• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blasphemy

Skeptic Bob said:
I’m sure there is a fringe element of religious fundamentalists out there who would support blasphemy laws in the US. But I haven’t encountered them and seriously doubt they are growing in number.
Click to expand...

It would be dumb of them to support blasphemy laws because it would be fine and dandy when they had influence, but wouldn't be fine and dandy when they didn't have influence and those laws get used against them.

Same vice versa...

Laws like that (limiting free speech) are just a bad idea all around.
 
Angel said:
If blasphemy is "speaking evil of X," and that is just what blasphemy is
Click to expand...
Except it’s not. Blasphemy is insulting or showing contempt for something sacred.

For example, the last person in the U.S to be convicted for blasphemy was Charles Lee Smith in Little Rock Arkansas in 1928. His crime was giving away free atheist literature with a sign that said “Evolution Is True. The Bible's a Lie. God's a Ghost."

That doesn’t fit your definition of blasphemy. Neither does any blasphemy law i’ve ever seen.

So the only support for your argument is redefine a common word.
 
tosca1 said:
The article was referring only to Islam. Thus, Islamophobia.
Click to expand...

No the article was referring to non islamics making claims that would create hatred and lead to violence against islamic theists and their beliefs.
You need to read it again.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I am not confused. That is exactly how I saw it.

It is also how I explained it.

You do not see the difference between incitement to hate somebody and statemnets of hate about a god or religion.
Click to expand...
No, your view and soylentgreen's view are the same or similar; my view is different.

Secular blasphemy, as I am using the term, is not incitement to harm. You and soylentgreen have misinterpreted my use of the term as incitement to harm. I am talking about speech that disparages but does not incite to harm. That's what I mean by secular blasphemy.

If someone in a liberal democracy today states that "X (plug in a member of a protected class, or the entire class) is Y (plug in a strong pejorative, a maligning of some kind, an expression of dislike or even hatred, an offensive word or name for X or members of X), the one expressing himself in this manner is treated (in the press, in social media, in politically correct company) as a blasphemer.

Whereas if someone in a liberal democracy today states that "X (plug in a God or religion) is Y (plug in a strong pejorative, a maligning of some kind, an expression of dislike or even hatred, an offensive word or name), the one expressing himself in this manner is not treated as a blasphemer, and what's more the whole idea that blasphemy in this sense should be taken seriously is mocked in liberal democracy today.

In short, we can malign God and religion, but we cannot malign a protected class or its members.

Does this clear the matter up for you?
 
Angel said:
If blasphemy is "speaking evil of X," and that is just what blasphemy is, then there clearly appear to be unwritten laws, and even some written riders to written laws, against secular blasphemy throughout liberal democratic culture today. Define a protected class, and the sin of blasphemy attends the definition.

So the question is, why is secular blasphemy accepted as a matter of course, but religious blasphemy ridiculed and reviled (=blasphemed!!)?
The post quoted above is all over the post it replies to for blaspheming against secular blasphemy, whereas blasphemy against religious blasphemy, as in the OP, goes unremarked. Why is that, I wonder?
Click to expand...

The link given was not merely speaking evil of x. The very first sentence in that link tells you that.

Right-wing activists are attacking a motion in Canadian Parliament intended to combat anti-Islamic racism and religious discrimination as a crackdown on free speech.
Click to expand...

This is no doubt white right wing christians attacking muslims.
 
pinqy said:
Except it’s not. Blasphemy is insulting or showing contempt for something sacred.

For example, the last person in the U.S to be convicted for blasphemy was Charles Lee Smith in Little Rock Arkansas in 1928. His crime was giving away free atheist literature with a sign that said “Evolution Is True. The Bible's a Lie. God's a Ghost."

That doesn’t fit your definition of blasphemy. Neither does any blasphemy law i’ve ever seen.

So the only support for your argument is redefine a common word.
Click to expand...
Except my broader use of the term has been around for 800 years and is recognized by dictionaries.



