Ship of Fools: Aren't the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling?

Thread: Aren't the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024198

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Blasphemy being a hot topic on the boards right now I thought it merited some deeper discussion.

Obviously this is going to have to be dispassionate discussion just about blasphemy itself and unconnected with any current arguments going on in hell otherwise it's going to become a thread about accusations not debate.

When I hear about people of any faith becoming angry and sometimes committing acts of violence over blasphemy I always come away with the same thought. Your god must be a little pathetic.

Most children in the playground are taught to ignore name calling.

If someone called me a name my reaction would probably be to laugh it off. If I were all powerful wouldn't I be more not less likely to do the same?

Shouldn't any god worth his or her salt be able to withstand verbal insults?

[ 02. December 2012, 08:22: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Why should s/he have to 'withstand' them? What gives you or anyone the right to insult God(s), when insulting other people is frowned upon?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Because God, as usually defined, is all powerful and all knowing and created everything. And is therefore ultimately responsible for evil and every piece of shit that ever happens to you. Sometimes we will rage against him for that.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

George, with all due respect, you are looking at this through your end of the telescope.

If a god exists, and tells us or gives us the impression that those who insult him/her fall under his/her wrath, we have to accept that, and live with it. We can't change it, or say that we think he/she ought to be nicer about it.

With the Christian God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is particularly fundamental - it follows naturally from everything he reveals about himself - that once we believe he even exists, we have to accept him on his terms, not ours.

Also, even from our end of the telescope, most of us get very offended, when someone we love is insulted. If someone insults a member of your close family, do you not get angry? Why should that be OK, but it no longer be OK that people should be angry when godless people insult the god one believes in.

I'd just query whether there is much more to discuss.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

They are non-existent?

Of course it is the people who hold the beliefs about the gods who feel insulted. The difference in blasphemy laws is between those places where the PWHTBATG can access the power of the state to punish what they consider blasphemy, and those where the law offers redress to those who feel insulted. I'm not sure if there are any jurisdictions where they're just told to get over it already - I'm sure someone will know.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why should s/he have to 'withstand' them? What gives you or anyone the right to insult God(s), when insulting other people is frowned upon?

Look at it this way. I'm a white middle aged able bodied male living in a western democracy. By most standards I'm very privileged and ahead of the game.

Now Imagine if someone who has to use a wheelchair hit a crack in the pavement and someone shouted out "cripple". I can see how that could be a cruel and hurtful insult.

Now imagine if I was out walking and tripped over the same crack. If someone shouted cripple at me I'd just laugh it off.

Now imagin I'm a God. All powerful and perfect. If someone shouts cripple at me out of the blue don't I have even more reason to find the insult simply preposterous.

If on the otherhand my godly pride were to be wounded and I waited expectantly for my followers to defend my corner it makes me look a little un god like doesn't it?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If a god exists, and tells us or gives us the impression that those who insult him/her fall under his/her wrath, we have to accept that, and live with it. We can't change it, or say that we think he/she ought to be nicer about it.

We might not be able to change it but we don't have to accept it.

quote:
With the Christian God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is particularly fundamental - it follows naturally from everything he reveals about himself - that once we believe he even exists, we have to accept him on his terms, not ours.

Wouldn't that mean that only believers can blaspheme?

quote:

Also, even from our end of the telescope, most of us get very offended, when someone we love is insulted. If someone insults a member of your close family, do you not get angry? Why should that be OK, but it no longer be OK that people should be angry when godless people insult the god one believes in.

If a member of my family was a god they'd be able to look after them selves.

Basically why would an all powerful god need earthly laws to defend it?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

Wouldn't that mean that only believers can blaspheme?

That's pretty much it. As Chesterton said, just try and sit down and think blasphemous thoughts about Thor. The problems arise when those who do believe attempt to impose sanctions on those who don't.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

George -

I'm a Christian, but (and?) I'm with you.

I think a degree of potential coercion is required to be able to meet together to do _anything_ - so I would be in favour of laws which prevent people disrupting others' schoolroom lessons, political meetings or religious meetings by bursting in and screaming obscentities or religiously-provocative hate speech. Obviously (OK, perhaps not - but it's obvious to me) that goes all ways around - Muslims, Hindus, Socialist-Workers, Ultra-prods, Ultra-caths...)

But I strongly support others' right to tell me in person that they think my God is a load of c*ck. Not least, that's a fair invitation to serious debate, since it betrays a strongly-held opinion on the matter. And if that opinion turns out to be not-strongly-held - the person just taking the piss - then I'm happy to tell them to f*ck off and come back when they understand anything about the topic they'd just attempted to express a view upon.

It would be nicer if we were all nice - but we're not. Christianity is pretty clear on that [Big Grin]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If a god exists, and tells us or gives us the impression that those who insult him/her fall under his/her wrath, we have to accept that, and live with it. We can't change it, or say that we think he/she ought to be nicer about it.

We might not be able to change it but we don't have to accept it.

If a person doesn't believe, they can say that. If a person does believe, the statement is nonsense. We cannot change God. We have to accept him as he is. There is no point speculating in what way we think he could be different, or what we'd prefer him to be like. End of story.

Thinking about this further, when in our society belief was the default position, and unbelief the deviant one, most people took it for granted that one of the worst - most dangerous - things you could do was to offend God. So it was a good thing, both for the protection of society as a whole and of individuals, to do what one could to prevent this from happening. Blasphemy is the equivalent of hanging round 25kv high tension power cables without insulation. One false step and k'pow.

We try and protect people from getting near power cables. There's a lot of debate currently about the state trying to get people to eat and drink less for their own good. There's more the one opinion one can have on this. But given that a lot of people do take it for granted that this is the state's business, why should it seem to you so odd if the law tries to restrain people from endangering their own or society as a whole's spiritual well-being?

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Enoch -

I'd like to gently try to engage you on this as one Christian to another.

I'm very pleased that I don't live in a fascist theocracy - I want to be able to say 'the prophet is a w*nker' and get the response I suggested I might give in my turn - perhaps 'that's interesting...why?' followed by 'f*ck off you troll and come back when you've a point worth making'.

Not - 'here's a prison stretch for blasphemy' or even 'let me remove that offence, and you, from the face of the earth' - as seems popular in some circles.

What use are my efforts at assuaging attacks on God's fragile ego? Him that made everything, seen and unseen? All squillion-zillion aeons of universe of it?

And if He isn't there and my faith is misplaced...there's no point either. What other variations are there?

The only right I defend is my right to say that _I_ don't think God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are a load of c*ck. You're welcome to kill me now, if you feel it encumbent.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Mark, I'm not advocating a fierce blasphemy law, though I do think we are far more casual about taking the Lord's name in vain these days than is either right or prudent. I'm trying to suggest to George Spigot that historically there is a very different understanding on the subject from the one he thinks is self-evident, and why.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I don't think it's about God not being able to withstand insults. If someone distances him or herself further away from God by calling him, is it for those of us who love them as ourselves to try to help them to understand what they're doing?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mark, I'm not advocating a fierce blasphemy law, though I do think we are far more casual about taking the Lord's name in vain these days than is either right or prudent. I'm trying to suggest to George Spigot that historically there is a very different understanding on the subject from the one he thinks is self-evident, and why.

And I appreciate the response. However the only lession I can see in that part of history is be thankful we don't live that way any longer.

As far as powerlines go all I can do is point out the obvious while honestly not wanting to sound patronising. It's possible to see and touch them. And if the government were to step in to protect the spiritual well being of people then which god do they choose. How do we decide which deities we can and can't insult? Majority vote?

I respect that you are not advocating a fierce blasphemy law. Would you advocate a blasphemy law of any kind?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I respect that you are not advocating a fierce blasphemy law. Would you advocate a blasphemy law of any kind?

Yes, I think I would. I'm not sure how I would frame it. If it were my job to write it, I'd have to think carefully about how.

If people, either in general or because they belong to particular social groups, are entitled not to be abused, or only criticised politely and with respect, then as a minimum, God should be entitled to a comparable level of protection.

I don't think serious debate of faith issues should be at risk. Juvenilia like Jerry Springer the Opera should be.

It slightly puzzles me why, so far as I know, the real Jerry Springer hasn't sued its producers, as he ought to win hands down. Perhaps he decided it was best to ignore name calling and to laugh it off. However, it means that almost certainly some of us that haven't followed the story closely, think it is his show, and that he was involved in it in some way.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I don't get upset on behalf of God - She is most certainly big enough to take (and forgive) any abuse.

I do get upset when people blaspheme God in order to upset me, knowing I'm a Christian.

Would I vote for an anti-blasphemy law? - no, not at all. Free speech is too precious to faff about with. If someone upset me so much, I wouldn't keep company with them. Simple really.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think the title of this thread is weird - is anyone suggesting that God is upset by name-calling?

Some Christians probably are, of course. I don't personally find 'Jew on a stick' upsetting, although I suppose I might be upset to discover that someone actually wanted to upset me!

But the other point is, that I tend to avoid debate with people who say stuff like that, as generally I have found, they are not really interested in a genuine discussion, in the sense of an interchange. It is rather like trolling, really, that is being deliberately inflammatory.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If people, either in general or because they belong to particular social groups, are entitled not to be abused, or only criticised politely and with respect, then as a minimum, God should be entitled to a comparable level of protection.

But where is it true that people are entitled to be "only criticised politely and with respect"? Not in the US or the UK, I think. (Wikipedia teaches us there are lese majeste laws in a surprising number of European countries; apparently Scotland finally got rid of its lese majeste law in 2010(!), but it hadn't been prosecuted since 1715.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Funny, I clicked on Purg to post a similar OP.
Why on earth should there exist any rules on blasphemy? If you argue that no one should be allowed to offend another, then I still disagree, but understand. Why should religion have such extraordinary protection? Do I think it rude when people deliberately target the faith of others for offense? Yes. Perhaps they should be called on the rudeness, but blasphemy? This position is no better than the Taliban.
BTW, when people get upset about blasphemy, they are not getting upset for their god(s). Do you have a right to be upset? Yes. Should you have a right to punish the person who hurt your feelings? No.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Seems like any god worth his or her salt would be able to take any amount of blasphemy without cracking. The picture of the Judaeo-Christian God as being smite-happy toward those who insult Him always struck me as despotic and insecure. Certainly in the story of the crucifixion, the people around the foot of the cross hurl imprecations, and Jesus prays for their forgiveness. And it would seem nailing you to a cross to die a horrible death is worse than a few ugly words.

I think the comparison to schoolyard taunts is a good one. As long as it remains words they might hurt one's feelings, if one is a human at any rate, but one can (hopefully) learn to laugh it off. But what it says about the name-caller is the issue, it seems to me. They're a childish, boorish bully.

With public blasphemies directed toward the Judaeo-Christian God, of course, the bully isn't trying to goad God into reacting for their sick pleasure, but Jews/Christians/Muslims. So while technically the insult is directed at God, the desired result is that of an insult directed at God's followers.

All of which being said, making blasphemy illegal, or reacting violently or even very strongly, only plays into the bully's hands. Blasphemy most emphatically should not be illegal.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Parallel situation summed up in "My right to be offended trumps your right to exist"

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Mousetheif wrote:

quote:
With public blasphemies directed toward the Judaeo-Christian God, of course, the bully isn't trying to goad God into reacting for their sick pleasure, but Jews/Christians/Muslims. So while technically the insult is directed at God, the desired result is that of an insult directed at God's followers.

Okay, this isn't hardcore legal scholarship or anything, just one layperson quoting another layperson about a law, but...

I remember reading somewhere that Mary Whitehead, the British moral-crusader who brought the blasphemy charges against gay news, said that the point of the laws was not to protect God, but to prevent the strife and conflict that would supposedly result from people having their deepest beliefs insulted. Basically, blasphemy under this view constitutes what we now call "hate speech", or, to use a narrower standard, "fighting words".

If that's true, then it would seem to me that the use of anti-hate speech and other laws to prosecute anti-religious expression, a legal tactic which seems to be enjoying a bit of a revival in the UK, is pretty much just blasphemy laws under a new guise.

[ 02. December 2012, 15:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Parallel situation summed up in "My right to be offended trumps your right to exist"

That's an excellent article, and makes a point that needs to be made (alas that it does). (Although it should be "my right to NOT be offended trumps your right to exist.") Nobody has a right to not be offended, at least in this country. That's essentially what the first amendment is all about.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Sorry for having to quote a Telegraph piece on that case. The Guardian, which also has an article, is for some reason blocked by the net nannies at internet cafes over here.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Stetson, I'm not sure if you meant to be refuting what I said or confirming it or just using it as a springboard, so I don't know exactly how to respond. I most emphatically do not believe in anti-blasphemy laws, and defending them as keeping the public order and preventing unrest seems rather devious and cynical.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

This one is also a bit sickening about the intolerance of the so-called "religious".

Scroll down past the second photo to see:

quote:

The most extraordinary story I heard was from a woman in Tuscaloosa county, Alabama. She grew up in nearby Lamar county, raised in the strict Church of Christ, where there is no music with worship and you can’t dance. She says her family love her and are proud of her, but “I’m not allowed to be an atheist in Lamar County”. What is astonishing is that she can be pretty much anything else. “Being on crack, that was OK. As long as I believed in God, I was OK.” So, for example, “I’m not allowed to babysit. I have all these cousins who need babysitters but they’re afraid I’ll teach them about evolution, and I probably would.” I couldn’t quite believe this. She couldn’t babysit as an atheist, but she could when she was on crack? “Yes.” I laughed, but it is hard to think of anything less funny.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

I'm with quetzacoatl -- anti-blasphemy passion (and laws) seems more about the feelings of believers than about God or gods. Events in the Islamic world show how deadly this can become, just as it has in Christendom from time to time. It's the old confusion about whether man is made in God's image, or the opposite.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Stetson, I'm not sure if you meant to be refuting what I said or confirming it or just using it as a springboard, so I don't know exactly how to respond. I most emphatically do not believe in anti-blasphemy laws, and defending them as keeping the public order and preventing unrest seems rather devious and cynical.

"Springboard" is the correct answer, all the way. Yes, I know from your previous postings that you are opposed to anti-blasphemy laws. And, while it was not the point of my post, I fully agree on that one.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

We need to distinguish between what God may feel about blasphemy, what religious people may feel about it, and what wider society feels about it.

As has been pointed out above, religious people feel offended when others mock and ridicule the god/God they believe in, because that person is very important to them. We have blasphemy laws for the same reason we have other laws protecting people from offensive behaviour - we want to encourage a tolerant society, based on mutual respect. That's why blasphemy laws need to strike a delicate balance between the sensibilities of believers in a particular faith, and the rights of others (be they believers in other faiths or none) to challenge those beliefs.

As for what God thinks about it, I can only draw conclusions from my own faith. The crucifixion was the most heinous act of betrayal of mankind against God ever perpetrated in history. Yet God turned that very act into the means of reconciliation between himself and humanity. Question is Geroge, why would want to blaspheme a God who so commits himself to reconciliation with you that he is prepared to suffer not only abuse and criticism but also, through incarnation, unimaginable physical pain and even death?

Seems to me like God has already demonstrated his capacity to handle blasphemy. The more pertinent question is how you will respond to his invitation to reconnect with Christ.

[ 02. December 2012, 16:31: Message edited by: Ramarius ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
As has been pointed out above, religious people feel offended when others mock and ridicule the god/God they believe in, because that person is very I portent to them. We have blasphemy laws for the same reason we have other laws protecting people from offensive behaviour - we want to encourage a tolerant society, based on mutual respect.

Do we? In all areas? Take politics, for example. If I think the leader of Party X is a racist scumbag, should I maybe refrain from saying so publically, because there are people out there who really like the guy, think he's very important to their lives, and thus don't want to hear him insulted?

quote:
The crucifixion was the most heinous act of betrayal of mankind against God ever perpetrated in history. Yet God turned that very act into the means of reconciliation between himself and humanity. Question is Geroge, why would want to blaspheme a God who so commits himself to reconciliation with you that he is prepared to suffer not only abuse and criticism but also, through incarnation, unimaginable physical pain and even death?

I agree with this. Though your question to George could be flipped around: Why would Christians feel the need to have legal protection against insult, for a God who willingly put himself through all that in the first place?

Let's say your dad is Jonas Salk, and you're proud of his achievements in conquering polio. Someone makes a blog post, bereft of any evidence, saying "Jonas Salk never cured polio! He flunked out of Grade Six and spent his life picking rags out of garbage cans!!"

Are you really going to be offended by that? I would think that Salk's kids would just shrug it off as pointless insult, designed to garner attention to some lonely troll who probably can't get it any other way.

Unless, of course, they had some reason to be insecure about their father's accomplishments.

[ 02. December 2012, 16:45: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't think it's about God not being able to withstand insults. If someone distances him or herself further away from God by calling him, is it for those of us who love them as ourselves to try to help them to understand what they're doing?

Isaiah Berlin said there were few more chilling phrases that "you'll thank us for this one day". "We'll help you to understand what you are doing" has a similarly feel. How are you so sure you understand better than I do?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
As for what God thinks about it, I can only draw conclusions from my own faith. The crucifixion was the most heinous act of betrayal of mankind against God ever perpetrated in history.

Perpetrated by God presumably? Didn't God set the whole plan in motion?

quote:
Yet God turned that very act into the means of reconciliation between himself and humanity. Question is Geroge, why would want to blaspheme a God who so commits himself to reconciliation with you that he is prepared to suffer not only abuse and criticism but also, through incarnation, unimaginable physical pain and even death?

Seems to me like God has already demonstrated his capacity to handle blasphemy. The more pertinent question is how you will respond to his invitation to reconnect with Christ.

I'd respond in the same way I'd respond to anyone else who thinks it appropriate to torture and kill themselves/their son. I'd point them in the direction of the nearest psychiatrist and wish them luck.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Among other things, Blasphemy laws tend to need a theological monoculture. Being a Jewish monotheist or a Christian Trinitarian makes a statement about many other gods such as Thor, Mithras or the Roman Empereor, that they do not exist.

The early Bible has traces of "these other gods exist but aren't as mighty as my God".

Part of this thread seems to be about groping for a form of blasphemy law that would be like a libel law. The problem is that to be equivalent, the lawsuit would have to be initiated by the offended God, who presumably has other forms of retribution available.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't think it's about God not being able to withstand insults. If someone distances him or herself further away from God by calling him, is it for those of us who love them as ourselves to try to help them to understand what they're doing?
Isaiah Berlin said there were few more chilling phrases that "you'll thank us for this one day". "We'll help you to understand what you are doing" has a similarly feel. How are you so sure you understand better than I do?

I can let you know how I understand it. My pov is not better than yours, nor yours better than mine. If I invite you to see things my way, no offence is meant, quite the opposite. I don't think that you should be prevented from giving your pov how ever offensive it is to me. And vice versa.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Just because there shouldn't be a law against something, doesn't make it right.

Would anyone care to tell me why insulting God is any less vile than calling your sister a whore?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Just because there shouldn't be a law against something, doesn't make it right.

Would anyone care to tell me why insulting God is any less vile than calling your sister a whore?

Well(assuming that whore is an insult, and not a synonym for a legitimate profession), calling my sister a whore might hurt her feelings, and damage her reputation in such a way that makes it difficult for her to get by in society.

Can you really say the same thing about insulting God?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Would anyone care to tell me why insulting God is any less vile than calling your sister a whore?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Because God, as usually defined, is all powerful and all knowing and created everything. And is therefore ultimately responsible for evil and every piece of shit that ever happens to you. Sometimes we will rage against him for that.

[ 02. December 2012, 20:19: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

OMG! It's one of the commonest expressions, it's cheap and mindless. It's what people say when they're excited, pissed off or scared. I'm amazed that in a secular age, God in various forms is the word to hand, the word of choice when we run out of more coherent language. I'm pleased, too.

There were accusations of blasphemy directed at Jesus. When the crowd at Nazareth wanted to throw him off a cliff, that was to stone him for blasphemy in the synagogue. But I think the charge of blasphemy is always going to be in the air when anyone talks powerfully about God. One person's blasphemy is another person's epiphany.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Are the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling?

Well I can't speak for "the gods" but I know that God is big enough to deal with it. A teacher in a school may also be big enough to deal with being insulted, but somehow I doubt he would just ignore it or just laugh it off. Something called 'respect' would motivate him to deal with the offender.

So if you want to insult God that's your business, but don't expect that there will not be any consequences.

And if you have succeeded in persuading yourself that God doesn't exist, then why bother to blaspheme at all? The fact that many atheists blaspheme tells me that they don't have any decent arguments to support their position, hence they fall back on the boringly predictable practice of prepubescent puerility.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Nice alliteration there EE.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The fact that many atheists blaspheme tells me that they don't have any decent arguments to support their position, hence they fall back on the boringly predictable practice of prepubescent puerility.

Not that you'd do that ... oh you just have.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The fact that many atheists blaspheme tells me that they don't have any decent arguments to support their position, hence they fall back on the boringly predictable practice of prepubescent puerility.

Not that you'd do that ... oh you just have.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So if you want to insult God that's your business, but don't expect that there will not be any consequences.

I agree. But it is not that God cares one wit what people say about Him.

Rather, a lack of respect for reality carries its own inherent consequences. On a physical level it would be the same as if someone mocked and ignored the laws of science: "Oooh, I'm sooo 'afraid' that I'll get 'hurt' jumping off this building! Well I say to so-called "gravity" that I don't care! I'll jump where I want!" [Cool]

The only difference is that whereas physical consequences are often swift and tangible, and so they are easier to prove, spiritual consequences are not.

The reason for this difference is to leave people free to believe in spiritual reality, and thus God, or not. Maybe there is no God, in which case mocking His existence is as sensible as ridiculing harmful superstition and magical thinking.

But if God is real, which He is, then a scoffing attitude is as sensible as laughing at scientific truth.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Parallel situation summed up in "My right to be offended trumps your right to exist"
That's an excellent article, and makes a point that needs to be made (alas that it does). (Although it should be "my right to NOT be offended trumps your right to exist.") Nobody has a right to not be offended, at least in this country. That's essentially what the first amendment is all about.

Even more apropos is this link from that article:
The oldest image of Jesus.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling?

Well I can't speak for "the gods" but I know that God is big enough to deal with it. A teacher in a school may also be big enough to deal with being insulted, but somehow I doubt he would just ignore it or just laugh it off. Something called 'respect' would motivate him to deal with the offender.

Only because student respect for faculty is required for a school to function. God doesn't need our respect to function.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling?

Well I can't speak for "the gods" but I know that God is big enough to deal with it.

See, this merely illustrates the issue. The scare quotes and lowercase g show the prejudice. Belief in your God, their God, no God or in the irrelevancy of the question, none have definitive proof.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So if you want to insult God that's your business, but don't expect that there will not be any consequences.

So your all loving God will get his knickers in a twist about being insulted?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

And if you have succeeded in persuading yourself that God doesn't exist, then why bother to blaspheme at all? The fact that many atheists blaspheme tells me that they don't have any decent arguments to support their position, hence they fall back on the boringly predictable practice of prepubescent puerility.

And the same could be said of many Christians. So, what is your point?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why should s/he have to 'withstand' them? What gives you or anyone the right to insult God(s), when insulting other people is frowned upon?
Now imagine if I was out walking and tripped over the same crack. If someone shouted cripple at me I'd just laugh it off.

Now imagin I'm a God. All powerful and perfect. If someone shouts cripple at me out of the blue don't I have even more reason to find the insult simply preposterous.

If on the otherhand my godly pride were to be wounded and I waited expectantly for my followers to defend my corner it makes me look a little un god like doesn't it?

The trouble with the anology is that you don't know the guy in the street, he's a random stanger and you don't care what he thinks.

For God, that guy in the street is His child, loved and cared for with a passion that we can only guess at.

Imagine if your child, who you loved dearly and you'd sacrificed so much for, sneered at you and refused to speak to to you, or insulted you as though you were nothing but a cheap joke.

Personally I'd be extremely hurt. Obviously God is big enough not to lose any sleep over it. But I suspect that doesn't stop Him being deeply hurt by the lack of respect, let alone care, shown by His children for Him. And I can imagine how one of His responses to such disrespect, measured and loving correction though it is, could be called wrath by those who witnessed it.

For those of us who love God, it is like two brothers, with a mother who sacrificed much for both of them, and she comforted both brothers when they were sick as a child, and loves them both. One son is fully aware of this sacrifice and love but hears his brother joking with his mates about their mum, calling her a bitch and a slag. If you were that son, you would feel a measure of your mother's pain, and anger at the ingratitude and sheer nastiness of your brother's words.

