Should the religious learn to accept blasphemy?

[Soph0571]

Blasphemy is commonly defined as:

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence[for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.[1][2] Blasphemies can also mean any irreverent or disrespectful action or remark.[3] Some countries have laws to punish religious blasphemy,[4] while others have laws that sanction those who are offended by blasphemy to effect their wrath on blasphemers. Those laws may condone penalties or retaliation for blasphemy under the labels of blasphemous libel,[5] expression of opposition, or "vilification," of religion or of some religious practices,[6][7] religious insult,[8] or hate speech.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

Christians regularly complain that 'aggressive' atheists now treat all people of faith with contempt.

In Pakistan, Christians have been arrested for sending ‘blasphemous’ text messages.

When certain cartoons are published Muslims around the world express outrage about what they perceive as a mocking of the Prophet Muhammad, something they regard as deliberate insult to their faith. Flags are burnt, embassies attacked and outrage prevails.
Of course, the irony is that a Christian will happily offend a Muslim and be outraged at an accusation of blasphemy and vice-versa. It seems blasphemy only counts if is against your God and faith, no-one else’s.

Time to get off the religious high horse and accept that freedom is more important than anyone persons religious sensibilities? The rational argue that freedom of speech is vital to the health of a civilised society, and that this freedom is more important than any religious sensitivity. They are correct.

The religious needs to learn to accept blasphemy…

[notdarkyet]

1. Hell yeah!

[safeinOhio]

2. Authoritarians

must maintain authority.

[MineralMan]

3. They should, but won't. Religious beliefs are fragile,

so voices that diminish the importance of religion must be silenced, apparently.

[exboyfil]

4. Religion should not have the powers of the state

They can believe whatever they want.

[Major Nikon]

5. Thats how privilege works

Religion is free to promote itself while any voice of dissent is suppressed. That way you insure the majority will always remain so.

[3Hotdogs]

6. Yeah, if Jesus is all powerful, let Jesus punish the blasphemers.

Leave the rest of us alone.

[marylandblue]

7. People aren't rational, especially when it comes to religion.

You can make a great rational argument for tolerance, but 75% of the world's population will still disregard it and do what they've always done.

[guillaumeb]

11. One can make rational arguemnts for many things,

but humans are not purely rational.

Even non-theistic humans.

[marylandblue]

17. Which is why rational arguments can be blasphemy.

Should we avoid rationality then?

[guillaumeb]

23. Rationality has nothing to do with deliberate incitment.

The "cartoons of the Prophet" come to mind.

[marylandblue]

24. Cartoons are deliberate incitement? Since when?

[guillaumeb]

38. The intent waas to incite.

Speaking of Pam Geller, and her "contest".

And every cartoon, every work of art, is intended to provoke something. They are not created in a vacuum.

[marylandblue]

50. "incite" and "provoke" are loaded words

Art in general is intended to communicate. What the viewer gets from the art is up to the viewer.

Pam Geller engages in political speech, which is protected by the First Amendment, even if I don't agree with what she says.

[guillaumeb]

52. Geller, in my opinion, is a professional Islamophobe.

And provoke has multiple meanings. Not all are negative.

As to Geller's cartoon contest, my view is that she intended to incite violence while looking for plausible deniability.

[marylandblue]

59. If you can be incited to violence with a blasphemous cartoon

The fault is with you, not the cartoonist.

I don't approve of Islamophobia. But I also don't approve of walking on eggshells because we are frightened of Muslim terrorists.

[guillaumeb]

70. Most people are not incited to violence.

And terror respects no labels.

[marylandblue]

74. I think you are trying to prevent criticism of religion

while maintaining plausible deniability that you aren't.

[guillaumeb]

83. You have the right to that opinion.

And the right to disregard my "bad news' posts.

[marylandblue]

88. You really do use motte-and-bailey a lot. Also tokenism. And condescension.

That's pretty impressive for two sentences.

[guillaumeb]

90. Impressive was your remote analysis.

[marylandblue]

92. More condescension with a side of sarcasm?

Apparently you'd rather see how many ways there are to avoid whatever someone's actual point is. I think there is an atheist in China who does that too, so it's okay.

[guillaumeb]

94. My essential point is that most people do not resort to violence.

But somehow, that point magically became a position that :

So is it his fault? And knock it the fuck off with your desperate #whataboutism bullshit. We aren't talking about China, we're talking about your desire to see people arrested if they offend religious people.

In the face of such Alice in Wonderland llogic, I cannot see the point of discussion.

And I asked the poster for proof that I advocate arrest.

And no condescension was intended, only sarcasm.

[marylandblue]

96. Well at least that's straight forward and not a dodge, but it's still very weak

Most people don't have to resort to violence for something to be a problem. It took just one white supremacist to shoot up a mosque for the whole world to denounce white supremacism.

How many people have to be killed for blasphemy before you recognize that accusations of blasphemy can be dangerous? If you do recognize this, it would be helpful if you said so in clear, straight forward language. Because if you don't people may wonder why not.

[guillaumeb]

97. Such leading questions are a part of the problem.

The real problem is that some Governments pass laws that basically make it illegal to criticize the official religion. And I have stated that more than once.

Should all theists at DU have to ritually denounce every negative behavior taken by other theists every time a conversation arises?

If so, should theists demand that all atheists in this group also ritually denounce authoritarians who are atheists?

[marylandblue]

100. I've been participating in the Religion Group for over a year

And I've never heard you say anything like that. So yeah, an occasional denunciation would do wonders for your reputation.

You don't have to ritually denounce every single bad action by a theist, but you also don't have to ask "what about China" on every thread until you get bored with that and move on to a different whataboutism.

[trotsky]

68. Do you think Andres Serrano is a professional Christianophobe?

"Piss Christ" made a lot of Christians very, very mad.

Did he provoke them? Did he incite them to violence?

If a Christian had murdered him over "Piss Christ," would he have deserved it? Would it have been his fault for inciting violence?

[guillaumeb]

71. Serrano's motivation, which he expressed publicly,

was to link the humanity of Jesus with His divinity. Thus the use of a bodily fluid that gave the crucifix a golden appearance.

No one deserves violence. Neither the many theists imprisoned in Chinese concentration camps, nor the atheists imprisoned for blasphemy.

[trotsky]

72. But people were offended.

And provoked to violence - his display has been vandalized on separate occasions.

So is it his fault? And knock it the fuck off with your desperate #whataboutism bullshit. We aren't talking about China, we're talking about your desire to see people arrested if they offend religious people.

[guillaumeb]

82. Another claim.

That I desire to see people arrested...etc.

What might make your claim plausible would be specific quotes from me expressing that desire.

And I do understand your wish to avoid the actual real life example of the Chinese Government, and the atheists who run it, and their well known intolerance for theists.

But sometimes life is like that. Sometimes, the intolerant ones are atheists.

[marylandblue]

89. Nobody ever specifically admitting to be part of a choir,

but that doesn't stop you from claiming there is one. So why do think we need an admission from you to make a conclusion?

[guillaumeb]

91. Metaphor.

But there is no font for it.

But "t" made a specific claim. A very specific claim.

Edited to add:
This

So is it his fault? And knock it the fuck off with your desperate #whataboutism bullshit. We aren't talking about China, we're talking about your desire to see people arrested if they offend religious people.

[marylandblue]

93. Perhaps it was a metaphor too.

[guillaumeb]

95. A metaphor for?

What exactly?

[marylandblue]

98. Your tendency to hide behind a fog of words even when asked

to be clear.

[guillaumeb]

99. My interactions with some here are influenced by how I have seen them act with other theists here.

And when clear answers are consistently mis-framed, I take note of that and respond appropriately.

There might be a reason that most theists do not post in the Religion Group.

[marylandblue]

104. I realize a lot happened here before I showed up.

But the answer to a supposed mis-frame is not to just assert it's a mis-frame and assume that everybody knows what you are talking about.

There are better ways to defend religion than emulating behaviors you claim to oppose.

And yeah I realize that this is a tough place for theists to do apologetics. Most people are bad at it, even if they are very well versed in their religion. I imagine that theists want to have a different sort of conversation than the ones that go on here.

[Mariana]

105. If theists want to have a different kind of conversation

than the ones that go on here, they have ample opportunity to do so. There are multiple groups on DU that have been set up as safe spaces, in which things like criticism, disagreement, awkward questions and so on concerning religion and religious beliefs are strictly prohibited. They tend to be pretty quiet. The Interfaith Group, in particular, is a desolate wasteland. It seems the theists really aren't interested in having the kind of discussion they often claim to want to have.

Isn't it interesting that Gil chooses not to participate in those groups? Sure, Interfaith is dead now, but I'm sure he and his horde of silent groupies could get something going there, if that's really what they wanted to do. But no, he prefers to spend his time here, complaining all the while about how awful it is.

[guillaumeb]

108. A repeat of the "leave the religion group" meme.

Interesting too how the same tiny group of non-theists post almost exclusively in the religion group when there is a protected group for them.

But they apparently prefer to stay here and attempt to stop all conversation that does not consist of attacking religion and theists.

[Mariana]

111. I suggested no such thing, Gil.

You could post in Interfaith and in the Religion Group, you know - if you really wanted to have that kind of conversation. Maybe those who send you numerous personal messages would join you. Since the expression of opposing views, which you and they consider to be so "toxic" isn't tolerated there, it seems they would be very comfortable posting in that group, or indeed in any one of the other groups for religious people that prohibit any disagreement or criticism.

[guillaumeb]

113. You did say:

There are multiple groups on DU that have been set up as safe spaces, in which things like criticism, disagreement, awkward questions and so on concerning religion and religious beliefs are strictly prohibited. They tend to be pretty quiet. The Interfaith Group, in particular, is a desolate wasteland. It seems the theists really aren't interested in having the kind of discussion they often claim to want to have.

And my point about the tiny group of non-theists remains.

[Mariana]

117. That's a statement of fact, Gil.

There are multiple groups on DU that have been set up as safe spaces, in which things like criticism, disagreement, awkward questions and so on concerning religion and religious beliefs are strictly prohibited.

[trotsky]

107. Thanks for confirming that you do exactly this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

You judge others and dispense eye-for-an-eye justice.

How "Christian."

Maybe a lot of theists refrain from posting here because of how believers like you act.

[guillaumeb]

109. Another claim.

And like the others, all that is lackig is evidence.

[trotsky]

112. A claim supported by this statement of yours:

My interactions with some here are influenced by how I have seen them act with other theists here.

You judge certain people's behavior, and punish them accordingly.

My claim is supported by your own words.

[guillaumeb]

114. Simply untrue.

It rests on your rather creative interpretation of what I said.

[trotsky]

115. I am perfectly content to let readers be the judge.

As I have told you innumerable times.

Others can decide for themselves what kind of religious person you are - someone who lives their faith honestly and sincerely, or someone who is a vicious hateful hypocrite.

[guillaumeb]

116. As am I. eom

[trotsky]

106. You said, and I fucking quote:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310196

Rationality has nothing to do with deliberate incitment.

The "cartoons of the Prophet" come to mind.

Incitement is a specific CRIME, guill. You are claiming that people who draw a cartoon of Mohammed are guilty of a crime.

Would you like to retract and rephrase your words above? I'll give you that opportunity right now, and if you do, I will withdraw my claim that you want blasphemers arrested.

Go ahead.

