religious privilege, so this is a live issue that secularists accross Europe are trying to correct. Hint: don't presume that the nature of problems with religion in EU nations is identical to the nature of problems with religion in the USA, or that these problem arise or manifest themselves in anything like the same culture.
9) Anyone who thinks links to lawsuits and trading my nation vs your nation type comparisons is meaningful has missed the point. We all know there are problems, we all know these problems vary between nations and that some nations have it worse than others. That really, really ain't the point.
Louis
Louis (and others): I should wait until I've had more coffee, but I don't agree with a bit in your post. (The rest, I've found very informative.)
I can't see that PZ or other Americans are that responsible for not carefully scrutinizing our constant European nitpickings about identity. Besides, there are times when that local or regional identity shouldn't matter. Some generalizations are useful and necessary. Outside the EU, shouldn't it be logical to puzzle about a legal measure applied somewhere in the EU and recur to a generalization?
On the other hand, if we're talking about politics and religion, I am a European; I feel worried about the Catholic church in Ireland or Poland, or the honor crimes in Sweden. Surely collective responsibility is not a hollow idea? I want to point my finger at that ridiculous law, and be pointed at too when my country or region sucks. I'm not going to assume responsibility for some obscure Serbian uprising centuries ago, but I do feel the tiniest bit responsible as a citizen for what happens in Europe now.
Indeed, if I were an American from outside Arizona I'd be ashamed and indignant about the new law. I could be indignant as a Westerner, but since I'd be profiled myself in Arizona, the results are ambiguous. So I'll say I'm angry and ashamed as a human being. This may sound ridiculous and naive, but I still haven't completely understood your point no. 6 (my fault, no doubt).
As an aside, Draken (14) says:
My first thought when reading that was Napoleon, and I shuddered. The havoc, the destruction, the horror!
@ Pistoreyu #76:
I'm totally comfortable with collective responsibility and agree we all have to work together to improve...well...anything really.
I too am worried about religious influences across the UK (my home nation of the moment), Europe, the USA and everywhere. Great! So what?
The sentiment expressed in the comment PZ quotes approvingly in the OP is far from a call to group responsibility. It's a "how dare these Europeans complain about some religion doing something naughty when they protect some other religion by letting them do something naughty." The subtext being, as evidenced very clearly in the subsequent comments is "We USAians are so much better with our first amendment and lack of blasphemy law" (ignoring the fact that the USA does in fact have anti-religious discrimination statutes not entirely dissimilar to those in various European nations). The first amendment (which merrily plays hell with some of the aforementioned legislation), and indeed the whole US constitution is a singularly wonderful idea/document. It ain't perfect, but it's something close to it, and it is something that should be emulated (and perhaps even improved on) the world over as a foundation for democratic nations. Great! So what? Do we now fall at the feet of the USA singing its praises? Oh please!
My point was this jingoistic horse trading over the apparent superiority of one group (nation) over another is as pernicious a problem as other magical, nonsensical, counterfactual beliefs. It's not the start of a rational or sensible enquiry into how we improve any situation, it's an obstacle to it.
The article cited is pretty inaccurate, panders to silly stereotypes and is little more than a piece of nationalistic drivel. Hardly the sort of standard we should be aspiring to as supposedly rational folks now is it? Look, I love a good bash of some aspect of religious privilege or stupidity as the next bloke. Hell, I love it more than the next fifty blokes, but do we really have to do it badly when there are so many really cracking ways to do it?
Louis
P.S. We should all have coffee before we post, my tetchiness is doubtlessly due to a massive caffeine underdose.
Addendum: There is another (not very sub) subtext, which the expanded quote makes clearer, is "don't piss and moan about the irrational bullshit of religion X when you support the irrational bullshit of religion Y", which I completely agree with. It's uncontroversial and in fact supports the point I'm making.
Louis
Tis @ 50
You forgot "sodomy" between consenting adults
@Louis
The sentiment expressed in the comment PZ quotes approvingly in the OP is far from a call to group responsibility. It's a "how dare these Europeans complain about some religion doing something naughty when they protect some other religion by letting them do something naughty." The subtext being, as evidenced very clearly in the subsequent comments is "We USAians are so much better with our first amendment and lack of blasphemy law"
Even more, it is a convenient way to silence a large group of people. Some Europeans said stupid things? Now you all of you guys have no right to express your opinion [on this issue anymore].
This runs pretty much against the idea of free speech.
I doubt that this was the intended message, but it runs the risk of being used in this way.
