Blasphemy

[Heyo]

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.

Euthyphro postulates that morality is that what the gods like.
The dilemma Socrates presents to him then is this:

Is something moral because the gods like it or
do the gods like something because it's moral?

The first horn makes morality subjective and a simple matter of "because I say so".
The second horn makes the gods superfluous because moral things are moral in their own good.

On which one do you want to die?

 

[Heyo]

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?

It's simple: when you say that killing is wrong because the gods don't like it, it is religious morality. When you deduce the wrongness of killing to a first principle other than the gods, it is rational morality.

 

[icehorse]

Your implicit comparison of Catholicism with Neo-Nazism aside, I question the existence of any such "right".

I was NOT comparing the two. I was attempting to point out that IDEAS - in general - must be criticize-able.

As for the existence of rights, again, "rights" are a man-made idea. We decide which rights we want to have or fight for.

I think we better darn well fight to retain our right to criticize IDEAS.

 

[Heyo]

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

In #20 you argue Darski should be punished because he broke the law (hurt somebodies feeling). When Poland (represented by its jurisprudence) hurt my feeling, how should Poland be punished.
To help you understand consider this example: Russian dissident Navalny was convicted by a Russian court. The west was eager to lay sanction upon Russia for following their laws that didn't concur with our laws. What kind of sanctions would be appropriate for Poland?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I remember in this context a Krishna story:

Let me give the story in brief.
Shishupala was the son of Damagosha, sister of the Krishna's father Vasudeva. So she was Krishna's aunt. Shishupala was a very hot-heade man and a friend of Kauravas. He was very jealous of Krishna and used to abuse him. Knowing the power of Krihna, Damaghosha took a promise from Krishna that he would excuse Shishupala a hundred times. When Shushupala abused Krishna for the hundredth and one time, Krishna killed him with his discuss.

But then, Shishupala and his friend Dantavakra (one with deformed teeth) actually were the gate-keepers of Lord Vishnu's heaven, Jai and Vijay, who had been cursed by sages to be born as humans. So, it is natural that when they died, they went back to Lord Vishnu (Krishna).

My vote is not to cause offense to follower of any religion, there is already so much strife. Try to educate people. Most of what people believe is evidently false.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you think of the Virgin Mary photo?

Fake.

Should we take more care to respect religious sensibilities?

We shouldn't be forced to.
But we might anyway.

Or is the freedom to offend an important right?

We have the right to be revolting.

 

[ecco]

Its rude, to say the least. Probably unnecessary.

You are free to offend but not free from the consequences.

Such acts are in poor taste;

I don't believe one has the right to offend.

Often, blasphemy or rudeness or offense is in the eye of the beholder. CNN did a report on Q anon and Anderson Cooper interviewed a person who posted that Anderson Cooper should be / will be executed because he is a member of the cabal that drinks the blood of children. As (one part) of the evidence, the Q follower referred to this picture of young AC with his mother.

The source of the Q-nuts outrage and anger is the folk art in the background. To the Q's, it is a blasphemous picture of Mary above a naked child with blood being drained.

Cooper explained that it was a sacred work showing Mary lovingly standing above the resurrected body of Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Hypocrites are justifying themselves with "freedom". Like little kids.

There should not be blasphemy laws. Its a given. But justifying it based on "freedom" is hypocrisy. Childish. IMHO.

 

[joe1776]

Often, blasphemy or rudeness or offense is in the eye of the beholder.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Whether an act is blasphemous, rude or ought to be seen as offensive can only be determined by an uninvolved group of people, a group unbiased on the relevant issue, just as such a group might determine whether an act is fair or unfair or morally wrong or justified. We see this happen in courtrooms all over the world.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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.

That's ridiculous. Anyone can rip up any book they want.

Although - I do personally consider the destruction of books to be a heinous crime. Personally not legally.

The OP asked "is the freedom to offend an important right?"

This is why my comment was political.

Because - at least in the West - only those on the left and the anti-religious have the freedom to offend - not those on the right or the religious.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's ridiculous. Anyone can rip up any book they want.

This happened in Poland. Where such things are not legally protected acts. If they were then there wouldn't even be an issue to have this OP.
Court Rules Against BEHEMOTH Frontman In Bible-Tearing Case

According to Reuters, Poland's Supreme Court has ruled that Adam "Nergal" Darski, frontman for Polish extreme metallers BEHEMOTH, committed a crime when when he called the Catholic Church "the most murderous cult on the planet" during the band's September 2007 performance in Gdynia and tore up a copy of the Bible, calling it "a book of lies."