[Lordquinton]

118. Do you really trust your own lying eyes?

I'd like to see his evidence that theists avoid this page because of what he claims. If he actually does claim it, every time something gets nailed down he moves away from it. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

[Mariana]

119. Most of them avoid the other groups under Religion & Spirituality, too.

Even though most of them are safe spaces where disagreement, "toxic" or otherwise, isn't tolerated.

[Lordquinton]

120. You're on to something

How many participants in the other religious groups don't participate here?

We went to great lengths to set up the interfaith group for them and they don't even use it. Gil likes to pretend that the only history here is mean atheists, but he's, how should I put it, misframing it erasing the bill bile sent in our direction. How many atheists no longer post here because of the abuse they received?

[trotsky]

123. Why it's almost as if the goal isn't "respectful discussion"...

but the demonization and censorship of non-believers.

[trotsky]

121. His silence on this point confirms his religious extremism.

Otherwise he'd state outright he doesn't think blasphemers are guilty of anything.

He's an extremist, but smart enough to know that he'll be banned from this site if he outright admits his true beliefs.

I wonder if it would be enough for him for blasphemers to be jailed. Should we be executed too?

[Lordquinton]

122. It's very telling

He often goes silent when he runs into a dilemma that would put his actual beliefs out there. Or he changes the subject, moves the goalposts, etc.

[trotsky]

25. Do you think people should be arrested for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed?

Incitement is a crime. You are stating here that you believe cartoonists should be arrested and convicted for drawing a cartoon.

Tread very carefully here, gil. You are displaying religious extremist behavior.

[trotsky]

32. Do you think people should be arrested for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed?

Please answer.

If you do not answer, I will assume your answer is "yes."

[MineralMan]

61. And still no answer.

I have to agree with your assumption.

[trotsky]

66. He claimed that drawing Mohammed was incitement. Which is a crime.

Not a lot of dots to connect on that. He clearly believes that cartoonists should be arrested and convicted of a crime if they draw Islam's prophet. This is an otherwise (allegedly) progressive and tolerant person who believes religious ideas are in need of such special protection and privilege that people who don't respect them enough are criminals breaking the law. That's really f'ed up. But throw it on the pile, I guess. He "isn't sure" if priests should be mandatory reporters for child abuse. He thinks abortion is murder. And on and on.

[MineralMan]

67. Wow! Should I expect a visit from the Police, then,

for my parody of the Hail Mary prayer? I certainly hope not.

Creating drawings of Muhammad, I realize is forbidden for Muslims. But, non-Muslims should be able to draw whatever they wish, in my opinion. The offense is only in the eye of the beholder. Sadly, I cannot draw likenesses of people in any way that is useful, so i will not be drawing a cartoon of Muhammad. So, I suppose I'm safe.

However, I did write a parody of a popular prayer among Roman Catholics. My intent was satire, drawing attention to the RCC's devotion to Mary while exhibiting misogyny toward other women. I suppose I'd better be on the lookout for the police now. I hope Monsieur B. does not alert the authorities to my horrendous act.

[Mariana]

81. No police.

Despite the fervent desires of some religious people, whose names I will not mention, you are safe - for the time being, at any rate.

[MineralMan]

85. Oh, thank goodness!

[Mariana]

87. ...

[LakeArenal]

8. It's another form of faux outrage....

Anyone secure in their beliefs doesn’t care who says what about anything.

But once faux outraged they can demand silly insincere apologies so they feel like winners.

[gtar100]

9. If one's religion cannot stand up to criticism, what good is it.

Especially if there be truth in the criticism. After all, isn't one of the purposes of religion to align one's self with the will of God, or truth? If anybody requires others to believe the same things as they do to the point of violence if they don't, well that's just revealing how little faith they have in what they say they believe in. The matter isn't about the truth then, it's about power and control.

So yes, all religions should be tolerant of blasphemy. Privately, hearing someone trash-talk your personal beliefs will likely ruin friendships if someone wants to be a jerk about it. But publicly, the matter should be settled through discussions and "good works" (as in, don't just tell me...show me), not violence, manipulation or intimidation. That goes for parties on all sides. Not that I'm holding my breath for everyone to get along. It's not desire for truth that motivates hate but fear of losing something we hold onto for stability.

[guillaumeb]

10. Should all people learn to accept being trested with contempt?

A nonsensical argument.

Should misogynists free to be misogynists?

[Lordquinton]

13. Poor reframing

Blasphemy is not against the believer, it's against the belief. Believers need to learn the difference.

[Major Nikon]

16. Calling an idea stupid isn't the same as calling the person who holds that idea stupid

The idea that blasphemy is no different than misogyny or racism is fucking stupid.

[Lordquinton]

22. Blasphemy is about the deity in question

but theists always go against the unbeliever, regardless of their belief.

Gil sees this as equivalent.

Somehow a being that we poor, imperfect, intolerant mortals can't even comprehend (because he says so) needs their feeling protected.

[Major Nikon]

14. Sure, Gil. Blasphemy is no different than misogyny

[trotsky]

21. What other ideas deserve special protection from criticism, gil?

Who else should be censored, in your opinion?

[Major Nikon]

30. ...

[Pope George Ringo II]

12. Some religion somewhere will view virtually anything as blasphemy.

It's not actually that difficult to say something one religion finds blasphemous, while wearing something a second religion finds blasphemous, while doing something yet a third religion finds blasphemous. I'd certainly hope they're used to blasphemy by now.

[marylandblue]

15. Also one religion's doctrine is another's blasphemy.

Calling Jesus the Son of God is a requirement for Christianity but blasphemy for Islam. If theists can't even avoid offending each other, why is atheism so offensive?

[Pope George Ringo II]

18. I still can't get over the uproar when Ratzinger said his was the one true religion.

You'd have thought it was something of a job requirement, no?

[marylandblue]

19. Liberal Catholics have been wishy-washy on this since Vatican II

But Ratzinger was a conservative, so he could be blunt.

[Pope George Ringo II]

20. Put another way, he took his religion seriously so he had to blaspheme somebody else's.

[zipplewrath]

26. Courtesy

Some acts of Blasphemy can be characterized as "rude". The thing about rudeness is one can discourage it, but it becomes dangerous to "outlaw" it. Rude Blasphemy should be treated a bit like various pejoratives that we all tend to object. We object and potentially shun the person, but we don't beat them, or take legal action until their actions become threatening or harmful.

[NeoGreen]

27. 'Courtesy' said the priest as he lit the pyre. (nt)

[trotsky]

28. Is it rude to say that supply-side economics is wrong? n/t

[zipplewrath]

29. It is rude

To say that those advocating it are less than human, or to speak pejoratively about them using hate language.

[trotsky]

31. But that's not what is being complained about.

Where in this group has anyone said that religious people are less than human? Or used "hate language"?

I'm not letting you move the goalposts.

[zipplewrath]

33. Blasphemy

I thought the topic was rather broad, as in what blasphemy should be tolerated or allowed. That can cover alot of different kinds of behavior.

[trotsky]

34. Blasphemy doesn't insult a person.

It insults a deity - who doesn't exist, if the blasphemer is correct.

By trying to lump in "hate speech" or claiming that people have called believers "less than human" is dishonest and deceitful. You shouldn't do that.

[zipplewrath]

35. Actually, some of it does

It's a really broad topic and much of it is often focused as much on the believer as the diety.

[trotsky]

36. That is nowhere to be found in the definition.

Definition of blasphemy:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy

blasphemy noun
blas·​phe·​my | ˈblas-fə-mē
plural blasphemies
Definition of blasphemy

1a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
//accused of blasphemy
b : the act of claiming the attributes of a deity
//for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy— John Bright †1889
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

Show me where you are getting your definition from - namely, that blasphemy is the act of insulting a person.

[zipplewrath]

39. Blasphemy can insult a person

You can insult my mother, and I can be insulted.