It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse

Blasphemy has been used to mean "irreverence" in a non-religious context. Sir Francis Bacon uses "blasphemy" in this way in Advancement of Learning, where he speaks of "blasphemy against teaching".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy


1. (intransitive) To commit blasphemy; to speak against God or religious doctrine.
2. (transitive) To speak of, or address, with impious irreverence; to revile impiously (anything sacred).
3. (transitive) To calumniate; to revile; to abuse
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blaspheme

1,
contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine
2.
any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/blasphemy


Saying offensive things about God or religion is blasphemy. Blasphemy can be used for offensive ideas in other areas too.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/blasphemy
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46040515




As folks in the USofA seem to be going farther and farther off the rails of sanity, I have to wonder how many would be open to incorporating blasphemy laws and prison sentences for blasphemy in the USofA?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see there's a growing fringe that thinks such an idea is worthy of consideration.

(and no, this isn't about muslims in the USofA having such thoughts)

Anybody here care to "step up" and explain how prison sentences for blasphemy in the USofA wouldn't be such a bad idea to consider?

Or, is this one topic we can get 100% agreement on as being abhorrently insane?
Click to expand...

It is an interesting distinction between Islam and the other Abrahamic Religions that, while the laws are essentially all the same, Islam remains the one hold out that largely believes that punishment of breaking God's law is left in the hands of believers, rather than God.

There is certainly movement within the Islamic faith to moderate this, but it is still largely the norm in Islamic states.
 
soylentgreen said:
The link given was not merely speaking evil of x. The very first sentence in that link tells you that.



This is no doubt white right wing christians attacking muslims.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is. The brouhaha in Canada seems to be about a law against Islamophobia, yes?

Your post in reply to that reported brouhaha was:
So you are saying that blasphemy is defined as saying racist hurtful lies that incite hatred for any sub culture you have a prejudice against.

Because that is what your link suggests.
Click to expand...
So you appear rightly to view the brouhaha as being over a proposed blasphemy law, but the incredulity in your response suggests that you don't view the proposed law as a blasphemy law, yes?

So, what is your point? There ought to be such a law but we shouldn't view it as a blasphemy law?
My view is that there ought not to be such a law and that it is a blasphemy law.
 
Angel said:
Except my broader use of the term has been around for 800 years and is recognized by dictionaries.
Click to expand...
Of course. But that is in a casual, colloquial sense. You were specifically talking about laws. The casual use doesn’t apply in this context.
 
pinqy said:
Of course. But that is in a casual, colloquial sense. You were specifically talking about laws. The casual use doesn’t apply in this context.
Click to expand...
The OP is "specifically talking about laws." From the moment I entered the conversation, at post #2, I've been talking about the broader concept.

See here:
Angel said:
Well, like you, I live in the USA, and on the East Coast as well, so your OP sets me to wondering under which rock on the East Coast you've resided because we've seen in this country of ours over the last thirty years, the rise of political blasphemy as an offense punishable by sentences in the social media stocks and worse.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
If blasphemy is "speaking evil of X," and that is just what blasphemy is, then there clearly appear to be unwritten laws, and even some written riders to written laws, against secular blasphemy throughout liberal democratic culture today. Define a protected class, and the sin of blasphemy attends the definition.

So the question is, why is secular blasphemy accepted as a matter of course, but religious blasphemy ridiculed and reviled (=blasphemed!!)?
The post quoted above is all over the post it replies to for blaspheming against secular blasphemy, whereas blasphemy against religious blasphemy, as in the OP, goes unremarked. Why is that, I wonder?
Click to expand...
 
soylentgreen said:
No the article was referring to non islamics making claims that would create hatred and lead to violence against islamic theists and their beliefs.
You need to read it again.
Click to expand...

Well....we're not on the same page.
I'm talking about the new law against Islamophobia in Canada. That's why I gave that reference.
 
holbritter said:
Clue them in on the definition of blasphemy: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things.
Click to expand...

What constitutes an "act or offense being sacrilegious?"

It's sacrilegious to the practitioner of that religion, but it wouldn't be to those who aren't. Like, stomping on the Bible would be sacrilegious to a Christian - but it wouldn't be to an atheist. Would criticizing the teachings of Mohammad be deemed Islamophobic?


Furthermore, it is reasonable to feel some concern since certain statements - like the one that you just made - can have different nuances.


What I fear is that MP Iqra Khalid, who tabled M-103, may understand Islamophobia to mean what its original promoters, the 56 Muslim-majority bloc of the United Nations known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), say it means. The OIC wants to see the Cairo Declaration on Human rights become the template for Islamophobia policies everywhere. The Cairo Declaration asserts the superiority of Islam and defines freedom of speech according to Shariah law, which considers any criticism of Muhammad blasphemy.

Even without any law that singles out Islamophobia for special consideration, I note that, shaken by the mosque massacre, several journalists are now pledging more “nuance” in their approach to Islam-related subjects. I was surprised to hear one colleague and friend here in Quebec, who has been outspoken in criticizing Shariah law on perfectly reasonable grounds, state in an interview that she intends to be more “careful” in future.

Careful. What does that mean in this context, I ask myself. Will she no longer criticize those who seek legitimacy for patriarchal Shariah law? Looking back on my own oeuvre of Islam-related writing, I have to wonder if much of what I have written — forthrightly, but responsibly — would pass muster in a post-M-103 Canada. I have critiqued Muslim organizations with problematic links to Islamist networks. I have commented frequently on honour killings, statistically significant in Islam-dominated cultures. I have repeatedly expressed aversion for the niqab, supporting a ban on face cover in the public service.
Click to expand...
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ba...islamism-constitutes-a-speech-crime-in-canada
 
tosca1 said:
Well....we're not on the same page.
I'm talking about the new law against Islamophobia in Canada. That's why I gave that reference.
Click to expand...
I suspect you two are not even in the same book.

Didn't Canada pass a law about the use of pronouns? I recall Jordan Peterson getting involved in that brouhaha.
 
Angel said:
I'm not sure what your point is. The brouhaha in Canada seems to be about a law against Islamophobia, yes?

Your post in reply to that reported brouhaha was:

So you appear rightly to view the brouhaha as being over a proposed blasphemy law, but the incredulity in your response suggests that you don't view the proposed law as a blasphemy law, yes?

So, what is your point? There ought to be such a law but we shouldn't view it as a blasphemy law?
My view is that there ought not to be such a law and that it is a blasphemy law.
Click to expand...

No, it is not about islamaphobia. It is about hate speech and in this particular case the example of hate speech against islam is used.

An example of the difference.

If i were to claim that you are a christian and that it is a well known fact that christians have been caught out as peadophiles therefor it is likely you are a peadophile. This would be lie as well as a bad example of reasoning. In other words an example of a phobia in this case christianophobia.

There is no law in canada against me saying this.

However if i was to add to my claim that because you are a peadophile we should burn your house down and hang you from a tree then i would have crossed a line. It now becomes hate speech. Because it is no longer just telling a lie and bad reasoning it is now inciting hatred and harm towards you.

The right wing of canada are complaining that making illegal the added example of wanting to cause you harm is interfering with their freedom of speech. They are pretending this is a blasphemy law because they want to continue inciting harm towards islamics. And if they can make any law against hate speech look like something else such as a blasphemy law then they may get away with it.
 
tosca1 said:
Well....we're not on the same page.
I'm talking about the new law against Islamophobia in Canada. That's why I gave that reference.
Click to expand...

You did read the link you gave????
The law is linked to hate speech. I gave a more concise answer to angel in post 39#
 
soylentgreen said:
No, it is not about islamaphobia. It is about hate speech and in this particular case the example of hate speech against islam is used.

An example of the difference.

If i were to claim that you are a christian and that it is a well known fact that christians have been caught out as peadophiles therefor it is likely you are a peadophile. This would be lie as well as a bad example of reasoning. In other words an example of a phobia in this case christianophobia.

There is no law in canada against me saying this.

However if i was to add to my claim that because you are a peadophile we should burn your house down and hang you from a tree then i would have crossed a line. It now becomes hate speech. Because it is no longer just telling a lie and bad reasoning it is now inciting hatred and harm towards you.

The right wing of canada are complaining that making illegal the added example of wanting to cause you harm is interfering with their freedom of speech. They are pretending this is a blasphemy law because they want to continue inciting harm towards islamics. And if they can make any law against hate speech look like something else such as a blasphemy law then they may get away with it.
Click to expand...
If you favor hate speech law, then you are a proponent of secular blasphemy law.
I'm sure inciting a felony through speech is already one of the exceptions to free speech in Canadian law, as it is here in the USA. Adding particular protected groups to that law makes it a secular blasphemy law, as I have been using that term in thus thread.

