Author Topic: A Problem (Read 38986 times)

Shyguy92 · « **on:** March 12, 2009, 08:29:36 PM »

Free speech is under siege. The UN has begun the process of making it illegal to speak out against Islam, or other religions. 57 countries have supported this so far. DISCUSS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uadgk2kveRU&feature=channel_page

For other links just Google it

What kind of outcome will this have? I can't imagine.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2009, 08:49:18 PM »

It could only have a bad outcome, that's what. The people's right to say what they want is one of the most fundamental and important ones we have. It sounds just like our current president to support this, though...

SolidShroom · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2009, 08:49:58 PM »

Man, what the heck does free speech mean? The man only wants you to think you have free speech. Don't be sheeple. Don't believe the lies. Man.

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2009, 08:53:10 PM »

Quote from: Turtlekid1 on March 12, 2009, 08:49:18 PM

It could only have a bad outcome, that's what. The people's right to say what they want is one of the most fundamental and important ones we have. It sounds just like our current president to support this, though...

I don't think the people will allow it. Period. Some kind of fight will take place, be it in words or guns. Either way, people are ****ed.

Quote from: SolidShroom on March 12, 2009, 08:49:58 PM

Man, what the heck does free speech mean? The man only wants you to think you have free speech. Don't be sheeple. Don't believe the lies. Man.

See? I called it in my sig. This board is for serious discussion for f*** sake.

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2009, 09:05:38 PM »

Quote from: George Washington

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2009, 09:24:45 PM »

For God's sake freedom of speech isn't really freedom of speech! It was pretty much decided that there would be limits from the very beginning. I can't just go out on the street and say "I'm going to kill the president" and then explain how I would do it. I would be arrested for conspiracy for murder and possibly treason. Don't even think for a second that you can say anything you want. That's just silly. And, you know, it isn't such a bad thing. People are stupid and need limits put on them, me included. And really, this law applies to any religion. Just ask yourself, how would you feel if it were legal to imply that your religion and your God is the devil and causes terrorism? Remember the last time when someone published a comic that connected Islam to terrorism?

Also, Shyguy, good job attacking my freedom of speech.

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:11:41 PM »

Quote from: SolidShroom on March 12, 2009, 09:24:45 PM

Just ask yourself, how would you feel if it were legal to imply that your religion and your God is the devil and causes terrorism?

It is legal to imply that my religion is evil, and I am perfectly fine with that. People don't get thrown in jail for criticizing Christianity, and that's a good thing. That's a sign of a free civilized society (i.e., not Iran or China or the USSR).

Hell, I want people to criticize my religion. It's high time we brought deep, meaningful, intelligent debate back to the public square of this country. I want people to think about it and debate it and critically consider its pros and cons and think of it as serious assertions of truth, not as a nice story some people believe in just because they do and that we never talk about.

I would much rather have someone shout "I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG" than hear another person say "Oh, well, it's right for you, I guess." I am making absolute claims that, if I am right, apply to all people. And even if criticisms of my religion do annoy me a bit at times, it is not the government's job to keep me from being offended. The government's job is to keep me from getting killed or wrongfully imprisoned and then stay out of my way. There is no reasonable comparison to be made between saying "I'm going to build a bomb in my basement and kill the president" and saying "I don't think your god exists."

I'm not going to try and "win" religious and philosophical debates by running to mommy government, who has no right to intervene in religion anyway.

Quote from: SolidShroom on March 12, 2009, 09:24:45 PM

Remember the last time when someone published a comic that connected Islam to terrorism?

Yeah. Some Muslims, mostly ones from theocratic dictatorships where it's already illegal to badmouth Islam, got mad, and some of them committed acts of terrorism. We should be allowed to make reasonable criticisms of religions, especially ones with a notable percentage of adherents who do stupid crap like that. Saying that we shouldn't say anything to imply, for example, that Islam is a violent religion because if we do we'll get killed by Muslims is not respect, it's cowardice. I will not patronize people of any religion, patting them on the head and saying "oh, isn't that a cute thought." If a religion says something is true that I think is false, I will seriously consider and analyze their claim with the respect it deserves, and that may well entail saying things about it they don't like.

