# Blasphemy! Is it a crime ?



## Kajjo

It is very easy to shout "Blasphemy!" and forbid others to freely communicate their opinions and their knowledge. 

Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the sun does not rotate around the earth?​ Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the man evolved from monkeys?​ Is it blasphemy if a prostitute dresses like a nun?​  Do Europeans commit blasphemy by slaughtering cows that are holy in India?
  Is swearing by the name of God blasphemy if done by a European atheist?

  We have a long history of people calling a lot of opinions that deviate from their own religious beliefs "blasphemy". We have a history of thousands of people being killed because of what was considered blasphemy at that time, but is considered true and valid today.

  I see two important, clearly distinguished categories of so-called blasphemy:

  A) A person being member of religion X says, acts or thinks something opposed to the dogmas and beliefs of religion X, which does insult or offend the deity or sacred objects. 

  My opinion: Consequently, he committed blasphemy and should be dealt with along his religion's beliefs and rules. He is member of the religion, he is submitting himself voluntarily to the rules.

  B) A person being not member of religion X says, acts or thinks something opposed to the dogmas and beliefs of religion X, which might be able to insult or offend the deity or sacred objects.

  My opinion: Since the objects are not sacred to him and the deity itself most probably non-existent, but just a normal thing or imagination, he did not commit blasphemy. He cannot be dealt with according to religious law, because he is not member of the religion. He should not be dealt with by secular laws, because freedom of religion should cover freedom from religion.

  I believe, religion is a private matter. Personal, individual attacks are not acceptable either way, but can a religion itself be offended or insulted by words and opinions? Should a secular state care if people are offending religions? Any religions? Just some dominant religions?

  Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

Shall we begin with a definition of terms?

Blasphemy:  _the act of depriving something of its sacred character   [WordNet, Princeton - WordReference English definition]

_Blasphemy:1.impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself. [_Random House Unabridged, dictionary.com_]

Blasphemy: behaviour or language that insults or shows a lack of respect for God or religion [_Oxford Advanced Learners Dict._]

An act or statement by a non-believer or by a believer cannot deprive something of its sacred character, in the eyes and hearts of those who believe the thing to be sacred.  

If one does not revere something, irreverent behaviour is to be expected.  The object of reverence remains revered by those who consider it worthy of veneration.

If one does not respect something held sacred by others, the object or idea will remain sacred to those who believe it so.

Blasphemy seems to be a strong word that refers to _insult.

_If I believe daylilies to be sacred, deserving of adoration and reverence, and Kajjo comes along and calls them noxious weeds, I may take great offense at his–for me—blasphemous behavior.
If he is standing in my garden, I have the right to ask him to leave.  I may do so in a loud voice.
If he is standing across the street from my garden when he calls them by a blasphemous name,
I will feel highly offended, but have no right to do more than yell at him, and protest his total lack of manners.  

I have other choices.  I may ignore him, as I do not value the opinion of anyone who doesn't perceive the inherently sacred nature of daylilies.  I may engage him in debate, and try to enlighten him.  I may resist the instinct to feel terribly insulted, as I know that not every person
has my own understanding of what is sacred.  At the same time, I would wonder why he takes the
trouble to say insulting things about what he knows to be sacred to me.   Could it be that he has had some prior difficulty with another member of the Hemerocallis society?


----------



## CrazyArcher

I feel free to speak my mind on any topic, whether it would be considered blasphemy or not.


----------



## maxiogee

I couldn't care less about blasphemy.
It always strikes me as strange that people who have a strong faith get upset when someone disparages their all-powerful God. Why? What does my saying  "God is ............. " do to their faith? Does it harm it in some way? Shaky faith if it does!

Aside:-
To the best of my knowledge "blasphemy" in the UK protects only Christianity and partially the other Abrahamic religions.
We in Ireland had an article in our Constitution about blasphemy struck out by the Supreme Court, as there was a daft bit of stupidity involved in draughting the article.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:


> If he is standing across the street from my garden when he calls them by a blasphemous name, I will feel highly offended, but have no right to do more than yell at him, and protest his total lack of manners.


 Or you could call the police and accuse him of disturbing the peace.


----------



## JazzByChas

I think this is the heart of the matter.  Whether or not someone insults your relgious beliefs is one thing...and according to the definition, that is probably blasphemy.  But human nature as it is, I think that the real impetus behind blasphemy is insult.



			
				Cuchu said:
			
		

> Blasphemy seems to be a strong word that refers to _insult.
> _


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> It is very easy to shout "Blasphemy!" and forbid others to freely communicate their opinions and their knowledge.
> 
> Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the sun does not rotate around the earth?​ Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the man evolved from monkeys?​ Is it blasphemy if a prostitute dresses like a nun?​  Do Europeans commit blasphemy by slaughtering cows that are holy in India?
> Is swearing by the name of God blasphemy if done by a European atheist?



Obviously, whether a certain action constitutes blasphemy depends on the religious standpoint from which the action is judged. Each of the actions you describe is a blasphemy from a certain religious standpoint; each of them would indeed get one into dire trouble in certain places. 

Which sorts of anti-blasphemy norms will actually be enforced, either by legal or extralegal means, that obviously depends on the strength that each particular religion has in a given society (measured both by the number and by the zeal of its adherents). 



> I see two important, clearly distinguished categories of so-called blasphemy:
> 
> A) A person being member of religion X says, acts or thinks something opposed to the dogmas and beliefs of religion X, which does insult or offend the deity or sacred objects.
> 
> My opinion: Consequently, he committed blasphemy and should be dealt with along his religion's beliefs and rules. He is member of the religion, he is submitting himself voluntarily to the rules.
> 
> B) A person being not member of religion X says, acts or thinks something opposed to the dogmas and beliefs of religion X, which might be able to insult or offend the deity or sacred objects.
> 
> My opinion: Since the objects are not sacred to him and the deity itself most probably non-existent, but just a normal thing or imagination, he did not commit blasphemy. He cannot be dealt with according to religious law, because he is not member of the religion. He should not be dealt with by secular laws, because freedom of religion should cover freedom from religion.


I share your opinion, in the sense that I would like to live in a society where things are handled this way. Unfortunately, this opinion is not widely shared nowadays.



> I believe, religion is a private matter. Personal, individual attacks are not acceptable either way, but can a religion itself be offended or insulted by words and opinions? Should a secular state care if people are offending religions? Any religions? Just some dominant religions?


The consensus in most (perhaps all) modern societies is that religion is _not _a private matter for most practical purposes, but rather a matter deserving of special concern and protection by the government. Of course, like any matter where concern by the government is called for, the greatest concern will be shown towards those groups that are capable of the greatest political influence in their favor. Similarly, religions commanding a greater number of zealous adherents are more likely to incite spontaneous private action in their defense. Consequently, there is great difference in the practical consequences of insulting each particular religion in any given place, both legal and extralegal.


----------



## ernest_

The good thing about laws against blasphemy, as I see it, is that such a law could very well spectacularly backfire on the very same people that is supposed to protect. Let me illustrate what I mean. Let's suppose there is a religion that worships character "A" and demonises character "B". In virtue of a hypothetical anti-blasphemy law, mockery of character "A" would be illegal. However, as long as there is freedom of religion, nothing stops me from creating another religion that worships "B" and demonises "A". Now we've got a pesky situation, in which worshipers of "B" can claim that worshipers of "A" are a bunch of blasphemous bigots and demand that the law act against them, and the other way round as well, thus resulting in mutual banning. That's what I call irony.


----------



## TRG

I don't believe there are any blasphemy laws in the United States and I believe if any state tried to pass a blasphemy law it would be struck down as unconstitutional, IMO. If the blasphemy involves something other than speech, it could be covered by other laws. Desecration of a church or disrupting a religious gathering would be examples.

Usually, when we think of blasphemy, we think about speech. Freedom to speak is also the freedom to not speak. I don't see the point in speaking out in a blasphemous way if it can serve no purpose other than to offend people. People of all faiths are entitled to some space and do not deserve to be insulted if that is the only point. It's a little like the flag burning issue that crops up here from time to time. You are free to do it, but what exactly is the point other than expressing your indignation and trying to offend as many people as possible. It doesn't really affect me one way or another, but it does not cause me to have a high opinion of the people I see engaging in such behavior.


----------



## danielfranco

Oh-oh-oh... Wait! I used to know this one. No, really!
Oh, crud, I can't remember the verse now. It's been too long since I've read that passage in the Bible.
There's a passage that reads, more or less: Any transgression will be forgiven, except messing with God's holiness. Or something like that.
I remember someone explaining to me that this particular verse of the Bible meant that, to ascribe the works of the devil to God, or to scorn the works of God as if they were evil, that was the true blasphemy, the unforgivable sin.
But anyway...
I think governments, or lawmakers, or somebody, involve themselves with "blasphemy" when it disturbs the peace, or when it incites violence. But it really seems complicated to figure out how far personal freedoms must be guaranteed...
Speaking of which...
I remember reading many, many years ago that personal freedoms and rights only extend as far as the beginning of another person's freedoms and rights...
Cartoonist and social commentator Quino used his character "Susanita" (from the beloved "Mafalda" series) to at the same time justify and mock a rather predominant attitude of our times: In the comic strip, after being told about personal freedoms and rights, Susanita says, "Well, but is it really my fault other's rights begin so very far away?"

Or something...


----------



## tvdxer

Kajjo said:


> It is very easy to shout "Blasphemy!" and forbid others to freely communicate their opinions and their knowledge.
> 
> Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the sun does not rotate around the earth?​ Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the man evolved from monkeys?​ Is it blasphemy if a prostitute dresses like
> 
> a nun?​  Do Europeans commit blasphemy by slaughtering cows that are holy in India?
> Is swearing by the name of God blasphemy if done by a European atheist?
> 
> We have a long history of people calling a lot of opinions that deviate from their own religious beliefs "blasphemy". We have a history of thousands of people being killed because of what was considered blasphemy at that time, but is considered true and valid today.
> 
> I see two important, clearly distinguished categories of so-called blasphemy:
> 
> A) A person being member of religion X says, acts or thinks something opposed to the dogmas and beliefs of religion X, which does insult or offend the deity or sacred objects.
> 
> My opinion: Consequently, he committed blasphemy and should be dealt with along his religion's beliefs and rules. He is member of the religion, he is submitting himself voluntarily to the rules.
> 
> B) A person being not member of religion X says, acts or thinks something opposed to the dogmas and beliefs of religion X, which might be able to insult or offend the deity or sacred objects.
> 
> My opinion: Since the objects are not sacred to him and the deity itself most probably non-existent, but just a normal thing or imagination, he did not commit blasphemy. He cannot be dealt with according to religious law, because he is not member of the religion. He should not be dealt with by secular laws, because freedom of religion should cover freedom from religion.
> 
> I believe, religion is a private matter. Personal, individual attacks are not acceptable either way, but can a religion itself be offended or insulted by words and opinions? Should a secular state care if people are offending religions? Any religions? Just some dominant religions?
> 
> Kajjo



I disagree with you - I do not believe states should purely secular.  However, that's beside the point.

By "blasphemy" (in reference to other post) I do not necessarily mean anything that a religion would consider blasphemous, or speaking out against certain teachings, doctrine, etc., but rather things that obviously, patently, blatantly, and unjustifiably insult religious beliefs, and are created to do so or seem to be.  I would class it in a category similar to racist hate speech.