One reason, certainly not the only one, they exist is because many of the more unpleasant elements of European politics (from the BNP to Jorg Heider's chucking funsters) try to hide their anti-immigrant racism behind criticism of islam/judaism etc. - Louis
Something which, regrettably, PZ has shown very little sign of understanding.
It says "intense dislike OR extreme aversion OR hostility."
No intense dislike? No extreme aversion? No hostility? - Jason in Poland
You're misreading - I can only think deliberately, since your reading would mean that any degree of hostility implies hatred, which it certainly does not. The definition you quote means "intense dislike or extreme (aversion or hostility)". You have a point, but "hatred" is absurdly hyperbolic - you are just making yourself look stupid.
Louis:
I'm glad I forced you to explain.
Aaah. I understand your point much better now. I hadn't seen that subtext in PZ's post, but certainly it did appear in some comment here.
The different subtext I was worried about was expressed by Draken (7):
He/she was in jest, but such an attitude did appear along the thread. Expressions like "Hey! You don't get European complexity! You can't unravel the finest nuances of our differences!" sometimes translate into "We're not like those stupid A, B, C!". And since I'm up to here with our (European) parochialism and stupid, obsessive nationalisms, that's what I was reacting to. Politically, I love the idea of a European superstructure, even if it can be exasperating now and then.
Thanks anyway to you for your answer and to the Poles that tried to add context.
As always, the full picture seems to be a bit more complicated, than the thread would lead one to believe. The law isn't targeted against blasphemy per se, you need to prove that the insult was directed at an *object*, or a *place* of religious worship (which is as i understand the reason why litigation against Nieznalska didn't pan out). You can't sue someone for criticising religious ideas as such activity is protected by the constitution (as well as eg discriminating against freethinkers, as not all of the commenters here might be aware of this)
@Pistoreyu #82,
Oh the Polish folk are true Europeans all right. No worries there. No need to leap for a No True European argument at all. However, treating Europe, European nations and European people as some sort of monolithic entity is...erm...I'll put this nicely....fucking stupid. Not only that, the mechanism by which someone from European nation A can influence the policy/laws of European nation B are vastly more convoluted (if even possible) than the mechanism by which a person in the USA from state A can influence the policy/laws of state B. The two situations are not analogous.
I don't think our chums from the USA don't get European complexity, diversity, and nuance. Far from it. I think that in general the USAians I interact with get that and much more. However, those making the sort of jingoistic comments I am disagreeing with either don't get it, don't want to get it, or are deliberately ignoring it in order to make some silly "AREN'T WE NEAT" cheerleading claim. In the immortal words of the Prophet: fuck that shit.
Aside: I'm also a massive fan of a European super state/federal Europe. Not necessarily in its current incarnation/direction, but in general principle. This is irrelevant to the terrible nature of the "argument" being advanced in the article quoted in the OP and the utterly idiotic comment at the end of the OP that seems to meet with such approval.
Louis
Louis, quit acting sooooo European.
sheesh
@81
I am willing to suppose that you can disagree with somebody without being an asshole or resorting to personal attacks, though I am not familiar enough with your posts to say for certain. In any case, please don't accuse me of intentionally misreading anything again. It is not productive or compelling.
Now, if you think my comment was stupid, that's fine. That sort of criticism is welcome. However, in this case, you haven't made a very compelling case for your criticism. First of all, none of my points hinge on whether or not hostility entails hatred. By re-focusing attention on the dictionary definition, I was making it clear that hatred does not necessarily entail extreme hostility. Now, if you want to challenge that point, go ahead. But so far, you haven't done that. You've just been an asshole for no apparent reason.
As a side note, one could argue that "hostility", in some senses of the term, does entail hatred, or something close enough to it. But none of my points here depend upon the success of such an argument.
@ Bjarne #80:
Oh I agree entirely. That fallacious style of argument can be used as a classic method of silencing dissent.
@ Knockgoats #81:
I think one of the reasons The Fucking New Labour Government* made the excorable decisions they did over the anti religious discrimination laws is because of the weasel words of the BNP. There is a huge desire to distance themselves from anything BNPish (not that I can blame them for that). Witness the Question Time hunt for a Labour MP to face Nick Griffin (who, let's be blunt, could have been put away by a five year old with access to Wikipedia and some sweets). Witness the jeering dismissal of the same bloke after his epic fail in the recent election, the crowing was hilarious but more than a little telling. And so on.
Locally (i.e. in the UK) and in Europe in general, the BNP and European nationalist/fascist chums have typically made exciting comments about the evils of islam, especially hyping up the really lurid surahs. Context is rarely given, the distinction between the hadith and the qu'ran is rarely made, and the media galloping for the Anjem Choudarys of Europe helps the nutters enormously.
