This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should blasphemy be outlawed by the UN?
Some Islamic countries are pushing for ''international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred''
http://www.smh.com.au/world/blasphemy-campaign-threatens-to-derail-un-20120925-26jh5.html
Essentially this is making protection from blasphemy a human right. Making it a right not to be offended by someone critiquing or mocking your religious views.
Essentially, if you hold genital mutilation of children sacred or any other harmful religious belief sacred it is proposed to make it illegal to condemn this.
I hope Australia does not sign this.
What a clash of values. What a clash of civilisations. Western enlightenment values versus medieval religion.
I suggest most human rights are human constructs that are granted rather than intrinsic. They aim t improve the human condition. Also none are absolute. The most difficult ethical issues often involve a clash of rights or values. Freedom of religion to lock up women versus equal rights and freedom of movement. Freedom of speech versus slander and liable.
I support individual freedom of religion up to the point it harms other people or when people try and force their religious taboos on others who do not believe. If there is a secular argument in parallel fair enough.
I suggest the world is better off allowing blasphemy, allowing religion and theocracies to be criticised or mocked. While I don't see the point of mindless provocative put downs, religion should not be off limits.
Perhaps the trickiest aspect is where the comments have a rascist aspect to them.
Isn't it interesting how freedom from religious insult is now being positioned by some alongside the right to life, freedom from slavery (what if slavery is sanctioned by your religion?), freedom from torture, equality before the law.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief (not in some religions),
Freedom of opinion and expression - not if this gets up.
What do you think
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Allen Stevens
There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, several Islam offshoots and interpretations, ultimately once you make Blasphemy illegal, anyone can start a religion, and basically outlaw any and all speech of any kind.
It would require the UN to recognize only one religion, and treat insult of that religion as illegal, while ignoring all the rest (of the crazies). The fact this is even considered a legitimate idea makes me sad for the human species as a whole.
Look at the countries that do have Blasphemy laws. What a joke, neighbor turning on neighbor to use the law to punish them, even if they never said anything. This would be a huge turn for the worse for the world, and humans as a whole.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I guess the non religious fundamentalists may agree in principle its not great to use freedom of speech to humiliate, but if offence is the bar, well that is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm offended by holocaust denial, but suggest more speech is a better response is the best response to most bad speech.
Some humiliation and offence is worth it in my view to maintain the benefits of optimum freedom of speech.
Jeff Cable
So let me see if I have this right... Islam states this: don't say anything offensive about Islam and if you do, it is right (and just?) that the supporters of the Islamic belief system seek to kill you because that is the will of Allah.
The UN have no business giving any support to the people who claim that Islam is a valid religious belief. There is no proof that any belief relates to a true and only one god. The brutality portrayed by religious extremists (of any flavour) is a shocking testimony to this question of which deity is the approved god to which we should (implied) all pay obeisance.
The superstition and subterfuge inherent in all religious belief systems leaves me incredulous. If people find comfort in their personal religious fervour, I have no problem with that. The second it impinges on my ability to live my life in peace and harmony with my neighbours, it is a step too far. Belief has no business being encapsulated and enshrined in law.
The UN was not a body for which I have ever had the chance to lobby or vote for; nor do I have any say as to who inhabits its halls and offices. I do not recognise it as a legislative body with the concomitant powers to legislate for me and my life... WITHIN ANY SPHERE OF MY EXISTENCE!
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I agree that offensive speech is no excuse for violence. That violence should be condemned more than words.
In practice it may be a balancing act because why we might think most or all religions are man made superstition people hold these beliefs firmly as part of their identity. I don't think we should provoke for no reason, but we should never bow down to religious oppression. We should be free to offend, even if we don't pointlessly provoke.
Sanjay Poyzer
For those not knowing what I mean, a rule in CSS is valid unless a rule later in the document overrules it.
Of course, laws work like this to an extent. If a new law is written that contradicts an old one, the new one is followed.
But it seems like people either ignore this fact, or don't understand, especially when talking about things like free speech. Why do laws or rules have to be so absolute? What's wrong with saying "Everybody has the right to free speech, UNLESS they are offending somebody."
