Blasphemy Laws - Victim-less Crimes.

[Belz...]

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

Society is the victim of blasphemy ? You'll have to explain that one to me.

 

[Aepervius]

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?

Yes there are , read the wiki on blasphemy laws, and whereas I don't know the detail some people were even condemned under them in 2005ish.

 

[Complexity]

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

Nonsense.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

But action A did not lead directly to situation B. It required several other persons to stir things up. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the sequence of events.

Regardless, we might also conclude that situation B is the result of an unreasonable reaction by a third party, and refuse to give in to the coercion.

 

[NewtonTrino]

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.

The state does not endorse said action? Do you believe corporations are people? Do you believe the state is people?

A state is made up of it's people. If some of them want to dissent against the state in a non-violent way (speech and flag burning are both peaceful acts) why should that not be allowed?

Is there any situation in which the state could be wrong in your eyes? If the state does make a mistake what is your recourse?

It seems to me that by restricting speech about the state you make it easier for the state to be subverted into something that isn't good for the people. Since the world has a long track record of this I'm firmly on the state of curbing state power as much as possible. In practive this means robust a robust free press, free speech, freedom to assemble, right to a fair timely trial by your peers etc. The state should be bending over backwards to protect individual rights. If it can't protect itself from the people under those conditions then it need to be replaced with something that does.

Then again I'm just your neighborhood person that prioritizes liberty and freedom.

 

[Brainache]

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

Oh really?

Jesus was not God. The Holy Ghost is just a figment of your imagination and YHVH is an idiotic invention of ancient goat herders.

Take that Society!

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Oh really?

Jesus was not God. The Holy Ghost is just a figment of your imagination and YHVH is an idiotic invention of ancient goat herders.

Take that Society!

I feel hurt.

You didn't mention that Jesus probably didn't exist. How could you leave that out?

 

[JJM 777]

But action A did not lead directly to situation B. It required several other persons to stir things up.
(...)
situation B is the result of an unreasonable reaction by a third party

In politics, all what matters is which causes eventually lead to which consequences. If people´s reactions are predictable, they are a factor in the game, and a politician who does not understand or ignores how people will react, will lose his job very quickly. Hopefully before much damage has been done.

A state is made up of it's people. If some of them want to dissent against the state in a non-violent way (speech and flag burning are both peaceful acts) why should that not be allowed?

If the political majority decide that flag-burning is a punishable act, so shall it be. I don´t see flag-burning as a basic necessity or a basic human right.

Is there any situation in which the state could be wrong in your eyes? If the state does make a mistake what is your recourse?

All states are wrong most of the time, because political leadership is not really based on the democratic values which some political systems claim to be based on, some others don´t even bother to make such a claim. My recourse is nothing, because there is nothing what I can do to change the political governing system of any country.

by restricting speech about the state

Burning a flag is not "speech".

 

[Arcade22]

Society is the victim of blasphemy ? You'll have to explain that one to me.

If the majority of people are offended by heresy or blasphemy then society as a whole is a victim. Just like holocaust/genocide denial and so on. Society as a whole is a victim and obviously thus it should be criminalized, unless you would want a nation of victims...

 

[Complexity]

If the majority of people are offended by heresy or blasphemy then society as a whole is a victim. Just like holocaust/genocide denial and so on. Society as a whole is a victim and obviously thus it should be criminalized, unless you would want a nation of victims...

Your majority can go to their hell.

I will say what I like and hope to deeply offend each and every one of them.

 

[JJM 777]

If the majority of people are offended by heresy or blasphemy then society as a whole is a victim.

I interpreted the scenario a bit differently. Like Christian preacher X in USA burns a Koran, then 100,000 Muslims in Cairo burn down 10 churches in Egypt, then widespread rioting follows, and lots of people in a society fall victims of a chain-reaction ignited by a stupid, arrogant, hateful, and legally bannable incident.

 

[Quietus]

Yes there are , read the wiki on blasphemy laws, and whereas I don't know the detail some people were even condemned under them in 2005ish.

I imagined there would possibly be a few examples, but they would be isolated and misguided prosecutions. I could not find a recent example of a successful prosecution for blasphemy in a Western nation. There was an example of an unsuccessful prosecution in Greece, which may be what you are referring to:

In December 2003, Greece prosecuted for blasphemy Gerhard Haderer, an Austrian, along with his Greek publisher and four booksellers. Haderer is the author of an illustrated, humorous book entitled The Life of Jesus. The prosecutor contended that the book’s depiction of Jesus as a hippie was blasphemous. On 13 April 2005, the Court of Appeal of Athens, reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, and acquitted Haderer.

The trend is definitely towards what i referred to as "blasphemy through the back door" earlier - the Malta entry on same page appears to be a good example of this.

 

[Belz...]

If the majority of people are offended by heresy or blasphemy then society as a whole is a victim.

1) That's a big "if". Can you show that it's more than a guess ?
2) Non sequitur. That doesn't make society a victim, because for society to be a victim it would have to suffer, functionally, from the "crime".
3) You should also establish that being offended makes one a victim.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

The trend is definitely towards what i referred to as "blasphemy through the back door" earlier - the Malta entry on same page appears to be a good example of this.

But is it blasphemy that is being restricted by these laws. I said I am not fully convinced it isn't to a certain degree but so far (in the UK at least) it doesn't seem the legislation is resulting in a resurrection of the crime of blasphemy.

 

[Quietus]

But is it blasphemy that is being restricted by these laws. I said I am not fully convinced it isn't to a certain degree but so far (in the UK at least) it doesn't seem the legislation is resulting in a resurrection of the crime of blasphemy.

I may have made my position appear too simplistic. It is not simply a case of repealing/abrogating the crime of blasphemy and replacing it with a new name but retaining the same definition. Its rather a case of recasting actions that previously constituted blasphemy under new ("hate speech") or existing laws. ("offences against public order")