Blasphemy

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't often post topics in this section, and it is possible this is the first time I have. Came accross this on the FaceBook page of the Universal Life Church

A Polish heavy metal singer has been convicted of blasphemy after posting a photo of himself stepping on an image of the Virgin Mary on Facebook.



The questions

What do you think of the Virgin Mary photo?

Should we take more care to respect religious sensibilities?

Or is the freedom to offend an important right?

Not the first time he's had issues with their blasphemy laws. At one point the band Behemoth was allegedly banned from performing in their home country of Poland for tearing a Bible up on stage.
And Behemoth is a very anti-Christian band. If you don't like it don't watch or listen.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't often post topics in this section, and it is possible this is the first time I have. Came accross this on the FaceBook page of the Universal Life Church

A Polish heavy metal singer has been convicted of blasphemy after posting a photo of himself stepping on an image of the Virgin Mary on Facebook.



The questions

What do you think of the Virgin Mary photo?

Should we take more care to respect religious sensibilities?

Or is the freedom to offend an important right?

The freedom to offend seems to only apply to those on the left or the anti-religious.

If anyone on the right or a religious person says or does something offensive - the established media and big tech censure them and activists do whatever they can to ruin their lives.

Either way - we should all be free to say and do what we want as long as it does not impede the rights of others.

No one has the right not to be offended.

 

[Heyo]

Here's the thing with "blasphemy." If I can be charged -- and convicted -- of blasphemy, anywhere in the world, and concerning any religion in the world, whether I believe it or I do not, requires the court to accept that the belief being supposedly blasphemed is true, and my disbelief false.

Nope. It only requires the court to believe that a person of the blasphemed religion feels hurt by the remark and that hurting people by insulting their religious beliefs (as wrong as they may be) is illegal.
The hypocrisy only starts when religious beliefs are treated different from secular beliefs.

 

[Heyo]

Are those clearly defined somewhere? I would love to learn and know where the line is drawn and how such a distinction is made and by whom

It's pretty easy. Rational morality is dealt with by philosophy. It tackles questions like basic principles of morality, how to derive actionable guilds for behaviour from those and discusses moral dilemmas.
Religious "morality" teaches how to behave without having to think long and hard about basic principles and rational deduction of the behaviours.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are correct, bad choice of word with "right" on my end. I am not sure the correct word I am looking for all I am saying is if you offended me verbally or physically, I will retaliate however I see fit, I am not saying my retaliation is 100% correct, valid or appropriate for the situation, all I am saying is I can react however I want but that does not mean I am free from the consequences of my action. I hope that clarifies what I was initially trying to say

Yes, it clarifies. In that context, I agree with you.

 

[Heyo]

Again, you show your lack of understanding of religion. The Muslim, Jew and Christian will say that morality is derived from God whether we acknowledge it or not. How do you respond and prove them wrong?

With the Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia.

 

[Earthtank]

My country has anti censorship laws and I and others are offended by censorship. What would be the correct punishment for Poland?

I don't know why are you asking me?

 

[Earthtank]

It's pretty easy. Rational morality is dealt with by philosophy. It tackles questions like basic principles of morality, how to derive actionable guilds for behaviour from those and discusses moral dilemmas.

You are missing the point, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all say that all mortality comes from God, so whether you want to say that is based of philosophy or not, they will say philosophers got it from God and so forth. Unless, someone can claim and prove objective morality or even rational morality, this whole talk of of rational vs religious morality is just a waste of time.

Religious "morality" teaches how to behave without having to think long and hard about basic principles and rational deduction of the behaviours.

As someone who's studied Christianity, Islam and Judaism, I can you tell, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are 100% incorrect in this statement.

 

[Earthtank]

With the Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia.

Not sure what this proves, I read the first few sentences but I will be honestly i am not going to read the whole thing

 

[Heyo]

I don't know why are you asking me?

Because you are arguing the law.

 

[Heyo]

You are missing the point, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all say that all mortality comes from God, so whether you want to say that is based of philosophy or not, they will say philosophers got it from God and so forth. Unless, someone can claim and prove objective morality or even rational morality, this whole talk of of rational vs religious morality is just a waste of time.



As someone who's studied Christianity, Islam and Judaism, I can you tell, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are 100% incorrect in this statement.

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying there is no difference between rational and religious morality and I can use rationality to discuss morality with religious people? (After having them taught what rationality is.)

 

[Heyo]

Not sure what this proves, I read the first few sentences but I will be honestly i am not going to read the whole thing

Not knowing the Euthyphro Dilemma and not wanting to know says a lot about your interest in morality. (And here comes the difference between rational and religious morality again: Euthyphro is the central point of rational morality against religious morality. You have not studied morality when you can't answer it.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The freedom to offend seems to only apply to those on the left or the anti-religious.

If anyone on the right or a religious person says or does something offensive - the established media and big tech censure them and activists do whatever they can to ruin their lives.

