Blasphemy ? What is it ? How is it Done?

I and many others have been,at various times, accused of blasphemy. Other members have suggested it is impossible for a disbeliever to commit the act of Blasphemy. Example 1

quote:

---

Why God never received tenure at any University:
1. He had only one major publication.
2. Most of it was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn’t published in a refereed journal.
5. Some scholars doubt he actually wrote it.
6. He may have created the world, but what has he done since?
7. The scientific community has been unable to replicate his results.
8. He never got permission from an ethics committee to use human subjects.
9. When one experiment went awry, he simply drowned most of the subjects.
10. His first two students failed, so he expelled them.
11. He rarely came to class, and just told students to read his book.
12. Some say he had his son teach the class.
13. Many students complained they weren’t sure he listened when they spoke to him.
14. Although he only posted 10 requirements for passing, every student failed.

---

Example 2

quote:

---

Are the examples or some part of them blasphemous? Why or why not?

​

Can an atheist commit blasphemy?

---

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Aug-2005 05:48 AM

quote:

---

An example is this thread. You could have started this thread without including either of the examples. You could have started this thread with the examples as links so that it was not so much a frontal assault.

---

We can deal with the rest in a minute but I'm not particularly happy with this - that would have taken a one minute "can you change those to a link". Don't project your faults as a moderator upon me. Moreover, if you had problems with my motivations you should have dealt with that before releasing the topic.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Aug-2005 06:04 PM

As for the examples - the one is from what appears to be a taught course at a university - therefore, I felt that if it is suitable for discussion in a place of learning, it must be suitable for discussion here.The second is from a marvel comicbook - again, something that I did not think people would not find overly offensive.I did consider giving the thread a historical context by using The love that dares to speak its name by James Kirkup.I started the thread because someone specifically asked for me to be banned on the grounds of Blasphemy, so it got me thinking about the subject. I picked the examples because I thought they were very mild examples to kick off the debate.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Aug-2005 06:06 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Aug-2005 06:27 PM

You could be right about the me trying to offend but you know what? I don't find the things that I post here that offensive, I just don't. I don't mean that they don't offend me, I just don't see them as being that offensive generally.Cultural - I think it very difficult for someone who is not british to understand this (and I'm sure the other brits will correct me if they feel I'm wrong on this) but for my generation, what is considered offensive is very different to what the older generation would consider offensive or what americans would find offensive. The best recent example was a show that had jesus as a bedwetter in a nappy who got a sexual thrill from shitting himself - is that offensive to people? Most people here thought that was funny - a comedy sketch that had no relationship to the actual message of the christian religion.Now you need to decide what you want the thread to be about - Are we debating me or the issue? if it's about me, it should have never been promoted but we both know that.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Aug-2005 06:22 PM

you raise an interesting point - I cannot think of a word for it, but is the quoting of scripture and threating people with burning in hell if they don't toe the party line offensive or just threatening?On a sidenote - I've been looking at my examples and I honestlythought that they would be considered "borderline" cases that would be a source of debate. I emailed them to some christian friends and they found them funny. two things have come out of this:1) Maybe Jar has more of a point than I first admitted - I'll need to chew on that one.2) It might be as well to have a thread on offensiveness in a more general (and I'll try to word that one a bit better than this) sense. I'm starting to think the gulf here is bigger than you would think on first examination.

Now you mention it - I cannot think of a single catholic priest joke I've heard that doesn't end with the priest being revealed as a child molster -again, maybe that's a british thing.When the pope died - our Private Eye magazine had a picture of him wandering around in the dark saying "hello, hello is there anyone there?"is that offensive? dunno.

That raises an interesting point - if you consider something vulgar and I don't - is it vulgar?What if we get someone on who believes that it's wrong to discuss say sex in any form, do we stop having threads like the pornography one?What do you object to more the language or the intent? what if I used the word "cunt" liberally (which I don't - I like to add) - is it the word or the intent? are the two the same?

quote:

---

Were these humorous examples intended to damage God's reputation?

---

I honestly don't know - the second one - God in a bar is part of a story that reveals God as working for a larger organization that builds universes.

quote:

---

One does not have to be Christian to realize that the ONLY God among your definitions charts that even causes such arguments is the Christian one. few get outraged apart from a token political statement at the mention of "Zeus" or even "Allah".

