General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill blasphemy be criminalized?
"The U.N. will debate the limits of free speech in light of reactions to the anti-Islam clip.
The longstanding United Nations debate over free speech and its limitations will take particular precedence this week in light of the recent global reaction to an anti-Islam YouTube clip.
A number of Muslim leaders, including Pakistan P.M. Raja Pervez Ashraf, will argue this week that blasphemy should (in some way) be criminalized under international law. Meanwhile, the majority of Western leaders will continue to push back against such an idea, arguing (as they have for some years) that such blasphemy laws could be used to punish, imprison or even execute dissidents under certain regimes."
...........
Even some DUers want to see such speech criminalized. Unbelievable!
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)behavioral traits of those who do accept that definition.
patrice
(47,992 posts)just recognized for what it is.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Congrats on taking the least important piece of the OP and running with it, btw.
patrice
(47,992 posts)"least important"? You just accused others here of desiring to arrest and prosecute blasphemers and you DIDN'T provide any grounds for that accusation, until you were required to. It's interesting that you think whatever violation of law you accuse others of is the "least important" aspect of whatever else you are saying and you consider yourself a proponent of freedom?
Liberty?, maybe.
Freedom?, if you consider your accusations don't require rational support, no, you are not an advocate of freedom, only your own liberty to say whatever without challenge.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And their entire existence seems to focus on the shit they wish they could censor.
Its not many, but they are there.
patrice
(47,992 posts)be resolved by external power. We can't write perfect laws and even if we could their effect would likely be dysfunctional, accomplishing the opposite of their intent. Resolutions need to come freely from individual (internal) autonomy.
So: What to do while everyone evolves toward authentic freedom, so that each person can choose between not only expressing something because s/he wants to but also can choose NOT to express something, maybe even the same thing, because s/he wants to ... ? Doing anything simply because one wants to is not, after-all, the definition of freedom and it can be the opposite of freedom by oppressing one's self AND others.
What do we do, while all of this teleological development is going on, to preserve the most liberating processes for the most people and to avoid regressions (e.g. F*x Ewes) that increase the probabilities of the least freedom for the most people?
Since external coercion doesn't work, and damages development anyway, and since development on average isn't "there" yet, so it is vulnerable to oppressive regressions and, hence, may never see the light of a free day, what shall we do?
The only thing I can think of is a teacher's answer: everyone MUST accept the responsibilities of vigilant and appropriate proaction against regressions and INDIVIDUALLY push the processes forward as honestly as possible at all times. Each of us as individuals must accept the recognition of our own internal oppressors and admit to our own personal skews as each courageously confronts our own and other slave expressions wherever they are encountered, by calling on others to do the same in a continuously ongoing discourse about how speech/expression can oppress and it can free, so each of us needs to decide what we are doing with our expressions.
Perhaps you are thinking I am making too big a deal of this, but if you just look at one example of an environment in which what I am talking about here will be important, maybe you can see why I'm doing that: As fundamentally essential as human contact will ALWAYS be to learning, the internet becomes more and more the vehicle by means of which content and some interaction WILL be delivered. How will we protect freedom, and hence free people, on the internet given the almost overwhelming drive toward privatization of resources? What will children even just a couple of decades into the future know and how will what they know affect their free self-governance if "we" can't make any rules about free expression and, aside from the most obvious transgressions, anything and everything else goes?
Whether they apply to you or me or not, there are real-world problems with accepting the concept of un-limited "more speech, not less", which can only be addressed, as near as I can tell, by absolutely everyone consciously and assiduously accepting the responsibilities of honestly freeing themselves and others. I think it's possible to do that to some degree and that will be good, but I also think that we are going to have to share what it is that each of us is doing and stop regarding the effort as some sort of attack.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Still, the principle of legal freedom of speech, in this country, is paramount and I am certainly not going to stop defending it as an unqualified good, or fighting to protect it. It is the wellspring from which true political liberty flows, IMHO.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)Shared on FB:
This is all fine with us here at the Church of DogKnob. We are concerned, however, that these new laws will only be enforced on behalf of those major-label religions that tend to get violent when you "blaspheme" against them. The Church of DogKnob does not believe in violence; in fact, the COD (reducing us to an acronym is not blasphemous) finds violence itself to be blasphemous and hopes that the UN will give those who perpetrate violence on behalf of their wealthy-but-false gods a thorough ass-kicking.
Unlike some religions, the Church of DogKnob does not consider public images of The Holy Dog to be blasphemy. In fact, NOT publicly displaying our holy icons (by buying our recordings and other sanctified products) and (especially) not liking DogKnob's Facebook page will be, under the new laws, likely to get you a visit from the blue-shirts.
Dr. Strange
(25,898 posts)I find Orthodox DogKnobbery to be utterly irredeemable.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)You'll eventually get the Nougaty Goodness of God...
...one way or another.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)I simply will not stand idly by and watch Christians and Muslim blaspheme The Flying Spaghetti Monster (May His name ever appear in bold font). And make no mistake about it, everyone who claims that their so-called god is THE god is blaspheming against The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
I will not rest until all those blaspheming anti-FSM churches like Muslims and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists are all shut down and dismantled. It's an unforgivable offense against The FSM to allow these blasphemers to preach their blasphemy openly every Sunday.
Yavin4
(35,354 posts)Deeelicious!
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Blasphemer!
Dammit, I'm all out of stones because of the John Tesch concert last week-end. But as soon as I scrounge up a couple, you're SO going to get it.
rock
(13,218 posts)Any worship of any god but FSM is blasphemy and should immediately be punished. In fact, blasphemy only applies to FSM (you cannot blaspheme any other so-called god)!