I don't think that such materials should be protected under "freedom of speech".  Judging what exactly is blasphemous and what is not could be a very tricky matter, however, just as with obscenity, which also does not fall under the protection of the U.S.'s 1st amendment or the natural right to free speech.


----------



## Maja

maxiogee said:


> It always strikes me as strange that people who have a strong faith get upset when someone disparages their all-powerful God. Why? What does my saying  "God is ............. " do to their faith? Does it harm it in some way? Shaky faith if it does!


 I don't think it has anything to do with shaky faith.  It has to do with an insult of something one loves, respects and cherishes above  all other things. 
 If someone comes and insults one's wife/mother/daughter,  and one punches that person in the face, most people would say "he had that  coming". 
If a religious person flinches (or reacts) when smo insults God,  he/she is immediately labeled religious fanatic and puritan (or  being insecure  about his/hers own faith).


----------



## mrbilal87

Kajjo said:
			
		

> Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the sun does not rotate around the earth?  Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the man evolved from monkeys?​ Is it blasphemy if a prostitute dresses like a nun?​  Do Europeans commit blasphemy by slaughtering cows that are holy in India?
> Is swearing by the name of God blasphemy if done by a European atheist?



I agree with the others. Blasphemy implies some sort of insult--some act of disrespect--towards the followers of a particular belief. It's not really just sharing different beliefs. I wouldn't extend blasphemy to imply having an intellectual discussion about your beliefs with someone who doesn't follow them, but I may be inclined to consider a deliberate attempt to insult my beliefs as an act of blasphemy. So I wouldn't consider any of the questions you've posed to be acts of blasphemy if they're not being used as insults. This even goes for the last one.


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> If someone comes and insults one's wife/mother/daughter,  and one punches that person in the face, most people would say "he had that  coming".



Only is (a) the husband/son/brother is a violent person, and (b) only if the 'most people' are also violent.

My reaction would be "So, he said 'she's too ugly to be allowed out in daylight', does that mean you had to hit him?"

In the case of the insult-to-God, why would I punish a person for this when I "know" God is all-powerful, sees all and hears all, and will be meeting this person on the Last Day when he'll say "Hey, remember that time you said…" - if he hasn't already punished the person here on earth?

Why do people commit those who libel and slander them to their country's courts for punishment - but but won't commit those who libel and slander God to _his_ courts for punishment?

My point is that God (if he exists) doesn't need me to defend him.


----------



## Nunty

"No," I kept telling myself. "I will _not_ reply. A nun is too identifiable to enter into a discussion about blasphemy." Then I changed my mind. 

*Disclaimer 1:* In case anyone doesn't know, this isn't just a screen name. I am really a Roman Catholic nun, and my opinions are those of a believer and practioner of that particular part of the Body.

*Disclaimer 2:* I am only speaking for Nun-Translator, not for Christianity or the Catholic Church or any other part of that Body I am amazed and honored to be a part of. 



cuchuflete said:


> [...]If I believe daylilies to be sacred, deserving of adoration and reverence, and Kajjo comes along and calls them noxious weeds, I may take great offense at his–for me—blasphemous behavior.
> If he is standing in my garden, I have the right to ask him to leave.  I may do so in a loud voice.
> If he is standing across the street from my garden when he calls them by a blasphemous name,
> I will feel highly offended, but have no right to do more than yell at him, and protest his total lack of manners.
> 
> I have other choices.  I may ignore him, as I do not value the opinion of anyone who doesn't perceive the inherently sacred nature of daylilies.  I may engage him in debate, and try to enlighten him.  I may resist the instinct to feel terribly insulted, as I know that not every person
> has my own understanding of what is sacred.  At the same time, I would wonder why he takes the trouble to say insulting things about what he knows to be sacred to me.   Could it be that he has had some prior difficulty with another member of the Hemerocallis society?



I very much agree here. I live in place where it is not very unusual to be called names or spit at when I walk in the street, even in the immediate neighborhood of my monastery. I can react, yell at the person, even call the police if I want. I don't do those things. I try to take the attitude Cuchu describes at the very end, but I don't always manage to _think_ that way, though I almost always am able to remain calm in my behavior. (It is really very disagreeable to be spat at.) But this is not blasphemy, this is just people expressing their displeasure at seeing a nun.

On one occasion, though, a young man started following me around the downtown streets, calling me names. I ignored him. Then he started making disgusting and, in my belief system, blasphemous remarks about Jesus. At this point I turned around and turned my Head Nurse's Evil Grin (think Big Nurse in Cuckoo's Nest) on him, brandished my cellphone like a battle standard and told him he had a choice. He could turn around and walk away or I would call the police. He turned and left without another word. I don't think he really expected that I would understand the language he was speaking or reply in it.

I had a choice, too. I could have continued to ignore him, but for me, he crossed a red line when he switched from calling me names to making disgusting remarks about my God. At that point I chose to react in a way that I thought would stop the blasphemy with the least public show and scandal. It worked.



danielfranco said:


> Oh-oh-oh... Wait! I used to know this one. No, really!
> Oh, crud, I can't remember the verse now. It's been too long since I've read that passage in the Bible.
> There's a passage that reads, more or less: Any transgression will be forgiven, except messing with God's holiness. Or something like that.
> I remember someone explaining to me that this particular verse of the Bible meant that, to ascribe the works of the devil to God, or to scorn the works of God as if they were evil, that was the true blasphemy, the unforgivable sin.[...]


You mean the bit about the "sin against the Holy Spirit" being the only unforgivable sin. Nobody really knows what that means, but lots of people have favorite interpretations. The one you were told is one of them.

