• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Blasphemy laws

allanb

Scholar
A
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
116
(Provoked by reactions to the BBC's version of the Jerry Springer show)

Are there any Christians out there who can explain why their superhuman god needs to be protected by human laws against human jokes and insults?

His supporters habitually refer to him as "almighty and everlasting" but I am beginning to think that in reality he must be a bit of a wimp.
 
The late Isaac Asimov, a well-known atheist, recieved many letters to the effect that he should be killed, dismembered, destroyed, etc.

He said much the same thing; wouldn't it be up to God to mete out any such punishment?
 
I guess they are happy to wait until death for all the good rewards to be given out, but they want to see all the bad rewards meted out NOW!

How Christian of them.
 
allanb said:
(Provoked by reactions to the BBC's version of the Jerry Springer show)

Are there any Christians out there who can explain why their superhuman god needs to be protected by human laws against human jokes and insults?

His supporters habitually refer to him as "almighty and everlasting" but I am beginning to think that in reality he must be a bit of a wimp.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that God needs protecting, as you pointed out. He's probably pretty indifferent to the entire thing. Who knows, maybe He even has a sense of humor and laughs at all our antics, skeptic and believer alike!

However, it's clear to me that religious organizations feel THEY need to protect Him... and hence, by inference, themselves. :D
 
Personally, I'd have a little more respect for a God that did a little "smiting" now and then.
Show em' who's boss, by George!
 
Bikewer said:
Personally, I'd have a little more respect for a God that did a little "smiting" now and then.
Show em' who's boss, by George!
Click to expand...
Now you've got me worried. I'm going to hide under the bed.
 
Well, unless God's stupid - and I doubt that would be the case - like any intelligent parent, He realized at some point that smiting doesn't work as the kids get older - in fact, it often has the reverse effect. :)

The problem with talking about this stuff is that for many people, God=Religion=Bible. Interestingly enough, the most rational discussions I've had about those three topics have been with Jesuits.
 
Maybe the Christians are feeling a bit sensitive after the whole Tsunami thing.

It was quite clearly an 'act of God' as they define it.

Much better to get wound up over a humorous and entirely irrelevant depiction of Jesus in a nappy than think too hard about what such a devastating natural tragedy might mean for their belief system.
 
I suppose this thread really belongs over in "Religion and Philosophy".

However, in Denmark we still have a blashemy statute (though it has not been used since 1919 IIRC) the abolition of which is talked about from time to time. But then again, we also have a state-run, constitution-protected and tax-funded church. So much for the principle of a secular democracy that we want to sell to, say, Turkey who, I believe, are secular by law.

I cannot see why the particular superstition known as 'religion' should command any more respect than, say astrology or homeopathy. Religion is just as much bunkum and nonsense - it's just older, better organized and has many followers. But it's still bunkum worthy of debunking and ridicule. The mere fact that laws concerning 'blasphemy' exist shows how ridiculous the whole theistic, religious notion is. We might as well have a law that forbids ridicule of Hahnemann. Or the Tooth Fairy.
 
Anders W. Bonde said:
I suppose this thread really belongs over in "Religion and Philosophy".

I cannot see why the particular superstition known as 'religion' should command any more respect than, say astrology or homeopathy.
Click to expand...

Yes, it always bothered me that it was a big issue in the press when we found out our president Reagan consulted astrologers, but the mainstream press won't touch statements by Bush stating that he consults God before making decisions.
 
Anders W. Bonde said:
I cannot see why the particular superstition known as 'religion' should command any more respect than, say astrology or homeopathy. Religion is just as much bunkum and nonsense - it's just older, better organized and has many followers.
Click to expand...
One other difference is that, if properly documented, religion can reduce your taxes. I cannot help thinking that this may have something to do with its success.
 
It seems to me that people assuming dog can't take care of himself.

This seems, well, odd.
 
