The alarming call for the blasphemy law in Britain and threat to free speech.

[GoodAttention]

I disagree, for one we are talking about "violence" against a piece of paper, not something sentient. What you are proposing is using government sanctioned violence against sentient people for the sake of protecting a lifeless piece of paper in my view.

And protest does achieve something, it raises awareness of how strong a person's sentiment and sense of violation at receiving a message of hate is all without harming an actual person in my view.

Religious tolerance should be a part of a reasonable democracy.

i believe you dont engage in critical thought much at all, how do you explain the degeneration of Afghanistan's culture?

Who GAF? We are talking about the UK.

Afghanistan is a theocracy, UK one of the oldest democracies, you think this is worthy comparison?

I have already made my point which is that in my view protecting religion from criticism can and likely will cause culture to degenerate.

The law is clearly specific for prophets, that is Muhammad, so your view on how this law will work is wrong.

If you think it is going to cause the UK culture to degenerate then your pessimism should be awarded.

Your bringing of Mexico into this seems irrelevant in my view.

Why?

Your raised girls reaching puberty and then being consumated, this is permitted in Mexico.

You have nothing to say about that?

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

As for "desecration of holy texts", if someone owns a Bible and destroys it publicly... they have the right to do that.
Because that's what property is. Being entitled to do anything with something one owns.

Actually, under Catholic social teaching, the right to private property is subordinated to the principle of the "Universal Destination of the Earth's Goods", that G-d destined the goods of the earth/universe/cosmos for all people, to be shared fairly in accordance with justice moderated with charity (see Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church [CSDC], #171).

What this partly means is that the right to private property is not an absolute right, and the Church emphasises the social dimension of property. From a moral perspective, you may not do anything with what you own, and sometimes governments legitimately appropriate privately-owned goods to public ownership (see Vatican-II document "Gaudium et Spes" 'On the Church in the Modern World' #71, and maybe also CSDC #300).

Coming back to destroying a sacred text in public, what comes to mind is the legal protection given to brands through trade-name and trademark protection. In website contracts, there are often terms obliging users not to say bad things about the associated brand. And I think there might be criminal laws protecting brands from being disparaged in certain ways. Certainly, loss of reputation tied to a brand, can be something for which people ask for compensation in court. Now the major religions are like brands. And destroying the sacred texts publicly, can be like damaging the brands. And so if we protect brands so much, which often exist in the commercial world, then it does seem reasonable to offer some kind of similar protection to the major religions. After all, religion is generally held to be more important or more sacred, than economics and other such things.

So I think there is an argument for establishing laws to prohibit the public destruction of sacred texts associated with the major religions. Such destruction seems similar to people burning the US or British flag in public, for which I think there is probably an argument for prohibiting by means of criminal law. If people offer their objections in ways that don't of their nature, inflame emotions, and antagonise people, but rather are helpful for a respectful discourse on religion, then I can't see any problem with that.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Perhaps consider borrowing one first?



It can also be against the law.

Yeah, I could consider borrowing books first but that shouldn’t be controlled by the state. Not everything that could be considered offensive, infantile or provocative should be outlawed in my opinion and this also protects the right to sell and buy religious books which do cause offence. As with anything in life there’s a give and take.

The argument is you are applying todays criminal laws and labels retrospectively, and therefore unjustifiably.

I think this is more about stopping Muslims from leaving the faith in the UK than anything else.

whether or not you agree with someone’s perspective on Muhammad is irrelevant here. someone voicing their opinion on him should not be criminalised because some people disagree with it. You also have the right to voice your disagreement

People who want to leave a faith should not be prevented from doing so. This is why we have freedom of religion here. You’re free to join and to leave a religion

 

[GoodAttention]

Yeah, I could consider borrowing books first but that shouldn’t be controlled by the state. Not everything that could be considered offensive, infantile or provocative should be outlawed in my opinion and this also protects the right to sell and buy religious books which do cause offence. As with anything in life there’s a give and take.