---

That's a joke right? Go down to the local mosque and stand out saying "Allah is full of shit". See how many don't take offense.Moreover

quote:

---

denouncing any of the attributes of Allah, known by ijma^ He is attributed with--such as knowing about everything is blasphemy. Also blasphemous is he who renounces that Allah is attributed with Power, Will, Knowledge, Hearing, Sight, or Speech (Kalam). Renouncing any of these attributes of Allah is blasphemous because the mind alone is sufficient in knowing that Allah must be attributed with these attributes, i.e., these attributes are a condition for the status of Godhood and as such, one is not excused by ignorance. Ibn alJawziyy said: "There is consensus on the blasphemy of he who negates Allah has power over everything."

​

He who believes that Allah resembles any of his creations in His Self, Attributes, or Doings has blasphemed. The one who believes Allah is a body or an illumination, or believes Allah exists 'above' in the heavens, or that He sits on the throne is a blasphemer. All these are attributes of the creation and are non-befitting to attribute to the Creator. If Allah was attributed with such attributes, He would have similars from among His creations, and Allah said in the Qur'an:

​

which means: [Nothing is like him.] If Allah was a body, He would be susceptible to the things all bodies are susceptible to like change, divisibility, and annihilation--all indications of shortage or weakness and nonbefitting to attribute to Allah.

​

Also is blasphemous he who renders lawful what is commonly known among the Muslims to be unlawful (such as adultery, fornication, stealing, or drinking alcohol,) or renders unlawful, matters commonly known among the Muslims to be lawful, (such as selling and marriage)--conditional in all this is the person is aware of the judgments of these matters in the Religion. Belying the Prophet, blemishing his attributes, or believing in the possibility of prophethood of someone after our Prophet Muhammad ( as the Qadiyany's claim ) is blasphemy.

---

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Aug-2005 10:53 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Aug-2005 10:54 AM

no it's generally because yours is a weak liberal religion that frankly most people couldn't get worked up to defend too strongly (or at least that's how it is here).People tend not to offend the muslims in the UK because we know they WOULD do something (and I'm not talking bombing or the like - I'm taking strong serious sustained protest).

yeah he's a bit "off message at time". The queen mother was the same - she used to refer to "nig-nogs" and "darkies".Before anyone thinks I'm unshockable or trying to be edgy - there have been quite a few things in the public sphere over the last couple of years that have made me think "surely that's not right".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Aug-2005 11:22 AM

Really? never knew that - hum... I'll have to go off and google and see if I can get a full list.Thanks for the info.

quote:

---

Comedian and actor Rowan Atkinson has branded as "draconian" plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal.

​

He said it was a "sledgehammer to crack a nut" and urged that existing race hate laws be amended rather than hampering the right to criticise ideas.

​

Performers would end up censoring themselves for fear of prosecution and that would hit free speech, he said.

​

The new offence gives equal protection to all faiths. Jews and Sikhs are already covered by race hate laws.

​

The Racial and Religious Hated Bill would create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred and would apply to comments made in public or in the media, as well as through written material.

​

The plans - which have been failed to make it through Parliament twice before - cover words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred.

​

Ministers insist the new law would not affect "criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths".

​

Home Office Minister Paul Goggins has said: "It is about protecting the believer, not the belief."

​

But a series of speakers from politics, civil liberties groups and from the arts were in Westminster on Monday to voice their concerns the day before the bill comes back before Parliament for its second reading.

​

Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti brushed off Mr Goggins' reassurances saying: "In a democracy there is no right not to be offended.

​

"Religion relates to a body of ideas and people have the right to debate denigrate other people's ideas."

​

She said where people used religion as a proxy for expressing racism the existing race laws could be amended to encapsulate that.

​

The National Theatre chief Nicholas Hytner said it was sometimes the business of his profession to offend.

​

He gave the example of Jerry Springer the Opera which he argued was clearly an attack on the chat show genre and not, as some claimed, on christianity.

​

Author Ian McEwan said religions all thought they held "irrefutable beliefs" and only a secular society could ensure true freedom for them and for others' right to express criticism.

---

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Atkinson attacks 'draconian' law