Are blasphemy laws an indicator of lack of faith?

[philbo]

As an atheist, I've often found it strange that people who theoretically believe in an all-powerful deity feel they have to defend him. Killing people because they drew a cartoon, left the faith, are homosexual - all of these are expressions of human/tribal responses & desires, nothing to do with any kind of god, it seems to me.

But nothing says "I don't really believe in this god", or "I don't believe my god is omnipotent" more than a law against blasphemy. Even desiring a blasphemy law has got to imply that you think your god needs earthly legal protection & so presumably is incapable of exacting his Godly punishment for infractions.

Can anyone tell me why a god needs legal protection?

 

[Laika]

I think it will have something to do with the view that we are fallen creatures and by nature sinful; hence people must be repressed by laws so they don't fall to temptation of rejecting god and siding with the devil.

 

[DawudTalut]

As an atheist, I've often found it strange that people who theoretically believe in an all-powerful deity feel they have to defend him. Killing people because they drew a cartoon, left the faith, are homosexual - all of these are expressions of human/tribal responses & desires, nothing to do with any kind of god, it seems to me.

But nothing says "I don't really believe in this god", or "I don't believe my god is omnipotent" more than a law against blasphemy. Even desiring a blasphemy law has got to imply that you think your god needs earthly legal protection & so presumably is incapable of exacting his Godly punishment for infractions.

Can anyone tell me why a god needs legal protection?

A God does not need legal protection, but a society does. A society where people of various faith are living, they can discuss beliefs in civilized way but not making fun or mockery to each others' religions of founder of religion.
Holy Quran tells:
Remind them for thou (O Prophet) art an admonisher. Thou art not at all a warder over them.

(Quran, 82.22–3)


Quran states committal of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet, but mentions no punishment. Allah told him He would be suffice for such people.

AHMADIYYA-MUSLIMS' POINT OF VIEW
please see page 2
@ https://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/Punishment-of-blasphemy.pdf


In addition to blasphemy, please also read about no punishment by people for apostasy @
Punishment for Apostasy

 

[leibowde84]

A God does not need legal protection, but a society does. A society where people of various faith are living, they can discuss beliefs in civilized way but not making fun or mockery to each others' religions of founder of religion.
Holy Quran tells:
Remind them for thou (O Prophet) art an admonisher. Thou art not at all a warder over them.

(Quran, 82.22–3)


Quran states committal of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet, but mentions no punishment. Allah told him He would be suffice for such people.

AHMADIYYA-MUSLIMS' POINT OF VIEW
please see page 2
@ https://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/Punishment-of-blasphemy.pdf


In addition to blasphemy, please also read about no punishment by people for apostasy @
Punishment for Apostasy

But where is the line? It seems that criticisms of Muhammad lately have been mischaracterized as insults. There are questionable things that Muhammad might have done during his life, and it is important to discuss these things. It is also important that children growing up in the faith know the historical facts, rather than just believing what their religion teaches them.

For example, would you be OK with someone pointing out that Muhammad had sex with a child that was, most scholars say, younger than 10? This, imho, is an immoral activity, as a child has no ability to consent to sex, and it would be innapropriate to think that didn't matter. I know this is my opinion, but I feel it necessary to discuss this. And, since it can be substantiated, I fail to see how this would be considered an insult.

 

[Tiapan]

For total earthly harmony delete the first 4 commandments.

 

[icehorse]

A God does not need legal protection, but a society does. A society where people of various faith are living, they can discuss beliefs in civilized way but not making fun or mockery to each others' religions of founder of religion.
Holy Quran tells:
Remind them for thou (O Prophet) art an admonisher. Thou art not at all a warder over them. (Quran, 82.22–3)

Quran states committal of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet, but mentions no punishment. Allah told him He would be suffice for such people.

AHMADIYYA-MUSLIMS' POINT OF VIEW
please see page 2
@ https://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/Punishment-of-blasphemy.pdf

In addition to blasphemy, please also read about no punishment by people for apostasy @
Punishment for Apostasy

No idea is above intense questioning and / or mockery.

 

[morphesium]

I think it will have something to do with the view that we are fallen creatures and by nature sinful; hence people must be repressed by laws so they don't fall to temptation of rejecting god and siding with the devil.

“If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain how he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Most religions treat people as if they are sinful by nature and that their religion is to "help" or "save" them; but it is the religion that makes even good people sinners.
Look at the ISIS people who can do any extreme of cruelty in the name of their religion. Why there is the occurrence of much more violence among (deeply religious) people where there is no free thinking and free will.

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

―William Pitt the Elder

And religion is the most effective means to provide unquestioned authority ― and the situation only gets worse with time.

Its from regions where there are unquestioned religious authority, much of terrorist links originate and are increasingly funded.

 

[philbo]

A God does not need legal protection, but a society does. A society where people of various faith are living, they can discuss beliefs in civilized way but not making fun or mockery to each others' religions of founder of religion.
Holy Quran tells:
Remind them for thou (O Prophet) art an admonisher. Thou art not at all a warder over them.

(Quran, 82.22–3)


Quran states committal of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet, but mentions no punishment. Allah told him He would be suffice for such people.

AHMADIYYA-MUSLIMS' POINT OF VIEW
please see page 2
@ https://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/Punishment-of-blasphemy.pdf


In addition to blasphemy, please also read about no punishment by people for apostasy @
Punishment for Apostasy

That was interesting, thank you. Especially where it says:

Despite the blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (Pbuh) quoted above, Allah advised him
:
‘We will certainly, suffice thee against those who mock’ (15:96). God Himself was therefore sufficient to deal with those who commit blasphemy against God, the Holy Prophet (Pbuh) or the Holy Quran and He does not allow anyone to interfere in it

That's very much the kind of point I was making: if the prophet says God is sufficient to deal with those who commit blasphemy against him, then blasphemy laws kind of show that people don't believe that will happen. In a way, it's even more than a simple lack of faith, it's actually going against what is explicitly written in the Quran.

As for society needing protection, I would argue very strongly against the idea that society is protected by blasphemy laws, quite the opposite: they are very frequently used in ways that are actively destabilizing of society, giving one group of believers power over another and allowing an almost unanswerable accusation of blasphemy to settle personal scores. It entrenches a power base, it doesn't protect society.

 

[Tumah]

I would say it is closer to something along the lines that speaking out against the king in his own realm is an act of rebellion and I imagine that loyal soldiers would have arrested such a person at best. In the king's realm, the king is meant to be given honor and respect. That is part of being a king.

 

[philbo]

I would say it is closer to something along the lines that speaking out against the king in his own realm is an act of rebellion and I imagine that loyal soldiers would have arrested such a person at best. In the king's realm, the king is meant to be given honor and respect. That is part of being a king.

That's thinking about your god in a very mortal sort of way. A king is not capable of personally meting out punishment to whomsoever might speak against him, and requires that he delegate those duties; an omnipotent god should have no such limitations.

 

[Tumah]

That's thinking about your god in a very mortal sort of way. A king is not capable of personally meting out punishment to whomsoever might speak against him, and requires that he delegate those duties; an omnipotent god should have no such limitations.

I don't think that's true at all. In the king's realm, the king's soldiers are the manifestation of the king's will. The king is not the one that carries out his own orders. If he did he wouldn't be a king. The soldier's duty is to carryout the king's will, not because the king can't but because he shouldn't, he is the king. The honor of the king is expressed through his subjects' servitude.

Imagine the king who has to take out the garbage to the dumpster every night for himself. Technically he is capable of doing so, but that is not an expression of monarchy.

 

[philbo]

I don't think that's true at all. In the king's realm, the king's soldiers are the manifestation of the king's will. The king is not the one that carries out his own orders. If he did he wouldn't be a king. The soldier's duty is to carryout the king's will, not because the king can't but because he shouldn't, he is the king. The honor of the king is expressed through his subjects' servitude.

Imagine the king who has to take out the garbage to the dumpster every night for himself. Technically he is capable of doing so, but that is not an expression of monarchy.

But there wouldn't be enough time in the day for a king to do everything, to punish everyone who spoke out against, that's why he has to delegate. A king simply isn't capable of enacting or enforcing his will personally.

An omnipotent god has no such restrictions

 

[Erock13]

Just my two cents: I don't think blasphemy laws are a sign of weak faith or faith in a weak deity so much as it's a sign that people are often incapable of separating criticisms and mockery of a belief from criticism and mockery of the believer. This isn't limited to theists, of course, but theists are definitely one the more visible examples of such behavior. In other words, they take any attacks of the religion extremely personally.

If someone makes fun of your beliefs because of how ludicrous it sounds to them, ask yourself why it sounds so ludicrous to them. It could be an opportunity for educating them. If something someone says deeply offends you, ask yourself why that is. Is it because what they said is completely false, in the manner of a stereotypical generalization, or is it because it hits too close to home, in that the criticism is actually valid? Either way, I think the satire has done it's job because it's making you think.

 

[Tumah]

But there wouldn't be enough time in the day for a king to do everything, to punish everyone who spoke out against, that's why he has to delegate. A king simply isn't capable of enacting or enforcing his will personally.

An omnipotent god has no such restrictions

I understand what you are saying, but I am telling you that this is not the reason why the king delegates tasks. The king delegates tasks because that it what makes him king: his power over others and to have others serve him. Even if the king had nothing to do but twiddle his thumbs, if the queen can convince the king to take out the trash, then the king is not expressing his kingship at that moment.

Even for a flesh and blood king, his delegating tasks is not an expression of a weakness but of a strength.

 

[Erock13]

I understand what you are saying, but I am telling you that this is not the reason why the king delegates tasks. The king delegates tasks because that it what makes him king: his power over others and to have others serve him. Even if the king had nothing to do but twiddle his thumbs, if the queen can convince the king to take out the trash, then the king is not expressing his kingship at that moment.

Even for a flesh and blood king, his delegating tasks is not an expression of a weakness but of a strength.

So...are you saying that blasphemy laws are akin to totalitarian regimes wherein it is forbidden to mock the ruler?

 

[Erock13]

Also, it's a tad inconsistent to compare a god to a king who delegates tasks, especially when referring to blasphemy laws, because aren't most blasphemy laws centered around religions (Abrahamic) that specifically detail instances where their god directly intervened in human affairs?

 

[Tumah]

So...are you saying that blasphemy laws are akin to totalitarian regimes wherein it is forbidden to mock the ruler?

I won't disagree with this statement because I think it is also true. But that is not what I am talking about. I am not talking about thought-control, I am talking about honor and respect. The president of America doesn't go to the prime minister of Canada and make anti-Canadian comments, even if he believes them to be true. In the PM's some, you talk with respect to Canadians. Even if the next day in America you might release some anti-Canadian statements to the press. I understand why in your culture, these things might be more difficult to relate to.

Also, it's a tad inconsistent to compare a god to a king who delegates tasks, especially when referring to blasphemy laws, because aren't most blasphemy laws centered around religions (Abrahamic) that specifically detail instances where their god directly intervened in human affairs?

I can't speak for other religions, so I don't know. I think the name depends on the context. In regards to religion its called blasphemy but it could also be called a form of mutiny or rebellion.

 

[Nietzsche]

Blasphemy laws are an utter disgrace to humanity. No idea deserves to be placed above your right to make fun of whatever you damn well please. If your skin is that thin, it'll do you some good. They're nothing more than thought-crimes. Any and all thought crimes are bad by default, and anyone who argues for them wants to control you. Freedom of thought is the most important thing humanity has. No God or Gods, prophet or messiahs, set of laws or codes should be placed on an untouchable pedestal because of the sad insecurities and totalitarian tendencies of their followers.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't think that's true at all. In the king's realm, the king's soldiers are the manifestation of the king's will. The king is not the one that carries out his own orders. If he did he wouldn't be a king. The soldier's duty is to carryout the king's will, not because the king can't but because he shouldn't, he is the king. The honor of the king is expressed through his subjects' servitude.

Imagine the king who has to take out the garbage to the dumpster every night for himself. Technically he is capable of doing so, but that is not an expression of monarchy.

In the modern sense, perhaps, but in the Old Days, the King was far more connected to the doings of his kin. In fact, the word "King" comes directly from "kin".

Regard Woden, who is King but wanders the world as a beggar, seeking knowledge for himself and challenging the proudly held wit of others himself.

 

[Riverwolf]

I respect people by default. People can lose that respect depending on their behavior.

I respect comedians who make fun of whatever they want in intelligent and challenging ways, while I have little respect for comedians who are just cruel. But my lack of respect for them does not remotely translate to wanting them arrested.

I will disrespect and harshly criticize a person who verbally insults me, those I love, and my way of life. And in that same moment, defend that person's legal right to do so, because if that right gets taken away, it's only a matter of time before any sort of status quo challenge becomes illegal. (This does not include parental verbal abuse).