And incidentally, are you trying to say there's not a connection between Islam and terrorism? Whether or not you believe it's an inherently violent religion (the case can be made), it is simple established fact that the people who flew planes into our buildings believed they were following their interpretation of to Koran in doing so. Can we not even say that anymore? What happened to America? Even though said cartoon was in Denmark.

The point of the government is to protect our rights, including our rights to life and freedom of speech. If there is a group of people threatening to kill us because of what we say, shouldn't it be the government's job to stop that group?

Stand up for your rights!!

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:19:27 PM »

I'll fight ’til from my bones my flesh be hack'd to keep this from happening. The UN has disguised this disgusting proposal under the veil of peace. Go ahead and throw me in jail!

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:34:16 PM »

Quote from: CrossEyed7 on March 12, 2009, 10:11:41 PM

People don't get thrown in jail for criticizing Christianity

Well, not any more.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:41:22 PM »

The fact of the matter is, if we give up some of our right to speech, our right to live will be enhanced. Basically, if our ability to openly and ruthlessly criticize Islam were denied, then they wouldn't be as angry and willing to kill us. And I don't believe that this fact is directly related to Islam. If any group is ostracized enough, they will resort to violence. When nobody listens to civilized thought, they'll listen to terror. Free Speech only works in theory in the perfect little world where nobody can be offended. Additionally, I think part of it is that criticizing Islam is so accepted in today's society. They're basically the new Judaism in the fact that they're the punching bag of everyone else in the world. Criticizing Christianity is extremely taboo, and so that's why it happens very rarely in mainstream media.

And not even all Islamic people are terrorists. Saying that all Islamic people are guilty of terrorism is like saying that all Christians are cultists like the people involved in the Waco, Texas incident.

So to sum up my thoughts, it isn't a bad idea to ban statements of blasphemy in general. It's pretty much akin to banning open statements of racism. If statements of hate were allowed to be said freely, there would be unnecessary violence, all because some American didn't feel like keeping his opinion to himself.

Perhaps that's the root of the problem. Americans have big mouths.

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:17:15 PM »

*surreptitiously gestures pointer finger underneath nose in the direction of the nearest Benjamin Franklin quote book, which would probably include, among other things, the quote reproduced below*

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Don't give into terror. People who have to murder innocent people to gain respect deserve no respect at all.

Nota Bene: I am not implying that all Muslims kill people; only that all Muslims who kill people kill people, and that the ones who do should not get special protection from the government.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:30:02 PM »

From where I'm sitting, both of you guys are on slippery slopes. You both have points, but if taken to their furthest extent, both of those points are pretty evil.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:31:48 AM »

Quote from: CrossEyed7 on March 12, 2009, 10:11:41 PM

It is legal to imply that my religion is evil, and I am perfectly fine with that. People don't get thrown in jail for criticizing Christianity, and that's a good thing. That's a sign of a free civilized society (i.e., not Iran or China or the USSR).

Hell, I want people to criticize my religion. It's high time we brought deep, meaningful, intelligent debate back to the public square of this country. I want people to think about it and debate it and critically consider its pros and cons and think of it as serious assertions of truth, not as a nice story some people believe in just because they do and that we never talk about.

I would much rather have someone shout "I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG" than hear another person say "Oh, well, it's right for you, I guess." I am making absolute claims that, if I am right, apply to all people. And even if criticisms of my religion do annoy me a bit at times, it is not the government's job to keep me from being offended. The government's job is to keep me from getting killed or wrongfully imprisoned and then stay out of my way. There is no reasonable comparison to be made between saying "I'm going to build a bomb in my basement and kill the president" and saying "I don't think your god exists."

I'm not going to try and "win" religious and philosophical debates by running to mommy government, who has no right to intervene in religion anyway.
Yeah. Some Muslims, mostly ones from theocratic dictatorships where it's already illegal to badmouth Islam, got mad, and some of them committed acts of terrorism. We should be allowed to make reasonable criticisms of religions, especially ones with a notable percentage of adherents who do stupid crap like that. Saying that we shouldn't say anything to imply, for example, that Islam is a violent religion because if we do we'll get killed by Muslims is not respect, it's cowardice. I will not patronize people of any religion, patting them on the head and saying "oh, isn't that a cute thought." If a religion says something is true that I think is false, I will seriously consider and analyze their claim with the respect it deserves, and that may well entail saying things about it they don't like.

