Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Valentine's Day Shop Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon St Lucia easycohice_2016 All-New Amazon Fire TV Beauty V-Day Valentine's Day Cards Amazon Gift Card Offer chiraq chiraq chiraq  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Prime Exclusive Savings in Video Games Winter Sports on Amazon.com Sale
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Blasphemy laws - funny or sad?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 43 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 20, 2012 9:49:15 AM PST
Ponger says:
Read and let us know if you find this funny or only very sad.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/world/asia/pakistan-girl-blasphemy/index.html

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 9:51:34 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 9:54:05 AM PST
Ponger says:
"Thomas Aquinas says that "[if] we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor."

"In Britain's last blasphemy execution, 20-year-old Thomas Aikenhead was executed for the crime in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.[21]" Wiki

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 10:13:05 AM PST
Alan says:
The last trial for 'Blasphemous Libel' in the UK was in 1977. The blasphemy laws were not repealed until 2008

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 10:26:31 AM PST
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 10:29:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 10:30:47 AM PST
Blasphemy laws are neither funny nor sad- they're downright scary.

The major flaw of any blasphemy law is that they are inherently so subjective- what is blasphemy to one is orthodox belief to another. This includes any views of Aquinas or any other modern day leader of any religious system.

If any person or group can actually "prove"- beyond any doubt- that their view directly represents "God"'s, then we would be obligated to follow that. If not, then they are merely imposing their beliefs on others, by use of force.

And up to and including this point in history, "by force" has been the case.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 10:42:18 AM PST
Max Flash says:
JC: If any person or group can actually "prove"- beyond any doubt- that their view directly represents "God"'s, then we would be obligated to follow that.

Max: This would allow us to determine if a given view was in opposition to "God's", but wouldn't obligate us to follow it.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 11:04:20 AM PST
I would think that any "god" would be thick skinned enough to take the blasphemy in stride. After all, an omnipotent supernatural creator should be able to make his detractors disappear or permanently mute if he so desired. Of course, there's also the threat of eternal damnation for those who blaspheme the "wrong" god - out of the thousands to chose from.
Blasphemy laws are both funny and sad... funny that people still believe in a mythology that imaginary (but supernatural) gods somehow need defense from harsh words , but very sad in that public policy can reflect this delusional thinking.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 11:47:11 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 11:48:47 AM PST
Astrocat says:
Countries like Pakistan are struggling to emerge from the dark ages. The assassination of Bhutto tells us that there are those who will brook no opposition to their twisted sense of power and authority. Blasphemy laws in any more enlightened countries are almost more frightening because they indicate that there are people in those countries who are dedicated to keeping people under control, keeping people adhering to their (those in power) twisted sense of morality.

Besides, isn't "blasphemy" in the eye/mind/emotions of the beholder? If I say, "Oh, my god", in a country like Pakistan, can I be executed? And yet here in the good old USofA, OMG is a common expression of surprise or disbelief.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 1:27:43 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 2:38:04 PM PST
Ponger says:
I think the strong reaction to statements against God is related to two things. First it threatens the the support and control system religious leaders create and control that gives them purpose and cash. But more importantly, God helps many people get through their difficult lives with hope and comfort. Poking holes in that comforting superstition or "delusion" can cause great pain. Like taking drugs away from an addict.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 2:33:45 PM PST
Bubba says:
The blasphemy laws in Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania are still in effect.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 2:35:14 PM PST
Bubba says:
A little Pakistani girl was recently shot in the head because she was going to school.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 3:45:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 5:07:05 AM PST
Alan says:
Bubba,

The last trial for blasphemy in the UK was a private prosecution between Mrs Mary Whitehouse, a prudish campaigner for 'public decency', and Gay News Ltd. with Dennis Lemon as publishers of a poem 'The Love That Dare Not Speak its Name' that some considered blasphemous. The defendants were found guilty and fined, in addition Lemon was given a 9 month prison sentence, suspended, meaning that he wouldn't go to prison as long as he didn't repeat the offence. The Court of Appeal upheld the guilty verdict but quashed the suspended prison sentence. The House of Lords (equivalent to the Supreme Court) agreed. The whole episode was highly controversial, nobody attempted anything like it again, but it took another 31 years before the blasphemy laws were finally repealed in 2008.

Stranger still the last conviction for witchcraft in UK was in 1944. Helen Duncan was a 'medium' who it is said discovered official war secrets during seances. It was feared that she might give away details of the plans for the imminent D-Day landings. She was tried for witchcraft, convicted and served a nine month prison sentence. Churchill, then prime minister, visited her in prison and denounced her conviction as "tomfoolery". In 1951, he repealed the 200-year-old act, but her conviction stood.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 3:57:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 3:59:01 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 4:03:37 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 4:04:47 AM PST
Alan says:
Clarissa,

"You say "prudish" campaigner, but that is a matter of opinion. Mary Whitehouse was primarily against the lowering standards in the BBC's output, and was immensely well known by the British public, a lot of whom supported her brave stance."

But the majority thought she was either an embarrassment, a joke or both. She was frequently the object of mockery by both comedians and social commentators not to mention the 'man in the street'.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 4:05:43 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 4:15:34 AM PST
Alan says:
Clarissa,

"Where was that mockery coming from in the main? Answer - the BBC.

Therefore your argument carries no weight."

I seem to remember that the mockery was widespread, maybe we have different memories or moved in different circles. Even now jokes are still told about her.

The BBC, being the national broadcaster with a larger audience than any other at the time, was not exactly inconsequential.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 4:22:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 4:25:11 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 5:37:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 5:38:20 AM PST
Bubba says:
Earlier this year, Justice Minister Lord McNally dismissed another motion in the House of Lords to pardon Alan Turing's criminal conviction for the offence of being homosexual.

Turing is another homosexual who was driven to suicide due to anti-gay bigotry.

Posted on Nov 30, 2012 11:27:39 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2012 11:28:26 AM PST
Heads up, all. Check the latest "The Economist" (Nov. 24). There's a story on atheists in Islam -- with suitable comments by the great Ibn Waqrraq. It's Islam's dirty little open secret that apostasy can be a capital offense, and this grim article is about what happens when sharia is taken seriously. According to a Pew survey, 84% of Muslims in Egypt think that atheists should be killed. Think about what this means.

1) If Einstein, Darwin, Bohr, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, Mark Twain, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, to name but a few, had had the bad luck to be born Muslims, where would we be? No radiation therapy for cancer. No Hubble space telescope. No "Huck Finn." Etc. -- and no Amazon fora.

2) It's absolutely no wonder that Egypt now has a Muslim Brother as president. Egypt is reputedly one of the more sophisticated Muslim countries, right? The vast majority of Egyptians clearly can't accept one of the basic tenets of modern democracy -- religious freedom. It's doubtful that any Muslim country will enter the modern era anytime soon, and when it happens it will be because of enormous numbers of Muslim women willing to die rather than accept sharia. As the movie title says -- "There will be blood."

3) Sharia is merely an indication of what's wrong with Islam. Islam. "If one of you leaves the religion, kill him." (Bukhari.)

Let's all mak this a slogan, shall we? Especially when dealing with the topic of moderate Islam.

NO RELIGION THAT CAN ORDER ITS MEMBERS TO MURDER DISSENTERS EVEN IN THEORY CAN CE CONDONED BY CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS.

Posted on Nov 30, 2012 11:32:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2012 11:33:04 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
I'll agree with that. If your god tells you to murder innocents, you need to get a better god.

Islam needs to be de-fanged and civilized the same way Judaism and Christianity were (always a work in progress!).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2012 12:27:53 PM PST
Bubba says:
How is this different from what the Roman Catholics or even what the Church of England did to heretics?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2012 1:56:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2012 1:56:58 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Bubba, yes, I'm aware of that. And as far as what the Catholics and the Anglicans did to "heretics" is no different, whatsoever. We all live in glass houses.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2012 3:19:11 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2012 4:01:55 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2012 4:02:16 PM PST
Bubba says:
That is why many atheists are in the closet, they are afraid of Christians injuring or even killing them, as you are advocating, and as the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches have a long history of doing.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 7:43:54 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2012 7:54:45 AM PST
Clearly you didn't read my post very well. It didn't occur to you that the computer you're spreading your "Christian" bigotry on was INVENTED by an atheist.

And Einstein never put anyone on the rack.

And since CHRISTIANS are also being horrendously persecuted in Dar-al-Islam right now, even more so than atheists, and since turning from a Muslim into a Christian ALSO gets the death penalty, and since such "notorious" atheists as Christopher Hitchens, Pat Condell, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have always gone to bat for persecuted Christians as a matter of their commitment to natural human rights (as a matter of fact Ms. Ali recently wrote a cover-story in "Newsweek" on this issue, and you might want to track it down on the net if you think I'm kidding you), you might want to do some serious thinkuing about who your friends really are. They're NOT your fellow theists, I can assure you.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  43
Initial post:  Nov 20, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 4, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions