Blasphemy Day International 2009

Comment

Comment by Rob Whelan on September 30, 2009 at 1:09pm

I'm in favor -- not because I think this is the "solution" to the silencing power of religion, but because we need it *all*. We need loud, obnoxious people who wake people up and upset them (and make them wonder why these atheists get so riled up), we need quieter peacemakers who present a more reasonable approach (but also who won't budge on the basic requirements of a logical approach to religion), we need people who just try to nudge the line of acceptance of atheism just a little bit further without ruffling any feathers.

Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on July 20, 2009 at 10:37pm

BTW, what is the punishment for blaspheming in Ireland? And does it cover all gods, or only the dominant Catholic one? If someone blasphemes against Zeus or Aphrodite is that counted? What about Allah and Shiva? If not, then some Irish people should go around blaspheming these gods to make the point that this is religious intolerance in Irish disguise.

Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on July 20, 2009 at 10:35pm

Oh dear. That's serious. It's spread beyond the Muslim countries, then.

Comment by Lance Bush on July 19, 2009 at 11:17pm

What's obnoxious about blasphemy? This is a GREAT idea, and a very, very important one, given that blasphemy was just made illegal in Ireland.

Comment by Ken Grisnak on April 6, 2009 at 6:11am

Blasphemy Day '09 is a gØd damn good idea!

Comment by Paul Pritchard on March 3, 2009 at 11:24am

I think you hit the nail on the head with your first definition, Jim. Simply by expressing a non-religious belief, some people will decide to accuse you of blasphemy. If it was just words, it wouldn't matter. But it isn't.

In Pakistan, a Christian and rights activist is facing prosecution for blasphemy for sendinf a text message. It looks like he might have been framed.

In Iran, accusations of blasphemy are being used to silence critics of the government.

At the UN, Islamic states are trying to push through a binding anti-blasphemy resolution which would make their regiemes immune from criticism.

Going back further, In Britain we saw BBC executives being threatened at their homes when the netweork decided to screen Jerry Springer the Opera. In this case, a tiny Christian group decided that the show was blasphemous and that they should have the right to go around threatening people.

In Holland, a filmmaker was stabbed to death after committing the apparently unforgivable blasphemy of suggesting that Muslim women might be entitled to the same human rights that the rest of us enjoy.

And in Britain again, a play written by a Sikh writer was forced to close down after a mob of angry Sikhs decided that the play - which they hadn't seen - must be blasphemous, and rioted.

Blasphemy has a very pernicious effect on speech, not only because it is very easy to define anything inconvenient as being blasphemous but also because a minority of people will always be willing to adopt a position of moral outrage which they will then use to justify completely abhorrent acts of violence.

As for irreverent behaviour and ridicule. There has been a long tradition of satirists who have used humour to poke fun at those in power and to hightlight the emptiness of the positions of those who would like to exert power. We have no problem with people mocking political ideas or economic ideas. So what makes religious ideas so special that we should allow them to ride roughshod over our rights?

And, as a final point, if people become violent or start making threats, it's because they decided to, We should not be trying to protect a violent and intolerant minority from having to take responsibility for their own actions.

Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on March 3, 2009 at 12:36am

This is a quote from an article by Michael Shirmer (Skeptics) in August 2007

It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”
...The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious­ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart­in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong­ful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

Comment by Jcpkanaloa on March 2, 2009 at 1:27pm

From Random House Webster's College Dictionary (copyright 1991): Blasphemy ... 1. impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things. 2. an act of cursing or reviling God. 3. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred or estimable.

My stating my belief that god does not exist is blasphemy to some. Saying that the virgin mother was no virgin is blasphemy to some. These statements are in keeping with first part of definition one, and I have no problem with that in so far as I should have the right to express myself.

But once we move into the other two definitions (and the second part of definition one) we really seem to be deliberately courting abusive and negative acts directed at others. As an atheist, my cursing god (definition two) is nonsensical and blasphemy to some. Also, as an atheist, my urinating on an altar or cross (definition three) is nonsensical and blasphemy to some. So, performing those actions must be for some other purpose; like inciting a riot during a church service.

As long as we are talking about the ability to openly state an opinion on or about religion, which in and of itself is by definition blasphemy to some, I support the idea; but anything else seems to smack of an inherent intent to demean others.

With all that in mind, I'm going to have to agree with Rosemary and Buffy. The choice of words is poor and likely to incite something other than free speech.

Comment by Paul Pritchard on March 2, 2009 at 1:19pm

So you are seriously telling me that you support the right of a small minority of religious bigots to close down any discussion that doesn't suit them by declaring an opinion is blasphemous and throwing around a few threats?

You really are a silly, silly woman.

Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on March 1, 2009 at 6:35pm

Ignoring that kind of thing is hard work. Few people can keep it up.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page