Blasphemy is also illegal in some "western" countries like Greece. So it is not just muslims, but Christians to who can be aressted!

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/gerontas-pastitsios-pastafarian-facebook-greece-elder-paisios_n_1909511.html

A 27-year-old man has been arrested by Greek police for what the authorities called "malicious blasphemy," according to a HuffPost translation of a press release.

Police allege that the man managed a Facebook page that lampooned the deceased Eastern Orthodox monk Elder Paisios, a widely popular religious figure, using the name "Gerontas (Elder) Pastitsios."

Pastitsios is a Greek pasta dish, and the page parodied the monk and his work in the vein of Pastafarianism, a lighthearted, satirical movement that promotes irreligion. In a screen shot of the group's Facebook page, which now appears to have been removed from the social network, Elder Paisios is shown with a plate of pastitsios.

I always find laws against blashemy in Christian countries to be extremely ironic. After all Jesus was crucified for blasphemy, and the most important person (Socrates) in Greek philosophy, which is intergral to Christianity and Islam was also so killed for blasphemy and corrupting youth. 

Hi chansen,

This is a bit of a difficult subject for me.

I agree that the ability to criticize religion should be enshrined as a human freedom.  Blasphemy is not, in the strictest sense of the word, criticism.  Which is why I find the notion of blasphemy rights problematic.  In the strictest sense of the word blasphemy is irreverence, impiety, the cursing or reviling of God and/or assuming for one's self the rights and qualities of God.  In a nutshell it is disrespect which is different from criticism.

So blasphemy, as a label is a poor fit for something like criticism of religion or religious ideas/elements.

In that sense having the UN pass a non-binding resolution to make disrespect a human rights violation is overkill of the nanny-state variety it at the very least pays homage to the old saw, "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all."

It is my experience, and yours may vary, that any conversation started with disrespect rarely elevates itself into anything that can be valued.

Pastor Terry Jones, for example, by burning the Koran and supporting the film "The Innocence of Muslims" is not starting a conversation on a basis of respect.  He freely acknowledges that folk burning his holy book offends him.  He is quick to point out that he doesn't respond violently which is true up to a point. 

Pastor Jones does know and he does expect that his disrespectful treatment of others is going to be provocative and if it results in the death of others, he is okay with that.  I don't know how many times he has read in the gospels the account of Pilate washing his hands as a public display of innocence, apparently he is incapable of the critical thought necessary to realize that public displays of hand-washing do not absolve any of their responsibility.

The same is true of Everybody Draw Muhammed Day.  It is disrespect with little regard for whomever gets hurt guised as a human freedom and divorced from personal responsibility.

Not sure that qualifies as blasphemy unless we go with the most generic definition found in a dictionary under blasphemy, "irreverent behaviour toward anything held sacred or priceless."  That being the case Putin cannot be dissed with impunity.  At least, not in Mother Russia.

Not being one who holds Putin as either sacred or priceless I am sympathetic towards Pussy Riot's plight.  I simply wouldn't qualify their offence as blasphemy.  Political critique it most certainly is and it would be great if the freedom to do that existed in Russia.  Apparently that nation, at this point in time, thinks differently.

If one is going to be civilly disobedient one has to be prepared to pay the price even if that price is steep otherwise what you want is freedom without responsibility and that is simply immature.

Saber appears to know what he is up to.  I don't think his actual problem is blasphemy in an of itself or even the blasphemy laws on record in Egypt so much as it is the uneven enforcement of those laws.

The notion of Blasphemy rights day being about Saber's "rights" is probably disingenuous.  I suspect that if Egypt's blasphemy laws were enforced evenly across the board that Saber would not be in the position of being an ad hoc martyr for this cause.  What he appears to desire most is not the ability to be disrespectful of others so much as freedom from the disrespect of others.

That said and without any attempt to prejudice others I think Saber provoked the Egyptian Government to act in order to draw attention to the inequality of blasphemy law enforcement and not, as a matter of fact, to say that blasphemy laws have no place anywhere, ever.

I agree that respectful conversation about beliefs is what is needed.  I don't believe respectful conversation begins with, "The Innocence of Muslims."  As to what they can or cannot be allowed to do I think that is an issue that is more complex than it is simplistic.  And, to be respectful you probably should have said, "That's not Halal" as "kosher" is Jewish not Islamic.  I don't think that anybody should be pronouncing fatwas against you because of it (whether it is an innocent slip or deliberate provocation).  I can see that if it is deliberative you aren't communicating anything more than wanting to offend.

That is a glaring error.  I still don't think consequence free disrespect is something to be championed.

Well that is one interpretation and, one that I hope I have shown above I don't agree with.  Criticism should be a freedom.  Disrespect comes with consequence.  I don't think that the consequences should be out of proportion to the disrespect.  Which is where it gets problematic.  Like Pastor Jones I get upset when my Holy books are burned simply out of disrespect.  Unlike Pastor Jones I get upset when anybody's Holy books are burned simply out of disrespect.  In that upset the furthest I will go is to lower whatever respect I had for those doing the burning.

Fair enough.  Should disrespect of atheists be something that any encourage?

And even if somebody gets hurt then we can always wash our hands and point the finger elsewhere as a way of abdicating personal responsibility.

And, if we can hide behind somebody else, like a Seattle Cartoonist for example, so that she is the one who has to go into hiding then that is even better.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Well said John.

We don't throw people in jail for other forms of disrespect (say, lampooning Conservatives or Socialists or whatever) so why does religion get special treatment (and I don't think you believe it should). If we are in favour of protecting speech, that necessarily includes speech that we find disrespectful, offensive and, yes, blasphemous. While I agree that disrespect does nothing to further the conversation, criminalizing it (selectively or generally) doesn't fix anything. Blasphemy laws are sometimes being used as an excuse for suppressing legitimate criticism of religion, just as Thailand's laws on respecting the monarchy are used to suppress any attempt at criticizing the monarchy or proposing changes to it.

I'm not about to commit "blasphemy" in the disrespectful sense you talk about, but many regard any criticism of their faith as blasphemy, including the suggestion that God does not exist or that God as portrayed in certain texts is not really someone we would want to follow. As an agnostic UU, I commit that form of blasphemy on a regular basis. So does chansen when he points out that if we take God's behaviour in parts of the Old Testament literally, God is a serious screwed-up guy.

I'm not crazy about disrespect for the sake of disrespect, so I likely won't go out and start cursing God or anything today. But if we use this day as a chance to discuss and promote freedom of speech, even speech that some of us don't like, it may be a worthwhile exercise.

Mendalla

I'm not saying that religious disrespect is always a good idea, just that religious disrespect and blasphemy is not a criminal act. Religion deserves no special protection over any other idea or belief. That's the sum of it.

Why should there be a price for words against something so powerful as a state or a church? It can be argued that the strong ties between the state and the church deserve criticism. Why does that connection deserve the power to repress criticism and even disrespect? Against a handful of young women? Are they that scared?

Saber has promoted atheism, as have I. He posted clips from Innocence of Muslims, which I have not done, because Idon't care about some bad movie made by idiots. I don't care to watch it. From all accounts, it was made by believers of one version of a imaginary deity, disrespecting the rival prophet of that same imaginary deity. To me, they're both ridiculous, so making baseless claims about a prophet who made baseless claims is not interesting in the least.

But say I did post that movie somewhere. Should I be arrested? Should I be beaten? Would I be at least partly responsible for a beating? Whould you apportion that as 20% responsible? 50% responsible?

I maintain that people have a right not to be beaten, but they don't have a right not to be offended. I offend a lot of people with my words, and I know that, but my words are not just for offense - I try to make good arguments as well. But even if they were only intended to offend, that is still a subjective opinion, and I still say that is a not a crime. Let ideas fight it out amongst themselves. Don't let bullies back up their opinions with criminal charges against people who are only armed with ideas that other people don't like.

"That's not kosher" was a joke. I don't consider it offensive, unless someone is looking to be offended.

Why should the consequence for religious disrespect be jail, while the penalty for other personal disrespect be, well, nothing? You can still insult a person in those countries, and the police won't care. Insult a prophet or a deity, and you get thrown in jail. That's wrong.

No, but the point is that atheists aren't the ones calling for the police to enforce respect for our beliefs. It's the religious who want that protection, for deities that they claim are powerful. If they're so powerful, let these gods protect themselves. If they're not as powerful or as real as the claims made about them, then maybe they deserve the criticism.

And religions disrespect non-believers all the time. The bible calls us "fools". Atheism has no scripture - nothing we say is above criticism. Anybody is free to criticize us, or point out why they think we're wrong. Given that religious scripture has no problem calling us fools and predicting we're in for some form of eternal torture, I can't see how you think it is disrespectful for us to criticize religion.

The point with Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, was to make images of Mohammad ubiquitous. The cartoonist made the initial poster, and that people jumped on the idea can not be thrown back in the faces of these fans as if they are somehow responsible for the death threats. The people who should be jailed are the ones making threats of violence, not the ones with pens and styluses in their hands.

Hi Mendalla,

It is true that "we" don't throw people in jail for other forms of disrespect.  It is not true that "we" give religion special treatment in that regard.

If the "we" in question was WonderCafe.ca for example I suspect that the number of members we have banned favours the religious more so than it does the irreligious.  So let's stop pretending this is about what "we" do or what "we" believe.  The issue is that "we" want "them" to be more like "us."

Well, if our speech was absolutely free then I would expect that laws on the books regarding slander, defamation and libel are infringements upon that freedom.  Those limitations do not appear to favour the religious more than the irreligious although the argument can be made that since such limitations typically are relegated to civil courts rather than criminal courts they favour those with budgets to hire more capable lawyers.

And what punishment is doled out to you by which government for doing so?

As I state upthread I am not against the criticism of religion.  If what is wanted is freedom of speech then lets be honest about that.  That is what "we" have done in the past among "ourselves."  Why would "we" think that a more provocative tact is what is needed when dealing with "them?"

Grace and peace to you.

John

That completely misses the point. The argument against criminal charges for blasphemy is not for our sake - it's for the sake of others in other countries, because we CAN make that argument here, while they can not.

That said, blasphemous libel is still on the books in Canada, though it has not been enforced for 80 years.

To make fun of what people love to believe is a dangerous journey ... as was stated about some martyrs of the last 2000 years.

Some wise man once said that we should carry a big stick when going there for protection of falling into what we're trying to demean without adequate reason ... but then those who demand what they wish to do with pure freedom ... are they reasonable.

On the matter of 'allal, it comes up in both linguistic systems as reverence ... but consider who is reverenced in by people who demand perfect freedom? Caligula appeared to accomplish this for a while ... until time caught up with him. Some conjugation and conjuring from the pits ... might-heh be helpful?

Now add an "H" to allal and it turns reverence into glory ... like blasphemy on a stick ... what we've done up to recent times to thinking women like psyche if you know your myths and how they are burned. Romans burned a bunch of em 2000 years ago and with that went our reverence for fate ... and what befalls us without a stick burning at both ends. It is an odd thing ... funny to the medium that the extremes of polity deny doesn't exist ... so they ignore the medium making irony in a general sense as a common element of the earth ... matter worth hammer'n out ... like what does moe-Ham'd stand for, or hammadryad ... or deep satire for that matter ... profound things of Plato's hole that we fall into readily without conscience! Oh what you find inside logi ... from the other side of the tree ... if you can register with a knock ... bump in the Shadow/night ... metaphorically speaking many don't see the fog created by redaction ...

If their psyche and heart don't work well in a spiritual dance ... are they near dead in the soul's dimension? Don't think don't care ... the empiric continues ...

Hi chansen,

Here, it is not a criminal act.  Elsewhere it very much is.

I am not arguing that blasphemy "should" be a criminal here or elsewhere.  I note that it is and the reasons for it being criminal elsewhere and not here is probably owing to the differences between here and elsewhere and not some faulty sameness.

I agree with you.  It doesn't.  Other folk elsewhere obviously disagree with the two of us and even if we were both in agreement that how folk elsewhere should change it is not a given that we would be in agreement on how that change should come about.

You admit that religious disrespect is not always a good idea.  I am willing to go so far as to say that there are times when religious disrespect is an admirable idea.  That doesn't mean that I think religious disrespect has traction in getting religious fundamentalists to change their mind.  Frankly, I haven't seen any fundamentalist, religious or not, change their minds by being subjected to disrespect.  Your experience may differ.

I'm not arguing that there should be.  

I am pointing out that there is a price to pay for going up against whatever power may be.  Why would anybody think that a former power player in the KGB is going to take criticism lying down?  Hell the man pissed off many Russians by running for President and unprecedented third term on a non-consecutive pretext which was mitigated by the fact that he won.

Kick a hornet's nest and you get stung.

Get a bull enraged and you get gored.

Pick up a bear cub and mama bear will rip you apart.

It doesn't really matter whether or not any of those things should or shouldn't happen.  What should be considered is whether or not you want to piss off wasps, bulls and bears to the point where they will do something that is completely predictable.

If pissing something off is what you want to happen then when that pissed off something bites back don't be surprised.

And comparing their time in prison to Auschwitz (they not you)?  Seriously?

Of course they are that scared.  Why the hell do you think they want to control everything?  All that matters to them is that they not be threatened and that is pretty much the same thought process behind the wasp, bull and bear responses.  They are reacting to perceived threat not necessarily real threat.

The wasp doesn't take time to consider, maybe this kid didn't know that he was damaging my family and interests.  The bull doesn't take time to consider, maybe this much smaller bi-ped doesn't realize he is in my space.  The bear doesn't think that maybe the stupid human just wants to cuddle a real-life teddy bear.  They all react to a perceived threat and that is what Putin is doing in this instance.

Not really sure about the Church's role though you should be aware that many social agencies in Russia are still controlled by the state.  A priest has been defrocked (after he resigned) not really sure what that is all about I suspect that there is more to it than the concert in the Cathedral.

I stand corrected then.  The article I read pointed more to issues that Coptic Christians are having with blasphemy laws in Egypt.

I think you ultimately are responsible for your actions.  I don't think that you should be arrested or beaten and so I wouldn't be going out of my way to see it happen.  Now, should you go to Egypt and ask the same questions, having seen how such activity has been responded to I think that it is similar to kicking a wasp nest and if you went to Egypt to do that you are anything other than innocent victim.

Until such time as you are an authority who can make that belief law or at the very least convince those who are authorities to make that belief law you need to watch what you say and where you say it.

As much as you and I might believe Freedom of Speech is universal there are parts of this universe, on this very planet that will disagree with us.

What is more important to you.  The good arguments or the offense?

Yes it is subjective.

Which is no less subjective right?

When all ideas can be considered on their own merits the best ideas should, but won't always, win out.  A good argument is a good idea.  The intent to offend much less of a good idea.  Whenever both are tossed out side by side the ideal would be that the intent to offend would be rejected and the good argument embraced.  And yet by embracing the intent to offend (inherent in making intentionally offensive comments) it seems hypocritical, at the very least, to be critical of those who the offensive comments are directed at embracing the intent to offend and running with it.

Again if I kick a wasp nest and the wasps respond as wasps do it is going to hurt.  If I don't want to get stung all my actions around the wasp nest need to be such that they don't lead to the conclusion that I am a threat.

Sometimes change comes faster when that does happen.  It wasn't just the inspiring words of Martin Luther King that changed things it was the sight of blood running red in the streets.

Which is not me saying blacks and the whites who marched with them should have been beaten.  It is me saying that because they were and because they didn't fight back and they didn't want their actions to be free of consequences change came.

If you can't stand the heat don't go in the kitchen.

That is quite the subjective comment.  I was trying to be funny I failed, your fault.

Why indeed should anything be the way that it is instead of the way we want it to be?

Not this but that.

Sure it is all of us.  Freedom to generalize is free speech no matter how subjective it is.

It is a good thing you don't go on a religious site and make that statement since all religionists are bullies wanting special protections.

That's true.  All of us do.  All of the time.  One thing you will never, ever see is religionists siding with non-believers.  Ever.  It just never happens.  Ever.  Preposterous notion really.

Wait wasn't it you who just a moment ago was all something isn't offensive unless somebody is looking to be offended.  Sauce for the goose pal.  

Now I don't know how to score this chansen.  Either your comments are always free of offence and any who are offended need to take personal responsibility for that and the statement in the Bible is also free of offence and those offended by what it says are simply looking to be offended or, both yourself and the Bible should be held accountable for what either of you might say.

Given that I am still waiting for you to decide whether you want to have your cake or just eat it I'll ease up a little bit.

And for the record you will not find anywhere in this thread where I have said criticism of religion is out of bounds or a bad thing.  That is you putting words in my mouth.  I have said that I don't think disrespect is the best way to be critical and I will stand by that.  I respect that you aren't religious and I respect that you have arguments against religion.  I do not respect that you allow your bias to put words in my mouth and that you would accuse me of doing what I definitely have not done.

As a matter of fact chansen it can.  The artist herself, having sat and talked with some in the Islamic community and gaining some personal insight decided her cartoon was disrespectful and did not actually move the conversation in the direction she wanted it to go.

She is responsible for the original cartoon and words spoken cannot be unspoken.  As she herself said, "she is an idiot." and she is living with the consequences of being an idiot.  I'm not saying that the consequences are not over the top because calling for her death is way over the top even if you are just an art critic.  My walking into a clearing and startling a bear cub is purely accidental if I get mauled by the cub's mother it is an over the top response and if authorities catch up with the bear it won't bode well for her.  I suspect there would be zero sympathy for me if it was later discovered I was tormenting the bear cub even if that torment wasn't physical.

Yet many hid behind her and when she wanted to stop they refused to let her.  If Freedom of Speech is important then one would think that the Freedom to say no would be involved in that.  Apparently freedom only applies when it is something I want.

I quite agree with that.  Those who have threatened violence, even if it is just figures of speech, do not have the freedom to make threats of violence because freedom of speech is not an absolute.

Those who live in countries where freedom of speech is so limited should be able to be charged with assault (at minimum) and face a jury of their peers.

Anyone who has used Norris' artwork to find people looking to be offended should, at the very least, offer a donation to cover her expenses for going into hiding.

Most I suspect will feel free not to bother.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Chansen -- My friend I believe  what you see in the middel east is not because of God or His Prophets or for that matter even a movie. It's an agenda  to get those who follow Islam to attack the U.S.A and others that think like them. It is also an attack on those who don't believe in a God . Like you and others chansen. You live in Canada , and even if I don't believe what you say and think . You have that right to say or think it here. If this country ever trys to change this . I will stand with you, and I have a feeling I would not be the only Christian who would. It may surprise you Chansen but I also believe some who follow Islam would stand with you also. We have learn from world war 2 and Germany. To let a goverment take freedom from one group . Could mean your group  is next.-- May your day go well.------airclean33

The Plateau of Kol was a desolate place full of a desolate and ignorant people who constantly fought and angered, starved and stormed

Until Sophia came.  And through her lifelong quest to understand herself and her environment, when she was wrinkles upon wrinkles, she grokked...and taught her people her ways

And the endless fighting ended...and the anger came under harness...and the prosperity and land blossomed...

Armarments were destroyed and peace reigned...

Sophia left for her hermitage to dwell on a pressing problem...for years she sat, contemplating...

Until, with a gasp, a terrible truth came upon her...she hobbled as quickly as she could back to the Plateau of Kol...

To find all in ruin, shattered fields and works and peoples...

She sat down and wept...

For what she had discovered that while they were Enlightened....they forgot to enlighten their neighbours...

Adapted from a Zen Koan...

Coming soonishly, an interactive thead on Knowing Thyself, with fun experiments and a book or two :3

EDIT:  good dialogue, chansen & revjohn :3

There are also good threads on blasphemy-related subjects for those interested.  Here are a couple:

"Cultural appropriation, respect and blasphemy"

"Blasphemy -- what is included?"

Technically, it is a violation of Section 296 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 296 seems more concerned, however, with the manner in which blasphemy is expressed than with blasphemous expression as a whole. 296(3) says: "No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject."

The last conviction happened in 1935. It was against an Anglican minister in Quebec who was convicted for statements he made against the Roman Catholic Church.

Interestingly enough, Section 296 offers a much broader definition of blasphemy than I would. It refers quite generically to "a religious subject." I think of blasphemy as basically false and offensive statements about God in particular. That, of course, makes "blasphemy" subject to many different interpretations from a legal perspective, since there's no common consensus on the nature of God or what would constitute false and offensive statements against God. The conviction in 1935 seemed to suggest that in a legal sense one could blaspheme a church. From a faith perspective, I don't think so.

I've heard some argue that blasphemy can only occur within a faith. So, a Moslem cannot "blaspheme" God as understood by Christians, and Christians cannot "blaspheme" God as understood by Moslems. Atheists, then, simply can't be guilty of "blasphemy." In other words, blasphemy is only blasphemy when uttered by a member of a religious group to other members of that same religious group. I don't know if I agree with that or not. I'd have to think about it.

Convictions for blasphemy today would probably be difficult because of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since one could argue that blasphemy would be protected expression.

For the record, I do not believe that blasphemy should be a criminal offense. Prosecutions that deal with speech directed against a religion would now be prosecuted under hate speech and hate crime laws.

Perhaps the most significant comment made here.........

Respect for the other often includes making an attempt to understand how important for all of us is cultural context. Without an awareness of it, we're merely content to say our values are correct, and the other culture's values, where they conflict, are wrong.

At the very least, an appreciation of cultural differences can be an important first step to reconciliation.

Making a serious attempt to understand the other - without a kneejerk reaction - is prudent also within a culture.

For example, if you told me that you had been raised by  a Christian father who was a pastor and a man you both respected and loved - it would make a lot of sense to me that you called yourself a Christian.

