Ship of Fools: Is blasphemy still a thing?

Thread: Is blasphemy still a thing? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020176

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

"Police in Ireland are investigating a complaint of blasphemy regarding comments made by Stephen Fry on a television programme shown on Ireland’s state broadcaster, RTÉ.

Gardaí (police) in Dublin have contacted the man who reported the allegation following a broadcast in February 2015, and a full investigation is due to be carried out, the Irish Independent reported.

Under Ireland’s Defamation Act 2009 a person who publishes or utters blasphemous material “shall be guilty of an offence”. A conviction can lead to a fine of up to €25,000."

It seems odd to me that speaking against (any) God should be an offence under law - criminal?

What do you think?

Article

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Well there is law, and then there is using your noddle as to what you do or don't say with regarding sensitive matters.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I would suggest that criticism of God is far less blasphemous than some of what I've heard from people in the pulpit who claim to be friends of His. Regardless of what you consider to be blasphemy, it's counterproductive to make it part of secular law. Apart from anything else if God is particularly offended he's more than capable of dealing with it himself.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

This is surely a relic of the strong church/state ties in Ireland. In practical terms, how would you make such an offence stick in court?

Fry himself said

"I don't think I mentioned once any particular religion and I certainly didn't intend, and in fact I know I didn't say anything offensive towards any particular religion"

There only appears to have been one complainant, and the law defines the offence as "thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".

I confidently predict that if a prosecution went ahead, Fry could comfortably raise millions of pounds from supporters to defend the case, and win or lose, then give all the rest of the money to some sort of cause that would piss the church off, like a pro abortion campaigner.

I don't think a prosecution will actually happen.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The thing is, the majority of what he said, I would concur with. I think he raised very important points. It is not blasphemy, it is questioning, it is exploring.

I do remember when he first made the comments someone on my FB timeline being utterly outraged at what he said (this person was on the definitively conservative side of Christianity). I tried to explain my perspective, but got nowhere.

I can understand the shock of this if you have never heard or asked these questions yourself. But that is just a learning experience, surely. His questions and challenges are held in some for by many people, even if not always so eloquently expressed.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

The law was brought in by the grossly-incompetent Fianna Fail government of Brian Cowen.

The gardai are currently in the news for falsifying statistics, with the commissioner being described as "embattled" It seems highly likely that they're going through the motions of investigating this complaint in the vain hope of avoiding publicity.

As blasphemy laws go, it seems relatively restrained, prohibiting only gross insult that intentionally causes outrage among a substantial number of the followers of a religion.

I'd guess that Mr Fry's intent was to portray himself as someone who takes the problem of evil seriously - no crime involved.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I've been trying to work this out and I think there are two possibilities. The Blasphemy law is an old hangover of the constitution which was altered by a High Court ruling in 2009 which meant there was less need for a referendum to repeal it. As it stands, I suspect it is covering what would otherwise be called a 'hate crime' but possibly specific to the religious sphere. Trouble is, there has been no case since to test that. So the possibilities are:
1. Someone is deliberately bringing a test case.
2. There's a bit of joker who thought it would be funny to test the bounds of a stupid law everybody else forgot about.
I think number 2 is probably the reality.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bring it on. Stephen was right to confront the blasphemy of projected God of evil culture. "How dare you!" indeed.

[ 07. May 2017, 09:54: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

The thing is, as soon as one person complains and that complaint isn't immediately rejected, the police can be said to be investigating.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I don't think there should be a law against it, but I have noticed an increasing tendency from comedians and commentators on TV to say things about how evil God is -- and get nothing but agreement and encouragement from the audience.

I feel like God isn't getting equal time. There's no one ever there to say that most believers think God created the world, but that he gave man free will and it is man who chooses to do evil.

Stephen Fry called God, "capricious, mean-minded, stupid," and then went on to be "astonished," that anyone was offended because he didn't name any one particular religion. I think it's Fry who's being rather capricious, mean-minded and stupid.

My favorite radio program is NPR's Moth story hour in which people tell stories about their own lives. Yesterday was a repeat of a young man telling a long story about gradually losing his Orthodox Jewish faith as he ate different non-kosher foods and "God didn't strike me dead." The audience just howled with laughter over every mention of things he wasn't allowed to eat, and his parents and rabbi's other rules. It was amusing in places, but it mainly struck me as sad.

The part that bothers me is the general assumption that we're all going to think religion and it's silly rules are just funny old fashioned things and, thank lower case god, we've all grown out of that.

[ 07. May 2017, 11:40: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I feel like God isn't getting equal time. There's no one ever there to say that most believers think God created the world, but that he gave man free will and it is man who chooses to do evil.

...

The part that bothers me is the general assumption that we're all going to think religion and it's silly rules are just funny old fashioned things and, thank lower case god, we've all grown out of that.

But, who's at fault here? If people genuinely think that religion is just "silly rules", isn't that something we should be countering by the examples of our own lives? If people aren't saying "but people choose to do evil that causes suffering" then how can they hear that? It isn't the responsibility of (secular) law makers to define what religious people believe and do.

Besides, the "people choose to do evil" answer doesn't address the example Fry chose. A young child with bone cancer, how was that caused by people choosing evil? It's a dilemma that's millenia old, an man born blind - was that the result of his sin, or his parents? Both "God created, and what He created contains evils like childhood cancers" and "people have free will and choose not to follow God" are simplistic answers that don't address the real issues, and are equally wrong (in different ways). There is, and I suppose never will be, a simple answer. Which, of course, doesn't work well in a sound-bite culture.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So the possibilities are:
1. Someone is deliberately bringing a test case.
2. There's a bit of joker who thought it would be funny to test the bounds of a stupid law everybody else forgot about.
I think number 2 is probably the reality.

I'd go for 1 myself.

Instead of using blasphemy law, why not invite Fry to debate the matter. That would be interesting, and potentially constructive as well.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Mr. Fry is only saying what many posters on these boards say or think. Just as well we/they don't all live in the enlightened(?) Republic of Ireland.

I guess that this may be a throwback to the dreadful days when the Republic was firmly under the heel of the jackboot of the Roman Catholic Church.

Having lit the blue touch-paper, I shall now retire, collecting my coat on the way out, switching off the light, and quietly closing the door behind me.

IJ

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So what is the apologetic Alan?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ireland is secularising as we speak, so this case is only likely to hasten the day when the blasphemy law in Ireland is struck from the books. A referendum will be required, so I understand.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

One large part of the reason why Ireland was 'under the jackboot of the Roman Catholic church ' was because the island was for many centuries under the jackboot of the English who made things very difficult for the Irish. The Catholic Church was indeed the 'soul' of the nation. It has taken many decades for the Irish to be able to put aside the authority of the Church.

The same thing is happening now in Poland. For several centuries the Catholic church was the guarantor of the 'soul' of Poland. Now that Poland is relatively free of foreign occupation the people are less likely to pay attention to the ideas of the Church.

I'm not sure if there are still laws of blasphemy on the statute book in England but they were certainly invoked about twenty years ago in connection,I think, with a play about Roman soldiers.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Forthview wrote:

quote:
I'm not sure if there are still laws of blasphemy on the statute book in England but they were certainly invoked about twenty years ago in connection,I think, with a play about Roman soldiers.

If you're thinking of the Gay News case, with the poem about the centurion getting it on with Jesus on the cross, I think that was more like forty years ago. Mid-70s, I believe.

As for the RCC in Ireland, would you characterize their relation to the British as being resistant, or collaborative? I ask because, in the Canadian province of Lower Canada(later Quebec), also Catholic and under British rule, the Church basically worked in tandem with the British to govern the place, and(according to certain commonly accepted versions of the history) keep the people submissive and docile.

So, in that case, to condemn the British is essentially to condemn the Church at the same time.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

What do you think?

Blasphemy laws are unjust anachronisms that inhibit freedom and, ultimately, hurt faith.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I feel like God isn't getting equal time.

