Come on, Europeans and Canadians—get rid of your stupid blaphemy laws! Yes, they’re almost never enforced, but they’re unworthy of an enlightened society. Among the “Western” countries who have them on the books are Denmark, Canada, Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine, not to mention Israel, South Africa, and New Zealand.
And, this week, they were enforced—in Germany. The Torygraph reports:
A retired teacher in Germany has been fined €500 (£400) for defaming Christianity under the country’s rarely enforced blasphemy laws.
Albert Voss, a former physics teacher and avowed atheist, was convicted of blasphemy after he daubed the rear window of his car with anti-Christian slogans.
The 66-year-old drove around his home city of Münster, in western Germany, with the slogans clearly displayed.
“The church is looking for modern advertising ideas. I can help,” one read.
“Jesus, our favorite artist: hanging for 2,000 years and he still hasn’t got cramp,” it went on to suggest, in an apparent reference to the crucifixion.
Another slogan was targetted at the Catholic church.
“Let’s make a piligrimage [sic] with Martin Luther to Rome!” it read. “Kill Pope Francis. The Reformation is cool.”
The court rejected Voss’s argument that his sentiments were protected by his right to free expression:
[T]he court ruled the slogans amounted to defamation of religion and had broken Germany’s blasphemy laws.
“You should have known that what you did is a criminal offence,” the judge told him. “The Pope and the cross are central elements of the Catholic faith. I do not consider this art. Freedom of expression is limited by the law.”
“I come from a Christian home, I was an altar boy,” Mr Voss told Bild newspaper. “later I realized faith rests on dubious foundations. What does not fit into the Christian worldview is ignored, even if it is in the Bible.”
Yes, I suppose freedom of expression is limited by German law, but it shouldn’t be. Even if prosecutions like this are rare, they still have a chilling effect on those who would publicly criticism Catholicism. I wonder if Voss would have been prosecuted had he omitted the “Kill Pope Francis” bit.
Das ist ja Wahnsinn! Was ist los? Alle Deutschen müssen jetzt ihre Blasphemie-Gesetze ablehnen!
h/t: Coel
Who paid for the last supper?
Jesus got nailed for it.
I told that joke over the school PA system in high school in Canada. (I got banned for a while.) I told two more but the only other one I can remember is:
Jesus walks into a motel and slams 4 nails on the counter. “Can you put me up for the night?”
Jesus’ letzte Worte: “Mehr Nägel, ich rutsche!”
Jesus’ last words: “More nails, I’m slipping down!”
When God tried fatherhood, he nailed it.
Those are great. I’m stealing them.
I like the quip about Jesus’ unrecorded last words being “Peter, I can see your house from here.”
“Hey mate, would yer mind crossing yer legs? I’m down to me last nail.”
———–
“I don’t care ‘oo you are, yer can’t bring that cross through ‘ere!”
It’s spelled “Das ist ja Wahnsinn” and “Gesetze”. The rest is perfect. B)
And yes, as a German I strongly agree that we have to get rid of those laws from the Dark Ages.
Fixed, thanks.
In 2014, the Netherlands abolished the blasphemy law after justice minister Donner (a christiandemocrat) suggested the police should start enforcing it. He made those comments in response to the murder of Theo van Gogh.
It took ten years, mainly because of political games. Sometimes I wish our parliament was as mature as the United States Congress.
“Sometimes I wish our parliament was as mature as the United States Congress.”
You can’t be serious. The US Congress is infantile, deranged, and generally bat-shit crazy. They’re less popular than head lice. The only thing to recommend them is their laziness.
America’s lack of blasphemy laws is due to the wisdom of our mostly atheist and deist founders, not the current US Congress.
That’s right, I wasn’t serious. 😛 Although I do feel that Democrats are more reasonable than Republicans. Perhaps more could be achieved with a third party involved.
Mature U.S. Congress…Yikes
Just wash your mouth out with a mild soap for 15 minutes and you should be okay.
No Blasphemy here, just a whole lot of stupid.
That we don’t have anti-blasphemy legislation is a puzzle. It would be in the character of the right to attempt it, and in the character of the left to duck opposing it.