If you told me you were raised by a father who was a scientist and an athiest -it would make a lot of sense to me, that, through respect and love, you had adopted a lot of his beliefs.

Perhaps in other examples, repectful conversation may reveal that you were unhappy in your relationship with your parents -and later went on to reject the values you were raised with.......

My point is that none of us are self-made - all our values we get from elsewhere and are absorbed from our culture and journey through life.

This is something we all share, and is a good place to start for respectful dialogue......

Which then also necessitates that all of us have perfect?/extensive? knowledge of every culture there is, because, as we can see, something someone somewhere can take something as a 'dreaded insult' that wasn't meant as one...

I wonder if what is happening today is a test by the G_ddesses?

But I do concur with dialogue -- one of the reasons I think I get along with so many different people is that I can take an approach of being open to their particular human expression...

Revjohn, let's say a group arose in Canada that promised to randomly murder some number of people who publicly support the prime minister.

You go on to publicly support the prime minister.  How responsible would you be for your own murder?  Keep in mind that however much responsibility you take for it, the physical perpetrators are that much less responsible.

That is not true in my opinion. I thought the Day was needless and di not support it, but let me explain.

There is a difference between intentional offending someone, or a group, and unintentionally offending someone.   Intentional offending someone is usually just rude and not called good.

Howevr sometimes it is valid,(or understandable)  like Samson,or when Jesus  turned over the tables of the business people at the Temple, or the Pussy Riot (fellow Christians) put on there concert to protest and illustrate the immoral  collusion between the state and church, to oprress people in Russia.   

Also many times  when it comes to many charged with blasphamy laws, no offense is intended. Like the young girl with a developmental disability who was charged in Pakistan for tearing pages out of the Koran.

In fact like is offten the case in such stupid laws, (like those against homsexuality in Africa0 The laws use is meant to control, and presecute dissidents or minorities.   For example after being in prision for a month, and after her entire Christian community had to move away, a muslim cleric was charged, becasue it seemed he had placed the torn pages of the Koran on her person, in order to drive out the Christians, and divert form his own sexual problems.

Now back to the Danish cartoons,  They were offensive and were meant to offend, the muslim immigrant community in Danemark.  There was no need or excuse to publish than, other than racism, among White Danes.

Howevr after that many people werer killed. It becamae News, so some other Newspaper's like Ezira Levant's Alberta Report published them. I suspect he just want to offend, but he can claim that they were news, and to publish them was part of his job.

Than Comedy Central in the USA, decided to censor old South Park episodes that had drawing of Mohammed, along with Jesus, and Moses, and the Buddha.   THey intended to offend, but not in the way the Danish newspaper did. They were just doing there usually mockery, and I believ that were not likely to cause riots or killings, as Islam was not singled out for insult.

Howevr this censorship did provoke the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. The intent of which was not to offend or provoke Muslims, but to stand up for free speech, (even if I though it was unnecessary to do so, as the problem was just some ill informed corporate person, covering there ass. Likely the same type that tells retail workers not to wish people a Merry Christmas, in case it offends others. 

Howevr the Draw Mohamed day could have been used to inflame Muslims, andso was foolish, risky as well as unecessary.   If the people had actually put some thought into it instead of just following the herd. They could have done something else. Evan if it was  just  a Everyone draw Mohammed/Jesus/Moses/Buddha Day if would have not risk as being offensive to Muslims. 

Which brings me to the point I made than. It is only some( very few)   muslims who consdier it to be blashphamey for all people to draw Mohamed , and fewer  Muslims see it as an offense for non Muslims to draw Mohamed.   The largest understanding of the law( as was also the one backed up by one of WC muslims membrs) was that it is intended to stop Muslims from creating art that takes away focus on the prophit and his message of God. It only applies to Muslims, and even a significant number of Muslims (like in Iran and elswhere)  do not see it as  a rule agaisnt all drawings. Only beautiful art that in itself could become odjects of whorship. 

Howevr crude drawings liike the catoon with Mohammed being protrayed as a pig, and the Video accredited to Sam Bastile, are just offensive and meant to provoke. It is also not just Muslims who are provoked by some art.

When the Evryone draw Mohamned day was being discussed here I post a picture for Wiki of the Piss Christ. A photo meant to show how society is pissing on Christ's message. I also provodied a quote and a reference to a American Nun, who hosted an Art Show on PBS who explain why she thought it was a great peice and one that was very pro Jesus. Evengelical leaders in the US and Australia actually attcked the photo, trying to destry it, and many `people here flagged it as offensive, resulting in Admin remving the picture I had embedded in my message.

So this is not just an Islamic thing, but it is a people thing and what happens when people use relgion to provoke (on both sides) in order to settle political differences that are not rooted in relegion.But in things like racism, and cultural issues.

Religion is being used for politcal purposes, ( like we do in the UCC) however  the Danish newspaper, The creators of the Mohaned video, and many governement officials behind the riots, deny that it is politcal. But it is still political  and they are using religion to bash others for political not relgious reasons.

A good offense is good as a kick in the head ...

What happens when the mule like persona is not cultured .... they react instead of reflecting on why that offensive character did that!

And the story goes on in the bible that knowledge and wisdom is bad and the kings wisdom is best ... even if he is illiterate and King James .. something vacant as in a stone box? There's a 'gapë for yah ... sort of rapturous when you see what's missing in space unseen. They say in the Holy Land there are wild donkies that feed on acacia ... a thorny issue if I do say so my self ... could we feed these people something different than war ... an integral thought to say the least of the missing emotions that are displaced by education ... substitutional ggrace ... as a given ... like a'Donis ... a misunderstood Latin expression about blowing your kohl ... like psyche when she say the friable Maas ... that flowed out of a dimension that didn't share intellectually ... spirits without mental Kos in the physical realm?

A chaotic state for those that belive in pure love ... a blind part of the soul/psyche as imagined ... for alas it isn't here ... like a lot of people of thought ... recalled or just ego'd ... echo'd for something else?

Odd what's buried in word ... subliminally ... or below the surface ... like quarks up, down, top, bottom charmed and strange as elle ... no one can contain the light of Jesus ais and overhead thing as shamayim ... dark waters of the night Piscine all over the uneducated or ignorantly emotional. Have you looked around lately at what this quick species knows? Individually little but collectively ... now there's something ... in the medium of nothing ... outlanders! The only ones with room for thought ... tell me metaphors mean nothing to as'ole ...

Particularly as Christians we should be against blashamy laws as I believ we should be against the death penalty  Becasue we know how religious and political ofcials use these laws , and claims of offenses against religion and God.

Now if you are want to stop people who offend others which result in harm you might want to look to the UK. They have libel laws that are focused around those who offend others based on race, relgion, sex, sexual orientation.

Like the Tram lady http://youtu.be/fd8iYLvlQaM. She want to jail as a result, and temporarily losy custody of her children.   However those who posted the video were not charged becasue they were doing it for reasons other than to offend, and in a place (Youtube) where poeple were free to leave.

These laws are also problematic, I personal like how they have been use to jail and fine internet trolls who post offensive messages. Howevr last week a young man was charged and is facing 2 years in jail for posting on his Facebook page that he wished that all soldiers would be dead, after 8 members of the Bristiah army were killed in Afghanistan.