Which god?
Why should s/he?

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is not blasphemy, it is questioning, it is exploring.

If you do not question your faith, I question whether you truly have faith.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I feel like God isn't getting equal time. There's no one ever there to say that most believers think God created the world, but that he gave man free will and it is man who chooses to do evil.

...

The part that bothers me is the general assumption that we're all going to think religion and it's silly rules are just funny old fashioned things and, thank lower case god, we've all grown out of that.
But, who's at fault here? If people genuinely think that religion is just "silly rules", isn't that something we should be countering by the examples of our own lives? If people aren't saying "but people choose to do evil that causes suffering" then how can they hear that? It isn't the responsibility of (secular) law makers to define what religious people believe and do.

Besides, the "people choose to do evil" answer doesn't address the example Fry chose. A young child with bone cancer, how was that caused by people choosing evil? It's a dilemma that's millenia old, an man born blind - was that the result of his sin, or his parents? Both "God created, and what He created contains evils like childhood cancers" and "people have free will and choose not to follow God" are simplistic answers that don't address the real issues, and are equally wrong (in different ways). There is, and I suppose never will be, a simple answer. Which, of course, doesn't work well in a sound-bite culture.

The article I read about this didn't include Fry's bone cancer example. I don't have an answer for why those things happen. It was the, "God is stupid and evil," part that I read.

I said, very first thing, that I don't think there should be a law against blasphemy, so, obviously it wasn't secular law makers I was talking about when saying the other side wasn't given equal time. It was the TV shows who love to have guests like Fry but never anyone to speak for the other side. Of course it's their choice. I just don't have to like it.

I personally don't think children get cancer because God gave it to them. YMMV

[ 07. May 2017, 15:42: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
If you're thinking of the Gay News case, with the poem about the centurion getting it on with Jesus on the cross, I think that was more like forty years ago. Mid-70s, I believe.

Late 70s. I studied that case at Uni in the early 1980s, and am dismayed to realise I recall nothing of it, bar Mr Lemon's name and that the case book had a green binding.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Forthview wrote:

quote:
I'm not sure if there are still laws of blasphemy on the statute book in England but they were certainly invoked about twenty years ago in connection,I think, with a play about Roman soldiers.
If you're thinking of the Gay News case, with the poem about the centurion getting it on with Jesus on the cross, I think that was more like forty years ago. Mid-70s, I believe.

It was deffo the 1970s. The Blasphemy Laws were finally erased from the UK Statute Books to a muted quaver from the C of E around the middle of the previous decade.

The thing is, you can have blasphemy laws only if you have an Established Church, to which all members of the judiciary belong. There was some foolish and weak talk of extending the laws to all religions during the Rushdie Affair which never came to anything. Now if you have an Established Church and its members dominate the bench then you can have judges ruling that this statement is blasphemous and this statement is not and such statements will be accepted, by and large, by the Established Church. But if an aggrieved Muslim brings a prosecution against Salman Rushdie, and a Judge, who is a member of a Liberal Synagogue, say, or a lapsed Catholic; rules that, on balance and in this instance, the claims of freedom of speech outweigh the legitimate concerns among Muslims about the literary treatment of the Prophet that will satisfy neither the aggrieved Muslims nor the secularists who think that Mr Rushdie should be able to speak his mind without being dragged before the courts. If Almighty God feels very strongly about unpunished instances of Blasphemous Libel it is well within His purview to make His feelings known on the subject. If we are to have pluralistic societies judges should stay well away from the matter.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Callan wrote:

quote:
The thing is, you can have blasphemy laws only if you have an Established Church, to which all members of the judiciary belong.

Well, this was the presiding judge in the initial Gay News Case, which went AGAINST the defendant. Check out his religion.

Mind you, he wasn't the one who delivered the verdict, as it was a jury trial, and he also declined to jail the offenders.

And Canada, with no Established Church, still has "blasphemous libel" on the books. Don't think I've ever heard of a case going to court, though.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The real blasphemy is what people inflict on human beings, who are made in God's image.

What Fry said was very good and to the point.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Callan wrote:

quote:
The thing is, you can have blasphemy laws only if you have an Established Church, to which all members of the judiciary belong.
Well, this was the presiding judge in the initial Gay News Case, which went AGAINST the defendant. Check out his religion.

Mind you, he wasn't the one who delivered the verdict, as it was a jury trial, and he also declined to jail the offenders.

And Canada, with no Established Church, still has "blasphemous libel" on the books. Don't think I've ever heard of a case going to court, though.

That is very interesting.

But I don't think that had he directed the Jurors to find the defendants not guilty, we would have had Mrs Hairy Whitemouse standing on the steps of the Old Bailey solemnly telling the press that she had believed that the poem was blasphemous but since the judge's summing up she now realised that it was not.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Stetson- as far as the RC church in Ireland and its relations with the British authorities is concerned ,it depends what period of time you are thinking of. The last direct martyr in a religious sense would have been Oliver Plunkett, Archbishop of Armagh, executed in 1681.Of course there would be undoubtedly many other martyrs for 'Ould Ireland' in the various controversies of the day, most, but not all, of whom would have been Roman Catholics. It goes without saying that the RC church guarded the 'soul' of Catholic Ireland,and that included the vast mass of the population,who were greatly disadvantaged because of their religion.

In much later times certainly by the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th the RC Church would have readily accepted the situation of British rule, preferring that to the ideas of socialism, then beginning to take root. The Catholic church certainly ,as perhaps many of the general population, did not support the Easter rising of 1916. The reaction of the British authorities to the Easter rising led to greater support on the part of the population and of the RC church for independence.

Again it goes without saying that at the point of independence and 'freedom' that the RC church which could be seen as the guarantor of the 'soul' of the nation would be given many privileges, just as the Church of England had and still has many privileges in England.

It is a moot point as to whether the Church,in general, not just the RC church, has historically a role in keeping the population generally docile to authority.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what is the apologetic Alan?

Something that theologians, scholars, pastors (especially pastors) have been working through for 2 millennia and have still to work out. Certainly not something that can be distilled into a soundbite. Sorry Mr Trump, important things can't be communicated in 140 characters or less.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ooooh, I dunno. It's pretty bloody obvious that God cannot do better than meaningless suffering as the price of existence, but Christianity can do a bloody sight better than the dross it comes up with in the face of that.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Balaam:

quote:

Instead of using blasphemy law, why not invite Fry to debate the matter. That would be interesting, and potentially constructive as well.

If this case were to bring about a referendum to enact it's repeal, Fry is the last person I would want leading the charge.

As it is, it can't. Since 2009, a change after a legal resolution in 1999 means the constitutional clause relates solely and entirely to what is called elsewhere in the Western world as 'hate crime'. There has never been a test case in Ireland to stretch the parameters of the law to cover other religions other than Christianity. There is no need to stretch it to take into account race or gender or anything else, as these are covered by separate laws. It's simply a law applying to Christianity at present - or at least it appears that way. There have been requests for referendums to remove it, but especially since the 2009 alteration in the High Court ruling you would be removing something quite important. As it stands it gives protection to entire communities from being the target of bigoted or abusive behaviour that has the intention to cause physical harm and illicit hatred for the purposes of division and physical harm. I think to effectively bring a blasphemy case against someone or a group you would need to prove that there was at least the intention to inflict physical assault or illicit it from others. I'm perfectly happy for it to exist if I'm honest but I would like to see a widening of its parameters. They technically speaking could have a referendum and repeal it, but it would be immediately replaced through the parliamentary houses with an identical bill in all but name.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The real blasphemy is what people inflict on human beings, who are made in God's image.

What Fry said was very good and to the point.

If you agree with Fry that God is capricious, mean-minded, and stupid then it should only seem right that you inflict bad things on those who are made in his image, shouldn't it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The real blasphemy is what people inflict on human beings, who are made in God's image.

What Fry said was very good and to the point.
If you agree with Fry that God is capricious, mean-minded, and stupid then it should only seem right that you inflict bad things on those who are made in his image, shouldn't it?

Fry, IMO, is questioning the way God is presented by the typical Christian v. what exists in the real world. He is questioning, also, the acceptance of such. Absolutely nothing that isn't done on these very boards by Christians.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert

The thing I go on being unable to understand is how a person can't see the flaw in saying they are so very, very angry with a God they claim doesn't exist.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert

The thing I go on being unable to understand is how a person can't see the flaw in saying they are so very, very angry with a God they claim doesn't exist.

Well, people are not always rational.
But there is a rational rationale. One can be angry with Christians who support that view of God.
"God's Plan" can, and has been, used as an excuse to not help those in need, to vote in a manner that is not beneficial to them, etc.
And the pure inconsistency will irritate some people.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert

The thing I go on being unable to understand is how a person can't see the flaw in saying they are so very, very angry with a God they claim doesn't exist.

Er, the good doctor (of philology I believe) was implicitly using the subjunctive.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I was also thinking this irony would not have escaped such an intelligent individual. He is no stranger to courting controversy on religion, and Christianity continues to be the soft target.
Not sure it's all that big a deal really. More likely to bind a beleaguered and fractured institution than do it any more damage than has already been inflicted on it by itself.

Looks like a mini twitter storm that will rapidly been blown out by the next one.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I've been trying to work this out and I think there are two possibilities. The Blasphemy law is an old hangover of the constitution which was altered by a High Court ruling in 2009 which meant there was less need for a referendum to repeal it. As it stands, I suspect it is covering what would otherwise be called a 'hate crime' but possibly specific to the religious sphere. *snip*

I was under the impression that it was a mediaeval offence? Certainly it was there in Irish law at the time of Dean Swift (1667-1745). I was not aware that it made its way into de Valera's 1937 constitution but it is a very old offence indeed. As others have noted, Canada continues to have it as an offence and AFAIK it's always been in the criminal code, from at least 1892.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The real blasphemy is what people inflict on human beings, who are made in God's image.

What Fry said was very good and to the point.
If you agree with Fry that God is capricious, mean-minded, and stupid then it should only seem right that you inflict bad things on those who are made in his image, shouldn't it?
Fry, IMO, is questioning the way God is presented by the typical Christian v. what exists in the real world. He is questioning, also, the acceptance of such. Absolutely nothing that isn't done on these very boards by Christians.

Christians analyzing their own religion is very different than someone outside it pointing their finger and calling us all stupid for worshiping an evil god.

I think what bothers me about the interview is that Fry makes his statements with a little grin on his face that seems to be saying "Aren't I the clever, naughty boy to be saying these things."

Comedians like George Carlin were making jokes like this fifty years ago and Bill Maher does it today, I just don't think Fry is as daring as he thinks he is. I also rolled my eyes at his excuse that he wasn't being a bigot because he didn't name any specific religion. Only everyone of any religion who believes in God, I guess. It's like saying a certain race is stupid, but it's okay to say that so long as he doesn't name specific names.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides, the "people choose to do evil" answer doesn't address the example Fry chose. A young child with bone cancer, how was that caused by people choosing evil? It's a dilemma that's millenia old, an man born blind - was that the result of his sin, or his parents? Both "God created, and what He created contains evils like childhood cancers" and "people have free will and choose not to follow God" are simplistic answers that don't address the real issues, and are equally wrong (in different ways). There is, and I suppose never will be, a simple answer.

This.

One sticks with the Christian faith not because there is an answer to the question of suffering, but - pace Alvin Plantinga and the freewill defence - despite the fact that there is not.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I wonder if a downside of pious theism, is that Christians and other religious people don't actually admit honestly what they really feel.

If something bad happens, some religious people are tempted to say things such as "Part of the plan, everything works to the good, blah blah".

What if life simply sucks? And what would happen if people simply say that.

The interesting thing to me is that if atheism is correct, and there is no God, no order, no natural justice, then realistically you can't exactly claim in honesty, that life sucks in the sense of being unjust. If there is no expectation of objective morality or ultimate justice, then you can't claim injustice.

Theodicy, only makes sense as a topic if you presume God. If there is no God, it seems nonsensical to expect the universe to be just or good in any such way.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert

The thing I go on being unable to understand is how a person can't see the flaw in saying they are so very, very angry with a God they claim doesn't exist.

He was asked to say what he would say to God if he met him 'at the pearly gates'. So the 'flaw' only exists because he entered into the spirit of the hypothetical question. Seems odd to criticize him for that.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if a downside of pious theism, is that Christians and other religious people don't actually admit honestly what they really feel.

If something bad happens, some religious people are tempted to say things such as "Part of the plan, everything works to the good, blah blah".

What if life simply sucks? And what would happen if people simply say that.

Christians DO say that in my experience. When they're not using stronger language. I've rarely encountered the kind of keeping-up-appearances you mention, though I read about it fairly often. But I just haven't seen it in real life.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The real blasphemy is what people inflict on human beings, who are made in God's image.

What Fry said was very good and to the point.
If you agree with Fry that God is capricious, mean-minded, and stupid then it should only seem right that you inflict bad things on those who are made in his image, shouldn't it?
Fry, IMO, is questioning the way God is presented by the typical Christian v. what exists in the real world. He is questioning, also, the acceptance of such. Absolutely nothing that isn't done on these very boards by Christians.
Christians analyzing their own religion is very different than someone outside it pointing their finger and calling us all stupid for worshiping an evil god.

I think what bothers me about the interview is that Fry makes his statements with a little grin on his face that seems to be saying "Aren't I the clever, naughty boy to be saying these things."

Comedians like George Carlin were making jokes like this fifty years ago and Bill Maher does it today, I just don't think Fry is as daring as he thinks he is. I also rolled my eyes at his excuse that he wasn't being a bigot because he didn't name any specific religion. Only everyone of any religion who believes in God, I guess. It's like saying a certain race is stupid, but it's okay to say that so long as he doesn't name specific names.

Are you sure that the basic problem here isn't that Fry is just not up your street as far as comedians go? Clearly you find him smarmy and sneery. I find him extremely funny when he's trying to be funny. I also like that he does have, and share, opinions about things that are important to him. But I think comedians do tend to divide people. There are certainly some out there who seem to have huge followings, that I don't find funny at all.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I wonder if a downside of pious theism, is that Christians and other religious people don't actually admit honestly what they really feel.

If something bad happens, some religious people are tempted to say things such as "Part of the plan, everything works to the good, blah blah".

What if life simply sucks? And what would happen if people simply say that.

I'd guess some people here have seen Shadowlands, about arch-theodicist C.S. Lewis dealing with the early death of his wife.

At one point, someone says something to him about how his standard theodicy could explain the horror of his wife's sickness and death, and he snaps back "Yes, well I guess we're all just rats in God's laboratory, aren't we?"

Okay, he didn't come right out and say "God, that sadistic bastard", but it's pretty clear something like that was going on in his head when he made the comments.

Eventually, Lewish reconciles his ideas with the death of his wife, but for the time when he's having deep dounts about them, it seems to me his position isn't that far removed from that of a typical atheist.

I've been told the film is more or less accurate in portraying Lewis' thoughts and feelings at that point in his life.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Having seen Stephen Fry in action, I conclude that he was being deliberately provocative and was seeking reactions.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The real blasphemy is what people inflict on human beings, who are made in God's image.

What Fry said was very good and to the point.
If you agree with Fry that God is capricious, mean-minded, and stupid then it should only seem right that you inflict bad things on those who are made in his image, shouldn't it?

Actually, no. If you are capable of forming the opinion that Fry did, you are arguing from a position that holds that this world should be a heck of a lot better than it is, and therefore that its creator should be a heck of a lot better than he appears to be, and therefore, it behoves you to behave a heck of a lot better to his mistreated creatures than he does. Or you have no right to argue that he is capricious etc.

Meanwhile, on R4 this morning, the existence of a Trickster in polytheistic religions was discussed, unfortunately while I was fitfully catching up on sleep. The point they made was that monotheistic religions have to cope with the messiness of this world without being able to blame Trickster for it. It did occur to me that that the ability of "primitive" religions to look at Jesus and identify Him with Hare, Raven and so on suggested that there is a lot more to Trickster than simply making things wrong. I've often though in reading the folk tales that he has a lot to do with enabling a better life for people than the major gods have designed.

I read a graphic novel version of Greek myths by Marcia Williams, whose first work I read was on the Flood, in which she suggests that it was very wrong of Prometheus to oppose Zeus just because he was the king, where at least one ancient writer suggested that Zeus was wrong and needed to be opposed. And as for Odin...

But in the Abrahamic religions, all we have is Satan, and our own sinfulness inherited from a very, very minor infringement of obedience not fully explained (but given a different view by Jewish teaching which sees the expulsion from Eden as growing up, and important). And all the nasties inflicted on the world since then had to have been built in to the plans beforehand, so God is not let off the hook at all.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:

Are you sure that the basic problem here isn't that Fry is just not up your street as far as comedians go? Clearly you find him smarmy and sneery. I find him extremely funny when he's trying to be funny. I also like that he does have, and share, opinions about things that are important to him. But I think comedians do tend to divide people. There are certainly some out there who seem to have huge followings, that I don't find funny at all.

I understand what you're saying and agree in general, but I've actually been a fan of Stephen Fry for a long time. His show with Hugh Laurie, "A Bit of Fry and Laurie," always had me rolling. I just didn't like this particular interview because I find it personally offensive.

To answer the thread title, yes, I do think blasphemy is a thing, not that it should be illegal but that it exists. Obviously many others don't mind what Fry said, and atheists in particular, probably think it does an hilarious job of pointing out just how ridiculous all the religious people are. To be honest, it makes me cringe.

Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Having seen Stephen Fry in action, I conclude that he was being deliberately provocative and was seeking reactions.

He was asked to give his opinion on a specific hypothetical question, which he gave. Indeed for him it was doubly hypothetical since he doesn't believe God exists anyway. His atheism is well known, so if anyone was being "provocative" and "seeking reactions" it was the presenter who put the question to him.
What a complete and utterly pointless distraction - no better than the Archbishop of York getting annoyed about whether a company founded by a Quaker includes the word "Easter" when advertising its chocolate eggs. [Mad]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

What if life simply sucks? And what would happen if people simply say that.

Then, to paraphrase the tale of Ben Ezra, in return for enduring this life, we should ask God to send the Messiah and redeem the whole world.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Actually, it is also possible that this case has been taken by the Iona Institute and would certainly be in keeping with the kind of stunts they pull. For the uninitiated, the Iona Institute is a group of insidious and also petty individuals who have a beef with RTE for not being close enough to fundamentalist catholicism for their tastes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Penny S wrote:

quote:

Meanwhile, on R4 this morning, the existence of a Trickster in polytheistic religions was discussed, unfortunately while I was fitfully catching up on sleep. The point they made was that monotheistic religions have to cope with the messiness of this world without being able to blame Trickster for it. It did occur to me that that the ability of "primitive" religions to look at Jesus and identify Him with Hare, Raven and so on suggested that there is a lot more to Trickster than simply making things wrong. I've often though in reading the folk tales that he has a lot to do with enabling a better life for people than the major gods have designed.

I remember this from studying Jung, who was very interested in various Trickster figures. It's both a representation of the way life kicks against us, and also in some religions (esp. American), an aspect of the sacred itself.

He is a classic 'idiot' figure, who actually can act as a catalyst for others, and as something transformative.

Yes, you can connect it with Jesus, who has a subversive side, and also, has a shambolic career, with many people thinking he's mad or incomprehensible or just a failure. I suppose failing leads to transcendence (sometimes)! Try again. Fail again, fail better, and so on (Beckett).

Jung also talks about getting the opposite of what you want from the Trickster, and he relates this to God. I suppose you can connect this with Satan in Job, who is a kind of consigliere figure.

[ 08. May 2017, 12:48: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if a downside of pious theism, is that Christians and other religious people don't actually admit honestly what they really feel.

If something bad happens, some religious people are tempted to say things such as "Part of the plan, everything works to the good, blah blah".

What if life simply sucks? And what would happen if people simply say that.

Christians DO say that in my experience. When they're not using stronger language. I've rarely encountered the kind of keeping-up-appearances you mention, though I read about it fairly often. But I just haven't seen it in real life.

They DON'T here. It's impossible to have this conversation.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As it stands, I suspect it is covering what would otherwise be called a 'hate crime' but possibly specific to the religious sphere.

Nope. A "hate crime" is an otherwise criminal offense (assault, vandalism, etc.) motivated by animus towards a group. What you're describing is "hate speech", animus-motivated negative and false characterizations of a group. The two are often conflated, but they are distinct legal terms of art.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I feel like God isn't getting equal time. There's no one ever there to say that most believers think God created the world, but that he gave man free will and it is man who chooses to do evil.

Stephen Fry called God, "capricious, mean-minded, stupid," and then went on to be "astonished," that anyone was offended because he didn't name any one particular religion. I think it's Fry who's being rather capricious, mean-minded and stupid.

My favorite radio program is NPR's Moth story hour . . .

If your favorite radio program is on NPR you probably live in the United States, a nation awash in religious broadcasters and whole television channels devoted to promoting various flavors of Christianity. How many more Pat Robertsons and Jim Bakkers are necessary before you feel like God is getting "equal time"?

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I guess that this may be a throwback to the dreadful days when the Republic was firmly under the heel of the jackboot of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sort of, but not really. Blogger Thersites explains some of the history in this 2010 post:

quote:
Ireland provides a pretty good example of what I mean. Throughout much of the last century, the Free State, & then the Republic, had a notoriously strict censorship regime, based on the 1929 Censorship of Publications Act. The Irish censorship regime was (and still is) often characterized as originating from atavistic Catholic confessional impulses.

But if you look closely at the public and official debates of the 20s, it just was not that way. The major motivation for the censorship laws was a pervasive fear that the new state was behind the times. Ireland was left without the sort of active censorship mechanisms that characters like Anthony Comstock had blessed the US with. Even more worrying were the strenuous activities of Jix, particularly, because, well, what was the point of independence if you were not distinctly more moral than those you said were too immoral to keep themselves in charge of you anymore? (Irish, Canadian, Australian, and Indian censorship regimes all proved pretty grim, FWIW -- ostentatious official rectitude in regards to The Sex being a tempting way to say "we deserve autonomy" on the cheap.)

Hence, the machinery of censorship in Ireland was intended as a mark of modernity, not of backwardness. Every truly grownup nation could ban shit it did not like, so why not the Saorstat?

The rest is well worth a read, but the main take-away is that Ireland's current blasphemy law is more an outgrowth and relic of a trend towards censorship in the 1920s being seen as the right an proper attitude of a modern state than any specifically Catholic interference.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Christians analyzing their own religion is very different than someone outside it pointing their finger and calling us all stupid for worshiping an evil god.

Not all gods are the Christian God, and not all mentions of God are specifically about Christianity. It's not always about you.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I find it bizarre that anything Fry said should be considered either offensive or blasphemous.

As has been said, he gave an honest and completely understandable response to the toughest questions that theism throws up. The problem of suffering built in to creation itself, which is apparently allowed to happen as it will, despite the presence of an all-loving and all-powerful God. Surely everyone has thought these same thoughts themselves at some point?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Croesos Of course it's not always about me. I already said that I thought Fry had insulted anyone within any religion that worshiped a god. In that last sentence, I was speaking for my own views and not anyone else. Something you might want to do before you describe all Americans from your elitist viewpoint. It was also in answer to someone saying that the Christians on this board question those things. If you would every try reading the entire conversation, in context, you might understand it better. For example:

I also already explained that I wasn't talking about equal time in the entire world. The expression "equal time," usually refers to a chance for rebuttal on the same show. as in right there to respond to Fry's "questions."

All those "Christian," TV shows you talk about are never seen or listened to by me or anyone I know. I get 1500 cable stations and black out all but about 20. That's true for most people. I know you enjoy your anti-American prejudices, but we really don't all sit in front of Jerry Falwell all day or the tattoo shows or for that matter the Home Shopping Network, anymore than I think you listen to the Archers twice a day and swear by the Daily Mail.

[ 08. May 2017, 14:32: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm surprised it isn't the only topic of conversation. That there isn't a robust theodicy of raging, meaningless suffering in the helplessness of God. Rather than pious twaddle.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I also already explained that I wasn't talking about equal time in the entire world. The expression "equal time," usually refers to a chance for rebuttal on the same show. as in right there to respond to Fry's "questions."

I'm not a big fan of the "Shape of the World: Opinions Differ" style of balance. For example:

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Fry:
I’d say ‘Bone cancer in children, what’s that about?’ How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil.

It would be very hard to find a pro-pediatric-bone-cancer spokesperson and I'm not really certain of the value of airing the views of such a person. Not every statement requires an in-program rebuttal.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Fry:
I’d say ‘Bone cancer in children, what’s that about?’ How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil.
It would be very hard to find a pro-pediatric-bone-cancer spokesperson and I'm not really certain of the value of airing the views of such a person. Not every statement requires an in-program rebuttal.

Fry's statement was in answer to what he would ask God. What part of his sentence makes you think he was saying he was "against bone cancer"
so that the rebuttal would be "pro-bone cancer?"

Do you really not understand that he wasn't saying he was against bone cancer. That is a given in most people's mind. What Fry was doing was asking God why he allowed bone cancer in a world he created.

Therefore the rebuttal would not be "pro bone cancer" but about whether or not God was responsible for the bone cancer, or whether or not he had a purpose involved in the bone cancer, or whether or not God created the world and then stepped back and let it take it's course through natural law, or whether or not the world is currently controlled by Satan as Jehovah's Witnesses believe, or whatever. There are opposing viewpoints that, I think, would be interesting to hear.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

From Croesos' blogpost:

quote:
(Irish, Canadian, Australian, and Indian censorship regimes all proved pretty grim, FWIW -- ostentatious official rectitude in regards to The Sex being a tempting way to say "we deserve autonomy" on the cheap.)

Just since he mentioned Canada, I'm not sure that particular country really belongs on the list of nations' trying to promote their own autonomy via censorship, assuming it's autonomy from Britain being referenced.

The movement to make the Canadian colony into an independent country wasn't really an anti-British movement at all. It was more an anti-American movement, the idea(which I can only really give the bare bones of) being that a united country would be able to better defend itself against American expansion.

If anything, the general gist of Confederation, at least as far as the English-Canadians were concerned, was to ensure that the people living in the northern half of North America remained British.

It is true that Canadian cultural mores had a reputation for being particularly prudish. But interestingly enough, given current perceptions, it was often the Americans who were perceived as the wild-eyed libertines. As late as the 1970s, it wasn't unheard of to hear Canadians say things like(direct quote): "With more American influence up here, we'll be getting more magazines like Playboy and Mad(*)."

(*) For British shipmates, think of a PG version of Viz.

[ 08. May 2017, 15:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't think you can have instant rebuttals on programmes with interviews in them, it would become absurd. Brad Pitt is interviewed, and warns against booze, so we need someone now who recommends it? Or v. v.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Fry:
I’d say ‘Bone cancer in children, what’s that about?’ How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil.
It would be very hard to find a pro-pediatric-bone-cancer spokesperson and I'm not really certain of the value of airing the views of such a person. Not every statement requires an in-program rebuttal.
Fry's statement was in answer to what he would ask God. What part of his sentence makes you think he was saying he was "against bone cancer" so that the rebuttal would be "pro-bone cancer?"

The part where he says "It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil." A full rebuttal would require an argument that bone cancer in children was actually a good thing. It might additionally require someone who agrees that it's bad but not God's fault, and someone who agrees that it's bad and God's fault but God's not to blame because [insert reason(s)]. They'd require a lot of time to rebut every single thing Fry said. I'm trying to imagine this standard of rebutting everything in action:

quote:
Fry: My next project is very interesting and people should watch it.

Interviewer: Up next, someone to explain why Stephen Fry's next project is terrible and no one should watch it.

Seems cumbersome.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Fry:
I’d say ‘Bone cancer in children, what’s that about?’ How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil.
It would be very hard to find a pro-pediatric-bone-cancer spokesperson and I'm not really certain of the value of airing the views of such a person. Not every statement requires an in-program rebuttal.
Fry's statement was in answer to what he would ask God. What part of his sentence makes you think he was saying he was "against bone cancer"
so that the rebuttal would be "pro-bone cancer?"

Do you really not understand that he wasn't saying he was against bone cancer. That is a given in most people's mind. What Fry was doing was asking God why he allowed bone cancer in a world he created.

Therefore the rebuttal would not be "pro bone cancer" but about whether or not God was responsible for the bone cancer, or whether or not he had a purpose involved in the bone cancer, or whether or not God created the world and then stepped back and let it take it's course through natural law, or whether or not the world is currently controlled by Satan as Jehovah's Witnesses believe, or whatever. There are opposing viewpoints that, I think, would be interesting to hear.

That would take it out of the realms of "an interview with Stephen Fry" and into the realms of a panel discussion about theodicy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think you can have instant rebuttals on programmes with interviews in them, it would become absurd. Brad Pitt is interviewed, and warns against booze, so we need someone now who recommends it? Or v. v.

Why not? It is what we do with issues like climate change.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think you can have instant rebuttals on programmes with interviews in them, it would become absurd. Brad Pitt is interviewed, and warns against booze, so we need someone now who recommends it? Or v. v.
Why not? It is what we do with issues like climate change.

The BBC tend to do it, on programmes like 'Newsnight'. After a chat with Varoufakis about globalization, over to our easy-fit right-wing columnist, who will tell us how wonderful it is.

But to do it with all interviews would be bizarre, and kind of infantilizing. Fry said something awful about religion, so here is nice kind Sister Flipflop to tell you how nice God is.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The real blasphemy is what people inflict on human beings, who are made in God's image.

What Fry said was very good and to the point.
If you agree with Fry that God is capricious, mean-minded, and stupid then it should only seem right that you inflict bad things on those who are made in his image, shouldn't it?

What Paul said about his answering a question.

There is a similar YouTube clip of Fry which many RE teachers use to open up a discussion about theodicy.

Should these teachere be prosecuted too?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think you can have instant rebuttals on programmes with interviews in them, it would become absurd. Brad Pitt is interviewed, and warns against booze, so we need someone now who recommends it? Or v. v.
Why not? It is what we do with issues like climate change.
The BBC tend to do it, on programmes like 'Newsnight'. After a chat with Varoufakis about globalization, over to our easy-fit right-wing columnist, who will tell us how wonderful it is.

But to do it with all interviews would be bizarre, and kind of infantilizing. Fry said something awful about religion, so here is nice kind Sister Flipflop to tell you how nice God is.

The point is that not all issues have opposite sides that are equal. Alcoholism is good and humans are not affecting the climate are both the same kind of stupid and giving them equal time is ridiculous.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Theism as a philosophical position utterly fails at answering the question of suffering. To take one extreme example, why do some children grow up to be healthy, stable adults, who marry and have children of their own and lead wonderful lives,

and why do some children die of hunger or disease?

I don't believe that God goes eenie, meanie, miney mo, you will live, you will die, because a micromanaging God would be cruel, sadistic and coldhearted.

My theological hunch, or inadequate explanation drawn from my interpretation of the mythic creature Leviathan, which to me, represents chaos, disorder, and generally suckiness in the universe, is that God did not destroy Leviathan at the beginning of time, but simply allowed it to exist in our world. So yes, I think God allows chance to exist which opens a space for suffering, earthquakes, mosquitoes, and really bad politicians to screw everything up. At the same time, God still loves the universe.

How this all wraps together, I probably won't find out in this life time/

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

We'll ALWAYS have to take it on faith.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The real blasphemy is what people inflict on human beings, who are made in God's image.

What Fry said was very good and to the point.
If you agree with Fry that God is capricious, mean-minded, and stupid then it should only seem right that you inflict bad things on those who are made in his image, shouldn't it?
What Paul said about his answering a question.

There is a similar YouTube clip of Fry which many RE teachers use to open up a discussion about theodicy.

Should these teachere be prosecuted too?

I've said about five times now that I don't think Fry should be prosecuted so why would I think anyone else should? Nice try pretending, though.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I saw a tweet which indicated that the complainant was someone who wanted the silliness of the law to come to light.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Now that assorted Members of Parliament here have discovered that, (horror, shame) NZ also has blasphemy laws, there is a mad scrabble to repeal them, with a humanist spokes person suggesting that it puts us in a similar position to certain Arab countries [Killing me]

(the last, unsuccessful prosecution was in the 1920s)

I am all in favour of changing the law, but the reactions amused me.

Of course it is election year...

Huia

Huia

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Now that assorted Members of Parliament here have discovered that, (horror, shame) NZ also has blasphemy laws, there is a mad scrabble to repeal them, with a humanist spokes person suggesting that it puts us in a similar position to certain Arab countries (the last, unsuccessful prosecution was in the 1920s)

I am all in favour of changing the law, but the reactions amused me.

Blasphemy laws are an affront to freedom of conscience and should be a source of "shame". It's kind of like finding out that your jurisdiction still has laws on the books permitting slavery. Yeah, no one actually owns slaves within your jurisdiction (at least not today), but it's an embarrassment on moral grounds (or at least it should be).

The other problem comes when some over-zealous enforcer decides to dust off those laws, or at least threatens to, which is more or less where we came in.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Now that assorted Members of Parliament here have discovered that, (horror, shame) NZ also has blasphemy laws, there is a mad scrabble to repeal them, with a humanist spokes person suggesting that it puts us in a similar position to certain Arab countries (the last, unsuccessful prosecution was in the 1920s)

I am all in favour of changing the law, but the reactions amused me.

Of course it is election year...

Huia

Huia

Order.

Order.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Gardai confirmed earlier this evening that the case has been dropped as they were unable to establish a section of the community that was outraged and hurt by the comments made by Fry or that felt they were under physical threat as a result. The person who initially reported the case has kept their right of anonymity but have described themselves as a 'witness' and not the target of the comments.

It's either been a joker or some lunatic fringe of the irish humanists, of which there are sadly many here.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
It's either been a joker or some lunatic fringe of the irish humanists, of which there are sadly many here.

The fact that the police even had to investigate the comments is proof of what a disaster the law is, even if the complainants point was just that.

Because if a humanist can launch an investigation just as part of an ad absurdum protest against the law, there's nothing stopping someone from doing it for more sinister reasons.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
It's either been a joker or some lunatic fringe of the irish humanists, of which there are sadly many here.
The fact that the police even had to investigate the comments is proof of what a disaster the law is, even if the complainants point was just that.

Because if a humanist can launch an investigation just as part of an ad absurdum protest against the law, there's nothing stopping someone from doing it for more sinister reasons.

An enquiry is just an enquiry. When I was younger I was smoking a cigarette and minding my own business on a Saturday evening. The fuzz pulled over.

Fuzz: Can we have a word?
Me; Sure
Fuzz: What have you got in that bag?
Me: Classical Music tapes?
Fuzz: Where did you get them?
Me: My friend's dad gave them to me. He lives over there. (points to big house) You can ask him if you want.
Fuzz: No need for that sir. There have been a number of burglaries this evening and we just had to check.
Me: OK, no problem.

So basically, I was pulled over for being scruffy* and smoking a fag. But with a bit of luck and a prevailing wind they might have pulled over Wurzel Raffles, the fiendish cat burglar of the West Country. The thing is that by and large the police have to examine a number of lines of enquiry that turn out to be fruitless and if someone makes a complaint they have to be able to demonstrate that they checked that it was baseless before dismissing it. Obviously this ought not to be taken for granted - there are West Indian gentlemen of a certain age who remember when being black in a public place was a cause for suspicion, but if the police are courteous and move on when innocence is established then I would say no harm, no foul.

*I was once taken for being a junkie up to no good on similar grounds by a neighbour. The chap apologised profusely when he realised that the reason I was unshaven and fossicking around in the cupboard outside my flat was because I had woken up to find that there had been a power cut and I was trying to trigger the emergency overdraft on my meter, under the misapprehension that I had run out of credit.

{ETA: It doesn't follow from any of this that the law is bad. Just that its badness will likely founder on the natural desire of the fuzz to catch the bad guys rather than wasting their time badgering innocents to no good end].

[ 09. May 2017, 12:20: Message edited by: Callan ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
The fact that the police even had to investigate the comments is proof of what a disaster the law is, even if the complainants point was just that.
An enquiry is just an enquiry.

<snip>

The thing is that by and large the police have to examine a number of lines of enquiry that turn out to be fruitless and if someone makes a complaint they have to be able to demonstrate that they checked that it was baseless before dismissing it. Obviously this ought not to be taken for granted - there are West Indian gentlemen of a certain age who remember when being black in a public place was a cause for suspicion, but if the police are courteous and move on when innocence is established then I would say no harm, no foul.

<snip>

{ETA: It doesn't follow from any of this that the law is bad. Just that its badness will likely founder on the natural desire of the fuzz to catch the bad guys rather than wasting their time badgering innocents to no good end].

Actually that is the problem with the law. It specifies that blasphemers are not considered "innocents" in the eyes of the law and that they are, in fact, "the bad guys". Sort of like a law that says being black in a public place actually is a crime, rather than a tissue-thin excuse for hassling by police.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

My bad. Would have helped if I had typed "isn't" rather than "is" in that last paragraph.

The best sort of blasphemy law is no blasphemy law. The next best is the sort that the police aren't enforcing.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Blasphemy law as such is only really appropriate in a state that either has a totalitarian state religion like Medieval Roman Catholicism or Tudor Anglicanism, or even if allowing a degree of plurality of belief, has one religion privileged above others and of course sees that religion as needing special protection against blasphemy.

In a truly plural society acts which are criminal anyway as unjustified interference with the religion's meetings, or are defamatory over and above matters of the truth of the religion, may also involve what the religion thinks is blasphemy. But the law would be dealing with it as harassment/defamation/etc, not as 'blasphemy'.

As an atheist, Fry cannot really be guilty in secular law of 'blasphemy'. In a plural society 'blasphemy' is a matter for the religion and for the limited penalties it can inflict as a private society - penalties equivalent to a sending-off in football or an exclusion from football more widely after really determined refusal to keep the FA's rules.

I must double-check what current UK blasphemy law is. Last time I checked in detail things were a bit unclear. Back in the 1960s-70s I seem to recall that it only applied in relation to the beliefs of the Church of England and even then the legal offence required some element of 'likely to provoke a breacvh of the peace' or something along those lines....

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Steve wrote:

quote:
As an atheist, Fry cannot really be guilty in secular law of 'blasphemy'.

So, you're saying that, under the law, whether or not you can be found guilty of blasphemy depends on your personally held religious beliefs? I find that a little hard to believe.

For starters, if an accused blasphemer were to say "I was an atheist when I printed up that cartoon of Jesus flashing old ladies in the park", how could anyone prove him wrong? Ask his friends and neighbours about his privately expressed religious views? Subpoena the registry of his local Anglican church?

[ 09. May 2017, 14:58: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Obviously this ought not to be taken for granted - there are West Indian gentlemen of a certain age who remember when being black in a public place was a cause for suspicion, but if the police are courteous and move on when innocence is established then I would say no harm, no foul.

Yeah, but no.

It still happens.
Black and brown men are well likely to encounter this more than once.(Happens to black/brown women as well, but men have it worse.
The level of unpleasantness is dramatically less for white people in general.

Being scruffy and being black are not the same reasons for harassment, BTW.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

As an atheist, Fry cannot really be guilty in secular law of 'blasphemy'.

More than one atheist has been tried and convicted, so that would be wrong.

quote:

I must double-check what current UK blasphemy law is.

England and Wales - abolished.
Scotland - Still on the books, last prosecuted 170+ years ago. And might well be challenged by the Human Rights Act 1998.
NI - Still on the books, abolishment having been considered and rejected. Daft buggers.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

The Irish Police have closed their investigation, concluding that there was no injured party due to the remarks made by Fry....

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The Irish Police have closed their investigation, concluding that there was no injured party due to the remarks made by Fry....

It remains, though, that there should be no such law therefore; never any such investigation to start.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

If you look in the Irish papers today, you'll find that the case has been dropped because gardai can't find the requisite substantial number of people who were offended by the remarks.

And the complainant has said that he is satisfied with this.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Stetson and lilBuddha;
In your remarks about my comment that

quote:
As an atheist, Fry cannot really be guilty in secular law of 'blasphemy'

you have both ignored the context of 'in a truly plural society', and my point that basically unless other laws about harassment/defamation/etc are clearly broken, the only penalties 'blasphemers' should suffer in a plural society are the penalties that a private society like a sports club can properly impose. Which can reasonably include penalties such as exclusion of the offender till he renounces his conduct, of course.

It was rather my point that though people have suffered criminal penalties in the past that was wrong.

You do have a potential problem here that many religions do believe that they should ideally be manifested, for want of a better word, in a 'religious state' which would then expect criminal legal protection. Christianity according to the NT is not such a religion - though sadly since the 4th Century that point has not always been recognised.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you look in the Irish papers today, you'll find that the case has been dropped because gardai can't find the requisite substantial number of people who were offended by the remarks.

It seems troubling that this seems to be a statutory 'right to not be offended', something that really shouldn't be a right at all. I'm having trouble coming up with other restrictions on speech (laws against fraud, defamation, etc.) that depend on the reaction of the audience rather than the content of the speech itself. Incitement to riot comes closest, but that still depends on the intent of the speaker, not the reaction of the audience.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

For me, it raises the question of how free, free speech is and whether it bears a cost - which I believe it does bear a cost. Sometimes that is obviously worth the risk, but there are other times when I wonder about the value of it. For instance, looking at all those relatively recent cases of the publication of cartoons of Muhammed, I failed to see what the purpose of that was and in all honesty I couldn't defend their right to do it. I saw two of the cartoons concerned and both were quite honestly vile. They reminded me very much of those caricatures produced by the Nazi party. As far as I could tell, the whole things with those cartoons wasn't actually about exercising free speech in a responsible manner, but rather about looking to see who could be offended the most. I do wonder if it is worth having some sort of law that restricts this type of activity. I don;t want to see religious and racial slurs produced without consequence, and frankly I think it's far more dangerous than we realise, and I don't want to see it in relation to any race or religion, let alone my own.

Now in the case of Fry, I thought he was reasonable, considered and thoughtful. I don't believe he was deliberately being malicious and had intended top cause harm or offence. The law was brought and found none, so in that sense it seems reasonable. If the parameters of the law included all religions and not just Christianity, and if a newspaper here decided to publish one of those anti-Islamic vile cartoons and the law prosecuted, I think I'd be very happy with that to be perfectly honest.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Still rubbish. Hate speech laws protect the religious, blasphemy laws oppress everyone. The solution is not in a reasonable application, for that might vary, it is in the removal of the blasphemy law and the use of hate speech laws.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Agree. I thought that free speech includes vileness, except for sexual violence.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Lilbuddha:

quote:

...blasphemy laws oppress everyone....

I'm struggling to think of a concrete example of this in relation to the Blasphemy law here. Can you give a concrete example of how it oppresses everyone?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Pakistan shows how blasphemy laws can become tyrannical, as mild criticisms of Islam or Mohammed can end up in court, and then in jail.

Thankfully, they have been abolished in UK.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And Indonesia yesterday. A sign of strong, weak, hostile religion.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lilbuddha:

quote:

...blasphemy laws oppress everyone....

I'm struggling to think of a concrete example of this in relation to the Blasphemy law here. Can you give a concrete example of how it oppresses everyone?

Blasphemy laws are a restriction of speech, beyond anything needed to protect the faithful from real harm.
Intent appears to be the standard by which Fry was not prosecuted. That not enough people were offended. That is the oppression, the limit on what may be said by such a ridiculous standard. The oppression is on the limit of freedom to speak. The oppression is also in the protection of a narrow set of beliefs, the 2009 broadening notwithstanding.
Why should religion have special protection, anyway?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Steve wrote:

quote:
Stetson and lilBuddha;
In your remarks about my comment that
quote:
As an atheist, Fry cannot really be guilty in secular law of 'blasphemy'
you have both ignored the context of 'in a truly plural society', and my point that basically unless other laws about harassment/defamation/etc are clearly broken, the only penalties 'blasphemers' should suffer in a plural society are the penalties that a private society like a sports club can properly impose. Which can reasonably include penalties such as exclusion of the offender till he renounces his conduct, of course.

Okay. Your original phrasing, with the words "in secular law", had me confused, since it made it sound like you were describing the law as it is actually written right now.

[ 10. May 2017, 16:24: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Lilbuddha:

quote:

Why should religion have special protection, anyway?

I think that's an interesting question; one I'm not sure of the answer to, but am conscious that it seems to be the last grouping of what is humanity after all, which isn't afforded the same rights as anyone else (on the argument that it's a religion). If you chose to dehumanise it into a machine, then that certainly makes it easier to answer your question. It can operate in a machine like manner, it does have it's problems and can restrict people into set roles with invisible barriers; but can gender or race not also function in this restrictive way? It just seems odd to me that religious groupings within a community or country should be open season for abuse and/or grave offence for anyone who would just like a pot shot for the sake of it. So I don't mean Fry's comments specifically or anyone who criticises religion - that's not what the law actually refers to. What it does refer to in Ireland has a vagueness which leaves me unsettled, but I think if it were to be removed it would in all likelihood be replaced with something very similar looking but with a different name. It seems on this thread that its the term 'blasphemy' which raises the righteous indignation, but perhaps I've misunderstood (hence why I asked for an exact example). I gave the example of the cartoons because I felt, after seeing them, that they served no other purpose to society other than to cause offence, an I don't think that is particularly useful to anyone, although I can certainly see the difficulty of prosecution in such circumstances.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Fletcher Christian wrote:

quote:
It just seems odd to me that religious groupings within a community or country should be open season for abuse and/or grave offence for anyone who would just like a pot shot for the sake of it.

But we don't have a similar taboo against declaring open-season on political groupings. At least not in most democracies.

Short of personal libel against living people(the laws on which can also protect religious figures if they are still living), we don't consider it a criminal offense to say "Conservative voters are a bunch of brain-dead fascists who get their kicks thinking about impoverished klds starving to death". Offended Tories are expected to just suck it up and accept that as part of everyday political discussion.

Now, I assume the rationale for free and easy political attacks is that political groups ARE trying to impact the way we all live, and have thus opened themselves up for criticism. But surely, that applies to almost all religious groups as well?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lilbuddha:

quote:

Why should religion have special protection, anyway?

I think that's an interesting question; one I'm not sure of the answer to, but am conscious that it seems to be the last grouping of what is humanity after all, which isn't afforded the same rights as anyone else (on the argument that it's a religion).

I disagree. Blasphemy laws typically protect the powerful from criticism. Broadening the law, such as was done in 2009 in Ireland, is a way to keep that protection, hidden under the blanket of inclusion.

quote:
It just seems odd to me that religious groupings within a community or country should be open season for abuse and/or grave offence for anyone who would just like a pot shot for the sake of it.

They shouldn't any more than any other category. Hate speech laws protect religion the same as any other category. And this is the point; the same.

quote:
I gave the example of the cartoons because I felt, after seeing them, that they served no other purpose to society other than to cause offence, an I don't think that is particularly useful to anyone, although I can certainly see the difficulty of prosecution in such circumstances.

Freedom of speech v. hate is always going to be a bit soft.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

And, Fletcher, I'd be curious to know what you think about this...

(Possibly NSFW, double-click)

Diarrhetics

A blatant attack on Scientology, in which, among other things, L. Ron Hubbard is portrayed as receiving sexual favours from his female followers, who are described in the most insulting terms. It's at least as vicious as anything in the Danish cartoons.

Would that be something you think should be actionable under proper blasphemy laws?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
we don't consider it a criminal offense to say "Conservative voters are a bunch of brain-dead fascists who get their kicks thinking about impoverished klds starving to death".

Because it is true? [Devil]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Well, yes. If an announcement is made that is true then surely there is no issue to be had. If something is untrue, then yes, I think people do deserve protection against false accusation. I don't know enough of the intricacies of hate speech law here in Ireland to know what is and isn't covered in exact terms. I know that individuals are able to be prosecuted for hate speech against another individual; I'm not sure if groupings are covered in that. The blasphemy law is a constitutional issue, so I'd like to see the independent arguments for and against its removal before we go down that route of a referendum (and its really only possible to get that independent view of it once a referendum begins). Referendums are expensive, so we'd need to be sure that it is a necessity and we'd need to make sure it doesn't permit a gap in the law that allows for criminal activity to go unprosecuted.. If it's one of those weird laws left on the books that everyone ignores then that might seem a better result. If someone does end up being prosecuted, in all likelihood they end up with a 75euro fine which would probably be worn like a badge of honour in this part of the world; unless of course it was something altogether more serious. What that seriousness might be in real terms, I honestly don;t know.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Now that assorted Members of Parliament here have discovered that, (horror, shame) NZ also has blasphemy laws, there is a mad scrabble to repeal them, with a humanist spokes person suggesting that it puts us in a similar position to certain Arab countries (the last, unsuccessful prosecution was in the 1920s)

My immediate thought when I saw that was "what else are they doing they want to distract us from."

Having worked in the Office of Film and Literature Classification (censorship in a dressed up form) I have spent quite a bit of time on blasphemy. The last major incident was over the awful Mel Gibson Passion of the Christ - while every other Christian group was saying that their children ought to be allowed to see flogging and torture (which they'd usually be well against), one brave (extremely fundy) group tried to get the film banned because it was blasphemous. It ended up with the R15 classification, kind of over the dead bodies of the censorship staff, who felt that the violence of the film was more R18, given the serious nature and ponderous detail of the filmmaking.

The classic blasphemy outing before that was The Life of Brian. There was so much material in the archives that I made a Year 12 study unit out of it. When I started working on it, I hadn't watched the film, but once I did it became my all time favourite religious film. Like Stephen Fry, it pokes holes in many strongly held views. To my mind, it is a deeply thoughtful film which demonstrates many tenets of Christianity more faithfully than many Christians.

Edited to add: And its funny, something I don't often associate with serious ideas about Christianity.

[ 11. May 2017, 09:44: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Winterbottom wrote:

quote:
brave (extremely fundy) group tried to get the film banned because it was blasphemous.

I'd be curious to know on what grounds they thought the film was blasphemous, since as far as the sequence of events go, The Passion Of The Christ pretty much just follows the narrative outlined in the Bible.

I could see thinking its excessively sadistic, or pruiently homoerotic, but those were more visual overlays on the basic story. Even the anti-semitism was largely just a mixture of one like from the Bible, plus stereotypically rendered images of Jewish people.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Oh, and I'm curius about something, Annabella.

quote:
The classic blasphemy outing before that was The Life of Brian.

Does this mean that there was no significant controversy in your jurisdiction over Godard's Hail Mary or The Last Temptation Of Christ?

The latter film especially generated a lot of heat in North America, though I'm not sure how much of it was reflected in actual efforts at censorship. It was certainly easy enough to see in my hometown, though I vaguely recall there being security guards at the theatre the night I went.

Hail Mary actually provoked a lot of outrage from the local traditionalist Catholic crowd, though I'm sure if any of them had actually ventured into a screeing, their collective response would have been more along the lines of "Huh?"

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Sorry.

quote:
Even the anti-semitism was largely just a mixture of one like from the Bible

That should be "one line from the Bible".

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'd never heard of Godard's Hail Mary - must check it out [Big Grin]

I did think that Christian Voice - or one of those types of groups - tried to bring a case of blasphemy against the Jerry Springer musical not so long ago? Perhaps I'm mis-remembering.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
interbottom wrote:

quote:
brave (extremely fundy) group tried to get the film banned because it was blasphemous.
I'd be curious to know on what grounds they thought the film was blasphemous, since as far as the sequence of events go, The Passion Of The Christ pretty much just follows the narrative outlined in the Bible.

That's how the film was promoted, but it contained a fair amount of extra-Biblical material, especially from noted mystic and anti-Semite Anne Catherine Emmerich. I'm not sure there's any reason to play along with the self-serving, self-promoting characterization of the film by its producers as merely "follow[ing] the narrative outlined in the Bible" when that's not really the case.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I'm not sure there's any reason to play along with the self-serving, self-promoting characterization of the film by its producers as merely "follow[ing] the narrative outlined in the Bible" when that's not really the case.

Well, obviously, there is "no reason" to "play along" with a "self-serving characterization" that is "not really the case". Since that translates into "deliberately going along with a lie", which no one(even a liar) is going to defend.

Anyway, yes, it's quite possible I had an inaccurate perception of the film's biblical fidelity, in which case, I can only hang my head in slight shame and thank you for the correction.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'd never heard of Godard's Hail Mary - must check it out

It's actually a nice little film, from what I recall, and one of the director's more accessible pieces. I think having to work within the framework of a well-known and beloved religious narrative probably tamed some of Godard's more meandering excesses.

But it's still Godard, and not entirely linear, in that it actually deals with two stories, ie. the Nativity, plus something about a professor trying to seduce a woman through discussion about God and nature while walking through the woods. The two stories never actually come together, except thematically.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Just bumping this thread to note that Ireland will be holding a referendum to repeal its blasphemy law in October 2018:

quote:
Further referendums on Blasphemy (Article 40.6.1) and "Woman's life within the home" (Article 41.2.1) are planned for October 2018 along with a vote to have directly-elected mayors.

So blasphemy might not be "a thing" that much longer, at least as far as Irish law goes.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Was it ever a thing in Irish culture? Which shocked me for petty bourgeois English Proddy cultic years with its casual 'blasphemy', although I must admit to being vastly amused by an Irish landlady who sneezed cataplexically and said, 'Jaysus, Mary and Joseph and the little donkey!', which didn't mortify me like my paternal grandfather's 'God blind me!'. The ghastly mixing of sacred names with sexual obscenities still makes me tilt my head back, but I can deconstruct it now, in God, but that's only since my late 50s.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0