And incidentally, are you trying to say there's not a connection between Islam and terrorism? Whether or not you believe it's an inherently violent religion (the case can be made), it is simple established fact that the people who flew planes into our buildings believed they were following their interpretation of to Koran in doing so. Can we not even say that anymore? What happened to America? Even though said cartoon was in Denmark.

The point of the government is to protect our rights, including our rights to life and freedom of speech. If there is a group of people threatening to kill us because of what we say, shouldn't it be the government's job to stop that group?

Stand up for your rights!!

*sighs* You know what? Just put my opinions down under "same as CrossEyed7's." He explains these issues much better than I can, and I won't be viewed as so annoying if I don't type anything.

Quote from: Chupperson Weird on March 12, 2009, 10:34:16 PM

Well, not any more.

I know I'm going to regret bringing this up, but... what?

ShadowBrain · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:37:28 AM »

What the heck? When did this happen? Well, I guess it's not the sort of thing you blast all over the front page of Yahoo... Still, this is pretty ridiculous.

BP · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2009, 07:52:31 AM »

Quote from: CrossEyed

You don't get thrown in jail for criticizing Christianity

Quote from: Chup

Not anymore

Quote from: Turtlekid

what

Puritans did much worse. Burn at the stake or be stoned to death, which would you choose? You wouldn't choose, they'd choose for you.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2009, 10:23:13 AM »

Ahem.

Assuming you're referring to the Salem Witch Trials:

1. The "witches" were hanged, not burned or stoned.

2. The church warned the courts against the use of "spectral," or supernatural evidence, or the testimonies of the "afflicted" people, as proof during the trials.

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2009, 01:41:42 PM »

Besides, if your point is that it's bad for people of one religion to kill people of another religion because of their religion, and that it's good to say that it's bad and to stop those people from killing, then shouldn't you be against this UN thing?

SolidShroom · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:05:57 PM »

All I'm saying is that free speech is already limited, so why not limit it a little more if it'll save lives?

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:20:24 PM »

How would it save lives? I must be missing something.

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:23:50 PM »

Quote from: SolidShroom on March 13, 2009, 02:05:57 PM

All I'm saying is that free speech is already limited, so why not limit it a little more if it'll save lives?

Because theres a difference between being able to say whatever you want, with no restrictions whatsoever, and free speech.

It might be the work of Islams who want their religion to not be questioned at all. But that is really beside the point, the main point is that freedom of speech is the most important right we have, and they want to violate it. To any extent that is bad.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:34:31 PM »

Quote from: Shyguy92 on March 13, 2009, 02:23:50 PM

Because theres a difference between being able to say whatever you want, with no restrictions whatsoever, and free speech.

If that's true, then what does free speech even mean?

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:44:57 PM »

Look it up.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:47:24 PM »

The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government, According to dictionary.com. By this definition, we don't have the right of freedom of speech

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:50:59 PM »

Quote from: SolidShroom on March 13, 2009, 02:47:24 PM

The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government, According to dictionary.com. By this definition, we don't have the right of freedom of speech

Example?

Anyway the point is we do have free speech, but, as was said before, it's limited to a fairly reasonable degree.

This is getting really redundant.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #24 on:** March 13, 2009, 05:05:17 PM »

I'm sad because Turtlekid doesn't know history. :(

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 13, 2009, 05:18:53 PM »

I'm sad because Chupperson believes every negative thing he's told about the Puritans :(

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #26 on:** March 13, 2009, 05:47:22 PM »

I wasn't even thinking of the puritans.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #27 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:03:55 PM »

Quote from: Shyguy92 on March 13, 2009, 02:50:59 PM

Example?

Anyway the point is we do have free speech, but, as was said before, it's limited to a fairly reasonable degree.

You just answered your own question. It isn't free speech if it's limited.

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:42:25 PM »

What's your point? Your killing this thread.

nensondubois · « **Reply #29 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:43:33 PM »

The day we lose free speech is a sad day for America and it's coming close to that. That's all I'm saying. The puritans came to the new found land now known as America to escape religious persecution in America and set colonies and they... well to make a long story short; We basically are slowly losing what the colonist fought for. said, isn't it? My point: all of our rights including free speech are slowly being liquidating on a day-by-day basis.

