On Blasphemy: A wrong, a right, or both, or neither?

[TheLightWithin]

This is to continue a subtopic we had going here Religion of love? on blasphemy and narrow the focus to that.
This is space to address @muhammad_isa - if I don't misunderstand you I think you were supporting the idea of anti-blasphemy laws or something and @JP Bradt - hi newcomer I hope you stick around and contribute to this thread - you had stated you thought blasphemy was a human right.

Let's discuss this more. I'm going to start another post in the thread looking to define blasphemy and then move on to historical examples of blasphemy laws which I should easily be able to find.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Some definitions of blasphemy include "Saying offensive things about God or religion is blasphemy"

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/blasphemy

or - the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk - attributed on the search page to the Oxford English Dictionary

The AI overview - "Blasphemy, broadly defined as disrespect or irreverence towards something considered sacred" (This is just a line and I hope not in violation of the recommendation not to use AI)

These are all potentially very subjective. And subject to abuse by a ruling party.

Does anybody disagree?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Here's a link to EBSCO talking about contemporary laws

Blasphemy laws | EBSCO

Blasphemy laws are legal statutes that penalize irreverent or contemptuous expressions about God or other sacred entities. Historically, these laws have roots in various religious and legal traditions, including the Hebrew Bible, Roman law, and medieval canon law, often carrying severe penalties...

www.ebsco.com

a blurb by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws

www.uscirf.gov

and as always Wikipedia giving a broader view Blasphemy law - Wikipedia

I don't know if it's just me, but I don't like the idea of people being executed, mutilated, jailed, or sentenced to hard labor, just for saying words that somebody doesn't like, and certainly not just for disagreeing with somebody's religion.

If you are in favor of blasphemy laws, did you know about this, and are you advocating anything like this?

 

[TheLightWithin]

This two minute video makes several good points within the first few seconds, including that blasphemy laws protect ideas, not people.
In case this doesn't play on our site, it is this YouTube channel The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
[The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)] and the video is called Blasphemy Laws are Bad for Security
Because this is about contemporary policy, we need to be careful not to go into the weeds about current events/politics or we will have to shut down this thread. If we can keep this tightly connected to blasphemy/freedom/rights we can be productive.

 

[TheLightWithin]

A Scottish martyr - Humanist Society Scotland

The Story Of Young Thomas Aikenhead The years between 1645 and 1715 are known as the Little Ice Age and its low point between 1695 and 1702 as the Ill Years. Arctic ice expanded southwards leading to an Inuit migration, some...

www.humanism.scot

Humanist Heritage: Thomas Aikenhead (1676-1697)

It is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth and to […]

heritage.humanists.uk

Thomas Aikenhead - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dreadful. This young man should have been allowed to live out his life. NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID.
Surely, nobody here is advocating for this??

 

[Vasu Devan]

In my mind, blasphemy laws are nothing more than "I don't like what you said about X so I'm going to punish you" thoughts becoming part of the codex. They are created by Mankind. Both Bible and Koran teach peaceful resolution of conflicts in belief, not forced. But both books can also in other areas be reinterpreted as demanding punishment.

In Islam particularly, reactions to blasphemy are very violent. Even though the book has texts saying man should not compel, leave the matter to Allah etc, those who used the religion to spread the reach of political power(you saying/acting Muslim indicated which group's side you were on) brought in laws of federal punishment as part of the teachings to early followers.

Bible and Koran as they are known now are not what early followers followed. Their scripture was an amalgamation of the many mind's of believers and preachers. The prophets taught a message and when they could no longer be heard in the world, others started to speak for them, using their message but prolly changing it or paraphrasing to fit the needs of the time. And when finally the scripture used today formed, it contains the hate and the love of various teachers. So the follower is free to choose which teaching he will adhere to.

 

[TheLightWithin]

In my mind, blasphemy laws are nothing more than "I don't like what you said about X so I'm going to punish you" thoughts becoming part of the codex. They are created by Mankind.

Indeed.
Is there any doubt whatsoever that brutalizing people or taking their freedom over words and disagreements, is immoral, indefensible, and all in all just doubleplus ungood?

 

[TheLightWithin]

The prophets taught a message and when they could no longer be heard in the world, others started to speak for them, using their message but prolly changing it or paraphrasing to fit the needs of the time. And when finally the scripture used today formed, it contains the hate and the love of various teachers.

Yes

So the follower is free to choose which teaching he will adhere to.

As it should be - people making their own peace with G-d, without compulsion, or threats, or fear for life or limb.

 

[TheLightWithin]

As it should be - people making their own peace with G-d, without compulsion, or threats, or fear for life or limb.

On that note, to explain why often use the phrase G-d, and do not always spell out the word God
(God's name is not God, after all)
It's a convention I see within Jewish writings. Jewish theology Is what I feel more aligned with than most other religions. (I am not Jewish)
So there's a sensitivity to Jewish sensibilities, as well as sensitivity to my own spiritual orientation, as adopting that convention allows me to think of G-d in a different way, I cannot really explain it, but thinking of G-d in a Jewish way helps me feel more able to contemplate G-d.
However, any harsh blasphemy laws that may have been supported by Jewish communities or rabbis historically I would not feel so aligned with.
Voluntarily being sensitive and observing someone else's sensitivities or boundaries - it's nice to do. Without compulsion, maybe even without request - I cannot remember anybody requesting me to write G-d this way, but I picked it up from reading and it felt like the right thing to do on say a Jewish reddit thread.
Nobody should have to be in fear of reprisals or anything if they disagree with a religious idea, though, even if they disagree rudely or vehemently.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know if it's just me, but I don't like the idea of people being executed, mutilated, jailed, or sentenced to hard labor, just for saying words that somebody doesn't like, and certainly not just for disagreeing with somebody's religion..

It is only relatively recent, that blasphemy laws in the West have been discarded.

In the United States, blasphemy was recognized as proscribed speech well into the 20th-century.
The Constitution entailed a right to articulate views on religion, but not to commit blasphemy, with the Harvard Law Review stating, "The English common law had punished blasphemy as a crime, while excluding "disputes between learned men upon particular controverted points" from the scope of criminal blasphemy.
...
The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were repealed in England & Wales by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this meant that promoting atheism could be prosecuted.
Blasphemy - Wikipedia

This reflects the changing nature of society in the West, from a "Christian society" to a secular one.
Note that which I have bolded .. as I said in the previous thread, it is the promotion of atheist values
which I see as highly undesirable.

..not that I believe in forcing a community to see it as I see it .. just try to stay away from
what I consider to be ignorance.

 

[iBrian]

Blasphemy and Free Speech are one of those things that are culturally ingrained in different ways. You only have to look at how Muslim women were attacked in France for wearing burkas that covered their bodies, because it was seen as "un-French" - even though French nuns also cover up for the very same religious reasons, but are considered entirely acceptable.

Although it's illegal in France to be openly racist or sexist, it is not illegal to mock people for being non-Christian - which is in effect just another form of institutional racism, not least due to its poor relationship with its former imperial colony of Algeria.

Bottom line is that one person's Free Speech and Free Expression is another society's "blasphemy".

 

[Thomas]

One thing to consider is in this current age is that 'God' is very much a matter of subjective opinion, and doesn't really carry anywhere near the weight and importance as it did in other times, in other mindsets – then such things really mattered, whereas today they largely carry a minimal importance.

One could say the idea of the self and personal autonomy has emerged as pre-eminent, and anything seen limiting those (assumed but actually imaginary) rights and freedoms are considered blasphemy ...

 

[Thomas]

... You only have to look at how Muslim women were attacked in France for wearing burkas that covered their bodies, because it was seen as "un-French" - even though French nuns also cover up for the very same religious reasons, but are considered entirely acceptable.

I know! Our next-door neighbours are Muslim, she's English by ethnicity but wears the veil (signifying she's made the pilgrimage, can't remember the meaning of it, @muhammad_isa will know).

There are certain parts of the UK she fears going to, because of the offence she's suffered for wearing the veil. Even in London, a multi-cultural city. Norfolk, for one.

Although it's illegal in France to be openly racist or sexist, it is not illegal to mock people for being non-Christian - which is in effect just another form of institutional racism, not least due to its poor relationship with its former imperial colony of Algeria.

I was reminded of the Francis Urquhart (House of Cards tv series) catchphrase: "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

By which I mean, you can say that, but if I say it, it's suggested I'm being over-sensitive (Moi?!) or that the stereotype determines the fact.

It is galling to sit round a campfire among a wider family and friends group – not one week ago – and remain quiet while an array of offensive anti-religious and anti-Christian comments are bandied around to the general amusement of all. Had anyone made a similar disparaging comment, in which the object was gender or ethnicity, then there would have been uproar ... but religion ... no.

Someone said a decade ago religion was the last 'ism' to pass unchallenged, and it remains very much the case in my experience.

Quiet rant over.