Where are the screaming denouncements of the catholic invasion of the UK by the Polish? Almost nowhere. Polish people are generally white, shock horror, your average racist couldn't give a shit about them (although the anti-immigration nutcases love the Polish, coming over here, with their work ethic ;-) ). But give the BNP someone with a bit of a tan and funny views and they're away! However, even the utter dullards of the BNP have worked out that publically saying "we don't like darkies" is something of a social faux pas. Tends to mean that no one invites you to dinner parties and whatnot. Hence the "we don't like the islam" cunning strategy, it has all advantages of bigotry with all the plausible deniability of a Clintonian sex encounter. Since it's so popular, those nice lads and laddesses of The Fucking New Labour Government thought "I know! Banning people from saying naughty things about religion will stop 'em being racists!". When some nice comedians and friends pointed out that this was a massive own goal The Fucking New Labour Government replied with "You wordsmiths, with your clever clever, be quiet". Not their finest hour.
Louis
*Regardless of their many successes and current unpopularity with Daily Mail readers (it is almost without exception that if the Daily Mail opposes it, it is a general good. There are notable exceptions.) and the like, this is their official title. Especially amongst those on the Left in the UK. Out of all the people The Fucking New Labour Government let down, the UK Left were practically first among them.
@ Rev BDC #85,
Sorry, sir. I suppose I should know my place.
Louis
Louis 87:
Indeed, neo-fascists have hi-jacked criticism of Islam to the extent that you cannot openly agree in the criticism and not indirectly support their xenophobic views. Islamophobia is their trumph card: they know they can play it at will as the criticism is valid yet do all they can to steer the critique from Islam to muslims and in continuation to anyone from a "Islamic" country.
Neo-fascism and religious dogmatism are the greatest threats facing Europe at the moment. The Catch 22 is that it is nigh impossible to criticise the one without supporting the other - the neo-fascists played their cards that well.
I am a strong supporter of European unity and dream that I will see the day when the EU is replaced by the EF: a true European Federation. But that will never happen while xenophobia and dogmatism alike run rampant.
Good. I can never tell the difference between you all, so if you'd just behave it will make everything much easier.
In Poland they have blasphemy laws to protect religious sensibilities. In the West they have hate crime laws to protect sexual deviants. To each his own religion...
Polish parliament and catlicking.
And you wonder why they have problems (well, they kinda don't as they are one of the few post-commie countries that are coming out on top, according to European economists).
I'm trying to figure out a way to read #91 that isn't both bigoted and dumb. I'm not meeting with much success.
In Poland they have blasphemy laws to protect religious sensibilities. In the West they have hate crime laws to protect sexual deviants. To each his own religion...
Hate crime laws are to protect persons, your feeble attempt at dehumanizing language notwithstanding. As opposed to laws that protect "sensibilities," as you say. Spot the difference, bigoted asshat?
Did you mean republicans?
Poland isn't part of the West (again)? When did we rebuilt the Iron Curtain? Or did Poland move east of Moscow while I wasn't looking?
In any case, please don't accuse me of intentionally misreading anything again. - Jason in Poland
I won't, provided you don't do it again. OK?
@Hexenhammer #91,
Some questions:
1) Hate crime laws protect sexual deviants do they? Why wasn't I informed?
2) I'm a sexual deviant, I have a certificate and everything. How do I know I'm a sexual deviant? Heyyyyy, no one does it like me! ;-) I'm at least two standard deviations from the norm...is that not what you meant?
3) Do sexual deviants get broken down by age and sex (and there is no one more broken down by age and sex than your average Pharynguloid(e))?
4) Define "sexual deviant" for me please. Is sexual deviancy doing it with the lights on? Doing it doggy fashion? Doing it with two or more other people? Doing it on your own, in the dark basement of a catholic church whilst wearing your dead mother's wedding dress, singing Bod Dylan songs, eating cheese and sitting in a pool of pig faeces? Ok that last one is definitely deviant, don't answer that.
5) If a sexual act is deviant, does it feel better?
6) How do you know if something is deviant, maybe everyone does it that way. Have you checked? If so, why are you watching other people have sex, and is that deviant?
I need to get a better grip on this sexual deviancy. Can you recommend any resources? I'm betting you can. In fact, if my suspicions are correct you have a wide stance, think that the best baggage carriers come from rentboy.com, and enjoy the company of a young, male "massage therapist" who helped you with some "stimulant chemicals" that you insist you never used and threw away. Wink wink Hexenhammer.
Louis
Is loving Louis sexually deviant?