Here is our difference, again, in a nutshell:

You think there ought to be hate speech law and that we shouldn't view it as a blasphemy law?
My view is that there ought not to be such a law and that it is a blasphemy law.
 
tosca1 said:
The article was referring only to Islam. Thus, Islamophobia.
Click to expand...

Specifically because the Canadian Conservatives have used Muslims in Canada as a means to fear monger and pander to the racist elements in their base, irrespective of the damage done and the danger created by doing so.

You should let this go, Tos, my friend, you're looking a little less than decent right now....and it's not relevant to the thread.
 
Angel said:
No, your view and soylentgreen's view are the same or similar; my view is different.

Secular blasphemy, as I am using the term, is not incitement to harm. You and soylentgreen have misinterpreted my use of the term as incitement to harm. I am talking about speech that disparages but does not incite to harm. That's what I mean by secular blasphemy.

If someone in a liberal democracy today states that "X (plug in a member of a protected class, or the entire class) is Y (plug in a strong pejorative, a maligning of some kind, an expression of dislike or even hatred, an offensive word or name for X or members of X), the one expressing himself in this manner is treated (in the press, in social media, in politically correct company) as a blasphemer.

Whereas if someone in a liberal democracy today states that "X (plug in a God or religion) is Y (plug in a strong pejorative, a maligning of some kind, an expression of dislike or even hatred, an offensive word or name), the one expressing himself in this manner is not treated as a blasphemer, and what's more the whole idea that blasphemy in this sense should be taken seriously is mocked in liberal democracy today.

In short, we can malign God and religion, but we cannot malign a protected class or its members.

Does this clear the matter up for you?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is exactly as I said it;

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
I am not confused. That is exactly how I saw it.

It is also how I explained it.

You do not see the difference between incitement to hate somebody and statemnets of hate about a god or religion.
Click to expand...

Execpt that now you are talking exactly about that.

It is OK to say that the relion of Islam is an evil death cult. It is not OK to say Muslims are evil.
 
Angel said:
If you favor hate speech law, then you are a proponent of secular blasphemy law.
I'm sure inciting a felony through speech is already one of the exceptions to free speech in Canadian law, as it is here in the USA. Adding particular protected groups to that law makes it a secular blasphemy law, as I have been using that term in thus thread.

Here is our difference, again, in a nutshell:

You think there ought to be hate speech law and that we shouldn't view it as a blasphemy law?
My view is that there ought not to be such a law and that it is a blasphemy law.
Click to expand...


Angel...no. Hate speech law is not "secular blasphemy" law, that's silly. Is slander and libel blasphemy law as well? Fraud? Assault, since hate speech also attempts to mitigate the damage done?

No...secular and blasphemy are contradictory terms. Blasphemy can ONLY refer to sacrilegious speech against God or the Church (or gods or temples, or whatever), by definition.
 
Angel said:
I suspect you two are not even in the same book.

Didn't Canada pass a law about the use of pronouns? I recall Jordan Peterson getting involved in that brouhaha.
Click to expand...

Don't know much about that.


Bruce Pardy: Meet the new 'human rights' — where you are forced by law to use 'reasonable' pronouns


On Thursday, the Senate passed Bill C-16, the Liberal government’s legislation that adds “gender identity or expression” to grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-16 was in part the motivation for Peterson’s video. T


In other words, failure to use a person’s pronoun of choice — “ze,” “zir,” “they” or any one of a multitude of other potential non-words — will land you in hot water with the commission. That, in turn, can lead to orders for correction, apology, Soviet-like “re-education,” fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court.

This peril is exactly what Peterson warned of in his video, for which he was mocked for scaremongering.
Click to expand...
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/br...aw-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer


We are a socialist nation!
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
Specifically because the Canadian Conservatives have used Muslims in Canada as a means to fear monger and pander to the racist elements in their base, irrespective of the damage done and the danger created by doing so.

