G’day all. I’m back from Cyprus and I find that yesterday was World Blasphemy Day.
‘Anti-blasphemy laws exist throughout the world. In many parts of Europe and North America they have been overturned, although there are anti-blasphemy laws in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Iceland, the Netherlands, San Marino and the UK. There are also “religious insult” laws in 21 European nations.
The Republic of Ireland passed the “Defamation Act 2009” in that year, which states in part, “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.”
Finland has been the setting for a number of noteworthy blasphemy trials in the 2000s. The Finnish linguist, political blogger Helsinki City Councillor and subsequent member of parliament Jussi Halla-aho was charged with “disturbing religious worship” because of internet posts in which he called Muhammad a pedophile, Halla-aho was fined €330.
In some countries, blasphemy is punishable by death, such as in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.[citation needed]
Six US states (Massachusetts, Michigan, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wyoming) still have anti-blasphemy laws on their books, although they are seldom enforced.
My question is this; I am an atheist. I don’t believe in gods, fairies, leprechauns, djinns, or any other mythical creature, so, whatever it is, it’s not my god, so how can I take it’s name in vain?
Boadicea's Chariot 
Bravo, g’morgen! Indeed! Denmark still has blasphemy laws on its books which ‘protect’ all religions. But the Allah cartoons episode proves that nobody here really cares what is said about anything. God-bothering here is at an all time low, prompting calls for the Church to be privatised. Yes, there’s is still a Church Minister here and a Church tax which is levied unless you formally opt out. Separation of Powers seems to have passed the country by. Law usually folllows opinion – eventually – but blasphemy is a long time dying.
I’m with you, Bravo. 100%.
But as a fully paid up member of the APS (Apostrophe Protection Society), it is my sacred duty to point out that the apostrophe in the pre-ante-penultimate word of your excellent post is intrusive, unnecessary and sadly out-of-order. 😆
I know, it is extraordinary. I don’t believe that all races and sexes are equal and yet there are racial and sexual discrimination laws that force me to treat them as such. Bizarre, isn’t it?
Of course being the upholder of the law that you are, I assume that when you travel to any of the countries or US states where such laws exist, you will refrain, even in private, from uttering any words that could be considered blasphemous. So, no shouting out, ‘J**** F***ing C*****’ when you slip and bang your head in the shower of your hotel room in Jackson Hole. I mean, that would be breaking the law, and you would not want to do that.
I had ju’st got up and wa’s only on my third cuppa – that’s my excu’se and I’m s’ticking to it 😀
Sound’s fair enough to me! 🙂
Who decides what is ‘blasphemous’?
I’m tired of being told that I should ‘respect’ other people’s ‘deep-held’ convictions, when those people marching around declaring that I should be beheaded have no respect for my ‘deeply-held’ convictions…
I’m an agnostic with the very firm belief that if there is a greater being – then he / she / it or, even they, have better things to do than to worry about people covering themselves in a bin-bag, not cutting their hair, or even snipping bits off all male devotees.
If there is a greater being – then I’m quite sure that he / she / it / they can look after themselves and do not need humans to take offence on their part… 🙂
The point is, Sipu, since I have no gods to blaspheme against, how can I commit the offence?
‘There is no god but Allah.’ Blasphemy?
‘Jesus Christ is the son of god.’ Blasphemy?
‘Lord Vishnu is the supreme being.’ Blasphemy?
Do they arrest moslems in Jackson Hole? Do they arrest Hindus in Jackson Hole? (Never mind the adherents of the religion of peace…)
The law is the law!
Boadicea: exactly.
As far as I am concerned, people can believe in whatever sky fairy they like, UNLESS AND UNTIL, those beliefs impinge on me and mine. If pointing this out to them is blasphemy, then so be it! If the law is the law, then it is a BAD law, like so many others that restrict personal liberty!
It’s not difficult to fall foul of Blasphemy Laws in some foreign parts, Sipu. Do you remember Mohammed the Teddy Bear?
Doesn’t answer the question, Sipu. As you correctly point out, I obey laws wherever I am – and I’ve been in a lot of places. I’ve posted here about idiots who smuggle bibles into moslem countries, but none of that has anything to do with the question…
PS. I also said nothing about blasphemy laws being good or bad – my opinion is that they are ridiculous, see my No 8.
Bravo, I wonder if any of the other Ten Commandments can be circumvented by claiming exemption on the grounds of being a non-believer?
Bravo, have the balls to admit that your arguments regarding this matter and that of the Stammers schoolgirl are contradictory. You can wiggle as much as you like but you are being entirely inconsistent.
Arra, yes indeed I do remember that case. I have no problem with criticising the blasphemy laws per se. What I object to are double standards from those who preach the sanctity of the law when it suits but who deride it when it contradicts with their own beliefs.
Just so that you understand my philosophy on these things. Human behaviour should be based on rules as opposed to laws. Rules guide; laws enforce. If people adhered to the rules there would be fewer laws and no need to enforce those laws that existed. But because so many people are power hungry, whether they be the police, lawyers, politicians or bureaucrats, they increasingly seek to remove the responsibility for decent behaviour from the individual and put in their own hands, by creating more laws and by seeking to enforce them with greater gusto and less flexibility. Thus children are not taught that it is bad manners to use racist language, they are taught it is illegal. Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, you should not blaspheme in front of others, because that too is or could be rude. The teacher was wrong to run off with the schoolgirl, but it was the law that chased them away. Without resort to the law it could very likely have been resolved within the families and the school.
Of course the law must exist, but it should be used as a last resort. The law should not serve as a moral guide to anybody. The best policeman is, or certainly should be, a person’s conscience. People are more influenced by peer/social pressure than they are by legal threat. I submit that those who place too much emphasis on the law tend to be morally deficient.
It always seems to be one so-called religion whose adherents constantly scream “blasphemy” at the slightest provocation. These people seem very thin-skinned, possibly because their ideology is a hotchpotch of ideas taken from other, older faiths, and they realise this. They are so determined to protect this patchwork that, as Boadicea says, they are prepared to execute any who disagree. Seems they don’t have much faith themselves.
Janus: my friend in Denmark told me jokingly once that by Danish standards he’s a religious fanatic. He attended 2 or 3 Easter and Christmas services in his life.
Not contradictory at all, Sipu. I simply ask how I can take the name of my god in vain when I don’t have a god…
Strictly speaking, Bravo, I don’t think you have to take the name of your God in vain to commit Blasphemy, just some one else’s God.
Sheona and Boadicea
Regarding your comment No 18. I don’t think that Blasphemy is mentioned in the Koran, but is part of Sharia in some extremist theocracies. I could be wrong but I do remember something along those lines.
According to The Telegraph:.
“A photograph apparently showing a protester holding a sign saying “Behead those who say Islam is violent” did the internet rounds for a while, but was eventually shown to be doctored.”
Sipu, good evening.
These rules to which we should all adhere? Are they your rules, my rules, Mohammed’s rules, Richard Dawkin’s rules or a set of rules derived from everybody sitting down in worldwide conclave and agreeing how to govern ‘human behaviour’?
I personally prefer to be governed by the rule of law and think it a more practicable system in many ways. And, with reference to the last sentence of your #17, I am also perfectly happy with my own moral compass and do not think that I run a higher risk of becoming ‘morally deficient’ just because I happen to believe that a great emphasis has to be placed on the rule of law in any civil society.
Rules. Aren’t laws the ‘rules’ which we have all agreed are going to govern the way we behave ourselves in a society? At least, as far as the good old Common Law is concerned as opposed to statutory law – which, I have been told, isn’t law at all, but a form of contract…?
Araminta, I have no gods, so how can I commit an act of blasphemy against them? How is an offence committed if there is nothing to commit an offence against? There is no blasphemy law in the UK – it would be invidious to stand on a street corner in Islamabad and bad-mouth Allah, as well as being contra-indicated in the personal health department, so, absent the law, absent a target, how can an offence be committed?
Hot goddam! Blasphemy Day and I missed it!
Could have found a few ragheads in Bellingham and insulted their god and done my bit.
Why was it blasphemy day when it appears that the usual bleeding hearts were having an anti blasphemy day?
When is’ burning at the stake’ day?
Bravo.
That was rather my point. You cannot commit Blasphemy in this country, but try doing it somewhere else, as you rightly say, so the fact that you don’t have a God in rather irrelevant if you are in Islamabad or Sudan.
I don’t think anything needs to be mentioned in the koran for idiot mullahs to whip up hysteria about it being “disrespected”, Araminta. Nowhere in the koran does it say anything more than “women should dress modestly”, yet the black bin liner brigade have brought in this niqab/burka rule on no grounds whatsoever. This is what happens when you have such a dog’s dinner of a religion, with different flavours killing each other and no central authority such as the Pope or an archbishop – or even the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Sipu:
It’s peer pressure that sends people out on the streets waving banners to kill and maim all non-believers in the name of their ‘God’. Thanks, very much but I prefer laws which should instantly arrest anyone who carries a banner inciting others to violence, whatever ‘excuse’ they like to dish up.
Araminta: the ‘riots’ here, in protest at a film made in another country and that no one had even seen, most definitely had a banner calling for the beheading of those who ‘insult’ Islam. Well aware of the laws in this country the banner had been put in the hands of a thirteen year old, who, of course, could not be prosecuted for his actions.
JM good evening.
Ask your question again, replacing rules with laws and see if it, or the answer you seek, makes any more sense. It does not, it makes less sense. Rules of human behaviour across different cultures have far more in common than do the laws of those disparate societies. In any society there are rules governing respect for human life, protection of the vulnerable, property rights, etc. But the laws defining them vary greatly. Rules are largely instinctive or certainly easily assimilated. Laws are contrived and ultimately flawed. What other justification is there for the existence of lawyers in this world?
Society is fluid, dynamic and so the rules governing it change constantly. There are subtleties that individuals pick up on in an instant but which would take a chamber full of lawyers and politicians years to define. Most societies know instinctively how to get along. Strangers entering an alien society will soon pick up the customs and will understand the subtleties. The law, on the other hand is frequently baffling to many citizens. The blasphemy law being a case in point.
I suggest an analogy with robots and humans. Give it some thought.
With regards to your last paragraph, we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not need the law of the country, civilized or otherwise, to tell me what is right and what is wrong, from a moral perspective. By all accounts the war in Iraq was legal. I am sure the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died would have been relieved to know that theirs was a morally acceptable death. So much for the law and so much for civilization.
The founder of Savannah GA, General James Oglethorpe had it right in one respect at least. http://www.visit-historic-savannah.com/savannah-history.html
Boadicea, peer pressure does indeed send people out into the streets. It brings down totalitarian regimes such as those of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and hopefully Syria. It brings about Civil Rights in America and protests against the Vietnam War. It brings attention to the excesses of the financial industry.
The behaviour you object to, “that sends people out on the streets waving banners to kill and maim all non-believers in the name of their ‘God’. exists because the law makes it permissible. You, I and those people on the streets, all know it is morally indefensible, but the lawyers and politicians of this world have deemed it legal. The laws you so admire are doing precious little to stop it. Just as the laws preventing burglars from being shot do little to persuade them from burgling.
Hmm. I tried to get too clever with my tags.
Fixed!! 🙂
Hi Boadicea.
I was referring to the widely circulated photo taken in London at protest in response to the Danish Cartoons.
I wasn’t aware of the demo in your part of the world until I googled it! I see what you mean. The demonstration in London recently in protest about the film seemed to be rather orderly by comparison.
It makes no sense whatever to elevate ‘rules’ above laws. Any individual/family/club/religion can invent rules for their delight or wha’ever. Laws are society’s approved checks and balances against unsocial behaviour, precisely to keep arbitrary ‘rules’ in check!
Btw, Bravo, it matters not a jot or tittle whther you believe or not. A law that stops you blaspheming is framed in the culture in which you may choose to live – and their law rules your behaviour.
Araminta – it was quite interesting! The police commissioner made it quite clear that they were going to go through the videos and arrest anyone who could be prosecuted for violence…
A few days later, the Muslim leaders (even those well known for their hard-line attitudes) stood beside the police commissioner and urged their fellow Muslims not to protest any further. It was quite clear from what some of them said that they realised that such behaviour was antagonising just about everyone! About time too!
Quite right too, Boadicea!
I agree with the Rule of Law, but it should be a framework, so I object to the volumes of legislation drawn up by our last government, and the EU which seems to want to control every single aspect of our lives.
It’s excessive and intrusive.
Aye weel, Ara. The rule of law in a civil society has absolutely nothing to do with your detested ‘volumes of legislation’. In my opinion.
Said volumes are spawned by directives,desired objectives, regulations, harmonisations, and a sheer muddle-headed and delusional belief in the perfectibility of human institutions in this far from perfect world. My opinion again, of course.
I just wish that I could think of a word which could encompass all the noble concepts of my last paragraph. Hang on, I just have! They are all ‘rules’ and everything would all be all right if we could just all agree all of them and dispense with those pesky laws. Allegedly.
Look at the top of Boadicea’s website. ‘Hic Leges Icenorum Observantur’.A classic example of the rule of law in a civilised blogging society. No rules but definite boundaries. It works for me.
Hello Mr. Mackie.
I defer to your expertise in the subject, but this is why I said the rule of law is a framework. My understanding is no one is above law and it is to protect citizens from arbitrary governance.
So yes, I agree with you. I understand Sipu to be against too much legislation which defines how we act in every conceivable situation. The Rule of Law is based on moral principles, or should be.
I disagree with your last paragraph though. This site does have rules, despite the fact they are enforced with a fair degree of latitude by our hostess, thankfully.
Henry David Thoreau seems to have been a good chap.
“They are all ‘rules’ and everything would all be all right if we could just all agree all of them and dispense with those pesky laws. Allegedly.”
JM, you are being disingenuous. Rules can be interpreted and altered according to the needs of the community. Laws are fixed and are not open to interpretation, or at least that is the intention. One size fits all.The concept of cruelty to animals, for example has a very different interpretation, depending on where you live. What is appropriate for a small farming community in Devon say, has little relevance to a urban slum dwellers of different ethnicity in Tower Hamlets. But the laws are the same, and in many cases, offensive to both communities, though for different reasons. And yet, both communities, generally speaking, seek to live harmoniously.
I do not say abandon the law completely. I merely say, lets have a lot less of it and encourage people to behave according to the customs of the community in which they live not by the laws created by lawyers and politicians with ulterior motives, who have little understanding and less interest with regards to what is appropriate.
Morally speaking, I have no inhibitions about withholding some of the tax claimed by the government. I object to the way much of the revenue is being spent. Illegal wars, foreign aid to corrupt regimes, social welfare for illegal immigrants, support for minority pressure groups, crappy educations systems etc. The fact that I do pay the tax I should is purely because of the risks associated with failing to do so. I would like to pay taxes because it is the right thing to do, just as it is right to buy your round of drinks in a pub or pay for your children’s education, or repay your mortgage and so forth.