I hope I'll keep my mouth shut for the rest of this thread.


----------



## Kajjo

mrbilal87 said:


> Blasphemy implies some sort of insult--some act of disrespect--towards the followers of a particular belief. It's not really just sharing different beliefs.


Right, but both European history and contemporary Muslim behaviour tells us that clearly distinguishing _voicing different beliefs _and _being disrespectful towards other beliefs_ is very difficult. As I initially said, in medieval times many scientific insights were deemed blasphemous. Nowadays novels like Salman Rushdie's _Satanic verses_ are deemed blasphemous. Do you see my point?

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

tvdxer said:


> I disagree with you - I do not believe states should purely secular.  However, that's beside the point.


Indeed it is.



> but rather things that obviously, patently, blatantly, and unjustifiably insult religious beliefs, and are created to do so or seem to be.


I like you restriction of what to call blasphemy, but the popular definition is more general and many fanatic religious people even apply a much wider definition! That's the title issue of this thread! by the way, the underline part of your quote cannot be meant seriously -- you cannot measure acts by what they "seem to be" but only by "what they really are". Otherwise for each act there will be someome who claims it _seems to be an insult.

_Kajjo


----------



## TRG

States being secular is not beside the point. When religion is the state, blasphemy becomes the law of the land. Not good!


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> I disagree with you - I do not believe states should purely secular.  However, that's beside the point.


  Please find another country to live in.



> By "blasphemy" (in reference to other post) I do not necessarily mean anything that a religion would consider blasphemous, or speaking out against certain teachings, doctrine, etc., but rather things that obviously, patently, blatantly, and unjustifiably insult religious beliefs, and are created to do so or seem to be.  I would class it in a category similar to racist hate speech.


Who will be so wise as to determine what is irreverent, what is profane, and what is blasphemous?
I suppose you would nominate a board of overseers, which the majority coming from your own faction of your own sect of your own religion.  



> I don't think that such materials should be protected under "freedom of speech".  Judging what exactly is blasphemous and what is not could be a very tricky matter, however, just as with obscenity, which also does not fall under the protection of the U.S.'s 1st amendment or the natural right to free speech.


 As you have chosen to bring the U.S. Constitution into the discussion, I invite you to point out each and every occurrence of the words obscenity and obscene in that document.  You will find neither a prohibition of obscenity nor an exhortation to indulge in it in the First Amendment.


----------



## mrbilal87

Kajjo said:


> Right, but both European history and contemporary Muslim behaviour tells us that clearly distinguishing _voicing different beliefs _and _being disrespectful towards other beliefs_ is very difficult. As I initially said, in medieval times many scientific insights were deemed blasphemous. Nowadays novels like Salman Rushdie's _Satanic verses_ are deemed blasphemous. Do you see my point?
> 
> Kajjo



I see your point. I don't think distinguishing what's blasphemy is the key in the case of Salman Rushdie's _Satanic Verses_, because to most Muslims _Satanic Verses_ is likely a very blasphemous book (even though he may not have had the intent to offend). What is hard to distinguish about blasphemy, however, is where to draw the line as to a reasonable reaction and an overrated reaction. As a Muslim you would figure I run into a lot of blasphemy against my religion. But according to the Qur'an, Muslims are allowed to warn and/or simply walk away from those who choose to blaspheme Islam, and that's pretty much the manoeuvre I prefer to make. I just ignore those individuals, as Nun-Translator was saying.




			
				tvdxter said:
			
		

> I disagree with you - I do not believe states should purely secular.  However, that's beside the point.



Personally I agree with you. However - looking at it from a broader perspective - with all the different belief systems in the world today, it would be difficult to imagine how peace in a completely non-secular state would work.


----------



## I.C.

danielfranco said:


> There's a passage that reads, more or less


There is Leviticus 24:16:
“And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.”

(Source: http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Lev&chapter=24&verse=16 )

But looks like this only applies in one direction. In a calculated act not only of blasphemy but also of vandalism Boniface desecrated one of the most important sanctuaries of the Germanic pagans, he chopped down Thor’s oak. The Catholic Church declared him a saint. 


> I think governments, or lawmakers, or somebody, involve themselves with "blasphemy" when it disturbs the peace, or when it incites violence. But it really seems complicated to figure out how far personal freedoms must be guaranteed...


Such is the law in Germany. It may seem reasonable, but what if in order to foster their socio-political agenda and to gain an unconstitutional influence on the rules of what constitutes acceptable behaviour or expression of opinion a group of people (whose members may or may not be subjects to German law) threatens to concert outrage that may well disturb the peace or incite violence somewhere? Or if in order to block unwelcome activities or projects groups within an administration  allege a disturbance of the peace? (Due to informal ties to interested pressure groups it may not even be difficult to orchestrate rumblings seemingly affirming or even truthfully evoking this.)


----------



## .   1

*Mod note:*
*I merged this new thread to the existing one to avoid repetitions.*

Is blasphemy a crime in your society?
What are the criminal sanctions available to punish blasphemers?

The Collins:
*blasphemy* _n_ *1* blasphemous behaviour or language. *2* Also called *blasphemous libel*. _Law_. the crime committed if a person insults, offends or villifies the deity, Christ or the Christian religion.

How do I insult God?
How does anyone know that God is insulted by my words?
How is it possible to villify someone with omnipotence?
How could someone perfect knowledge be offended by little old me?

.,,


----------



## mrbilal87

. said:


> Is blasphemy a crime in your society?
> What are the criminal sanctions available to punish blasphemers?
> 
> How do I insult God?
> How does anyone know that God is insulted by my words?
> How is it possible to villify someone with omnipotence?
> How could someone perfect knowledge be offended by little old me?
> 
> .,,



There aren't really any laws in my society against blasphemy and I don't think there should be.

In my opinion, you can't really _insult_ God. I find that those who blaspheme God or attempt to do so are only fooling themselves, not insulting God. Furthermore, I feel that only God is omnipotent and no society could possibly know what's in the hearts of the individuals who choose to make blasphemous statements. Only God could know that, so I feel that blasphemy should be a crime whose punishment is left up to God, not to society. Society should only make a friendly warning and leave that individual at peace.


----------



## ColdomadeusX

As a Buddhist, I have never heard anyone yell out "Blasphemy!" for anything said/done against my religion/way of life. Probably because it's too peaceful to such cries and also because we believe that everyone should have their right to day whatever they think/feel. We accept others which is why I think that Blasphemy can be used as a statement of condemnation against people. To me though, it's a pretty strage statement in everyday life.


----------



## winklepicker

Kajjo said:


> Blasphemy! Is it a crime?


By God, yes.  



> freedom of religion should cover freedom from religion


Brilliant, Kajjo. I wish I'd said that. _("You will, Oscar, you will...")_

However, to echo the others, simple good manners should lead one to avoid insulting what others hold dear, however daft.

_That's why I'm polite about Maxiogee's Orbiting Funfair.  _



Nun-Translator said:


> "No," I kept telling myself. "I will _not_ reply. A nun is too identifiable to enter into a discussion about blasphemy." Then I changed my mind.


I'm glad you did.



> I hope I'll keep my mouth shut for the rest of this thread.


I hope you won't. What you have to say is always valuable, and gives the rest of us great insight. I'm amazed and horrified by the spitting thing. There is a difference between inadvertently offending someone and setting out with a fixed purpose to vilify them. This is, by the way, nothing to do with religion, unless you call it Original Sin. it's just human nastiness.


----------



## .   1

I.C. said:


> There is Leviticus 24:16:
> “And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.”


Isn't there something in Leviticus about the whole of Leviticus being manditory and that accepting part of Liviticus is to accept ALL of Leviticus.
According to Bob Dylan there are a lot of things that can get you put to death if you follow the advice of Leviticus.

.,,


----------



## I.C.

. said:


> Isn't there something in Leviticus about the whole of Leviticus being manditory and that accepting part of Liviticus is to accept ALL of Leviticus.


Don't know. To my very limited knowledge, a fair share of the Christian tradition  considers Mosaic Law not to apply to Christians fully or at all due to a new bond formed later on. I think the Catholic Church teaches Jesus’ appearance annulled it. 


> According to Bob Dylan there are a lot of things that can get you put to death if you follow the advice of Leviticus.


 There's the much circulated Letter to Dr Laura: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp


----------



## Athaulf

mrbilal87 said:


> There aren't really any laws in my society _[Canada -- A.]_ against blasphemy and I don't think there should be.



You're obviously not aware of the Section 296 of the Canadian criminal code. There are also other ways to get into legal trouble by committing what can be fairly described as blasphemy, but I'm afraid this topic would get us too far into the discussion of Canadian particularities.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> You're obviously not aware of the Section 296 of the Canadian criminal code.


I wouldn't be surprised.
Section 296 doesn't seem to know what it is saying either.
I just read it and I am none the wiser.
I will bet London to a brick that there is never a successful conviction under that legislation.

.,,


----------



## ireney

Concerning the Section 296 if the Canadian criminal code: I think the key word here is "libel". It is not considered punishable to voice "an opinion on a religious subject" if your language is decent and is done in good faith. Therefore acts that may be considered blashemus under many definitions, are not punishable.

I'm sure that somewhere in this code there's a section about libels period. If not then yes, there's a problem: Why should only blasphemus libels penalised? If not, I tend to see this section as clarifying the state's position in what is to be considered as punishable when someone shouts "blasphemy!".


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> I wouldn't be surprised.
> Section 296 doesn't seem to know what it is saying either.
> I just read it and I am none the wiser.
> I will bet London to a brick that there is never a successful conviction under that legislation.



True, it's not an offense that is prosecuted frequently these days; I would also bet that the last conviction under that legislation happened at least a few decades ago. However, there are also other ways in which one can get into legal trouble for insulting people's religious beliefs in Canada, and in some cases, I think that such legal instruments are more or less equivalent to prosecution of blasphemy. But here I'm touching on topics that are, in my opinion, too sensitive and controversial to debate in a public forum. 



ireney said:


> Concerning the Section 296 if the Canadian criminal code: I think the key word here is "libel". It is not considered punishable to voice "an opinion on a religious subject" if your language is decent and is done in good faith. Therefore acts that may be considered blashemus under many definitions, are not punishable.
> 
> I'm sure that somewhere in this code there's a section about libels period. If not then yes, there's a problem: Why should only blasphemus libels penalised? If not, I tend to see this section as clarifying the state's position in what is to be considered as punishable when someone shouts "blasphemy!".



Actually, in common-law jurisdictions (and most other ones too), libel is not a criminal offense, but only a ground for a civil lawsuit. In other words, if you slander someone, it's not a crime for which you can be arrested, prosecuted by the government's attorney, sent to prison, and given a criminal record.  Rather, it's a tort for which the injured party can sue you personally and collect some money in damages, but nothing more than that. Libel is therefore a matter of civil law, which is not regulated by the criminal code. 

Now, when it comes to libels against God, i.e. blasphemy, the obvious problem is that the injured party is rarely seen undertaking any direct action these days.  Thus, a "blasphemous libel" was made a criminal offense so that the government would prosecute the offenders, since God is unlikely to sue them anytime soon.


----------



## Flaminius

> Now, when it comes to libels against God, i.e. blasphemy, the obvious problem is that the injured party is rarely seen undertaking any direct action these days.  Thus, a "blasphemous libel" was made a criminal offense so that the government would prosecute the offenders, since God is unlikely to sue them anytime soon.