I think the key is in defining when a person has a right to be offended. It's probably impossible for both parties (the offender & offended) to take *every* possible action to stop the offence being taken, but what if we judged these things by how much the 2 parties have done to avoid offence being taken? For example, if a vegetarian walks into a Butcher's and is offended by the sight of raw meat, the vegetarian has clearly not done very much to avoid being offended. However, if a person knowingly shows up to that vegetarian's house with a basket of meat, that person must surely take the blame for any offence.
Maybe this is already how the law is judged, I don't know. I just think following these principles solves a lot of debate.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
My view is humans identify and bestow "human rights and responsibilities"
These rights are not intrinsic, but ideally work to improve the human condition and reduce suffering.
I dnt think any are absolute and different rights will clash. Freedom of religion shopuld not mean freedom to kill others who do not follow your religious taboos.
This is the sort of issue that deserves deep consideration as you suggest.
Philip Sarpong
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm not sure if the answer is to try and outlaw it.
Death for apostasy is against the UN Human rights and I support that.
Jerry Johnson 500+
The right to free speech derives its meaning from the fundamental right to life--inextricably. The universal human right to life implies that we have the right to act in furtherance of our survival, unhindered by anyone else's coercion. It means we are owners of our lives and can choose to dispose of ourselves or work towards survival and flourishing.
Since humans live in a material world, all actions taken to further our survival is taken materially in this actual world. Which means, we have the right to free actions that fall within the purview of our pursuit of the right to life (realize that all humans have this, hence, encroaching on another person's range of free actions is a violation of that person's rights).
This is the right to liberty -- the right to freely pursue actions.
Free speech is a constituent of free actions or free expressions. It can be as basic to our survival as saying: "I need food, I am starving" to as distant from survival and closer to intellectual self-actualization and flourishing as saying: "I don't think Muhammad was a good man; in fact, he was a pedophile to have consummated a marriage with a 9 yr old."
Now, since only *actions* can carry the weight of force, not speech, all speech is necessarily protected by the right to liberty in the service of right to life--so long as this speech-act does not violate the rights to life, liberty, and property of someone else.
(Crying fire in a theater is a violation of the property rights of the theater owner, a misuse of his premises in a way that jeopardizes his property, his wealth, and his earning potential--not to mention the right to life and liberty of the movie-goers.)
There's much more to this theory of universal human rights from natural law. Please read Ayn Rand.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I agree we should not overreact and undermine a right just because some are offended and react violently.
However, I suggest human rights are human constructs and are not absolute and we need to be able to argue the benefits of these and where the limits are and why.
I suggest considering what any number gods divinely command without secular benefits as part of the mix is very dangerous
Daniel Sheehan 20+
John Smith 30+
Roberto Garcia
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Interesting point.
I also its not great to intend to be disrespectful. However, you can respect someone and still tell them you disagree even if this offends them. Subtle consideration here I suggest.
If I say we seem to have evolved rather than be created as homo sapiens, or that the earth is more than 6000 years old, or that at best all but one religious belief system can be completely correct so all the other thousands must be false, this may offend. People may feel disrespected, but my right to say my mind should also be respected.
Or I might say I respect people too much to pander to their religious world views, I worry for their children and mine stuck in medieval thinking.
I see you point out some suggested boundaries for offence/blasphemy. I see the point because if we can not say 2+2=4. Or that there is no evidence for the existence of adam and eve or even Abraham or Noah, these excessively cuts reasonable speech.
However, offence and what is considered sound can get very twisted to support a particular would view. And the fanatics will still disagree.
If the intent is to offend, not great, but should not be outlawed.
Sean Hassett
Dan Delaney
Enrico Petrucco 20+
Enrico Petrucco 20+
Comment deleted
kazem safari
Matthew F
Sorry Ezra, but you are wrong when you say that truth is relative. For example: the proposition "there is a book on the table in front of me" is either true or false depending on the physical state of being the world is in at the time the proposition is uttered. If I am in my office and proposition is true then it remains true for a person just entering my office. To suppose that a proposition can be both true and false at the same time for different people is utter nonsense.
More on topic for this discussion: banning blasphemy is essentially trying to outlaw giving verbal offence. It is a direct violation of free speech rights. It is outright kowtowing to dictators and theocratic regimes to even consider such a ridiculous proposition. The very idea that one may not speak in such a way that offends another person is a dictate of politeness, not a dictate of morality. It is a valuable life lesson to learn that not everyone thinks as you do, and that many find your deeply held beliefs to be not only wrong, but laughable. I see no reason not to extend such a lesson to any person.
Dr Strangelove
Dan F 50+
Beyond that I find some religions are even crazier than others. The differences between these rigid faith based belief systems begets blasphemous expression. This may in turn result in terrorism. These faithful and sensitive types are not going to change in their way of operating no matter how much prayer, or meditation is offered for world peace.
Blasphemy should not be outlawed anywhere, let alone by edict from the the UN. Besides doesn't the UN have enough problems?
I do believe people should be free to believe what they choose, but they get the baggage too!
Mark Smed
John Dunbar 10+
To answer your question obey, I think it would be an incredible step backwards if we were to suspend free speech in regards to religion, if we do this where does it stop, whats next? Next thing it will be blasphemy to speak poorly about governments and political systems. Isn't this initiative just propping up Islamic law inadvertently because if i'm not mistaken blasphemy in Islam is considered worthy of death in some cases. This is saying, lets make it illegal because we can't help but want to murder you if you speak poorly of our prophet. What an absurd and childish notion.... This will never fly, I would consider moving out of the U.S. if we adopted this.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
That being said, what would happen if tens of thousands of people posted videos and cartoons lampooning religion's that violently protested such acts, and even threaten death to the individuals that dare to do such things. Can a religion hate everyone?
Perhaps this is the answer. Backing down in the face on such threats will only allow them to continue and to go stronger.
Gordon Barker 10+
I can't think of a worse position for the UN to take or the rest of the world to allow
dale murray
I was raised fundamentalist Baptist, we concidered Islam a blasphemy
We call Islam blasphemy they call our religion a blasphemy . I wonder, are there any precidents in history that might give a clue as to where this leads?(hint; Crusades)
Copernicus was called a blasphemer as was Galileo and countless others who were simply telling the truth
Blasphemy is anything a religous leader decides to call blasphmey and its net effect is supression of competing ideas or religions
So not only no but HELL NO!
Stevan S.
...what is the borderline between freedom of speech and slander, offense and impoliteness? One should not abuse his/hers own freedom to trample upon the beliefs of others.
Richard Krooman 50+
We should rather be promoting honorable actions and civilized debate.
If we continue to not talk but remain provoking there is no doubt in my mind that the conflicts will escalate more frequently and with more extreme concequences.
If however we start an honerable debate where everyone tries to understand the others perspective this would lead to a much more contructive world.
If however one side (or both sides) do not want this then obviously they prefer a massive war over peace... and I'd call them insane.
Genevieve Tran 50+
Both the offense and response of the latest act of "blasphemy" come from a deep impractical lack of sense of community. And I daresay, in many cases, lack of education for appropriate levels of public expression. The star-treatment of these losers doesn't help. The killing of others, innocent others, especially, is deeply out of control and THAT needs prosecution. The irony there, in terms of "true blasphemy" is ridiculous. But we all know it's interpretive to begin with.
The vast majority of people neither care to offend others nor feel the need to "retaliate" in such a brutal fashion. Most other offensive stuff in life gets routinely ignored, and these should too. This is what needs to be happen in a pluralistic society. However, I imagine the two sides are just going to be hoisting bigger and bigger ballsacks on to the table. Don't we have a global economy to fix?
Praveen Kumar
The more fundamental problem is that the attachment towards ones religion and not listening to the outside world. Every religion has an extent of extremism. The extent of which it is executed puts the society at unease. May be one can think this problem as a mere lack of understanding the reality on either sides. There could be a solution which can only be achieved by trust from either sides.
Having said this, in my opinion, any council/UN are no where near solving these issues. History had repeatedly taught that by force/power one can only lead to change in a policy of the government but not the people within. Lets put our efforts in regaining trust among us, so that we listen each other with some peace of mind(not with ears) and respect each other for a better world.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If we worked out the political and economic issues we might make more progress.
To me the call for blasphemy is almost like a deliberate effort to highlight that we don't share the same values or that the un is subject to the infidels. Which is kind of true.
The security council voted to give half of Palestine to the Jews. Stupid.
There are no Muslim nations permanent members of the security council. Which I'm not sure is a bad thing. It might make a flawed group worse.
george lockwood 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
And no it is not like yelling fire in a movie theatre. It's like yelling something offensive. And then the crowd going balalistic and burning down the theatre. But I get your point.
In this case the movie seems deliberately intended to be provocative and offend.
I for one don't think we should cowl in fear in response to this religious violence.
To compare offensive speech with murder and violence seems a little screwed up to me.
But the killers are the ones who are responsible. 100%.
The movie was bad quality and offensive. So what. The response to bad speech should be more speech.
It's almost like blaming a woman for being raped because she wore a tight dress. Sorry it may have been unwise, but the rapist is at fault.
The violence while predictable, is the fault of the fundamentalist violent rabble who have less respect for others than those that offend with only words.
William Kuch
God (or whatever higher power you may believe in) gives us the ability to decide what we are doing, and this is why we are responsible for our actions. Free speech goes along with that freedom of thought. The freedom of thought cannot be removed by surgery or any other means. We have personal responsibility for our actions and it is precisely because that is how God made us.
To outlaw speech is ridiculous. People try to offend me everyday and I can simply ignore them. What cannot be ignored is a man with a holy book in one hand and an AK47 in the other.
Whether you believe in God or not, it is certainly the case that John Locke is essentially correct that we are born as free thinking beings, that this gift is inherent to our very being as organisms, cannot be revoked, and that it implies a lot of personal responsibility.
I am sorry for those who may be offended by various statements that are made by careless people. That is the nature of the world in which we live. One must decide if it is so important that it is worth dieing for, or whether it can simply be ignored.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
eric rodgers
I will be very interested to learn how the UN approaches this issue and how the dialogue occurs...How to actually have 'talks' with, rather than to, each side.
Perhaps some deep, meaningful analogies and metaphors would be helpful in these communications. Someone who knows the sensitive faith's tenets inside and out.
Is the challenge to reach a populace in order to re-frame or open their belief systems? Is the goal to teach these people that they cannot be lessened in any way -- physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually -- by someone else's actions or words, and to accomplish this in a peaceful manner?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
She was not speaking for me.
I may even write a letter.
The challenge is substantial. I'm not sure what the solution is. I guess if there was less religion, especially the fundamentalist type we wouldn't need to worry about having medieval religious taboos forced on us. Or just a spread of enlightened values.
eric rodgers
sounded like political double-talk to me. her underlying goal was to cover all bases, perhaps, and work towards a seat on the security council, though, right?
she did also say, "Denigration of religious beliefs is never acceptable."
but I don't get the impression she weighed in on whether the UN should pass a resolution to outlaw it in anyway.
very tricky issue...seems it would be healthy for the UN to include Islamic nations, but how to find the balance with maintaining freedom of expression/religion while the vantage point of some of these nations is purely religious?
JFA Meys
So a consequent ban on blasphemy would practically lead to a ban on at least the three big monotheist religions: Jewism, Christianity and Islam. All three claim that they are the only true believers, and all others worship false Gods. Looking upon it that way, outlawing blasphemy suddenly becomes a rather attractive idea to heighten our chances for world peace :-)
On a serious note though, the whole idea of outlawing blasphemy is close to the definition of hypocrisy. The people yelling the loudest for this, are exactly those that show the least tolerance towards other religions. You can't have it both ways, but many people still try...
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I guess many Muslims are happy not to criticise other religions if it meant protecting their own.
In the recent violent Sydney Muslim extremist protests they went out of their way to criticise Christians and offend others supporting beheadings and pointing out our dead are in hell while theirs are in paradise. Hypocritical.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
what should be higher on UN's "what to ban" list?
A, blasphemy
B, stoning
Obey No1kinobe 50+
D. Killing homosexuals
E. killing witches
F. Killing people who work on Saturday
G. Killing obnoxious children
H. Killing newly married wives who not virgins
I. Genocide of other tribes living on the land your god has promised to your tribe
J. Slavery endorsed by scripture
H. Treating women as chattel
Lars Mews
It is really wired that there is even a debate about the "feelings" of religious people and if that needs new laws. It does not need new laws, because any law like that would be an old law.
So, if we really consider to make a law against blasphemy, we should allow burning witches at the same moment, as we are obviously think and act like in the dark past of mankind again.
Scott Koenraadt
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Seriously the stories in the bible, virgin births, talking donkeys and serpents, living in whale, cutting bits of hour penis off, etc are just as weird as any current cult, unless they re prt of your cultural norms.
edward long 100+