|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2012 : 12:09:52
|
A Year of Blasphemy:As the Posners and Butlers and Eppses and Spiros of the nation have begun to speak in the wake of Benghazi, others have refuted them. Some have pointed out a truth illustrated by this year of blasphemy: anti-blasphemy laws are a tool for religious majorities to suppress religious minorities, and a mechanism for the more powerful to oppress the relatively powerless, and tend to be used in a lawless manner resembling modern witch hunts. That is the norm we are asked to embrace. Really, the idea that we should stand back and tolerate any behavior because of religion, culture and/or tradition, when that behavior clearly causes harm, is appalling to me. I've got no problems allowing people to perform their little traditional rituals, but the line should obviously be drawn somewhere close to there, and not on the other side of imprisonment and lynchings for speaking poorly about an allegedly all-powerful deity. While the people who advocate harsh punishments for blasphemy are acting horridly, so are those who argue that we should not condemn such behavior. And those who advocate that the U.S. should officially adopt such a tolerant stance, along with those who advocate that the U.S. government should participate in punishing blasphemers, are even more morally repugnant.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2012 : 14:31:00 [Permalink]
|
It's the really controversial issues which seriously test free speech. Blasphemy should not be singled out for suppression. Not an inch should be given to those that demand anti-blasphemy laws in the USA. Not only would such laws violate the First Amendment's free speech clause, but would also violate the same amendment's Establishment Clause. Indeed, the people of the United States should not only resist such laws upon our soil, but forcefully fight anti-blasphemy laws and promote secular freedoms in other countries, including Saudi Arabia and Ireland.
Anti-blasphemy laws in the US would allow a militant Religious Right minority to cry "blasphemer" and demand police action anytime a Freethinker (or opposing religious person) criticized their religion. Chaos (and, eventually, religious warfare) would likely ensue.
Not one anti-blasphemy law should be tolerated, anywhere! |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2012 : 20:53:07 [Permalink]
|
| As several of the commenters at Popehat noted, who gets to decide? Christians and Muslims, for example, might consider each others' attitudes about Jesus to be blasphemous. If they don't all get punished, then yes, the government will necessarily favor one religion over another in contradiction to the Establishment Clause. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2012 : 23:45:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
As several of the commenters at Popehat noted, who gets to decide? Christians and Muslims, for example, might consider each others' attitudes about Jesus to be blasphemous. If they don't all get punished, then yes, the government will necessarily favor one religion over another in contradiction to the Establishment Clause.
|
I would consider the government favoring theism in general over atheism to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. We have enough of that already. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2012 : 02:35:45 [Permalink]
|
I define blasphemy as being any free expression that annoys theists. Theists annoy atheists on a daily basis, and would hate to lose that freedom.
In the US, the secular gold standard seems to be to have government treat atheists (as a legal fiction for the protection of their rights) as though they were a religious sect.
Now suppose blasphemy laws were passed in the US. Wouldn't, under this standard, atheists be able to have theists prosecuted for blasphemy for criticizing atheist "religious beliefs"? |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2012 : 09:36:41 [Permalink]
|
| Your definition of blasphemy is unlikely to be the definition used in legal arguments, were it to come to that in the U.S. Laws that punish people for nebulous reasons are often declared unconstitional simply for being overly broad. Any hope that a blasphemy law would have to survive scrutiny here would need to be very narrowly defined. So the legal definition of blasphemy would probably be more like, "any expression intended to denigrate, defame (more synonyms) any figure central to a religion." And that'd leave atheists shut out. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A year of blasphemy
