о праве кощунствовать

[avva]

Алексей Цветков (apstvet), "Извините за резкость".

В марте Совет по правам человека Организация Объединенных Наций принял по инициативе Организации исламской конференции так называемую «Резолюцию против диффамации религии», формально затрагивающую все религии, но в первую очередь касающуюся проблем ислама. Резолюция требует от национальных правительств мер по предотвращению кощунства и религиозных стереотипов, оскорбляющих чувства верующих. Подобные резолюции принимаются не впервые и до сих пор они не имели обязательной силы, но их инициаторы всеми силами стараются исправить этот недочет. Если их попытки увенчаются успехом, прибегать к подкупу больше не понадобится — цензура станет обязательной и автоматической.

Я не признаю ни за кем права указывать мне, что я могу, а что не могу говорить о любой религии (или атеизме). И всем рекомендую так же поступать. Лучшим ответом на попытку запретить кощунство будет как-нибудь покощунствовать.

Comments

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

There is no "in accordance" there. The exact wording is "as". As the CPSU is teaching, one should live, learn, and fight. There is no direct pledge there to the CPSU. It was worded in this way on purpose, because the USSR was seeking to become the member of international youth organisations that prohibit direct pledges to parties. So it was designed to comply. I admit that it can be read in your way, but it does not have to. You may also observe that other formulaic pledges in the USSR where much more direct and specific. This ambiguity is quite intentional. In any way, it is heartening to see your admonitions because you yourself proving my thesis that breaking an oath opens one to just admonitions. Your dogged persistence illustrates your core belief in the justice of such an arrangement that you then proceed to deny.

Going back to the subject of oaths, if an oath can be broken on the pretext of changing one's beliefs any moment one choses, this is not an oath, but a meaningless statement of ceremonial value. Logical coherence is not achieved by redefinition of notions to fit your momentary convenience. Either you reject the whole notion of oath, or it has this and only this meaning. But then you have to be consistent and refuse taking oath in all situations, because otherwise you mislead people in believing that taking an oath is binding upon you. Like, for example, you should've explained your wife that you promised to honor, have, and hold her not for better and for worse but only until it suits you and nobody can held you accountable for breaking the vow. Such progressive dialectics are seldom appreciated.

[yurilax.livejournal.com]

As the CPSU is teaching, one should live, learn, and fight.
You can't be serious. Of course it is "in accordance". It is quite clear from the earlier versions of the pledge, as well as from the latest version (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%92._%D0%98._%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0#.D0.A2.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.B6.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B5_.D0.BE.D0.B1.D0.B5.D1.89.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D0.B8.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B0):

перед лицом своих товарищей торжественно обещаю: горячо любить и беречь свою Родину, жить, как завещал великий Ленин, как учит Коммунистическая партия, как требуют Законы пионеров Советского Союза

...and its accepted translation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_Promise,_Motto_and_Rules_of_Young_Pioneers#The_Solemn_Promise):

I, (last name, first name), joining the ranks of the V. I. Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization, in the presence of my comrades solemnly promise: to love and cherish my Motherland passionately, to live as the great Lenin bade us, as the Communist Party teaches us, as require the laws of the Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union.

Your dogged persistence illustrates your core belief in the justice of such an arrangement that you then proceed to deny
Actually, the intent of my dogged persistence was to illustrate that if you adhered to the standards you outlined in your original comment, you would have to continue to live in accordance with the teachings of CPSU - a proposition which both of us consider absurd.

Either you reject the whole notion of oath, or it has this and only this meaning.
I am no Sith to deal in absolutes, but if I were to give it a try, I would say that a perpetual oath without termination provisions is illogical. One cannot guarantee or enforce one's future beliefs, hence one should not make pledges about them.

Like, for example, you should've explained your wife that you promised to honor, have, and hold her not for better and for worse but only until it suits you and nobody can held you accountable for breaking the vow.
You are no doubt familiar with the concept of divorce. However, no marriage vows that I know of ever mention the divorce provision. They are all about "till death do us part". What does that imply? Are all divorcees breaking their vows?

