Remove Blasphemy Law from Books?

[ThinkingSapien]

Some one in Oklahoma (Randy Grau) is considering having the anti-blasphemy laws removed from the books. He is a Christian and says that he doesn’t encourage the disparagement of another’s religious views he sees this move as something that will help support free speech. In theory, while the law is on the books, some one could say something about a non-Christian religion and be considered guilty of violating this law.

I was wondering how people in general would feel about this? Do you think that it’s a good or bad idea to remove these laws?

Here is one reference to the story: krmg.com/news/news/local/state-lawmaker-wants-get-rid-blasphemy-law/nSMdM/

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Some one in Oklahoma (Randy Grau) is considering having the anti-blasphemy laws removed from the books. He is a Christian and says that he doesn’t encourage the disparagement of another’s religious views he sees this move as something that will help support free speech. In theory, while the law is on the books, some one could say something about a non-Christian religion and be considered guilty of violating this law.

I was wondering how people in general would feel about this? Do you think that it’s a good or bad idea to remove these laws?

Here is one reference to the story: krmg.com/news/news/local/state-lawmaker-wants-get-rid-blasphemy-law/nSMdM/

I had to really force myself to read the article, given the author’s inability to fact-check (the “riots” in Libya were the act of al Qaeda and not due to the anti-Moslem video; so says the US government (now, 2+ weeks later) and many other governments (within 24 hours of the attack)).

The 2nd Commandment says that we shall not take the Lord’s name in vain, indicating blasphemy. In theory, I have little problems with a blasphemy law on the books. That said, the decision of whether a statement is blasphemous or not is definitely a tough one. For example, if a person says that Jesus was married, had children and was not the son of God, is that blasphemy or their opinion? The line between opinion and blasphemy appears to be very narrow, too narrow to, for all practical purposes, enforce.

Interesting question, though.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I had to really force myself to read the article, given the author’s inability to fact-check (the “riots” in Libya were the act of al Qaeda and not due to the anti-Moslem video; so says the US government (now, 2+ weeks later) and many other governments (within 24 hours of the attack)).

I happen to come across the proposal to change the law right after I finished reading an autobiography (titled “Joseph Anton”) from an author that was in hiding nine years because he wrote something that was considered blasphemous to Islam. While he came out okay there were 37 people that died in a fire at a hotel that was started by protesters, one of the translators for his book was stabbed, on of the editors was shot (and lived). Another one was stabbed, and so on. One of the odd things from the scenario was under foreign pressure a representative of Iran made a declaration that the country believes in free speech but then went onto say that the death warrant that was put on the author’s head was a matter of justice, not free speech.

I’ve seen laws/rules that seem to be written with the assumption that anything religious about the law will only be interpreted in the context of Christianity followed by some backtracking after it’s realized the law/rul has different implications for different religions.

 

[Mumbles140]

I think there is a huge difference between criticizing a religion and slandering a religion. I think anything that could be considered a violation of rights against a human in regards to slander and libel should also be the same against a religious entity. However, I don’t think it is a violation of one’s rights if I think that a certain religion believes something that I feel as wrong.

I would be in favor of maintaining the law if it would be enforced, but seeing as how he describes the process as cleaning ‘cleaning up antiquated laws’, my guess is that it has lay dormant for quite some time…

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I happen to come across the proposal to change the law right after I finished reading an autobiography (titled “Joseph Anton”) from an author that was in hiding nine years because he wrote something that was considered blasphemous to Islam. While he came out okay there were 37 people that died in a fire at a hotel that was started by protesters, one of the translators for his book was stabbed, on of the editors was shot (and lived). Another one was stabbed, and so on. One of the odd things from the scenario was under foreign pressure a representative of Iran made a declaration that the country believes in free speech but then went onto say that the death warrant that was put on the author’s head was a matter of justice, not free speech.

The Moslem idea of ‘justice’ has always been killing those opposed to their beliefs. I do not adhere to that, and if I were to truly support a blasphemy law, it would have a modest financial penalty as punishment–I looked up the Oklahoma law, it was a fine of either $1 and $100, depending on the severity, with possible 30 days jail for the latter fine.

I’ve seen laws/rules that seem to be written with the assumption that anything religious about the law will only be interpreted in the context of Christianity followed by some backtracking after it’s realized the law/rul has different implications for different religions.

I do not think that one could make a broad anti-blasphemy law that is specific to all religions, they (the religions) are too varying in what constitutes blasphemy, it just cannot be done.