Blasphemy laws

[sandandfoam]

New blasphemy laws came in here on Jan. 1. I'm firmly with the atheists on this one.
Atheists condemn blasphemy law - The Irish Times - Sun, Jan 03, 2010

 

[Sunstone]

I stand with believers like Stephen on this one.

 

[johnhanks]

New blasphemy laws came in here on Jan. 1. I'm firmly with the atheists on this one.

According to the UK Guardian, the law

defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

Setting aside matters of injustice and freedom of speech, this is absurd. How abusive is 'grossly'? How many adherents constitute 'a substantial number'? What is a religion? Will scientologists be able to invoke the law if you laugh at Tom Cruise?

As a Muslim cleric noted, a Christian blasphemes against Islam every time he says Christ is god, and a Muslim blasphemes against Christianity every time he says he is not. Blasphemy laws have no place in modern society.

 

[sandandfoam]

Blasphemy laws have no place in modern society.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[YmirGF]

Frankly, I think religious types need to hear much more blasphemous speech.

These laws show that not only do they take their delusions too seriously, but that others have begun to buy into them as well. Sad, really.

 

[Kathryn]

Ri DONK u lous!

Sheeze, live and let live - even stupid people have the right to be stupid, don't they? As long as they're not forcing me to be stupid along with them, or to subsidize their stupidity, I couldn't care less.

 

[sandandfoam]

You might like this
Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes | blasphemy.ie
It was published as a challenge to the blasphemy law. Fair play to them.

Maybe it's because I'm reading a lot about Buddhism at the moment (and getting a lot from it I hasten to add ) but #13 by Bjork is my favourite.

 

[Baydwin]

Meh, makes sense to me. These laws would only be used to prosecute people who say or write stuff with the deliberate intention of riling people up enough to cause riots and the like, to control the output of neo-Nazi groups etc. I'd much rather have better public safety than those idiots spout their rubbish any day.

 

[Luminous]

It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

publishing bibles and other idol texts is grossly abusive AND insultinng to my sacred though of Agnosticism. Illumination is the name of the Agnostic Religion, and i can assure that 100% of its adherents are outraged by the publishing of these texts. if only i were a citizen of ireland, i would bring hell through court to these people. infact, this law is blasphemy itself. FSM may not be defamed either.
i agree Buddhism is a horrible religion. just like the rest.

 

[Luminous]

Meh, makes sense to me. These laws would only be used to prosecute people who say or write stuff with the deliberate intention of riling people up enough to cause riots and the like, to control the output of neo-Nazi groups etc. I'd much rather than better public safety than those idiots spout their rubbish any day.

yes, but intention is hard to discern. so the laws are basicly worthless, and the only possible use for them would be to encourage "riots and the like" by morons who would say that intention is equal to consequence. Illumination will show this idiots that the blasphamy law is blasphamy in itself. :areyoucra neo-Nazi'sm has nothing to do with "matters held sacred to religion". it has to do with ending civil rights and human equality. no one wishes for morons to react the way they do when some blaspheme against the morons, they are just trying to teach them and express their views, if the morons dont want to learn they dont have to. infact, outrage to blasphemy should be made illegal and penalized. the disorder is not cuased by the 'blasphemer' but by the corresponding rioters.

 

[Archer]

I strongly agree with the premise (not the implementation) however it will begin the ending of rights as we know them.

I shall play Devils advocate.

Let us do some comparison of views here:

Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against a race or national origin?
Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against sexual preference?
Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against gender?
We already know religion is under attack in a lot of places so would it be appropriate if it were treated as hate speech against a protected group?

Think about it!

Excerpt from article:It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

Now change a few word's and see if it is more appealing:It defines hate speech as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any race, gender, homosexual, transsexual or trans-gender person thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of the offended group, with some defences permitted.

Now if you agree with the rewrite why not the original?

 

[Bware]

I strongly agree with the premise (not the implementation) however it will begin the ending of rights as we know them.

I shall play Devils advocate.

Let us do some comparison of views here:

Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against a race or national origin?
Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against sexual preference?
Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against gender?
We already know religion is under attack in a lot of places so would it be appropriate if it were treated as hate speech against a protected group?

Think about it!

Excerpt from article:It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

Now change a few word's and see if it is more appealing:It defines hate speech as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any race, gender, homosexual, transsexual or trans-gender person thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of the offended group, with some defences permitted.

