Should blasphemy be a criminal offence?

[hasikelee]

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.

No, I understand, that’s why I was saying sorry. It was more of a rhetorical post, not meant to be accurate or of a study.

I just subside in a very politically correct culture and I find it ridiculous how someone can get socially ostracized, fined, harassed, etc but not over Judeo-Christian and especially Catholic issues.

 

[Valke2]

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

point of parlimentary proceduce. It is not blasphemy to write God. Some Jews out of respect, don’t spell out God. But to do so violates no commandment under Jewish law.

As to the original question, why not just rejoin our tribe, convert to Judaism and be bound by the laws which, among other things, prohibit blasphemy? Your mikva awaits.

 

[JReducation]

point of parlimentary proceduce. It is not blasphemy to write God. Some Jews out of respect, don’t spell out God. But to do so violates no commandment under Jewish law.

Your point is correct. There is no law regarding this matter. Having grown up with a very devout Sephardi grandmother this practice was always considered very disrespectful.

The question that I’m trying to raise is whose moral pinciples do we adopt, if we make blasphemy a punishable crime?

We’ve seen how much damage and harm such practices do to innocent people.

Personally, I see no need for such legislation if we all learned good manners and taught them to our children. Don’t you agree?

As to the original question, why not just rejoin our tribe, convert to Judaism and be bound by the laws which, among other things, prohibit blasphemy? Your mikva awaits.

I was born and raised Sephardim. I became a Catholic four years ago. This is not to say that I don’t dearly love my Jewish family, our customs, culture and heritage.

To make a long story short, my deceased wife was Catholic. Our families are the best of friends and most supportive of each other, especially after my wife’s death. There is a close bond between them. I have always felt welcome by both families. My own conversion was based on logic, not disgruntlement with Judaism.

I don’t mean you, but some people always expect to hear me express some kind of rejection of Judaism and are surprised when I say that I have nothing negative to report. The politics of Israel don’t ener into this equation. I’m speaking about the Jewish faith and culture. My Jewish roots are very special to me and have shed a great deal of light on my understanding of Catholicism.

This takes me back to the OP. If we learned to behave appropriately and taught our children, we would not have this question on the table. I must be very fortunate. I have Catholic in-laws at our seder and Jewish brothers who attended my children’s baptism, first communion and confirmation. This is possible because people understand the meaning of respect, manners and appropriate language, capped with kindness. Blasphemy is not an issue when people know how to behave appropriately.

JR

 

[valient_Lucy]

No. How would we even enforce such a law? Public blasphemy in the media would be easy, but how about blasphemy in day to day life? Should we put audio recorders in every room in every house? Should we employ secret undercover “blasphemy police” to spy on the average Joe?

I was at the DMZ (the border between North and South Korea) yesterday. If I wanted to live in a country where I could be thrown into prison (or killed) for saying something that the government found offensive, I could have just ran across the DMZ (dodging the 700,000 land mines obviously) and lived under the benevolent gaze of The General, Kim Jung Il, with no internet or cable access, sweeping the ground underneath the statues of his father, Kim Il Sung, and singing songs about The General. “Oh Kim Jung Il! You’re so wonderful. You’re so awesome. And you’re so hot!”

 

[JReducation]

One thing that we have to remember is that Catholicism is an ardent protector of freedom speech. The Church may not like everything people say, but it is does not support oppressing people for opening their mouths.

The Church’s style to is draw people in through reason enlightened by faith. In ths case the most applicable legislation has already been written into the Torah and the hearts of men. You treat God and man with justice and charity. Whenever you open your mouth to utter a blasphemy you violate these fundamental precepts.

I don’t understand why we need civil legislation to enforce what parents should be teaching in the home. I was raised Jewish, married a Catholic and raised Catholic children. Four years ago I became Catholic.

Having lived in a Judeo-Catholic family I learned and taught my children respect. My three rules at home are very simple:

1. You can think it, but don’t say it unless its for the common good.
2. Learn how to play the game (Which the same as attracting more flies with honey than vinegar).
3. Treat people with respect.

 

[MH84]

One thing that we have to remember is that Catholicism is an ardent protector of freedom speech. The Church may not like everything people say, but it is does not support oppressing people for opening their mouths.

I don’t think this is fully accurate. What about the Inquisitions and handing over of heretics to the States for punishment?

Im not saying that the Church was wrong in condemning the view of heretics, but unless someone would prove otherwise, I can’t see how she is the protector of freedom of speech.

 

[drafdog]

Since blasphemy is a religious offence, and since in the US we cannot enact a law regarding religious belief, such a law cannot be enacted in the US. Other countries may not be limited in such a fashion, but here it cannot happen.

Matthew

 

[CathCentrist]

These type of being for certain laws re: religion prove to me and quite disturbingly that if given the chance, far too many christians/catholics would be all for a gov based on theocracy.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think this is fully accurate. What about the Inquisitions and handing over of heretics to the States for punishment?

Im not saying that the Church was wrong in condemning the view of heretics, but unless someone would prove otherwise, I can’t see how she is the protector of freedom of speech.