But at least the UK laws, unlike the blashphamy laws, intent to offend is required, and relgion and God are not give a speacial status seperate from others.

Adzgari,

I kick a hornets nest how responsible am I for getting stung?  If it is just one hornet and myself I am half of the equation am I not?

So, let's go on to say it is just one of the members of the group who comes after me and kills me.  My claim is that I am not innocent and that as it is between the two of us I am half of the equation.

Can he be charged with half of a murder?  As the victim will I be charged with half the murder?

Which is an interesting argument.  If I involve ten others in a murder do we split one murder charge 11 ways or are all 11 of us going to face indiviudal charges of murder?  A criminal trial might find that the burden of a murder charge should not be apportioned equally among all 11.  Conspiracy to commit charges will probably be laid against all.

A charge laid against any one doesn't prohibit a similar charge from being laid against any of my fellow conspirators.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi chansen,

We can make that argument here.  How does it influence governments there?

Unless the arguement is made there it is highly unlikely that what we do here is going to impact there unless we can find some way to punish the governments we disagree with.

Any sign it will be enforced soon?

Grace and peace to you.

John

It's a curious analogy, because we don't hold hornets responsible for their own actions as conscious agents in human society.  They are non-persons, and even killing all of the hornets is a legal act.  I'm not sure that we have any consistency on this topic, legally.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but under Ontario law, if a dog attacks a human for any reason - even if struck - is the dog not automatically to be put down according to the law?  Perhaps non-human analogies are inappropriate here.

Half?  Not automatically half, surely.  Not just because there are two of you.  My own position is that you are fully responsible for what you said, and that (s)he is fully responsible for his or her reaction to it.  That seems like a reasonable division of responsibility to me.  What do you think?

That doesn't make much sense to me, since you didn't commit any part of the murder yourself.  You did something unrelated to murder, except in the mind of the murderer - and (s)he is the one who's supposed to be in control of that.  (S)he is not a hornet.

That's reasonable.  Of course full responsibility for actually planning/committing/enabling murder is not necessary for a prison sentence; a partial role/responsibility is adequate to achieve that, as you suggest.  But as for your own involvement - did you take part in planning your own murder?  What did you do to enable it?  How did you materially assist the ones who carried it out?  The answer of course is "nothing".  The murderers are responsible for their own actions under the law.  They are not hornets.

No.  But if one did X part of the murder planning, then the other 9 would necessarily not be responsible for having done that X part of the murder planning.

Hi Azdgari,

Actually that is incorrect.  If an intruder enters my home and my dog attacks it is understood that the dog is defending the family abode and it will not automatically be put down according to the law.

As a foster parent we had a foster child who actually abused all of our dogs.  One dog, defended itself.  We reported it and the CAS investigated.  As it was considered clearly a warning and as we could document several instances where the child tormented the dogs there was no discussion that the dog which defended itself should be put down.

Mind you if the dog had been the aggressor the story probably would have played out differently.

Perhaps.  If not then is it appropriate to assume that all humans are socialized equally and allowed to mature in cultures that are identical?

Control is fleeting and depending upon individuals not always stable.

Indeed they are.  That doesn't make the victim innocent of offense.  That offense may not be considered by any other as proportionate to a solution of murder.  Of course if those prone to kill took into consideration how others felt about it I suspect that there would be dramatically fewer murders.

In that it is the reaction to external stimuli, in this case my support for our Prime Minister, that is driving their action and not how they feel about the laws of society we apportion all responsibility to them for their actions and presume that as victim I must be innocent.  We try to render a murder trial in black and white terms when it isn't necessarily so cut and dried.

Which is not me saying that murderers cannot or should not be held responsible.

It is me saying that everytime I decide to do something which I have been warned is dangerous I am engaged in risky behaviour and there are consequences to doing so.

When I am dead there is very little punishment any earthly court can hit me with that is going to make me think twice about anything.

In an ideal world risk should be minimal.  Until we live in an ideal world I believe that it is prudent to provoke others to anger and if I fail to exercise that wisdom then I should take responsibility for my lack of foresight.

That is true.  There will be more than enough charges floating around to fling at the whole group and those who appear to be weaker will be offered deals to turn on their confederates and provide damning testimony.  We will minimize the guilt of some in order to maximize the guilt of others.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Here's a good offense ...

Tell an authority something they don't know! I find it works well to raise tempers and invariably I get the response "I lie" even though the object of my dark humour doesn't get it.

Reverse psychology as reflection ... the function of the Ego that people will condemn without really knowing the primal understanding of the word. Is this resurrected humour about our programmed stupidity ... that we don't wish to be enlightened about? Then there are many here that cannot connect ecco, eKos, echo and Ego although varients on the same word in different phonetics ... spoken words ... that they don't have proper understanding of ...

Is this planned degradation? it appears so but don't say ... the authorities won't like it a bit to be part of the biblical record --- Exodus 20:19 after the powers left Egypt and didn't like it in an Eire IÐ realm they though ich' ai ... even if the san (thatoutside) wouldn't stick to them without humours ... why today we insist of spilling blood in the sands ... tell me about lost mined's agin!

Then there are  all those verses about seen things and unseen and de Lucean all  materials as mostly empty space ... isometric expansion of stuff that isn't ... adomism comes back again to swat us in our fat faces ... as described in Obama's favour ite book ... GILEAD ... the whole point was guile ... but few saw it ... the base line or underlying sole singularity is like that a centre of gravity that is really nothing at the centre of the mire we call Earh ... GEO or Ghia ... mere metaphors of the myth of reality in a realm where no one wishes to know much ...

Can stoop Idée be insulted? it is indeed very reactive, doesn't reflect on much creation black plasma ... or alien humour ... one a composite of ink in a page so red words sink into blackness ... the mystery of God we didn't wish to know and we'd rather fear ID as nothing to ponder as a load ...

Now in a race of people that puts down intellect ... is presenting intellect in the form of story, occult and evil? Most likely in mortal understanding!

Some will say we can't believe that you've been told not to think! Happens a lot as it is the core of envy ... we hate people to know more than us but few will rise above that ... now does that double up on divine comedy ... creating duplicate parse of Dante's Epic poetry ... close to metaphorical what? Bottom line learning is pudenda in Hebrew .. a cunning desire is required to grasp what you don't know ...

It appears to be contageous as well for when regurgitating old un-tested stories results in them repeating the myth ... then reflection of the unknowing self is invented ... I was encouraged to leave university ... because I questioned some of the things that were taught ... although the instructors really spent little time in the real world of work (couldn't reflect on experience) where some old theories get tried over and over again without success ... but someone makes piles of monis on mistakes ...

Now tell me in the real world what is a real treasure and what is unreal ... the complexity of the enslaved soul? Could it reflect on you as ID ... a different and independant creature of nature that makes it difficult to pull the irrational togther further so as to implode on the other side ... sort of like ejection of similar words ... very unorganic, or orgiastic as something bugging the deeps of the brae'n ? Ankh about what we don't know? Some called it a Ka Ro Be Tale ... that might be translated into spirit-penetrating-secondary power-myth ... insinuating something else as an overall affection ... Big Gonads?

Some serve them as suite bred from a calves head ... that's Ur .. ancient metaphor for blue OX ... much neglected Çow, or Q'u ... depending upon the script that could be a bore ... if no interest is shown in cultivation of wild heards in the sky with ghost writers ...

Anti intelligence rules as the dark power! Is there another side tuit?