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

I am serious. I do not know where this translation comes from. The text of the pledge has changed over the years; the explicit alleagiance to party and Stalin was there. It was changed, if my memory does not fail me, somewhere towards the end of the 1960s, to no fanfare (stalin was out earlier). The USSR was a weirder place than you recall.

>>the intent of my dogged persistence was to illustrate...
Then this intent was misguided. Had you demonstrated inconsistency you would only reveal me a prig, which is no great scoring point. This does not invalidate the argument. We discuss what is right rather than our own personal failings.

>>perpetual oath without termination provisions is illogical.
It is not illogical. It is inconvenient. Justice is not about convenience.

>>One cannot guarantee or enforce one's future beliefs, hence one should not make pledges about them.
Right thinking. In the case of blasphemers, this advice is belated.

>>Are all divorcees breaking their vows?
Those that swore till death us do part on the name of G-d - absolutely. I remind you that the exchange of vows is not part of Jewish wedding, and this is why divorce is possible. People can exchange vows if they want, those will be binding. I also remind you that the marriage contract stipulates wife's support in the event of divorce, so the outstanding obligation to one's wife is not denied. However, if people take oath of being together their entire life, this oath is as binding as any oath. If you do not take solemn promises, you are not subject to these vows. If you do, the answer is self-evident. From the Catholic perspective, cohabitation is a sin of the flesh. Breaking the solemn promise is the sin of the spirit. These are incomparable transgressions.

[yurilax.livejournal.com]

But how can you seriously stipulate that the phrase

Жить как завещал великий Ленин, как учит Коммунистическая партия.

is to be interpreted as "as Lenin required and the Communist Party teaches, to live [in whatever way you wish]." To live as opposed to what? Killing oneself?
Given the context of the pledge and all of its revisions, it is absolutely clear that the above phrase is to be interpreted as "to live in a way that Lenin required and the Communist Party teaches".


It is not illogical.
How so? Simple scenario: I pledge to believe in God. I do so in good faith, based on whatever knowledge I possess at the time. A period of time later, I gain new knowledge that leads me to believe - consciously and in good faith, again - that my prior beliefs were wrong and that no God exists. How can I logically continue to enforce my prior pledge? I cannot force myself into believing something I have realized is a lie, can I?


Those that swore till death us do part on the name of G-d - absolutely
So, in your view, should no divorce be possible for those who exchanged such vows?

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

I did not compose this pledge, so I consider your question to be rhetorical. For one, I am satisfied that great Lenin did not suggest little boys to die for the coming glory of communism, as some other pledges had.

>>A period of time later, I gain new knowledge that leads me to believe - consciously and in good faith, again - that my prior beliefs were wrong and that no G-d exists. How can I logically continue to enforce my prior pledge?

...after gaining new profound knowledge I came to the conclusion - consciously and in good faith - that "2x2=5," and my prior belief that "2x2=4" was a lie. How can I logically continue to enforce my prior pledge to rationality?

You cannot. Forgo logic altogether, because it only stands in the path of further discoveries.

It does not matter whether enthusiastic spitting on one's previous beliefs is the logical development on the road to atheistic enlightenment. It well may be. As I have pointed previosuly, the question hinges on whether the congregation can seek damages resulting from blasphemous acts of its apostates. Solving logical problems of people that deny the existence of the rational principle in the world (aka G-d) is a futile task. It does not follow from anything that their new faith needs be logical or that logical behavior is expected from them. So if they cannot find the logical way out of the conundrum into which they've put themselves, they should accept it and learn how to live without the unnecessary pretense of being logical. For the others, the fact remains that an oath was made and then broken. In which of the myriad ways a person rationalizes to himself this occurrence hardly matters for the issue discussed. It is like discussing the logical conundrums facing adulterers. A fascinating subject, but of little import for marital law.

[yurilax.livejournal.com]

Your attempt at wiggling out of the Pioneer's Pledge on dubious syntactic grounds is uninspiring. I am sure that when you gave that pledge at the tender age of 8 or so, you interpreted it exactly as it is translated above: you made a promise to live in accordance with the teachings of Lenin and CPSU.


...after gaining new profound knowledge I came to the conclusion - consciously and in good faith - that "2x2=5," and my prior belief that "2x2=4" was a lie. How can I logically continue to enforce my prior pledge to rationality?

You cannot. Forgo logic altogether, because it only stands in the path of further discoveries.

It is amusing to see you ask and answer your own questions, but it makes for a rather dull conversation.
I think what you are implying above is that you agree with my previous statement about the inability to logically enforce a religious pledge. You try to take it one step further and demonstrate that you cannot guarantee your own sanity either, which I have no disagreement about.


the congregation can seek damages resulting from blasphemous acts of its apostates
What kind of damages would you seek in this case?


Solving logical problems of people that deny the existence of the rational principle in the world (aka G-d) is a futile task.
Since when is God's existence a rational principle? What evidence do you have to rationally support God's existence?


On the question of apostates - let's take Jewish apostates, for example - if someone is born into Judaism but then leaves the faith, do you believe he/she is breaking any vows? Or somehow owes it to the congregation to refrain from criticizing the former faith?

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

You are back to second guessing. Uninspiring indeed.

>>I think what you are implying...
It is not I who insists on finding logical underpinning of betrayal, as if these either required or possible. Like question like answer. I see no problem here. Logic is a human convention, convention can be adapted to utility; what does not serve the utility is illogical. Liberated spirits do not have to wear the straightjacket of outmoded ways of reasoning grounded in the notion that logic has objective and unchanging reality rather than being the consensual means of manipulating the opponents. That's pure inertia of thought.

>>What kind of damages would you seek in this case?
"Paying in kind," aka lex talonis.

>>Since when is God's existence a rational principle?
G-d IS the rational principle of existence. Perhaps, some familiarity with the doctrine might be helpful, if only for its more proper rejection, as otherwise illogical people might think that you do not know what you actually deny. From http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
and the following 26 articles.

>>do you believe he/she is breaking any vows?
I do not have to "believe" the obvious.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0506.htm#4
If one has twice daily promised to love G-d with all one's heart, all one's mind, and all one's might and then commited sacrilege to top one's apostasy, the answer is unambigous.

[yurilax.livejournal.com]

Logic is a human convention
Logic is as much a human convention as is mathematics or physics. Suspending logic for your particular beliefs is as rational as suspending mathematics - sure you can preach that "2x2=5", but don't expect any rational followers.

"Paying in kind," aka lex talonis.
Can you be more specific? Would you advocate stoning for apostasy?

G-d IS the rational principle of existence.
Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it so. Based on what grounds? The "five proofs" of Thomas Aquinas? Do you really believe that that piece of medieval circular logic constitutes a proof of an existence of God?

If one has twice daily promised to love G-d with all one's heart, all one's mind, and all one's might
But they have not done so in their own free will - they have been forced to do so by their parents, before they could duly evaluate the merits of the doctrine they were pledging allegiance to. Does that not invalidate the promise?

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

I hope you are not offering me atheistic claims of rationality of their creed whose chief concern is the declaration of nonexistence --- uncomplicated by the definition of existence or explanations of the advantages of rationality in the fundamentally irrational world. If you do, I am not interested in hearing modern circular logic.

If logic is a human convention, it does not have to apply even to your own mental states. It is irrational to use it for explaining reality.

Apparently, you did not bother with reading. This is one of the "definitions" of G-d. Definitions are not based on grounds. People meaning to be logical learn the set assumptions first. Logic operates on these assumptions. Logic per se is meaningless. You have asked what is the logical resolution of a certain situation from these assumptions. If you start from some other assumptions, that's very well, but that does not make A more logical than B, so your claims that A is logical and B is illogical are quite ridiculous. From the assumptions of faith, apostasy cannot be logically anything else than betrayal. If on your logic flip-flopping on vows is the culmination of virtue or business as usual, I grant you that you are logical. However, to be of any value, this logic has to apply to the world you inhabit. The problem is there. Your assumptions and logic are in search of some other place. You wish will be granted and you will end up in this place, but for now you are still here, and this should be taken into account.

Paying in kind presumes reciprocation of the gravity of the offence. In Judaism, there is no excuse for sacrilege. The dialectics, demagogical appeals to otherwordly logic, the claims of changed identity, and other rubbish are not considered seriously, just like in the case of perjury. This is no different from the treatment of treason, perjury, desertion, infidelity, etc. everywhere on this planet.

However, if a person declares himself an apostate without committing sacrilege or blasphemy, it is banished from the congreagtion and considered dead. It can not have property or legal rights, be married, present opinions, or be killed. Death is the logical resolution of the internal conflict that you have mentioned. If it returns to the community to commit sacrilege, it is not protected by laws or commandments and does it on its own peril. If there is a community accepting it and then it commits sacrilege, due retribution determined by the congregation can be sought through this community. In this case, depending on the gravity of the offence, the retribution can range from compensation to capital punishment. I emphasize the word "sought." The original subject was whether people have the right to justly seek prosecution of the blasphemer. Yes, they do, and they have moral and legal rights to do so. The apostate is bound by a vow according to which it is dead. Dead people do not commit sacrilege. Their release was conditional on the understanding of their new status.

The promise is a promise and nothing invalidates this promise. It was as much a promise on the last day before the apostasy as it was on the first day, so the considerations of mental competence and infringed free will do not apply. There is only one resolution of this situation: death. See the above.

[yurilax.livejournal.com]

I hope you are not offering me...
I am not offering you anything of the sort. I am just asking you to substantiate your prior claim. Aquinas' "proofs" might have seemed sound centuries ago, but in today's world, familiar with infinite series, evolution and the origin of the universe, they certainly do not. But if you do subscribe to Aquinas' teachings, do you also share his view that the God whose existence he proves, must be none other than the God of the Christian Trinity?

This is one of the "definitions" of G-d. Definitions are not based on grounds.
All right, let's get your story straight. Are you still referring to the work of Aquinas? If so, those are not strictly definitions, they are (alleged) proofs. He "proves" that there must exist X,Y,Z,W and V and then goes on to state that X=Y=Z=W=V and define them all as 'God'. I am not questioning the definition part, I am questioning the proof.

Additionally, since we are on the topic, I am interested in how you make the next step - having satisfactorily proved that 'God' := X=..=V exists, to proving that 'God' is indeed the Hebrew deity (and not, say, Christ, Zeus or Ahura Mazda)?


The promise is a promise and nothing invalidates this promise.
Interesting... So if someone forced your child to swear to kill you, you would expect - and demand - that your child carries out such a promise?

I gotta say, you are quite tough on blasphemers and apostates. Do you extend the same rights of dealing with them to other religions, e.g. Islam?

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

I did not refer you to the proofs. I referred you to the concept of G-d as the first intellectual principle of existence. If that is the case, which is the doctrinal point, then rejecting G-d makes rational or logical arguments redundant as there is no reason to believe that these are more than human conceits. Apostasy does not require logical consistency, so insistence on providing such logical soft landing for an apostate (as you've requested) is misplaced. That was the point I was making. Nothing more.

We are not discussing Aquinas proofs as this is redundant on the topic discussed.

My view of atheism is not substantially different from
http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html

>>if someone forced...
The exerted promise cannot be an oath. What contradicts G-d's commandments cannot be an oath made in the name of G-d.

>>you are quite tough on blasphemers and apostates.
Betrayal is a serious offence in anyone's book.

>>Do you extend the same rights of dealing with them to other religions, e.g. Islam?

It is not my right to tell other congregations how to deal with their apostates. The blasphemy laws operating in the US are particular in their scope. Remember, we discuss whether such (existing) laws contradict the Bill of Rights. By 1878 US Supreme Court ruling (bigamy) exercise of freedoms leading to action (rather than expressing opinion) is limited by the conformity of the action to the "established law of the land." As breaking the sworn oath is action rather than opinion, it has to conform to the established law of the land, which includes blasphemy laws. If you do not like this situation, you should not appeal to the freedom of speech, but rather seek to change the established law of the land. But that means building consensus for your case rather informing people what they can and cannot tell you under the pretext of liberty. The main premise is wrong. It is poor reasoning, as other equilibristics at using constitutional freedoms to bypass civil consent.