Should we ban blasphemy

[Skybird]

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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Not so fast. We've had this conversation before.

Religion is the excuse groups use to fear the other.

The without the other, there can be no conflict.

Therefore we must outlaw people.



Take religion out of the world and people will find something new to fight about. Even on starships.

Yea, but we certainly will be more rational about what we fight about. Religion drives people nuts, you can't be rational about it to solve problems.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Pakistan can say what they want, but quite a few more progressive nations have Veto powers, that will prevent the attempt to protect the soft skin of their citizens.

Burning American flags is ok, but drawing a picture is bad...HMMMMMM?

I'm not defending Pakistan's stance. People should have a right to be as blasphemous as they want. If they aren't causing physical harm to anyone or violating any civil laws, then they should be able to go to town. My problem is with the hostility and double standard applied to religion by it's opponents.

Science, which has become the religion of many, has created the atomic bomb; the most destructive weapon in the history of man. In a thread long ago, I was told that it would be foolish to hold science responsible for the evil application of said science. And yet, it is fully justifiable to hold religion responsible for the evil application of said religion. Look no further than this thread; the critics of religion gleefully point to the extremists and say 'see, this is religion', all while calling for it's ban.

One might as well point to Eduard Wirths and call for the end of medical research.

Originally Posted by Armistead

Yea, but we certainly will be more rational about what we fight about. Religion drives people nuts, you can't be rational about it to solve problems.

As if there was rationality in war in the first place. No, humanity, despite it's millenia of trying, has failed to improve it's condition. No amount of science or philosophy has ended the strife. So, people blame religion. It is an alternative to seeing the real problem -- people. After all, if we see that as the problem, it becomes clear, even to religion's critics, that man will not be able to rise above himself, perhaps he needs a savior after all; truly an uncomfortable proposition for a neo-humanist.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Freedom of Religion is useful in preventing the rise of the type of state-sponsored religion found in various theocracies around the world from taking root in the US. It's inclusion was due to the fact that founding fathers had experienced first-hand the problems of a state church.

Darn it, I forgotten about that one.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, if the people in a country democratically vote for State-sponsored religion, I can tolerate them having it even if some of its money comes out of my pocket. After all, nobody probably really thinks that every dollar the government spends is justified.

I can tolerate it as long as the people really respect Freedom of Expression, which will include my right to sing satire and criticism or blasphemise against said State Religion any time I see fit.

I still hold it may well be a good deal when compared to people using Freedom of Religion as an excuse to suppress Freedom of Expression. The latter is worth much more to me.

[soopaman2]

The UN should keep out of laws for sovereign nations.

It is because of sovereign nations they exist.

This is beyond Pakistan, but on the UN government/leaders who think they should have some kind of New world Order rules instituted. (like the worldwide gun ban for citizens, obviously aimed at the US)
Pakistan and afghanistan can stone women to death for being raped, while I (Americans) can critisize them for doing so.

Laws are different in nations because cultures and traditions dictate it.

I do not want to be the same as them, and some kinda farce of a governing body not elected by me will not, and cannot dictate that.

We kinda kicked Britains ass for the same thing.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Take religion out of the world and people will find something new to fight about. Even on starships.

Yea but fighting on starships involves lots of phasers and photon torpedoes, which are awesome.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I believe our amendment had root in the Church of England and what our founding fathers saw with the protestant movement in those days.

The 'Pilgrims' (actually Puritans) came here to escape "persecution" by the Church of England. They weren't actually being persecuted, just not allowed to have the same rights as the 'Official' Church.

They then turned around and did exactly the same thing in Massachussetts. Other colonies did the same thing, which is why we emphatically refuse to allow an official State Church. All the states have since followed suit, even Utah.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And who is to decide what is no longer critical, but so contemptous that is is to be called "blasphemy"?

A good point. If a nebulous term is allowed to become law it leaves the question open as to who defines the term.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Still, as far as I'm concerned, if the people in a country democratically vote for State-sponsored religion, I can tolerate them having it.

I can't, for the very reason that the American Founders couldn't. If one religion is sponsored, it is inevitably to the detriment of all others. State-sponsored religions get special favors and the others are excluded.

I can tolerate it as long as the people really respect Freedom of Expression, which will include my right to sing satire and criticism or blasphemise against said State Religion any time I see fit.

But as soon as you have one state-sponsored religion you no longer have that freedom, because Freedom of Expression will be denied. That is the very reason we have the First Amendment.

If an atheist wants to say "God stinks!", he is guaranteed that right. If a believer wants to respond "You're going to hell for saying that!", he is also guaranteed that right. Anything else and you are no longer free.

[soopaman2]

Yeah Steve. The Salem witch trials is a great example.

I am willing to bet, that there is no nation not guilty of some kind of extremist acts.

But for them to want to regulate what is said worldwide, because their people riot when some infidel assumes Muhammad did not wipe properly after defacating...

Crude, but you get my point. You do not see Christians rioting countrywide when someones puts a crucifix in a jar of piss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

(pardon my wikipedia reference)

The UN also wants a worldwide gun ban.

but on the UN government/leaders who think they should have some kind of New world Order rules instituted. (like the worldwide gun ban for citizens, obviously aimed at the US

Soopaman, don't turn into Yubba, that is simply nonsense you just wrote

Yeah Steve. The Salem witch trials is a great example.

Hanging people because they were Quakers would be a better example of the Puritans going all Taliban in the colonies.

a nebulous term is allowed to become law it leaves the question open as to who defines the term.

Take "sharia" as an example, people rant on about it yet it is one of those things that people are just making up as they go along, definitions from one place are directly contradictory to definitions in another.
It has the same problem with blasphemy or even the anti religion zealots, its normally the real nuts who make the most noise and their versions which get noticed as "definitive"

Still, as far as I'm concerned, if the people in a country democratically vote for State-sponsored religion, I can tolerate them having it even if some of its money comes out of my pocket.

Tyranny of the masses?

[joea]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

And a lot will be solved by trashing it. No, it's just an excuse to take a few flogs at everyone's favorite whipping subject.

Pretty much.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The 'Pilgrims' (actually Puritans) came here to escape "persecution" by the Church of England. They weren't actually being persecuted, just not allowed to have the same rights as the 'Official' Church.

They then turned around and did exactly the same thing in Massachussetts. Other colonies did the same thing, which is why we emphatically refuse to allow an official State Church. All the states have since followed suit, even Utah.

I am aware of this "rift" in American history, between the motivation of the pilgrims to escape European supression - and the spirit that is expressed in America's founding papers and the writings of the early leaders.

Maybe this rift - I don't know a better word for it - is the reason why in America religious and antireligious seem to clash more bitterly than over here. The old debate: was America founded as an explicitly Christian or religious country, or not? By referring to the Pilgrims, you can say: the first hundreds wanted that. By referring to your historic and legal papers, you must say: no, it wasn't. Later that got confirmed again in the infamous treaty of Tripolis.

For us non-Americans it is sometimes difficult to understand why in America these two camps seem to clash so fanatically. However, with the arrival of Islam in Europe, we have shifted into a similiar situation, just that the conflict here is not between Christian fundies and atheists, but between Muslim supremacists and Western secularists. You will get that conflict breaking out in America as well, sooner or later, once a critical population mass of Muslims has been acchieved and their pro-Sharia demands necessarily will collide with secularism.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I am aware of this "rift" in American history, between the motivation of the pilgrims to escape European supression - and the spirit that is expressed in America's founding papers and the writings of the early leaders.

Maybe this rift - I don't know a better word for it - is the reason why in America religious and antireligious seem to clash more bitterly than over here. The old debate: was America founded as an explicitly Christian or religious country, or not? By referring to the Pilgrims, you can say: the first hundreds wanted that. By referring to your historic and legal papers, you must say: no, it wasn't. Later that got confirmed again in the infamous treaty of Tripolis.

For us non-Americans it is sometimes difficult to understand why in America these two camps seem to clash so fanatically. However, with the arrival of Islam in Europe, we have shifted into a similiar situation, just that the conflict here is not between Christian fundies and atheists, but between Muslim supremacists and Western secularists. You will get that conflict breaking out in America as well, sooner or later, once a critical population mass of Muslims has been acchieved and their pro-Sharia demands necessarily will collide with secularism.

Quite so-but I am not sure there will ever be enough Muslims to worry avbout that though, the largely Christian immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries has put them in a far stronger position demographically. They have high birthrates too.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joea

Quite so-but I am not sure there will ever be enough Muslims to worry about that though, the largely Christian immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries has put them in a far stronger position demographically. They have high birthrates too.

One thing the Muslim subculture beats everybody else in is noise and bullying. Pumping up the volume helps to compensate for smaller numbers. Conquest through the wombs of strong Turkish women, to lend words used by Erdoghan I. of Turkey. Taking over the West through the wombs of Muslim women, said Algerian president at the UN assembly in the early 70s.

Demographics is a weapon! And Europe already suffers from the consequences, in culture change as well as in finances. Note that for the starting decades, Islam remained a low profile in Europe as well, after the early 60s. This has changed. And in the media, Islamic religion is more present than all other religions together. By media representation and public awareness levels, Islam indeed is the world religion numero uno, outclassing the church even in Europe itself.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Skybird

One thing the Muslim subculture beats everybody else in is noise and bullying. Pumping up the volume helps to compensate for smaller numbers. Conquest through the wombs of strong Turkish women, to lend words used by Erdoghan I. of Turkey. Taking over the West through the wombs of Muslim women, said Algerian president at the UN assembly in the early 70s.

Demographics is a weapon! And Europe already suffers from the consequences, in culture change as well as in finances. Note that for the starting decades, Islam remained a low profile in Europe as well, after the early 60s. This has changed. And in the media, Islamic religion is more present than all other religions together. By media representation and public awareness levels, Islam indeed is the world religion numero uno, outclassing the church even in Europe itself.

I do not consider the majority of so proclaimed "muslim" youth in the west to be real believers. They enjoy porn, weed, burgers, rap, beer etc just like the rest of us.

Mind you, for the majority, its just lip service for them. Its just like my Christian friends who are being pushed to church every weekend.

Of course, there is always the few nutjobs, but don't you see nutjobs in every faith everywhere?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by u crank

One thing I've never heard is a joke about New Jersey. Know any.