Now if you agree with the rewrite why not the original?

Because in some major religions, many people believe that to speak anything outside of said religion's beliefs is committing blasphemy. It was stated earlier in this thread:

According to the UK Guardian, the law

As a Muslim cleric noted, a Christian blasphemes against Islam every time he says Christ is god, and a Muslim blasphemes against Christianity every time he says he is not. Blasphemy laws have no place in modern society.

That's where the catch is with this stupid law, technically if it is illegal to blaspheme against a religion and said religion believes that any other religion saying something different is blasphemy, then a person would not be able to practice their religion without breaking the law. That is infringing on people's rights to freedom of religion.

 

[Archer]

Because in some major religions, many people believe that to speak anything outside of said religion's beliefs is committing blasphemy. It was stated earlier in this thread:



That's where the catch is with this stupid law, technically if it is illegal to blaspheme against a religion and said religion believes that any other religion saying something different is blasphemy, then a person would not be able to practice their religion without breaking the law. That is infringing on people's rights to freedom of religion.

Don't misunderstand what I was saying, I and many others don't just disagree with this we fear it!

I made the post as I did to show how it could be justified, in fact it will only further silence the followers of a given faith.

 

[Bware]

Don't misunderstand what I was saying, I and many others don't just disagree with this we fear it!

I made the post as I did to show how it could be justified, in fact it will only further silence the followers of a given faith.

Woops, my mistake there, I didn't read your post well enough it seems, I stand corrected :sorry1:

 

[Archer]

Woops, my mistake there, I didn't read your post well enough it seems, I stand corrected :sorry1:

No problem. Actually many in my area (really conservative in the Church arena) have a real fear of hate crimes law being used to legislate faith so I don't like these precedents at all.

 

[Luminous]

I strongly agree with the premise (not the implementation) however it will begin the ending of rights as we know them.

I shall play Devils advocate.

Let us do some comparison of views here:

Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against a race or national origin?
Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against sexual preference?
Would it be appropriate if it were hate speech against gender?
We already know religion is under attack in a lot of places so would it be appropriate if it were treated as hate speech against a protected group?

Think about it!

Excerpt from article:It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

Now change a few word's and see if it is more appealing:It defines hate speech as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any race, gender, homosexual, transsexual or trans-gender person thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of the offended group, with some defences permitted.

Now if you agree with the rewrite why not the original?

like it has been said, the Bible is hate speach against Islam and visa-versa. all religious texts are hate speach against Illumination, trust me. a religion is not a PERSON. it cannot be insulted. we as people agree that all people are aquel and have these rights. so you would have to agree that all religions are equal and thus negate their worth and thus blaspheme against them. in essence this law is blasphemy, so it negates itself and can only be used as an instrument to invoke "riots and the like". all religion is blasphemy against agnostic truth. this blaspheme law is stupid.

 

[Archer]

like it has been said, the Bible is hate speach against Islam and visa-versa. all religious texts are hate speach against Illumination, trust me. a religion is not a PERSON. it cannot be insulted. we as people agree that all people are aquel and have these rights. so you would have to agree that all religions are equal and thus negate their worth and thus blaspheme against them. in essence this law is blasphemy, so it negates itself and can only be used as an instrument to invoke "riots and the like"

Scary that they do these things ain't it.

 

[darkendless]

Often ridecule against religion is warrented. I couldn't care less about sensitive religious people who do not like having holes poked in their religious texts. If they don't like it, find a better religion instead of putting restrictions on atheists.

Whats next? Back to the middle ages?

 

[fantome profane]

with some defences permitted.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if one of those “defences” is an exclusion for “religious speech”. I don’t know this I am just guessing. Hate speech and blasphemy laws often have such exceptions. It is as if the legislatures are making a statement that it is impossible to be religious without being hateful, abusive and insulting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if one of those “defences” is an exclusion for “religious speech”. I don’t know this I am just guessing. Hate speech and blasphemy laws often have such exceptions. It is as if the legislatures are making a statement that it is impossible to be religious without being hateful, abusive and insulting.

Well, at least this Irish blasphemy law only has a fine as punishment. Here in Canada, the statute against "blasphemous libel" allows a prison sentence.