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)To the sauce-pan with you! Yarr!
A HERETIC I AM
(24,317 posts)So let it be written, so let it be meatball.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)point. Which way it goes will echo down through the next century or more.
& R
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I choose Liberty over submission.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)You will find a similar cultural foundation of subservience to authority throughout Asia. It is also the basis for all of the Big Three religions.
Does it all come down to whether or not humanity is ready to grow up?
jody
(26,624 posts)declared our independence from a monarch backed up by a state religion.
We fought a war to win our freedom and when we replaced our Articles of Confederation with our Constitution we required our new government to protect natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights and also protect powers not delegated to that new central government.
Today those who demand government provide more and more should not be surprised when that government uses its ill gotten power to make that same group subservient.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Could you clarify it for me, please?
jody
(26,624 posts)government with limited authority and power, reserving other authority and power to the people and the state.
Jefferson and Madison, founders of the Democratic Party also wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions because the central government had violated the Tenth Amendment.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)differing goals in creating this new government. Jefferson was very much more egalitarian in his vision than that of Madison and they went back and forth over it time and again.
If you analyze the results of that/those debates, what we ended up with is a limit of the power of the people and a built-in deference to the monied/ruling class. Remember that the only voice the people have is the government, and reserving power to the states only reserves power to the people by proxy, i.e. through the state. Naturally, through their access and influence, the rich had and have a virtual monopoly on government. There have been notable exceptions to this, but they are the rare exception, not the rule.
But this thread is primarily about the power of religion and it's attempt to reassert absolute authority over all people.
jody
(26,624 posts)real power unless it can use the power of a central government.
In the present problems with Muslims, they don't matter any more than the most obscure religious group in the US unless they can get the President to bow to their demands and issue an executive order making blasphemy against Muhammad a crime.
I say President because there is absolutely no way Congress would pass such a law.
Even then, I wonder whether a federal jury could be selected that would convict a defendant of blasphemy?
I know if I were a juror, I would not vote to convict regardless of the facts
msongs
(67,193 posts)DireStrike
(6,452 posts)"Western leaders will continue to push back against such an idea, arguing (as they have for some years) that such blasphemy laws could be used to punish, imprison or even execute dissidents under certain regimes." "
Um, what? Can't we argue against blasphemy laws on the grounds that they don't make any fucking SENSE?
aka-chmeee
(1,129 posts)is a law making it OK for any omnipotent imaginary being to directly avenge him/herself on any person blaspheming them. Any actions on their behalf by their followers should remain illegal.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)True Earthling
(832 posts)that should be a crime? See the slippery slope here?
Where do we draw the line? We have laws against hate based on race because it's clearly wrong and penetrates to the core of our humanity - it's a criticism of one's genetic make up which one has no control over. Religion is not a genetic feature of humans... religion is a learned ideology or belief system much like capitalism, communism or fascism.
As long as religions hold ideological views on women's rights, abortion, gay rights, justice, the death penalty etc...they should be open to criticism and if the circumstances warrant... hate speech. The dogma/beliefs of some of these religions are FAR worse than those espoused by Republicans. Why is it OK to express hate against republican ideology for their anti-woman, anti-abortion or anti-gay views but it should be a crime to hate Islam for their perverted views on women and gays where they would behead gays, imprison women and stone anyone who exercises free speech or decides to change their views/religion?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Are you saying you want to blaspheme? Only a blasphemer would question anti-blasphemy law!
Bryant
exboyfil
(17,857 posts)a faith who will respond violently will be declared illegal (sarcasm).
E-Z-B
(567 posts)The rest of the world is not going to conform to their one-sided stiffling beliefs.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)another, for example, in assuming that one's understanding of _________________ is identical with God's and, thus, entitles one's self to God's judgement for or against ______________________.
By extension, we could say that identification includes the ability to name God as you demonstrate in this post, a blaspheming behavior that Orthodox Jews, again for example, avoid by never pronouncing YHVH.
It appears that the common understanding of these issues is that blasphemy involves only taking "the name" in vain, but under-lying that is the belief that speaking the name = identification with divinity, for how could one name or refer to the divine, unless there is somekind of equality in that?
Which brings me to my point against any religion that judges others and acts on those judgements in a manner that favors those whom they judge worthy, i.e. religious discrimination, or punishes those whom they judge unworthy, as though their identification with God is so perfect that they have this "responsibility" to judge others* one way or another; THAT is blasphemy that I say should be illegal.
*Funny how those who do this often do not turn their blasphemous divine judgement faculties on themselves.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)haele
(12,581 posts)That's the real blasphemy. Telling people to do what you want them to because only you know what "God" wants.
BTW, there's a huge difference between criminalizing blasphemy or hate speech, and expecting people to take responsiblity when they intentionally go out looking for a fight. On either side of the conflict.
Haele
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Im really sick of all the god damn blasphemy.
surrealAmerican
(11,339 posts)One religion's blasphemy is another religion's dogma.
The UN would be putting itself in the position of choosing which religious doctrines are acceptable.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)of everyone who made "Magic Underwear" jokes.
frogmarch
(12,144 posts)bring back good ol' blasphemy laws!
In colonial new England a blasphemer could be whipped, put in the pillory, have his tongue bored out with a hot iron or be forced to stand in the gallows with a rope tied around his neck. What fun, right? :-O
Give me that old time religion, give me that old time religion, give me that old time religion! It's good enough for me! Not.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)There is apparently some small movement of people who want the USA to adopt the "hate speech" nonsense that some European countries have done, for instance the banning of Nazi symbols and pro-talk in Germany. America should always be for complete freedom of speech. "Hate speech" is a big brother-like term and concept to try and limit speech and control people IMHO.