This makes a great point.  If blasphemy is construed as a sort of vicarious tort, secularists, agnostics, atheists and deniers of grand narratives would not admit the right of God to be represented by the government.  However, I doubt if they would not resort to the same justification when concepts they hold dear come under attack; such as democracy, free-trade, slavery, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, socialism, naturalism and perhaps other 1000 ways to save humanity from eternal damnation.

I am not being facetious for the sake of witticism.  Societies tend to prohibit under one pain or another attacks on concepts and objects that they hold dear or their _raison d'être_ is at stake of.  Censorship, ostracism, execution, Lynching, public outrage are common measures.  Blasphemy is a form of legal prosecution for religious offences.  If blasphemy is not culpable in a society, that means the society does not see it worthwhile to defend the God under attack by law.


----------



## cuchuflete

Flaminius said:


> If blasphemy is not culpable in a society, that means the society does not see it worthwhile to defend the God under attack by law.



Or it may mean that society is comfortable that the God can take good care of itself, without recourse to such human contrivances as legal systems.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Or it may mean that society is comfortable that the God can take good care of itself, without recourse to such human contrivances as legal systems.


Damn and blast. You saw it first.
May I add that God would suffer from schizophrenic conflicts of interest.
How would he take the Oath or would He suffer the ultimate indignity of being forced to resort to an Affirmation.
The whole judicial system is based on the premise that every participant in the matter is aware that God will punishment them for lying but this caveat would not apply to God and everybody knows it.
How can God meaningfully punish himself?
He dipped his hand into human politics a couple of thousand years ago and look what happened there.
That was proof that God can't punish himself.
God went all Mel Gibson on Jerusalem but even that didn't last. Even the most gory crucifixion in recorded history didn't stick and Jesus was up and about quicker than a footbrawler on the receiving end of a stiff arm.
So what happens if God refuses to answer a question? He is a well known recidivist in this area. Many people ask God questions but He responds to only a select few and even then His answers are often a bit vague.
What would happen to the Judge if he banged his gavel at God? One flash and you're ash. 
God is also well known to suffer massive mood swings. Would this make Him technically unsuitable as a witness?
Imagine the humiliation in the headlines, "God declared unfit to plead!'.

Censorship, ostracism, execution, Lynching, public outrage all have easily identifiable and utterly vulnerable victims which is nothing like God.
God can not be a victim and he is certainly not vulnerable to me saying @#!$#@%$#^ when I stub my toe? No one around here can understand me so maybe God would have difficulty with my accent and hear me say 'Firetruck!'

.,,


----------



## I.C.

Flaminius said:


> the right of God to be represented by the government.


Any particular god you have in mind there?
If so, how about the others?


> such as


You forgot to list secularism.


> Censorship, ostracism, execution, Lynching, public outrage are common measures.


I’m well aware of that. One side of my family is German today because of flight from such, violent oppression of Protestantism. Already been a while, though.


> Blasphemy is a form of legal prosecution for religious offences.


How about legal prosecution of slander of atheism? You for it?


> If blasphemy is not culpable in a society, that means the society does not see it worthwhile to defend the God under attack by law.


I know I’m just rehashing what I wrote in another thread, sorry for that, but anyway:

Deorum iniuriae diis curae. 
"Offences to the gods are the concern of the gods."
Sounds good to me. 

Why would a presumably powerful deity require mortals to take his, her or its revenge upon them? 
I'd find that pretty unimpressive. I reckon, punishing blasphemy is part of a power play, is about cultural dominance, about keeping people in line, forcing lifestyles onto others.


----------



## .   1

I.C. said:


> I'd find that pretty unimpressive. I reckon, punishing blasphemy is part of a power play, is about cultural dominance, about keeping people in line, forcing lifestyles onto others.


Bullseye!

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

I.C. said:


> Why would a presumably powerful deity require mortals to take his, her or its revenge upon them? I'd find that pretty unimpressive.



One possible answer is that the mortals who take the revenge view themselves as the agents of God's will. They might think that God has many different ways to punish the blasphemer, but his favorite method is to delegate the punishment to his authorized representatives on Earth.



> I reckon, punishing blasphemy is part of a power play, is about cultural dominance, about keeping people in line, forcing lifestyles onto others.


That's true to a large extent, but it's basically just a rephrasing of what Flaminius said above. If some people think that the belief in God and the fear of God's punishment are necessary to keep people honest, peaceful, and civilized, and to prevent the society from slipping into a Hobbesian _bellum omnium contra omnes_, then it's obviously logical for them to conclude that anything that could undermine the faith is extremely dangerous and should be suppressed -- and mocking God with impunity certainly has the potential to undermine it. 

Of course, such an attitude is not widespread in the modern Western world, but I think it's easy to imagine how people could reasonably hold it in the past, and even now in places where religion still has a more prominent place in the public and private life. And even today, attitudes and ideologies that are deemed to have the potential to cause social upheaval and endanger the existing social order are usually censored and banished even in the most free and liberal countries. 

There is of course also the other side to the blasphemy, which is more important nowadays, and that is the issue of whether being shocked and offended and having one's feelings hurt should be a ground for a tort or criminal prosecution. For someone who believes that the answer is yes, blasphemy is obviously on the list of things that should be legally restricted. In recent years, this has led to a resurgence of what seems to me as effectively anti-blasphemy legislation in some countries.


----------



## I.C.

Athaulf said:


> One possible answer is that the mortals who take the revenge view themselves as the agents of God's will. They might think that God has many different ways to punish the blasphemer, but his favorite method is to delegate the punishment to his authorized representatives on Earth


Yes, obviously, and there are more ways of reasoning. I find them pretty unimpressive. I think, if truly pondered, it’s a good question. 
The followers of Thor thought he would do the job himself. 


> That's true to a large extent, but it's basically just a rephrasing of what Flaminius said above.


With a certain reading maybe, but not with mine. Set to a different tune. 


> If some people think that the belief in God and the fear of God's punishment are necessary to keep people honest, peaceful, and civilized, and to prevent the society from slipping into a Hobbesian _bellum omnium contra omnes_,


You may assume I’m aware of that. My mother was raised Catholic. 
If God did not exist, it would be necessary for us to invent him - or so. 
Might also have the potential to make things easier for a ruling class. "And the Governors agree to say: He's a lovely man!" 


> then it's obviously logical for them to conclude that anything that could undermine the faith is extremely dangerous and should be suppressed -- and mocking God with impunity certainly has the potential to undermine it.


Particulary if said god for some reason, for which of course explanations can be constructed, never intervenes plain for all to see. 


> Of course, such an attitude is not widespread in the modern Western world,


Not so sure of that.


----------



## Athaulf

I.C. said:


> Originally Posted by *Athaulf*
> One possible answer is that the mortals who take the revenge view themselves as the agents of God's will. They might think that God has many different ways to punish the blasphemer, but his favorite method is to delegate the punishment to his authorized representatives on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, obviously, and there are more ways of reasoning. I find them pretty unimpressive. I think, if truly pondered, it’s a good question.
Click to expand...


I also find them unimpressive, but I'd say that they are about the same level as any other arguments in all monotheistic religions. They all boil down to equally implausible claims that an omnipotent God has delegated his authority to a certain group of people, while choosing to remain curiously silent and inactive himself. 



> The followers of Thor thought he would do the job himself.


I don't think they thought of themselves as "followers." 



> If God did not exist, it would be necessary for us to invent him - or so.
> Might also have the potential to make things easier for a ruling class. "And the Governors agree to say: He's a lovely man!"


It used to be so in the past, but the Governors in the modern world use more effective methods that are based on different types of delusions and superstitions (although some philosophers, most notably Max Stirner, have claimed that there is in fact little essential difference). In my opinion, the role of traditional religion is commonly overestimated even in cases of some modern theocratic governments (like e.g. Iran). 



> Of course, such an attitude _[that the belief in God fear of his punishment are necessary for civilization]_ is not widespread in the modern Western world,
> 
> 
> 
> Not so sure of that.
Click to expand...

The only exception are perhaps some parts of the U.S. Elsewhere, people are quite content with the idea that morality can be independent of traditional theistic religions (this is of course not to say that they aren't finding substitutes in different forms of beliefs in imaginary entities).


----------



## maxiogee

Athaulf said:


> One possible answer is that the mortals who take the revenge view themselves as the agents of God's will. They might think that God has many different ways to punish the blasphemer, but his favorite method is to delegate the punishment to his authorized representatives on Earth.



Good point Athaulf.
Don't most of humanity's Gods make their will and opinions known through people who speak for them. There are very few instances, to pick just one God, in the Bible of "and God said....". It is, however, full of prophets and priests who we are led to believe were in direct two-way communication with this God.

I find it strange that people ask this "Can't God just send down a bolt of lightning to strike down blasphemers?" question. 
What do they immediately think of when they hear that Mr X was struck by lightning whilst out on the golf course? 
If they don't immediately think something along the lines of "He must really have offended God" then they have their answer - God knows we wouldn't attribute the death to his wrath at the offender's sin.


----------



## I.C.

> I don't think they thought of themselves as "followers."


I didn’t mean to imply they did. Maybe worshippers, then. I’d have thought one can talk of followers of a belief and thus shorten to followers of Thor in this sense, but I readily admit my grasp of English is very far from perfect. 


> Might also have the potential to make things easier for a ruling class. "And the Governors agree to say: He's a lovely man!"
> 
> 
> 
> It used to be so in the past, but the Governors in the modern world use more effective methods that are based on different types of delusions and superstitions
Click to expand...

I had meant to correct that, but I forgot. The two sentences were not intended to be linked as closely as it looks they are, and I had wanted to erase the second one, it seems to imply the opposite of what I had been thinking, but didn't write. I had been contemplating whether those governors might have made an error of judgement. 


> In my opinion, the role of traditional religion is commonly overestimated even in cases of some modern theocratic governments (like e.g. Iran).


Of course I don’t know jack, but with regards to Iran I tend to think some Westerners like to do that. 
I'm not so sure the time of religious fundamentalism is over, though. Religion provides firm structure. Religion can give a kind of hope that nationalism or Marxism, for instance, can't. Not everyone's future looks so bright.


----------



## paper

In the UK at the moment, one of the main news stories is about a 54-year-old British teacher working in Sudan who has just been sentenced to 15 days imprisonment (and will be deported on release) for "insulting religion" after she allowed her primary school class to name a teddy bear Muhammad. BBC News story here. She narrowly _escaped _a more severe conviction of "inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs", for which she would have received a longer jail sentence and a public flogging.

According to another BBC news report today: "Thousands of people have marched in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to call for UK teacher Gillian Gibbons to be shot." Marchers chanted "Shame, shame on the UK", "No tolerance - execution" and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad".

So blasphemy is definitely a crime in Sudhan.


----------



## LaReinita

Nun-translator, I must say "HOW HORRIBLE" that anyone has ever spat at you, or treated you in those ways that you said . . . shame on them!

Now, I have a question. I have a habit of saying "Oh my God!" Sometimes in happiness, sometimes in sadness, and other times in disbelief.

Now, would this be considered blasphemy? I try to catch myself and "Oh my goodness" . .but I don't really feel as though I am saying God's name in vain because I don't say it in anger.


----------



## Jocaste

In French, people sometimes say "_Nom de Dieu_" which apparently is a sort of blasphemy. But if you don't believe in God (as I) or if you're not a churchgoer, well, it doesn't matter (to me anyway).
Actually, I'm rather agnostic but it doesn't change anything : I think that if God has no part in your life, you don't have to care about blaspheming.

But in presence of people who believe in God, I try to pay attention not to swearing with God. Because even if God doesn't mean anything to me, I think people practicing have to be "respected", I mean, this is my own business, so I don't have to be impolite with them just because I don't believe in God.


----------



## Baunilha

ethical discussion equals never ending discussion


----------



## Kajjo

paper said:


> So blasphemy is definitely a crime in Sudhan.


Probably free thinking is a crime, too, over there. The story you cited is disgusting and we should ask ourselves why we support such countries with billions a year if they are so far away from the most basic democratic foundations.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

Kajjo said:


> Probably free thinking is a crime, too, over there. The story you cited is disgusting and we should ask ourselves why we support such countries with billions a year if they are so far away from the most basic democratic foundations.
> 
> Kajjo



We are drifting far from the original thread topic.  As to "the most basic democratic foundations", plenty of evil has been done by freely elected leaders in democracies.
Is it blasphemous to note that somebody's god created all the scurrilous dictators, including those elected democratically?


----------



## alexacohen

I think that the core of the question is not God at all. God cannot be insulted or hurt by any of us.
Those who blaspheme against God, don't do it to defy God, but rather do it to hurt and insult another person.
The man who followed Nun-Translator did what he did to hurt Nun Translator, not God. He knew what would hurt her most.
It may not be a crime, but it is a mean action.


----------



## Drechuin

alexacohen said:


> Those who blaspheme against God, don't do it to defy God, but rather do it to hurt and insult another person.



Or to defy an organisation or a an ideology (what can be _sometimes _more justifiable).
It doesn't change the fact that Nun-Translator's story was indeed appalling.


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> As to "the most basic democratic foundations", plenty of evil has been done by freely elected leaders in democracies.


Yes, you are right. I believe elected leader are not the essence of democracy (maybe they are a tool of democracy?), but the right to state your individual opinion, to have a different opinion on certain subjects is elemental. 



> Is it blasphemous to note that somebody's god created all the scurrilous dictators, including those elected democratically?


I believe it is not.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

alexacohen said:


> Those who blaspheme against God, don't do it to defy God, but rather do it to hurt and insult another person.


Well, that is to the core of the question.

I agree that there might be _some_ people who do as you describe. 

However, there are many more people who just make valid, justified statements which are _considered_ to be blasphemous by members of certain religions. This is what I wanted to talk about initially in post #1 of this thread.

_1 Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the sun does not rotate around the earth?_​ _2 Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the man evolved from monkeys?_​ _3 Is it blasphemy if a prostitute dresses like a nun?_​
1 and 2 surely are not intended to insult or offend anyone, but to state a true and morally impeccable opinion. Despite this those people were killed for their statements. 3 might be used to offend, bit it might also just play with traditions, prejudices, phantasies.

In believe in Northern Germany there are only very few people who would feel offended by costumes of nuns. The best-selling carnival costume this year is that of "arch bishop", complete red dress with crosses and all. I guess this is inspired by our German pope.

Kajjo


----------



## alexacohen

Kajjo said:


> However, there are many more people who just make valid, justified statements which are _considered_ to be blasphemous by members of certain religions. This is what I wanted to talk about initially in post #1 of this thread.
> 
> 
> _1 Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the sun does not rotate around the earth?_​
> _2 Is it blasphemy if a scientists claims the man evolved from monkeys?_
> 
> _3 Is it blasphemy if a prostitute dresses like a nun?_


I'm sorry, Kajjo.
Maybe I got lost with so many posts that I didn't answer your question properly.
A reasoned statement is not a blasphemy, even if it tries to demonstrate God does not exist. 
And a disguise is not a blasphemy, either. 
I thought we were speaking of actions or words deliberately aimed to hurt, not of scientific facts.
I know that there will be always intolerant people (of any religion) which will crucify anyone whom they consider is speaking against their sacred truths, whatever those may be.
But that is politics, not faith. In politics not agreeing with the Rulers would be called "deviation" or "revolution", whatever. When politicians use religion as a weapon, and they use it very efficiently, then "deviation" equates "blasphemy".
Cleanliness is next to Fordliness in full.


----------



## Fleurs263

Maja said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with shaky faith. It has to do with an insult of something one loves, respects and cherishes above all other things.
> If someone comes and insults one's wife/mother/daughter, and one punches that person in the face, most people would say "he had that coming".
> If a religious person flinches (or reacts) when smo insults God, he/she is immediately labeled religious fanatic and puritan (or being insecure about his/hers own faith).


 
Absolutely. I work with a woman who is a Christian.  Her life is inseparable from her religion. I am not in any way religious; however I quickly became very aware that whenever I said something like "Oh God ..."  or "Jesus!", that she was flinching.  Her attitude to me never changed and she never approached me about it.  I immediately felt it was something I should be aware of and try to avoid.  I could see she was affected; I don't use racist words and I would never stand in the middle of a group of muslims and say "Allah ...".  I felt she deserved the same respect.


----------



## Sepia

I'd say, any gentle and lovable person would not want to hurt other people's depest feeling - thus, blasphemy is not OK.

But unfortunately you hardly ever really hear of anti-blasphemy laws being used for anything but curbing freedom of speach or other un-democratic purposes: Like extraditing an English teacher because her pupils called a Teddy-Bear Mohammed - or banning Life of Brian ...


----------

