Thread: Respect vs. Blasphemy

A new blasphemy law has just come into effect in Ireland. An atheist website is fighting it by flagrantly violating the new law. 25 Blasphemous Quotations « blog.atheist.ie The UN is being pushed to adopt the same type of laws internationally. In the UK teachers are refusing to teach the holocaust and the crusades in history classes for fear of legal reprisal. Although I'm rarely surprised by what religious fundamentalism will demand I must admit that I'm a little amazed it has gotten away with this much.

My question is this:
How far should respecting such demands go?
Let me define 'religion' in the poll as including, but not limited to any religion, religious practice or demand made by a religious group in the name of their doctrine.

Necessary Directive:
I expect all participants here will continue in the SRP tradition of ladylike and gentlemanly discourse even where members disagree completely with one another, but it is good practice that we should all be reminded nonetheless.

X

I look at every religion as simply a way for people to deal with a world that is not really that friendly--it's a coping mechanism. So in the sense that humans beings and their pursuits are ALL worthy of the basic respect that lets society progress, then I guess religion deserves respect.

However, saying that religion as a thing in itself worthy of more respect than, say, classical music or rigorous exercise or even, dare I say, restoring or collecting straight razors as a hobby? Not at all. Religion is not special among human creations--it is as flawed and as beautiful as everything else people do.

i do not understand not being able to teach ones students about the holocaust. it is a part of world history, albeit a very sad and dark side of anyones history lesson. nevertheless it needs to be taught so we as mankind do not let that kind of massacre and general wholesale murder take place again

well said 59 caddy, history should be fact base not what people want it to say.

Disrespecting someone's religion can be hazardous to your health. OTOH, out of common courtesy I try to respect other people and avoid offending them. Sam Harris talks about how for any belief one person expresses to another concrete proof will be necessary to convince the other person .... except for religion. Most of us don't question the other guy's religion.

We are to 'respect' that person's belief out of hand. If I tell you that I have been in a alien spacecraft you won't believe that I am telling the truth without proof but we are supposed to 'respect' the beliefs of someone who believes that the supreme being and the creator of the universe gave Moses stone tablets with his commandments on them on Mt. Sinai.

So privately I am not sure if there is anything to it. Publicly I won't disrespect someone else's belief system. Whether it deserves it or not would depend on if it is true I guess and who knows ?

I would make a preliminary guess that you have started a good one here X that may go on for a while and generate many comments, dialogue and debate. Good job.
This is not so simple as the question that you have posed, it is just dependent on majority rule, though in some countries also minority rights. And most countries have had in their founding some sort of religious influence of some sort, and is therefore biased toward whatever religious influence that they had.
What's going on in the UK is the result of 'political correctness' and 'tolerance' gone bad. In the middle east I hear that there is a saying "Never let a camel stick it's nose in your tent." Why? Because if you do then before you know it you will have a big hulky hairy stinking camel in your tent. In the UK and the EU Islam is growing at a rather rapid pace, they slowly move in small areas and grow and spread, they have a comparatively very high birth rate, for one thing they don't kill little unborn babies, they 'use' the peaceful/moderate muslims to become entrenched in an area and eventually the fundamentalists start spreading there views and bullying their way into power and control, and as has been seen already they become so numerous that they just vote 'their guy' into office, and continue forward as pre-arranged. Of course they don't want the Holocaust taught because they hate the Jews more than anything and of course deny that it ever occured, and they don't want the Christian Crusades taught because they were brought about as a reaction to the conquests by Muslim War Lord in the Holy Land.

I would not respect a religion whose founder had little girls for wives, a practice still in effect today in certain parts though there is some attempt to keep it somewhat covered, it just depends on how much wealth power and influence that the dirtbag has. No manner of torturous death is too cruel for a fella who practices such depraved filth.

On a personal level, as a Bible believer and Christian, the Bible says to give honour to whom honour is due. Romans 13:7 - 'Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.' This is not dependent on a persons religion.

I do my best to respect the person, but I refuse to be fond of his delusions.

As a buddhist I consider all religions to be different paths to the same destination and so try to give full respect to all religions.

However I do believe there is a difference between religious beliefs and cultural beliefs. Many cultural beliefs I do not respect. I also believe that cultural beliefs also encompass politics.

Teachers not wanting to teach about the holocaust is pandering to political and cultural beliefs. They are accomadating the antisemetism inherent in some cultures. It would be the same as not teaching the holocaust in Germany because it might offend the political beliefs of some Neo Nazis.

But at the same time some practices can be hard to differentiate between cultural/political and religious. For example, the wearing of the hijab by femal muslims. Some people would say this is an example of a misoginistic culture in the Islamic community (I used to think this). But in the area where I work it is a religious choice for the individual to make based on religious contexts.

The atheists have it all wrong, yet again:

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

Why do they get to add their own misguided storylines here? This is proof of the underlying Christian roots of anti-Semitism?????

Jesus is talking to them about in whom they follow: God or the devil. If they truly followed God, they would know God's will, and the Messiah. Jesus calls them out as being only interested in themselves, and as such he says they have Satan as their father. This is true of them, as well as for many of us who claim to be one thing, yet live entirely contrary to what is espoused.

It then goes on to broad paraphrases, and unsubstantiated claims about "the original" Bible.



That said, I think the law is really poorly written, and misguided.

I believe you have misinterpreted this comment. They wrote:

... foundation to Christian anti-Semitism.

and you infer they mean:

Originally Posted by Seraphim

... Christian roots of anti-Semitism?????

I think what the commentator claims is that some, not all Christians have misinterpreted this passage to justify antisemitism, not that this passage proves Christianity is the root of antisemitism. A subtle, but important distinction.