|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Aren't the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling?
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You may tell someone you find it offensive. The law should not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
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]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
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!!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Talk about grace and restraint!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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!!!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
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"?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif)
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 ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Or to put it more succinctly, our society isn't totalitarian because it leaves large swathes of human behavior unregulated.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
