Blasphemy - your views

[Loki]

What are your views with regards to blasphemy? Are you offended by it? Should blasphemy be limited, or tolerated at all? Did this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8092) offend you? Discuss freely. :)

[Skandi]

I think they all should be allowed, BUT I will try to limit use if I am around someone who I know will be offended by it.

[ikki]

Blasphemy laws, as we have in finland, arent quite part of the modern world. Correspondinly those are nowadays used only to defend islam from the truth.... like its criminal to point out mohammed was a pedophile, guess it will be criminal too to read parts of the quoran that arent favorable to them..

Freedom of speech.. just should never be touched.

[Loddfafner]

Blasphemy is a form of prayer. It is a sacrament.

[Poltergeist]

I think that every country has some special mentality, habits, history and traditions, which will make blasphemy to be allowed or not, more or less tolerated. Some generalized, universalistic moralizing about blasphemy is therefore meaningless. That's speaking from a merely legal(istic) point of view.

[Lutiferre]

If I'm offended or not depends almost entirely on who it's coming from and on their character. The more despicable their character is, the less I am offended by it, because I am only offended if it takes me by surprise.

[Vulpix]

Yes blasphemy should be allowed. True freedom of speech entails the freedom to offend.

[Nodens]

Anti-blasphemy laws/taboos are primarily a tool of social cohesion and doctrinal conformity, thus, they only make sense when applied to believers. Otherwise, if you're god is omnipotent and omniscient, he most certainly doesn't need you to defend him.

[Loki]

If I'm offended or not depends almost entirely on who it's coming from and on their character. The more despicable their character is, the less I am offended by it, because I am only offended if it takes me by surprise.

Dare I ask then, do/did I offend you? ;)

[Lutiferre]

Anti-blasphemy laws/taboos are primarily a tool of social cohesion and doctrinal conformity, thus, they only make sense when applied to believers. Otherwise, if you're god is omnipotent and omniscient, he most certainly doesn't need you to defend him.
Sure. If anything, they are to be defended from themselves.

That's also why, if I get offended by it, it's only if it is used as a way to insult me personally, that is, with a total disrespect of me and my beliefs.

[Poltergeist]

Yes blasphemy should be allowed. True freedom of speech entails the freedom to offend.

Really? Hmmmm...

[Vulpix]

Really? Hmmmm...

Yes really.

[Poltergeist]

Yes really.

To offend anyone, on any account? Without any limitation?

[Vulpix]

To offend anyone, on any account? Without any limitation?

How would it be true freedom of speech if there were limits?

[Lutiferre]

How would it be true freedom of speech if there were limits?

And tell me what you hope to achieve with this universal "freedom to offend"?

[Vulpix]

And tell me what you hope to achieve with this universal "freedom to offend"?

Freedom of speech.

[Lutiferre]

Freedom of speech.
In that context, I was assuming that "freedom to offend" was the same as "freedom of speech".

And then, your answer is that you are hoping to achieve freedom of speech with freedom of speech. What a surprise.

But what are you hoping to achieve with that?

[Ulf]

You have freedom of speech. You do not have freedom from criticism, freedom from offence or freedom from correction.

[Vulpix]

In that context, I was assuming that "freedom to offend" was the same as "freedom of speech".

Why?



And then, your answer is that you are hoping to achieve freedom of speech with freedom of speech. What a surprise.

But what are you hoping to achieve with that?

Freedom from coercion.

[Nationalitist]

The truth is that men are tired of freedom of speech.

[Atlas]

The English expression "God damnit" makes me laugh a lot, nothing offending there in my humble opinion. I'm a Roman Catholic but I do have a sense of humor. ;)

[Lutiferre]

Freedom from coercion.So it comes down to you being against "coercion". But the problem is that in any society, coercion is as inevitable as it is necessary, an indisputable fact if you observe for any amount of time, human social interactions in a large scale.

[Gooding]

In my experience with various religions, I can only see a deliberate use of blasphemy before a religious person is designed to offend that person and then falling back on freedom of speech is simply used as a cheap way out.The Christian calls the Prophet Muhammad a "Child Molester"( by the standards of 2009, rather than referencing the society of seventh century Arabia, where such marriages were more about status than sex), the Jew calls the Christian a pagan, referencing the Trinity as three seperate gods to prove his point( rather than referencing the actual doctrine, where the Three Persons are three expressions of one God), while the Muslim calls both "idolaters", referencing putting a human being on the same level as God (i.e., the Christians) or putting the Tribe on a level just below God (i.e., the Jews). You have the Secularists who just damn religion in general as being antiquated, the Asatruar, who really don't have much use for religion that isn't their own and yet will strain candidates for their own religion through a fine toothed comb and together with the Secularists damn everyone else as being nitwits. Oh, of course you also have the media blowing things up and playing on the feelings of their viewers, listeners and readers. No, I don't support hurting the feelings of others or trying to prove some sort of intellectual "superiority".I think people should believe whatever they like without being persecuted for it and I do salute those with strong faith.:D:p:thumb001:

[Loddfafner]

The poll is missing an option: should blasphemy be required?

[Vulpix]

So it comes down to you being against "coercion". But the problem is that in any society, coercion is as inevitable as it is necessary, an indisputable fact if you observe for any amount of time, human social interactions in a large scale.

Why apply coercion to speech? What is there to be gained? Spare someone's precious feelings?

[Lutiferre]

Why apply coercion to speech? What is there to be gained? Spare someone's precious feelings?
I am not talking about coercing speech, but about to which extent the freedom of speech should be an "ideal" in itself. And we are not speaking about sparing feelings, either.

The only point with not having freedom of speech as the highest ideal for speech, would be if there was another ideal which is higher and which trumphs the mere freedom to speak.

I agree, by the way, with freedom of speech as a right, but not as an ideal, and I don't believe it should always go unpunished.

[The Lawspeaker]

Should be allowed and is a matter of free speech. Religion is not above criticism or, for that matter, above insult. And whether religious institutions like it or not there should be no laws protecting their "hurt feelings".

[Puddle of Mudd]

I'm not bound to any religious authority whatsoever so therefor whatever I do/say cannot be blasphemous.

[Æmeric]

What are your views with regards to blasphemy? Are you offended by it? Should blasphemy be limited, or tolerated at all?
Generally I will try to ignore it. It becomes an issue when a person is intentionally trying to be offensive or if the person just keeps going on & on.....



Did this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8092) offend you? Discuss freely. :)

I posted in that thread but some of the pics posted after (my post) seemed a little mean spirited. Not so much funny but offensive.

[Loki]

I agree, by the way, with freedom of speech as a right, but not as an ideal, and I don't believe it should always go unpunished.

What punishments did you have in mind for offenders?

[Vulpix]

I am not talking about coercing speech, but about to which extent the freedom of speech should be an "ideal" in itself. And we are not speaking about sparing feelings, either.

The only point with not having freedom of speech as the highest ideal for speech, would be if there was another ideal which is higher and which trumphs the mere freedom to speak.

Anything specifically you are thinking about here?


I agree, by the way, with freedom of speech as a right, but not as an ideal, and I don't believe it should always go unpunished.

Again, examples?

[Lutiferre]

What punishments did you have in mind for offenders?

Torture until they repent
http://inlinethumb32.webshots.com/37727/2134240910104181437S600x600Q85.jpg

[Loddfafner]

Here is a link to a poem about a Roman soldier's treatment of Jesus' crucified body (http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirkup.html) that provoked Britain's last blasphemy trial... brought on by Mary Whitehouse who is best known in America for a cameo appearance in Pink Floyd's Animals.

"Hey you, Whitehouse! Ha ha! Charade you are!"

[Lutiferre]

Anything specifically you are thinking about here?
Well, it could be anything. It's not just Christian ideals.

It's just as much things like basic decency, solidarity with the humanity of others, common sense and respect of other people who haven't done something that would merit the given "free offense".

[Aemma]

What are your views with regards to blasphemy? Are you offended by it? Should blasphemy be limited, or tolerated at all? Did this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8092) offend you? Discuss freely. :)

Blasphemy...hmm we all ascribe meanings to words and at different levels. I come from the POV that with respect to religious words, to blaspheme can be appropriate as an expression against a monolithic system that runs unquestioned in the world. Let me explain. In French Canada, our curse words all have to do with the Roman Catholic Church. I offer some swear words such as "sacrament" (pretty self-explanatory), "tabarnac" (tabernacle), "estie" (hostie, ie the Holy Host) as examples of some curse words, blasphemes if you will, that currently don't have as much weight anymore in French Canada for the very reason that the Roman Catholic Church has lost much of its power in French Canada since the 1960's. BUT, prior to that time, these words were strong and meant something. When you swore using these words you were asserting yourself against a monolith of a system which directed much of an individual's personal life here in French Canada. The parish priest knew everything and the parishioners hung on the priest's every word...(well practically...) The parish priest told you when would be a good time to start a family, how you should raise your kids, even how you were to have sex with your spouse. It's little wonder that for some these swear words became cathartic expressions of a revolt against a certain tyrannical way of life.

To all of my Roman Catholic friends here, please don't get me wrong. I do have the utmost respect for anybody's chosen spiritual path. I only relate my own cultural experience for the purposes of this discussion. :)

As for using blasphemes myself? Well I am French Canadian and still harbour some emotional and (albeit weak) cultural attachment to the Church (as I mentioned to one member here in passing yesterday, once a Roman Catholic always a Roman Catholic pretty much) so yes I do use these French swear words. :shy: (I have been known to use some pretty fierce English ones too. Just ask my hubby! Ha!...or even Aemeric...he's the one in the corner with the bar of soap at the ready for my mouth. :P :D). But having said all of this, as per Thrymmie's own way, I too am the same. I do curb my expressions according to the audience shall we say respecting that we don't all speak the same lingo. :)

[The Lawspeaker]

Torture until they repent
http://inlinethumb32.webshots.com/37727/2134240910104181437S600x600Q85.jpg

:wink Yap.. no better friend from atheism then establish superstit.. err religion. "Religious" ideas always make atheist ranks swell.

[Grumpy Cat]

Ciboire, crisse, ostie, calisse, tabarnac!

I don't get offended by blasphemy and think anyone who does is a fool who needs to grow thicker skin.

Freedom of speech.

[Æmeric]

It seems the blasphemy in mnind is that directed against Christianity. If there were suddenly several "Jewish" threads would that be welcomed? What if there was a "Jewish Comedic Thread" with images like these:


http://images.tdaxp.com/tdaxp_flickr/103082180_8dd1a68f52_o.jpg

http://www.honestmediatoday.com/In_vain2.jpg

http://www.honestmediatoday.com/never_ending_war_for_israel.jpg

http://www.honestmediatoday.com/a382.jpg

It wouldn't be welcomed & some of the people in favor of allowing blasphemy in the name of freedom of speech & expression wouldn't be so tolerant. In the real world it is acceptable (politically correct) to ridicule Christianity but taboo to make fun of Jews or Zionism. The same with some people here. Just a whiff of anti-Semitism is enough to change some peoples opinion's regarding blasephemy & free speech.

[Skandi]

It is not enough to change my ideals, but one cannot always follow ones ideals.

[Vulpix]

I think you are confusing society with forum-environment here.


