3 ms·

The reasonable interpretation is that you can attack religion (as an ideology) but you can not attact religious people based on their religion. Thats a safe sp

by szemet 7y ago

The reasonable interpretation is that you can attack religion (as an ideology) but you can not attact religious people based on their religion. Thats a safe split: ideologies do not have (human) rights anyway... So e.g. you can freely say that the Bible is stupid but can't say the same thing about its believers.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> So e.g. you can freely say that the Bible is stupid but can't say the same thing about its believers. From the examples they give, I think you can still call them stupid. (After all, being stupid is very much part of the human condition. It's hardly a dehumanizing descriptor.) You just can't call them rats, maggots, viruses, etc. and advocate for their extermination/removal.
Grue3 7y ago
But it's not the Bible that is stupid, it's just a book (which might've been considered pretty advanced stuff at the time it was written). What if I have a problem specifically with some of its believers?