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:56:32 PM »

I wasn't talking to you, nensondubois, if you thought I was.

I agree with you, and Bush has used 9/11 as an "excuse" to take away a lot of civil liberties.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:58:59 PM »

Quote from: Chupperson Weird on March 13, 2009, 05:47:22 PM

I wasn't even thinking of the puritans.

Erm... okay, I'll bite; would you mind telling us what you were thinking of?

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #32 on:** March 13, 2009, 07:16:49 PM »

I'm guessing he was thinking of...oh, I don't know, The Middle Ages.

ShadowBrain · « **Reply #33 on:** March 13, 2009, 09:00:49 PM »

We have freeer spech (than most other countries).

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #34 on:** March 13, 2009, 10:39:53 PM »

PaperLuigi is a mite closer with his guess. Actually a lot closer.

dc804 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 13, 2009, 10:55:58 PM »

This is bad. I now hate the UN and if America makes this into a law, I am moving.

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 13, 2009, 11:28:30 PM »

The only places to get away from the UN are Kosovo, Taiwan, and Vatican City, so America will probably still be your best bet, all things considered. Besides, if all the people who care leave, it'll just accelerate the process. If you want to save the country, stay here and band together with other people who care. Get to a tea party. Stay involved. Remind people like this that they work for you.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 14, 2009, 06:12:33 AM »

Quote from: Chupperson Weird on March 13, 2009, 10:39:53 PM

PaperLuigi is a mite closer with his guess. Actually a lot closer.

Perhaps I should point out that the same thing is happening nowadays, but at the other end of the spectrum.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #38 on:** March 14, 2009, 11:10:19 AM »

Am I to infer from this that it's okay to do the wrong thing* if it serves what you consider the Absolute Right (which there is no such thing as) but it's not okay to do the wrong thing if it serves something you consider wrong?

*penalize people for their observations/opinions

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 14, 2009, 01:52:45 PM »

Not at all. You're to infer that it's okay to do the right thing, which obviously serves the absolute right (which there is such thing as; how can you say there's such a thing as the wrong thing and then deny the existence of right and wrong in the same argument?) but it's not okay to do the wrong thing if it is wrong.

You're also to infer from my previous post that, if you condemn the jailing of those who criticize Christianity, but not the jailing of those who criticize sodomy, that you're a hypocrite.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #40 on:** March 14, 2009, 10:25:16 PM »

I only denied the existence of the Absolute Right.
I believe I made it clear that I don't support jailing of people for their opinions at all.

TEM · « **Reply #41 on:** March 14, 2009, 10:41:54 PM »

I believe in an Absolute Right. But my Absolute Right is a little more Absolute than yours. I think yours has a bit of a Leftish shimmy to it as well.

Whoever thinks this is specifically directed at them wins the artard award.

The Chef · « **Reply #42 on:** March 15, 2009, 02:08:56 PM »

Do they also win the award if they completely fail to get the point your were trying to make? Because I'm pretty sure that'll happen too.

ShadowBrain · « **Reply #43 on:** March 15, 2009, 08:21:54 PM »

"It's okay to do the right thing as long as you don't get caught."

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 17, 2009, 04:36:04 PM »

Quote from: Turtlekid1 on March 14, 2009, 01:52:45 PM

Not at all. You're to infer that it's okay to do the right thing, which obviously serves the absolute right (which there is such thing as; how can you say there's such a thing as the wrong thing and then deny the existence of right and wrong in the same argument?) but it's not okay to do the wrong thing if it is wrong.

You're also to infer from my previous post that, if you condemn the jailing of those who criticize Christianity, but not the jailing of those who criticize sodomy, that you're a hypocrite.

What the heck is your point? Or are you just trying (unsuccessfully) to prove everything that Chup says wrong?

Anyway, I haven't heard any more news on this, has anyone else? Did it come through?

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #45 on:** March 17, 2009, 04:54:57 PM »

I was simply wondering whether he would advocate jailing those who spoke out against sodomy. As Chup said, he doesn't agree with jailing people for their opinions under any circumstances (neither do I, for the record), so my fears of his being a hypocrite were apparently unfounded.

There are people that think that the jailing I used as an example is a good thing, but jailing people who criticized Christianity was a bad thing.

Anyway...

