firedragon
Veteran Member
Freedom of religious belief is key to the existence of men as rational free-thinking individual citizens in the state. It emanates directly from a normative premise of equality, the demand that every doctrine should be open to scrutiny, and a belief that no dogma can be held with certainty.
One thing people should understand is that as soon as a law is implemented that provides a hint of siding with a race or creed the crowd pertaining to that race or creed embraces a false sense of power. This sense of power can make people senseless. Someone said one day that "power is the most stupid thing on earth, because it makes it easier to act than to think". As if this was said as a prediction, a country having blasphemy laws like the obvious country we are discussing these days, Pakistan will show you how people take power into their hands. This is a drunkardness while the potent alcohol is power. Its the worse kind.
If this is the reason for upholding religious freedom, then the legal right to religious freedom must be interpreted accordingly. If religious freedom is protected because no religious dogma can be held with certainty, then those who challenge the existing dogma should be encouraged and not punished. It follows that activities such as blasphemy and proselytism, which do exactly that, must not be criminalized. Critique, discussion and a robust exchange of ideas are best promoted when individuals are free to convince others to convert to their belief, and to speak for and against religions, even in ways that may be deemed by some inappropriate, free from fear of prosecution.
I believe its either this way or that way, there is no middle ground. What I mean by that statement is, if you install blasphemy laws, be it small or severe as in jail time or death penalty itself, that's the beginning of the end. Though it maybe very difficult for a Buddhist to see a picture of the Buddha on a bikini, the moment a country imposes a law against such an act, people tend to go power drunk. The eventual outcome being ethnic tension and even hundreds, thousands and even hundreds of thousands of deaths, economic demise and decades of war. The government must consider individual freedom as one of the most fundamental matters to be included in the security vault of law. This may create some heartache, but people will behave into it eventually. It is absolutely unethical to insult another persons religious figure. If one wishes to debate or dialogue the topic of theology it is quite easy to do it with respect, but with vigorous analysis. That being said, imposing laws on this matter seemingly has no positive outcome whatsoever.
If proselytism is allowed in a country, so should be blasphemy. Now because some people might turn this statement to mean "Only if proselytism is allowed in a country, so should be blasphemy" I am editing this post to say that it was an analogy, not a basic requirement.
Peace.
One thing people should understand is that as soon as a law is implemented that provides a hint of siding with a race or creed the crowd pertaining to that race or creed embraces a false sense of power. This sense of power can make people senseless. Someone said one day that "power is the most stupid thing on earth, because it makes it easier to act than to think". As if this was said as a prediction, a country having blasphemy laws like the obvious country we are discussing these days, Pakistan will show you how people take power into their hands. This is a drunkardness while the potent alcohol is power. Its the worse kind.
If this is the reason for upholding religious freedom, then the legal right to religious freedom must be interpreted accordingly. If religious freedom is protected because no religious dogma can be held with certainty, then those who challenge the existing dogma should be encouraged and not punished. It follows that activities such as blasphemy and proselytism, which do exactly that, must not be criminalized. Critique, discussion and a robust exchange of ideas are best promoted when individuals are free to convince others to convert to their belief, and to speak for and against religions, even in ways that may be deemed by some inappropriate, free from fear of prosecution.
I believe its either this way or that way, there is no middle ground. What I mean by that statement is, if you install blasphemy laws, be it small or severe as in jail time or death penalty itself, that's the beginning of the end. Though it maybe very difficult for a Buddhist to see a picture of the Buddha on a bikini, the moment a country imposes a law against such an act, people tend to go power drunk. The eventual outcome being ethnic tension and even hundreds, thousands and even hundreds of thousands of deaths, economic demise and decades of war. The government must consider individual freedom as one of the most fundamental matters to be included in the security vault of law. This may create some heartache, but people will behave into it eventually. It is absolutely unethical to insult another persons religious figure. If one wishes to debate or dialogue the topic of theology it is quite easy to do it with respect, but with vigorous analysis. That being said, imposing laws on this matter seemingly has no positive outcome whatsoever.
If proselytism is allowed in a country, so should be blasphemy. Now because some people might turn this statement to mean "Only if proselytism is allowed in a country, so should be blasphemy" I am editing this post to say that it was an analogy, not a basic requirement.
Peace.
Last edited: