Blasphemy a crime under UN resolution

[Haunted]

the sniggering 'unbelievers' on this forum, thats you Frank and Haunted!

Is this non-believers in anything or non-believers in the divinity of Mohammed? I suspect it to be the latter surely? Allah would probably want those pesky Thor worshippers to go to hell as well. In which case I think you should add a few more names to your list.

[exnihilo]

Nobody believes in the divinity of Muhammad. He was a prophet, not a god.

[Humphrey]

I think the rules are:

1) Those who did not receive the message of Islam will be tested on the day of judgement.

2) Those who received the message of Islam and were given clear proofs of the true religion and did not accept the message will be sent to hellfire for eternity.

So the best thing you can do is not read the Koran and thereby not receive the message; then when Allah shows up you can apologise for not being widely read and convert to Islam. If Jesus and the Mahdi turn up and begin fighting the anti-christ it may well be a good idea to start praying towards Mecca.

[Haunted]

Nobody believes in the divinity of Muhammad. He was a prophet, not a god.

Honest mistake, it's sometimes difficult to remember which flavour of belief belongs to which group.

[Frank]

2) Those who received the message of Islam and were given clear proofs of the true religion and did not accept the message will be sent to hellfire for eternity.

I look forward to a day of judgement. I suspect that I and whichever divinity is presiding that day will have very distinct differences of opinion and definition on what constitutes 'clear proofs'.

I wonder if it'd be possible to convert Allah to Scientology by preparing a good presentation to give in defence...

[Haunted]

That would be a final irony, if lawyers not only avoided hellfire but managed to convince deity X that only they themselves were worthy of paradise*


*definition subject to particular god and not garunteed to be satisfactory to all parties.

[Frank]

That would be a final irony, if lawyers not only avoided hellfire but managed to convince deity X that only they themselves were worthy of paradise*


*definition subject to particular god and not garunteed to be satisfactory to all parties.

It's an amusing outcome that was produced towards the end of my tenure as a religious chappie. That is: Any sort of personal God...you've got a two way interaction. If one excludes omniscience and omnipotence and replaces them with merely 'extreme power' and 'remarkable intellect' then you can happily arrive at an idea wherein god might be worthy of praise and a relationship with...but not necessarily to be always obeyed, or always believed correct!

If, as perhaps some of God's alleged decisions imply, God isn't quite as clever as he seems then I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there were able to convince him to give up on the ol' fire'n'brimstone thing. That God might simply be a childish buffoon playing with insane power...well...whatcha gonna do? Worship him just because?

[RedCelt69]

On the subject of blasphemy as a crime... I was pleased (although a little sad, also) when the law was changed in England & Wales a year or two ago. Perhaps it is still a crime in Scotland?

I'd been eager to have been dragged into a courtroom accused of blasphemy. That is one legal argument I'd have been fascinated to see formulated. Just how, exactly, can you blaspheme against someone else's god?

You accuse me of blasphemy, you say? Well, I don't worship your god. My god is a pencil-sharpener called Nigel. And he (praise be unto his blessed pencil-shavings) lives in my pocket. Asking for evidence of his divinity is blasphemy. Asking for evidence of his existence is blasphemy. Hauling his one true prophet into a courtroom is blasphemy. Yelling "Order, order! I'll have order in this courtroom! Silence the accused" is also blasphemy, m'lud.

Etc.

[exnihilo]

You can blaspheme against someone else's God in the same way as you can commit a crime in someone else's country.

I don't agree with Saudi Arabia's laws on homosexuality, for example, but I don't get to say while there "yes, but in MY country...", so equally if you're in a place where blasphemy is a crime saying "yes, but my God/lack of God..." is not a valid defence.

[munchingfoo]

Are you sure?

Assume that country X contains A, a Muslim, and B, a Christian, and assume that blasphemy (as defined by: "The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for any religion's deity" - which I am happy to have redefined) is a crime in X.

Now, if A says to B, My god is the one true god, he has blasphemed against B's god, surely?

But it's only blasphemy if B's god is the one true god (since both believe in only one god), but to say so would be blasphemous to A...

[Haunted]

So to mix your analogies:

The fact that other countries merely exist and that people live in them, is blasphemy?

[RedCelt69]

You can blaspheme against someone else's God in the same way as you can commit a crime in someone else's country.

Disagreeing with Nigel's one true prophet is blasphemy. Would you say that you have just blasphemed?