I haven't heard anything else about it, but assuming my faith in people isn't entirely misplaced, the thing won't fly. The cynic in me thinks that it will actually be considered, and that's what scares me.

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #46 on:** April 05, 2009, 05:30:31 PM »

It was passed. I don't know whether to fall into complete despair or not. Apparently no news organizations feel it's important. Maybe this is the first step towards North America leaving/opposing the UN...?

Best case scenario: Some Islamic countries become less free.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #47 on:** April 05, 2009, 07:25:02 PM »

The cynic in me has been awakened fully. It tells me the best case scenario isn't likely.

Glorb · « **Reply #48 on:** April 06, 2009, 05:23:19 PM »

So...let me get this straight. Just clearin' the deck here and gettin' some facts straight.

It is an actual crime

to publicly speak out

against any religion

or else you'll go to jail.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #49 on:** April 06, 2009, 05:35:30 PM »

Yes.

Religion sucks and it must die.

Come and get me, UN.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #50 on:** April 06, 2009, 05:57:57 PM »

I'm not sure how they plan to enforce this.

Glorb · « **Reply #51 on:** April 07, 2009, 03:39:51 PM »

From what I've heard, basically, it means you can't go and publish a pamphlet or movie or book or action figure that criticizes religion (whether a specific one or the concept in general, I'm not sure). But now that I've had time to cool down, I realize that, as nonsensical and freedom-restricting as it is, I'm guessing the government isn't about to spend a kajillion dollars on a Combine Overwatch to stomp out everyone who opposes religion.

ShadowBrain · « **Reply #52 on:** April 07, 2009, 09:25:56 PM »

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

That's all I've got to say.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #53 on:** April 07, 2009, 10:24:32 PM »

Religion isn't the opium of the masses. It's the placebo.

Props to anyone who knows who said that.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #54 on:** April 07, 2009, 10:29:42 PM »

Can fictional characters actually say things?

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #55 on:** April 07, 2009, 10:40:32 PM »

Haha, I guess not.

For the record, I am religious, but I'd be lying if I said I read the Bible literally. I also realize that religion as a whole has a habit of turning people into hateful lemmings. The Westboro Baptist Church is something I never want to be.

And yet...I am a hypocrite when I say that, because I am intolerant of their intolerance.

EDIT: Luigison has the quote in his sig. Shows how observant I am.

Glorb · « **Reply #56 on:** April 08, 2009, 01:59:31 PM »

I'm reasonably certain that the WBC is just a group of IRL trolls who don't actually believe in what they're saying.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #57 on:** April 08, 2009, 02:27:49 PM »

I don't know. They certainly sound like they believe what they say.

Fox News invited Shirley Phelps (a prime member of the WBC) in for an interview. This ultimately resulted in a huge religious argument, with each side [darn]ing the other to hell. I half suspect Fox News believed they were doing something right when, in reality, they were doing the exact same thing the WBC does.

Like a lot of other things, religion can be used as a vehicle of hate. What's going on today isn't much different from what happened in the past with the Puritans and Crusaders. Thankfully, the law/democracy prevents any theocrat (like Fred Phelps) from imposing his/her will on others.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. "

ShadowBrain · « **Reply #58 on:** April 08, 2009, 11:08:54 PM »

The thing is, if the UN (or whatever lesser stooges will be imposing this) actually starts cracking down on spiritual dissent, they're going to have to pull some Gestapo/Dick Cheney stuff to explain all those arrests and/or "disappearances".

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #59 on:** April 09, 2009, 12:48:01 PM »

I really, really hope it never comes to that. The fact that this bill was even considered is a complete atrocity.

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 09, 2009, 02:52:54 PM »

Quote from: Glorb on April 06, 2009, 05:23:19 PM

So...let me get this straight. Just clearin' the deck here and gettin' some facts straight.

It is an actual crime

to publicly speak out

against any religion

or else you'll go to jail.

No, but the UN is going to start urging countries to enforce such a law.

Glorb · « **Reply #61 on:** April 09, 2009, 11:52:14 PM »

Quote from: ShadowBrain on April 08, 2009, 11:08:54 PM

The thing is, if the UN (or whatever lesser stooges will be imposing this) actually starts cracking down on spiritual dissent, they're going to have to pull some Gestapo/Dick Cheney stuff to explain all those arrests and/or "disappearances".