In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,711

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Read more

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46960 Feb 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
You -never-, ever, cite your sources.
Simple.

I prove you (above) wrong: you stop posting.

Or do I prove you wrong (again) and you say you were "grammatically" incorrect?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46961 Feb 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you actually read the article or just stop at the title?
Happy to see that written guarantee the SUBJECTS of the UK have: freedom of speech.

But we wait for you to put up- re: never cite.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46962 Feb 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
For instance, like refusing to define democracy.
Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46963 Feb 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes
Approves the appointment
Poor Skanque: prove wrong yet again.

Macmillan was not elected by his party.

And the Queen MAKES the appointment.

Of course, that is using the English language and the actual meaning of words.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46964 Feb 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Yes, is it true that John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur and Gerald R. Ford were never elected president?
Presidents die. Vice presidents are elected.
No matter how hard you stomp your feet.

Now why don't you give us a list of prime ministers who have been elected prime ministers?

Let me help you: none. Zero.

Never ever.
voc

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

#46965 Feb 5, 2013

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46966 Feb 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
So are you saying that a fictional play by Shakespeare is colouring your judgement
I love the way you make me responsible for the conclusion to which you jump, Skanque.

tomorrow you will insist that you quoted me... but won't feel like finding the quote when I remind you that you are a liar.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46967 Feb 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
What else drippydick cuckold?
You have the real time, real life drippydick oral experience, Skanque: bouncy bouncy mmmmmmmm yummy yummy lickity lick.

Swallow and smile for the camera, Skanque.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46968 Feb 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
How dare Eden resign? Do understand that until then the UK had no formal mechanism for selecting a new leader under such circumstances.
The formal mechanism is: the Queen appoints all the prime ministers, ever single one.

And you have absolutely no say in it. Same as me.

I have exactly the same say in who is the UK prime minister as you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46969 Feb 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998
It does not matter how some sensation seeking reporter interprets HUMAN RIGHTS for New American sensationalism magazine.
Still waiting: where is that legal guarantee of freedom of speech.

I've already REFUTED your assertion that it exists, bigot.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#46970 Feb 5, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting: where is that legal guarantee of freedom of speech.
I've already REFUTED your assertion that it exists, bigot.
its called a constutional monarchy, not a monarchy - get it right you armchair academic..

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46971 Feb 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Free speech is a tenet of common law, the British legal system and courts uphold this principle. It is backed up by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
(quote)

Earlier this week a man stood up in the centre of London and sang a song about a guy who murders his girlfriend in a jealous rage. The lyrics seemed to blame it mainly on the woman. Watching the singer from a nearby spectator stand were the prime minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury and much of the royal family. They rocked or even sang along with the refrain, "Why, why, why, Delilah?" Some of them also waved little Union Jack flags, to endorse this enjoyable little ballad of murder ("I felt the knife in my hand and she laughed no more"). One question this raises is: why did the police not immediately arrest them all – princes, prime minister and archbishop – under section 5 of the Public Order Act?
Don't be absurd, you say. But would it be any more absurd than a student being arrested under section 5 for saying to a mounted policeman: "Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?", or the 19-year-old Kyle Little, charged and convicted – though then cleared on appeal – for delivering what was described as a "daft little growl" and a woof at two labradors? Or a 15-year-old summonsed for holding up a sign outside the Church of Scientology's central London headquarters saying: "Scientology is not a religion. It is a dangerous cult"?(I repeat those exact words here, as my own. Officer, you know where to find me.)

Then there was the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, arrested and charged for shouting slogans and displaying placards condemning the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people by Islamic governments, during a protest at a Hizb ut-Tahrir rally. And an evangelical Christian preacher who was convicted and fined for holding up a home-made sign that, beside the motto "Jesus is Lord", proclaimed: "Stop immorality, stop homosexuality, stop lesbianism."
All these are real cases of British police abuse of a law so loosely worded that it invites such abuse. That is why a campaign to reform section 5 was recently launched by an unusual coalition of Christians, atheists, gay rights activists and politicians of all stripes. But if we want a transparent, secure platform for freedom of expression in Britain, we need to go further.

Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person "is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

There are two things wrong with this catch-all wording. First, unlike section 4 of the same act, and Britain's legislation on incitement to hatred on grounds of religion or sexual orientation, it does not require evidence of an intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The standard is just "likely to". Who decides what is "likely to" be caused harassment, alarm or distress? On the street, the police do.

Yes, the Crown Prosecution Service may then choose not to prosecute, or the court may throw the case out – this is not Ukraine – but the 15-year-old making an entirely reasonable point, or the student telling a bad joke, will in the meantime themselves have been subjected to unwarranted alarm and distress. A law that aspires to prevent harassment has become a licence for the harassment of ordinary citizens by the police.

Then there is the word "insulting". The government has opposed its removal partly on the grounds that the courts would have the invidious task of distinguishing between the merely insulting and ..
(clip)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46972 Feb 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
What him, you and many americans seem to get all confused over is that freedom of speech comes with responsibility,.
The freedom of speech comes with our Constitution.

Which brings us back to: We have freedom of speech and you don't.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46973 Feb 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
You want to talk about denial of freedom of expression? Go ask a Chinese dissident.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE the goalposts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Review: does UK have freedom of spe3ech?
SuperFAG response: well......... look at China and Saudi Arabia North Korea!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

Still waiting, btw...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46974 Feb 5, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
its called a constutional monarchy, not a monarchy
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?

PS: a constitutional monarchy IS a monarchy.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46975 Feb 5, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Waiting for proof.
Setting aside your claim to have two.
I have twice posted the two university website links in posts that you have read as evidenced by your cherry-picked responses.

Both times you completely ignored the links.

Conclusion #1: manchild is deliberately pretending that univerities do not give out politics degrees.

Conclusion #2: manchild is lying.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Never the quote.

Always the straw man.
Nope, your original statement was that the Reichstag was democratically elected but still not a democracy.

You then, to save face when I kept bringing it up asking you to explain what it was, brought up "in WWII".

Conclusion #1: manchild lied about the Weimar republic not being a democracy.

Conclusion #2: manchild tried to change the wording of his statement.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like when someone takes a quote from me, removes the word "not" and posts it as mine.
And this happened when?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Semantics?

You tell us that something is "unanimous", I prove it was not "unanimous", and you(rather than saying you were wrong) say it was a grammar error?

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

Dickweed.
You "proved" me wrong by using Wikipedia, the same source you yourself have ignored and spoke out against whenever it suited your purposes.

Either way, manchild, you lost the argument so pounced on word games.

When you next want to play word games, please define democracy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Show the quote.
I will show you the quote when you respond to the university website links that satisfied your requirements for evidence of universities giving out politics degrees.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Simple.

I prove you (above) wrong: you stop posting.

Or do I prove you wrong (again) and you say you were "grammatically" incorrect?
You can be an adult and show the source you got it from. Until then, I am going to go with Wikipedia considering the EXACT WORDING can be located there, and only there, which you cannot hide from.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Happy to see that written guarantee the SUBJECTS of the UK have: freedom of speech.

But we wait for you to put up- re: never cite.
Translation: manchild did not read the article.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?
Is mammal A and B the same? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE the goalposts.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Review: does UK have freedom of spe3ech?
SuperFAG response: well......... look at China and Saudi Arabia North Korea!
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
Still waiting, btw...
We can add "moving the goalposts" to "terms that Barefoot does not understand".

Have you not remotely paid attention to goings on in Britain in the past few years? The MP expenses scandal? The phone hacking in the media that led to the demise of the News of the World? The online trolling issues on Facebook where families of missing children and dead soldiers see people post offensive material on social media?

Those are the issues that are leading to calls, from the people themselves, on tougher measures to counter activities of the press and the post content of trolls. It has nothing to do with taking away our rights to speech on important political, social or cultural matters.

But then, we get it: you read the title, think "gee that looks good!", then run here proclaiming to the world that Britain has a freedom of speech crisis.

When you read the full article, get back to me.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#46977 Feb 5, 2013
Sweden still a democracy regardless of how much bsfoot lies

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46978 Feb 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I have twice posted the two university website links in posts
No such thing: "degree in politics".
sTILL WAITING: ONE SOURCE, YOU DON'T POST HERE?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46979 Feb 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Conclusion #1: manchild is deliberately pretending that univerities do not give out politics degrees.
moving goalposts.

Wait...

One cite / you stop posting.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46980 Feb 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Nope, your original statement was that the Reichstag was democratically elected but still not a democracy..
Funny: no matter how many times I remind you that you are a m/f c/s liar and you paraphrase instead of quoting, and I demand you provide the quote:

You paraphrase.

You are a m/f c/s liar.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 min James 236,806
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 1 hr Freebird USA 9,224
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr dirtclod 17,921
News Is Religion Childish? (Sep '14) 1 hr thetruth 161
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Agents of Corruption 6,345
News The Consequences of Atheism 3 hr JesusWasNOTaJew -... 1,107
News Confessions of a black atheist 5 hr Mr_SKY 2
More from around the web