What do you mean by Political, here?

Is it different than "...the officials behind the riots, deny that it is political..."?

What do you think of the notion of all human acts being political (polis)?  Can the same be said of religious?

I mean it is about power.  I looked at some dictionaries to find a well worded and clear explaination of what I mean by poitical and I found this on Wiki, It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy. Religion is politcal, but I have yet to see many cases of people being jailed, killed, or threaten for what I would believe to be religious reasons. 

The men who flew planes in to the World Trade Towers had three politcal demands, not religious ones. Basically they wanted the US to leave Saudi Arabia and other countries in the middle east where they had large bases, and help keep in power dictators. 

The Danish Newspapers and the cartoonist have major problem with their immigrant and minority populations , who largely come from or are descendants of  former Danish colonies. Many are of are Asian and African descent They are poorer than the genral population and are discrimanted in ways we see in canada with people with a history of being colonised. First Nations and immigrants from many different parts of the world. (rember the "Yellow Tide") as well many of their minorites are descendants of slaves who worked in their colonies.

The cartoon affair had an effect in Denmark, and it saw Neo Nazis reach historic highs afterwards in elections. There governemnts have thus enacted racist laws attacking minorities  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12366676. 

I and others have pointed out that Europes racism is what drives the anti muslim sentiment there. Un like in Canada and the US most of our low income minorities share the same faith (Chrsitianity) or non faith as the elite. Howevr the minorites in Europe are largely muslim,  as so like an Internet troll, they insult Islam as a way to provoke the minorities. Howevr the powerful are not afraid or hate Islam, they are just racist bastards.

Likewise most of the violent demos in countires with large muslim populations were provoked by political movements in order to serve their politcial ends. Sure religious people were angry, but it was diriven to extremes by people using this issue as a wedge issue in local politics, and by a 500 year history or western colonialism.   They were and are using western racism, as a means to gain power and property

Blasphemy laws are in every case I know of are used aginst minorities for power, or land or property. People charged are no more commiting real blasphemy, than was the young girl in Pakistan with a learning disabilty. In her case a local leader and cleric was using religious retoric and planting evidence for some purpose. After he was also arrested, it turned out he might have been trying to create a diverson in order to keep his party in power, or to drive out christian in order to free up their property and businesses.

Every where I look at religious intolerence, religious wars, and other relgious wrong doings I see non religious issues usually involving power, control, property, or the settling of old wrongs.

That is not to say that many Religious leaders are not involved in these crimes, and that religious leaders have allowed relgion to be used this way, when they fail to denounce it. Like when Canadian troops are blessed before going into battle and told God is on their side. While religious leaders allow this in Canda, others do denounce war. Of course it is done a thousand times in other offensive ways in the US.

But even if religion is used this way, and even if many relgious leaders fail to speak out, at the heart all relgious conflict are worldly political concerns.  Even the reformation wars in Europe had at it base a struggle  the Kings and princes worldly politcal agendas.

Of course many actually do believe these things are about relgion, and they are misinformed by propaganda which we all fall victim to.  Today it is the fault of too many journalist and historians in the "Wente" school. Where all they do is repeat what they are told. And eventuall if something is repeated enough times, many good man and women believ it is the truth.  I know I have believd many lies, and likely still do.

 As a fig Ur meant for my imagination is ... church polity reasonable if it is defined as extreme?

What would you expect from an institution that stresses "love" as a logical path to salvation ... when you consider all the metaphors for emotional revelation ...

Often such things show indication that  somebody blew it before its time of knowing the proper season for such actions ...

To use an old axiom in the proper season something can come of nothing! The Rome antics expressed it as ø, a Latin nothing resulting in Christ being conceived by a Roman God in metaphor that wasn't well received by Latin grammar ... as screwed up satire, or at least Hebrew irony ...

They got tired of cutting hard stuff with copper alloys (-ites) and moved to iron in their imaginary powers of Oz'm mnemonics ... remembering things that weren't up to that season except in dejahvu ... phonetically de shawl of thin fabric ... called lace worn to the temple ... to weakly hide that  proudly chi vasn't vergen anymore ... the Job was completed ... and this was easily confessed according to tradition in Rome ... the assigned culpert could be nailed due to the work of pedre ... in tertiary redundance ... real people don't do this stuff in silence ... that's mere's myth of Jack's relating ... sort of old alchemy!

People hate that word too ...

To know this stuff is to be touched by ancient phonetics ... something considered a sin  by those in ... the not wanting to know ... or perhaps how it isn't! Use your imagination, part of that abstract concept ... some say is a farce of think'n ...

Could this be described as dumas ... when left in when shouda been out?

Some people do not respect time or seasons of the dark spirit ... as Psyche-ich! An occult art of knowing what's in the Shadow ... lot's a phun but dangerous if you let on you know ... like that official from the temple when questioned about the fallens actions ... some things you simply surround in thought!

Scie how they calm together in sectant fantasy ... if you happen to fall into such a sense less ðate! often the result of Romans in the heat of a middle eastern storm of passion ... as previously detailed as mire ... images of past dirt on redundant things. These are done over and over again without adequate knowledge of the metaphor of the træ din of essense ... as pit out ... usually recorded mispelt ... to hide the actual combatants in the legal pro-cedings ... done before the court knew 'bout IT!

Alex,

just wanted to quickly tell ya that I enjoyed your response.  Thank you very much :3

revjohn,

to continue with your angering wildlfie metaphor -- the unfortunate thing right now is people in the comfort of their own homes are being forced to be aware/recognize the unknown behaviours of completely unknown wildlife that can barge in/walk into their homes...

all of this kerfuffle points to me:

1)  universe is always teaching us

2)  humanity is immensely powerful

3)  there have been various ways of keeping that power in check, from blasphemy laws to hate speech laws to inalienable human rights laws to religion...

4)  whatever happens, a positive that is coming out of this whole kerfuffle is the importance of universal human rights and more widespread grokking of how humanity works

5)  Cynicism is still in its death throes

Keep up the good discussions, folks...

Thanks for the correction.  It's a fairer system than I thought.

No.  But if we set the law up to treat people like hornets, then nobody is held accountable for their own actions.  If we humans are to be given rights as though we are individual agents, then to be consistent we have to be assigned responsibility as though we're individual agents.  To take away some of the latter is to take away some of the former.  And we do so across-the-board in the cases of children and the mentally ill.  Once we start treatig people as children or as the mentally ill based on their political or religious ideologies, however, then we've gone down a very dangerous path.

Most people seem to maintain control over their desires to murder others fairly well.

I think you've touched on the key issue here, John.  The victim is guilty of just that - offense.  The victim is guilty of 'something'.  But that 'something' for which the victim is guilty, is not murder.  It is offending others.  Perhaps that shouldn't be taken so lightly, but it's still all the victim is guilty of.

Per the above, the murder part is cut and dried.  But murder is not the only offense being committed.  You're guilty of your own actions, and they're guilty of theirs.  The question then becomes how we treat those who offend others (regardless of the reaction) and those who react violently (regardless of who offended them).

Actually you did say that, earlier.  Your comparison to hornets relieved them of moral responsibility.  Hornets are effectively machines.  They react to stimuli, and can't be held morally accountable when they react predictably - because they're not rational agents and aren't supposed to be under the law.  Unlike adult humans.

True, but it still doesn't make you a party to murder.

So long as you're willing to relegate the reacting agents to the moral level of hornets, and let them off the hook.  Except perhaps to destroy them...after all, you've taken away their humanity under the law.

Cynacism is in its daath throes ...

Like when gnosticism is tossed for the sake of desire Addas? What a slippery slope you generate for those that the Complex appears obviously clouded ..

Assists in the extension of hidden knowledge ... so the common folk can't know ... extending humour for the powers outside our reality ... the true Is-Rae-L ... rite?

The intellect is an od mat-rex for filtering through the mire as a flighty fabrication ... coming back at yah with glass, or class in English spin on delight! The Icons in there spectre of variability require a mortal to have grasp of huge array of tongues an hidden biblical salience ... that jumps right off the page for the oblivious to the paradigm ... outlanders? Allows for the sublimation of the soul so man can't touch it ... Ur being a kohl lady ... useful in dousing flames ... El Duce? We should suspend those sorts ... like highm'n in the old story that developed as hi'man ... an obstruction in the void ... things we didn't know about!

They did ...! Astonishing ..

I could question as in Catch 22: "Whos they?"

That would be the extension of self ... many mortals not being that elastic ... can't get their head abo'tite ... stone faced stoics? A paen for teaching the other how not to do it ...

Hi Azdgari,

You are welcome.  It is fairer and it distinguishes between nuisance dogs and, for lack of a better descriptor, average dogs.  Even nuisance dogs, dogs which have demonstrated aggressive tendencies are not automatically put down.  It appears to be a trend in current law that the owner bears much more responsibility for the behaviour of an animal than the animal does itself.

I think it is only in extreme instances where the law rules that an animal should be put down.  For example, a dog mauling an elderly or child neighbour.  Dogs that habitually attack other animals may be required to be muzzled and controlled when out in public. The thinking appears to acknowledge that dogs respond intinctively and not with a great deal of forethought.  That said, I owned a dog that baited traps for pigeons and managed to kill three of them before we put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

Agreed.  We aren't setting up any such laws to that effect though are we?

It seems to me that Blasphemy Rights is about setting up a law which allows others to molest hornets and not have to pay any price for doing so.  In that respect, if we regard the individuals we target with blasphemy as hornets our molesting them is similar to abusing animals.  At the very least it is poking sleeping dogs that are better left to lie.

I agree with you on this score.  I see the notion of Blasphemy Rights as the removal of responsibility from one half of the conflict equation.  It simply is untenable to say one has the right to be disrespectful and the other has no right to be offended by it.

I am not sure I am following your line of reasoning here.  Are you suggesting that the mentally ill should always face a legal trial for behaviour we normatively view as criminal?  Insanity is no defence?

And for the record I have not said here that anyone who is enraged by an act of blasphemy has carte blanche to do as they wish.  I have used the language of risk assessment which leads individuals to think before they act and to consider the possiblity of outcomes not to their liking.

If anything I have said that there are no innocent parties in the conflict and as such consequences should be in keeping.

I wonder if that ability funtions in any kind of ration to some other's willingness to offend?  What if the only reason that people seem to maintain control is that most people do not feel that they are being personally attacked?

Which means that in the conflict system there are no innocents, just liberties taken.  Admittedly there is a vast difference of degree in liberties taken.  That shouldn't mean that one gets to take liberties for free whereas another has to pay for them.

Agreed.  Each should be held accountable for their actions.  In Canada we distinguish between assault and battery.  Those who deliberately offend could conceivably be held responsible for assault (a crime that causes a victim to apprehend violence) while those who get physical in their offence are at least guilty of battery.

Blaphemy Rights seeds to render that playing field uneven by eliminating the possibility of assault  in the action of Blasphemy.  While I do not think that Blasphemy is automatically assaultive there may be times when it crosses the line.  If Blapshemy becomes legal then it can never be found to be crossing the line.

I believe that is more of your inference than it is anything I have said.

I spoke in terms of risk assessment.  I was not speaking to legal reality.  I have not said that affronted individuals are free of responsibility.  I have said that those doing the affronting are not free of responsibility.  Whether either party is known to the other they are forming a relationship.  If that relationship is built on disrespect it should surprise nobody that it gets violent.  That is not me saying violence is acceptable it is me saying that I understand it.

In the above I am the party murdered.  That doesn't make me innocent.  Particularly if I am pushing buttons to provoke a response.  Again, that doesn't give individuals the freedom to respond however they wish, they don't even have that freedom if I physically assault them.  They can employ a reasonable defence.  They cannot employ an unreasonable one.

Threatening a cartoonist with death is, I believe, an unreasonable defence.  I don't find being offended in and of itself unreasonable, in fact, I find the action taken to be deliberative in provoking offence and I suspect that the unreasonable defence of threats was actually hoped for.  The offended were baited.

Blasphemy Rights seeks to make that baiting acceptable.

I have not let them off the hook.  I have lifted up what I think is a fairly reasonable risk assessment.  The same holds true if my neighbours belong to Hell's Angels.  If I choose to provoke them in some manner then I should not be surprised when they respond to that provocation.

They might respond outside of the law.  They will be held responsible for that.  A just sentence may not make things all better for me.  No jail time given to them can unblacken my eye in the least or even make it less painful to endure.  I can win in a court of law they are going to beat the crap out of me on the streets and the alleys.

Of course, if I am smart enough it doesn't have to get to that point.  There might possibly be some way to reason with them.  It will probably go better if I can project respect.  If I start the conversation by dissing them It would be a miracle if things ended well for anyone.

Again your inference.  I'm confident that I have not taken away their responsibility or even their humanity simply by pointing out that victims are not always innocent.  By giving everyone the freedom to offend the other have we advanced the notion that the other is human and not just a target for recrimination?

Society is a system.  Hopefully it is symbiotic where each member of society gives and takes within reason.  As soon as disagreement becomes grounds for disrespect somebody is taking what is not given.  To allow that parasitic aspect to be protected I don't believe society as a whole is served.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I've come to this thread rather late, and haven't read all of it, so I just offer my thoughts on blasphemy.

I think blasphemy is a matter of opinion. One person's piety is another person's blasphemy.

When I, for instance, say that I believe the universe to be self-creative or self-godly, and that we are inseparable parts of the of the unified Godhead, then this statement is perceived as blasphemous by those who believe in a separate, supernatural, authoritarian God, simply because thinking that one is God, or assuming attributes of God, is one of the definitions of blasphemy.

I, however, believe that thinking that one is an inseparable part of God is being extremely pious. Then one acts as godly as one can, without the need for commandments, dogmas or doctrines. This is not believing in God; this is not playing God. This is being God, and acting it.

I AM.

-God

I and the father are one.

-Jesus

We are as gods and must get good at it.

-Stuart Brand

When the blasphemer and Sufi mystic, Al Hallaji, was drawn and quartered in the town square of Baghdad for denying the existence of God, he cried out: "I am God!"

Actually, he cried out Anna I-Haq, (I think that's a pretty good alliteration of the Arabic) which literally means "I am the Truth" - but, of course, truth is one of the 99 names of God in Islam.

Then what are underdogmaas but oppressed thoughts ... leading to internalized dimensions that the religiously pio's say don't exist as these are not as superficial in their words ... plainly sublime ... hidden factors? Maas being a floe of things like entropy and enthalpy ... the latter burning the former quite kohl (if yah grasp it)! Those into the type seder business usually had it ... but then they were like primitive carvers of reciprocal images ... flat out impressions? These could be illustrated in the Greek chi (E?) as a 3-tiered universe with exceptions ... nothing is ever quite right ...

Then if you were in a stretch like Anna I-Haq and phoneticised this would it come out as:

An I ache (Toby free)

Or perhaps

Anis heh (was pæned, flat out, like liquorish)

Leading to a whole spectre of expression in genre as not that explicit "anish-eh" leading to the expression that a person needs to know a lot of arcane tongues to try and say the way it was when we know little of our past due to authoritarian burning of history and redaction. A bunch of clerics about 1600 had a field day with this one if you can imagine ...

A Niche ah ... of foreign ich hated thought? You could really get into ID ... as in such variance nothing is sacred and emotional bodean critters wile bloe thro' IT ... being a whole differing thinng that ID ... in ancient understanding ... a Classic Wisdom? We lost it or some think we're Luce' nite ... the Shadow that knows all we are just to burned up with other emotions ... little curio citi ( Hebrew word for alien chaos). Such is the dark pool of words ... real peoples hate it!

The infinite self as humble does well in the covet'n or hiding in the fabric thereof ... few see it ...

Thanks, Steven.

Does the truth ache to be out from under delusional fabrics ... something we covet up?

Its a great basis for a story from the other side of the image ... of harfa my-end!

I think Chansen is muddling religious sensivitities with political oppression. 

When things hit the fan, religion is almost always less to blame than it is the meat in some nasty oligarch's power sandwich… it gets the blame and draws the fire while the fascist hands that are playing with it get on with the righteous business of kitten-strangling: the Taliban aren't about religion; they are a mix of power lusters and freedom fighters — egomaniacs and idealists — all bound up tight in chains of political ambition. "Blasphemy" is as good an excuse as any to put a bullet in the head of someone who stands in your way or pisses you off. And, if you think the Pussy Riot fiasco was about religion, you're nuts. It was pure poltics… all about "making an example of" and defining more controlling boundaries. As for the very ego-needful Pastor Jones, he clearly has a  number of sad pathological issues bouncing around in the space where his brains should be. He is not practising any genuine faith but an evil little power and publicity game that seems to have more than a few dollops of racism in the mix. No "good" person gets a self-righteous buzz or feels affirmed when other people get killed as a result of his or her publicly vented bigotry.

Totalitarianism is the enemy, and totalitarianism is shaped by greed, paranoia, ambition and power-lust… any doctrine, faith or slogan will do if it helps your seize some kind of idealistic-sounding high ground. Atheists and "blasphemers" are often on their own little power trips. The U.S. government is daily using predator drones to maim and kill "bad" people (and anyone standing nearby) in the cause of "freedom" whilst steadily curtailing the civil rights of their own people. It's time we saw power-seeking as a clinical condition needing confinement and counselling. Power maybe doesn't corrupt… maybe it's only the corrupt who seek power?

I know that none of my friends have much energy for telling each other or anyone else how they must think or live (unlike, let us say, Chansen and the fundy set)

Nor do my friends spend time devising more effective interrogation techniques… something you don't see a whole lot of in healthy faith communities either — certainly not in the UCC. That's political stuff.

You mean out on the'nd like polemics? Close to d'ndological behaviour with teeth as taunte to get the thinking beyond loci ...

The myth goest on extended ... the pall hiding delight of what is unseen ... by those not lookin'in to ID ...

Odd what you can do when twisting the Shadow w/o doubt! Nothing to it ... like what isn't in the soul of the emotional ... a vacant space, or just rapturous? È gap heh in vast avoidance ... virtual de Lucé Anal behaviour? Saturine arsenic the toxin of emotions ... what-seth-o'T! Easily lost to the unaware ... somnolent ... but not yet deadalus! Nos-ites or Gobs-ite ... the page sticker ... as closed bo'que ... gravid ignorance ... ye omi-noös!

There's a dimension of frightening thought ...

The corrupt certainly use religion to their advantage, or is it religion that corrupts? Were the Christian fundamentalists we see on this site spouting nonsense before they found Christianity, or has Christianity turned them batshiat insane? These are very much chicken-and-egg questions.

But, if you take politics out of it, and just ask individual faith leaders if blasphemy should be allowed, or if it should be punished, what do you really think the answers will look like? I know your answer, but there are a lot of Christians who don't even count you in their club. Your brand of Chrisitanity is an outlier - your mysticism mixed with influenced like Borg and Crossan make you as much of a threat to many Christians as I am.

I contend that religion loves to be held in high regard, and that it feels entitled to a place of both power and protection. Perhaps not your religion, but your religion has low aspirations. Judging by architecture alone, other religions have loftier goals for themselves and their beliefs.

Also, if you're gonna start arguing that the "Taliban aren't about religion," then I invite you to suggest that to them in person. Maybe they'll have a laugh and agree and you'll all sit down to milk and cookies.

You'll have to remind me where I told people that if they don't stop believing in God, that they'll have...umm...hell to pay.

The UCCan has nothing against holding helpless people seated against their wills, except when it's time for a hymn.

There are varients (spectres?) of what is believed and the other side is always crazy ... no matter where you stand. Leaves room for the point of metpahor ... its just something else leaving room for another dimension ... and processing people are rumoured to be crazy too ... it is something that possesses the real which are not Complex in Numbers ... like"i" ... the internalized lien with a point ... the power of sole? Some reciprocation may be required to understand. As in Genesis 2:24:

But then hoo'd understand that ---

          Those who live together in Christ (light)

           Deeply surrender pieces

            Of themselves unknowingly

              Freely!

Is that odd to comprehend or just a vergen conception of warped dimensions?

there are orginizations who are fighting for people's rights out there.  here are just some of them:

Article 19

Amnesty International

CSI

Center for Inquiry

PEN International

Oxfam

and now, a word from a panel including John Saul

and now, a further moment of crazy

Hamza Kashgari fled his country for just 3 tweets of his that said in regards to Mohammad

"On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.

On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.

On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you've always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you."

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia ordered his arrest.

if those 3 innocent things can cause 'offense'...my g_ddess...

Well hang me from the psalm tree ...

In Greek thats omi thing else ... sometimes expressed as the Niche of "U" ... the daemon of collective thought?

Autocracy wouldn't have it: "The paegaens shouldn't know this stuff" ... does ignorance come back at'cha like a Shadow? Thus love goes on after screwing with you soul ...

Not bad but some balanced mentality required to se the strangers out there with something to share ... its a stretch for those afraid of the Shadow!

Yamis sharing sacred wisdom ... heir gammos ... that which the powers aid was not Toby Gnoe'n? Shape it in satire so you won't impress people that they don't know ID ... they despise stuidy as a great enigma of oppressing thought ... psyche: eue out there?

Also,

check out The Sultans of Satire

"This new generation of American comedians of Middle Eastern heritage represents many of the region's diverse cultures and religions, yet even though they come from societies that are often in conflict, their performances create space for people to laugh at themselves, and each other. A comedy event featuring standup comedians Maz Jobrani, Ahmed Ahmed, Aron Kader, Peter the Persian, Max Amini, Fariborz, Mike Batayeh, Noel Elgrably, Gulden."

--source www.bebin.tv

There are youtube vids :3

and check out the Axis of Evil comedy tour