Luke, chapter 10:
10:29 - But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
10:30 - And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
10:31 - And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
10:32 - And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
10:33 - But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
10:34 - And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
10:35 - And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
10:36 - Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
10:37 - And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

One of the best responses to "biblical" based laws - why aren't these people doing this instead of deciding what others can and cannot say or do?
 
allanb said:
Are there any Christians out there who can explain why their superhuman god needs to be protected by human laws against human jokes and insults?
Click to expand...
To be fair, none of the Christians I have heard have suggested that God does need protecting.

Their concern is more than they (christians) should not have to be offended in that way. I guess they would say that we wouldn't find it acceptable to screen a programme with a hour's worth of racial insults, or insulting disabled people, so why is it OK to offend and upset Christians.
 
Re: Re: Blasphemy laws

iain said:
I guess they would say that we wouldn't find it acceptable to screen a programme with a hour's worth of racial insults, or insulting disabled people, so why is it OK to offend and upset Christians.
Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between insulting race or disability, neither of which a person can help, and insulting religious belief, which is voluntary. (Or should be.)

Having said that, I'm not in favor of gratuitous insults to religious belief. It's not polite, and it tends to detract from those occasions where an insult may be an appropriate response, such as over some religionists' comments on the Asian tsunami.

On a lighter note, has anyone placed a bid for this? 'Christ-like' shell to go on sale
 
Re: Re: Blasphemy laws

iain said:
To be fair, none of the Christians I have heard have suggested that God does need protecting. Their concern is more than they (christians) should not have to be offended in that way.
Click to expand...
Here's one who suggests exactly that: Antony Pitts, a senior BBC Radio 3 producer until he resigned over this issue last week (from his article in the Sunday Times of 16/1/05):

"One of the misconceptions about blasphemy is the primary object of the offence: it is not Christians but God who is mocked, dishonoured and insulted."

I give Mr Pitts credit for having the courage of his convictions, but I still think it's profoundly silly for people who believe in an omnipotent god to say that he needs legal protection.
 
In the good olde dayes

One argument formerly advanced in support of blasphemy laws was that unfettered speech on the topic of religion could lead the unwary into error, at the peril of their souls. The same argument could of course be used against free speech on any topic, and is today in the case of anti-hate-speech laws.

What constitutes blasphemy is up to the established religion authorities to decide. You may well think that this setting the wolf to guard the sheep or, to change the metaphor (although not by much), hiring a con man to enforce the laws against fraud.

I like to say that one man's blasphemy is another man's doctrine. In some countries and certain periods, that would be enough to get me put in the stocks or worse. I must ask everyone here not to report me to the Ministry of Love. Thanks, gang.
 
allanb said:

Are there any Christians out there who can explain why their superhuman god needs to be protected by human laws against human jokes and insults?

His supporters habitually refer to him as "almighty and everlasting" but I am beginning to think that in reality he must be a bit of a wimp.
Click to expand...

He's not a wimp, the blasphemy laws are to protect us - not him. If you subscribe to an Old Testament view of God, you don't want to be living near to Blasphemers.

One of many links ... Search for Falwell and anything to do with Sep 11

I can't believe even these people believe that somehow God had managed to pack the towers with abortionists, homosexuals and ACLU members - hence when the angry god strikes out inncocents get hurt. The best way to prevent god striking out is not to annoy him in the first place.

Blasphemy laws are needed therefore to prevent God killing innocent people.
 
One argument formerly advanced in support of blasphemy laws was that unfettered speech on the topic of religion could lead the unwary into error, at the peril of their souls. The same argument could of course be used against free speech on any topic, and is today in the case of anti-hate-speech laws.
Click to expand...
Strange as it seems today, four hundred years ago the idea of normal people discussing politics at all was seen as a worrying and bad development.
 
Does blasphemy refer to the mocking of a specific god or just any god. If the latter, it seem to me that Xians and other religious people are the greatest basphemers, considering the way they refer to each others beliefs.
Ateists tend to be more concerned about other people than those people's gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom