To be disappointed that Stephen Fry isn't....

[BertrandRussell]

....going to be tried for blasphemy? I was so looking forward to it!

Yep- the "God is responsible for all the good stuff, sinful man responsible for all the bad" line is an old one.......

I was looking forward to the movie (in which SF would obviously have been played by Tom Hanks).

#sadface

To be clear: there were laws on the books regarding blasphemy which would require a referendum to repeal.

The government in 2009 decided that would cost a lot of money, so rewrote the law so it was almost impossible to prosecute.

Someone who was pissed off about the law made a complaint about Stephen fry's comments to highlight how ridiculous the law is.

The police were obliged to look into it, and confirm there is no way to prosecute it.

The publicity means the government is now saying they'll tag the referendum question onto the next referendum we're having to remove the law altogether. So.... it was a stunt, but not an unsuccessful one.

Original sin. Yes it's an 'old one', but there are cleverer people than you and Sweaty Fry who believe it. But that's what bugs you, isn't it it?

Yes, remember what Sweaty said about women and sex? What a dick. If that's what he believes about women how much little do we need to know how little he understands theology?

*less

If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my fucking rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it. I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?" - Stephen Fry

Psolomon, I'd never read that SF said that. I think it is vile, lets face it he knows nothing about women and sex so why comment? It is also assuming that all gay men behave in a certain way which is quite offensive to men in loving long term relationships as the gay men I know would be incredibly hurt if their partners did what he suggests.

Reading that I suppose I know as little about gay sex as SF knows about straight sex but at least I show some respect.

I actually think his view is just rather old fashioned - that women were historically taught (usually by the church/biblical teaching) that sex was for procreation not enjoyment and to just lie back and think of England. It's only in relatively recent times that it has become acceptable for women to enjoy and want sex just for the sake of it :)

I used to love Stephen Fry but he's so smug these days. The if God exists, he's a git line is all very well but plenty of us weak minded individuals who've lost kids/adults in our families cling onto the hope they are in a better place and I don't enjoy or draw any comfort from feeling jeered at. I accept they're probably not up there waiting for me, but it is a source of more sadness not rejoicing for overthrowing the myth of God.

Deranger, exactly I can't understand why people would be so disrespectful about something that is nothing to do with them. If someone tells me they are a Jedi Knight I respect their beliefs, not for us to judge.

I don't understand how a civilised country can have laws against criticising something which isn't even proven to exist.

I don't understand why civilised people would need a law to let them know that being rude about other people's beliefs isn't appropriate.

I think it's good that people have asked for this to be pursued to demonstrate that the law needs to be abolished.

I'm disappointed that they chose Stephen Fry as their scape goat as this'll just add to his ego even though he's done nothing noble. I wish they chose someone nicer for this cause is what I'm trying to say

I also don't hold with this thing where we have to respect other people's beliefs. No. I will respect their right to their beliefs, but not necessarily the beliefs themselves.

Granny, you can't make rudeness illegal!

Now there's a law I could get behind! A very British law.

I didn't say you could or should make it illegal, I said you shouldn't need to. There are lots of things people do out of politeness or respect that they aren't compelled to do by law.

People's personal beliefs are their own. Just so long as they don't expect special treatment for them, or impose them on other people. Or use them to impose their morality on other people. The problem with Christians in this country is that they (collectively, not individually) do all of those things.

Atheists personal beliefs are also their own, rude comments about sky fairies etc are just childish.

"Atheists personal beliefs are also their own, rude comments about sky fairies etc are just childish"

I agree.

But my point granny is that you can't use the law to back up a desire for good manners.
Fry was asked his opinion. Threatening to prosecute him for giving that opinion is ridiculous. Religious belief shouldn't be treated as more important than freedom of speech.

I do t agree with throwing insults like "sky fairies" but saying you can't be rude about other's beliefs is a hard one. One person's definition of rudeness is another person's definition of challenge.

We need to be able to robustly challenge the teachings of the church otherwise we will make no progress - we can't be dictated to by man's thinking from 2,000 years ago!

I don't use sky fairy or spaghetti monster or things like that. Largely because they are done to death. And I think that people can believe anything they want so long as they keep it to themselves and don't use it to hurt other people or extract privilege for themselves. Unfortunately, most organized religions do both. And havin a law-or even a convention - that religion is beyond criticism is very dangerous.

AvoidingCallenetics, I'm not suggesting using the law in fact I am saying we shouldn't need a law just a bit of politeness. Fry was asked his opinion he could have said he didn't want to discuss that, I'm sure there are things he would choose not to discuss but I don't know as I don't particularly follow him.