I don't agree with Saudi Arabia's laws on homosexuality, for example, but I don't get to say while there "yes, but in MY country...", so equally if you're in a place where blasphemy is a crime saying "yes, but my God/lack of God..." is not a valid defence.

Causing offence to something which doesn't exist is a non-crime. In order to prove that I have caused offence to whichever-deity-you're-defending, you would have to prove the existence of that deity. Unless blasphemy was redefined as: causing offence to theists. In which case, I'm as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.*

Now, if A says to B, My god is the one true god, he has blasphemed against B's god, surely?

A minor quibble, but... in your example, A and B recognise the same "true god". They just disagree on how that devotion should be expressed as they have different beliefs on which prophet is a prophet.

* The colour of which is apprently determined by the amount of calcium in its diet... and how long it's been there.

[Jono]

God A and B are the same god. Islam regards itself as the final revelation of the Abrhamic tradition; as does Christianity.

Are you sure?

Assume that country X contains A, a Muslim, and B, a Christian, and assume that blasphemy (as defined by: "The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for any religion's deity" - which I am happy to have redefined) is a crime in X.

Now, if A says to B, My god is the one true god, he has blasphemed against B's god, surely?

But it's only blasphemy if B's god is the one true god (since both believe in only one god), but to say so would be blasphemous to A...

[munchingfoo]

Well, substitute one of them for another monotheistic religion's deity.

[exnihilo]

My point was only that if you are somewhere where blasphemy is a crime and it is punishable then no amount of appealing to the divinity of pencil sharpeners or demanding a proof of God's existence will save you. Personally, I don't give a monkey's what you say about my God, but I'm not a theocratic dictator with the power to do something about it if I did.

In circumstances where there is no civil authority willing to enforce it, or no actual statute for the crime of blasphemy it remains blasphemous in the eyes of each faith to speak against their own God. Whether that God exists or not is immaterial, it's against the rules of their religion, of their club if you will. Whether you agree with it or not does not come into it, whether you respect it is not relevant, in their book it is a sin.

So, yes, absolutely you can blaspheme against a God you do not believe in, but you can also thumb your nose at anyone who pulls you up for having done so.

[Andy Monkey B]

God A and B are the same god. Islam regards itself as the final revelation of the Abrhamic tradition; as does Christianity.

Well no actually, the Christian God is trinitarian, being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Allah is unitarian, one person who cannot interact with himself.

[RedCelt69]

Whether that God exists or not is immaterial, it's against the rules of their religion, of their club if you will.

Well, that's my point. I'm not beholden to the rules of a club I haven't joined.

Whether you agree with it or not does not come into it, whether you respect it is not relevant, in their book it is a sin.

And in a previous thread I argued that a non-believer cannot sin against a deity they don't believe in which is worshipped by a religion they're not signed-up to.

Laws or no laws.

[RedCelt69]

God A and B are the same god. Islam regards itself as the final revelation of the Abrhamic tradition; as does Christianity.

Well no actually, the Christian God is trinitarian, being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Allah is unitarian, one person who cannot interact with himself.

Except that not all Christians hold the trinitarian view, holding that Jesus was the son of God, not a different aspect of God. An issue which resulted in one of many schisms.

[Andy Monkey B]

Excuse me for being a little bit old fashioned then, by calling that a heresy. The Christian religion just does not stand unless God is triune.

[Frank]

Excuse me for being a little bit old fashioned then, by calling that a heresy. The Christian religion just does not stand unless God is triune.

Umm the 'Christian religion' has many aspects with which it faces difficulty. And, indeed, many heresies which are, generally, regarded as still under the banner of Christian. Particular denominations of Christianity wouldn't stand unless God is regarded as triune.

Of course there's a degree of logical madness/jumping to the triune part in itself. Were one to seriously investigate it (again: day of judgment; give's some proof...let's actually assemble all of the facts, let's get a metaphysicalNA test on Jebus to see who fathered him [and if Allah has been seeing Vishnu on the side then Aphrodite will be mighty displeased...]) all, I suspect the Christian religion wouldn't stand.

Or, more accurately, despite any investigation it doesn't strike me that someone'd be able to suddenly convince people that their religion is hockum based purely on a logical inconsistency. The nature of many people's faith is a serious disregard for logic, continuity, verifiability etc.

It is not difficult to see the powerful attraction of the Quakers to someone of a mildly inquisitive and sceptical nature. The whole 'not making overpowering claims about things' is quite endearing.