[trotsky]

41. That's not blasphemy though.

Read the definition again.

Or you can just admit you were mistaken. But given my past interactions with you, I'm pretty sure you are incapable of that.

[zipplewrath]

44. Yes it is

You can insult my diety, and I can be insulted by that.

[trotsky]

46. Blasphemy is the act of insulting a diety.

Period.

That YOU feel insulted is not blasphemy.

Period.

If you still wish to disagree, then do what I asked you do to in the first place: provide the definition that proves your meaning is correct.

Ball's in your court.

[zipplewrath]

49. The blasphemy is what is taken as the insult

Insult is pretty much "in the eye of the beholder". Whether your intent was to insult someone has little to do with the reality that you do. Knowing that people will take blasphemy as an insult means that you are willing to insult them anyway. This whole subthread started out about the concept of courtesy. Courtesy would dictate that one avoid words and actions that cause insult. Some blasphemy does exactly that.

[trotsky]

53. Provide your definition, or else this exchange is over.

You are simply offering an explanation that people get upset when their deity is insulted. That is of course true, religious extremists get very very upset and often kill people who do so. But the blasphemy still didn't insult THEM, it insulted their GOD. Unless you think killing a blasphemer is justified?

Since you refuse to provide a definition, you are admitting that I am right.

[zipplewrath]

55. That was always my point

Blasphemy CAUSES insult, whether it was the intent or not. And courtesy would tend to dictate that a courteous person would attempt to choose to not do these things. Courtesy dictates that there are words and expressions we do not use because we know that people object to their use, regardless of intent.

I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp this, but I suspect that is intentional.

[trotsky]

57. But "CAUSING" insult is not blasphemy.

It's taking offense. The *person* is never insulted. The *god* is.

Words mean things, so yes I cannot grasp how you are misusing the terms. Sorry. You have failed to provide any definition that supports your position, so I accept your concession.

[Mariana]

54. Is it reasonable for you to be insulted by that?

Why or why not? Would you consider yourself personally insulted, or would you take offense on your deity's behalf?

Trotsky is right, though. The definition of the word doesn't even imply that blasphemy includes or involves insulting a person.

[trotsky]

58. This is what happens when the discussion isn't intended to provide clarity or dialog.

It's intended to shut down dissent, and to protect religious opinions and sensibilities and privilege from us nasty, horrible atheists who say atrocious things like "I don't believe you."

[zipplewrath]

62. Yes

Well, not me, but I suspect any reasonable person that heard their deity being described as a "horrible, blood thirsty, misogynist" might reasonably take offense if they were the person worshiping the deity and believing they were following their dictates.

[Mariana]

64. But what if the evidence, such as it is, supports the blasphemer?

Is it reasonable to be offended if the documentation that exists clearly portrays the deity in question as a horrible, blood thirsty misogynist?

[zipplewrath]

65. Just because

Just because you're an idiot, doesn't necessarily mean that one should go around pointing that out. But, yes, a personal frustration of mine is having to listen to people go on about blue light and "alternative medicines" and be expected to politely listen.

[trotsky]

69. Now you're conflating the concepts again.

Calling a god a bloodthirsty misogynist is NOT the same as calling a person an idiot.

Do you really not see the difference?

[Mariana]

73. What does blasphemy have to do with blue light and "alternative medicines"?

And how often does that happen, anyway? Religion is imposed upon us almost constantly. Religious people are working day and night to deprive women, LGBT people, and religious minorities of our rights, and some people here think blasphemy is a problem? What bullshit.

[Iggo]

76. They would take offense. They would feel insulted. Hell, they would BE insulted.

But they would not under any circumstances be blasphemed, or blasphemed against, or however you say it.

You can only commit blasphemy against a deity.

[Iggo]

37. I don't treat people of faith with contempt. I treat their faith with contempt. (n/t)

[zipplewrath]

40. You realize

They may not see the distinction. To many people, their faith is an integral part of who they are.

