Nov 27 2007
|blasphemy trial in UK?|
I had no idea that it was still possible to charge someone with accusations of "blasphemy" in modern Europe, but apparently you can.
(See this article.)
You know, I wouldn't want to go see "Jerry Springer - The Opera" myself, regardless of how it portrays religion, but BLASPHEMY? Come on!
The article also has an interesting discussion about the fact that you are more likely to see art that is offensive to Christians than art that is offensive to Muslims, and that this is in part because artists are more afraid of one group than the other. At this point, the worst you can expect from the Christians is a blasphemy suit while people fear for their lives when Islamic extremists are offended. So, if we're going to try to rank things here, the Christians are actually ahead of the Muslims in tolerance here. I'd give them some points for not resorting to violence. But, they've also lost some points for this whole blasphemy thing in my estimation. Complain all you want, organize a boycott, etc. but I would like to think that in the 21st century we were beyond this kind of censorship.
Nov 29 2007
|blasphemy in Sudan too!|
For comparison, consider THIS trial going on right now in Sudan where a British teacher faces jail, fine and lashes for having named a Teddy Bear in her classroom "Mohammed". (Considering that most of the boys in the class were named "Mohammed", you can see why she might not have realized that this was going to be considered a crime!)
Dec 9 2007
|blasphemy still illegal in Massachusetts|
Blasphemy laws & the Comstock Law is still intact & enforceable. MA Commonwealth could possibly prosecute an Atheist who provoked Jesus believers this time of year. The Comstock statute has been used as recently as 20 years ago, so it is a false assumption that "blue laws" are passe. Here in SC theocracy is alive & well where Gays are officially second class citizens who can not lawfully inherit "spousal property" & could possibly lose an estate to a distant relative rather than a gay lover who can also be lawfully denied hospital visitation. It makes me "sick to my stomach" that religion is protected yet Atheism & human love is suspect if not conforming to church expectations. It's "ok" to "burn me in hell forever" but I can not honestly describe religion to a mass audience? This is more than censorship, it is biblioterrorism in action. Soft pedaling the truth about violent religious concepts still suffers this last "taboo." I don't know about the UK trial, but Muslim rioters, Hindu rioters & the KKK still are significant camps of people willing to kill when "their faith" is provoked.