I get what you’re saying but…
1 Like
One of the hidden costs of blasphemy claims is that some religions have an imperialist trend of coopting and subverting elements of other religions.
For example, somebody who worships the goddess Astarte could be accused of Christian blasphemy, because they recontextualize her as the demon Astaroth. A thousand years of Christianization in Europe were rife with anything non-Christian, any indigenous European traditions being decried as heresies against Christianity.
Even as recently as the G.W. Bush presidency, there was a bill to remove protections for Druidism, Wicca, and other forms of “neo-pagan” practice under the pretext of them being classified as “witchcraft” - and thus blasphemous - by the standards of most orthodox Christianity.
17 Likes
Can I just get away with saying “All religion is bullshit”?
I bet I can’t…
12 Likes
That’s enlightenment-age science! Nowadays even hard science knows that it’s metaphysics all the way down.
IMO the problem is not the content of religion, it is the mechanics of belief and human perception themselves. Complaining about or even removing religion doesn’t do anything to fix that. Belief is a crutch, and belief in anything eventually stultifies thought. And, as counterintuitive as it may seem, one need not believe in a religion to practice it.
5 Likes
So I guess the title of this thread is a tacit answer to the question of whether it is right to publish such a headline.
If a reporter is reporting from a place where punishment for blasphemy is practised by the state, and an open, un-loaded question is asked and discussed without bias; that’s a good thing.
Getting rid of the practice would be best but this is a step in the right direction.
10 Likes
A handjob. A very long, slow one.
13 Likes
All the blintzes you can be forced to eat.
6 Likes
Even asking this question is putting yourself awfully close to the very, very, wrong side of this issue. There’s ‘poor choice of words’; and there’s ‘mistakes that are pretty challenging to make innocently’.
17 Likes
It’s very delicate but surely the issue needs to be discussed in a way which neither normalises the practice or radicalises the discussion which would, hopefully, eventual promote the discontinuation of the practice. No?
ETA: I guess this assumes rational discussion being possible.
5 Likes
Indeed. Few people seem to know that verse from the Battle Hymn of the Republic:
“I have read a fiery gospel writ in rows of burning steel
As you deal with my contemners so my grace with you shall deal
Let the hero born of woman crush the serpent with his heel.”
My own view is that no punishment is sufficiently great for blasphemy. I once got a fundamentalist Protestant to agree with this statement, till he managed to parse it correctly.
Only some?
7 Likes
I kind of agree.
Some people will need to be told what to do or what to think, and many are happy that way. The only problem with that is it is blind faith, and many religions teach some pretty ridiculous concepts that are only held up because people wish to entertain the concept of the supernatural.
I like the concept of faith, but more like the faith you find in something or someone (e.g. yourself), or some belief you may have adopted. Religion is too dictatorial. I think people should find their own enlightenment, as long as it provides happiness and hope and some kind of understanding.
3 Likes
The trouble is that asking “what is the right punishment for blasphemy?” is effectively begging the question in a fairly serious way. Yes, strictly grammatically, you can say “what is the right punishment for $VERBAL_NOUN?”; but it’s not exactly news that real world usage doesn’t work that way. You only bother asking “what is the right punishment for $CRIME?”.
Given that even coming up with a coherent definition(that isn’t hopelessly vague handwaving) is fairly problematic(aside from the sordid empirical history, which suggests that it’s mostly a bludgeon against minorities people dislike, it’s pretty much impossible to practice one religion without blaspheming wildly against a whole bunch of others); starting from the implicit assumption that we know what it is, it’s a bad thing; and the question is merely whether to crack down or be lenient is claiming a lot of territory without the slightest support.
7 Likes
Provocative question? No.
Stupid question? Yes.
Death.
The answer is always “death”.
4 Likes
Can I have cake instead of death?
28 Likes
Of course, when is the real answer “all” or “none”? People too often polarize things to extremes because it is easier.
I think there is not much consensus about what “natural” even means, nevermind if “supernatural” refers to anything. But I could agree that many people succumb to wishful thinking.
Many vehement critics of religion I notice are reluctant to distinguish between personal and institutionalized religion. For example, I love the discipline and effects of music - but I loathe the “music industry” of publishers, labels, marketers, etc and think it needs to go die in a fire. But I acknowledge that the institution is actually a vast minority - most musicians are not a part of it, even if mass-media pushes the idea that it is all one thing. I could never kill the host simply because I hate the parasite. And the parasite would simply attach itself to something else anyway.
So I see many reactionary attitudes towards religion which stubbornly refuse to distinguish between the process and the content. Not unlike with media studies. I think of the technical aspects of religious thought as only another kind of media literacy, no different from television or comics. An individual example can be “about” practically anything. But failing to make that distinction, we only get “no true Scotsman”.
Comic books are a junk medium, they rot your brains!
OK, so why don’t you devise a better one with actual literary/cultural value?
Because then it wouldn’t be a comic book anymore! It would be good!
The same kind of argument could be made (and has been) about many media which were persecuted on claims that regressive values were innate to it, including rock music, rave, drugs, sci-fi, etc. If, as McLuhan said, the medium is the message, then one should first try to understand how the medium works. And in this case the medium is religion itself within the person and small community, as opposed to the largely political overlay of institutionalized religion which is already well understood.
6 Likes
“What is the right punishment for being gay?”
“What is the right punishment for a woman who refuses to dress the way her community says she should?”
“What is the right punishment for insulting one’s political leaders?”
“What’s the right punishment for being the wrong religion?”
Tweet @ShaziaAwan with what you think!
Stupid questions inartfully put? What’s worse than stupid and inartful?
10 Likes
Those blintzes were terrible!!!
5 Likes
No!
It’s chocolate cake.
2 Likes
And if you’re out of cake, I’ll take the chicken…
5 Likes
Very well, give him cake.
At this rate, we’re gonna run out, and the rest of you will be left with “or death”.
12 Likes
