Blasphemy

Gosh, if there's one thing that all these posts seem to emphasise it's the fact that more arguments/wars are caused by religion than any other factor!

Wars are caused by man who use religion

Why would being rude about a non existent entity be a crime?

Why the need to try to mock those who have a faith? What is the point, you Shortlegs are an atheist , I have no wish to mock you

I think you generally find people who have verystrong either religious or political views are intolerant thick and unpleasant.

Of course blasphemy laws are a nonsense. Let’s hope we don’t loose the right to offend and be offended.

It’s becoming increasingly so in this country and it is worrying.

So the Grenfell ‘bonfire’ row. Vile horrible sickening people agrees but police resources now being used to punish them while almost daily black teenagers are dying in knife attacks in London. We are loosing the plot on what really matters.

Blasphemy has just been removed from the Irish constitution. The people voted last week to get rid of it. The church is losing it's grip on the Irish.

People of no faith or political views can be intolerent, thick and unpleasant

I have mixed feelings here. I agree that blasphemy should never be a capital offence - neither should anything else.

I find it distressing that there are still so many countries that still have capital punishment. I had hope to see it abolished world-wide in my life-time, but as I shall soon be 67, the likelihood of that happening is dwindling somewhat.

In the multi-ethnic world we are told we are living in, I think it is very necessary indeed that there should be laws that make it a crime to offend someone else's religious views either by publishing offensive matter or by acting disrespectfully in other ways .

Personally, I hold that anyone has the right to hold religious beliefs and to express them decently in public - those that hold another religious belief or none should respect this. Those who do not, should be liable to a fine or perhaps even prison for repeated offences.

As a historian I would like to point out that a great many wars have been started to protect territory or commercial interests and have had no religious incentives at all.

Admittedly the last couple of decades has, like the 15th century, seen wars that are due to differing religious views, but even these wars are fattening the purse of whichever firms make, sell and transport weapons, so the commercial aspect is not lacking either.

Really - you compare my use of the term 'Skyfairy' to intolerance in Pakistan? I am not at all intolerant, I use the word to encompass all deities from man made Religions, with no bias or agneda. I certainly would not treat anyone, regardless of their race, creed or colour any differently. I am a spiritual person, and I do believe there is something there, but I believe it should be personal to each individual and not forced on anyone, hence my dislike of organised religion of any kind. As shown on here - it causes nothing but arguments.

Mycatisahacker - I am on your page.

grandtante I find it hard to accept the need for a separate blasphemy law. How would you define what disrespecting the religious views actually encompassed? The example in Pakistan is truly horrendous and I don’t see how anyone could defend that as acceptable. Am I being disrespectful when I say that to Islam? I know legally I can say that in the UK but would be in fear of my life over there and of course would not even visit that country for a range of reasons anyway.

I suppose what I’m saying is that religion shouldn’t have a special status other than being a protected characteristic under the EA

This is the natural conclusion of making church and state interconnected.

We do it on a smaller scale (church schools for example).

Personally I would support religious freedom so long as NO church had any interference in state or education. Those who want church schooling should top up with sunday school outside of main school hours.

Its not as serious as a death sentance for blasphemy, but are still on the spectrum of allowing church to interfere with state

It is offensive but not criminal, a law was passed in2008 .

No no and thrice no! Freedom of speech in this country is vital as is freedom of religion or non religion. Surely if someone believes in their god no amount of ‘blaspheming’ should affect them. Radicalism is built on curtailing the rights of a population to think or say what they like.

Anniebach so can religious people and add to that self righteous and narrow minded.

I agree Speldnan just as atheists are self righteous and narrow minded .

Let's be sensible here. First of all the dear lord has been dead for about 2K years, so I dont suppose he is bothered one way or another. As for god, do we still believe in fairy stories, santa clause et al? Anyway, she is too busy elsewhere! ?

Sulis my belief is that if there is a god who is worthy of worship, she (it/he/them) would not approve of ANY of the main religions. (Maybe Quakers and a tiny obscure handful of exceptions??)

Countries should be allowed their own laws. Obviously, we don’t agree with a lot of their laws, some do seem very harsh, but that’s for them to decide and for their people to abide by.

Well of course countries are allowed their own laws and we’re free to criticise them ( unlike some of the poor citizens in the countries themselves)

And actually it’s not a given that citizens should have to abide by their own coutries’ laws - hiding Jews for example was against the law in many countries - but I would argue that those who did were right ( and very brave) so to do. The world of morals, ethics, laws, duties, rights etc is very complex ad nuanced.

Corrupt governments pass corrupt and wicked laws. It is right to break laws that are against human dignity.

MOnica

As an athiest, I sort of agree but what non-contemptuous words should be used instead, if one doesn't believe in any god.