Should we put Nazi memorabilia on the allowed list?

whether or not you agree with someone’s perspective on Muhammad is irrelevant here. someone voicing their opinion on him should not be criminalised because some people disagree with it. You also have the right to voice your disagreement

In Switzerland, it is illegal to insult foreign heads of state publically. Italy has laws protecting their president, as does Spain with their monarchy.

You can have an opinion on Muhammad, but if your opinion is that he is a criminal by todays laws, then I believe stating that openly and publically is unfair.

Any other opinion is fair game.

People who want to leave a faith should not be prevented from doing so. This is why we have freedom of religion here. You’re free to join and to leave a religion

It would help if UK society acknowledged Muhammad’s actions within the context of his era.

If people think this will open the door to child brides in the UK they don’t understand most Islamic societies of today.

 

[Estro Felino]

Actually, under Catholic social teaching, the right to private property is subordinated to the principle of the "Universal Destination of the Earth's Goods", that G-d destined the goods of the earth/universe/cosmos for all people, to be shared fairly in accordance with justice moderated with charity (see Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church [CSDC], #171).

What this partly means is that the right to private property is not an absolute right, and the Church emphasises the social dimension of property. From a moral perspective, you may not do anything with what you own, and sometimes governments legitimately appropriate privately-owned goods to public ownership (see Vatican-II document "Gaudium et Spes" 'On the Church in the Modern World' #71, and maybe also CSDC #300).

Coming back to destroying a sacred text in public, what comes to mind is the legal protection given to brands through trade-name and trademark protection. In website contracts, there are often terms obliging users not to say bad things about the associated brand. And I think there might be criminal laws protecting brands from being disparaged in certain ways. Certainly, loss of reputation tied to a brand, can be something for which people ask for compensation in court. Now the major religions are like brands. And destroying the sacred texts publicly, can be like damaging the brands. And so if we protect brands so much, which often exist in the commercial world, then it does seem reasonable to offer some kind of similar protection to the major religions. After all, religion is generally held to be more important or more sacred, than economics and other such things.

So I think there is an argument for establishing laws to prohibit the public destruction of sacred texts associated with the major religions. Such destruction seems similar to people burning the US or British flag in public, for which I think there is probably an argument for prohibiting by means of criminal law. If people offer their objections in ways that don't of their nature, inflame emotions, and antagonise people, but rather are helpful for a respectful discourse on religion, then I can't see any problem with that.

In UK there is the British law, not the Christian law.
Please...
earnestness, s'il vous-plait.

 

[oldbadger]

There’s no new legislation. We are talking about how some MPs want there to be new legislation centred specifically around Islam. We already have laws against targeting people based on identity.
what I take issue with is this: “prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.”
If someone wants to desecrate a book that belongs to them - they should be able to. if it belongs to someone else, that falls under criminal damage which we already have laws for. I’m not sure what “desecration of prophets” refers to but since those prophets are already dead, I’m assuming it means criticising them? Insulting them?
Maybe in which case a lot of posts on RF would be considered a crime if desecration of prophets were prohibited.
Tariq should consider himself lucky that he lives in a country were there is freedom of religion and he is granted protections here regardless of the fact that there are aspects of his religion that is offensive to a lot of people. Including the insults towards Jews in the Quran and the vile statements made about women in the Sunnah. If he doesn’t like it, it’s not by force he has to be here - the world is a big place.

So you do not have nor cannot think of a 'mean thing about dead prople' that could be included in any new legislation? So that bit is sorted for now.

Next: your mention of:
......"prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.”......

I certainly do hope that would be included. Your idea that people should be able to desecrate something they themselves have produced? ......No! Imagine that monstrous act....making a sign which you could then burn or destroy in public?

You haven't done any of this, have you?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Should we put Nazi memorabilia on the allowed list?

You’re legally allowed to buy and sell mein Kampf in the UK - it’s not banned.
Although I’m not sure what that has to do with being able to damage or throw away your own property ?

