Why Blasphemy should be allowed (From a Religious point!)

Post Reply New Topic

I know that atheists like to be blasphemous and say nothing against blasphemy.

This is a religious reason why Blasphemy should be allowed, from a religious point of view!
-----

James I said:
"As to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, so is it treason in subjects to dispute what a king may do....."

While it can be argued that censorship may be in its place or not, in regards to government affairs,
it is only if the State is built upon a certain religious doctrine, that blasphemy should be illegal.

And then it is not because God or religious people may be offended by the blasphemy, but because the King/State may be offended.

If the act of questioning the king/state/government makes the king/state/government unstable, I perfectly see the point of censorship (not that I agree with it! I believe in free speech).

But in regards to God, who is said to be all-powerful, what damage does it then do, from a religious point of view, to question what God may do?

As mentioned earlier, I perfectly see the point of religious censorship, if the State is religious, and its laws are based upon religion.
But then the censorship has nothing to do with the actual religion per-see, but in order to protect the laws/state/government affairs.

If the government is not based upon religion, questioning God makes no difference. God really doesn't care AT ALL, because he can have his will whenever he wants.
Your blasphemy makes no difference to God being all-powerful.

According to religious doctrine.

So why do so many religious people who live in secular societies want anti-blasphemy laws?

I doubt religious people are THAT religious if they want anti-blasphemy laws, because blasphemy laws in secular societies are only there to protect God, who needs no protection (being all-powerful).
In-fact, wanting to ban blasphemy is to question God's power! THAT is Blasphemy!

Blasphemy laws / restrictions aren't intended to protect God, they are intended to protect those in power and authority. If anyone casts doubt on the existence of a god or upon the teachings associated with said god, then it directly undermines the authority of the priests, scribes and others in a position of power who rely upon the faithful accepting what is told to them without question.

Exactly. Plus, it's easy to accuse your political enemies of blasphemy if you'd like them to go away.

As for the Christian definition of blasphemy, it's actually rather difficult to do. You have to sincerely believe with all of your heart in Yahweh, and that Jesus was his son. THEN you have to reject and denounce them. If you're an atheist and you reject them, it doesn't count under the Biblical definition.

It is a majority decision of society to decide how they will conduct administration of themselves, be it a monarchy, democracy/republic, dictatorship, or a theocracy. A theocratic society is run by strict adherence to a scriptural source and tradition surrounding scriptural mandate.

The nature of a theocracy is such that blasphemy contradicts the law, which carries the potential for a disordered society since scripture IS the basis for law and order. Ideally, religious laws are not written to protect God since, as you yourself observed, God needs no protection. They are there to protect the people and lead the people in religious observance. Blasphemy doesn't threaten God. It threatens those who seek to worship in a genuine experience.

A genuine Christian theocracy wouldn't offend me, but at the same time those kinds of things have been attempted before and history shows they just simply don't work (they always start in the right spirit, but they dissolve into various means of control, which is antithetical to Biblical teaching. Sooner or later they always get exposed for what they really are. A genuine Christian state would be incredibly difficult to maintain because it would nearly impossible to prove that leaders are really following God and not their own agendas). Islamic theocracies have not existed in places in which you'd find the same reaction against harsh theocratic practices, such as you'd see in a more democratically controlled society that emphasizes the separation of church and state. An Islamic society demands submission at the very least, and individual members are easily cowed into it if they aren't raised in it, and it is perfectly acceptable by the majority to kill dissidents. Rule by force when everyone accepts theocratic discipline is an easy way to run a state, because, unlike previous Christian attempts, there is ZERO room for opposition. Even in Christian societies there has been room for theological debate in order to clarify then relevance of scriptural teachings. Islamic societies as a whole tend to align with a particular sectarian observance, with various sects accusing each other of blasphemy and the requisite sanctioned violence breaking out. This kind of thing isn't unknown in Christian societies, either, but it seems to me Islamic theocracies are just now catching up with us.

I mean, the answer to blasphemy disrupting society is to just not operate a theocracy. Leave the people to worship God the way they choose and leave them alone about it.