Because - at least in the West - only those on the left and the anti-religious have the freedom to offend - not those on the right or the religious.

Then how did Rush Limbaugh make a career as a shock jock? How does Ann Coulture pull it off?

 

[stvdv]

Blasphemy

Or is the freedom to offend an important right?

When there is "Freedom of Religion", how can Blasphemy exist? That is impossible; you can't have it both ways.

Freedom of Religion tells us, that we are free to practise our Religion, in a way how we choose
Blasphemy is the opposite, and tells us that we are not free to express our feelings, beliefs the way we feel

IF someone steps on a picture of Mother Mary, expressing his feelings/beliefs
THEN that is how he feels/believes, hence he acts perfectly within "Freedom of Religion"

Note:
Of course he should NOT step on a Mother Mary picture belonging to someone else
Unless the person told him to do so (even then it is still his own free choice to make)

KEY in all of this is, that people should stick to what they believe
Problems starts when people think and tell others how they SHOULD believe
Proving the absurdity of claiming Blasphemy should be honored within Freedom of Religion
@stvdvRF

 

[Fallen Prophet]

This happened in Poland. Where such things are not legally protected acts. If they were then there wouldn't even be an issue to have this OP.

I know - I read the OP - which is why I answered the questions of the OP.

I do believe that this is an issue. He shouldn't be punished in any way.
Court Rules Against BEHEMOTH Frontman In Bible-Tearing Case

Then how did Rush Limbaugh make a career as a shock jock? How does Ann Coulture pull it off?

Rush Limbaugh was no "shock jock".

Both he and Ann Coulter have been harassed, kicked out of places and denied the right to speak at events for years.

I like how you have only two examples of those who beat the odds.

People on social media claimed that Trump was an illegitimate President for years with no repercussions.

If anyone makes similar claims now about Biden - they are banned.

Homosexuals and transgenders can call all Christians the worst names in the book with no repercussions.

If anyone claims that homosexuality is wrong or that a man cannot be a woman - they are banned.

It's all one-sided and you'd have to be blind not to see it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Rush Limbaugh was no "shock jock".

He was a real life troll.

If anyone claims that homosexuality is wrong or that a man cannot be a woman - they are banned.

Where? Many have made those claims here. But they generally aren't well received here because this forum does have a most Left Wing audience.

People on social media claimed that Trump was an illegitimate President for years with no repercussions.

Social media is a private company. People agree to abide by a set of rules to use those platforms.
Snowflakes are the sort who cry when they have the penalties they agreed to applied to them when they violate the rules they agreed to follow in order to use the platform.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Both he and Ann Coulter have been harassed, kicked out of places and denied the right to speak at events for years.

There is no right to be entitled and privileged to speak at a private facility, and the owners of the private facility do have the right to ban people from the premises and revoke prior-granted permissions.

 

[Glaurung]

I was NOT comparing the two. I was attempting to point out that IDEAS - in general - must be criticize-able.

I'm not disputing that. I even said you should be free to criticize Catholicism all you want. My point is that stomping on pictures of the Virgin Mary isn't criticism, it's being a hurtful, attention seeking arse. I'm not convicted there is a right to publicly desecrate religious objects. Whether or not you should face criminal charges for doing so is another question. In Poland you do face that potential.

As for the existence of rights, again, "rights" are a man-made idea. We decide which rights we want to have or fight for.

Well no I disagree. I think there are fundamental rights inherent to humans as rational creatures in the image of God. But you are right in that if you deny any transcendent reality then it's true, your rights are but according to the will of your political masters. Power is the only god.

I think we better darn well fight to retain our right to criticize IDEAS.

Again, desecration isn't a criticism. Sure, there's nothing stopping me buying a Qur'an and burning it. But do you think doing so is going to change any minds? Or will it simply push the Muslims who see my shenanigans to double down in their "harmful ideas". Because that's another thing I rarely see considered. To what end are my actions directed?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

He was a real life troll.

You only think that because you disagreed with him.

His motivation for doing and saying what he did was not to get a rise out of people - but to share what he believed to be true.

Where? Many have made those claims here.

Not here then - but on other platforms.

But they generally aren't well received here because this forum does have a most Left Wing audience.

What does "not well received" mean?

If I were to say that I believed that a man cannot become a woman - does "not well received" mean that you'd report me to administrators and try to get me censured or banned?

Our freedom to share our opinions should be absolute - in my opinion.

It should not matter which aisle we are in politically.

I mean - I've had conversations with people who have said things I don't like, agree with or offend me - but I'd never try to force them to stop.

BTW - sharing an opinion is different than harassment or trying to insult someone.

Obviously if I were calling someone names or following them on the site - that should be handled - but not just sharing what we believe.

Social media is a private company. People agree to abide by a set of rules to use those platforms.

That's not what is happening though.

For example - a guy I watch on YouTube was recently banned from Twitter because he shared evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election that he verified personally.

He looked up voter roles from the in various States - found hundreds of bogus residences - then went to those locations personally to prove that these people who voted did not use the address of their actual residence.

They were all parking lots, open fields, hospitals, community centers - one was an underpass.

He shared links of that footage on Twitter and they banned him for sharing "unverified information" and "inciting violence".

The links were him verifying the information and he never once incited violence.

These big tech media giants censure people for bogus reasons that do not violate their terms of service at all.

Snowflakes are the sort who cry when they have the penalties they agreed to applied to them when they violate the rules they agreed to follow in order to use the platform.

So - let me get this straight - any platform can change their rules whenever a new President is elected?

So - when one President is in office - it is okay for people to say the worst things about him - but when a President of the other lane is elected - they can change their minds and not let anyone voice their opinions?

Just like how a restaurant can choose to serve people of one persuasion and then deny service to someone of a different persuasion?

And you are okay with them punishing people even when they do not violate their rules?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

There is no right to be entitled and privileged to speak at a private facility, and the owners of the private facility do have the right to ban people from the premises and revoke prior-granted permissions.

If an event is cancelled due to mobs threatening violence - that's censorship. That's like the brown ****s of Nazi Germany.

Sure - the owners made the decision - but is it true freedom when they are forced to make that decision with a gun to their head?

And BTW this happened at public facilities too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

His motivation for doing and saying what he did was not to get a rise out of people - but to share what he believed to be true.

He flaunted the risks of smoking. Said he even wanted a medal for his cigar smoking.
He's now dead of lung cancer.

Not here then - but on other platforms.

Oh. Of course.

If I were to say that I believed that a man cannot become a woman - does "not well received" mean that you'd report me to administrators and try to get me censured or banned?

It means it won't be a popular opinion, and it will be used as clay pigeons for "debate skeet shot." You won't be banned or get a warning, but we may play "whack-a-post" with science journals as our mallets. It's not some sort of mob threat, but you won't be popular here with it.

Our freedom to share our opinions should be absolute - in my opinion.

Yes, but that depends. Here, that could mean going against the rules we all agreed to in order to use this web site.

I mean - I've had conversations with people who have said things I don't like, agree with or offend me - but I'd never try to force them to stop.

Big whoop? Are we supposed to give you a cookie?
Lots of us do that here sans announcement. It's something we all have to do in order just to function in our society. It's called "being an adult."

YouTube was recently banned from Twitter

Have to stop you there because there are private companies. You have to agree to their rules to use them.

So - let me get this straight - any platform can change their rules whenever a new President is elected?

No, they can change them at any time, without notification, for any reason, and they can terminate your privilege of use any time, without warning, and we've all agreed to this dozens, possibly hundreds of times (if not thousands for some).

If an event is cancelled due to mobs threatening violence - that's censorship. That's like the brown ****s of Nazi Germany.

Sure - the owners made the decision - but is it true freedom when they are forced to make that decision with a gun to their head?

And BTW this happened at public facilities too.

Canceling due to threats of violence is something that happens. It's not censorship, and the owners of the private establishment are well within their rights to do so, because they are the ones who own it.

 

[icehorse]

My point is that stomping on pictures of the Virgin Mary isn't criticism, it's being a hurtful, attention seeking arse. I'm not convicted there is a right to publicly desecrate religious objects

Freedom of speech is most important when it's risky.

Well no I disagree. I think there are fundamental rights inherent to humans as rational creatures in the image of God. But you are right in that if you deny any transcendent reality then it's true, your rights are but according to the will of your political masters. Power is the only god.

If you're saying that my choice is between being a slave to a god or a slave to "political masters", then I think that's a false dilemma.

Again, desecration isn't a criticism. Sure, there's nothing stopping me buying a Qur'an and burning it. But do you think doing so is going to change any minds? Or will it simply push the Muslims who see my shenanigans to double down in their "harmful ideas". Because that's another thing I rarely see considered. To what end are my actions directed?

Who's to be the judge?