To Blaspheme or not to Blaspheme?

[stvdv]

To Blaspheme or Not to Blaspheme?

There is a huge difference between criticizing religions (being critical), as in "not blindly accept things", and blaspheming (the red part). It can be compared with the RF Rules. Criticize ideas all you want, just don't get personal, as in bullying, insulting or showing contempt.

RF Rules seem to be quite useful guidelines, and all can learn a lot from them

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable

What are your thoughts on this subject? Would you do it differently than Macron did? Is this an important issue, needing to be solved?

 

[Vinayaka]

The people who purposely act in ways just to draw ire are foolish, and immature. Teenage trolls, no different than pestering some kid on the playground who they know will react. But it's not immoral to be immature. It's part of the soul's immaturity, and is by no means the only act of immaturity.

The folks who react violently don't understand that it's okay to be immature. Stupid, but still immature. So they are joining in it, and compounding it. The more you feed a troll, or the more you feed a group of trolls, the more will come out.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To Blaspheme or Not to Blaspheme?

There is a huge difference between criticizing religions (being critical), as in "not blindly accept things", and blaspheming (the red part). It can be compared with the RF Rules. Criticize ideas all you want, just don't get personal, as in bullying, insulting or showing contempt.

RF Rules seem to be quite useful guidelines, and all can learn a lot from them

What are your thoughts on this subject? Would you do it differently than Macron did? Is this an important issue, needing to be solved?

I disagree with it. In my opinion it should say not to attack the "person" rather than their belief system and theology on deities, religious practices, and so on, and so forth. That's natural for any religious debating conversation. Attacking or critiquing one's belief system and deities I see often, but I think it's also in context. I don't know what a macron is, though. Explain?

 

[PureX]

What gets perceived as insult and contempt is often not what is intended as insult or contempt. And therein lies the problem. Who is going to determine the presence of this insult and contempt?

 

[stvdv]

It would be much wiser if Macron not says "we have the right to blaspheme" but instead says:
"Drawing (Muhammad) is not blasphemous for me, but I don't impose my definition on Muslims and I would appreciate the same respect from Muslims"

 

[stvdv]

I don't know what a macron is, though. Explain?

Google gave me this:

A macron (/ˈmækrɒn, ˈmeɪ-/) is a diacritical mark: it is a straight bar (¯) placed above a letter, usually a vowel. ... It now more often marks a long vowel. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, the macron is used to indicate a mid-tone; the sign for a long vowel is instead a modified triangular colon ⟨ː⟩.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm a solid 1 thru 5.
Blasphemy is wonderful.

 

[stvdv]

What gets perceived as insult and contempt is often not what is intended as insult or contempt. And therein lies the problem. Who is going to determine the presence of this insult and contempt?

True.

First we need to know what actions/words/pictures are insulting. If an innocent child draws Muhammad, I would not call this an insult. Even if the child innocently would give it to a Muslim is still not an insult. When personally given to a Muslim knowing the Muslim finds it insulting I would call insulting

 

[Polymath257]

Blasphemy is a victimless 'crime'.

If I want to draw a picture of Jesus and Mohammad at a brothel with Moses and Buddha looking on, I should be allowed to do so without being afraid some nut will shoot me.

 

[Nimos]

What are your thoughts on this subject? Would you do it differently than Macron did? Is this an important issue, needing to be solved?

All forms of blasphemy laws should be removed, it have no place in a modern world. No ideas should be considered sacred or be protected from being questioned or made fun of, like a standup comedian etc. They are merely ideas, in the same way as political ideas are and they shouldn't be sacred either. If an idea is bad, then it should be pointed out for what it is.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Blasphemy is a victimless 'crime'.

If I want to draw a picture of Jesus and Mohammad at a brothel with Moses and Buddha looking on, I should be allowed to do so without being afraid some nut will shoot me.

What would be the purpose of such a drawing? To **** off religious people?
I do not support action seen by some muslims over drawings, but i do not understand the need for such drawing either

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Google gave me this:

A what?? I don't understand a word of that. I did get a person: French President Emmanuel Macron spoke at length with an Arab broadcaster to defend his comments on Islam. He said he understood why ...

 

[Polymath257]

What would be the purpose of such a drawing? To **** off religious people?
I do not support action seen by some muslims over drawings, but i do not understand the need for such drawing either

Maybe it is to express the ultimate humanity of even central religious figures and the beauty of sexuality.

