In Russia It Is Now a Crime to Insult Someone's Religious Feelings

[cbayer]

...or someone's atheist feelings—the implications are immense.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/7183/in_russia_it_is_now_a_crime_to_insult_someone_s_religious_feelings/

July 11, 2013
By CHRISTOPHER STROOP


Members of Pussy Riot, on trial in Moscow

Life is white. And I am black. Jesus and his lawyer are coming back.
–The Eels, from "Novocaine for the Soul," 1996

I can’t vouch for Jesus, but his lawyers might want to gear up for a potential flurry of activity in Russia. The representatives of other religions, and even atheists, might want to lawyer up as well. Why?

Let me start with my memory of a Facebook status (the quotation may be slightly inexact) posted by a Russian acquaintance at some point in mid-2012:

Who will protect my feelings as an atheist?

She wrote this in the wake of the Pussy Riot trial. As readers of Religion Dispatches will recall, on August 17, 2012, the trial itself concluded with members of the feminist punk-rock collective sentenced to two years in penal colonies for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.” (Samutsevich managed to be freed on probation following an appeal, while Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina remain imprisoned). According to the Levada Center, as of April, 2013, a full 56% of the Russian population agreed with the verdict—which goes some way toward demonstrating why a legislative initiative to increase protections for religious believers’ feelings, introduced in September 2012, could get off the ground.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. From what I've seen on DU,

there are apparently more than a few individuals here who would support such a law.

[el_bryanto]

3. I would oppose such a law.

The Government shouldn't be moderating what proper speech in this area is; one day they might agree with me, but the next they might agree with someone else. The Government should stay out of it.

But I do think people can choose to speak in more moderated terms on occasion, and have said so.

Bryant

[trotsky]

4. Do you believe people have a right to not be offended?

Do you think you've ever offended someone? Was it your fault? Should you have censored your speech more to prevent offending them?

[el_bryanto]

5. No, Definitely, Sometimes, and Sometimes

I think that if you are consistently honest you are going to offend people. But I think you can takes steps to avoid that as best you can. I think part of it is starting from a position that the people you interact with are generally honest and good people until they prove otherwise.

Bryant

[trotsky]

6. Someone is *always* going to be offended no matter what you do.

As for me, I get offended by things like misogyny, pedophilia, and class warfare. All things that have been supported/defended/empowered by religion at one time or another.

[el_bryanto]

7. Well 2 points

Saying that someone is always going to be offended is a cop out. Technically it's true, but you can choose to treat other people with respect or you can choose to people without respect.

To your list you might add the persecution of minorities (both religious and ethnic)(from relatively minor but awful stuff like denying the right to vote to executing witches and Jews), the suppression of science, and wars of course. So many wars. I would argue that those aren't the only important characteristics of Religion.

I feel sometimes that you feel that religious DUers are one short step away from being Dominionists or Right Wing Republicans. Perhaps I am misreading you.

Bryant

[trotsky]

8. Who defines what respect means?

Those who get offended, of course. You've just shifted the problem, you haven't solved it.

What I feel about religious DUers is that many of them do not fully understand the role of religion in the problems we face and how combating it with MORE religion (just the "good" kind) is the answer.

[el_bryanto]

9. 2 more points

1. I think you have a sense when you are being a jerk - even if at the time you are worked up, you probably know it afterwords. A few weeks ago I accused someone of being a bigot - at the time I thought I was in the right, but upon reflection, it was over the top and not warranted. I wish I had handled that situation different - are you telling me you've never had a similar experience?

2. I've noticed that when people feel very strongly about an issue, they tend to believe it is self evident. They have a hard time understanding how people have different opinions on that matter. They tend to ascribe to their opponents one of a few afflictions.

a) Ignorance - they just don't know the facts.
b) Stupidity or Insanity - they have the facts, but their brains don't process them correctly.
c) Corruption or Malice - they know the facts, they understand them, but they choose to have a different opinion because they benefit from it or they are jerks.

I don't know what the answer to this is; I've spent most of my life having the minority opinion in whatever group I happen to belong to - so rarely have had the luxury of assuming that what I believe is self evident. I've always known that for every opinion I have, even the ones I hold very deeply (like the existence of God), there are other good, moral, intelligent people who disagree with me.

Bryant

[trotsky]

10. 2 more responses:

1) There are at least as many times when you honestly have no idea what could have offended someone. And ultimately, I think we all need to keep in mind that online discussion is fundamentally different than real life. Everyone is much more free to speak their opinions online, and I think that's a good thing. There are far too many taboo topics - religion is a prime example - that don't get the open hearing they should in real life because we naturally tone it down. The status quo needs challenging, and religion is a huge part of that status quo.

2) I'll make it perfectly clear: Anyone is free to disagree with me for whatever reason they want, and I don't really care to lump them into the categories you've created or others of my choosing. I'm going to keep voicing my opinion and arguing for my point of view, and pointing out hypocrisy. Again, the most important thing anyone who is prone to butthurt needs to remember is, IT'S THE INTERNET. If you don't want to listen to my opinion, no one is forcing you to.

BTW, there is a happy safe haven place on DU where people of all faiths (or none at all) can go and be extra careful not to criticize anyone's beliefs. It's called the Interfaith Group and was launched with much fanfare many months ago. Go visit it sometime and see how busy it is and how much people enjoy a nice, polite, safe place where everyone tells each other how great their beliefs are!

[el_bryanto]

13. I suppose then I will continue challenging you and disagreeing with you

Is it fair to say that you believe the world would be better off without religion?

If so than there's a faultline that I suppose means we will always butt heads.

Bryant

[trotsky]

15. Go right ahead!

My opinion is that the world would be better off if religion were not taken so seriously. If only people could approach it as a personal philosophy or preferred way of living their own life, or a hobby, like being a baseball fan or an avid chess player.

And again, butting heads is what makes things interesting. The Interfaith Group is a ghost town.

[hrmjustin]

20. I post in interfaith still.

[rug]

19. Speaking of butthurt,

the most important thing anyone who is prone to butthurt needs to remember is, IT'S THE INTERNET. If you don't want to listen to my opinion, no one is forcing you to.

how long has it been since you announced you put me on ignore?

Lol

[cbayer]

18. I would oppose it as well.

As the author points out, it is way too open to interpretation and could be used by the government in a very selective fashion. I much prefer the free speech aspects of our own laws.

OTOH, he makes an interesting case for why these laws exist in certain places and how they reflect/influence the social order.

I recently had a conversation with a young Russian immigrant. She felt, like most Russians, that the members of Pussy Riot should have been charged. She made the case that the protest was against Putin but infringed on the rights of innocent people who were in what they consider a safe haven sanctuary. OTOH, she felt that the punishment was way too severe.

I guess the good news, if there is any, in this story is that they extended these protections to non-believers and believers in non-traditional religions. At least if they are going to do it, they are doing it across the board.

I wish there were an easy way to allow free speech, including blasphemy, but have a society that is respectful and does not use that right to enrage or infringe on the rights of others.

[hrmjustin]

11. Not me!

[trotsky]

12. No, not you.

There are still others who would oppose an actual law but strongly agree with the sentiment - preferring to convict and dispense "punishment" on a personal basis, by shaming or shunning anyone who offends their religious sensibilities.

Those folks share more in common with the religious extremists than they realize, and in some ways are worse because they can't even recognize what they're doing. At least the extremists are up front and honest with their motives.

[el_bryanto]

14. Interesting. I wonder who this description could apply to? nt

[trotsky]

17. Not you either. n/t

[hrmjustin]

16. I would hope nobody would agree with the sentiment.

To put a law like that would be wrong on so many levels IMHO.

[cleanhippie]

2. Cbayer, is this law something you agree with?

From previous statements made by you, it would seem that this is something you might favor. What say you?

[cpwm17]

30. From this exchange, the answer seems to be yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121845774#post68

[cbayer]

31. You might want to read my responses in this thread before putting words in my mouth

and taking another exchange completely out of context.

Thanks in advance.

[cpwm17]

33. I almost didn't want to make that comment above

because you seem normally like a really nice person, but I did find that exchange shocking. That's why I remember it.

[cbayer]

35. That exchange was in a total flamebait thread. Why take my words out of context from

a thread like that?

I am a really nice person, btw!

[cleanhippie]

32. Yeah, I think you are right. Notice her complete lack of an answer, just obfuscation.

That alone speaks volumes.

[cpwm17]

34. Yes, and that linked exchange shows why separation of church and state is really important

Even a relatively liberal person, but with a religious bent, can still potentially use the power of the government to abuse folks with a different religious viewpoint.

[cbayer]

36. I totally agree with you and again point out that you are taking my previous words out of context

and from an OP that was absolute flamebait.

[dimbear]

21. Russia is drifting back into the system that held at the time of the Czar.

There's a name for it, although I hesitate to mention it: *******edit. Decided not to mention it.******

Religion in bed with government and each holding a whip ready for action.

Rasputin, you out there?

[uriel1972]

22. One person's religion is another's blasphemy...

who gets priority? I doubt it's the minority religions and atheists get shafted from every direction.

[cbayer]

23. How can blasphemy be a religion?

[uriel1972]

24. Religion A believes X is true Religion B not only believes X is not true...

but is a great evil. To Religion A, Religion B is a blasphemy and to Religion B, Religion A is also a Blasphemy. I did not say blasphemy is a religion, but a religion can be another religion's blasphemy.

[cbayer]

25. Isn't blasphemy a verb, an intentional action taken by a person?

Religion A may think Religion B is untrue and even evil, but blasphemy would be the action of openly attacking the other belief.

Other than extremists, I am not aware of religions that have incorporated that kind of behavior into their own religion.

Anyway, I know it's just semantics, but I found your statement confusing.

[uriel1972]

26. Okay I get your drift...

but I may point out that simply believing something can be considered "Openly attacking another religion" as evidenced by religious persecution of different faiths and atheism.

[cbayer]

27. I guess it can be a fine line, which is why this law is pretty frightening.

It is so open to interpretation and could be used in a really discriminatory fashion.

Shortly after I posted this, another article was posted stating that a Russian court had upheld a ban on headdresses for Muslim girls at a public school.

That just seems really ironic in light of this lawa.

[Rob H.]

28. Blasphemy is a noun

Blaspheme is the verb. /pedant.

[cbayer]

29. You are correct. I think I messed up my point by making that distinction.

It still requires action, doesn't it?