In Christian society, the answer to blasphemy is simply to no longer associate with the church. I'm a Baptist, of the Southern variety. I love Pentecostals, but I keep getting hung up on that whole speaking-in-tongues thing. Supposedly there is some misunderstanding of what that means to Pentecostals and outsiders make much of nothing--but I still don't like the idea that if I don't speak in tongues that my salvation must be questioned. I don't like that we Baptists are perhaps too reserved in our worship, whereas we tend to judge Pentecostals for being too extroverted. I think we could learn a lot from each other. But at the end of the day there are one or two issues that hold me back from jumping ship. So while I hold some ideas of worship that might seem blasphemous to fellow SBC people, they are relatively minor and don't warrant leaving my church over. Nor do I feel the need to disrupt a church service because I don't like the way Baptists worship. If I really felt that strongly about it, I could always go to the Assembly of God church, and I could do that any time I please.

But if I made a big deal about it in the middle of a worship service, I'd be a major disruption. People attend this church because they like what this church has to offer. They aren't there to hear things they don't want to hear (well, not things that are doctrinally inconsistent…we are all guilty of sin and often have a need to hear things we don't want to hear, and that doesn't mean that those things violate doctrine). They are here because they know church doctrine and agree with it. They are aware that certain ideas are more aligned with other denominations. If I chose to attend a different church and chose to air my disagreements with THEIR doctrine, I'd be a disruption to THEIR services. In either case, I'll be escorted from the premises and politely asked not to return.

On an unrelated note, I've had members of my family escorted from church--it was in blatant disregard of some private difficulties we were having, involved bullying by various church staff and a clique closely associated with them, and was quickly resolved after a meeting with the pastor. So I know what it's like being on the receiving end of unfair treatment and being the butt of someone else's power-trip-driven agenda.

I don't disagree with keeping an open discussion on church doctrine, but there are times and places to do that. Our church has small groups, not to mention discussion is encouraged among church attendees. But the middle of a sermon isn't the time/place to air all your disagreements with the pastor. If you have enough issues with your church, go somewhere else.

Where blasphemy is going to cause real problems for the supposed blasphemer is in religious communities that don't tolerate disagreement at all. JWs are NOT encouraged to think for themselves, but rather go along with whatever the Watchtower puts out. If you disagree with this, you're disfellowshipped, which means your own family tolerates you at best. You grow up so dependent on the organization that it can negatively impact every aspect of your life, to include your family and your business if you disagree with teachings or try to leave. All your friends are Witnesses, so once you get out you have no social life. It's possible to recover and move on, but it's terribly difficult to do.

Christians often have disagreements and divisions. My wife converted from Methodism, and this hasn't changed her relationship with her family/friends one bit. I've been known to visit Methodist churches from time to time myself, and my church hasn't threatened me over it one bit. My mom didn't give me a hard time over dating a Methodist girl, and her parents didn't give her a hard time for dating a Baptist guy. Nobody gives my family a hard time over our decision to send our kids to a Catholic school, and I've had talks with my children over why we don't cross ourselves or believe in transubstantiation, and where our differences are with the Catholic church over Mariology. So, I mean…we do have our own place in so-called blasphemy, but by and large the divided Christian community is an ongoing dialogue, informing each other while largely not condemning or forcefully converting each other.

The thing about theocracies is that they tend to have a lot of people coming to power through "Divine Right." Therefore, whenever you question the leader, you're questioning whatever god they represent as well. I'll grant that pretty much any form of government is prone to exploitation by a charismatic and intelligent person, but theocracies have the added problem of stagnation. During the Dark Ages, scientific progress ground to a halt for a looooong time. Of course, during that time the Arab world was developing new forms of mathematics and generally picked up the slack, but think about how advanced we might be today if that repressive age hadn't happened.

Edit: Funfact on speaking in tongues. You're not supposed to do it without a qualified translator present, because otherwise you're doing it to edify yourself and not to speak messages from God.

While that can be applied to countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Anti-Blasphemy law of Denmark does not have that intention, as Denmark is Christian, but we have, beside our
anti-racist speech law, also an Anti-Blasphemy law, used to protect Christianity AS WELL as Judaism, Islam or just about any "legal established religion", which in effect includes pagan religions too.

I'm curious to see what legal cases have been brought forward in Denmark in this regard. If someone publicly states that Jesus was an ordinary man not a son of a god; would he be arrested and charged with blasphemy? I can't see how blasphemy laws can be applied in a western country with more or less free speech - unless Denmark doesn't have any concept of free speech? I know that in the UK free speech isn't as free as it is in the USA and people can be arrested for stirring up racial hatred and civil cases can be brought for slander and libel. But in the UK there are no blasphemy laws (if if they are they are deprecated and not applied).