Of course it is the measure of a Christian how well they deal with that hurt, not to lash out in blind reaction, but to respond, as God does, with even more love. But hopefully with correction and strong defence against such disrespect whenever possible.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

For those of us who love God, it is like two brothers, with a mother who sacrificed much for both of them, and she comforted both brothers when they were sick as a child, and loves them both. One son is fully aware of this sacrifice and love but hears his brother joking with his mates about their mum, calling her a bitch and a slag. If you were that son, you would feel a measure of your mother's pain, and anger at the ingratitude and sheer nastiness of your brother's words.

Of course it is the measure of a Christian how well they deal with that hurt, not to lash out in blind reaction, but to respond, as God does, with even more love. But hopefully with correction and strong defence against such disrespect whenever possible.

I like this analogy, it has made me think.

But the disrespectful brother never knew God's love in the first place - she wasn't 'Mum' to him at all. She seemed distant, remote and unloving. So who can blame him?

As Jesus said "They know not what they do".

[ 03. December 2012, 09:37: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
But I strongly support others' right to tell me in person that they think my God is a load of c*ck. Not least, that's a fair invitation to serious debate, since it betrays a strongly-held opinion on the matter.

I don't see that it's really an invitation to debate. There's not a lot you can say in response to that. (Asking, 'Why do you think my God is a load of c*ck?' is comic.)

There's reasons for saying that people have a right to say what they like even if it's offensive. But I can't see that's one of them.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why should s/he have to 'withstand' them? What gives you or anyone the right to insult God(s), when insulting other people is frowned upon?
Now imagine if I was out walking and tripped over the same crack. If someone shouted cripple at me I'd just laugh it off.

Now imagin I'm a God. All powerful and perfect. If someone shouts cripple at me out of the blue don't I have even more reason to find the insult simply preposterous.

If on the otherhand my godly pride were to be wounded and I waited expectantly for my followers to defend my corner it makes me look a little un god like doesn't it?
The trouble with the anology is that you don't know the guy in the street, he's a random stanger and you don't care what he thinks.

For God, that guy in the street is His child, loved and cared for with a passion that we can only guess at.

Imagine if your child, who you loved dearly and you'd sacrificed so much for, sneered at you and refused to speak to to you, or insulted you as though you were nothing but a cheap joke.

Personally I'd be extremely hurt. Obviously God is big enough not to lose any sleep over it. But I suspect that doesn't stop Him being deeply hurt by the lack of respect, let alone care, shown by His children for Him. And I can imagine how one of His responses to such disrespect, measured and loving correction though it is, could be called wrath by those who witnessed it.

For those of us who love God, it is like two brothers, with a mother who sacrificed much for both of them, and she comforted both brothers when they were sick as a child, and loves them both. One son is fully aware of this sacrifice and love but hears his brother joking with his mates about their mum, calling her a bitch and a slag. If you were that son, you would feel a measure of your mother's pain, and anger at the ingratitude and sheer nastiness of your brother's words.

Of course it is the measure of a Christian how well they deal with that hurt, not to lash out in blind reaction, but to respond, as God does, with even more love. But hopefully with correction and strong defence against such disrespect whenever possible.

As Boogle already pointed out the analogy isn't working. For it to be relevant we would have to imagine a father who is never physically present, and provides no perceivable support. In which case we could perhaps understand a lack of respect from the child.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
When I hear about people of any faith becoming angry and sometimes committing acts of violence over blasphemy I always come away with the same thought. Your god must be a little pathetic.

Well, yes. But I think insults against religion, whatever the people involved take them to be, are always attacks on the religious believers. Nobody who isn't a Muslim would care much about Mohammed if it wasn't for Muslims. You don't get satirical cartoons about whichever Byzantine Emperor was his contemporary. Whatever's going on on the surface, insults to religion are basically saying to religious believers, 'I can say what I like about you and you can't stop me'.

Legally, of course, that should be ok. The ethics depend entirely upon the relative power relations between the two groups.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
As has been pointed out above, religious people feel offended when others mock and ridicule the god/God they believe in, because that person is very I portent to them. We have blasphemy laws for the same reason we have other laws protecting people from offensive behaviour - we want to encourage a tolerant society, based on mutual respect.
Do we? In all areas? Take politics, for example. If I think the leader of Party X is a racist scumbag, should I maybe refrain from saying so publically, because there are people out there who really like the guy, think he's very important to their lives, and thus don't want to hear him insulted?.

I think there's a difference - in fact a world of difference - between challenging someone's views, and setting out to belittle an demean them. So in the case you mentioned, it's one thing to call someone a racist, and another to call them a racist
scumbag . As I went on to say in my post, there is a balance to strike between promoting a society where beliefs are open to challenge, and enabling that to happen in a way that doesn't promote offensive and demeaning behaviour. Legislators and the the judiciary regularly review where that boundary is drawn whilst adhering to the underlying aspiration.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
We have blasphemy laws for the same reason we have other laws protecting people from offensive behaviour - we want to encourage a tolerant society, based on mutual respect.

We have laws against being offensive? Since when?

We have laws against discrimination, yes. And we have laws against hate speech (i.e. incitement to violence), yes. But against causing offence in and of itself? I think not.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Ah Ramirius, there is the crux. intent not subject should be the determiner. If there should be laws defining how one may confront another's views, religion should have no different protections than any other view held.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

We have laws against discrimination, yes. And we have laws against hate speech (i.e. incitement to violence), yes. But against causing offence in and of itself? I think not.

Exposing yourself in public? It does no harm, but is deemed offensive and illegal - I think.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The fact that many atheists blaspheme tells me that they don't have any decent arguments to support their position, hence they fall back on the boringly predictable practice of prepubescent puerility.
Not that you'd do that ... oh you just have.

Great logic that. So if someone insults me - or insults all that I hold dear - and I tell them that they are being childish, that makes me a hypocrite, does it?

Oh, of course! I forgot. We Christians are supposed to take it all on the chin, and smile sweetly when we are abused.

Silly me for not realising that. I will try harder to be a better masochist in future...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You may tell someone you find it offensive. The law should not.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
But I strongly support others' right to tell me in person that they think my God is a load of c*ck. Not least, that's a fair invitation to serious debate, since it betrays a strongly-held opinion on the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't see that it's really an invitation to debate. There's not a lot you can say in response to that. (Asking, 'Why do you think my God is a load of c*ck?' is comic.)

Hey, nested quotes...get me.

I agree it's comic - but it's enough, for me, to start to speak. If they turn out to be a c*nt, then fine, I can also tell them. Sounds like a recipe for a happy afternoon to me [Big Grin]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh, of course! I forgot. We Christians are supposed to take it all on the chin, and smile sweetly when we are abused.

Silly me for not realising that. I will try harder to be a better masochist in future...

Indeed, how silly of you not to know the words of your Lord.

"And to him that smites you on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that takes away your cloak forbid not to take your coat also." -- Luke 6:29

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
As has been pointed out above, religious people feel offended when others mock and ridicule the god/God they believe in, because that person is very I portent to them. We have blasphemy laws for the same reason we have other laws protecting people from offensive behaviour - we want to encourage a tolerant society, based on mutual respect.
Do we? In all areas? Take politics, for example. If I think the leader of Party X is a racist scumbag, should I maybe refrain from saying so publically, because there are people out there who really like the guy, think he's very important to their lives, and thus don't want to hear him insulted?.
I think there's a difference - in fact a world of difference - between challenging someone's views, and setting out to belittle an demean them. So in the case you mentioned, it's one thing to call someone a racist, and another to call them a racist
scumbag . As I went on to say in my post, there is a balance to strike between promoting a society where beliefs are open to challenge, and enabling that to happen in a way that doesn't promote offensive and demeaning behaviour. Legislators and the the judiciary regularly review where that boundary is drawn whilst adhering to the underlying aspiration.

Well, there may be a world of difference between calling people "racists" and calling them "racist scumbags". But would you really want to have a law under which, say, Marine Le Pen of the National Front could have someone arrested for caling her the latter?

I mean, to take an immediately recognizable example, look at our own Hell forum here on the Ship. Some of the insults that get tossed at public-figures there would make "scumbag" look like polite disagreement.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

We have laws against discrimination, yes. And we have laws against hate speech (i.e. incitement to violence), yes. But against causing offence in and of itself? I think not.
Exposing yourself in public? It does no harm, but is deemed offensive and illegal - I think.

I'd imagine the rationale behind laws regulating sex and the display of sexual body parts are the subject of volumes of anthropological writing.

I don't have much to contribute to that debate, except to say that I doubt it's as cut-and-dry as "Indecent exposure is illegal because people find it offensive". If I had to speculate, I'd say that the taboo exists for other reasons(possibly related to regulation of reproduction and hence courtship), and that it is so ingrained in all human society(to one degree or another) that people take almost immediate offense to its violation.

Possibly related to this: If a guy whips out his penis to a woman walking alone down an empty street, the woman might likely regard it as a prelude to further unwanted sexual activity. Because, apart from medical situations, about the only reason an adult of one gender would expose themselves to an adult of another is for purposes of sex.

And yes, I realize that not all exhibitionists are rapists, or vice versa. But there is such a strong connection between disrobing in front of the opposite gender, and initiating sex, that unsolicited exposure could with some justification be regarded as closer to uttering a threat, rather than to simple offense.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You may tell someone you find it offensive. The law should not.

Well, yes it should - the law reflects the views of society as a whole and doesn't leave issues like this down to individual opinion. The other side of this is how we decide what is an appropriate and proportionate response to an offence. If you are going to set limits on that, you first have to decide what is, or is not, offensive.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot: When I hear about people of any faith becoming angry and sometimes committing acts of violence over blasphemy I always come away with the same thought. Your god must be a little pathetic.

Upon first reading your O.P., I said "right on!" But the longer I think about it, the more it seems massively disingenuous to pretend that blaspheming is about insulting an assumed mirage in the sky. Who in his right mind would bother? As Dafyd points out, the real target of the exercise is a human community of believers.

Now, indeed smart schoolkids learn to ignore insults to themselves. But as we see in Stand by Me, Gordie and Chris like to insult each other's mothers to show each other and anyone within hearing that they are the best of friends-- because if they weren't, they'd be cruising for a bruising. To insult a brother or sister might be even more dangerous and no joke.

In doctrinal as well as psychological terms, an invisible God in the sky might not be as easy as we think to separate from what one's fists might hit when swung around. The church does claim to be the Body of Christ on earth.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

Well, there may be a world of difference between calling people "racists" and calling them "racist scumbags". But would you really want to have a law under which, say, Marine Le Pen of the National Front could have someone arrested for caling her the latter?
[/QUOTE]

I think you're missing my point Stetson - I was answering the question why we should have blasphemy laws at all. My point was they are there to inhibit behaviour that run counter to good citizenship, and promote behaviour consistent with good citizenship as we define it through our democracy. As I said, where you draw the line is a matter of debate (and you raise some good points on that one) but I still reckon such laws are part and parcel of our general approach of the state playing a role in defining what good citizenship means in the context of UK democracy. As we know, other countries and cultures have different approaches to the same question.

[ 03. December 2012, 19:20: Message edited by: Ramarius ]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
As for what God thinks about it, I can only draw conclusions from my own faith. The crucifixion was the most heinous act of betrayal of mankind against God ever perpetrated in history.

Perpetrated by God presumably? Didn't God set the whole plan in motion?

quote:
Yet God turned that very act into the means of reconciliation between himself and humanity. Question is Geroge, why would want to blaspheme a God who so commits himself to reconciliation with you that he is prepared to suffer not only abuse and criticism but also, through incarnation, unimaginable physical pain and even death?

Seems to me like God has already demonstrated his capacity to handle blasphemy. The more pertinent question is how you will respond to his invitation to reconnect with Christ.
I'd respond in the same way I'd respond to anyone else who thinks it appropriate to torture and kill themselves/their son. I'd point them in the direction of the nearest psychiatrist and wish them luck.

The cross was God's solution, but a solution given that the problem started with us and was always going to turn ugly.

You avoided the point mind. If someone, at enormous cost to themselves, offered you an astonishingly favourable alternative to what you deserved, you might turn the offer down but would you really consciously offend them for making it?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Perpetrated by God presumably? Didn't God set the whole plan in motion?

It was men who brought the charges, men who shouted "crucify", men who condemned Him to death, and men who pounded the nails in. Were they all just puppets in a bit of divine entertainment? You may think you are insulting God, but you really insult humankind by making us as powerless as that. One might hear cleverer copouts from a six-year-old called on the carpet.