You should let this go, Tos, my friend, you're looking a little less than decent right now....and it's not relevant to the thread.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, Nate my friend.
From where I'm sitting, it's you who's looking less than decent.....for being an enabler to socialist-bent
elements in our country. For all I know, you're one of 'em?
 
soylentgreen said:
No, it is not about islamaphobia. It is about hate speech and in this particular case the example of hate speech against islam is used.

An example of the difference.

If i were to claim that you are a christian and that it is a well known fact that christians have been caught out as peadophiles therefor it is likely you are a peadophile. This would be lie as well as a bad example of reasoning. In other words an example of a phobia in this case christianophobia.

There is no law in canada against me saying this.

However if i was to add to my claim that because you are a peadophile we should burn your house down and hang you from a tree then i would have crossed a line. It now becomes hate speech. Because it is no longer just telling a lie and bad reasoning it is now inciting hatred and harm towards you.

The right wing of canada are complaining that making illegal the added example of wanting to cause you harm is interfering with their freedom of speech. They are pretending this is a blasphemy law because they want to continue inciting harm towards islamics. And if they can make any law against hate speech look like something else such as a blasphemy law then they may get away with it.
Click to expand...
Yes, Islamophobia is a different kettle. Why do we have to have it when.......

..........we already have hate laws in Canada!


Hate speech laws in Canada


The Criminal Code is a federal statute passed by the Parliament of Canada, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law in Canada.[11] There are three separate hatred-related offences: section 318 (advocating genocide),[12] section 319(1) (publicly inciting hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace),[13] and section 319(2) (wilfully promoting hatred).

[13] In addition to the three offences, there are provisions which authorise the courts to order the seizure of hate propaganda, either in physical formats (section 320)[14] or in electronic formats (section 320.1)
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada



So.....what else could be included in Islamophobia that isn't encompassed in our current Hate Law?
BLASPHEMY?
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
If you favor hate speech law, then you are a proponent of secular blasphemy law.
I'm sure inciting a felony through speech is already one of the exceptions to free speech in Canadian law, as it is here in the USA. Adding particular protected groups to that law makes it a secular blasphemy law, as I have been using that term in thus thread.

Here is our difference, again, in a nutshell:

You think there ought to be hate speech law and that we shouldn't view it as a blasphemy law?
My view is that there ought not to be such a law and that it is a blasphemy law.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you actually read the article. No particular group was selected for that law. Islam was merely given as an example as it was the religion being specifically abused by hate speech.
From the article;
As a motion and not a bill, it calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
Click to expand...
The representative also makes a good point.

Though Khalid’s motion specifically names Islamophobia, its aims are broad. “All forms of racism are interconnected, they are not separate,” Khalid said. “People who are targeted by Islamophobia include Sikhs, Arabs, and Black Canadians and many other minority groups.”
Click to expand...

That is a true observation. Many of these right wing do not care for actual facts all they want is to incite hatred for any who do not bow to their will.

So basically in a nutshell you would allow right wing people to spread lies and incite hatred. You would deliberately edit an article in your mind and only read that which supports your belief . Because that really is the only way you can continue to call this a blasphemy law.
 
tosca1 said:
Yes, Islamophobia is a different kettle. Why do we have to have it when.......

..........we already have hate laws in Canada!



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada



So.....what else could be included in Islamophobia that isn't encompassed in our current Hate Law?
BLASPHEMY?
Click to expand...

Again, read the article. Really, a lot of angst could be dropped if only people would read before they speak.]


The article states

As a motion and not a bill,
Click to expand...

So, your representative is not trying to introduce a law. She is trying to get a motion passed.
https://whoacanada.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/a-motion-is-not-a-law/
A motion is not a law. A government motion that condemns X simply says the government thinks X is bad. It is not a law, but an attempt to lead by example.

Ms. Khalid’s Motion 103 will not make it illegal to criticise Islam. It does not herald the coming of Sharia law to Canada. Nor does it make racism illegal. Canadians will still be able to be racists if they wish to be. A motion is not a law: only a law can make something illegal.
Click to expand...

There you go, see. As a christian you can continue your right to bad mouth any who are not christians. Just do not expect tax payer funds to help you post your islamaphobic posters around town.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom