Blasphemy a Crime?

My neighbour Denmark thinks that the Enlightenment, which granted freedom for and from religion never happened, should bow its head in shame.

Has it come to this? Cringing before cruel and oppressive superstition; one wonders if the West deserves to survive.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10000/blasphemy-laws


(Cue for attacks on Gatestone - but not, pf course, on the accuracy of the report.)

Sweden said:

My neighbour Denmark thinks that the Enlightenment, which granted freedom for and from religion never happened, should bow its head in shame.

Has it come to this? Cringing before cruel and oppressive superstition; one wonders if the West deserves to survive.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10000/blasphemy-laws


(Cue for attacks on Gatestone - but not, pf course, on the accuracy of the report.)

Click to expand...

This is what happens when liberal governments resent the idea of immigrants having to assimilate, or at least having some respect of the national laws, cultures, and traditions of the country that is taking them in.

Many EU countries have had blasphemy laws since the 19th century, so why the faux outrage now? Oh yeah, its "da Evhil" Muslims fault again... and coming from the usual suspects too.

Interesting. I have a great deal of admiration for Denmark from the earlier incident with the cartoonist and the drawing of Mohammed. Denmark drew a lot of heat, abuse, and violence as a result and it appeared that no other nation stood up with them. The US response seemed to be shamefully throwing the prized 1st amendment under the bus. Obama spoke to the UN and stated that "The future must not belong to those who defame the Prophet". A rather bizarre comment, seeming to ignore our claim of freedom of speech and apparently calling Mohammed a prophet-that is, putting a Presidential seal of approval on a religious claim.

Hope that Denmark comes to their senses and continues to be a beacon of liberty.

PoS said:

Many EU countries have had blasphemy laws since the 19th century, so why the faux outrage now? Oh yeah, its "da Evhil" Muslims fault again... and coming from the usual suspects too.

Click to expand...

I have never called Muslims "da Evhil" or even "the evil". It is Islam that I see as the enemy of civilised society.

There were no "EU countries" in the 19th century. And blasphemy laws in European countries are many hundreds of years older than you suppose.

Oh, and my outrage at the reinforcement of laws that belong to the middle ages is not "faux" or even false".

PoS said:

Many EU countries have had blasphemy laws since the 19th century, so why the faux outrage now? Oh yeah, its "da Evhil" Muslims fault again... and coming from the usual suspects too.

Click to expand...

I do not think the outrage is false.

Sweden said:

Cringing before cruel and oppressive superstition; one wonders if the West deserves to survive.

Click to expand...

I think you will find that Obama seriously expanded Bush's anti-terror fight. I don't agree with it all, but, he expanded it; domestic surveillance, international surveillance, black ops, seal missions, drones, etc. (In fact, when the GOP wasn't pretending to be "tough on terror" they were attacking him for going too far0.

Are you objecting to persecution of the war on terror? Or are you suggesting it should simply be an attack on muslims in general, all 1,500,000,000-2,000,000,000 of them? What actions would represent the west not "cringing" and why should they be taken?

RetiredUSN said:

This is what happens when liberal governments resent the idea of immigrants having to assimilate, or at least having some respect of the national laws, cultures, and traditions of the country that is taking them in.

Click to expand...

What conservative governments in other nations do you look up to?

PoS said:

Many EU countries have had blasphemy laws since the 19th century, so why the faux outrage now? Oh yeah, its "da Evhil" Muslims fault again... and coming from the usual suspects too.

Click to expand...

coldjoint said:

I do not think the outrage is false.

Click to expand...

Well, that's settled then.

In your second paragraph you may mean 'prosecution' not 'persecution'.

I am not talking about a 'war on terror' but about the creeping changes in our societies brought about by giving to pressure to conform to the dictates of Islam..In the present instance the craven decision to bring a charge of blasphemy against a man who burnt his own Koran. I'm thinking about the 85 sharia 'courts' allowed to operate in the UK where women are treated grossly unfairly. In Sweden no pork product is served in school meals. The simple providing alternatives for Muslims' children was not good enough because it turned out that even being in the same room as someone eating pork was haram. It is worse still; only hallal meat is served to all pupils in schools in my county, and maybe all over Sweden by now.

There are countless other examples of appeasement of an alien oppressive culture. This gradual Islamisation, daily demonstrating our weakness, poses a greater long-term threat that does terror.

coldjoint said:

I do not think the outrage is false.

Click to expand...

Or unwarranted...

Eric7216 said:

Interesting. I have a great deal of admiration for Denmark from the earlier incident with the cartoonist and the drawing of Mohammed. Denmark drew a lot of heat, abuse, and violence as a result and it appeared that no other nation stood up with them. The US response seemed to be shamefully throwing the prized 1st amendment under the bus. Obama spoke to the UN and stated that "The future must not belong to those who defame the Prophet". A rather bizarre comment, seeming to ignore our claim of freedom of speech and apparently calling Mohammed a prophet-that is, putting a Presidential seal of approval on a religious claim.

Hope that Denmark comes to their senses and continues to be a beacon of liberty.

Click to expand...

I just read Obama's UN speech and that's not what he said or meant at all.


https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...2/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

About 2/3 down the page and edited for brevity...





Thats the opposite of "approval"...imo.

Burning your own book is a crime? ****. I am sure glad I do not live in that backwards country.

Moot said:

I just read Obama's UN speech and that's not what he said or meant at all.


https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...2/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

About 2/3 down the page and edited for brevity...

"...It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future....

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt...

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources...

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam....

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace....

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people...

History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices. Nations in every part of the world have traveled this difficult path....​

Thats the opposite of "approval"...imo.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. But in all of those examples, except for one, he is referring to a reality. Corrupt few who steal resources, dictator who massacres, people who turn their back on peace, etc. The one exception, calling the prophet of Islam. He did not say Mohammed, a reality, a real person. He said the Prophet. A religious designation. I would think that mainly people who believe that Mohammed is a prophet would call him that. Presidents have mentioned Jesus, who, like Mohammed, was a reality. But who says Christ or Christ the Lord or Our Lord? That would be a religious designation and not reality according to non-believers. IMO.

Eric7216 said:

Interesting point. But in all of those examples, except for one, he is referring to a reality. Corrupt few who steal resources, dictator who massacres, people who turn their back on peace, etc. The one exception, calling the prophet of Islam. He did not say Mohammed, a reality, a real person. He said the Prophet. A religious designation. I would think that mainly people who believe that Mohammed is a prophet would call him that. Presidents have mentioned Jesus, who, like Mohammed, was a reality. But who says Christ or Christ the Lord or Our Lord? That would be a religious designation and not reality according to non-believers. IMO.

Click to expand...

But religion is not a reality...it is a belief. Obama didn't just mention the prophet of Islam, he also mentioned the prophet of Christianity and Holocaust denial in the following sentence.....


He's talking about a reality that many religions in various parts of the world seem to be dealing with these days.

Moot said:

But religion is not a reality...it is a belief. Obama didn't just mention the prophet of Islam, he also mentioned the prophet of Christianity and Holocaust denial in the following sentence.....

"...The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)..."​

He's talking about a reality that many religions in various parts of the world seem to be dealing with these days.

Click to expand...

Well, I understand that religion is not a reality but a belief and that was my point. Interesting that Obama used the religious word Christ but that doesn't change my point. The Supreme has ruled on this and unfortunately I don't remember the case and will not look it up now but it had to do with the stamp of approval of a religion from a person in government authority, such as a President. And using religious terms, Prophet and Christ for example, would seem to qualify. Just because he used two doesn't lessen the infraction, IMO. I wasn't condemning him for putting Islam on a platter, I was condemning him for using religious language inappropriately, based on my understanding of the Supreme Court ruling.

Eric7216 said:

Well, I understand that religion is not a reality but a belief and that was my point. Interesting that Obama used the religious word Christ but that doesn't change my point. The Supreme has ruled on this and unfortunately I don't remember the case and will not look it up now but it had to do with the stamp of approval of a religion from a person in government authority, such as a President. And using religious terms, Prophet and Christ for example, would seem to qualify. Just because he used two doesn't lessen the infraction, IMO. I wasn't condemning him for putting Islam on a platter, I was condemning him for using religious language inappropriately, based on my understanding of the Supreme Court ruling.

Click to expand...

My take on it is that since Jesus is a common name in many Latin countries...as is Mohammad in Muslim ones...perhaps by calling them by their holy status implies respect for the religious belief of others. I would expect no less from a diplomat trying to keep peace among many nations of different beliefs and cultures...and within our own country.