Blasphemy Laws - Victim-less Crimes.

[Verde]

You can criticise the behaviour of religions without being directly insulting to individuals.

I think this is a very important point.

I would like to see religion stomped into the ground, dragged out and put on a bonfire. (It won't happen, of course).

However, the individuals I know that profess some religious belief are not bad people. In fact some of my closest friends claim to have this strange affinity with some god or other. They know I am an atheist, but it doesn't stop a healthy dialogue.

It's a bit like last Sunday when a bunch of us were at my home (for some reason, my place attracts the kids, their friends, and several adults) watching the SuperBowl. It was about a 50/50 split between Giants/Patriots.
I bought the beer, and my team lost. We still had a good time.

I guess what I am saying is that is fine to condemn the practice of religion, but taking it out on the people who for some warped reason believe in that nonsense is really not a good thing to do.

V.

 

[Leumas]

Isn’t this resolution tantamount to a GLOBALLY RATIFIED FATWA?

OOPS...

Sorry guys.... I thought I was in the UN resolution thread ..... but it is very related anyway.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Frankly I'm amazed that so many people think that being deliberately rude is a good idea. My mum taught me that the way to get what I want is to be polite, and so far it seems to be working for me.

To sum up the same point that is ran over and over and over again each time...

If there was a magical solution to cure religousness we would have gotten rid of that stupid abomination long ago.

Some people need to have a quiet conversation with. Others need someone to shout at them "what you still believe in santa clause?"

There is no one definitive way. Claiming that either way is more decent or effective is pure bs unless someone here wants to pull out a double blind study to support his position.

Something I never understood is why do people feel compelled to fighting god's duels for him?


In the good olden days when a man insulted another they threw down the gauntlet at each other and fought it out MAN TO MAN. Why do people feel that their god is such a COWARD that he needs THEM to fight his fight and defend HIS honor? Are people so unsure of the abilities of their God so as to have to defend him from a blasphemer themselves?

You want to know the REALLY funny part about it?
Checkout the story regarding Gideon's father in Judges

 

[JJM 777]

Politically? Sure. You want to suck up to a group of voters you try to make them happy.

Making the voters happy is kinda the basic idea in democracy -- rule of people, not of elites (including not of intellectual elites, nor of moral-philosophical elites).

The only way to have true freedom is to accept the freedom of speech.

But "true freedom" is not what people want. They want restrictions moulded according to their taste. For example, protection from public nudity, from public hate speech, etc.

People don´t want unlimited freedom. Therefore unlimited freedom is not an objective for real-life politics.

Some christians will tell you that they find the pride parade offesnive while gays will tell you the whole homophobia thing in the bible is offensive. How do you pick sides?

In democracy, you pick sides by counting the votes.

 

[Leumas]

To sum up the same point that is ran over and over and over again each time...

If there was a magical solution to cure religousness we would have gotten rid of that stupid abomination long ago.

Some people need to have a quiet conversation with. Others need someone to shout at them "what you still believe in santa clause?"

There is no one definitive way. Claiming that either way is more decent or effective is pure bs unless someone here wants to pull out a double blind study to support his position.


You want to know the REALLY funny part about it?
Checkout the story regarding Gideon's father in Judges

The Judges 6:25-32 story is similar to a Midrash story about Abraham doing a similar thing with his father. He hacked down all the idols except one and put the ax in its hand. When the people said it was Abraham he denied it and said look the one still standing idol had the ax so he must have done it. Of course the people called him a liar at which point he retorted... Aha...so you admit they cannot defend themselves.

But what amuses me more about that story are the following verses. Why the heck would he have to resort to such hocus pocus divining techniques when he was on TALKING basis with God and his angels?

{6:36} And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said, {6:37} Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; [and] if the dew be on the fleece only, and [it be] dry upon all the earth [beside,] then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said. {6:38} And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water. {6:39} And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. {6:40} And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.

There is also a story which is part of the extended book of Daniel. It is not part of the official Tanakh but it is in the Septuagint.

The story tells that the people were convinced that the idol gods were in fact eating all the offerings given to them because the offerings kept disappearing despite the temple being closed off and sealed after placing the offerings.

Daniel proved that the offerings were in fact being taken by the priests who entered the temple through a secret door.

He did this by sprinkling fine dust on the floor of the temple which left clear foot prints of the priests and also revealed the secret door.

I wonder if YHWH would pass any of these tests that Abraham, Gideon, Daniel and Elijah set for the pagan gods? Of course the Tanakh says that he DID. But I wonder if any theists today are willing to accept the failure if we repeat the test. Would they be convinced that the failure is clear proof of his none existence just like they did for the pagan gods? Would they not start contorting and doing mental pirouettes to explain the failure?

Heck…. I would be willing to accept YHWH as a real god …. I still would not worship him though…. If he would make ONE…just one…. Amputated limb grow back with James Randi as the judge….. YHWH can also win the $1M prize as a bonus.

 

[Arcade22]

Why do i have a sneaky suspicion that the people who complain about this 'victim-less crime' would support other 'victim-less crimes'? Or at least come up with excuses why they aren't willing to voice disapproval and complain.

 

[Brainache]

Why do i have a sneaky suspicion that the people who complain about this 'victim-less crime' would support other 'victim-less crimes'? Or at least come up with excuses why they aren't willing to voice disapproval and complain.

Because you are sneaky and suspicious?

Are you saying that Blasphemy isn't a victimless crime?

Or that there is a victim (God) who can't defend himself?

Or is it the Churches who are the victims?

 

[Polaris]

This cartoon seems more brilliant with every passing day.

 

[Leumas]

Because you are sneaky and suspicious?

Are you saying that Blasphemy isn't a victimless crime?

Or that there is a victim (God) who can't defend himself?

Or is it the Churches who are the victims?

Even calling that is an affront in my opinion.

IT IS NOT A CRIME......... let alone victimless.


The only reason it is called a crime is because of RELIGIOUS CRIME.

The fact that religions are CRIMINAL enabled them to criminalized any opposition to their crimes.

Since they were the psychopaths and thus the ones able to REMORSELESSLY climb over the heaps of dead bodies of their victims they also managed to usurp power.

As psychopathic dastards with power and able to set the rules they obviously created a legal system to perpetuate their hold on power for themselves and for their minions and the descendents of both classes.


The cartoon in the post just above this one says it very well.

Let's not forget history..........

Far from being a "victimless crime"

It is not a crime and it CERTAINLY has millions of victims..... the ones who were labeled criminals because of it by the real criminals...the theists.

 

[Quietus]

The only reason it is called a crime is because of RELIGIOUS CRIME.

Apart from Ireland, are there any Western(ized) nations that have enacted prohibitions against blasphemy? Or for that matter, enforce as-yet-unrepealed old laws of blasphemy?

 

[Darat]

...snip..

Either everything is okay or nothing is okay.
Call me crazy, I'd go with the first on that.

That seems to me to be the epitome of a "false dilemma" fallacy. Why does it have to be split that way?

 

[Darat]

I have a middle ground to suggest. In general, rudeness is not productive. However, I have known quite a few people, especially around where I grew up, who will mistake anything but a full-throated rant for "uncertainty", and who decide on the fervor presented by the arguers, not on the basis of logic.

So, sometimes, rudeness may be necessary. Can't say as I like it, much.

Sums up my view well. As the saying has it "horses for courses",

 

[Darat]

I think this is a very important point.

I would like to see religion stomped into the ground, dragged out and put on a bonfire. (It won't happen, of course).


...snip...

It does happen - but it's at the hands of other religious folk and what they are stomping on is a different religion!

 

[Darat]

Apart from Ireland, are there any Western(ized) nations that have enacted prohibitions against blasphemy? Or for that matter, enforce as-yet-unrepealed old laws of blasphemy?

In the UK we've only abolished our blasphemy laws quite recently - 2008.

What we have these days is a more general "incitement of hatred" directed at a person or group who are of a certain religion. And whilst I understand where such laws come from I am still a tad uncomfortable with the legislation as it is too soon to see how it will pan out (needs more case law). So far it does seem to be that criticism, even extreme criticism or humour will not fall under the provisions of the act. An example of the law in action has been when someone is saying someone should be killed because they are of (or are not of) a certain religion and I support that type of prosecution, someone should not be allowed to go around saying I should be killed.

