Josef, would you please translate that to English? And while you’re at it, how about you surpassing Russell’s limited wisdom and explaining the impossible.

Sophistry only works with the ignorant.

What has pornography got to do with the right to ridicule the absurd?

That’s liberal too, but what is civil law does not mean is right, pornography is legal in certain countries, but it does not mean that it is not wrong.

Calculator, no one has the right not to be offended. If one does not wish to be ridiculed for what one says, one should keep his views to himself.

The freedom to go public with one’s views goes hand in hand with the freedom for others to ridicule your public views.

Taking offence should not be a pretext for stifling free speech. Would a priest stop preaching about hell if I told him that the idea of a benevolent God who sends anyone to eternal torment offends me?

I hope you get the picture.

And how will this ever contribute to civilisation?

No wonder we’re stuck at the inifinitesimal of a second to the incident. Recognisable order essential, pity the limits of technology have become the science.

And as long as philosophy’s useless or reduced to Russell’s inability to conceive the impossible we’ll remain stuck.

Dark ages indeed, scared shitless of harvesting suns because nature’s evil and contaminated.

Still, everyone in need of a paper keeps scrambling onto a jesuit telescope.

Don’t panic.

But not in a way that hurts or ridicules, as many of the comments in these instances tend to do. After all, the libery to swing your arm ends where one’s nose begins.

Freedom of speech includes the right to criticise religious beliefs.

Hobbit, I was expecting a reference to a case where a state signatory to the ECHR bans outright the erection of churches/mosques, thus setting a comfortable example for us to follow by closing down the Mohammad’s mosque.

Banning minarets does not prove the point that you’re trying to make that one can have their freedom of worship but can’t have a place to worship in because the latter is not a fundamental right and the first is.

If we were to close down the mosque on these grounds, which court would you expect to uphold the decision?

The only fiddling I see here is coming from your direction, delving in impractical technicalities that take you nowhere.

FP can be with anyone he likes. It makes no difference. There is no fundamental right to build a church or other temple. One may have a right to build a temple or church as much as he has a right to build his own house i. e. within the law (Development Planning Act and all subsidiary legislation etc).

Whereas the right to practise one’s religion can neither be denied or alienated, the right to erect a temple in furtherance of one’s creed may.

Now take that to Antoine, FP and start fiddling with it all you want…