You’ve currently got an administration that has spent the last month repeatedly attempting to force through a blatantly unconstitutional Muslim ban.
Yes, stopped by the courts so far…in part. And that’ll only hold until Justice “Fascism Forever” Gorsuch gets onto the USSC.
6 months ago, I’d have thought the same thing.
I thought this was already hashed out when they originally came out. But let’s be clear, I think these added restrictions were completely unnecessary and just meant to flex their security muscle on the lowest hanging of fruit as well as excite part of their base.
An actual REAL Muslim ban would be met with even greater opposition than temporary travel restrictions. Oh I am sure there are people who would applaud the measure to keep America white and Christian. But the vocal out cry of trying to actually ban a religion would be much, much greater, and even more unconstitutional. I mean, even Trump isn’t that dumb because he knows he lacks the power to do that.
All of that is apples compared to the oranges of the concept that blasphemy would be a crime. Again pretty much no one is even calling for that. If they did they would be accused of promoting the same ideals of Sharia law that they are most assuredly against.
And this example is showing how our checks and balances should work. Our government system isn’t perfect. Probably why no one emulates it. But it does help limit the damage of one branch.
It’s never quite clear to me how to deal with governments that enact repugnant policies that have almost universal popular support.
Is a secular government imposed by the military really better than an elected government that enacts (loathsome) policies that have widespread support? I’m not certain there is a right answer.
On the other hand, the BBC, which is known as a conduit for Western beliefs and values should not be airing news articles that could be construed as hinting that such policies might be acceptable in the West.
Even if we accept the sovereignty of nations holding fundamental beliefs that are foreign to our own, respect for such nations does not require us to give up our own values in areas where they are in conflict.
All right, I’ll bite. Yes, a secular government imposed upon the people is better than a government that only does horrible things with popular support. Honestly, it’s not even close.
A truly secular government isn’t one that prohibits religion. It’s one that keeps religion and government separate. It doesn’t compel you to practice the official state religion. It doesn’t imprison you for not praying enough or for not praying properly. You live in a secular society and you want to go to church? Live it up. You live in a theocracy and you want to abstain from compulsory worship? Watch your back.
Well, if God was a mad scientist, and humanity was an experiment that had gotten out of control, that would explain quite a lot.
Why does everyone keep looking at me!?
It was Jeff’s fault, I swear.
The cake is a lie.
As inherently problematic as any kind of project which seeks to elucidate and challenge the existence of blasphemy laws?
You can’t just ask a vague and cryptic question like that without defining your terms. Blaspheme what? Or which belief system is being blasphemed? or Who is blasphemable? Is one liable for blaspheming beliefs that he doesn’t share? If he/she doesn’t share the belief, it is not blasphemy to them. Or does the OP take it for granted that we all share the same belief and are therefore discussing the matter on the same game-field; whereas if they don’t agree on the belief system, then any explanation and analysis and discussion of the crime of blasphemy will be with people who are talking past each other, with no frame of reference or objective common ground or point for a discussion of the subject to be founded and based upon.
How can anyone even try to discuss a subject that is viewed so differently by so many people, without explaining the question.
If you were specifically criticising the right-wing Orthodox settlers, I’m not sure why it was flagged. I didn’t see your original comment.
[ETA: I’ve now been informed why. Blech.]
the right punishment for blasphemy?
Contentment. The knowledge that you and only you are responsible for your actions. That the only way to change the world is to make a change to the world. The sure and simple knowledge that super-heroes are fictional.
Jesus? Nailed Him…
The appropriate punishment is excommunication. The government should not be involved at all. But the proper response to “I have a different idea about our (or your) imaginary freind” is “Than I’ve told my imaginary friend not to play with you.”
In 432, the Christian church, with a level of tact that used to be found in Northern Ireland in the marching season, had an ecumenical council in the centre of worship of the many-brested Diana, then re-dedicated the temple of Diana to The Virgin Mary. They were besieged by crowds of locals demanding “Give us our Diana of the Ephesians”. The compromise was that the Virgin Mary was declared not a mere vessel but the true Mother of God, so nothing had really changed. Diana is Astarte in Greek, and was revered by some sects as Queen of the Witches, along with Isis, Hecate, and others.
I, of course, respect each and every one of these sincerely-held beliefs. 
For the record, BBC Asian Network is based in London, which is why this sort of thing is particularly troubling. I refuse to believe nobody there understood what they were doing. Most BBC types are Oxbridge-educated and would have spotted the problem with that title right away. They clearly did it on purpose.
I’d like to think they did it to make themselves relevant by kicking up a media storm (austerity continues, and smaller departments like Asian Network and Radio 6 have long been at risk) rather than because they actually support an extremist agenda. You never know though; sometimes you find out someone is a religious extremist only after he’s run the country for a decade (good ol’ Tony).
Can’t we compromise and have death by cake? 
Silly me. How could I forget about François-Jean de la Barre?
The blasphemer and their accuser should have to attend a mediated session to better understand where the other is coming from.
Ok, but my point holds for the formulation “reporting to” or “reporting for”. Clearly it is provocative to ask the question, even if it involves the question of complicity of a service provider in providing information about a user to a government, which may then punish that user, rather than the questioning of the reality of punishment for blasphemy.
I wonder how real really is the notion of normalisation of the concept of punishment for blasphemy when drawing attention to the existence of the debate in such a provocative fashion. Am I wrong to dismiss the normalisation, if any, that such a headline creates just because I believe it it is far outweighed by the necessity to provoke some kind of discussion on the topic?
Obviously we have to watch our language but sometimes swearing is called for and sometimes provoking a discussion is worth it.
So long as some kind of conversation is being kindled, comparisons to Tony Blair notwithstanding, I couldn’t care less if it’s provocative until we’re far further up the bell curve.