But I admit that these are serious and age-old questions which are far from blasphemous to ask as long as they are pondered seriously. Why are they showing up in this thread, then?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

When I ponder the Two Great Commandments, I have often wondered how if you love God "with your heart, with all your mind, with all your soul and with all your strength" you could have any love left over to be able to "love your neighbour as yourself". The answer I've come to is that loving God and loving your neighbour are inextricably bound up - we love God by loving our neighbour (and I think the Johaninne epistles would support this view).

In my thinking I go a step further. It seems to me that sin is harming another human being; we cannot harm God but we can love the people he has made and loves. Therefore I can't get worked up about blasphemy. It doesn't hurt other humans; it certainly doesn't hurt God. It seems to me that God is concerned with how we treat one another, rather than the names we might call Him.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Indeed, how silly of you not to know the words of your Lord.

"And to him that smites you on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that takes away your cloak forbid not to take your coat also." -- Luke 6:29

Thank you for reminding me of this.

And I can't help but notice that this commandment of our Lord is being diligently obeyed by those Christians who frequent the hell board! Such grace and restraint sure puts me to shame!!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
And I can't help but notice that this commandment of our Lord is being diligently obeyed by those Christians who frequent the hell board! Such grace and restraint sure puts me to shame!!

Not that I want to bring any unwanted academic attention to the Ship, but there's probably a Master's Thesis in Christian theology to be gotten out of debating the ethics of the Hell forum.

I don't think most Christians object to the idea of a roast, where things that might be considered hateful or offensive if said out-of the-blue in everyday conversation are considered acceptable within the spirit of the occassion. The question would then become, on a spectrum running from good-natured roasting to outright hatred, where fitteth Hell?

[ 03. December 2012, 22:13: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You may tell someone you find it offensive. The law should not.
Well, yes it should - the law reflects the views of society as a whole and doesn't leave issues like this down to individual opinion.

Nonsense. The law's job is not to protect people's feelings, and it is overstepping the proper role of law to use it to do so.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Indeed, how silly of you not to know the words of your Lord.

"And to him that smites you on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that takes away your cloak forbid not to take your coat also." -- Luke 6:29
Thank you for reminding me of this.

And I can't help but notice that this commandment of our Lord is being diligently obeyed by those Christians who frequent the hell board! Such grace and restraint sure puts me to shame!!

Is THAT why you visited recently - to learn from them?

PS You do realise you currently have the 'honour' of being the person listed as having commenced two Hell threads?

[ 04. December 2012, 03:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Talk about grace and restraint!

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot: When I hear about people of any faith becoming angry and sometimes committing acts of violence over blasphemy I always come away with the same thought. Your god must be a little pathetic.
Upon first reading your O.P., I said "right on!" But the longer I think about it, the more it seems massively disingenuous to pretend that blaspheming is about insulting an assumed mirage in the sky. Who in his right mind would bother? As Dafyd points out, the real target of the exercise is a human community of believers.

I understand that. But my point was and is that it makes no difference. Let's say someone insults my father and, (as you point out in your post), their intent is to insult me. And I know very well their intent is to insult me.

So they walk up to me and say, "Your dad is a weak, hopeless loser who failed at life".

Now it just so happens that my dad is a godlike Nobel winning scientist brain surgeon who rescues orphans at weekends. In that situation the insult is preposterous and I'd laugh it off.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Let's say someone insults my father and, (as you point out in your post), their intent is to insult me. And I know very well their intent is to insult me.

So they walk up to me and say, "Your dad is a weak, hopeless loser who failed at life".

Now it just so happens that my dad is a godlike Nobel winning scientist brain surgeon who rescues orphans at weekends. In that situation the insult is preposterous and I'd laugh it off.

And would you feel sorry that they never knew your wonderful father?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
You avoided the point mind. If someone, at enormous cost to themselves, offered you an astonishingly favourable alternative to what you deserved, you might turn the offer down but would you really consciously offend them for making it?

It's just that I have trouble seeing torture and death as an astonishingly favourable alternative.

And I don't usually make a point of consciously offending people but if I was told that it was against the law to use mockery to criticize this person then I might do just to prove a point and highlight the free speech issue.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I respect that you are not advocating a fierce blasphemy law. Would you advocate a blasphemy law of any kind?
Yes, I think I would. I'm not sure how I would frame it. If it were my job to write it, I'd have to think carefully about how.

An presumably what penalty should be inflicted on those who break it.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
And would you feel sorry that they never knew your wonderful father?

Well that would depend on a load of other factors. How well I knew them. How well I wanted to know them. If they needed brain surgery.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
My point was they are there to inhibit behaviour that run counter to good citizenship, and promote behaviour consistent with good citizenship as we define it through our democracy. ... I still reckon such laws are part and parcel of our general approach of the state playing a role in defining what good citizenship means in the context of UK democracy.

Good God. Whether or not such a concept of "good citizenship" exists (and to me it sounds like something an oppressive regime might come up with to keep its populace in line), the absolute last person or institution that should be defining it is the State!

Once you say the State has the right to legislate "good citizenship", what the hell is stopping it from defining "good citizenship" however it damn well pleases? What's to stop it from declaring that protest rallies or marches are contrary to "good citizenship"? What's to stop it from declaring that trade union membership is contrary to "good citizenship"? For that matter, what's to stop it from deciding that being Christian is contrary to "good citizenship" - after all, are Christians not supposed to place their allegiance to God over their allegiance to their country? TREASON!!!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Once you say the State has the right to legislate "good citizenship", what the hell is stopping it from defining "good citizenship" however it damn well pleases? What's to stop it from declaring that protest rallies or marches are contrary to "good citizenship"? What's to stop it from declaring that trade union membership is contrary to "good citizenship"? For that matter, what's to stop it from deciding that being Christian is contrary to "good citizenship"....

This.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot: When I hear about people of any faith becoming angry and sometimes committing acts of violence over blasphemy I always come away with the same thought. Your god must be a little pathetic.
Upon first reading your O.P., I said "right on!" But the longer I think about it, the more it seems massively disingenuous to pretend that blaspheming is about insulting an assumed mirage in the sky. Who in his right mind would bother? As Dafyd points out, the real target of the exercise is a human community of believers.
I understand that. But my point was and is that it makes no difference.

That's right. It makes no difference.

The purpose of the biblical prohibition against blasphemy is not to protect the faithful but to warn the unfaithful.

Mocking God does not hurt Him it hurts the mocker.

But it is not that God becomes angry and retaliates. Rather, blasphemy is inherently harmful. It is more potent and deadly than the average disbeliever can appreciate. It serves to remove the protection of angels and expose the blasphemer to the malignant influence of hell.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The purpose of the biblical prohibition against blasphemy is not to protect the faithful but to warn the unfaithful.

Mocking God does not hurt Him it hurts the mocker.

But it is not that God becomes angry and retaliates. Rather, blasphemy is inherently harmful. It is more potent and deadly than the average disbeliever can appreciate. It serves to remove the protection of angels and expose the blasphemer to the malignant influence of hell.

"It serves to remove the protection of the angels"
Which Is effectively the same as God becomes angry and retaliates.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Freddy:

quote:
blasphemy is inherently harmful. It is more potent and deadly than the average disbeliever can appreciate. It serves to remove the protection of angels and expose the blasphemer to the malignant influence of hell.

Could you expand on this please? What does it mean to be exposed to "the malignant influence of hell"?

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Once you say the State has the right to legislate "good citizenship", what the hell is stopping it from defining "good citizenship" however it damn well pleases? What's to stop it from declaring that protest rallies or marches are contrary to "good citizenship"? What's to stop it from declaring that trade union membership is contrary to "good citizenship"? For that matter, what's to stop it from deciding that being Christian is contrary to "good citizenship"....
This.

Well in a Parliamentary democracy, it's a combination of the electorate and the judiciary. This is, in fact, the way it works now. Your freedom to ask the question has been given you by the state - it's a freedom other states don't allow.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Mocking God does not hurt Him it hurts the mocker.

But it is not that God becomes angry and retaliates. Rather, blasphemy is inherently harmful. It is more potent and deadly than the average disbeliever can appreciate. It serves to remove the protection of angels and expose the blasphemer to the malignant influence of hell.

Hence the importance of the Inquisition in rooting out secret Judaizing and other heresies! It's all for the good of the citizenry. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Well in a Parliamentary democracy, it's a combination of the electorate and the judiciary. This is, in fact, the way it works now. Your freedom to ask the question has been given you by the state - it's a freedom other states don't allow.

This is fairly different than the American formulation of such a question, which assumes certain inherent human liberties which are guaranteed by the state, rather than provided by its sufferance.

[ 04. December 2012, 18:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Freddy:
quote:
blasphemy is inherently harmful. It is more potent and deadly than the average disbeliever can appreciate. It serves to remove the protection of angels and expose the blasphemer to the malignant influence of hell.
Could you expand on this please? What does it mean to be exposed to "the malignant influence of hell"?

As the Bible depicts the human spirit, we are constantly in the midst of both heavenly and hellish influences.

In comic book portrayals we have angels and devils on our shoulders making opposing suggestions. But the Bible treats this seriously.

If we chase the angels away by our thoughts and actions then we are left with their opposites.

The long term results are not good.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Well in a Parliamentary democracy, it's a combination of the electorate and the judiciary. This is, in fact, the way it works now. Your freedom to ask the question has been given you by the state - it's a freedom other states don't allow.

OK- so, if a majority of the electorate were to vote that Christianity is to be outlawed as being contrary to "good citizenship" (as I understand it, churchgoing Christians not being a majority in the UK at present), and the judiciary were to approve it, then what?

What would you do? Would you nod approvingly? Would you protest? Take up arms?

At what point has the State (meaning, in this example, the combination of the electorate and judiciary) overreached its lawful authority? What about its moral authority?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But it is not that God becomes angry and retaliates. Rather, blasphemy is inherently harmful. It is more potent and deadly than the average disbeliever can appreciate. It serves to remove the protection of angels and expose the blasphemer to the malignant influence of hell.

Wow. You could be correct. I say this reeling just now from some disturbing revelations about a student employee at work who has excellent grades, does good work when he is here, and is very courteous. He seemed to have everything going for him and could look forward to a good career and fulfilling life honestly. So why does he elaborately lie, steal, and secretly study Hitler and the Nazis like Todd Bowden in The Apt Pupil? His parents are at their wits' end. He has been fired, will probably be expelled, and may even face jail time. What are we to make of behavior that is so irrational and self-destructive?

But if blasphemy is as portentous as that, we should have a precise definition so we know what to avoid. Muslimists, for instance, were quick to call blasphemous a Danish cartoon satirizing the promise of virgins in the afterlife to suicide bombers. Do you agree?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Freddy: If we chase the angels away by our thoughts and actions then we are left with their opposites.

I prefer to believe that the angels stay with us exactly when we think or do bad things.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Well in a Parliamentary democracy, it's a combination of the electorate and the judiciary. This is, in fact, the way it works now. Your freedom to ask the question has been given you by the state - it's a freedom other states don't allow.
OK- so, if a majority of the electorate were to vote that Christianity is to be outlawed as being contrary to "good citizenship" (as I understand it, churchgoing Christians not being a majority in the UK at present), and the judiciary were to approve it, then what?

What would you do? Would you nod approvingly? Would you protest? Take up arms?

At what point has the State (meaning, in this example, the combination of the electorate and judiciary) overreached its lawful authority? What about its moral authority?

The alternative view is to consider the current state (no pun intended) of affairs and consider the alternatives. Parliamentary democracy whether based on a written constitution (as in the States) or and unwritten one (as here) seeks to uphold certain values on behalf of the citizen. To pick up Croesses's point, the UK also guarantees basic freedoms and values as basic rights rather than sufferance through its unwritten constitution based on history, custom, practice, and shared values. We're also signatories to international standards of behaviour which guarantee freedoms. Personally, I think a written constitution does this better, but the underlying ethos is the same.

As for the risk of it all going horribly wrong - in many countries it does, but generally not in democracies. Practising freedom of religion (and freedom of speech for that matter) is a lot harder in places like Korea and Saudia Arabia than in the UK.

Any society has to regulate behaviour and establish norms. The question is where this happens. If it doesn't happen through national legislation, how do you do it?

[ 04. December 2012, 19:07: Message edited by: Ramarius ]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
You avoided the point mind. If someone, at enormous cost to themselves, offered you an astonishingly favourable alternative to what you deserved, you might turn the offer down but would you really consciously offend them for making it?
It's just that I have trouble seeing torture and death as an astonishingly favourable alternative.