No one has been convicted due to the Danish anti-blasphemy law since 1946 - 68 years ago. And that was only a fine.

There is currently an ongoing discussion in Denmark about removing the anti-blasphemy laws (and the anti-racism speech law, but that is a slightly different issue), but since it is de facto irrelevant, it is something of a moot point.

Were anyone actually to be convicted due to the anti-blasphemy law in this day and age, Parliament would probably change the law almost in an instant.

So…the Danish law merely has to do with religious folks having a right to NOT be offended? Not sure I like this…

The flip side is it merely creates a situation in which religion cannot be discussed at all in public. I don't like that, either.

Theocracies need not lack progressive movements, IF indeed such movements are progressive. Christianity at its core isn't anti-science any more than science at its core is anti-Christian.

Dittos on the "Divine Right" thing. I believe that it is God's will that we have authority over others for the sake of keeping the peace and having law and order. So any time someone comes to power, it is God who allows it to happen and God's will that it happens. That, however, does not make leaders infallible or less subject to scrutiny and review. We are fortunate to live in such a time that governments can be peacefully opposed and replaced as needed. That doesn't exist everywhere and hasn't always been the case. If we are free to choose our leaders, it is incumbent on us to be careful as to who and how we make those choices.

IRT tongues: You basically echoed the Baptist doctrine on tongues which, even though we have a response to the issue of tongues, we generally don't practice this. I've never been to a SBC church that practiced it. My beef is not with the practice itself, but rather the attitudes towards it. I don't believe it's good Christian practice to EXPECT someone to speak in tongues, and some churches make WAY too much of it than they should.

There used to be an old Catholic tradition that distinguished between "ecstatic utterance" and "speaking in languages." Speaking in tongues as presented in scripture had to do with miraculously speaking in understandable languages. The concept of "ecstatic utterance" allows for a worshiper to express himself or herself in ways in which words fail. This idea is all over ancient chant melodies, especially melismatic singing. There is no question that ecstatic melodies are divinely inspired, and the lack of text avoids any controversy of some mystic revelation that goes against scripture and there need not be any scrutiny with regards to how something uttered ecstatically conforms to or violates doctrine.

While you don't have traditional melismas in contemporary worship anymore, there's plenty of room for improvisation and wordless praise. There are ways in which "ecstatic utterance" controversies may safely disposed of without eliminating the practice itself.

Here's perhaps my favorite example:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq_z_i9XQZc[/youtube]

It's kinda long, so to save time I'd skip to 5:50 and start there. The chorus has the lines "…we will shout for Your glory" and "…we will shout forth Your praise." At 6:04 (note the flickering stage lights) they stop singing about it and actually do it, and it's an epic moment in the song. All words are gone, there's nothing left to say, and it's just pure expression. I LOVE stuff like that! This much I believe Pentecostals get RIGHT, which is why I have a difficult time in my role at my church.

I also love it when front-line vocal praise teams improvise over more structured arrangements, and at my church we just can't get anyone brave enough to go for it. It makes people uncomfortable. Personally, I've never had any problems making people uncomfortable, but unfortunately my opinions never make it very far.

Blasphemy is already allowed by God through free will, just like so many other terrible behaviors. Jesus said the only unforgivable sin was blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, but debates still rage on what the parameters are for that. A few friends have told me, "if you're still concerned about it, you haven't gone that far yet." By that reckoning, it seems what Jesus described must be something truly terrible.

Martin Luther once advised heretics should be combated with arguments, not fire.
Labeled by the Vatican as a heretic himself, Luther understandably felt blasphemy ought not warrant a death sentence.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk[/youtube]

As in "Vote for this tax increase", "No term limits" and "Buy bonds"?

One of the issues that often arises in our presidential elections (and that dies immediately after) is whether we should make the desecration of the American flag a crime. Which, prima facie would seem like an anti-blasphemy type of law. But, such a law would itself be blasphemous. One cannot desecrate an object that is not sacred. By making the flag sacred (so that one might be punished for desecrating it), the law would be in violation of the Second Commandment, and thus be blasphemous in itself.

Heretics were cool, because he was one of them at the time. Jews? Not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies