Blasphemy

[Virtual_Cliff]

I hear in the news that there is to be a vote in the UK parliament on whether to end our blasphemy law.

While I don't like the idea of censorship, and think it should be kept to a bare minimum, I am unhappy that this issue will be debated within the context of a rationalist, post-enlightenment culture.

From this point of view, religion is simply a matter of opinion, something you can discuss like the issue of inheritance tax. With every respect to all CR forum members, I would say that rationalist language does not contain the vocabulary to describe religious faith in the way it is held by some communities.

For some people, their faith literally gets them out of bed each morning, it gives them an identity and a place in society and in the world, it is their community and their reason for living. To attack this is to destroy their way of life. One thinks of Australian aboriginees (is this PC?) resorting to drink and crime after their land was taken away. To allow an attack on faith is to allow an attack on the fabric of the lives of entire communities.

If the blasphemy laws have to go, they should be replaced with something that ensures respect for believers and belief of all kinds.

[wil]

What would be prosecuted by the blasphemy law?

Not a Python sketch, not Life of Brian, not Holy Blood Holy Grail, so what use do you see this law today, what protection does it serve?

What will happen if it is eliminated?

[17th Angel]

Should I get a fine/prison sentence criminal record for saying something in blasphemy.... No.... lol... I think it should be removed

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

For some people, their faith literally gets them out of bed each morning, it gives them an identity and a place in society and in the world, it is their community and their reason for living. To attack this is to destroy their way of life.

So they should be treated with kid gloves for having irrational belief systems? We have tough laws for racial attacks that will serve to protect people from the crazies, that is enough. Freedom of speech, the freedom to explore the hypocrisies and fallacies propagated by religions, is of far more importance than protecting poor little diddums from their safe cosy little charades. What is the use of a belief system anyway if its never tested? To compare the racism and marginalisation of native Australians in this context is confusing and I see no parallel. The only times I have ever heard the cry blasphemy raised is when the creative arts have produced something that shows religion to be hypocritical or stupid. The call of blasphemy has been without exception an unacceptable call for censorship. I will never ever support book burners.

Tao

[bananabrain]

personally, i think blasphemy is not a matter for the law courts; it preempts Divine justice and contravenes the essential democratic value of free speech, which necessarily includes the right to offend. i was particularly incensed at the assaults on free speech from extremists in the sikh community over the play "behzti", the muslim community over the "motoons" and the christian community over the bbc screening of the jerry springer opera. to all those who are offended, i must quote stephen fry:

"you're offended? so fecking what?"

if your belief system is any good, you can take it, frankly. so i don't want to see free speech attacked - and that includes nick griffin, david irving and the rest of those imbecile holocaust deniers; let them try and justify their position if they can; it's never stood up so far. open debate is the best way to expose these scumbags for what they are.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

if your belief system is any good, you can take it, frankly.

What do you mean by “any good” ?

Presumably an atheist would say that Judaism isn’t “any good”?


What do you mean by “you can take it”

Do you mean as an individual? That you’ve simply got the personality to deal with “blasphemy”? If it’s just about an individual, that’s not really dealing with the issue is it?

Or do you mean the religion as a belief system can “take it”? If it’s about an organised religion, how do you judge its ability to “take it”? Perhaps because it is based on The Truth? Or perhaps because it is well funded and organised? Or perhaps because it operates in tandem with a specific race or ethnic group?

s.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

What do you mean by “any good” ?

Presumably an atheist would say that Judaism isn’t “any good”?

What do you mean by “you can take it”

Namaste Snoopy,

I am in concurrence with BB, me thinks. To me if the rug gets pulled out from under your belief system by someone making a mockery of it or denying it, the problem does not exist with the law or the one making fun.

The faith either stands up under scrutiny and ridicule or it doesn't. And yes the Atheist will believe that Judaism and others don't stand up. And the Christian may think Hinduism is a bunch of hokey. And the ... and the ... and the...