 

[Leumas]

Apart from Ireland, are there any Western(ized) nations that have enacted prohibitions against blasphemy? Or for that matter, enforce as-yet-unrepealed old laws of blasphemy?

I am not a lawyer nor am I familiar with the laws of ALL western nations.

I know about many states in the USA that have archaic laws that still till today form part of the state law (e.g. Sodomy). So I am sure many countries probably have not yet repealed many religiously induced stupid laws.

I am sure many do not act upon them. But the fact that they remain means that some judge could act upon them of course. Whether he would be reversed by appeal courts depends on the judges of the higher courts. But all this means that the citizen is subject to the arbitrary caprice of some judges.

 

[megaresp]

Actually, that is precisely what we should be.

Their beliefs offend the hell out of me, and injure and threaten much that I love. They should not be allowed to be complacently smug and comfortable in their hateful, wilfull ignorance.

Yeah, what we need is some sort of unholy crusade against them. That will show the smug off-spring of unwed parents - daring to offend the hell out of us with their beliefs.

 

[JJM 777]

Are you saying that Blasphemy isn't a victimless crime?

I think the Muhammad cartoons in Danish newspaper some years ago resulted in a few victims here and there. Political realism is to judge action by its actual consequences in real life. A moral philosophist might argue that publiser of a Muhammad cartoon is not responsible for rioting of others. A politician simply concludes that action A leads to situation B, and if we don´t want situation B we avoid action A.

This is where Koran-burning evangelicals differ from the people sitting in White House. Both of them probably have equal lack of respect for the values represented by Islam, but one knows how to behave responsibly in the world and the other doesn´t.

I would have nothing against a law that bans public burning of a national flag or a widely respected religious, philosophical or political book. Such acts are unnecessary and serve only one purpose, provocation of social unrest. I don´t mean that a flag-burner must serve 10 years in prison, but the state should give a penalty of some kind, to make it clear that the state does not endorse the said action.

 

[Quietus]

I am not a lawyer nor am I familiar with the laws of ALL western nations.

I know about many states in the USA that have archaic laws that still till today form part of the state law (e.g. Sodomy). So I am sure many countries probably have not yet repealed many religiously induced stupid laws.

I am sure many do not act upon them. But the fact that they remain means that some judge could act upon them of course. Whether he would be reversed by appeal courts depends on the judges of the higher courts. But all this means that the citizen is subject to the arbitrary caprice of some judges.

That's the situation here in South Africa. Blasphemy is still technically a crime, but the last prosecution was back in 1952 or thereabouts,which is quite telling, considered that legal institutions and political power were vested in the hands of a conservative, Afrikaner, Calvinist elite until 1994. Prosecution today would be extremely difficult against the background of a new Constitution that provides for freedom of religion.

What is more concerning are attempts to get "blasphemy through the back door" similar to what Darat mentions. The UN balderdash is merely the highest profile example, but "blasphemy" can and has been shoehorned in various jurisdictions into the crimes of hate speech, crimen injuria, disturbing the peace/public order, interdicts and a load of other nonsense. This, IMHO, is of greater concern then dusty blasphemy laws.

 

[Leumas]

That's the situation here in South Africa. Blasphemy is still technically a crime, but the last prosecution was back in 1952 or thereabouts,which is quite telling, considered that legal institutions and political power were vested in the hands of a conservative, Afrikaner, Calvinist elite until 1994. Prosecution today would be extremely difficult against the background of a new Constitution that provides for freedom of religion.

What is more concerning are attempts to get "blasphemy through the back door" similar to what Darat mentions. The UN balderdash is merely the highest profile example, but "blasphemy" can and has been shoehorned in various jurisdictions into the crimes of hate speech, crimen injuria, disturbing the peace/public order, interdicts and a load of other nonsense. This, IMHO, is of greater concern then dusty blasphemy laws.

No doubt....

 

[Arcade22]

Are you saying that Blasphemy isn't a victimless crime?

The victim is society, and thus the selfish and anti-social tendencies of certain atheists come ever so apparent.