Either way - we should all be free to say and do what we want as long as it does not impede the rights of others.

No one has the right not to be offended.

Here's how it works with the issue at hand.
Darksi goes on stage, he pulls out a Bible, says some people call it holy, but he can't agree, he says it's filled with the greatest evils ever and tears pages out. He has a point, he is justified in his claim. This has nothing much to do with politics (especially not notions of Left versus Right - keep in mind this is another country), except for the unholy union of church and state that dares to have and enforce blasphemy laws. And Darski is a Satanist. In this case, blasphemy to the Christians is the act of a religious ritual to the Satanists.

 

[Glaurung]

To me, blasphemy laws are an indication that "the faithful" are actually quite insecure (as they should be), in their faith.

No actually. It is an indication of the deep conviction of many Poles that the image of the Virgin Mary represents something sacred to them. Something that is owed reverence. Your incredulity that people hold deep and sincere religious beliefs is not proof of insecurity. That said, as little sympathy as I have for the guy, I don't think being an arse on Facebook should be a criminal offense.

I believe we MUST defend the right to offend. How else can we weed out destructive ideas? You don't think - for example - that we should offend Neo-Nazis?

Your implicit comparison of Catholicism with Neo-Nazism aside, I question the existence of any such "right". At least as you phrase it. By all means, advocate for atheism all you want. Argue against Catholicism until you're blue in the face. But I'm not convinced that a society owes you the "right" to publicly desecrate objects of deep religious sentiment. It may allow you to do so, but again, I'm not sold on the idea you're owed it as a human right.

 

[viole]

I don't often post topics in this section, and it is possible this is the first time I have. Came accross this on the FaceBook page of the Universal Life Church

A Polish heavy metal singer has been convicted of blasphemy after posting a photo of himself stepping on an image of the Virgin Mary on Facebook.



The questions

What do you think of the Virgin Mary photo?

Should we take more care to respect religious sensibilities?

Or is the freedom to offend an important right?

It depends what we mean with "offend". I think that offending someone directly because of her complexion, culture, religion etc. is NOT a fundamental right.

On then other hand, offending/ridiculing the tenets of a certain culture, political movement, religion, IS a fundamental right.

For instance: saying "you are a primitive and despicable person for allowing female genital mutilation" is a no go, while saying "female genital mutilation is a ridiculous, primitive and unacceptable superstition" is a go.

I never understood why offending God, Mary or Whomever is considered so bad. I mean, we are talking of entities that I am sure can take care of themselves if they existed, for instance by zapping the offender out of existence, or some other magical thing. I think they take it as an offence because they are not so positive they really exist, either, and do not like it to be reminded. Who can say?

Ciao

- viole

 

[icehorse]

It depends what we mean with "offend". I think that offending someone directly because of her complexion, culture, religion etc. is NOT a fundamental right.

I think your list is problematic. I would say, let's not conflate things a person cannot change, with things a person can change. A person cannot change their complexion. A person CAN change their religion, because after all, a religion is just a set of ideas.

 

[Earthtank]

Not knowing the Euthyphro Dilemma and not wanting to know says a lot about your interest in morality. (And here comes the difference between rational and religious morality again: Euthyphro is the central point of rational morality against religious morality. You have not studied morality when you can't answer it.)

I feel comfortable enough with my understanding of morality. I have put countless hours studying it, just because I have not read every single article or opinion on it does not mean I don't know what I am talking about. If you would like to summarize what the Euthyphro dilemma and we can talk about it, I have no problem with that. I am sure it's got good points it makes as well as going to have its own weakness and possibly assumes a bunch of stuff as well that I or many disagree with. I can't be changing my stance on what i think or believe every time someone has a new or different opinion.

 

[Earthtank]

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying there is no difference between rational and religious morality and I can use rationality to discuss morality with religious people? (After having them taught what rationality is.)

No I am saying you can NOT objectively prove that there is a difference between rational and religious morality.

Let's use killing as an example, is it a rational or religious morality? Well, rationally and logically speaking we know as a general statement that killing is wrong, but so do the Jews, Muslims and Christians and God has already said so in their books. So when we say killing is wrong is that a rational or religious moral stance? or both?

 

[Earthtank]

Because you are arguing the law.

Don't recall arguing the law. Can you please be more specific?

 

[Erebus]

I'm all in favour of punishing blasphemy.

It seems to me that there are far too many un-stepped on images of the Virgin Mary out there. This is deeply offensive to Satanists and those responsible for displaying these un-stepped on images should be held to account. Claiming that the images are a part of their religious belief is clearly nothing more than childishness.


Okay, serious face on now. By all means criticise Darski for stepping on the image. Christians are critical of Satanists, Satanists are critical of Christians and around and around we go. That's just free speech in action. The moment you decide that blasphemy should be illegal though, you run into the issue of deciding whose religion takes precedence. That rarely ends well.