 

[TheLightWithin]

When the attempt to attack blasphemy ends up being in itself blasphemy against someone else's beliefs

1:16 is where they start directly addressing the destruction of the statues.

Al Jazeera English

#AlJazeeraEnglish, we focus on people and events that affect people's lives. We bring topics to light that often go under-reported, listening to all sides of the story and giving a 'voice to the voiceless.' Our impartial, fact-based reporting wins worldwide praise and respect. It is our unique...

www.youtube.com

 

[Thomas]

Some definitions of blasphemy include "Saying offensive things about God or religion is blasphemy"

Agreed.

or - the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk - attributed on the search page to the Oxford English Dictionary

Again, agreed ... my religious sensibilities are often offended by 'casual blasphemy' in the public sphere, but I don't make an issue of it, launch a crusade or what-have-you.

But what determines 'blasphemy' in the wider sense, 'an offence against a given sensibility' shifts in its cultural context.

The AI overview - "Blasphemy, broadly defined as disrespect or irreverence towards something considered sacred"
These are all potentially very subjective. And subject to abuse by a ruling party.
Does anybody disagree?

Nope.

There are certain statements about gender, ethnicity, neurodivergence, etc., which were common when I was a kid, and are today considered 'blasphemous', that is, offensive, and they should be called out. Indeed, one can be arrested. But when my parents, for example, used those terms, they never meant them in an offensive way. If someone said 'spastic' it meant a person with some degree of disability, but was not meant pejoratively – it was actually a definition of the condition.

As a gay person pointed out, queer people fought for 'gay' to be an acceptable term, and almost immediately you could hear kids using it pejoratively in the playground!

+++

Of course, no-one is burned at the stake for racial or gender slurs, as they were for blasphemy ... but that's to do with changing times, changing values. You could be hung for stealing a loaf of bread.

When I was a kid, it was offensive to refer to someone as 'black', the acceptable term was 'coloured'. Now that is reversed, and 'coloured' is deemed offensive. Times change. So does language.

The 'N'-word is still offensive if used by white people (unless you're Quentin Tarantino).

A friend commented on the language used in RuPaul's Drag Race tv series, and wondered how many offensive terms defining drag artists bandied about by the contestants will be considered offensive in a few years' time?

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

Some definitions of blasphemy include "Saying offensive things about God or religion is blasphemy"

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/blasphemy

or - the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk - attributed on the search page to the Oxford English Dictionary

The AI overview - "Blasphemy, broadly defined as disrespect or irreverence towards something considered sacred" (This is just a line and I hope not in violation of the recommendation not to use AI)

These are all potentially very subjective. And subject to abuse by a ruling party.

Does anybody disagree?

Through the Western Left-Hand Path, blasphemy is not inherently a crime, sin, or evil act. Rather, it is a tool, symbol, or initiatory gesture. Its meaning shifts depending on how one uses it.

Blasphemy is the act of defying sacred restrictions. It is a declaration that no external god, law, or priesthood has sovereignty over the Self. By deliberately trespassing what others hold sacred, the LHP magician seizes the right to define their own values and truths. Blasphemy is a statement of independence: “I am my own god; my will is my law.” The “blasphemer” reclaims the very power that orthodoxy reserves for deity or priest. It becomes not an insult to the sacred, but a hymn to the Self.

Blasphemy is the hammer that smashes idols, allowing the magician to sculpt new symbols, new rites, and new myths that are personally empowering rather than inherited. For the LHP adept, blasphemy is not just juvenile rebellion (“edgy” anti-religion). True blasphemy is liberating, a conscious, Willed act that dismantles inner chains. Once the taboo is shattered, one is no longer bound by it.

Blasphemy is about enthroning the Self

 

[Thomas]

Through the Western Left-Hand Path, blasphemy is not inherently a crime, sin, or evil act. Rather, it is a tool, symbol, or initiatory gesture. Its meaning shifts depending on how one uses it.

By so doing, you give the term currency, acknowledging its validity.

Blasphemy is the act of defying sacred restrictions. It is a declaration that no external god, law, or priesthood has sovereignty over the Self.

Again, it is a defiance only if you accept those restrictions in the first place.

If the declaration is that there is 'no external god, law, or priesthood (that) has sovereignty over the Self' then why the need to defy it? Again, you're accepting the reality of something you then deny.

By deliberately trespassing what others hold sacred, the LHP magician seizes the right to define their own values and truths.

Why the need to trespass? Why the need to defy? Why not simply say it's irrelevant to my belief?

