Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
I find it interesting how far this thread has wandered. The question was simple: Should there be laws making blasphemy a punishable crime?
Blasphemy is defined as
a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
|
And who is to decide what is no longer critical, but so contemptous that is is to be called "blasphemy"?
The Cairo declaration of Human Rights in Islam has limited all ideals, rights and freedoms it mentioins in so far that these shall never be used to question Islam or to overstep what Shariah law defines as acceptable. Is that the limit we should follow?
The church until today tries to have criticism of it and it'S historic record rated as blasphemy, which in Germany for example then could be complained about at court on grounds of German penalty code, §166 I think. Is this the limit to critical thinking and free speech that you would like to see?
To a devout believer, ANY questioning of his belief is a blasphemy. That is at the heart and core of the row. Blasphemy here is used as a tool to silence any opposition to the religion in question. Islam practices that day in, day out: "We are offended! Our prophet is offended! Allah got offended!" All that claiming of offence suffered, in plain English means this: shut up, fall back, make room for our religion.
Calling something blasphemic, is a tool of censorship, and securing own control over opinions by criminalising opposite or differing opinions declaring them to be against the divine law. Simply that. And that is where it collides head-on with the freedom of speech in Western tradition that formed up on the basis of the enlightenment, the unfolding of the asking, questioning, scientific mind, and the tradition of humanism, and for that reason it necessarily includes the motivation
to unconditionally ask even the most naive questions about things. But religious dogmas do not want to be questioned and put in doubt. They demand that people should just believe them and bow their knees to them - unquestioned, or, in case of Islam very obvious, accepting the prefabricated answers exclusively that the dogma holds ready. The only questions allowed here are of this type: why is it that Islam is right? That it could be wrong, or the nature of Allah itself, are forbidden territory from all asking's beginning on. You can name parallels to this in the church and probably in Jewish traditions as well.
Can one even raise so much that it is possible for oneself to offend a deity...? Consider that a moment - offending A DEITY, assuming for a moment that deity indeed exists? That would hold some valuable lessons about the nature of that deity, wouldn't you say. I think assuming a deity even could be offended by man, is more a sign for man's megalomania. Ad deity being offended, is not that impressive a deity at all. The claims that it is offended, is always risen by humans, btw.
And the penalty never is carried out by the deity, but other humans claiming to act on its behalf.
That'S why I think the term blasphemy is misleading. A status named that and fulfilling your condition, objectively simply could not be acchieved. It is a fully fictional concept that got invented to allow supression and censorship in the name of political interests of religious leaders.
You cannot offend a deity.
And offendings of priests and believers , are just this: offendings. Either they claim to be offended because you ask questions and express doubt, so they do it to make you go into shutup-mode and outcast you as a heretic (that is free to be killed and everybody is forbidden to help you and you can be tortured and assassinated or thrown into prison for the rest of your life and so on and on). Or you indeed offended them by calling them names and using terms
in a destructive intention to hurt - "rag-head", "pig-eater", "infidel whore" and such. But again: there is no blasphemic component.
It then is an ordinary case of offending somebody personallyby calling him names, like it is punishable by the ordinary law code - as if you call somebody names in a traffic dispute or showing him a finger.
But being dealt with as something ordinary...? That is the last thing religions want! No, a special category of being offended is needed: blasphemy! that sounds better, and more important.
Freedom first - and no, not defined by holy scriptures and religious laws.