Should blasphemy be a criminal offence?

[MH84]

I personally would have no problems with it. I mean it is a criminal offence to slander or defame someone.

Do you think it would be a limit on free speech? If you do, don’t you think the benefits of stopping people from doing so, would outweigh the costs?

Blasphemy is illegal in Muslim countries under Sharia law isnt it?

 

[JReducation]

I personally would have no problems with it. I mean it is a criminal offence to slander or defame someone.

Do you think it would be a limit on free speech? If you do, don’t you think the benefits of stopping people from doing so, would outweigh the costs?

Blasphemy is illegal in Muslim countries under Sharia law isnt it?

An interesting concept, but not practical or fair. Jews consider it blasphemy to write G O D. That’s why they write G-d.

Christian’s consider it blasphemy to use the name of Jesus Christ in vain. To Jews and Muslims it doesn’t have that significance.

Muslims consider it blasphemy to draw charicatures of Muhammed.

Whose definition of blaspheny should we adopt? We also have a law that says the that the state shall not adopt an official religion. Even in nations that have an official religion, such as Israel and the UK, they do not criminalize blasphemy, because they have people of many faiths.

I believe that respect and good manners should be the rule for every human being and those who are entrusted with the formation of the young, esepcially parents and teachers, should teach such respect and appropriate decorum.

The Catholic Church would be the first to denounce a theocratic state, too dangerous.

 

[LSK]

I agree - too slippery a slope on this one. My answer is no.

 

[wow]

A judge has already been appointed and he will judge the living and the dead.

 

[MH84]

A judge has already been appointed and he will judge the living and the dead.

Im talking about here on earth as being part of secular legal systems.

Isnt the law supposed to be for the common good? I guess the problem with that is that not everyone believes in God or in His existence.

If I was to say something abusive about a person’s gender or ethinicity (not the actual person) I still could be guilty of a personal attak on that person. Or is that wrong? If not, how come that cannot apply in the case of blasphemy?

 

[MH84]

A judge has already been appointed and he will judge the living and the dead.

Btw, just quickly. You are talking about Jesus, right? How is it that God was “appointed” as judge? Who else could be “appointed”?

 

[beckycmarie]

I personally would have no problems with it. I mean it is a criminal offence to slander or defame someone.

Do you think it would be a limit on free speech? If you do, don’t you think the benefits of stopping people from doing so, would outweigh the costs?

Blasphemy is illegal in Muslim countries under Sharia law isnt it?

I think this is a terrible idea for multiple reasons.

How could the government determine what is blasphemy and keep a separation of church and state? Which religion gets to determine what is blasphemy? One of them or all of them? I think that separation is necessary if we are to have the freedom of practicing our faith without intrusion by the government.

Just look to the Muslim countries for reasons why theocracies are a bad idea. Teachers being sentenced to whippings for naming a teddy bear “Mohammed.”

Making blasphemy a crime punishable by law is a slippery slope to “thoughtcrime.” We are already headed in that direction with the way homosexuals want to make it a hate crime for churches to preach against homosexuality. This is already happening in Europe.

 

[wow]

Blasphemy to the best of my knowledge is the rejection of God until you die. If we thought people were on this path and persecuted them, I think it would lessen the chance the person would be redeemed.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

No, no, no and no.

It is a very slippery slope, eventually everything will be considered a blasphemy.

 

[MH84]

Since a couple here seem to think to would lead to a slippery slope, anyone care to offer an example so I understand what you mean?

 

[beckycmarie]

Since a couple here seem to think to would lead to a slippery slope, anyone care to offer an example so I understand what you mean?

I gave a couple examples in my post.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Since a couple here seem to think to would lead to a slippery slope, anyone care to offer an example so I understand what you mean?

It comes down to rule interpretation and what is actually “blasphemy”. Given enough time you get enough people who take a really hard stance and usually end up being the enforcers. This means a very, very, very narrow interpretation which eventually includes almost anything. Usually when it gets to this stage there are extreme over the top punishments for even one small deviation from the “official” interpretation. The human weakness for power grows exponentially here. Keeping personal power becomes more important than the rules.

 

[JReducation]

The problem with this proposal is that the State would have to adopt an official religion. We have already seen that in those nations where the State has an official religion there are abuses or eventually the religion is ignored, because enforcement becomes impossible.

Islam: those nations where Islam is the official religion of the State have serious problems in the area of human rights. Also, in those states, the government only protects the rights of Islam, Christians and others have no religious rights in these nations.

Judaism: in Israel Judaism is the State religion. To protect Judaism they have had to pass laws that make us cringe. For example, an Israeli Christian cannot hold public office. Israel does a fairly good job protecting the holy sites of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. They also allow Christians and Muslims to worship. But they do not allow Israeli Christians and Muslims to participate in public affairs. In addition, people like me, lose our right to participate in public affairs.

I was born Jewish and converted to Catholicism. This makes me a heretic. This is interesting; because I’m still a Jew, a Catholic Jew, but a Jew nonetheless. Even if you become an atheist, you’re a Jew because you were born to a Jewish mother. It’s like being Irish Catholic and Irish. The point is that the State treats you as a heretic if you convert, but if you’re an atheist, you’re still in good standing with the State, because you have not defected from the faith. You never had faith to begin with.

Anglicanism: the UK has an official state religion. In the end, they have had to ignore their own rules. There was no way the nation was going to progress unless they accepted Hinduism in India, Catholicism in their American colonies and Islam in Palestine when they held the reigns. At the same time, the Prime Minister must belong to the Church of England, at least nominally. Tony Blair came out of the Catholic closet after he left office.

I don’t see any way that the State can define blasphemy unless it adopts a state religion. We know that the Catholic Church will not accept being the official religion of the USA. No other religion has written and preached on freedom of religion for everyone as has the Catholic Church. I don’t believe there will be much support on this idea from that corner. I could be wrong.

 

[Newbie2]

Since a couple here seem to think to would lead to a slippery slope, anyone care to offer an example so I understand what you mean?

Sure. Some radical fundamentalist gets in charge of enforcement. A priest that I know laughs at a joke. “Oh, Lordy” he says. Off to jail he goes.

A new administration gets elected, who worships “God” in the mothership. We who don’t recognize this “God” and blasphemously worship Jesus get jailed.

Etc.

I was born Jewish and converted to Catholicism. This makes me a heretic.
.

(Good response to the OP, BTW)

You mean a heretic to Judiasm, right?

 

[wow]

Excellent examples JReducation.

There are some evangelicals that think Catholics blaspheme by praying through Mary. The slope just got real slippery…

 

[hasikelee]

No, I don’t think so.

I do think more invdividuals and organisations related to the Catholic church should seek legal recourse for libel, slander and defamation, along with persecution, harassment, intolerance, etc.

How come so many other groups get to go willy nilly about their poor rights and beliefs being trodded upon, but no one ever wants to make a fuss about Judeo-Christian issues?

For example, our city newpaper ran an article on Mardi Gras. The 2nd paragraph quoted the Mardi Gras director or assistant saying *We ask the Pope every year to move Ash Wednesday and he never listens to us. The church refuses to change the date. (*I am saying this from memory, one or two words may be misplaced)

Can you imagine if a mainline paper said this about changing Hannukah, or the festival of lights? They’d be sued out of business!

 

[JReducation]

Sure. Some radical fundamentalist gets in charge of enforcement. A priest that I know laughs at a joke. “Oh, Lordy” he says. Off to jail he goes.

A new administration gets elected, who worships “God” in the mothership. We who don’t recognize this “God” and blasphemously worship Jesus get jailed. Etc.

(Good response to the OP, BTW)

You mean a heretic to Judiasm, right?

Now that’s an interesting question. The short answer is yes. Any Jew who embraces another religion is a heretic. You can be a non-believer, but you cannot convert to another faith.

There is the Catholic side of this question. Catholicism defines heretics as those who defect from the Catholic faith, not those who are born in other faiths or philosophies. For example, a Muslim or Jew does not fit the Catholic definition heretic. Let’s not forget that the Catholic Church has begun to steer away from the term heretic and uses terms that identify error without judging people.

That being said, the Catholic Church respects the Jewish use of the term heretic. It understands that it is heresy for a Jew to defect from Judaism. That being said, the term does not come loaded with guilt and sin. The term is used very objectively by Catholic and Jews. A heretic is a defector, not a condemned sinner. Neither Judaism nor Catholicism judges and condemns people. They condemn what they see as evil and error.

While there is an on-going dialogue between the Catholic Church and Judaism, the Catholic Church’s policy has been hands-off proselytizing Jews and Muslims. A Jew or Muslim who wants to convert must come independently. There are no campaigns to evangelize Jews, Muslims or Eastern Orthodox Christians. The Church believes and teaches that the one true God has revealed himself to these people and that God is working to bring them into communion with the Catholic Church.

The Church’s traditional position has been to live and work among them witnessing to the Gospel by their lives and their ministry. This brings us back to the OP. Regardless of the fact that Jews and Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus, which in the Christian mind is blasphemy, the Church’s position is to understand their perspective and to bring them to Jesus by witness, not force or proselytizing. I think Catholics learned that wielding political power was not such a good idea when Europe defected from Catholicism. In Africa and South America, Catholicism is flourishing without legal or political intervention.

 

[JReducation]

No, I don’t think so.

For example, our city newpaper ran an article on Mardi Gras. The 2nd paragraph quoted the Mardi Gras director or assistant saying *We ask the Pope every year to move Ash Wednesday and he never listens to us. The church refuses to change the date. (*I am saying this from memory, one or two words may be misplaced)

Can you imagine if a mainline paper said this about changing Hannukah, or the festival of lights? They’d be sued out of business!

I see nothing wrong with this request. He asked and the Pope didn’t buy into it. He was saying anything against Ash Wed.

By the way, did you know that the Bishop has the authority to move Ash Wed and that in some diocese Lent begins the Sunday after Ash Wed, that’s when they distribute ashes. This was an option that John Paul II gave to bishops many years ago.

It is used more in areas where there is a shortage of priests. In some places a priest has to take care of more than one parish. He has to travel long distances between them. What they do is move holy days arond. I remember being in South America where the priest came every other Sunday for mass.

I don’t see how this request is offensive. I think it’s silly.

 

[hasikelee]

I see nothing wrong with this request. He asked and the Pope didn’t buy into it. He was saying anything against Ash Wed.

By the way, did you know that the Bishop has the authority to move Ash Wed and that in some diocese Lent begins the Sunday after Ash Wed, that’s when they distribute ashes. This was an option that John Paul II gave to bishops many years ago.

It is used more in areas where there is a shortage of priests. In some places a priest has to take care of more than one parish. He has to travel long distances between them. What they do is move holy days arond. I remember being in South America where the priest came every other Sunday for mass.

I don’t see how this request is offensive. I think it’s silly.

I’m sorry, I believe in the context of the article that you would notice the offensive theme. This was not a polite request to move the date, this was a public mocking of our religious observances. The idea was to move it to summer so they could drink outdoors.

 

[JReducation]

I’m sorry, I believe in the context of the article that you would notice the offensive theme. This was not a polite request to move the date, this was a public mocking of our religious observances. The idea was to move it to summer so they could drink outdoors.

I didn’t see the article. I was responding as it was posted on the thread, that they had asked to move the holy day. That’s why I wasn’t ruffled by it. The poster who mentioned it didn’t say anything about mokcing or making an unreasonable request like moving the entire lenten season.

Obviously, that’s a ludicrous request. I’m not sure it’s blasphemous, but it is idiotic.