Blasphemy - still illegal in the US!

What was the original intent of that part of the Fourteenth Amendment? It was passed around the end of the Civil War. So, something to do with treating former slaves as full citizens, I guess?

That's the standard interpretation, yes. The Fourteenth Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This could quite reasonably be read as concerned with eliminating institutional discrimination against African Americans, and I believe that's generally what it's been taken to have intended (though, as with most fields, you can probably find some scholar arguing that the conventional understanding is all wrong).

The Due Process Clause (the bit about not depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law) was interpreted though a line of cases in the early twentieth century to incorporate many (maybe all) of the substantive provisions of the Bill of Rights, which previously applied only to the federal government, against the states. But then, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court gave up on the piecemeal incorporation approach and basically held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, which includes all of the substantive provisions, and then some. The scope of the Due Process Clause has been steadily widening ever since.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
The anti-religious crowd likes it all their way. They want to talk squat, be absolutely free of responsibility and consequence for their poison, and want their nose protected by the authorities to boot.

"all their way"? Everyone should be allowed to say whatever he wants to.

Even if you're "allowed" to dictate your existence, that doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.

What "consequences" do you have in mind?

I'm not the "guy" who dictates that.

But there are consequences to all actions (and even inactions).

Getting beaten up by someone who disagrees with their position? That's not a necessary consequence. We can outlaw beating people up. I prefer that to outlawing the holding and stating of disagreeable positions.

Basically, freedom of speech is good, and freedom to beat people up isn't.

Basically.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Well, I'd agree that the law might not last long as written simply because Judeo/Christianity appears to be the only religion covered.

So I'd love to see it re-written to cover all religions and ideologies.

You?

No, I don't see how that could work.

You don't have much vision.

I can imagine a fanatical theist and a fanatical atheist who would each be terribly offended merely by hearing the other blandly state his position on the existence of God. So no one can say anything any more?

You can "imagine" it?

I've lived it.

It's good to be polite, but I don't think it's a good idea to make impoliteness illegal.

Me, neither.

Look around. I'm considered the most "impolite" person on this board.

So?
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
And did you catch the "obviousness" that the Marine illustrated?

I didn't.

Sorry.

As far as I could tell, the point of the story is just "ha, an atheist got what he deserved".

That's the joke.

And the story's intended audience is people who think he deserved it because they believe in God.

Maybe that's why I knew it was a joke and fool thought it was an urban legend to look up.

If there isn't really any God, then the professor wasn't committing any sort of transgression against Him; he was just being impolite to religious members of his class.

And the Marine was somewhat impolite.

He waited the appropriate time. He allowed the professor to "profess" for 14 minutes.

It's harder to claim he deserved a beating for that, I'd think.

Beating?

It was one good blow.

Knocked the professor from his podium (which is exactly what he called for).

An easy task.

Problem?
 
Ah, I think I get the joke. The Marine is another one of those blasphemous men who assert, despite numerous Scriptural assertions to the contrary, that God is so powerless to act in the world that He requires assistance from time to time from the always-ready fist of the self-righteous man.

I don't think you got the joke.

The implications of that belief, expressed through violent action, are far more damaging to Christian ideas than anything the Professor could have said with mere words in fourteen minutes.

That's your opinion.

So, the Marine beating up the professor for blasphemy is kind of like a wife-beater beating up another man for insulting his wife.

Huh?

I guess that's why the story is funny (except it's not really, because wife beaters and other immoral violent people often do behave that way; nothing makes them angrier than someone doing something that they do in a far worse way themselves).

Really?

Says who?

Fortunately God is also forgiving, so He will forgive the Marine for taking His name in vain (it doesn't just mean swearing; it also applies to assuming His authority for one's own immoral actions) and violating Jesus's commandment to love thy neighbor, if the Marine repents.

Yup.

(The Marine took the Lord's Name in vain?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Respectfully,

The Huntster
 
.....I also repeatedly have said there aren't enough details in that story to detrmine what, if any, action would be taken by the university.

To Hell with the "university".

Individuals are responsible for their individual actions, right?
 
To Hell with the "university".

Individuals are responsible for their individual actions, right?

This non-sequitur has little to do with you harping about an anti-blasphemy law that is unenforceable, or the ramifacations of the professor's actions that you'd like to see him punished for. As a matter of practicality there is not enough information to determine what the professor's actions would garner in terms of response form the university.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
To Hell with the "university".

Individuals are responsible for their individual actions, right?

This non-sequitur has little to do with you harping about an anti-blasphemy law that is unenforceable, or the ramifacations of the professor's actions that you'd like to see him punished for.

Bullspit.

The "professor" professed himself into a swollen jaw. He did exactly (word for word) what the Massachusetts law prohibits.

The result in the joke is that he got his ass whupped, and even though it's just a joke, you simply can't stand it.

You want it all. Even our jokes.

As a matter of practicality there is not enough information to determine what the professor's actions would garner in terms of response form the university.
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bullspit.

The "professor" professed himself into a swollen jaw. He did exactly (word for word) what the Massachusetts law prohibits.

The result in the joke is that he got his ass whupped, and even though it's just a joke, you simply can't stand it.

You want it all. Even our jokes.

And repeatedly it has been shown how the Massechusetts law is unenforceable. However your feeling that someone should be physically assaulted for what they say is telling.



Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Your maturity is impressive.

Moving on:


I wasn't seeking any "predetermined" answer. I wanted exactly what I stated:

your answer.

It was exactly what I expected.

Thank you.



You again didn't answer the question. What answer did you expect, ace?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think you got the joke.

Perhpas not in the way you intended it. But it is funny, in a sad sort of way. An obnoxious atheist meets a bad Christian. The atheist makes a fool of himself (how many true faithful Christians have you ever seen led away from their faith by the rantings of an obnoxious atheist?) but the Christian makes a mockery of Christianity.

If Jesus had been present in the lecture hall, do you think He would have waited fourteen minutes and then beaten the professor up? Or would He perhaps have spoken up sooner, speaking with the voice of love and wisdom to change the Professor's mind, or at least convince the audience that the professor was wrong?

The Marine had no wise words to offer. For that, he would have had to open himself up to the Holy Spirit and let Christ speak through him, as so many Christians have done to such great effect through the ages. But the only spirit that filled our Marine was a spirit of wrath and violence. His only testimony was his fist. Shame on him.

This sin -- wrath, compounded with the additional sin of misrepresenting an act of wrath as doing God's will and thus taking the Lord's name in vain, was unfortunate, but understandable. Many give in to temptation when provoked. Anyone in the audience -- that is, the audience of people to whom the joke is being told -- should be able to understand why the Marine (though undoubtedly brave and strong in other ways, as most Marines are) was weak in his faith and acted on his weakness at that moment. What's harder to understand and reconcile with professed New Testament Christian ideals is why the other Christians hearing the tale -- especially the person telling the joke, or any Christians in the audience who laugh at the professor's comeuppance while overlooking the Marine's mockery of Christ's teaching -- seem to approve of the Marine's act.

And that, my brother, is how atheists are made. Not by the obnoxious atheist professors of the world, but by the far more numerous bad examples like the supposedly Christian Marine and by the hypocrisy, the denial of Christ's teaching, of the joke-teller. They see Christians professing to believe something and then behaving as though they don't believe it at all. Christians who claim to follow Christ's teachings concerning helping the needy, but vote for candidates who promise to stick it to illegal immigrant sweatshop workers and welfare "deadbeats" and minimum-wage employees. Christians who claim to follow Christ's teachings concerning loving your fellow man, turning the other cheek, and not casting the first stone, but who confidently predict that those they dislike are bound for eternal torment. Christians who (unlike you, Huntster) claim to take every word of the Bible literally, yet are infinitely more zealous about applying what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah (homosexuality invokes God's wrath) than, for instance, the lesson of the Tower of Babel (building tall buildings invokes God's wrath). Christians who seek to promote their faith through oppression, censorship, force, and violence instead of teaching. Christians who testify with their fists. And the much greater number of Christians who, while not doing any of these things themselves, approve of others who do.

In the end, the joke I get is that the joke is you, Huntster. The joke is that one such as you does more harm to Christianity, does more to make atheism look like the better path to a society of peace, wisdom, and freedom, than all the ranting atheist professors in all the universities in the world.

I leave it up to you to decide whether the joke is funny.

And I ask you to look carefully and see if you can find repentance in your heart.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Maybe that's why I knew it was a joke and fool thought it was an urban legend to look up.

It may have started out as a joke, but it has become an urban legend, in that it is now repeatedly passed around as a true story (it happened to a friend of a friend!). If you put half the time in rational discussion that you currently devote to juvinile insults, you might actually make a compelling argument once in awhile.
 
Are Huntster and Myriad both Christians?

Huntster: The Christian who sees unbelievers as an abstraction so that he can crush them without conscience.
Myriad: The Christian who sees unbelievers as individuals who need to be gently persuaded.
Sorry if my quick read produced a mischaracterisation.

I'm an unbeliever and I think the joke is funny.

The atheist professor is so completely sure that God does not exist that he fully expects to remain standing at the podium at the end of 15 minutes of blasphemy. Lo and behold he is unexpectedly knocked off the podium (not by God, of course, but by a believer).

That's funny.


Of course, like most jokes, you can analyse it so that the humour disappears. Also, if the person telling the joke is trying to make a point with it, it is funny mostly only to like-minded fellow travellers. In this case it is legitimate to analyse it (as Myriad has done). I would actually still find it funny but at a deeper level. It's a funny caricature of a belligerent atheist and a funny caricature of a belligerent believer. And, of course, it's still funny on the surface.

It's only not funny if you are too serious about your atheism or your religion.


Having said all that, I don't think it is anywhere near one of the best jokes I've ever heard.
I'm unlikely to pass it on for example.
 
Last edited:
Huntster has been suspended for challenging quyak to a fist fight because they have a difference of opinion about abortion.
 
Wow, I go away for a couple days and this explodes. Figures

1. Beerina - are you a resident of, or currently in, Massachusetts? If not, then your blasphemy has been in vain. If yes, then please go turn yourself in to the nearest jail and insist that you be prosecuted for your crimes. ;)

Make sure to do it again in front of three police witnesses of course. I'm sure you can pull this off within a minute or so. Make sure you do not violate any other laws in the process though.

If they REFUSE to prosecute you, then it brings up an interesting question of standing (probably settled, but I don't know the answer): if you violate a law, and therefore are subject to arrest for that violation but have not been otherwise harmed (i.e. a Damacles' Sword sort of 'harm'), do you have standing to challenge the law?

2. Fighting words are not considered well-protected speech (per 1st amendment), but are also NOT a justification or absolution for assault.

3. States may not pass laws that violate the federal constitution. They ALSO may not pass laws that violate their own constitution.

4. The titles of laws are completely irrelevant to their legal validity or invalidity and have no legal power whatsoever, formally. They are only for reference.

5. Not with the personal attacks and irrelevancies plskthxbye!
 
If they REFUSE to prosecute you, then it brings up an interesting question of standing (probably settled, but I don't know the answer): if you violate a law, and therefore are subject to arrest for that violation but have not been otherwise harmed (i.e. a Damacles' Sword sort of 'harm'), do you have standing to challenge the law?
Didn't this come up in Bowers v. Hardwick? I may be misremembering, but I think the plaintiff in that case had never actually been prosecuted under Georgia's anti-sodomy law; he merely alleged that, as a practicing homosexual, he feared that he would be, and he was found to have standing to challenge the statute. I don't recall if the standing issue was raised in that case or not, but since the Supreme Court proceeded to the merits of the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim, it at least implicitly found that he had standing to challenge the law.

Edit: On further reflection, the following distinction might make a difference to the standing analysis: did the state decline to prosecute you in one instance, but asserts its authority to enforce the law as to other violations, or did it declare that it has no intention of ever enforcing the law again? It seems to me that it would be easier to establish standing in the former case, but an argument could be made as to the latter as well, since, so long as the statute in question remains on the books and is presumed to be valid, a future administration could always change the non-enforcement policy, and the fact that the law was not being enforced at the time an offense took place would not be a defense to a subsequent conviction. (E.g., imagine that a state has an anti-sodomy statute with a limitations period of 6 years, but the current administration has stated on the record that it has no intention of enforcing the law, though the law remains on the books. If Bob violates the statute, and two years later, a new Attorney General is elected who decides to enforce the law, the new AG could presumably prosecute Bob for his prior offense, and the fact that the previous administration had declined to enforce the statute would not provide a defense against conviction. So it seems as though, even when the state has affirmatively disclaimed intent to enforce a statute, but does not repeal it for whatever reason, a plaintiff might still have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute even though there appears to be no immediate threat that he will ever face prosecution for its violation).
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom