Can God be mocked? Do blasphemy laws make sense?

[frantheman]

Given that there was an attempted murder on the Danish cartoonist Kurt
Westergaard last week, and that the subject has come up in the
"Muslims making you nervous" thread, I thought I'd open a new thread
to discuss this particular issue. Molly asked two questions:

On 4 Jan., 19:56, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is your question "can God be mocked" or should there be laws in any
> country that penalize citizens for doing so?
>

Two questions, really.
So I'll start this with Molly's usual question, what do YOU think?

Francis

[frantheman]

And here's today's leading article from "The Times":

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6974766.ece

[Don Johnson]

"I'm not sure what the definition of blasphemy is but I know it when I see it."

And a cartoon of a prophet with a bomb strapped to his head ain't it.
It comes down to letting a ruling body decide what the definition is
going to be. I'm not fond of that notion. I say let folks say and
print what they like and let the readers decide. I would be against
subsidizing such enterprises however.

IMHO, bowing to the threats and intimidation of a few crazy Islamists
is no way to run a country. I'd rather take the fight to them and
work openly as well as clandestinely to bring freedom to the countries
that support such oppression. Iran, in particular, seems to be
screaming for help.

-Don

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
>
>
>

[frantheman]

Let's not confine this to Islam, though. Monty Python's "Life of
Brian" was banned in many places and countries. And both Godard's "Je
vous salue, Marie" [Hail Mary] and Scorcese's "Last Temptation of
Christ" provoked vehement protests from many Christians, some of it
violent.

Personally, the most gratuitously pornographic film I've seen in
recent years is Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" (and I don't think
much of claims concerning its historical accuracy either). I wouldn't
dream of banning it, however.

Francis

[gabbydott]

If God cannot be bribed, which is what I learned, God can react very
mocky and therefore blasphemy laws like protection of our environment
make a lot of sense.

On 4 Jan., 20:13, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[fiddler]

>... threats and intimidation of a few crazy Islamists...

A few? Millions of people rioted in dozens of countries on this topic
of one small newspaper printing a small cartoon lightly mocking the
"prophet."

On Jan 4, 11:39 am, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I'm not sure what the definition of blasphemy is but I know it when I see it."
>
> And a cartoon of a prophet with a bomb strapped to his head ain't it.
> It comes down to letting a ruling body decide what the definition is
> going to be.  I'm not fond of that notion.  I say let folks say and
> print what they like and let the readers decide.  I would be against
> subsidizing such enterprises however.
>
> IMHO, bowing to the

> is no way to run a country.   I'd rather take the fight to them and
> work openly as well as clandestinely to bring freedom to the countries
> that support such oppression.  Iran, in particular, seems to be
> screaming for help.
>
> -Don
>

[fiddler]

Why should any person worship a god that:
1) ...cannot take any form of criticism? This does not matter whether
or not it is a "god" that cannot take the criticism or "just" it's
followers. If a person speaks for god, the god spoke(presumably a god
can stop someone if they misrepresent that god).
2) ...has a holy book condemning blasphemers to death or worse? Same
criticism as above if slightly modified. Please see what the
punishment for apostasy is in islam for an all too contemporary
explanation.
3) ...forbids humans to do exactly what humans were made to do?
Blasphemy is often raised here but so is sex, murder/war, and
scientific thought. This may seem loose but, too many of both
christian and muslim fundamentalist groups act as if "god said so" is
an answer to anything and everything. We are genetically driven to
explore, define, explain, think, redefine, travel, and otherwise push
the envelope of reality. Why would any god with the power to grant
this, then decide that we are not allowed to on pain of death and
damnation?

More if you'd like, but my views on religion and it's terrible
repercussions is not hidden. The sad and basic truth is this: religion
detests those that argue it simply because there is no corresponding
argument FOR it. Unless of course, one simply keeps saying "but those
aren't true (insert deity fan club) morals." Unfortunately, the same
ones that claim the "no true scotsman" fallacy, then try the "ad
populum" fallacy and say 1.6 billion can't be wrong.

[Vamadevananda]

Fran, before this thread goes to 100 posts, let me state that most
here will vouch for the arrangement that does not penalise anybody for
mocking God, or anything for that matter. Assuming of course that "
mocking " means mere audio visual expressions leading to something
more, and not mocking for its own sake ... to put down or insult the
object of mock.

When we insult, not just God, we are being ' negative,' which action
category leads to mental and subjective effects as well as punishing,
material and physical consequences from the global or local
environment about us, which includes 8 billion empowered mind - body -
wealth - weapons - rights equipped individual human beings with the
freedom to react.

[Lee]

Yes of course God can be mocked. It s very easy to mock that which
you have no belife in, I know that my oldest kid does it all the time.

Blasphemy laws make no sense at all to me.

[Don Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:15 PM, frantheman <franci...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Let's not confine this to Islam, though. Monty Python's "Life of
> Brian" was banned in many places and countries. And both Godard's "Je
> vous salue, Marie" [Hail Mary] and Scorcese's "Last Temptation of
> Christ" provoked vehement protests from many Christians, some of it
> violent.
>
> Personally, the most gratuitously pornographic film I've seen in
> recent years is Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" (and I don't think
> much of claims concerning its historical accuracy either). I wouldn't
> dream of banning it, however.
>
> Francis

Agreed. Artists and performers need freedom to express themselves.
Certain forms should have a Mature label and be kept off the street
corners but book burning and banning is what other countries do. Not
mine. I hope.

I heard enough about Gibson's snuff flick to avoid it. I read books
and go to the movies for enjoyment. Didn't sound like fun to me. I
liked Avatar. AKA Dances With Smurfs. That's entertainment.

-Don

[Ian Pollard]

I campaigned for the repeal of Britain's blasphemy law for years. For a long time letter writing and online petitions yielded only polite and ill-informed letters from politicians supporting the law's continued existence (even though it could only be applied to offence caused to the Church of England -- screw you Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Jedis, etc).

The law was abolished a couple of years ago (it hadn't been used for decades).

It's heartening to hear a good amount of common sense here. Does America maintain such a law?

Ian

[Lee]

The Passion of The Christ! What a good movie that was. I think
having watched it that was about as anti sematic as saying that the
Nazis killed millions of Jews in the concentration camps, is anti
nazi.

It ran along nicely with the biblical story of Jesus's toture and
ultimate death, I don't think it can anti anything to portray what
some see as true historical happenings. To tell a 'true' tale is to
relate what happend, if that is somehow bigoted then, I'm am indeed a
monkeys uncle.

On 5 Jan, 13:30, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Molly]

The Last Temptation of Christ is one of my favorite books, Kazantzakis
one of my favorite authors, I thought the movie was well done and
Willem Dafoe's best work. Freedom of religion (even atheism) is an
important human right. Freedom of speech must necessarily be
considered in the light of what is said and how it is received,
because what is spoken and what is heard are both implicit in the
freedom. Am I exercising freedom when I stand up on an airplane and
yell "bomb," or inciting riot? Clearly, what is spoken and how it is
received are both important in this case and defines the freedom.

I am no expert in developmental models, and refer folks to the two
most versatile that I know: Maslow's Hierarchy,
http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/maslow.htm
; and Spiral Dynamics http://www.spiraldynamics.org/aboutsd_overview.htm

I site these because I think that both models apply to individual and
group development. I think a country's decision to include blasphemy
laws is necessitated by its level of sociological development. The
need to restrict freedom and control worship, speech etc., indicates a
lack of cohesive government, and probably a more tribal stage of
development of groups within the country. Even in my beloved Ireland,
the backwards thinking and inability of men to consider the needs of
women, groups to consider the needs of other groups, and church (also
state) to consider the needs of families indicates a serious lack of
integrative function that sheds light on the blasphemy laws there.
The country has not emerged from war mentality. It will need to do
this before moving up the pyramid or spiral (or whatever model you
choose) and come close to the unity consciousness needed for a
government that provides these kinds of freedoms for groups and
individuals.

On Jan 5, 8:30 am, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Molly]

I don't think so, you might find further reference here:
http://xrdarabia.org/2009/10/21/us-agrees-to-blasphemy-laws/

[frantheman]

On 5 Jan., 15:25, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
 Even in my beloved Ireland,
> the backwards thinking and inability of men to consider the needs of
> women, groups to consider the needs of other groups, and church (also
> state) to consider the needs of families indicates a serious lack of
> integrative function that sheds light on the blasphemy laws there.
> The country has not emerged from war mentality.  It will need to do
> this before moving up the pyramid or spiral (or whatever model you
> choose) and come close to the unity consciousness needed for a
> government that provides these kinds of freedoms for groups and
> individuals.
>

The Irish situation is interesting, Molly, and, as an irish
expatriate, I agree with a lot of what you say. The blasphemy
definition and penalties are part of a more general new Defamation
Act, introduced into law a few months ago. They have yet to have a
concrete trial before the courts and, should this happen, it will
certainly be something which will go all the way to the Irish Supreme
Court, where the discussion of basic constitutional issues will be
very interesting (see the comments of one of my favourite [if
stylistically somewhat extreme!] Irish bloggers,
http://bocktherobber.com/2009/04/blasphemous-libel).

More generally, Ireland has been going through some interesting
developments - transformations - in the past quarter of a century.
When I left the country in 1984, it was going through a major
Kulturkampf, which, at the time, conservative Catholicism seemed to be
winning. The sea-change seemed to come in 1990 with the election of
Mary Robinson to the largely ceremonial post of president (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Robinson). There was an amazing awakening
of openness, self-confidence and "can-do" attitude.

Unfortunately, this coincided with global financial deregulation and
the Celtic tiger was born and nourished on the milk of the funny-money
markets. The results were massive boom, dream growth-rates,
practically full employment, comparatively massive immigration (into
Ireland!) from Eastern Europe and a grossly inflated property bubble.
Other results were the growth of an incredible greed mentality and an
overweening hubris. The crash of 2008 has hit very hard, some
commentators noting that Ireland has only been saved from Iceland's
bankruptcy fate by virtue of its membership of the EU and the Euro-
zone.

The gigantic economic hangover has been accompanied in the past year
by ghastly revelations of the extent of child-abuse by Catholic clergy
and the complicity of the entire Catholic Church organisation in
covering this up over decades. In the past few weeks four bishops have
resigned in disgrace. The Catholic establishment in Ireland has been
completely - possibly (hopefully?) terminally - discredited.

Ironically, perhaps, I see these two developments as a major chance
for Ireland. The basic resource of a young, well-educated, creative
population, willing to work hard remains. The forced learning curve in
2009 has been steep and may just (hopefully) bring my homeland to a
truer kind of maturity.

Francis

[Molly]

Bock the Robber is interesting. Here in the US, the new hate crimes
bill may cover the problems of blasphemy: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat1.htm

On Jan 5, 5:18 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Jan., 15:25, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Even in my beloved Ireland,> the backwards thinking and inability of men to consider the needs of
> > women, groups to consider the needs of other groups, and church (also
> > state) to consider the needs of families indicates a serious lack of
> > integrative function that sheds light on the blasphemy laws there.
> > The country has not emerged from war mentality.  It will need to do
> > this before moving up the pyramid or spiral (or whatever model you
> > choose) and come close to the unity consciousness needed for a
> > government that provides these kinds of freedoms for groups and
> > individuals.
>
> The Irish situation is interesting, Molly, and, as an irish
> expatriate, I agree with a lot of what you say. The blasphemy
> definition and penalties are part of a more general new Defamation
> Act, introduced into law a few months ago. They have yet to have a
> concrete trial before the courts and, should this happen, it will
> certainly be something which will go all the way to the Irish Supreme
> Court, where the discussion of basic constitutional issues will be
> very interesting (see the comments of one of my favourite [if

> stylistically somewhat extreme!] Irish bloggers,http://bocktherobber.com/2009/04/blasphemous-libel).

[iam deheretic]

Actually that is interesting, because I find a lot of the teaching of Islam are offensive to my beliefs. does that mean I can prosecute the clerics that are presenting these ideas?  but then again that would be against their beliefs.. hmm a catch 22
Allan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.

--
(
 )
I_D Allan

[Manfraco Frank the Elder]

Hi to all members of this group!
While I am following this tread I would like to say my personal views
if you don't mind.
I have to agree with Lee that God can be mocked, you just go around
and listen to the swear words that people utter when something does
not go their way. Having said that I have to add that perhaps God
could not be mocked because we cannot harm God in anyway, So God
cannot be mocked. We can only degrade ourselves by swearing and
mocking God, because in one way or another that degradation will come
back to us.
Blasphemy laws will be hard to legislate, because they would forbid
you to say what you want to say, therefore they would breach the
fundamental laws of freedom of speech. Then there is the difference
between different religions, nationalities and races; I think that any
blasphemy laws are going to be hard to achieve.
It is not easy to make a decision here, but anyhow I will be following
this tread with interest.
My regards to you all Manrfaco.

> > Francis- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

“…We can only degrade ourselves by swearing and mocking God, because
in one way or another that degradation will come back to us….” – MFTE

While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, would you like to unpack
how this comes back to us?...what mechanism is in place etc.?

On Jan 6, 1:28 pm, Manfraco Frank the Elder <manfr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[gwilli...@aol.com]

You Mr. Fiddler are perfectly correct. The core term in this discussion about God and dissent is in asking and answering the question: who is the final authority in one's life. To me this is a no brainer but a difficult one to accept. Each of us is our own final authority whether we like it or not. Since every experience necessarily involves an interpretation (conscious and unconscious meanings assigned to whatever we select as something to register - including the concept and perhaps experience of GOD- we are - if we think God is supreme - still assigning our final authority to the supreme Being. In so doing we are make a choice to project our final authority to him, her, or it. So be it... but it is still a choice no matter how much it will be argued that it is the way it is.

[gwilli...@aol.com]

Mock spelled backwards is kcom.

-----Original Message-----
From: ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com>
To: "Minds Eye" <mind...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 5:51 pm
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Can God be mocked? Do blasphemy laws make sense?

[iam deheretic]

HMMM

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:20 AM, <gwilli...@aol.com> wrote:

Mock spelled backwards is kcom.

Just what is kcom?
Allan
 

[Manfraco Frank the Elder]

The mechanism is there all the time if you look for it. Look, how many
friends you make while you are swearing? Or even afterwards when you
calm down?
I am sure nobody in their right mind look to you for inspiration? They
all will try to avoid you for a while. This is the mechanism in which
God in conjunction with Mother Nature abound.
Then there is also to keep in mind the spiritual side of all this, if
there is an afterlife and we are punished for our sins; what is the
advantage to mock God by swearing at him?

[fiddler]

If you worship a god that needs you to defend his honour...try looking
for a slightly less sensitive god.
If you worship a god that can't take criticism...try looking for a
slightly less sensitive god.
If you worship a god that hates his own creation so much that he MUST
have unswerving obedience...try looking for a slightly less sensitive
god.
If you worship a god that is so unable to understand the human need to
criticize...try looking for a slightly less sensitive god.
If you worship a god that allows such criticism in order to have
people to send to hell...try looking for a slightly less sensitive
god.

On Jan 4, 11:13 am, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[Lee]

Hahahah!

Now I'm certian you have an 'irrational' dislike for religion,
Christianity first and foremost I guess.

Try this on: Replace all mention of God in your statements with the
word spouse. And all instances of the word worship with love. You
should notice that it changes very much the 'flavour' of your words.
For instance if you truely love your spoue then of course you would
never think of looking for another becuase of a few piddling faults,
as you realise that all relationships need to be worked on.

[fiddler]

Entirely different concepts.

[Lee]

Are they really?

If you love a woman that needs you to defend her honour...try looking
for a slightly less sensitive woman.

You say they are differant concepts, I disagree, but then I am a
theist and so I know what God means to me.

As an Athiest can you say that you are privy to the same feelings
towards God that I am?

Just out of interest would you actualy look for a differant partner if
your partner looked towards you to protect their honour?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[fiddler]

Do you really need the concept of omnipotence explained? A woman is
simply another fallible human. Different concepts, there is no
parallel to be drawn.

[Lee]

Then you failt to understand my gist mate.

Man, woman, God, son, daughter or friend, the essance of what I am
talking about is love.

Because of love we humans forgive any failings we percive in our loved
ones.

So even if what you say is true (and it is not BTW) of course I can
still love a God that demands that I defend his honour.

[fiddler]

You state that you forgive perceived failings, do you perceive
failings in your god? If god has power, he can defend himself far more
adequately than you can. If you love a woman that becomes upset when
people speak harshly to her for her own actions, words, and writings,
do you then follow her around striking back at those that do not
appreciate her? Or a better analogy, if this woman has a fan club that
consistently assaults anyone who differs or disagrees, is it your job
to defend her when she can simply say that this fan club does not
speak for her?

[Lee]

Let me answer your questions Fiddler.

No I percive no fault nor failings in God.

I love my wife but I would never fight her fights for her, unless of
course she was outnumbered or was fighting a bloke. Responsibilty for
your own actions is a big thing for me.

The last question is a bloody good one.

I deplore violence and would never defend those who start without very
good reason. Although I do deplore it I also see it as very handy
tool to use, in the correct circumstances, and of course sometimes you
just have to use it.
If this group is responsible for attacking those who simply disgree
with them, then I condem such actions. Further I would question the
understanding and interpretation of 'this womans' words, easpiclay if
it was my belife that 'this woman' preaches love, any actions contrary
to such love must be because of misguided people.

[Pat]

On 6 Jan, 22:51, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “…We can only degrade ourselves by swearing and mocking God, because
> in one way or another that degradation will come back to us….” – MFTE
>
> While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, would you like to unpack
> how this comes back to us?...what mechanism is in place etc.?
>

Equal and opposite reaction. Newton's 3rd Law of motion. Karma.
You get what you give. That kind of thing. If there is only One,
then One can only harm Oneself if any harm, whatsoever, is done. But,
of course, The One is both harmer and harmed. This is, most likely,
the reason for guiding against it. After all, what you do is what you
make God do in your name. So, what would you have God do in your
name? This is the question we must ask ourselves at all times. And,
any amount of considered thought (IMO) would reveal that blasphemy
should be avoided, as it is an action over which we (seemingly, due to
not having access to the future) have some amount of control in that
we have the time to think to NOT blaspheme. The bottom line in my
theory is that it's a form of vanity and any form of vanity makes a
separation between the individual and The One. That 'seeming'
separation or anything that leads to it should be avoided and all the
negative commandments of 'The 10 Commandments' can be boiled down to
vanity. The 2 positive commandments form the links to the past
(honouring parents) and the future (remembering the Sabbath).