This is when the argument comes across as childish.

Blasphemy is a statement of independence: “I am my own god; my will is my law.”

As yet, that is clearly not what the term 'god' in a RHP context means.

Nor is the practitioner the absolute authority of their own existence – that remains ephemeral, contingent, conditional, and so on ... they've simply become masters of their own ego or, conversely, mastered by it?

The practitioner cannot turn back the tide, step in front of an oncoming train ... you get my drift? It's all in one's head?

The “blasphemer” reclaims the very power that orthodoxy reserves for deity or priest. It becomes not an insult to the sacred, but a hymn to the Self.

That is the first reasonable, rational statement from where I stand.

Blasphemy is the hammer that smashes idols, allowing the magician to sculpt new symbols, new rites, and new myths that are personally empowering rather than inherited.

Well I don't see why one has to blaspheme? It depends on what one's idols were. Again this seems to contextualise the LHP in terms of the RHP, rather than on its own terms.

For the LHP adept, blasphemy is not just juvenile rebellion (“edgy” anti-religion).

But it really comes across like that.

True blasphemy is liberating, a conscious, Willed act that dismantles inner chains. Once the taboo is shattered, one is no longer bound by it.

So the LHP practitioner has to overcome RHP conditioning? I can see that ... that explains a lot ... Atheists do it quite readily. It does rather seem you're binding yourself in chains to break out of them.

Blasphemy is about enthroning the Self

To the LHP practitioner. To the RHP the 'self' does not correlate to God in the individual sense.

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

By so doing, you give the term currency, acknowledging its validity.


Again, it is a defiance only if you accept those restrictions in the first place.

If the declaration is that there is 'no external god, law, or priesthood (that) has sovereignty over the Self' then why the need to defy it? Again, you're accepting the reality of something you then deny.


Why the need to trespass? Why the need to defy? Why not simply say it's irrelevant to my belief?

This is when the argument comes across as childish.


As yet, that is clearly not what the term 'god' in a RHP context means.

Nor is the practitioner the absolute authority of their own existence – that remains ephemeral, contingent, conditional, and so on ... they've simply become masters of their own ego or, conversely, mastered by it?

The practitioner cannot turn back the tide, step in front of an oncoming train ... you get my drift? It's all in one's head?


That is the first reasonable, rational statement from where I stand.


Well I don't see why one has to blaspheme? It depends on what one's idols were. Again this seems to contextualise the LHP in terms of the RHP, rather than on its own terms.


But it really comes across like that.


So the LHP practitioner has to overcome RHP conditioning? I can see that ... that explains a lot ... Atheists do it quite readily. It does rather seem you're binding yourself in chains to break out of them.


To the LHP practitioner. To the RHP the 'self' does not correlate to God in the individual sense.

You’re mistaken in assuming I was speaking about myself. Much like novice Satanists who often begin their path by rebelling against religious authority, many newcomers to the Left-Hand Path express this rebellion through acts of blasphemy.


I, however, have rejected theism entirely. With no gods or dogma to rebel against, blasphemy holds no meaning for me.

 

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

It's all about dislike of what's right, virtuous and goodness. Since such is fast degenerating and to don't lose favors and gains, one after another prefers pseudo-liberality. It's just so that right nevertheless stays right, and wrong either. Making wrong to right by convention doesn't changes things.
And laws are general a protection to don't do wrong. Like and right are different things, as dislike and wrong, unless one has gained certain integrity, of what's merely seldom.

Of course nobody has any inherited rights, but freedom of choice, which isn't really a blessing for common unwise and foolish. Right and wrong doesn't ask for democrazy, wouldn't chance even if nobody recognize it right.

Blasphemy, in a broader sense means to allow to destruct path to welfare and well-being. To put it simple, for example: "Kill your parents, and you will be free of debt. Destroy all what's regarded as object of respect, and you are free..."

It's just like as if allowing to spread something like: "Drinking gasoline doesn't harm."

Btw. most religious forums are actually a "heaven" of doing the opposite of what one would think to meet. Serious, but who cares, wishing for members... gains, what ever favors, or just honor.

 

[Thomas]

You’re mistaken in assuming I was speaking about myself. Much like novice Satanists who often begin their path by rebelling against religious authority, many newcomers to the Left-Hand Path express this rebellion through acts of blasphemy.

OK ... you made the point.

I'm reminded of that scene in The Wild One:

I, however, have rejected theism entirely. With no gods or dogma to rebel against, blasphemy holds no meaning for me.

That makes sense.