Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:11 PM Sep 2012

Will 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!

45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Will blasphemy be criminalized? (Original Post) MNBrewer Sep 2012 OP
Don't you have to believe in a dogma in order for it to qualify as "blasphemy"? Tom Ripley Sep 2012 #1
Not actually. Logic is enough to recognize the contradiction between a definition of God and patrice Sep 2012 #3
Links please, so that we can decide for ourselves whether DU-ers want something criminalized or patrice Sep 2012 #2
Sorry your search function is disabled for some odd reason MNBrewer Sep 2012 #4
No. I just want to know what you're basing YOUR claim upon, not what I can find on the topic. nt patrice Sep 2012 #5
Then pay attention, or read up! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #6
You assume that you know what I know. You don't and you didn't ask. Also . . . patrice Sep 2012 #25
There are people on this board who wake up in the morning pissed off about the 1st Amendment Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #37
I'm sure that's true. There ARE problems and especially certain kinds of problems cannot patrice Sep 2012 #43
The Zen Parable of the Goose In The Bottle is relevant, here. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #44
The Church Of DogKnob considers your smarmy response blasphemous dogknob Sep 2012 #23
I'm a reformed DogKnobbist. Dr. Strange Sep 2012 #24
I'll pray for you... dogknob Sep 2012 #29
I support criminalizing blasphemy. Speck Tater Sep 2012 #7
I Had Your God for Lunch Today Yavin4 Sep 2012 #9
You turned Flying Spaghetti Monster into an ACRONYM!!! Jeff In Milwaukee Sep 2012 #12
I, of course, support your view rock Sep 2012 #14
An entire post and not one instance of pirate-speech... DireStrike Sep 2012 #15
Ramen A HERETIC I AM Sep 2012 #20
The world is at a tipping point. The tension between liberty and subservience is at the breaking Egalitarian Thug Sep 2012 #8
Interestingly, in Arabic, the word 'Islam' means submission or surrender MNBrewer Sep 2012 #10
Exactly. This is, to a large extent, a battle between western and eastern cultures and religions. Egalitarian Thug Sep 2012 #17
You say tension between "liberty and subservience" but We the People, each a sovereign unto them-self jody Sep 2012 #13
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what point you're trying to make. Egalitarian Thug Sep 2012 #18
You addressed "liberty and subservience". I stated we fought for our freedom and later created a jody Sep 2012 #19
OK, thanks for that. I don't want to go too far off-topic, but even Jefferson and Madison had Egalitarian Thug Sep 2012 #30
Understand OP about "power of religion" but it's also about power of government. A religion has no jody Sep 2012 #32
yet another indication that organized religion is a curse on humanity nt msongs Sep 2012 #11
"arguing... blasphemy laws could be used (improperly)" DireStrike Sep 2012 #16
Certainly would think that all that is necessary aka-chmeee Sep 2012 #21
+1 Go Vols Sep 2012 #22
Blasphemy can not be ciminalized, but inciteful hate speech directed at any group should be. robinlynne Sep 2012 #26
So if I direct hateful speech at the KKK or any group who disagrees with my beliefs True Earthling Sep 2012 #39
Look people saying nice things have nothing to fear. el_bryanto Sep 2012 #27
Maybe we will get a law that says only blasphemy against exboyfil Sep 2012 #28
The muslim community must accept the international community soon E-Z-B Sep 2012 #31
Oh, my fucking God, Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a pogo stick, I am SO fucked. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #33
Blasphemy also includes the assumption that one identifies one's self as God in one manner or patrice Sep 2012 #35
Well, there is THIS to consider... HopeHoops Sep 2012 #45
Only if they arrest clerics who mis-interprate their holy texts for their own gain - haele Sep 2012 #34
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, I sure hope so. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #36
It could never be enforceable. surrealAmerican Sep 2012 #38
It's all good fun until DU gets subpoenaed for the real names Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #40
Oh, yes, let's frogmarch Sep 2012 #41
the "hate speech" concept is something I hope we don't import from europe quinnox Sep 2012 #42

patrice

(47,992 posts)
3. Not actually. Logic is enough to recognize the contradiction between a definition of God and
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:16 PM
Sep 2012

behavioral traits of those who do accept that definition.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
2. Links please, so that we can decide for ourselves whether DU-ers want something criminalized or
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:14 PM
Sep 2012

just recognized for what it is.

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
6. Then pay attention, or read up!
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:22 PM
Sep 2012

Congrats on taking the least important piece of the OP and running with it, btw.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
25. You assume that you know what I know. You don't and you didn't ask. Also . . .
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:31 PM
Sep 2012

"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)
37. There are people on this board who wake up in the morning pissed off about the 1st Amendment
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:05 PM
Sep 2012

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)
43. I'm sure that's true. There ARE problems and especially certain kinds of problems cannot
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:06 PM
Sep 2012

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)
44. The Zen Parable of the Goose In The Bottle is relevant, here.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:24 PM
Sep 2012

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)
23. The Church Of DogKnob considers your smarmy response blasphemous
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:18 PM
Sep 2012
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

Shared on FB:
The UN is getting ready to pass a "Citizens United" style law that grants religions the same rights as individuals.. "Defamation" would be illegal.

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.
 

Speck Tater

(10,618 posts)
7. I support criminalizing blasphemy.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:24 PM
Sep 2012

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.

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
12. You turned Flying Spaghetti Monster into an ACRONYM!!!
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:36 PM
Sep 2012

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)
14. I, of course, support your view
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:38 PM
Sep 2012

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)!

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
8. The world is at a tipping point. The tension between liberty and subservience is at the breaking
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:25 PM
Sep 2012

point. Which way it goes will echo down through the next century or more.

& R

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
10. Interestingly, in Arabic, the word 'Islam' means submission or surrender
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:27 PM
Sep 2012

I choose Liberty over submission.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
17. Exactly. This is, to a large extent, a battle between western and eastern cultures and religions.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:41 PM
Sep 2012

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)
13. You say tension between "liberty and subservience" but We the People, each a sovereign unto them-self
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:38 PM
Sep 2012

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)
18. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what point you're trying to make.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:46 PM
Sep 2012

Could you clarify it for me, please?

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
19. You addressed "liberty and subservience". I stated we fought for our freedom and later created a
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:54 PM
Sep 2012

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)
30. OK, thanks for that. I don't want to go too far off-topic, but even Jefferson and Madison had
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:39 PM
Sep 2012

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)
32. Understand OP about "power of religion" but it's also about power of government. A religion has no
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:49 PM
Sep 2012

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

DireStrike

(6,452 posts)
16. "arguing... blasphemy laws could be used (improperly)"
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:40 PM
Sep 2012

"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)
21. Certainly would think that all that is necessary
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:05 PM
Sep 2012

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.

True Earthling

(832 posts)
39. So if I direct hateful speech at the KKK or any group who disagrees with my beliefs
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:50 PM
Sep 2012

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)
27. Look people saying nice things have nothing to fear.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:33 PM
Sep 2012

Are you saying you want to blaspheme? Only a blasphemer would question anti-blasphemy law!

Bryant

exboyfil

(17,857 posts)
28. Maybe we will get a law that says only blasphemy against
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:36 PM
Sep 2012

a faith who will respond violently will be declared illegal (sarcasm).

E-Z-B

(567 posts)
31. The muslim community must accept the international community soon
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:41 PM
Sep 2012

The rest of the world is not going to conform to their one-sided stiffling beliefs.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
35. Blasphemy also includes the assumption that one identifies one's self as God in one manner or
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:01 PM
Sep 2012

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.

haele

(12,581 posts)
34. Only if they arrest clerics who mis-interprate their holy texts for their own gain -
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:49 PM
Sep 2012

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

surrealAmerican

(11,339 posts)
38. It could never be enforceable.
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:28 PM
Sep 2012

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)
40. It's all good fun until DU gets subpoenaed for the real names
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:55 PM
Sep 2012

of everyone who made "Magic Underwear" jokes.

frogmarch

(12,144 posts)
41. Oh, yes, let's
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:58 PM
Sep 2012

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)
42. the "hate speech" concept is something I hope we don't import from europe
Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:00 PM
Sep 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Will blasphemy be crimina...