And I don't usually make a point of consciously offending people but if I was told that it was against the law to use mockery to criticize this person then I might do just to prove a point and highlight the free speech issue.

What point are you trying to make? That you personally are the final arbiter of what should be considered offensive? If that's a principle that governs society, you need to think carefully about where that will lead you.

As for the first point, it still doesn't address the point that the cross was enormously costly for God. Why would you want to mock someone who bears such a cost?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Any society has to regulate behaviour and establish norms. The question is where this happens. If it doesn't happen through national legislation, how do you do it?

Has to? I'm not sure very many share your horror at the idea of people's behavior going unregulated or having the freedom to express unapproved thoughts. Do you see any room for unregulated behavior or abnormal ideas in society, or is it totalitarianism all the way?

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Any society has to regulate behaviour and establish norms. The question is where this happens. If it doesn't happen through national legislation, how do you do it?
Has to? I'm not sure very many share your horror at the idea of people's behavior going unregulated or having the freedom to express unapproved thoughts. Do you see any room for unregulated behavior or abnormal ideas in society, or is it totalitarianism all the way?

A very odd argument. Our society already regulates norms and behaviour without being totalitarian. Do you have an alternative to anarchy?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Has to? I'm not sure very many share your horror at the idea of people's behavior going unregulated or having the freedom to express unapproved thoughts. Do you see any room for unregulated behavior or abnormal ideas in society, or is it totalitarianism all the way?
A very odd argument. Our society already regulates norms and behaviour without being totalitarian. Do you have an alternative to anarchy?

Sticking with the question of blasphemy, permissive liberty seems very much preferrable to strict regulation. In part this is because things like blasphemy laws are typically tools used to entrench the majority and oppress any minority beliefs, but even a member of the majority sect has to be careful under such a regime to be sure to keep within the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Or to put it more succinctly, our society isn't totalitarian because it leaves large swathes of human behavior unregulated.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
As for the first point, it still doesn't address the point that the cross was enormously costly for God. Why would you want to mock someone who bears such a cost?

Well, I could think of a few reasons.

For example, maybe some of the people who recoginze God's great sacrifice have started to behave like real jerks, and mocking their God is a way of retaliating against them.

Let's say, in repsonse to Catholic cover-ups of clerical sexual abuse, some atheist draws a cartoon of Jesus as a dirty old man in a trenchcoat, leering at children in the park while holding a bag of candy, and posts it on his blog with the caption "Let the little children come to me".

Unfair to Jesus? Perhaps, but then, it's safe to say that, even before the cartoon, Jesus already had a pretty huge p.r. problem on his hands, what with people abetting child-rape while claiming to be acting on his behalf. And I don't find it entirely incomprehnsible that some of those outraged by the church's misbehaviour would want to hit them where it really hurts, ie. by mocking the very core beliefs that they claim to be following.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Has to? I'm not sure very many share your horror at the idea of people's behavior going unregulated or having the freedom to express unapproved thoughts. Do you see any room for unregulated behavior or abnormal ideas in society, or is it totalitarianism all the way?
A very odd argument. Our society already regulates norms and behaviour without being totalitarian. Do you have an alternative to anarchy?
Sticking with the question of blasphemy, permissive liberty seems very much preferrable to strict regulation. In part this is because things like blasphemy laws are typically tools used to entrench the majority and oppress any minority beliefs, but even a member of the majority sect has to be careful under such a regime to be sure to keep within the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy.

But in this country the exact opposite is the case. Blasphemy laws are used to guarantee the freedom of minorities to practice their beliefs.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Blasphemy laws are used to guarantee the freedom of minorities to practice their beliefs.

I'm not sure which country you're in. But, as mentioned, the last application of blasphemy laws in the UK was in the 70s, when the editors of a gay magazine were prosecuted for publishing a poem about Jesus having sex with a Roman soldier on the cross.

Since, in 1976, the idea of Jesus being a sexually active homosexual was almost certainly a minority view, I'm not exactly seeing how that prosecution was enhancing the rights of religious minorities.

I do realize that, in some places nowadays, hate-speech laws and the like are used to go after people who mock minority religions(with some pretty dubious results, eg. the kid who spent a night in jail for holding up an anti-Scientology sign). Is that the sort of thing you're thinking of?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Now it just so happens that my dad is a godlike Nobel winning scientist brain surgeon who rescues orphans at weekends. In that situation the insult is preposterous and I'd laugh it off.

I can think of insults that are untrue and preposterous, but are not therefore worthy to be laughed off. For example, I don't see why a black person should laugh off someone saying Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya, just because it's preposterous. The point is that people find it acceptable to say such a thing. The fact that it's untrue doesn't make it better. It makes it worse: people are demonstrating their ability to say things that are untrue without correction.

It's not about truth. It's about power.

I'm white, male, and not actually a follower of a minority religion. It would be tremendously easy for me to pronounce on how I would laugh off insults if any of the above were untrue.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I can think of insults that are untrue and preposterous, but are not therefore worthy to be laughed off. For example, I don't see why a black person should laugh off someone saying Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya, just because it's preposterous. The point is that people find it acceptable to say such a thing. The fact that it's untrue doesn't make it better. It makes it worse: people are demonstrating their ability to say things that are untrue without correction.

Without correction by whom? Tons of people have corrected the whole "Kenyan Obama" thing. I guess what you're objecting to is the lack of corrective action in the form of legal penalties by the state.

Part of the difficulty is that in case of blasphemy it's hard to gauge what's factual and what's preposterous. Having the state judge (and legally enforce!) the factual claims of a particular religion has a very problematic history.

Take, for instance, a schismatic religious group. Each claims the other is propagating false teachings and misrepresenting God. Why is it the state's business to take sides and sort out which of them really speaks for God? How would the state even be able to determine that?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I can think of insults that are untrue and preposterous, but are not therefore worthy to be laughed off. For example, I don't see why a black person should laugh off someone saying Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya, just because it's preposterous. The point is that people find it acceptable to say such a thing. The fact that it's untrue doesn't make it better. It makes it worse: people are demonstrating their ability to say things that are untrue without correction.
Without correction by whom? Tons of people have corrected the whole "Kenyan Obama" thing. I guess what you're objecting to is the lack of corrective action in the form of legal penalties by the state.

Part of the difficulty is that in case of blasphemy it's hard to gauge what's factual and what's preposterous. Having the state judge (and legally enforce!) the factual claims of a particular religion has a very problematic history.

Take, for instance, a schismatic religious group. Each claims the other is propagating false teachings and misrepresenting God. Why is it the state's business to take sides and sort out which of them really speaks for God? How would the state even be able to determine that?

I think in most places, the law just cuts to the chase and quite openly states that it's the majority, or at least the privileged, religion that gets the benefit of state protection.

In the Gay News trial a Law Lord specified that it was Anglican beliefs in particular that he was worried about being offended.

Though as I stated above, it seems to be the more marginalized faiths that get protection under hate-speech laws etc. Possibly a more laudable aim(as opposed to protecting a church that's already top-dog to begin with), but still open to the same sort of abuses via nuisance suits launched by the faithful.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Blasphemy laws are used to guarantee the freedom of minorities to practice their beliefs.
I'm not sure which country you're in. But, as mentioned, the last application of blasphemy laws in the UK was in the 70s, when the editors of a gay magazine were prosecuted for publishing a poem about Jesus having sex with a Roman soldier on the cross.

I'm confused. Is this, from March of 2010, not an example of the application of an anti-blasphemy law? (another article on the same story)

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Well, that wasn't an anti-blasphemy law per se. The guy was charged under some "public order" thingie that outlaws “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.

I was aware of the Liverpool case when I wrote my post, but I wasn't sure if the law used had specified anti-religious offenses, or if it was just a general prohibition against disruptive behaviour, that the prosecutors were interpreting to include insulting religion. Since it was the former, then yes, you could agree, with the article, that it's a "backdoor" blasphemy law.

I suppose that the writers of that law were trying to make it more palatable to liberal sensibilities, by dressing it up in a utilitarian concern about social harm, rather than just the hoary old blasphemy charge.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Freddy: If we chase the angels away by our thoughts and actions then we are left with their opposites.
I prefer to believe that the angels stay with us exactly when we think or do bad things.

You are actually right about that, according to what i have been taught.

The angels, and God, are more present when we are struggling or taking the wrong path.

The issue is not their actual presence or absence. It is our openness to them and our willingness to be influenced by them.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But if blasphemy is as portentous as that, we should have a precise definition so we know what to avoid. Muslimists, for instance, were quick to call blasphemous a Danish cartoon satirizing the promise of virgins in the afterlife to suicide bombers. Do you agree?

I have what I consider to be excellent and reliable definitions of blasphemy. But they are not any different than what the average person understands. Mocking what is holy is an easy enough concept.

The issue isn't identifying blasphemy. The issue is that there is no cultural unity behind the idea of serious sanctions.

And this is probably not a bad thing, because Christianity understands blasphemy to be primarily a condition of the mind and heart, and only secondarily a matter of words or actions.

Therefore the concepts of religious liberty and freedom of speech trump any serious consideration of literal prohibitions, except in certain circumstances.

Westerners mostly consider the reaction to the Danish cartoons, as offensive as they were, to be hard to empathize with.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, that wasn't an anti-blasphemy law per se. The guy was charged under some "public order" thingie that outlaws “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.

I was aware of the Liverpool case when I wrote my post, but I wasn't sure if the law used had specified anti-religious offenses, or if it was just a general prohibition against disruptive behaviour, that the prosecutors were interpreting to include insulting religion. Since it was the former, then yes, you could agree, with the article, that it's a "backdoor" blasphemy law.

I suppose that the writers of that law were trying to make it more palatable to liberal sensibilities, by dressing it up in a utilitarian concern about social harm, rather than just the hoary old blasphemy charge.

So, in short, it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck. As you have pointed out, it's the religious majority using the law to punish someone in a religious minority.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, that wasn't an anti-blasphemy law per se. The guy was charged under some "public order" thingie that outlaws “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.

I was aware of the Liverpool case when I wrote my post, but I wasn't sure if the law used had specified anti-religious offenses, or if it was just a general prohibition against disruptive behaviour, that the prosecutors were interpreting to include insulting religion. Since it was the former, then yes, you could agree, with the article, that it's a "backdoor" blasphemy law.

I suppose that the writers of that law were trying to make it more palatable to liberal sensibilities, by dressing it up in a utilitarian concern about social harm, rather than just the hoary old blasphemy charge.
So, in short, it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck. As you have pointed out, it's the religious majority using the law to punish someone in a religious minority.

Right. Though with these new-fangled laws, the protected "religious majority" seems to be "people who hold to, or at least respect, religious belief". As opposed to the old laws' privileged caste being "Christians, and actually we only really care about Anglicans".

Either way, yes, the consensus forcing its will upon the dissent.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The fact that it's untrue doesn't make it better. It makes it worse: people are demonstrating their ability to say things that are untrue without correction.
Without correction by whom? Tons of people have corrected the whole "Kenyan Obama" thing.

If the first person to try to correct it actually corrected it, then why did anybody else need to correct it?

There are lots of liberal blogs on which a public figure can be pilloried should they say anything about birtherism. But if the 'mainstream' media is still covering birtherism as if it's one point of view about which they should maintain neutrality, then it's not successfully corrected in the 'mainstream' media. And if Fox News are letting it slide, it's not successfully corrected there.

If a black woman drives under a sign saying, 'Vote for the Mormon not the Muslim,' on her way to work every day, it's not of much comfort to her to know that it's ridiculed on the liberal blogosphere. She doesn't work in the liberal blogosphere. What the sign is saying to her is, 'you do not belong here'.

quote:
I guess what you're objecting to is the lack of corrective action in the form of legal penalties by the state.

I usually find that reading for comprehension helps reduce the number of inaccurate guesses.

From my second post on this thread:

quote:
Whatever's going on on the surface, insults to religion are basically saying to religious believers, 'I can say what I like about you and you can't stop me'. Legally, of course, that should be ok. The ethics depend entirely upon the relative power relations between the two groups.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But it is not that God becomes angry and retaliates. Rather, blasphemy is inherently harmful. It is more potent and deadly than the average disbeliever can appreciate. It serves to remove the protection of angels and expose the blasphemer to the malignant influence of hell.
"It serves to remove the protection of the angels"
Which Is effectively the same as God becomes angry and retaliates.

Yes, in the same sense that jumping off of buildings angers God and causes Him to smash you to the ground in a fury.

Survival in life, in both a spiritual and natural sense, is a matter of understanding and living within its imperatives and the laws that govern them.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Any society has to regulate behaviour and establish norms. The question is where this happens. If it doesn't happen through national legislation, how do you do it?
Has to? I'm not sure very many share your horror at the idea of people's behavior going unregulated or having the freedom to express unapproved thoughts. Do you see any room for unregulated behavior or abnormal ideas in society, or is it totalitarianism all the way?
A very odd argument. Our society already regulates norms and behaviour without being totalitarian. Do you have an alternative to anarchy?

No our society doesn't; it regulates excesses which is looking at it from 180 degrees in the opposite direction from regulated norms. The basic principle of freedoms in the UK is that you can do whatever you like unless there is a law which says you can't. It could be argued that the absence of a written constitution actually places these freedoms on a higher plane; they exist as innate freedoms, not rights that are in some way dependent on an external document.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Freddy,

The difference is God does not add or remove gravitational effect depending upon ones belief in, or respect for those effects.
From your depiction, whether God harms you or steps out of the way to allows you to be harmed is irrelevant. The intent is the same; to punish you for calling him nasty names.

[ 05. December 2012, 14:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From your depiction, whether God harms you or steps out of the way to allows you to be harmed is irrelevant. The intent is the same; to punish you for calling him nasty names.

If you angrily and contemptuously tell people to go away, what do they do if they are courteous?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sorry, Alogon, you cannot attribute human interaction modes to the God Christians claim to worship.
But blasphemy is not telling a god to go away. It is insulting god. Truly, more insulting followers by intent.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

But then, what does it matter for me? According to many followers of your God, I am condemned to hell regardless, no matter how polite and good I may be.

( and I am ever so good. [Angel]

I rescue kittens and orphans. Though it can be confusing. I know one finds good homes for both, but which does one spay or neuter? To be safe, I have that done as a blanket policy, but I am fairly certain it is not necessary for one of the groups.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Alogon, you cannot attribute human interaction modes to the God Christians claim to worship.

Why can't I? Actually, they're personal interaction modes. Judeo-Christian believers have described God as personal for ages.

quote:

But blasphemy is not telling a god to go away. It is insulting god. Truly, more insulting followers by intent.

Do blasphemers believe in the god they are insulting, or not? I'm trying to get my head around how someone can simultaneously (1) disbelieve in a god's existence or power, and (2) be miffed because the god they don't believe in has left them unprotected from other spirits they probably don't believe in, either.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm trying to get my head around how someone can simultaneously (1) disbelieve in a god's existence or power, and (2) be miffed because the god they don't believe in has left them unprotected from other spirits they probably don't believe in, either.

You don't know anybody who believes contradictory things before breakfast? Seems to me there are a hell of a lot of atheists who are mad at God.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Do blasphemers believe in the god they are insulting, or not?

Some do, some don't. It depends on the type of blasphemy involved. For instance, I've known Christians who believe in the existance of non-Christian deities, they just believe that these "deities" are actually agents of Satan trying to lead the faithful astray.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But then, what does it matter for me? According to many followers of your God, I am condemned to hell regardless, no matter how polite and good I may be.

Yes, but then we aren't claiming that God operates on Karmic principles.

Hell, whatever it is, doesn't exist because the people there will have rescued too few stray cats or refused to help the requisite number of old ladies across the road. Depravity, sin, fallen nature, whatever you want to call it, this is what condemns us. And they only saving difference between a kind and generous atheist and a less kind and generous Christian is that the latter has been pardoned because of all that stuff that happened on the cross.

It might sound like cods-wallop to you, but surely you have been around here long enough to understand the distinction between the notion of earning redemption yourself and receiving a gift you could never hope to gain otherwise?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Alogon,

What I am saying is this:
All-loving God = / = You will BURN IN HELL for hurting My feelings.

And my posts are not about being miffed at anyone. Just highlighting a logical inconsistency.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
It might sound like cods-wallop to you, but surely you have been around here long enough to understand the distinction between the notion of earning redemption yourself and receiving a gift you could never hope to gain otherwise?

Understood that longer than I have been here. Just, as mentioned, see it as an inconsistency. And, if true, see the Christian God as no better than the emotionally stunted, immature Zeus or the backstabbing, vindictive Odin.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Freddy,
The difference is God does not add or remove gravitational effect depending upon ones belief in, or respect for those effects.
From your depiction, whether God harms you or steps out of the way to allows you to be harmed is irrelevant. The intent is the same; to punish you for calling him nasty names.

No, it is exactly the same.

God doesn't remove angels, nor do they leave of their own accord. No one punishes you for the nasty names, nor does God wish this.

It is we who remove ourselves from the angels just as it would be we who, heedless of gravity, launched ourselves from the building top. The only difference is that we would have to be fantastically stupid to ignore gravity, whereas ignoring spiritual reality is more a matter of not believing what we are told.

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :

Blasphemy can't denigrate God, but I think blasphemy potentially injures the user and other people's relationship to God... it's funny how often people who routinely say 'Oh God' in thoughtless irritation or disgust blush when they find themselves having done so in front of someone in a dog-collar...
... I don't find it in the least bit offensive... but I do feel embarrassed for them because they have unintentionally called upon the Almighty to witness some triviality, and suddenly they feel rather foolish.
I DO wince inwardly when someone angrily yells 'Christ!' But then I wince inwardly when anyone lashes out in real anger. Perhaps it is because I know that their verbal punches are actually hitting an unseen mark... even if they are too shortsighted to see who they are striking.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Any society has to regulate behaviour and establish norms. The question is where this happens. If it doesn't happen through national legislation, how do you do it?
Has to? I'm not sure very many share your horror at the idea of people's behavior going unregulated or having the freedom to express unapproved thoughts. Do you see any room for unregulated behavior or abnormal ideas in society, or is it totalitarianism all the way?
A very odd argument. Our society already regulates norms and behaviour without being totalitarian. Do you have an alternative to anarchy?
No our society doesn't; it regulates excesses which is looking at it from 180 degrees in the opposite direction from regulated norms. The basic principle of freedoms in the UK is that you can do whatever you like unless there is a law which says you can't. It could be argued that the absence of a written constitution actually places these freedoms on a higher plane; they exist as innate freedoms, not rights that are in some way dependent on an external document.

I don't particularly think we are in disagreement here. Legislation is one mechanism (amongst others) for achieving a policy intention. That may be done positively (you positively have the right to redirect your paid tax to a charity) or negatively (you can speak freely until it hits the boundary of offensiveness). I think you make this point rather better than my rather hurried post.

I think the founders of the US constitution would also say that the rights enshrined therein are innate freedoms - a written constitution is just a different way of expressing them. The relative merits of written and unwritten constitutions may make for a thread of their own.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, that wasn't an anti-blasphemy law per se. The guy was charged under some "public order" thingie that outlaws “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.

I was aware of the Liverpool case when I wrote my post, but I wasn't sure if the law used had specified anti-religious offenses, or if it was just a general prohibition against disruptive behaviour, that the prosecutors were interpreting to include insulting religion. Since it was the former, then yes, you could agree, with the article, that it's a "backdoor" blasphemy law.

I suppose that the writers of that law were trying to make it more palatable to liberal sensibilities, by dressing it up in a utilitarian concern about social harm, rather than just the hoary old blasphemy charge.
So, in short, it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck. As you have pointed out, it's the religious majority using the law to punish someone in a religious minority.

Are you saying that this behaviour should not, on principle, be considered as causing social harm purely on the basis that the harm caused had a religious dimension?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Are you saying that this behaviour should not, on principle, be considered as causing social harm purely on the basis that the harm caused had a religious dimension?

I'd say rather that the harm done by squelching it far outweighs any harm it might cause. Creating a fascist society where people are not free to speak out against authority, versus a couple of lewd pamphlets left in an airport lounge? I can't see how there's even a question as to which is the better option.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I agree with mousethief.
I would ask this question once more.

Why should religion have special protections enshrined in law?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Just to clarify-- I agree with Mousethief and with you as well, as far as the law is concerned.

But I also find what Freddy says plausible regarding inherent dangers of blasphemy to those engaging in it. There's nothing wrong with someone who sees danger warning others. Why shoot the messenger?

And it's not entirely self-centered when members of a loving community lash out against someone who gratuitously insults the community, whether that community is a family, a nation, or a group of co-religionists. It might not be the most mature or effective reaction, but it is natural enough, and perhaps honorable as well.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Just to clarify-- I agree with Mousethief and with you as well, as far as the law is concerned.

But I also find what Freddy says plausible regarding inherent dangers of blasphemy to those engaging in it. There's nothing wrong with someone who sees danger warning others. Why shoot the messenger?

Partly because this is used as an excuse by many to act nastily.

quote:
And it's not entirely self-centered when members of a loving community lash out against someone who gratuitously insults the community, whether that community is a family, a nation, or a group of co-religionists. It might not be the most mature or effective reaction, but it is natural enough, and perhaps honorable as well.

Natural enough. Not honorable to people who claim to follow the man who said if someone hits you on one cheek, turn the other. I can see how you might, in light of that command, justify speaking up against insults to your faith. But lashing out? No.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But I also find what Freddy says plausible regarding inherent dangers of blasphemy to those engaging in it. There's nothing wrong with someone who sees danger warning others. Why shoot the messenger?

There's a ton of question begging there. Let's posit a purely hypothetical group called "Jews", who have for centuries blasphemously denied the divinity of Jesus. Is it a good idea to target them with warnings of the truly horrible things that will happen to them if they don't convert? On the other hand, this purely hypothetical group might counter that elevating a human to divine status is blasphemy and likely to draw the ire of the One True God™, warning Christians to abandon their blasphemous ways before it's too late.

So how does one tell which group is being blasphemous here? Is it simply the standard of who gets offended first? Who gets the most offended? In numbers or intensity? What's the standard?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Freddy,
The difference is God does not add or remove gravitational effect depending upon ones belief in, or respect for those effects.
From your depiction, whether God harms you or steps out of the way to allows you to be harmed is irrelevant. The intent is the same; to punish you for calling him nasty names.
No, it is exactly the same.

God doesn't remove angels, nor do they leave of their own accord. No one punishes you for the nasty names, nor does God wish this.

It is we who remove ourselves from the angels just as it would be we who, heedless of gravity, launched ourselves from the building top. The only difference is that we would have to be fantastically stupid to ignore gravity, whereas ignoring spiritual reality is more a matter of not believing what we are told.

I see it as being (very) roughly analogous to a student taking a series of courses from a capable and well-meaning professor. If the student rejects what the professor teaches and ridicules her teaching methods in the first course, only to find himself unprepared for the follow-on course, he may well decide that the professor is punishing him when in fact punishment has nothing to do with it, particularly if the student decides that the professor could just give him a passing grade if she wanted. And any prior warnings from the professor might sound to the student like threats of future punishment. (Note that I did say it's a rough analogy.)

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So how does one tell which group is being blasphemous here?

I see no reason to consider what either group is doing as blasphemous. And no, it isn't a good idea take on the role of warning people about horrible consequences of a sincerely and innocently held belief. Blasphemy is not about being mistaken, it's about knowing what's right and/or good and deciding to actively reject it as worthless (at least how I see it).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I see no reason to consider what either group is doing as blasphemous. And no, it isn't a good idea take on the role of warning people about horrible consequences of a sincerely and innocently held belief. Blasphemy is not about being mistaken, it's about knowing what's right and/or good and deciding to actively reject it as worthless (at least how I see it).

That doesn't seem to match up with Drew's suggested standard of causing offense. Most Christians would be at least moderately offended to be told that they're worshiping a false god.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

I'm not trying to make it match up. I don't think that blasphemy, as to its essence, has anything to do with someone being offended. And it seems clear to me that if someone is offended about a deeply held belief, that does not imply that it must be due to blasphemy.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most Christians would be at least moderately offended to be told that they're worshiping a false god.

I don't know if it matters, but put me down as one who would not be. I know people disagree with me, and I think they're wrong and they think I'm wrong. That isn't offensive, it just is. What is potentially offensive (to me) would be HOW they expressed that opinion. I think adults with relatively normal mental health and intelligence should be able to say, "You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong, let's go have a beer."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Mousethief, I dearly wish that were the reaction much more often than it is.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Freddy:

quote:
It is we who remove ourselves from the angels

You've been making statements like this quite firmly all through this thread, and they intrigue me. Could you explain why you believe that blasphemy cuts us off from the angels? You seem to know a lot more about angelic behaviour than I do, and I'd like to be enlightened.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Understood that longer than I have been here. Just, as mentioned, see it as an inconsistency. And, if true, see the Christian God as no better than the emotionally stunted, immature Zeus or the backstabbing, vindictive Odin.