It is true that this is part of our history, a part that we’re not very proud of, just like slavery is part of history.

That being said, observe how the Church has gone to great lengths to correct this.

If you read “Dignitatis Humanae” promulgated by Paul VI in 1965 he clearly emphasises two things. Human beings have the right to freedom of religion, including the right to change from one religion to another. The State has the obligation to protect this freedom. Any form of religious coercion on the part of the State is inmmoral. If the State undertakes the task of punishing people for what it considers blasphemy, this amounts to coercion. Faith is to be freely embraced, not imposed.

Parr 2236 of the CCC the concludes with a warning that regulations and measures that we take do not give in to the temptation to setting personal interest against that of the community.

What we see is a more mature Church than we did 500 years ago. This stands to reason. Even the Church has to grow up. Power struggles are for children, not rational adults.

Finally, the Church has deposited a great deal of confidence and moral duty on the family, which was not the case 500 years ago. When it comes to such issues, it is the domestic church who has the responsibility to form the young to honour God’s name and all that is holy, not the State. The State has to make it possible for families to execute their mission.

 

[chosen_people]

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.
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.
.

Would that be the Arab Christian and Muslim members of parliament (including a cabinet member) or the Arab Muslim and Christian Judges up to and including the Supreme Court or the many Arab Christian and Muslim civil servants or the Arab Christian and Muslim directors of public government companies that according to you are not allowed by law to participate in public affairs in Israel?

 

[JReducation]

Would that be the Arab Christian and Muslim members of parliament (including a cabinet member) or the Arab Muslim and Christian Judges up to and including the Supreme Court or the many Arab Christian and Muslim civil servants or the Arab Christian and Muslim directors of public government companies that according to you are not allowed by law to participate in public affairs in Israel?

Correct me if I’m wrong. But the last I had heard the offices of Prime Minister and President were open only to Jewish Israelis. As I understand it, it seems that much of it has to do with the influence that religious parties have on the voters. What I am not sure is how much of this influence currently part of civil law.

Also, Jews who converted to Christianity were not allowed to enter Israel as Israeli citizens unde the Law of Return. The had to apply for citizenship. For example, the famouse case of Brother Daniel, a Jewish man who became a Catholic and later a monk.

I realize that many things have changed in Israel over the years and I do not keep up with internal politics as much as I would like to. I’m always interested in knowing and learning what is going on in that sphere.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

JR

 

[Valke2]

The only requirement for Prime Minister that I’m aware of is that he has to be a member of the Knesset and a citizen of Israel. It is not required that he be Jewish.

 

[chosen_people]

Correct me if I’m wrong. But the last I had heard the offices of Prime Minister and President were open only to Jewish Israelis. As I understand it, it seems that much of it has to do with the influence that religious parties have on the voters. What I am not sure is how much of this influence currently part of civil law.

Also, Jews who converted to Christianity were not allowed to enter Israel as Israeli citizens unde the Law of Return. The had to apply for citizenship. For example, the famouse case of Brother Daniel, a Jewish man who became a Catholic and later a monk.

I realize that many things have changed in Israel over the years and I do not keep up with internal politics as much as I would like to. I’m always interested in knowing and learning what is going on in that sphere.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

JR

Any Israeli if he so wishes may chose to believe and belong to any religion he or she wishes and of course that has no bearing on either his citizenship or his rights to equality under law or his ability to hold public office including becoming primeminister or president. “The law of return” automatically grants Israeli citizenship if applied for to any Jew. The law is extremely broad based as to the definition of “Jew” and infact was a reaction to the Nazi definiton which defined as Jewish anyone who had a single Jewish grandparent. The law itself is a reaction to the holocaust making Israel a safe haven for any Jew seeking sanctuary. In the Father Daniel case before the Supreme Court some years ago (If memory serves me the case is from the 1970’s) the Jewish born Father Daniel despite his conversion and becoming a priest claimed the right of citizenship under the Law of Return as a Jew. The court held that as Father Daniel had clearly adopted another religion even becoming a priest he could not claim to be a “Jew” under the law of return. This of course did not mean that he, or any other person of any religion, is not eligable for Israeli citizenship or permanent residency status under general guidelines and regulations.

 

[Hastrman]

It is true that this is part of our history, a part that we’re not very proud of, just like slavery is part of history.

That being said, observe how the Church has gone to great lengths to correct this.

What we see is a more mature Church than we did 500 years ago. This stands to reason. Even the Church has to grow up. Power struggles are for children, not rational adults.

Well first off the only Inquisition the Church was involved in was 700 years ago; she’s not responsible for what the Spanish did without permission and over continued protest from Rome.

But as to not being proud of the other inquisitions, speak for yourself. I’m very proud of the Albigensian Inquisition being the first to grant the right of grace period (during the first two weeks of an investigation you couldn’t be charged with a crime if you confessed), the right to have your known enemies’ testimony inadmissable, forbidding the use of torture as a punishment (keeping it as an interrogation technique, but not bad for the 13th century–which was much milder than later eras anyway, torture-wise), and requiring that any coerced confessions be repeated in the certified absence of coercion. I’m also proud it destroyed an intensely evil, anti-human cult called the Cathars.

And power struggles are for anyone who doesn’t want to be powerless–seems a rational goal to me, and hardly childish. But then I don’t suffer from the delusion that humans are capable of progress in their moral lives.

As to the original topic, I don’t think blasphemy in general ought to be a criminal offense, but I do think hate speech against religions, which includes intentional blasphemy, ought to be subject to civil action at least.

 

[Hastrman]

But then I don’t suffer from the delusion that humans are capable of progress in their moral lives.

I ought to have said, “that humans are capable of progressing morally, as a species.”

Not, that is, that I doubt that humans are individually capable of becoming better; but that any generation will be any better than another.

 

[JReducation]

There are two separate discussions here. One is outside the scope of this thread.

While it may be true that the Israeli Constitution allows for the election of any Israeli citizen to the office of Prime Minister and President, in practice I doubt that this will happen in the near future. One can never say “never”. The religious parties have a strong influence, even though they may be small, in the political life of the nation. There are still questions about Rabin’s assassination. Some feel that he was assassinated because he “yielded too much to the Palestinians” and in their eyes this was inconsistent with the idea of a Jewish State.

At the risk of having my grandfather come back to haunt me, I favour a Democratic Jewish State. I say at “the risk” because my grandfather and my mother, though Jewish, were very much against the creation of Israel. The strongly believed that it was not meant to be and that it was being pushed by the Americans and the British, rather than by God. That’s why my grandfather immigrated to America and broke all ties with is brothers who migrated to Haiffa. When Yishak Rabin was assassinated my mother said, “It’s not going to happen. There are too many fundamentalists on both sides (Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews). Personally, I would like to see it work.

As to the Law of Return, I do believe that the law needed to be reviewed. Many Jewish converts to Christianity were killed by the Nazis and others, because they were Jewish, regardless of their faith. Edith Stein is one example that comes to mind. She was a Carmelite nun who was sent to the concentration camps because of her Jewish heritage. Could people like her have been spared by the Law of Return? It’s too late to answer that. But it’s a legitimate question. In the case of Brother Daniel, he was granted Israeli citizenship, as a naturalized citizen.

Now, getting back to the thread, the idea of empowering the State with the authority to rule on what is blasphemy is a slippery slope. Any form of language that instigates disorderly conduct or hate crimes should have consequences, but it has to be proven. You can’t arbitrarily decide that this is hateful because it offends you. A person who shouts out G-d*&(&^ in the middle of a mall is not necessarily instigating a riot. Is it blasphemy? For the believer it is. Does the believer have the right to throttle him? I don’t think so.

I continue to subscribe to my position. Parents and educators have to teach children what is appropriate and what is not. I know that my children have been taught this from childhood and have received serious consequences when they slip up. Today, they are young adults and people always comment on how polite and sensitive they are to the feelings of others, including religious sensitivity.

Once, my Catholic son was refusing to attend the Passover Seder at my parents’ home. He gave the usual arguments that kids give when they don’t want to do something and made some inappropriate remarks. I turned around and said, “You’re going. No one is asking if you want to go. These are your grandparents and you owe them this much. It’s also part of your heritage, because this is your family. If you ever make such disrespectful remarks again, you’re in serious trouble. End of story.” He never debated the point again.

 

[Valke2]

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.

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.

Where did you get this from? I just read the Constitution and the only requirement for public office is that one be a citizen. I think you are mistaken.

 

[Valke2]

There are two separate discussions here. One is outside the scope of this thread.

While it may be true that the Israeli Constitution allows for the election of any Israeli citizen to the office of Prime Minister and President, in practice I doubt that this will happen in the near future. One can never say “never”. The religious parties have a strong influence, even though they may be small, in the political life of the nation. There are still questions about Rabin’s assassination. Some feel that he was assassinated because he “yielded too much to the Palestinians” and in their eyes this was inconsistent with the idea of a Jewish State.

At the risk of having my grandfather come back to haunt me, I favour a Democratic Jewish State. I say at “the risk” because my grandfather and my mother, though Jewish, were very much against the creation of Israel. The strongly believed that it was not meant to be and that it was being pushed by the Americans and the British, rather than by God. That’s why my grandfather immigrated to America and broke all ties with is brothers who migrated to Haiffa. When Yishak Rabin was assassinated my mother said, “It’s not going to happen. There are too many fundamentalists on both sides (Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews). Personally, I would like to see it work.

As to the Law of Return, I do believe that the law needed to be reviewed. Many Jewish converts to Christianity were killed by the Nazis and others, because they were Jewish, regardless of their faith. Edith Stein is one example that comes to mind. She was a Carmelite nun who was sent to the concentration camps because of her Jewish heritage. Could people like her have been spared by the Law of Return? It’s too late to answer that. But it’s a legitimate question. In the case of Brother Daniel, he was granted Israeli citizenship, as a naturalized citizen.

It is not a legitiamte question. When do you think Israel became a state and when do you think the Law of Return was first instituted??

As to your grandparents, was this their belief before or after the holocaust? Because many changed their minds after WWII.