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Snoopy,

I am in concurrence with BB, me thinks. To me if the rug gets pulled out from under your belief system by someone making a mockery of it or denying it, the problem does not exist with the law or the one making fun.

The faith either stands up under scrutiny and ridicule or it doesn't. And yes the Atheist will believe that Judaism and others don't stand up. And the Christian may think Hinduism is a bunch of hokey. And the ... and the ... and the...

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Fair enough. But no religion stands up under the scrutiny of an atheist. So where does that leave us?

s.

[bananabrain]

i don't especially care. an atheist may think i'm an idiot. however, i ought to be able to demonstrate - if i care to - that i am just as good a critical thinker as he is and that i have good reason for believing what i believe, as long as i don't demand that he believes the same thing. that's the difference between the universalism of evangelising religions and the particularism of religions that don't define themselves in reference to an "other".

b'shalom

bananabrain

[wil]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Fair enough. But no religion stands up under the scrutiny of an atheist. So where does that leave us?

Right where we are, Atheism doesn't stand up under scrutiny of those who stand firmly on their religious beliefs. So the status quo continues in that regard.

It does lead me to wonder...

Originally Posted by webster

blas·phemeverb
Etymology:Middle English blasfemen, from Late Latin blasphemare — more at blameDate:14th century transitive verb 1 : to speak of or address with irreverence

Is it possible to blaspheme an Atheist?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by wil

It does lead me to wonder...Is it possible to blaspheme an Atheist?

Yeah, burn an image of the Dawkins.

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

Atheism doesn't stand up under scrutiny of those who stand firmly on their religious beliefs.

Carefully worded. It always stands up to rational scrutiny. Standing on irrational, unprovable beliefs nothing is secure.

Tao

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Snoopy,

I am in concurrence with BB, me thinks. To me if the rug gets pulled out from under your belief system by someone making a mockery of it or denying it, the problem does not exist with the law or the one making fun.

The faith either stands up under scrutiny and ridicule or it doesn't.

Half of me agrees with you Wil. But there is more.

In Britain and probably around the so-called Western world, the main churches have allowed themselves to be redefined in the rationalist mould. In other words they have defined themselves in rationalist terms, as if to acknowledge that this is the only way to establish their legitimacy. Tao Equus uses the word "irrational" to imply "bad", and that is how most people would understand it. But rational thought is an innovation - and not always a benign one. By reducing everything to purely mechanistic rational terms it nullifies the very qualities that make our lives meaningful.

Against this, religious groups that try to maintain a non-rational approach are labelled "fundamentalist" and demonised. In this context, attacks on these "fundamentalists" are positively encouraged, and this is labelled "free speech". But if blind rationalism becomes the monoculture we are doomed to a living death.

What I am suggesting is that there is free speech and there is responsible speech. I can criticise a person, but if I malign them in writing I can be prosecuted. The same should apply to the "personhood" of a belief group. Criticism should be allowed - verbal abuse should not.

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry Virtual but I do not put words in your mouth and i would be most grateful if you think twice about doing that with me. I do not think irrational means bad. You raised the question of blasphemy laws in the UK and as a UK citizen I answered you. Please do not try to use the intention of my response, that censorship should be avoided, to give false weight to any ill-perceived grievance you have with logic. I stand by my assertion that without exception blasphemy has only been claimed by those seeking to censor art. Give me knowledge of an exception and I will be happy to eat humble pie.

Tao

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Sorry Virtual but I do not put words in your mouth and i would be most grateful if you think twice about doing that with me.

Absolutely no offence meant Tao. But if you use a phrase like "ill-perceived grievance with logic" I am bound to think that you think reason = good. I'm not criticising you for that, I just think that pure reason leaves no room for humanity, or even life.

William Wordsworth said "We murder to dissect". My fear is that, like missionaries who unwittingly brought disease and destruction to "lost" African tribes, we could trample on rare fragile specimens of human experience that we can't even understand. -cliff