It seems the blasphemy in mnind is that directed against Christianity. If there were suddenly several "Jewish" threads would that be welcomed? What if there was a "Jewish Comedic Thread" with images like these:

It wouldn't be welcomed & some of the people in favor of allowing blasphemy in the name of freedom of speech & expression wouldn't be so tolerant. In the real world it is acceptable (politically correct) to ridicule Christianity but taboo to make fun of Jews or Zionism. The same with some people here. Just a whiff of anti-Semitism is enough to change some peoples opinion's regarding blasephemy & free speech.

[Grumpy Cat]

In the real world it is acceptable (politically correct) to ridicule Christianity but taboo to make fun of Jews or Zionism. The same with some people here. Just a whiff of anti-Semitism is enough to change some peoples opinion's regarding blasephemy & free speech.

Nope wouldn't change my opinion. I will make fun of Jews and I am heavily critical of Zionism. I make fun of Jews around Jews, they don't care, the ones who do, as I said before need to grow some thicker skin. I'm also not afraid to criticize Islam even though many on the PC crowd would consider that racist (even though Islam is not a race) and Muslims tend to throw violent temper tantrums when their religion is criticized or blasphemed against (see Salman Rushdie and Jyllands-Posten).

[Æmeric]

I think you are confusing society with forum-environment here.

What is the forum-enviroment? The discussions have tended to be anti-Christian as of late. Odd seeing how Europe seems to be effectively de-Christianized & is in the process of being Islamicized. At least in America Evangelical Christianity provides a bulkwork against Islamicization.

[Vulpix]

Meaning Apricity vs. society as a whole.


What is the forum-enviroment? The discussions have tended to be anti-Christian as of late. Odd seeing how Europe seems to be effectively de-Christianized & is in the process of being Islamicized. At least in America Evangelical Christianity provides a bulkwork against Islamicization.

[Grumpy Cat]

At least in America Evangelical Christianity provides a bulkwork against Islamicization.

Evangelical Christians are just as delusional as Muslims.

[Æmeric]

:rolleyes:

You already live in a society that was created by Christians. It's only been over the last 50-years (at least in North America) that secularism has taken hold, along with the apathy & deterioration of Western Society. And if given a choice between living in the Alabama Bible Belt or Saudi Arabia which would be preferable to most?

[Aemma]

It seems the blasphemy in mnind is that directed against Christianity. If there were suddenly several "Jewish" threads would that be welcomed? What if there was a "Jewish Comedic Thread"

....

It wouldn't be welcomed & some of the people in favor of allowing blasphemy in the name of freedom of speech & expression wouldn't be so tolerant. In the real world it is acceptable (politically correct) to ridicule Christianity but taboo to make fun of Jews or Zionism. The same with some people here. Just a whiff of anti-Semitism is enough to change some peoples opinion's regarding blasephemy & free speech.

Well yes and I can't argue with you on that point because this is true.

[The Lawspeaker]

:rolleyes:

You already live in a society that was created by Christians. It's only been over the last 50-years (at least in North America) that secularism has taken hold, along with the apathy & deterioration of Western Society. And if given a choice between living in the Alabama Bible Belt or Saudi Arabia which would be preferable to most?
Neither of them. The very choice is absurd.

[Brynhild]

I'm not a christian so those rules don't apply to me. I'm not aware of any such laws in Australia. If I'm around christians I would prefer not to discuss topics in regards to any religion, as I know any such discussion could easily offend.

[Lutiferre]

:rolleyes:

You already live in a society that was created by Christians. It's only been over the last 50-years (at least in North America) that secularism has taken hold, along with the apathy & deterioration of Western Society. And if given a choice between living in the Alabama Bible Belt or Saudi Arabia which would be preferable to most?

It's interesting to see how busy the descendants of Christians are, disgracing the God of their fathers for the last thousands of years, all while Muslims, Jews and others, are doing fine, and establishing their influence and power within the confines of Christendom with no seeming barriers and with the free ride of European PC and self-loathing.

[Grumpy Cat]

You already live in a society that was created by Christians.

The United States was founded as a secular nation in 1776. Read these quotes by the Founding Fathers:

Thomas Jefferson


"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."


"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."


"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

John Adams


"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"


"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."


"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Thomas Paine


"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."


"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."


"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."


"The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

James Madison


"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."


And yes, Evangelicals are delusional, like the Muslims they complain about. I live on an Island that is crawling with them. These are people who speak in tongues and try to get the teaching of evolution out of schools. Get real. :rolleyes:

[Aemma]

Neither of them. The very choice is absurd.

Well now, let's give this a fair chance shall we? And I don't really think that the choices are that absurd to tell you the truth.

A theocracy is a theocracy, no matter which way you slice it. Of the two which is the more palatable to you as a European or one of European descent?

I'm just reframing Aemeric's question a bit since it has much merit.

[The Lawspeaker]

Look. I am living on the edge of what is known here as the Bible Belt.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/SGP-stemmers_per_gemeente_Tweede_Kamer_2003.png

It's a region characterized by a much higher native birthrate (a good thing) but also by absurdities like state-subsidized Christian schools, Christian-based laws in society and politics like the sabbath on Sunday (the shops are closed and public transport is negligible). 8 of the 39 council seats and 2 out of 6 seats in the council of aldermen and the mayor are occupied by Christian parties (Christen-Democratisch Appèl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Appeal) and ChristenUnie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christen_Unie) both of which also form up, together with the social democrats, the national cabinet and are responsible for the lack of response towards our problems) and of course influence our policies.

The question that can be asked now is whether Christianity has been, until now, a bulwark against Islam. The answer is a resounding no. Only the small minority of the hard-line Christians (particularly those united in the Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party), a political party) have shown some resistance towards Islam. But those people are usually not much better then Islam, albeit native.

So what are those villages like, out there on the Bible Belt. They are secluded and always look inward. But they have their social problems, with an all-controlling church and their young people up to their heads in alcohol and drug abuse.

[Cato]

I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that care should be taken when one speaks openly, so as not to be seens as a purveyor of offensive rhetoric. I truly believe that divine providence rewards and punishes actions, even words, and we are what we speak to a great degree. The idea of complete freedom of speech I find to be as offensive as the complete controlling of speech. Many people speak without much care, and any sort of unsavory topic will be discussed by them- and I believe that certain shameful topics ought not to be discussed. Period. Yes, I may be a prude, but I believe that speech has to be guarded to be truly effective.

Religion can be discussed without uttering blasphemies, which I see as the theological equivalent of swearing. One of the negative confessions from the Papyrus of Ani has the speaker saying to the Gods of the underworld: I have not cursed God. Since I believe that the divine is many-named, I try not to take any of the names of the divine in a way that can be construed as a curse. Yes, it's hard with certain religions, like Islam, I admit that.

[Grumpy Cat]

Look. I am living on the edge of what is known here as the Bible Belt.

I'm in the Canadian equivalent to the Bible Belt. It sucks. Everything is closed on Sunday and it's bad for the local economy but the Evangelicals still fight it tooth and nail and the local government cow-tows to them.

[Æmeric]

The United States was founded as a secular nation in 1776. Read these quotes by the Founding Fathers:
The United States was a confederation of sovereign states. There was no federally sanctioned Church, though some states still had established churches for several decades after independence. In spite of the fact that some people such as Adams & Jefferson were Unitarian or Deist, most Americans were Christians. The US was a defacto Christian nation if not one by law.

Turkey is officially a secular republic. But would anyone dispute the fact that Turkey is also a Muslim nation?


And yes, Evangelicals are delusional, like the Muslims they complain about. I live on an Island that is crawling with them. These are people who speak in tongues and try to get the teaching of evolution out of schools. Get real. :rolleyes:
And..... shouldn't these people be allowed to advocate for their beliefs & lifestyle like everyone else? This is a byproduct of living in a society that preaches multiculturalism & then forces people to interact by going to the same schools. Seperate schools for Evangelicals & secularists would be the solution.

Look. I am living on the edge of what is known here as the Bible Belt.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/SGP-stemmers_per_gemeente_Tweede_Kamer_2003.png

It's a region characterized by mugh higher native birthrate (a good thing) but also by absurdities like state-subsidized Christian schools, Christian-based laws in society and politics like the sabbath on Sunday (the shops are closed and public transport is negligible). 8 of the 39 council seats and 2 out of 6 seats in the council of aldermen and the mayor are occupied by Christian parties (Christen-Democratisch Appèl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Appeal) and ChristenUnie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christen_Unie) both of which also form up, together with the social democrats, the national cabinet and are responsible for the lack of response towards our problems) and of course influence our policies.

The question that can be asked now is whether Christianity has been, until now, a bulwark against Islam. The answer is a resounding no. Only the small minority of the hard-line Christians (particularly those united in the Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party), a political party) have shown some resistance towards Islam. But those people are usually not much better then Islam, albeit native.

Christianity was a bulwark against Islam in the Middle Ages in Spain & in Vienna in 1683. Calvinism was a bulwark against Catholic Spain in the 16th century. What has happened over the course of the 20th century is a collapse of faith in the West.

[The Lawspeaker]

In Staphorst, Overijssel it is strictly forbidden to curse and swear on the street, illegal to take pictures/video recordings of inhabitants without their permission and ill-advised to visit it on a Sunday because of Christian traditions.

The total (high- a very good thing) fertility rate stood at 2.76 in 2003, the highest in the Netherlands.
(source wikipedia)

A lot of people also don't seem to vaccinate their children (a good or bad thing ?) and the last mayor outbreak of polio was in 1971. 39 people contacted the illness, 5 died and several were crippled for life.






Christianity was a bulwark against Islam in the Middle Ages in Spain & in Vienna in 1683. Calvinism was a bulwark against Catholic Spain in the 16th century. What has happened over the course of the 20th century is a collapse of faith in the West.
Yes- in the Middle Ages. But we have a Christian/Social Democratic government at the moment and neither the Social Democrats or the Christians are doing anything. So there goes your theory :P

[Treffie]

The truth is that men are tired of freedom of speech.

Do you think so? Scared more like (in my opinion)

[Sally]

What are your views with regards to blasphemy? Are you offended by it? Should blasphemy be limited, or tolerated at all? Did this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8092) offend you? Discuss freely. :)

Some of the material I find offensive, but not all of it. Generally, I think some folks just like to shock, offend and to provoke some sort of a reaction. Frankly, I find some of the humour sophomoric, really. Overall, I guess I'm somewhat...blasé about the whole issue.

What amuses me (not offends) the most is a type of forum warrior Pagan type, usually American or some sort of colonial, who is blindly anti-Christian and pro-Germanic. They're usually pretty grim and humourless, and have the type of zeal I see usually only in fanatical born-again Christians. They identify so strongly with Europe, too, but probably have no idea how things really are here. :wink

[Loki]

Religion will always be a hot topic. On some internet forums, religious discussion is not even allowed, because of its sensitive nature and ability to set members up against each other.

I know I have been making quite a few threads lately with regards to Christianity, but it just seems to be the topic of the day, with some new arrivals from Stirpes. It has actually led to some good debate, and the most active of threads.

My intention is not to make Christians angry or anything. I myself was one, and I recognise the dedication that goes along with being an active religionist.

Generally speaking, most Europeans seem to have the ability to laugh at themselves (with some notable peripheral exceptions, but that's probably because of neighbourly influence/continuum). When you get to places like the Middle East, this is unheard of. Part of relative European success can be attributed to an inward-looking self-critical attitude. It is from this which a lot of atheism you see here is spawned. Personally, I am very much self-critical as well.

[Loki]

It wouldn't be welcomed & some of the people in favor of allowing blasphemy in the name of freedom of speech & expression wouldn't be so tolerant. In the real world it is acceptable (politically correct) to ridicule Christianity but taboo to make fun of Jews or Zionism. The same with some people here. Just a whiff of anti-Semitism is enough to change some peoples opinion's regarding blasephemy & free speech.

It is not a problem at all.

When this forum started and we had very few members, I tried to direct discussions away from this kind of thing, in order to show that we are not your typical Stormfront-like forum. I mean, if a small, new forum is dominated by Jewish threads then many serious people would lose interest in it. I think this strategy has paid off -- we have managed to attract very many quality posters on Apricity. Me and Foxie can really say that we are pleased with the end result.

On a new, small forum is it necessary to direct discussions in order to create a general forum climate. That task is mostly done now, and less direction from the administration is required on content.

[Johnny Bravo]

When you swore using these words you were asserting yourself against a monolith of a system which directed much of an individual's personal life here in French Canada. The parish priest knew everything and the parishioners hung on the priest's every word...(well practically...) The parish priest told you when would be a good time to start a family, how you should raise your kids, even how you were to have sex with your spouse. It's little wonder that for some these swear words became cathartic expressions of a revolt against a certain tyrannical way of life.


w0rd

He was also familiar with the innermost sexual fantasies of the women from his flock, since that was rather easy to gather from their confessions. That's an unfair advantage over those who had to figure them out. :coffee:

[Johnny Bravo]

I agree, by the way, with freedom of speech as a right, but not as an ideal, and I don't believe it should always go unpunished.

The real question is: whom would you entrust with the task of punishing blasphemers? Some sex-starved cleric?


Well, it could be anything. It's not just Christian ideals.

It's just as much things like basic decency, solidarity with the humanity of others, common sense and respect of other people who haven't done something that would merit the given "free offense".

Yep, tyranny is always justified under the guise of noble ideals. :rolleyes2: Again, who should be the punisher, what kind of punishment should be meted out and what exactly is to be punished?

[Nodens]

Did I miss it, or did this thread go on for seven pages without actually establishing what constitutes blasphemy?

[Johnny Bravo]

Christianity was a bulwark against Islam in the Middle Ages in Spain & in Vienna in 1683. Calvinism was a bulwark against Catholic Spain in the 16th century. What has happened over the course of the 20th century is a collapse of faith in the West.

Really. How do you square that with religious universalism? Modern Protestant sects provide a lot of support for Africa. Your Protestant American ancestors even paid for black slaves - a foreign element if there ever was one.


What is the forum-enviroment? The discussions have tended to be anti-Christian as of late. Odd seeing how Europe seems to be effectively de-Christianized & is in the process of being Islamicized. At least in America Evangelical Christianity provides a bulkwork against Islamicization.

Time to pick up a few books by some of the more prominent atheists: :thumb001:

"Insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations' human development index are unwaveringly religious. " ~Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Christopher Hitchens on Free Speech and Freedom of Expression and Islam:

6379618149058958603

"And nobody in authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary—that we stand with the Danes against this defamation and blackmail and sabotage. Instead, all compassion and concern is apparently to be expended upon those who lit the powder trail, and who yell and scream for joy as the embassies of democracies are put to the torch in the capital cities of miserable, fly-blown dictatorships. Let's be sure we haven't hurt the vandals' feelings." http://www.slate.com/id/2136714/

What did the Vatican do? They condemned the cartoons and the Archbishop of Canterbury did the same.

[Fortis in Arduis]

If I am a Christian, I should not blaspheme, because that would be lack of self-respect.

I am an atheist, I should not blaspheme, because that would be lack of self-respect.

I voted "No - all blasphemic expressions should be allowed".

[Lutiferre]

The real question is: whom would you entrust with the task of punishing blasphemers? Some sex-starved cleric?



Yep, tyranny is always justified under the guise of noble ideals. :rolleyes2: Again, who should be the punisher, what kind of punishment should be meted out and what exactly is to be punished?
I am not talking about tyranny or even about instituting a government-controlled punishment. But I do think a community should have it's right to punish, for instance, by banning the person, fittingly any person who has a complete lack of respect for it's religious, cultural or ethnic loyalties or just basic moral principles. And that is just plain common sense. If we followed that, an invasion of Middle Easterners would not be possible, considering their bad behaviour.

[Æmeric]

Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. The Muslims are not Christian either. But what about there victims? More likely they were Christians or secualrist Europeans.

The fact that secularism has taken hold means that the influx of non-Christian immigrants is not an issue because religion is not an issue (officially). If Western Europe was still (a defacto) Christian society then the influx of Muslims immigrants would very much be an issue. But there are still idiot politicians in Europe who believe that the Muslims will adopt secularism & religion will not be an issue.

Like it or not, religious heritage has played an important role in shaping all societies, including Chrisitianity in the West & Islam in the Middle East & North Africa. Trying to stamp out all Christian influences is just contributing to the collapse of Western Civilization.

[Lutiferre]

The Muslims are not Christian either. But what about there victims? More likely they were Christians or secualrist Europeans.

The fact that secularism has taken hold means that the influx of non-Christian immigrants is not an issue because religion is not an issue (officially). If Western Europe was still (a defacto) Christian society then the influx of Muslims immigrants would very much be an issue. But there are still idiot politicians in Europe who believe that the Muslims will adopt secularism & religion will not be an issue.

Like it or not, religious heritage has played an important role in shaping all societies, including Chrisitianity in the West & Islam in the Middle East & North Africa. Trying to stamp out all Christian influences is just contributing to the collapse of Western Civilization.
Exactly, and in spite of what unrealistic fantasies about neo-paganism people might have, that's not going to have any impact. It's simply fringe. And no, Dawkinsian secular-humanism is not going to help us either.

[Cato]

Any sort of inappropriate speech ought to be avoided by anyone who thinks he or she is well-bred. If you get a chance to listen to how many people talk in a casual way, a lot of what's said is basically verbal diarrhea. I don't care about PC munbo-jumbo, but speech is a powerful tool and ought to be treated as such.

[Liffrea]

Insult for insult’s sake (whether that’s blasphemous or not is irrelevant) is low and in bad taste, but I don’t believe anything should be free from objective criticism, ideology and theory can either defend themselves on a logical basis or they can not. Of course in the case of religion not all premises are logical, perhaps not any??, but I guess the early part of the statement still counts.

I believe if you accept the right of freedom of speech then you accept the responsibility of being mature enough to deal with criticism of your own beliefs, if you can’t accept the later then you have no right to the former.

On a personal level I generally take offence at very little usually because, one I can defend my core beliefs well enough for me (which is all that really matters I’m not asking you to believe it after all), but I welcome criticism when it has a point, and two I generally have to care about the person making the comment for it to affect me on an emotional level.

Besides that Thor is a big bastard with a hammer and he will smite your infidel ass with bolts of lightning from his arse if you say nasty things about him.:D

[Johnny Bravo]

The Muslims are not Christian either. But what about there victims? More likely they were Christians or secualrist Europeans.

The fact that secularism has taken hold means that the influx of non-Christian immigrants is not an issue because religion is not an issue (officially). If Western Europe was still (a defacto) Christian society then the influx of Muslims immigrants would very much be an issue. But there are still idiot politicians in Europe who believe that the Muslims will adopt secularism & religion will not be an issue.

Like it or not, religious heritage has played an important role in shaping all societies, including Chrisitianity in the West & Islam in the Middle East & North Africa. Trying to stamp out all Christian influences is just contributing to the collapse of Western Civilization.

The point is that atheists are rather critical of Islam. The problem is not enough atheism. :thumbs up

Many African immigrants are Christian. What about those?

[Lutiferre]

The point is that atheists are rather critical of Islam. The problem is not enough atheism. :thumbs up

Many African immigrants are Christian. What about those?
The Christian immigrants in Denmark haven't had any impact, and have been far less detrimental to our culture and demographics than the Muslim hordes.

[Æmeric]

Many African immigrants are Christian. What about those?

:rolleyes2:

European Christianity imposed upon an alien people like Negroes does not make them European. Nor necessarily Christian. They have generally incorporate their own African folk customs & morality into their version of Christianity. Same with the Hispanicized Indians of the New World.

And before you start on about Chrisitianity being a desert faith imposed upon Europeans, it is not. Christianity evolved in Europe. It is a significant part of the core of European Civilization.

[Lutiferre]

European Christianity imposed upon an alien people like Negroes does not make them European. Nor necessarily Christian.
It does make them Christian. But that doesn't make them European.


They have generally incorporate their own African folk customs & morality into their version of Christianity. Same with the Hispanicized Indians of the New World.
Of course, they have another cultural and ethnic expression which is fitting and peculiar to themselves. However, that is a matter completely secondary to whether they are Christian or not.

Being Christian is not a certificate for being European, or any other nationality for that matter. It's a belief. One does not convert to being a European by adhering to Christianity. And nor should that be the case.

Separate cultures and ethnicities will and should retain their distinctiveness and good qualities all over the world, no matter what their beliefs are. Beliefs are not ethnicity, and ethnicity are not beliefs.


And before you start on about Chrisitianity being a desert faith imposed upon Europeans, it is not. Christianity evolved in Europe. It is a significant part of the core of European Civilization.
There would be no collective European identity as it exists today in the slightest without the common Christian cultural and religious expressions we have developed in history. Of course Christianity lies at the core of European civilisation, because it lies at the core of the very actuality and relevance of in what Europeanness consists.

[Johnny Bravo]

:rolleyes2:

European Christianity imposed upon an alien people like Negroes does not make them European. Nor necessarily Christian. They have generally incorporate their own African folk customs & morality into their version of Christianity. Same with the Hispanicized Indians of the New World.



Except that many bleeding-heart Christian support their immigration to a "better world." A forumite from another forum bemoaned the fact that his Episcopalian church imported blacks from Africa and provided support to them.


And before you start on about Chrisitianity being a desert faith imposed upon Europeans, it is not. Christianity evolved in Europe. It is a significant part of the core of European Civilization.

It's not European just because it changed in Europe. Those various accretions do not make a Semitic religion European.

[Lutiferre]

Except that many bleeding-heart Christian support their immigration to a "better world." A forumite from another forum bemoaned the fact that his Episcopalian church imported blacks from Africa and provided support to them.
And yet for the millenium that Christianity was actually dominating, until the French Revolution, there was no such Christian sentiment, and no immigration of that kind. It makes no sense to say that it's Christian when it didn't come until Christianity was weakened by the anti-Christian revolutions.


It's not European just because it changed in Europe. Those various accretions do not make a Semitic religion European.
Just like Indo-European culture is not European just because it changed in Europe. Neolithic Resistance Forever, 14/88!

[Óttar]

If a religion is worth its salt, it will survive satire, mockery and criticism.

[Lutiferre]

If a religion is worth its salt, it will survive satire, mockery and criticism.
And Christianity has survived satire and mockery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito) for two millennia.

[Poltergeist]

It's not European just because it changed in Europe. Those various accretions do not make a Semitic religion European.

Even if Christianity is totally "Middle Eastern", "Semitic", which is doubtful, I couldn't care less.

This is one of the lamest arguments against Christianity. There are others, which make more sense.

[Nodens]

Even if Christianity is totally "Middle Eastern", "Semitic", which is doubtful, I couldn't care less.

This is one of the lamest arguments against Christianity. There are others, which make more sense.

As a standalone argument, it is indeed rather unimpressive. It is, however, a valid refutation to the premise that equates Europe with Christianity and vice versa.

[Lutiferre]

As a standalone argument, it is indeed rather unimpressive. It is, however, a valid refutation to the premise that equates Europe with Christianity and vice versa.
Christianity doesn't need to be confined to Europe for Christianity to be defining for Europe as a geocultural sphere.

[Poltergeist]

As a standalone argument, it is indeed rather unimpressive. It is, however, a valid refutation to the premise that equates Europe with Christianity and vice versa.

Many "preservationist", "racialist" minded people take it as their crown argument, I experienced it plenty of times. And it's pretty dumb. "But ya know, Jeezus wasn' one of our blond nordics/Gauls/whatever, but a middle eastern swarthy"....

Equating Europe with Christianity? Very few people are doing that anyway.

[Nodens]

Christianity doesn't need to be confined to Europe for Christianity to be defining for Europe as a geocultural sphere.

Incidental truth vs. essential truth.

[Lutiferre]

Incidental truth vs. essential truth.
Christiantiy is essential for the geocultural sphere of Europe but is not thereby confined or limited to it.

[Nodens]

Christiantiy is essential for the geocultural sphere of Europe

Your interpretation, no more, no less.

[Johnny Bravo]

And yet for the millenium that Christianity was actually dominating, until the French Revolution, there was no such Christian sentiment, and no immigration of that kind. It makes no sense to say that it's Christian when it didn't come until Christianity was weakened by the anti-Christian revolutions.

Then why were places like Mexico conquered and its inhabitants converted to Xianity? Jewish immigrants were a-okay as long as they converted to Christianity.

People seem to forget that in the past, Europe hardly had enough food to sustain its own population, especially the lowest classes. Mass transportation was also not available to the extent it is now.


Just like Indo-European culture is not European just because it changed in Europe. Neolithic Resistance Forever, 14/88!

Dude, you can't be serious. European culture has always been Indo-European. And it has obvously evolved. Evolving - do you like that word? :cool:

Christianity is originally Semitic and has only been made palatable to Europeans. Major difference.

14/88, bro

[Lutiferre]

Then why were places like Mexico conquered and its inhabitants converted to Xianity?
That has nothing to do with immigration; that's rather imperialism.


Jewish immigrants were a-okay as long as they converted to Christianity.
Jewish immigrants were scattered all over the Roman Empire before Christianity, and after Christianity took control, became persecuted by many Christians as the people who killed God.


Dude, you can't be serious. European culture has always been Indo-European. And it has obvously been evolving. Evolving - do you like that word? :cool:
"European" culture has always been Christian. There was no collective European geocultural identity or continuum which was unique from the continuum into North Africa and the Middle East before Christendom. Likewise, the people who are Europeans are descended from people who were not Christian, and the people who are Indo-Europeans are descended from people who were not so.


Christianity is originally Semitic and has only been made palatable to Europeans. Major difference.
It has not been made palatable to "Europeans", there were no European collective identity to make it palatable to. There was the civilised world and the barbaric world, and that schism cut what later became Europe into two halves, until Christian universalism unified it into a whole.

[Grumpy Cat]

:rolleyes2:

European Christianity imposed upon an alien people like Negroes does not make them European. Nor necessarily Christian. They have generally incorporate their own African folk customs & morality into their version of Christianity. Same with the Hispanicized Indians of the New World.



What about the European pagan customs that have been incorporated into Christianity? There's very much an influence there, especially around Christmas.

[Lutiferre]

What about the European pagan customs that have been incorporated into Christianity? There's very much an influence there, especially around Christmas.
European pagan culture survived into Christianity, just the theology was replaced with Christian theology to make it acceptable to Christian believers.

[Nationalitist]

Many "preservationist", "racialist" minded people take it as their crown argument, I experienced it plenty of times. And it's pretty dumb. "But ya know, Jeezus wasn' one of our blond nordics/Gauls/whatever, but a middle eastern swarthy"....

Yeah, the only argument that makes their over-simplified anti-Christianity slightly different from Liberal anti-Christian bashing.

Tarnhari/Arahari http://i31.tinypic.com/wk5ep.jpg

[Nationalitist]

Tarnhari, the brave champion of truth about the greatness of Aryan civilization and race and tireless fighter against the alien religion of x-tianity.

http://forum.stirpes.net/atrium/21552-tarnharis-view-world-aryans-christianity-racialism-etc-split.html

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/politics-jihad-current-affairs/12068-national-socialism-islam-9.html

Tarnhari!

[Cato]

By Aryan I assume you mean Indo-Iranian? :)

[F.M.S. Panzerfaust]

Depends on what kind of blasphemy it is.

But taboos are necessary. The taboo and its transgression lives together. What fun have life without the intimacy of a taboo? The transgression of a taboo always give that sadistic pleasure that only a true heretic can feels...and the transgression dont undermine the taboo, it only suspends it. I myself am a pseudo moralist: in the public I try to be the more chaste, the more coy, the more gentle I can, but in private I can turn into a demon, if someone's not looking.

An example of how the relationship between taboo and transgression works: when some capitalist pig request for YouTube to delete one of my videos because of a supposedly "copyright infringement", this dont stop me of making videos...I even make more. The simple fact of knowing the nature of transgression gives inspiration to the art...following this, I ask you what is black metal today, if not a bunch of clowns selling albuns? To be really underground, I think it should be prohibited.

When everything is allowed, life becomes unbearable, because you are exposed to all kind of stupidity that was to be supressed with the taboo, and your dignity is also harmed if the transgression offends you and you cant give the payback. Only intelligent people are capable of a interesting transgression. But theres no transgression when theres no prohibition. True freedom is only possible with the encirclement in place. If theres no encirclement, then you have empty, boring libertines, whose value is a nullity.

[Absinthe]

I am not in favor of censorship but I do think that sometimes blasphemy is in bad taste.

I am not really fond of mocking other people's faith same as I don't appreciate mockery about my own point beliefs...

[Tabiti]

I'm a blasphemer myself :D

[Absinthe]

I'm a blasphemer myself :D

ZNeq2Utm0nU

[ikki]

I am not in favor of censorship but I do think that sometimes blasphemy is in bad taste.

I am not really fond of mocking other people's faith same as I don't appreciate mockery about my own point beliefs...


The prophet Mohammed was a pedophile and islam a religion sanctifying pedophilia, a pedophiliareligion.


Thats more or less the line that recently led to a conviction on blasphmemy here. http://www.halla-aho.com/scripta/
The result was a 30 days fine. It is being taken to the next level, where a more final judgement awaits in a year or maybe two. Intrestinly enough it was considered a aggravating factor that he sought to prove this from the religions own sources and spokesmen confirming the details.

That yes, he was screwing a 9yo girl. And yes, his actions are the basis for the principle of childbrides being perfectly allowed.

[Svarog]

Nope, blasphemy is rarely doing any harm to true believers and really harm only the actual persons doing the same, so as long as there is no material damage or victims (like ceremonial burnings, did happen in Italy few years ago), I see no problem with it, persons degrading themselves does not concern me.

[safinator]

No, religious dogmas are outdated to say at least but maybe it would be nice to respect some people ideas.

[Damião de Góis]

I'm not bothered by it, but still i never do it, probably because of my catholic upbringing.

[heyaitsme]

It's not good. If you're religious and go to Church and everything you shouldn't do it.. what i don't understand is people that have gone to Church for years and they still do it!

[askra]

insulting something or somebody whose existence is not scientifically proved is not improper, in my opinion.
i think is worse insulting real people than a divinity.

[Eldritch]

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/308/onion_news761_jpg_600x1000_q85.jpg

[Leadchucker]

Nope, blasphemy is rarely doing any harm to true believers and really harm only the actual persons doing the same, so as long as there is no material damage or victims , I see no problem with it, persons degrading themselves does not concern me.


This is my feelings more or less. I don't partake in it myself, as like Alex Delarge my upbringing has a lot to do with my beliefs now. It makes me cringe a bit, but would never say anything to someone in the interest of freedom of speech.

[Duży Zaganiacz]

I voted Yes, not because blasphemies offend me (they don't) but because they are misused in order to confuse people. Not so long ago they introduced a known blasphemer to the Polish public TV and treated him like a holy cow, effectively making young people believe that what he says in undeniable.

[Drawing-slim]

Religion will always be a hot topic. On some internet forums, religious discussion is not even allowed, because of its sensitive nature and ability to set members up against each other.

I know I have been making quite a few threads lately with regards to Christianity, but it just seems to be the topic of the day, with some new arrivals from Stirpes. It has actually led to some good debate, and the most active of threads.

My intention is not to make Christians angry or anything. I myself was one, and I recognise the dedication that goes along with being an active religionist.

Generally speaking, most Europeans seem to have the ability to laugh at themselves (with some notable peripheral exceptions, but that's probably because of neighbourly influence/continuum). When you get to places like the Middle East, this is unheard of. Part of relative European success can be attributed to an inward-looking self-critical attitude. It is from this which a lot of atheism you see here is spawned. Personally, I am very much self-critical as well.you're obsolutely correct.
Infact those members making funny posts of jesus in this thread is what makes the difference between european success and midleastern failure.
Is this group of europeans who are genuianly de-tached from superstitions, and at any given time these people who make fun of muhamed and jesus so openly are i bet are more people to be trusted then any believer.

[Bucovina]

Self irony has always been productive, on many levels. A strong and serious term like "blasphemy" shouldn't be used in such contexts.

[Lithium]

I don't believe in blasphemy and lines and borders created by people in general.

[Just90]

Should be allowed

[accepthetruth]

my view of blasphemy is that virgin mary was a whore who enjoyed her rape by roman guards .

the pope is a nazi and should be shot and all catholicism is, is a big backlash that occurred from the guilt of Longinus (ROMANS) and Pilot himself as well. no wonder europe's most blood thirsty people become the center of christianity overnight (LOL).

OKAY, that was extreme.

blasphemy is free thinking and anti-brainwashing, so it should definitely be allowed.

[Anusiya]

http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1333219258140058941.jpg

[Incal]

Satire and sense of humor are more important and useful IRL than fables and myths IMO.

[antonio]

When I listen anyone making shit upon God, I instinctively cant help from wanting a lightning falling from sky right into him, when such a common Iberian blasphemy is used almost discretionaly without not even a proper case of anger. For example it's a costume very generalized in Catalonia, and I dislike it big time and puts modern Catalonia really down for me, as a kind of sociological symptom of a rotten society with a broken spine (maybe a delayed reaction to franquist Nationalcatolicism?)

Pd. I tolerate blasphemy on contexts of anger and desperation.

[The Lawspeaker]

http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1333219258140058941.jpg

[Mraz]

OK, but the State shouldn't finance art or any kind of expression that promotes blasphemy.