It is if you're doing it right!
@ Rev BDC #99,
My wife thinks so, but only if I ask really nicely.
Tip veal. Try waitress. Here all week.
Louis
Fixed.
For those times when you just can't lift your own luggage, and you are just hard up for some luggage-lifting help.
@ Owlmirror #102,
If that's the only thing you can find to correct in my typo/error ridden diatribes, then I'm doing better than I expected! ;-)
I found the whole Rekers scandal hilarious (well, hilarious from one point of view). Seriously, how utterly stupid does this guy think people are? Luggage lifters from rentboy.com? Oh come ON...
...although that said, whenever I'm in the market for a male prostitute I do go to porters.com...
Or not as the case may be.
Louis
Can't all you poll-weighters sign this petition to release Dorota Rabczewska?
The comments seem to have drifted into the realm of irrelevance and inanity. Be that as it may, I want to clarify my initial comments about hatred, since a lot of people seem to have been a little defensive about them.
Speaking about Pharyngula in general, I think it goes without saying that many of PZ's posts, and many of the comments, exhibit a hatred of certain aspects of religion and conservative culture. As I suggested in my initial comment here, that seems like a valid emotional response, and I never criticized it.
So, when PZ refers to "little cowards" here, we can interpret such hostility as an expression of his deep-seated animosity. And when others respond with strongly antagonistic comments--e.g., suggesting that Polish jokes are well-deserved, that the tragic deaths of scores of Polish civil and military leaders was a good thing, that Poland is disgusting and uncivilized, etc.--it seems only fair to conclude that a fair number of people here are also expressing their well-earned animosity towards religion. And, yes, I call that well-earned animosity and hostility "hatred." Why shouldn't I? There's nothing wrong with it. The only problem is when it is misdirected (as has been the case here), or when it is expressed in bad ways.
Jason iP:
Really. Care to exemplify some such "hatred"?
You're wrong, because 'hatred' is the extreme in the spectrum of "animosity and hostility" (the two of which are not synonymous, BTW); a feeling of so strong that it consumes one's awareness, that it demands action.
By using the superlative sense for milder instances of dislike, you lose all sense of nuance.
See, I dislike that, but I don't hate it. ;)
@106
I never said that "animosity" and "hostility" were synonymous, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point out that they have distinct meanings.
Interesting that you distinguish hatred from these other concepts on the grounds that, unlike those others, hatred "consumes one's awareness" and "demands action." You make it very easy for me to make my case. For what drives Pharyngula, and what drives most of its participants to engage in discussions here? What consumes PZ's an other participants' awareness, and demands that they act here?
Are you suggesting that no strong emotions are at work here? That all of the relevant posts have been created in disinterest, or only mild disapproval? That is seriously unlikely, wouldn't you agree?
In any case, I think you may be nit-picking with definitions here. The language for these concepts is a bit vague. For example, I can say I hate anchovies without losing any sense of nuance, and without suggesting that my feelings towards anchovies consume me or drive me to action.
In short, I think my use of the terms "hate" and "hatred" are justified and appropriate here. And I think it's very interesting that people have a problem with it.
Jason, a lot of folks tend to dismiss our criticism as hate. It isn't. Hate requires energy which we don't have. But for those who see it that way, we have a term: Concern/tone troll. You are concerned, and you are trolling. Boring. And boring is the worst posts one can make. You have been boring and repeating yourself for a couple of days now. Not a sign of a cogent argument.
In case anybody wants a substantive discussion of hate: "In a more contemporary definition, the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a 'deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object.'" (Source.)
It does not mention "extreme hostility." Rather, hostility simpliciter is regarded as a possible expression of hatred.
Again, hatred is not bad. Some things deserve hatred. PZ says he doesn't want to share the planet with cultures who blame and then brutally execute 13-year-old girls for being raped. You don't think PZ HATES what happened to that girl? Are you joking?
I hate what happened to that girl. Absolutely. I hate a lot of what happens in the name of religion of every sort. Why should I pretend otherwise?
@108
I'm not dismissing any criticisms of religion or conservatism. I have said nothing in defense of religion or conservatism here. The fact that you posted what you did, Nerd, shows that you haven't carefully read the posts which you call "boring" and repetitive. Or, if you have actually read them, you haven't understood them.
By the way, if somebody attempts to deflect your arguments by claiming that you are expressing hatred, then they are just poisoning the well. They're not providing a valid argument against you. So the answer to such people is not to pretend like you don't hate what you hate. The answer is to keep making good arguments. Show them why they're wrong. But don't pretend you don't hate.
Some of you may be interested in this: Defending Hate.