In Switzerland, it is illegal to insult foreign heads of state publically. Italy has laws protecting their president, as does Spain with their monarchy.

And this is Britain

You can have an opinion on Muhammad, but if your opinion is that he is a criminal by todays laws, then I believe stating that openly and publically is unfair.

Any other opinion is fair game.

Regardless of whether you personally feel it’s unfair to deem Muhammad a criminal; someone should not be prosecuted for sharing that view especially in Britain of all places.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

....
What this partly means is that the right to private property is not an absolute right, ... From a moral perspective, you may not do anything with what you own, ...​

In UK there is the British law, not the Christian law.
Please...
earnestness, s'il vous-plait.

Okay, so you were articulating the concept of private property from the point of view of how British law interprets it? The problem is, when you are looking at making a change in the law, you often have to look at such things from the point of view of objective morality.

If your interpretation of private property is according to the British legal system's understanding (which might not even entirely be the case), I was arguing that that interpretation ought to be revised for the sake of the matters discussed.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you 12 years old?

It was just a silly, tongue-in-cheek remark. Don't let it cause you distress.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It was just a silly, tongue-in-cheek remark. Don't let it cause you distress.

Right back at you

 

[GoodAttention]

You’re legally allowed to buy and sell mein Kampf in the UK - it’s not banned.
Although I’m not sure what that has to do with being able to damage or throw away your own property ?

I was responding to you saying "Not everything that could be considered offensive, infantile or provocative should be outlawed", which is the stance the UK takes (I had thought it was otherwise).

And this is Britain

Where it is, in fact, legal to display the Nazi swastika in public.

Regardless of whether you personally feel it’s unfair to deem Muhammad a criminal; someone should not be prosecuted for sharing that view especially in Britain of all places.

I am starting to realize that now.

I was quite shocked to learn public display of Nazi symbols was legal, as is denying the Holocaust.

Muhammad doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I was responding to you saying "Not everything that could be considered offensive, infantile or provocative should be outlawed", which is the stance the UK takes (I had thought it was otherwise).




Where it is, in fact, legal to display the Nazi swastika in public.




I am starting to realize that now.

I was quite shocked to learn public display of Nazi symbols was legal, as is denying the Holocaust.

Muhammad doesn't stand a chance.

you seem to fail to understand that that level of freedom is also granted to Muslims so while we have the freedom to venerate Muhammad we also have the freedom not to and this should remain as it. Quit while you’re ahead

 

[Alien826]

I’m not sure what “desecration of prophets” refers to but since those prophets are already dead, I’m assuming it means criticising them? Insulting them?

Ask the murdered writers at Charlie Hebdo.

The problem with "blasphemy" is that the definition is placed squarely in the context of a given religion. Islam says you can't create an image of the the Prophet. That's blasphemy to them and to many merits a death sentence. On the other hand, to a Christian it's no big deal, they have pictures of Jesus all over the place, but might have their own definition of blasphemy.

Any government that tries to legislate in a way that satisfies everyone in this mess is doomed to failure. Let them practice their own religion among themselves, but strictly enforce laws against violence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Criticism directly: Christians+Muslims believe their Religion is superior
Criticism indirectly: Abrahamics believe their Scriptures are superior
Denigration directly: Hinduism is not a True Religion
Denigration implied: Christianity is the only True Religion

I suppose it is a matter of semantics, and might be the rules here or elsewhere--I haven't been here long enough to figure all that out yet--but I personally would not classify any one of those statements as denigration. They might be wrong, wrong headed, based on bias or taught belief, but they do not put down or belittle or accuse or lessen the worth of anybody.

To say orthodox Jews err when they do not believe Jesus was/is the Messiah is a statement of fact to a Christian. To call Jews "Christkillers" or commit genocide or are the source of much/most evil/harm in the world is denigration and harmful.

To say Christianity is the only true religion could be a statement of fact to one person and not intended to lessen anybody else. To say God hates all who are not Christian is denigration.

To say Hinduism is not a true religion is pretty ignorant given the definition of religion and that Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world but it is not denigration. To say Hindus are ignorant and backward people is denigration.

To say you are wrong to believe 'that' is not denigration.
To say only you are stupid to believe 'that' is denigration.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

".... to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and...."

He stated all religious texts. This would include my own (if published in the UK).

Personally, I am opposed to blasphemy laws.

You left out a very crucial part where it's clarified he means specifically things pertaining to the Abrahamic religions.

‘Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?’.

 

[Viker]

You left out a very crucial part where it's clarified he means specifically things pertaining to the Abrahamic religions.

Not really. Some people aren't seeing that he said "all religious texts" first then he goes to"and". I think he was pandering when he stated, "and Abrahamic religions". I know his "and" likely implied especially. I just caught him on the first notion in his statement.

Sort of like all religions are equal just Abrahamic religions are more equal than others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not really. Some people aren't seeing that he said "all religious texts" first then he goes to"and". I think he was pandering when he stated, "and Abrahamic religions". I know his "and" likely implied especially. I just caught him on the first notion in his statement.

Sort of like all religions are equal just Abrahamic religions are more equal than others.

I very much doubt that's what he meant. If he meant all why specify Abrahamic?

 

[Viker]

I very much doubt that's what he meant. If he meant all why specify Abrahamic?

Because he said "all" first. Then he said "and" after that. I'm admitting he likely only prefered to mean "Abrahamic religions" (to be an exception) and that "and" most likely means"especially". He's doing poor political verbal gymnastics. No one should say "all" then follow it with "and, but, etc." in the same sentence like that. It's unnecessary or could demonstrate double meaning, hypocrisy, maybe even outright contradiction.

Once again, from Orwell's Animal Farm, "all animals are equal just some more than others". It's similar in that "just more than others" isn't necessary if the first half of that sentence were implied to be true.

Politicians should be more careful with their words. I'm there to hold them to their "alls" even when I suspect they never meant "all".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because he said "all" first

He said "all texts and prophets (many religions don't have those" and defined those with an "of the Abrahamic religions." He has no interest in protecting anyone but Abrahamics, perhaps with a special emphasis the official state religion (Church of England).
And consider, in today's world religious scene Christians and Muslims are the reigning heavyweight champions of the galaxy when it comes to getting offended over perceived blasphemy and demanding something be done or doing it themselves.

Then he said "and" after that. I'm admitting he likely only prefered to mean "Abrahamic religions" (to be an exception) and that "and" most likely means"especially". He's doing poor political verbal gymnastics. No one should say "all" then follow it with "and, but, etc." in the same sentence like that. It's unnecessary or could demonstrate double meaning, hypocrisy, maybe even outright contradiction.

He said it that way because he meant all the texts and prophets derived from Abraham's God. It's not gymnastics, no double meaning, he simply didn't intend for it to protect our English counterparts.

Once again, from Orwell's Animal Farm, "all animals are equal just some more than others". It's similar in that "just more than others" isn't necessary if the first half of that sentence were implied to be true.

This is assuming he views other religions as religions. As they have the "one true religion and worship the one, true living god" some of them see other religions as mere cults and undeserving of the same legal protections.

 

[Viker]

He said "all texts and prophets (many religions don't have those" and defined those with an "of the Abrahamic religions." He has no interest in protecting anyone but Abrahamics, perhaps with a special emphasis the official state religion (Church of England).
And consider, in today's world religious scene Christians and Muslims are the reigning heavyweight champions of the galaxy when it comes to getting offended over perceived blasphemy and demanding something be done or doing it themselves.

He said it that way because he meant all the texts and prophets derived from Abraham's God. It's not gymnastics, no double meaning, he simply didn't intend for it to protect our English counterparts.

This is assuming he views other religions as religions. As they have the "one true religion and worship the one, true living god" some of them see other religions as mere cults and undeserving of the same legal protections.

Let's not argue over this. It's no big deal considering it was all shot down anyway.