[trotsky]

42. Then we had better stop criticizing the Westboro Baptist bigots.

Their faith is an integral part of who they are, too.

Or is it OK to criticize religious beliefs that you don't agree with?

[zipplewrath]

43. That's sorta the question

Most would suggest that they criticize their actions, not their faith.
And of course other people of faith will argue with the interpretation of that faith.

[trotsky]

45. But their actions are also their faith put into reality.

I understand you're trying to protect certain beliefs that you find acceptable, but still allow room for yourself to criticize the beliefs you don't.

[zipplewrath]

47. Quite the opposite

I've always found a dichotomy, especially on the left, of "respecting each others beliefs" and yet having very strong disrespects for CERTAIN peoples beliefs. It is sort of an unresolvable conflict. Some of us split hairs between peoples actions and beliefs. Some will split hairs between people's beliefs and the person. But at the end of the day, this whole site exists because we don't tend to "respect" the GOP's beliefs.

[trotsky]

48. Then you don't understand the Westboro Baptist Church.

Their faith and beliefs are just as valid as anyone else's. Their actions are based on their faith and beliefs, just like any other believers.

That you refuse to accept the validity of their faith and beliefs is the core of the problem here.

[zipplewrath]

51. I don't accept any "validity"

I suggest that it is a common assertion that we all "respect" each others beliefs. I personally find that often difficult, although I understand where the concept originates.

[trotsky]

56. I'm sorry, I cannot respect the bigotry of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I also cannot accept the misogyny of the Catholic Church and its campaign against reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

60. Why do I need to respect your beliefs?

I respect you right to have those beliefs. I respect that you shouldn't be forced to change those beliefs. But I feel no compunction to respect those beliefs. And I certainly don't have to respect those that use their beliefs to enact laws based on those beliefs.

[marylandblue]

63. Consider it a recommendation, not a requirement

I think it would lead to a more peaceful, more just world. But that's just me. I respect that you may not agree.

Opposing laws based on beliefs you don't agree with is a different matter. That gets into the field of action, and actions, unlike beliefs, can harm people.

[Major Nikon]

77. Expressing belief is an action

You might believe wearing a seatbelt does not make you safer. Expressing that belief can be harmful if others are convinced of that nonsense.

When someone wants to put their belief out for public consumption, the expectation to be free from criticism is a bridge too far.

[marylandblue]

78. Beliefs may cause actions, but they are still beliefs, not actions.

If a belief is out for public consumption, sure it can be criticized. But you can criticized respectfully, or you can just call it "bullshit" and "nonsense." The choice is yours.

I usually choose to take seriously even extremely reprehensible beliefs. I think that works better for me and whoever I am criticizing. If I can't take it seriously, I usually say nothing, or only ridicule it when speaking to people I know already agree with me.

What religious people expect makes no difference to me. We have no blasphemy laws and I would certainly oppose any attempt to create them.

[Major Nikon]

79. If you keep your belief to yourself you don't risk criticism.

Once you express that belief you have entered the action phase.

There’s also a significant difference between belief and religion. Religion implies action by definition.

[marylandblue]

80. You can use whatever terms you want.

Thinking is one thing. Talking is another thing. Bashing someone over the head with a club is a third thing. In most cases you can legally do the first two things but you can't do the third.

[Major Nikon]

84. ...

[marylandblue]

86. Umm, isn't that what I said?

[Iggo]

75. Even so.

[LongtimeAZDem]

101. Blasphemy should be treated like any other case of defamation. The offended deity must file suit,

appear in court, and prove damages.

[democratisphere]

102. GD right.

[onecaliberal]

103. That train left the station.

[NeoGreen]

110. 'Yes' - since EVERY religion is a blasphemy in-of-itself...

...to some other religion, starting with "My" god versus "Your" god.

Your religion IS Blasphemy....to someone, somewhere, somewhen...

Religion = Blasphemy