Maybe I want to put it up in my living room.

What does it matter? I should still be allowed to paint it and sell it if there is a buyer. I should be allowed to dsiplay it if there is a place that want to display it. Or, I should be allowed to put it up in my own studio and display it if I wish.

Art is frequently offensive to some. That is part of its value: to shake people out of their molds and get them to see another perspective.

 

[PureX]

Blasphemy is a victimless 'crime'.

If I want to draw a picture of Jesus and Mohammad at a brothel with Moses and Buddha looking on, I should be allowed to do so without being afraid some nut will shoot me.

Should you be allowed to draw pictures of his wife in the brothel?

I think you're using your own lack of attachment to define what others should feel attached to, and/or insulted about.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What gets perceived as insult and contempt is often not what is intended as insult or contempt. And therein lies the problem. Who is going to determine the presence of this insult and contempt?

If one physiologically feels threatened by something someone else says (and one's self interpretation as well), there is a justified sense of insult. Also, I think many people say "well, it's not the others it's yourself" to justify the other is not at fault (own responsibilities for the behavior and reaction of the person he or she speaks with).

While RF conversations aren't traumatic, you can kinda see this in more severe relationships and discussions as well. So, if someone says "that's their problem" in my opinion it sounds like the problem of the person who gave the "insult." One can't control their physiological reactions, but if the other is aware of that reaction (well, not online) then there would be some desire to clarify what is said.

A lot of reactions to insults are human natural reactions to threat. In some cultures like American we downplay these reactions and claim it's the victims fault especially if we felt we were sincere in our comment the other took offense.

 

[Polymath257]

Should you be allowed to draw pictures of his wife in the brothel?

I think you're using your own lack of attachment to define what others should feel attached to, and/or insulted about.

If his wife is a public figure, yes.

Look up the case of Larry Flint in the Supreme Court sometime.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Maybe it is to express the ultimate humanity of even central religious figures and the beauty of sexuality.

Maybe I want to put it up in my living room.

What does it matter? I should still be allowed to paint it and sell it if there is a buyer. I should be allowed to dsiplay it if there is a place that want to display it. Or, I should be allowed to put it up in my own studio and display it if I wish.

Art is frequently offensive to some. That is part of its value: to shake people out of their molds and get them to see another perspective.

So should it be allowed for religious people to say, we should not draw picture of our prophet? Or is it ok to mock religioues figures?
My question here is not a critique of you, obly a question about why the need for mocking a religion you do not believe in, when others do?

Other then that i fully agree that the killing of people that has happened in Francesco is done by evil people.

 

[stvdv]

Blasphemy is a victimless 'crime'.

Religious people believe that we are not the body, mind, emotions.
Blasphemy can never hurt religious people, if they believe they are the soul, which can't be hurt

Atheists could be the only ones getting hurt by blasphemy, if they identify with body, mind, emotions

But also that poses a problem

So, the people who invented such blasphemy Rules probably missed some insight (and love too)

 

[Polymath257]

So should it be allowed for religious people to say, we should not draw picture of our prophet? Or is it ok to mock religioues figures?

If a religious person does not want to draw a picture, there is no imposition for them to do so.

But others with different viewpoints *do* have the right to draw that prophet.

Yes, it is OK to mock religious figures. Just like it is OK to mock political figures. It is OK to mock the beliefs of others and they can mock yours. That is how a free society works.

Those with thin skin should learn to grow up a bit.

My question here is not a critique of you, obly a question about why the need for mocking a religion you do not believe in, when others do?

Because mockery is often a very effective way to point out inconsistencies and strange viewpoints. Humor is often much more powerful than simple discussion.

Other then that i fully agree that the killing of people that has happened in Francesco is done by evil people.

I agree.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If a religious person does not want to draw a picture, there is no imposition for them to do so.

But others with different viewpoints *do* have the right to draw that prophet.

Yes, it is OK to mock religious figures. Just like it is OK to mock political figures. It is OK to mock the beliefs of others and they can mock yours. That is how a free society works.

Those with thin skin should learn to grow up a bit.



Because mockery is often a very effective way to point out inconsistencies and strange viewpoints. Humor is often much more powerful than simple discussion.



I agree.

Can i ask, what do you win by mocking or say blasphemy about other people or religious leaders? What do you gain?