Not A Question, More A Surprise

[Old_Geezer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33378778

Good for them. a more ridiculous law is difficult to find.

Makes me wonder what percentage of the planet's nations have this law anyway. (I suppose there is a question in there if one looks hard enough.)

[Marshwarble]

The whole point of law is to keep the peace. If having a blasphemy law keeps the peace, it makes sense.

[EDDIE51]

Anti Blasphemy law was only abolished in the UK in 2008 but it is back under a new name with harsher penalty's !
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2010/03/05/the-blasphemy-law-is-back/

[EDDIE51]

Sorry, forget the 'Anti' it should of course be Blasphemy Law.

[ummmm]

I was watching telly the other day and one of the presenters said 'Oh God' quite a few times. I wondered would there be any complaints about it.

Someone on here complained about a similar expression being typed!!!

[naomi24]

Good.

OG, //Makes me wonder what percentage of the planet's nations have this law anyway.//

Take a look at the map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

[goodlife]

Did you know the Bible book of Revelation describes a vision of a wild beast that was full of blasphemous names.( Revelation 17)

You personally cannot stop religious leaders from meddling in politics. But individually you can strive to match the Bible’s description of a true worshiper and know God’s Word is clear on what the outcome will be.

The time is coming when the political element will turn on and devastate the world empire of false religion, which has long used politics to its own ends.

That why the Bible use beasts as symbols of human rulership? For one reason, because of the beastly record of bloodshed that governments have accrued over the centuries.
so surprise.

[Old_Geezer]

Wow, never realised there was a world insanity map !

[Khandro]

I suppose Icelanders now being able to say, %^&* God, or @*$% Jesus, or even *&^% Mohammad, is some minor achievement for their civilization.

[Old_Geezer]

I'd not call it minor, it's more that they won't be punished for nothing any more by those wanting to control what others say than that they can say *&^% Mohammad. It's an important principle.

[Khandro]

OG; //they can say *&^% Mohammad. It's an important principle./

I can see why some may wish to say, "$%^$ Islamists", (which isn't blaspheming) but I can't see the point in anyone wanting to say "$%^& Mohammad" simply in order to exercise a principle, it seems bad-mannered to me.

[mibn2cweus]

"Sticks and stones will break my bones . . . but words will never harm me"

Somewhere along the line the intended meaning of this phrase appears to have been misappropriated. :o/

[Khandro]

mibn. I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what you are saying, it seems to be interpretable both pro and con; however, the school-playground rhyme is utterly untrue, - If you have never in your life been hurt by words, you have led something of a charmed existence.

[Old_Geezer]

And ill manners should be illegal and punishable even in some places unto death ? IMO the very idea of blasphemy existing is a nonsense.

[Khandro]

Good morning OG; Your above assertion is syllogistically a bit dodgy; I say, blasphemy is [also] bad-mannered: blasphemy is punishable by death: and you say bad manners are being advocated as being punishable by death!
It's a bit like the 'ham-sandwich argument';
Major premise: Nothing is better than eternal happiness. Minor premise: A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Conclusion: A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

:0)

[beso]

Many consider it is bad manners to advocate prejudice against whole groups of people such as women and homosexuals. Those who expect to promote these vices as the will of a God without criticism expect too much.

Criticising Mohammed is a reasonable response to the ignorant fools who openly claim he was someone to be inspired by.

The problem is with those who take offence not with those who express their opinions. Few actions show such a paucity of faith as the desire to kill those who simply disagree with one's philosophy.

[Old_Geezer]

Nice try Khandro but I'm sure you were aware that isn’t comparable. :-)

The main issue is with your first use of the word “nothing”.

“Nothing is better than eternal happiness”, does not mean that is it better to have nothing than eternal happiness. It is stating instead that there is nothing one could suggest that is better.

But in the second statement that is exactly how the word “nothing is being used. That there is a state of nothing that is not as good as the state of having something, such as a ham sandwich.

By combining the two as if they mean the same you get a non-sensible result.

However, if we, for the sake of discussion take it as correct that blasphemy is bad manners (and of course we need not agree it really is).

And that the claim being made is that blasphemy should be punished by death. Then there is no word with a changed meaning. It means blasphemy (or bad manners) each time. Accepted that there are other forms of bad manners.

It therefore follows, “sure as eggs” that, that particular form of bad manners is being advocated as deserving of the death punishment (even if other forms are not).

[Khandro]

Rumbled ! :0)

[mibn2cweus]

I stand by my premise that words never hurt a flea. It's the subsequent actions by those who are either unwilling to accept the truth of what's been said or to appreciate that what's been said is by far so much more applicable to the source as to render them virtually meaningless that have consequences.

Feel free to call me anything you like . . . just don't call me, "late for dinner".

[Old_Geezer]

A baseball bat around the head doesn't hurt. It's the brain's interpretation of the nerve impulses that occur as a result that hurts.

[mibn2cweus]

Such a conclusion would be understandable under the circumstances.