Then I'm not sure what we are talking about. I think it's consistent with mainstream Christian soteriology that God can forgive just about any sin. This might well involve those who blaspheme.

I would have thought that hell isn't reserved for those who did something unforgivable like say nasty things about God. Rather, it's there for people who, for whatever reason, chose not to be forgiven.

The difference is that blasphemy is one sin amongst many sins. (And I'm sure that we could have fun talking about blaspheming against the Spirit.) While hell, whatever this is, is for those who remain in a state of sinfulness, a state that is obviously detestable to God.

Again, you seem to think that God operates on Karmic principles. Enough good and you get a cold star. Too much bad and you get a flaming bag of poo on your doorstep.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Freddy:
quote:
It is we who remove ourselves from the angels
You've been making statements like this quite firmly all through this thread, and they intrigue me. Could you explain why you believe that blasphemy cuts us off from the angels? You seem to know a lot more about angelic behaviour than I do, and I'd like to be enlightened.

These are just things that my denomination teaches, from this book. They could be wrong. [Biased]

But I think that the Bible also makes statements that can be understood this way:

quote:
Psalm 91 Because you have made the Lord, who is my refuge,
Even the Most High, your dwelling place,
10 No evil shall befall you,
Nor shall any plague come near your dwelling;
11 For He shall give His angels charge over you,
To keep you in all your ways.

Clearly this is not true in a literal way, since believers in God are not always literally protected. But the idea that every person is surrounded and protected by angels - and more so if they trust in God - is a common Christian belief.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Again, you seem to think that God operates on Karmic principles. Enough good and you get a cold star. Too much bad and you get a flaming bag of poo on your doorstep.

I am making no claims of how any god operates. I am saying two things on this thread.
1. Many Christians ascribe fundamentally contradictory behaviour to their god.
2. Blasphemy laws are ridiculous.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I would have thought that hell isn't reserved for those who did something unforgivable like say nasty things about God. Rather, it's there for people who, for whatever reason, chose not to be forgiven.

How do you "choose" to make someone else forgive you? I'm pretty sure that's not how forgiveness works.

quote:
Now I know I shouldn't have had that three-way with your sister and your best friend, but I've decided that you're going to forgive me. Isn't that wonderful?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Blasphemy laws are ridiculous.

You sum up three pages of posts very well.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I would have thought that hell isn't reserved for those who did something unforgivable like say nasty things about God. Rather, it's there for people who, for whatever reason, chose not to be forgiven.
How do you "choose" to make someone else forgive you? I'm pretty sure that's not how forgiveness works.

quote:
Now I know I shouldn't have had that three-way with your sister and your best friend, but I've decided that you're going to forgive me. Isn't that wonderful?

Poor wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply that you are making God forgive you. Perhaps I should have said the "conditions for forgiveness". And, yes, I do believe that forgiveness comes with conditions.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Blasphemy laws are ridiculous.
You sum up three pages of posts very well.

I agree. I don't see too many people advocating blasphemy laws, even though that's what most of the posts on this thread seem to be reacting to.

The topic of this thread, though, is not about laws but about blasphemy itself, and whether it is really a "bad thing" or not.

There are plenty of "bad things" that do not fall into the realm of legislation.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a ton of question begging there. Let's posit a purely hypothetical group called "Jews", who have for centuries blasphemously denied the divinity of Jesus. Is it a good idea to target them with warnings of the truly horrible things that will happen to them if they don't convert? On the other hand, this purely hypothetical group might counter that elevating a human to divine status is blasphemy and likely to draw the ire of the One True God™, warning Christians to abandon their blasphemous ways before it's too late.

This is exactly why I asked Freddy upthread for a more precise definition of blasphemy, and all I could gather from his reply is that he knows it when he sees it. Sorta like pornography, apparently.

Blasphemy must be something more than patiently and charitably discussing a difference of opinion.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree. I don't see too many people advocating blasphemy laws, even though that's what most of the posts on this thread seem to be reacting to.

Really? They're quite popular. Pakistan, Poland, Greece, Egypt, Russia . . . quite the geographically and culturally diverse collection of nations. I'm surprised you haven't heard of any of this.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
This is exactly why I asked Freddy upthread for a more precise definition of blasphemy, and all I could gather from his reply is that he knows it when he sees it. Sorta like pornography, apparently.

Blasphemy must be something more than patiently and charitably discussing a difference of opinion.

I'm not sure there's a distinction for "tone" in determining whether a statement is blasphemous or not. Historically most religions have considered it more a matter of idea content than of whether or not those ideas were expressed "patiently and charitably". Such things are highly subjective anyway. Does the reaction of the recipient matter, or is it the intention of the (potential) blasphemer that should be considered?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Freddy:

quote:
the idea that every person is surrounded and protected by angels - and more so if they trust in God - is a common Christian belief.

Agreed; it was the other stuff you said about angels that I was curious about. I'm afraid my knowledge of Swendenborg is only what I've gleaned while studying Blake, so it is patchy at best. Thanks for the link.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The topic of this thread, though, is not about laws but about blasphemy itself, and whether it is really a "bad thing" or not.

It is a bad thing if you blaspheme the one true God which just so happens to be my God, btw. He's too tough to need protecting by laws of mere men.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree. I don't see too many people advocating blasphemy laws, even though that's what most of the posts on this thread seem to be reacting to.
Really? They're quite popular.

Yes, I agree that they are popular. But we shouldn't just follow the crowd. [Disappointed]

What I meant was that I don't see too many people on this thread advocating those laws.

The OP is about whether God should able to stand verbal insults, not whether there should be laws about it.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
What I meant was that I don't see too many people on this thread advocating those laws.

The OP is about whether God should able to stand verbal insults, not whether there should be laws about it.

I recognize the theoretical distinction between personal(even if publically expressed) opposition to blasphemy, and state suppression of blasphemy. But one thing I've been wondering about while following this thread...

To what extent, if any, can the concept of blasphemy be separated from laws against it? I'm not an expert, but it's my impression that, historically, references to blasphemy are almost always connected with efforts at forcefully suppressing it. I'm hard pressed to think of an historical account where someone is said to have been engaged in blasphemy, without the overall context being some sort of legal proceedings against him.

Related to this, it seems to me that the posters arguing "Well, we're just concerned about blasphemy because it estranges people from God" might be understating the antagonistic nature of the accusation. Because skipping mass on Sunday or neglecting to read your Bible might also estrange you(not to mention your family) from God, but as far as I am aware, in liberal democracies those transgressions have never been the subject of legal penalty.

In more poetic terms, I guess you could say that I'm a little skeptical of the image of blasphemy-hunters as emulating the compassionate shepherd valiantly searching for his lost little lamb. I think the proper metaphor might be something more like this.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I see no reason to consider what either group is doing as blasphemous. And no, it isn't a good idea take on the role of warning people about horrible consequences of a sincerely and innocently held belief. Blasphemy is not about being mistaken, it's about knowing what's right and/or good and deciding to actively reject it as worthless (at least how I see it).
That doesn't seem to match up with Drew's suggested standard of causing offense. Most Christians would be at least moderately offended to be told that they're worshiping a false god.

Did I give a standard? What did you think it was? Perhaps I should clarify a little. On principle I don't have a principle with blasphemy laws. The intention behind them is to allow religious people to hold their beliefs freely and to change them freely. But such laws should not (and happily in our country are not) considered in isolation. Government needs to consider if a religiously held view is itself offensive to someone who does not hold it. If I consider, from a religious viewpoint, that I have the right to spit on people with red hair, some third party (Government or judiciary) would need to decide what should be considernqcceptable an unacceptable. One should also consider how protection for religious people, be squared with the right to speak freely and criticise beliefs with which one does not agree. The point at which an offense is caused may well differ subjectively between individuals. But legislation, and it's interpretation by the judiciary, will determine where the line should be drawn for society as a whole.

The issue is further complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing between religion and culture. Whilst for many of us the two are logically distinct and easily distinguishable, for a Hindu or some Muslims, this is less clear.

It really is all something of a minefield. But one of the reasons for blasphemy laws is to recognise how sensitive issues of religion for many people, and making the point that society recognises these sensitivities.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Perhaps I should clarify a little. On principle I don't have a principle with blasphemy laws. The intention behind them is to allow religious people to hold their beliefs freely and to change them freely.

That is the opposite of what blasphemy laws do. The intention is to declare that a certain set of religious beliefs are forbidden (i.e. blasphemous). Setting boundaries on the acceptable limits of religious belief is the exact opposite of "allow[ing] religious people to hold their beliefs freely and to change them freely".

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
It really is all something of a minefield. But one of the reasons for blasphemy laws is to recognise how sensitive issues of religion for many people, and making the point that society recognises these sensitivities.

Using laws to address minefields is a bit like driving through the minefields in a racing car. Sooner or later there is going to be a large bang and bits will go everywhere.

The law is a blunt instrument, and liable to cause a lot of damage in the wrong places if misused.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

D the A nailed it here:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
But one of the reasons for blasphemy laws is to recognise how sensitive issues of religion for many people, and making the point that society recognises these sensitivities.

Recognizing sensitivities is one thing; forcing others to cater to poor dears' precious sensitivities is quite another. The law has no place telling me I can't hurt your feelings by calling your god a ninnyhead, however that may crush your delicate sensitivities.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
To what extent, if any, can the concept of blasphemy be separated from laws against it? I'm not an expert, but it's my impression that, historically, references to blasphemy are almost always connected with efforts at forcefully suppressing it.

Very interesting. My own experience with blasphemy is that as kids we were always being told by our parents to stop doing it. Sort of like bad table manners. As someone said, I can still taste the soap.

I understand that historically there have been laws against it, and that there are still laws in some places. But in my experience, and in the experience of most of us I'm sure, the issue is more social and adolescent than legal.

I'm sure that there are many degrees of what people consider to be "blasphemy" and I can imagine forms of it that might make me very angry - even that I think should be illegal. But I have no experience of any such thing.

So to me this is a matter of social convention, of what is approved of and disapproved of in polite company or religious society, and what the substance behind it is.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
D the A nailed it here:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
But one of the reasons for blasphemy laws is to recognise how sensitive issues of religion for many people, and making the point that society recognises these sensitivities.
Recognizing sensitivities is one thing; forcing others to cater to poor dears' precious sensitivities is quite another. The law has no place telling me I can't hurt your feelings by calling your god a ninnyhead, however that may crush your delicate sensitivities.

I wonder what D The A would think about the example I cited earlier, of the kid in the UK hauled off to the police station for holding up a sign calling Scientology a cult.

Granted, yes, that wasn't under blasphemy laws per se, but it's basically performing the same function that blasphemy laws are supposed to(ie. protecting sensitivities), in D The A's estimation.

And, true, the kid was never proseucted, but still. Getting arrested and carted off to the station is, in and of itself, a pretty severe action in response to an insulting sign.

link

[ 06. December 2012, 22:22: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Perhaps I should clarify a little. On principle I don't have a principle with blasphemy laws. The intention behind them is to allow religious people to hold their beliefs freely and to change them freely.
That is the opposite of what blasphemy laws do. The intention is to declare that a certain set of religious beliefs are forbidden (i.e. blasphemous). Setting boundaries on the acceptable limits of religious belief is the exact opposite of "allow[ing] religious people to hold their beliefs freely and to change them freely".

Actually, it's a little more subtle than that. Pre Cambrian's post on the previous page refers. Everything is permissible until a line is drawn to identify what is not permissible.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
D the A nailed it here:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
But one of the reasons for blasphemy laws is to recognise how sensitive issues of religion for many people, and making the point that society recognises these sensitivities.
Recognizing sensitivities is one thing; forcing others to cater to poor dears' precious sensitivities is quite another. The law has no place telling me I can't hurt your feelings by calling your god a ninnyhead, however that may crush your delicate sensitivities.

Are you then saying that no comment made about any aspect of religious belief and practice can ever cross the boundary of acceptability?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
D the A nailed it here:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
But one of the reasons for blasphemy laws is to recognise how sensitive issues of religion for many people, and making the point that society recognises these sensitivities.
Recognizing sensitivities is one thing; forcing others to cater to poor dears' precious sensitivities is quite another. The law has no place telling me I can't hurt your feelings by calling your god a ninnyhead, however that may crush your delicate sensitivities.
Are you then saying that no comment made about any aspect of religious belief and practice can ever cross the boundary of acceptability?

No. I'm saying they should not be made illegal. How many times do I have to say this?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That is the opposite of what blasphemy laws do. The intention is to declare that a certain set of religious beliefs are forbidden (i.e. blasphemous). Setting boundaries on the acceptable limits of religious belief is the exact opposite of "allow[ing] religious people to hold their beliefs freely and to change them freely".
Actually, it's a little more subtle than that. Pre Cambrian's post on the previous page refers. Everything is permissible until a line is drawn to identify what is not permissible.

I'm not understanding your point here. Isn't the whole point of blasphemy laws to draw that line and rule whole areas of thought as "out of bounds"?

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That is the opposite of what blasphemy laws do. The intention is to declare that a certain set of religious beliefs are forbidden (i.e. blasphemous). Setting boundaries on the acceptable limits of religious belief is the exact opposite of "allow[ing] religious people to hold their beliefs freely and to change them freely".
Actually, it's a little more subtle than that. Pre Cambrian's post on the previous page refers. Everything is permissible until a line is drawn to identify what is not permissible.
I'm not understanding your point here. Isn't the whole point of blasphemy laws to draw that line and rule whole areas of thought as "out of bounds"?

I think it's helpful to distinguish between mechanism and intent. When we had a blasphemy law, our Chief Justice, Lord Scarman, judged that the modern law of blasphemy was correctly formulated in article 214 of Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, Ninth Edition, 1950, which reads
Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not as to the substance of the doctrines themselves. Everyone who publishes any blasphemous document is guilty of the (offence) of publishing a blasphemous libel. Everyone who speaks blasphemous words is guilty of the (offence) of blasphemy."

Now if I remember this correctly, a number of Muslim barristers sought to prosecute Salman Rushdie under the law of blasphemy for his book The Satanic Verses. The attempt failed. So you could take the view that because the law defined what blasphemy was, Rushdie was able to appeal to that law to show that his actions were legal. In that case, he should be fully protected by other laws guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression. And that's my wider point - a blasphemy law can work if set in the wider context of a suite of legislation which also covers basic human rights,freedom of speech and expression and what have you.

Currently in the UK we try and balance these various issues with different legislation rather than use a blasphemy law per se.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
D the A nailed it here:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
But one of the reasons for blasphemy laws is to recognise how sensitive issues of religion for many people, and making the point that society recognises these sensitivities.
Recognizing sensitivities is one thing; forcing others to cater to poor dears' precious sensitivities is quite another. The law has no place telling me I can't hurt your feelings by calling your god a ninnyhead, however that may crush your delicate sensitivities.
Are you then saying that no comment made about any aspect of religious belief and practice can ever cross the boundary of acceptability?
No. I'm saying they should not be made illegal. How many times do I have to say this?

In that case, I suppose what I'm not following is how someone, or some organisation, which is subjected to unacceptable comment (and we agree I think that such comments are made)
can be protected from further comment, or find redress to the harm such comments cause. Whence might that protection or redress be derived, if not from the law? This might take us into a new thread, but I would be interested in how you would approach this.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
And that's my wider point - a blasphemy law can work if set in the wider context of a suite of legislation which also covers basic human rights,freedom of speech and expression and what have you.

Okay...

"A law against insulting the Conservative Party can work, if set in the wider context of a suite of legislation which covers basic human rights, freedom of speech and expression and what have you".

That way, if someone, comparable to the Rushdie example, is mistakenly thought to have broken the law(when in fact he just insulted small-c conservatives, not the party per se), all he has to do is tell the courts that he didn't commit the crime as defined by the law, and everything will be hunkydory.

But can that law really be said to exist within the context of basic human rights, freedom of expression etc?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
In that case, I suppose what I'm not following is how someone, or some organisation, which is subjected to unacceptable comment (and we agree I think that such comments are made)
can be protected from further comment, or find redress to the harm such comments cause.

Well, they can try to convince people that the characterization was unfair. Presumably, if they are prominent enough to be the subject of public comment, they're prominent enough to find a venue for rebutting the insults.

If that doesn't work, however, I guess they just have to suck it up and face the fact that lots of people agree with the negative portrayal put forth by their critics.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

DrewTA,

Two, at least, problems. First one is the same I've repeated over and again and none have provided a defense is why should religion enjoy such special protection? Second, the wording of Scarman shows it is not religion but the dominant religion which is favoured.
As Stetson's example shows, it is more about control and repression than it is protection.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
In that case, I suppose what I'm not following is how someone, or some organisation, which is subjected to unacceptable comment (and we agree I think that such comments are made)
can be protected from further comment, or find redress to the harm such comments cause.
Well, they can try to convince people that the characterization was unfair. Presumably, if they are prominent enough to be the subject of public comment, they're prominent enough to find a venue for rebutting the insults.

If that doesn't work, however, I guess they just have to suck it up and face the fact that lots of people agree with the negative portrayal put forth by their critics.

Ah - and there's the rub Stetson. If you are a powerful person you will have the wherewithal to make a stand. But the weak go to the wall. That's the issue behind the Levinson enquiry. Frankly, it's a licence for bullying.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
DrewTA,

Two, at least, problems. First one is the same I've repeated over and again and none have provided a defense is why should religion enjoy such special protection? Second, the wording of Scarman shows it is not religion but the dominant religion which is favoured.
As Stetson's example shows, it is more about control and repression than it is protection.

Historically you are quite right. The last blasphemy law in the UK only protected Christians. I am thinking more about how a new blasphemy law would work. I noticed that the question of an International blasphemy law is rumbling around the UN. In this very short article, I noticed both an argument for a blasphemy law (or a law against religious defamation) as a means of promoting toleration, and points that support your comment that the danger of such laws is that they can be - and are being - used as a mechanism for repression.

Reflecting on this thoughtful discussion the question for me is whether, and how, a blasphemy law could work. One of the main reasons in its favour, would be if by providing a proportionate means of redress, it restrains the excessive reactions of some religious people who take offense at what they see as attacks on their faith.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Countries like the UK, Canada, Australia already limit saying truly nasty things about others. So what need for blasphemy laws?
America has free speech enshrined in its constitution. Say any nasty thing about anybody, why should religion get a special pass?

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Countries like the UK, Canada, Australia already limit saying truly nasty things about others. So what need for blasphemy laws?
America has free speech enshrined in its constitution. Say any nasty thing about anybody, why should religion get a special pass?

Well at the moment in this country the case hasn't been made for some of the reasons you describe. But it's interesting that the debate in the UN, whilst initiated by Muslim countries, may gain traction if such laws are seen as a way of restraining over reactions by religious people.

We may come back to this if the possibility of some kind of international blasphemy or 'religious defamation' law becomes more likely. I would still argue that as long as religious people are subjected to verbal attacks purely because of their beliefs, then the law should decide when such attacks are unreasonable and dangerous to society, and therefore provide suitable redress. Whether current legislation does quite enough to protect religious people is another question to which we will surely return when current cases in the European courts have been resolved.

But on the specific question of a blasphemy law - having thought the issue through on this thread - I agree that there does not appear to be a clear reason why we would need one given the other legislation we have to protect minority interests and respond to the impact of defamatory bevaviour.

[ 08. December 2012, 16:18: Message edited by: Drewthealexander ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
But on the specific question of a blasphemy law - having thought the issue through on this thread - I agree that there does not appear to be a clear reason why we would need one given the other legislation we have to protect minority interests and respond to the impact of defamatory bevaviour.

Yeah, basically, as I see it, if the offense doesn't qualify as actionable under hate-speech laws, then that should be the end of it. You can't keep adding new laws to the books just because the existing ones don't allow you to prosecute something that you don't like.

quote:
But it's interesting that the debate in the UN, whilst initiated by Muslim countries, may gain traction if such laws are seen as a way of restraining over reactions by religious people.

Do you mean that some people will come to support the proposed laws because they'd stop(for example) religious people from rioting against an act of blasphemy? My guess would be that most people outside the faith in question would be more likely to say "Well, if those religious people can't stop themselves from rioting over an insult, they should be tossed in jail."

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
In that case, I suppose what I'm not following is how someone, or some organisation, which is subjected to unacceptable comment (and we agree I think that such comments are made) can be protected from further comment, or find redress to the harm such comments cause. Whence might that protection or redress be derived, if not from the law?

I'm not sure we can agree to that. At least, I can't imagine a comment that would be both "unacceptable" and not already covered under the laws governing slander/libel. Could you provide an example?

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

quote:
But it's interesting that the debate in the UN, whilst initiated by Muslim countries, may gain traction if such laws are seen as a way of restraining over reactions by religious people.

People who are tempted to see it that way might want to check out how it works in the real world.

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

Blasphemy laws seem in the end to be largely about human defensiveness. If the god in question is capable of smiting those who say bad things about said god then the god's followers have no need of blasphemy laws---let the god get on with smiting. OTOH, if the god in question is not able/willing to smite those who speak ill of the god then there isn't much point in having blasphemy laws---either because the god is actually rubbish, or because the god's followers have no business presuming to act on the god's behalf.

ISTM that blasphemy laws are far more about power, who has it and how they go about wielding it and hanging on to it, either amongst believers or society as a whole (the two may be the same), than it is about anything theological.

[ 09. December 2012, 20:05: Message edited by: Alisdair ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
In that case, I suppose what I'm not following is how someone, or some organisation, which is subjected to unacceptable comment (and we agree I think that such comments are made) can be protected from further comment,

I don't see why they should be expected to be protected from further comment. The right to speak freely trumps the right to not have your feelings hurt.

quote:
or find redress to the harm such comments cause.

What harm? Hurt feelings? Get over it. If there is financial harm, then potentially libel or slander laws could step in, so there is no need to have blasphemy laws.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
If the god in question is capable of smiting those who say bad things about said god then the god's followers have no need of blasphemy laws---let the god get on with smiting.

It should be remembered that those who believe in smite-happy deities also believe that they've got terrible aim, unleashing hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, etc. that are pretty indiscriminate in their effects just to get at a few sinners. Given this indiscriminate destruction, you can see why such believers would want to limit blasphemy against their thin-skinned divine overlords as much as possible.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
In that case, I suppose what I'm not following is how someone, or some organisation, which is subjected to unacceptable comment (and we agree I think that such comments are made) can be protected from further comment,
I don't see why they should be expected to be protected from further comment. The right to speak freely trumps the right to not have your feelings hurt.

quote:
or find redress to the harm such comments cause.
What harm? Hurt feelings? Get over it. If there is financial harm, then potentially libel or slander laws could step in, so there is no need to have blasphemy laws.

I was thinking more of the demonisation of groups of people - Jews have experienced this, Muslims in certain parts of Europe. On the one hand I share the caution expressed elsewhere on these boards that verbal assaults can be the thin end of an ever-increasing wedge. And then there's the issue of 'financial harm'. There are surely more fundamental measures of value than pure finance.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But we're talking about insulting God. God cannot be harmed. If someone is toeing the line of slander or libel or incitement to violence, then those laws will take care of it. There's no need to have anti-blasphemy laws.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But we're talking about insulting God. God cannot be harmed. If someone is toeing the line of slander or libel or incitement to violence, then those laws will take care of it. There's no need to have anti-blasphemy laws.

I refer you back to Alogon's first post on page 2 of this thread. On blasphemy laws in particular, as I said a couple of posts ago, I agree the case is currently not made.

This has been something of a freewheeling conversation and I think we may have crossed issues along the way. I don't think I've much more to add to the discussion. Suffice to say had the question been framed differently I could see myself arguing in support of many if your points, and applaud your passion for free speech.

Signing off this thread,

Yours aye....

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I was thinking more of the demonisation of groups of people - Jews have experienced this, Muslims in certain parts of Europe. On the one hand I share the caution expressed elsewhere on these boards that verbal assaults can be the thin end of an ever-increasing wedge.

So how should those who deny that Mohammed was God's prophet be penalized? Or those who don't believe Moses spoke with God at Sinai? Criminal penalties? Civil suits? If so, who has standing to file? Any muslim/jew? Only a recognized religious hierarchy?

Do all religious beliefs get protection? For instance, can adherents of the Christian Identity movement have any opinion that contradicts white supremacy suppressed? Does Fred Phelps get a veto over gay rights? The biggest stumbling block to blasphemy laws in a pluralistic society is that there are a whole bunch of religions which all find each other blasphemous in one way or another. Forbidding blasphemy is essentially the same as forbidding religion.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0