Don’t give them ideas!!
I got the impression that there are some states which do, however unconstitutional that might be. (Google the criticism of the blasphemy laws map.)
The fact that the US constitution *is* secular is something to be admired, even if it gets stomped on repeatedly and ignored by the theocratic plutocratic party altogether these days.
I’m not surprised that it was Germany where these authoritarian, inhumane laws still exist and were actually enforced. The
irrational, political history of Germany is scary, very, very scary.
Oh dear. An expert on Germany and the Germans on moral high grounds. College age?
Skiptic didn’t write a word about the Germans. He wrote a comment about the state Germany, a comment with which I agree. One need not be an expert to know that Germany was instrumental in both world wars (that began as European wars) and in the current European migration crisis. So one can be forgiven to be scared of things happening in Germany, especially if he, like me, lives in Europe.
I agree we should pay careful attention to internal developments in Germany, and more broadly, to the way the country’s political decisions impact international politics…
Germany and Russia: Berlin’s Deadly Self-Delusions
http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/germany-and-russia-berlins-deadly-self-delusions/
And we Europeans pay careful attention to developments in the States with those Trump-et sounding aggressive and in particular misgynistic.
Thank you for the link – very important!
Excellent article. Thanks for posting the link.
@ Scientifik: If your perception of Russian and German politics is mainly based on contributions by avid members of the “Young Atlanticist NATO Working Group” (such as the one you linked) it certainly differs from mine.
I for one am thankful to the Russian ogre for cleaning up the mess the Americans left behind in the Middle East.
Getting from the application (by a district court) of a law – which is not a blasphemy law in a stricter sense but protects (for the maintenance of public peace) religious and world view associations (hence also atheist organisations) from incitement to hatred – to World Wars I and II is a bit far-fetched.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#Germany
One can argue about the need for such a (specific) regulation but the law as such is neither “authoritarian” nor “inhumane” or the product of a “very, very scary irrational, political history”.
Whether Germany holds a higher share of guilt for WW I than other powers is highly debatable. I concur with your view on Mrs. Merkel’s refugee policy though.
Given the history of the horribly tragic influence of the Roman Catholic Church on the history of Germany, the man should have been congratulated by his fellow citizens, not prosecuted.
Look up ‘Holy Roman Empire’ and have a box of tissues handy. I’m not arguing the rest of Eurasia got off easy, by the way.
Sorry folks. The physics teacher is not up to date and was not polite. First of all Reformation no longer is cool but has rather grown stiff. Secondly the guy simply insulted Francis by writing “let us kill the pope swine” on the rear window of his car although so far I haven’t read that Francis had abused children. The judge was mistaken too. She should have sentenced the provocative guy for insult or would you like to be called a swine?
I would agree that “kill the pope” was over the line and he should have been prosecuted for it. The other stuff, no.
In the U.S., saying “Kill the Pope” is not illegal as it’s not uttered in a context that would incite immediate violence. I agree with that interpretation of the law.
Well, maybe not the Pope but if someone says kill the president, I will guarantee that he/she will get a visit from the Secret Service.
Yes, if the secret service is not have a party or chasing people across the white house lawn, they might make a visit.
Damn. Phone mess up.
I tried to suggest that toasting Donald Trump for his interruption of the Bush Dynasty and his contribution to the breadth of political debate (downwards ; but it still widens the field of play [or of invective])
I do use the word “toasting” in a very culinary sense. More Flash man than Michelin. But definitely culinary.
Hmm. Still phone mess ups. But …
The SS’s remit is about CREDIBLE threats (and not just to El Prez). Likely their biggest cost is filtering credible from incredible.
Agreed!
As I understood the German text, this was a critical comment on the upcoming “Luther Year” festivities (http://www.luther2017.de/en/).
While the reformation/ Luther might be thought of as (mostly) “cool” by those celebrating, the slogan reminds us that Luther was not a nice guy: It was Luther who called the pope a “Sau” (swine) (“Des Teufels Sau, der Papst”).
Basically, I would “translate” the slogan as: Luther called the pope a swine and the Reformation brought about lots of bloodshed (“killing” the pope” was the goal of many during the Reformation), let us not pretend it was “cool”.
But I do think that the slogan was badly worded: Most people do not understand it as a critique of an uncritical view of Luther/ the Reformation, as they do not understand that Luther is quoted and read the part about “killing the pope” as Mr. Voss’s opinion.
I just saw Robert Seidel already wrote the same thing much earlier. Well, at least two of us came to the same conclusion..
> While the reformation/ Luther might be thought of as (mostly) “cool” by those celebrating, the slogan reminds us that Luther was not a nice guy
Most Protestants don’t know their Luther just like most Christians don’t know their Bible.
I grew up in the very conservative Missouri Synod Lutheran Church — Lutheran school, Luther League, altar boy — the whole shebang. Martin Luther was like a saint (though they deplored the Catholic doctrine of sainthood). They never mentioned that he was a vicious antisemite, nor anything about his chronic constipation that spawned the Reformation.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/22/1098316865171.html
BTW, Catholics were regarded with deep suspicion.
What did they despise about sainthood? I was raised Catholic and told I should aspire to be a saint. Of course, many saints didn’t exactly act saintly, but that’s another story. Check out “liberal” Pope Francis and the canonization of Junipero Serra if you doubt this.
It was part of the whole Reformation thing. Catholics has seven sacraments; The Lutherans pared it down to two: baptism and holy communion. Praying to saints was considered gauche to the point of heresy (and possibly death at the stake). You could only pray to god. The exaltation of the Virgin Mary to near godhood was especially repugnant. Garishly painted statues of saints were forbidden. This was progress of a sort.
I’ll add this: I think the Catholic veneration of saints was seen by Luther and other reformers as a means for the Church to extract money and blind obedience, and they weren’t wrong in this, in my opinion. Believers would have their personal or favorite saints, to whom they’d pray and offer sacrifices on behalf of themselves and their departed. It was (and remains) a sick, corrupt system.
I was always taught that we weren’t praying to the saints, rather we were asking them to pray for us to God. God could answer requests and perhaps the saints hold more sway. Nevertheless, you’re right, the whole system is sick. To this day, a frequent request is to ask saints and the Virgin Mary to pray for us, with the implication that we are wretched and unworthy of salvation. We must tremble in fear hoping that God will save us. Of course, the collection plates are still close by. No thanks to all of it, I say.
I suppose the behavior around the time of the Reformation was progress in the same way that lynch mobs are a sort of progress over the mandates of kings, but you have to start somewhere.
“I was always taught that we weren’t praying to the saints, rather we were asking them to pray for us to God. God could answer requests and perhaps the saints hold more sway.”
I’m sure that monetary offerings to whatever holy orders handle the accounts of those saints are much appreciated. It’s reasonable to assume that the attention of a saint to one’s particular case is roughly proportional to the value of the offering, possibly adjusted, mercifully, for the ability to pay.
Poor pigs, seen as bad again. You’d thing the devil’s pig would be a lucky pig. Satan basically gets booted out of heaven for being arrogant and a smart ass so he’s got to be cool to be around. 🙂
I would much rather be called a swine than see anyone fined for calling me a swine.
Well said. 🙂 It’s on par with the famous quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Which, by the way, is *not* from Voltaire but from his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall.)
Sir, you are a noble man.
+ 1
Another noble man.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the leader of a multi-national criminal organization whose employees indulge in the rape of children and who are aided and abetted by management who protect these criminals from the justice system.
So yes Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a swine and I humbly beg the indulgence of actual swine who are contaminated by any association with this monster of a human being.
I would rather be called a swine any day than be called a Catholic.
I agree.
Another noble man:
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Not to forget the Vatican Bank aka “Institute for the Works of Religion”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Works_of_Religion#Controversies
“get rid of your stupid blasphemy laws! Yes, they’re almost never enforced”
That may be true, but laws in Germany against insulting people are regularly enforced. I resided in German through much of the 80’s, and 90’s. I once gave the finger to someone who cut me off in traffic, and was fined $400. A neighbor of mine was called a “dirty jew”, and the perpetrator was fined $1500. Given this I expect there is a strong sentiment in favor of such laws, and even enforcing them.
A humorous side note. When I moved back to the US with my German wife we were cut off by a car in traffic, and my wife asked “are you sure it’s legal to give someone the finger?”. I told her it was and she repeatedly with both hand gave the guy the finger with both hands while yelling “FU FU FU”. She really enjoyed it. 🙂
So … how would invective like “are you blind or just stupid, you [list of anatomical and/or genetic improbabilities ] [further feats of balance and stretching the definition of ‘species’]” go down in court?
On approaching my first ‘wrong side’ roundabout in Germany after not having driven an LHD car on a RHS road for a couple of years, I was treated to a (deserved) language lesson, and when I apologised in English got a translation. This being beside an international airport, we then went our ways with adjusted road – scanning priorities on my behalf, and vented spleen on his behalf.
I am having a mental image of someone venting a spleen. In the word of Tom Lehrer, “yeuchh”.
Maybe that’s why the Italians are so expressive in gesture and word during such confrontations (at least they are generally know for such behavior). Perhaps they respond appropriate to human nature. I can well imaging the Italians are pretty well adjusted because of it.
So assume you gave the finger to god. I can see that you could be sued for insulting a person because you would inflict suffering on him or her, in certain cases. This is because according to law, as I understand it, there is a law or statement that says that a person is a “legal person”, either a human or a company, that can suffer from insults. But blasphemy is defined as an insult of a god. Is there such a law giving “God” a legal status in any Western country? Before any country can formulate a law condemning “blasphemy” there should be a law recognizing the existence of a god as a “legal person.” In other words, we would have to accept a theocracy.
“So assume you gave the finger to god.”
Blasphemy laws don’t exist to punish people who insult God. They exist because they offend people who believe in God. So there is essentially no difference between a law that punishes someone for offending a person by insulting them, or offending them by insulting their God.
You seem to hold Medieval conceptions.
Here is a definition of blasphemy by the Wikipedia:
“Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for (a) God(s), to religious or holy persons or sacred things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. Some religions consider blasphemy as a religious crime.”
So if criticizing (and ridiculing, if necessary) homeopathy, astrology, Sharia law, or the spaghetti monster, you are offending people who believe in these things? So Dario Fo should be punished? By ridiculing the Pope, Fo brought Italian law about divorce to its senses.
“Here is a definition of blasphemy by the Wikipedia”
The definition of blasphemy has absolutely nothing to do with the motivation for implementing the law.
“So Dario Fo should be punished?”
You’ve completely confused me now. Are you under the mistaken impression that I’m defending blasphemy laws? My point was they are essentially no different than the equally ridiculous laws that cost me a $400 fine. Given that those laws exist, and are enforced it’s not surprising the blasphemy laws exist, or that German citizens would support them.
You might want to watch that finger business in the car. With all the nuts packing heat these days, might start shooting at you.
I agree that I misunderstood you, apologies. This argument, that of offending religious sensibilities, is generally used by religious circles in Europe, it is called “political correctness.” You even have people who accuse the British and other governments of racism or religious intolerance by trying to stop and punish genital mutilation in women. They view it as an attack on religious and cultural traditions and freedom-this is a form of political correctness corrupted to its extreme.
Touch not the Spaghetti Monster, for he is chilled out and slow to rouse to giving a fucked about non-belivers. The beer volcano can accommodate all, and if some need a hash beer, a hash beer will flow.
R-amen and On-on!
Try not to forget this remarkable teenager’s effort to pray properly:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/03/teen-who-desecrated-jesus-statue-hit-with-6-month-ban-from-social-media-and-350-hours-of-community-service/
In which century did this happen?
Very likely every century in the last two thousand years.
Germany has a lot of weird laws. A coworker lived in Germany for years and watered his lawn when he wasn’t supposed to, ignorant of the laws, his neighbour reported him and he got a visit from the police who fined him. I can’t even play machine the police responding to such a call here. It would be a bylaw matter.
Play machine=imagine.
Same here. New Zealand, embarrassingly still has a blasphemy law on the books, but it’s only been used once (1922) and the man concerned was found not guilty. All attempts since to even bring a prosecution have failed, including, famously, the display of an artwork ‘Virgin in a Condom’ and trying to ban the broadcast of the ‘Southpark’ episode with a Virgin statue menstruating.
“Germany has a lot of weird laws.”
They also have a number of restrictions on freedom that Germans hardly notice, that we in the US would never tolerate. “Ihre papiere bitte” which I’m sure sounds familiar as a phrase oft heard, and almost emblematic of Nazi Germany in movies about WWII (your papers please) is still heard today. You are required to carry identification at all times, and present it when requested. Police can pull your vehicle over at any time without cause. You are required to register with the city hall of the city you live in, and register with the new one if you move. Curfews are not uncommon particularly for young people. Again this goes back to my earlier comment. If you’ll tolerate all these things you’re not going to see blasphemy laws as a big deal.
And calling someone an assh*le can cost you a 100 bucks.
OMG arid to Germany would cost me a fortune!
“a trip” not “arid”. My iPad has a real sense of humour today.
When we were in high school a friend of mine (who is German) told a story about how an official in the trailer station put his hand on her shoulder from behind and asked to see her pass. Not the same thing, I know, but it freaked her out because of the whole “papers please” connotation.
Train station.
In reference to, “I wonder if Voss would have been prosecuted had he omitted the “Kill Pope Francis” bit.”
Personally, that one went over the line even for me (and trust me, I’m a strong advocate for making all speech as free as possible).
But, it isn’t apparent to me in this case, based on the judge’s statement, that Voss still wouldn’t have been prosecuted if that particular statement was omitted. The judge not only refers to the Pope but also “the cross” in the verdict.
I wonder if he would have persecuted if the only bumper sticker he had read, “Kill Joe (pick a last name of your choice)?”
I meant prosecuted not persecuted in the last sentence (live by auto-correct, die by auto-correct.)
Don’t encourage the courts. Especially in countries still barbarous enough to have a “state murder” option.
Do you not have to be a member of the religious sect in order to blaspheme it? I mean if one thinks that the god(s) in question do(es) not exist, how can one blaspheme a fictional entity? And what does disrespectful mean? Would not the ancient Greeks, Norse or Romans find all the movies and books about their pantheon blasphemous? I say if I am not a believer, then you can’t get me for “blasphemy”. You have no jurisdiction.
I’m not sure how blasphemy laws work in Germany. But, I definitely agree with your sentiment. I think that all blasphemy laws should be abolished.
Errrr. Basically, no. You need to disagree with the religion of the (politically) dominant part of the population.
The main crime is of ‘being different’ ; the justification may be on religious grounds, but the real crime is difference.
“Personally, that one went over the line even for me (and trust me, I’m a strong advocate for making all speech as free as possible).”
Not if you think that bit of harmless speech goes “over the line,” you’re not.
tomh,
That is an interesting point. The fact that statement went over the line for me, is a personal opinion not a legal one. But as Mason said to Dixon, “We have to draw the line somewhere.” And each jurisdiction is going to have decide where that line gets drawn and that will always be contentious. The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed at), was that under Germany’s speech laws, would the same bumper sticker be considered illegal if it was not directed at religious figure?
Ironically, Münster happens to be where the peace treaty after the thirty-years-war was signed, one of the most seminal events in establishing freedom of religion in Europe.
> I wonder if Voss would have been prosecuted had he omitted the “Kill Pope Francis” bit.
Probably not, as the German blasphemy law is actually an incitement of violence law, and to be enactable, your words must be fit to “disturb public peace”. The judge’s statement on “central elements of the Catholic faith” is thus not only irrelevant and misleading, but a sign the law was used as means to an end. If this goes to a higher court, and I hope it will, I think it’s doubtful they will uphold the sentence.
So my “roundabout” language lesson, being essentially between two people, would not likely have been actionable? Certainly the other driver was perfectly reasonable once he’d showered the landscape with his blood – filtering organs.
Well, not under the blasphemy law, anyway. But you could have reported him for slander and – keep this in mind next time you’re in Germany – acted “in self-defense”. (Though that probably goes only as far as punching someone.)
That’s an interesting contrast to the situation here in Canada, where the “blasphemy law” is a *libel* offence, technically.
Germany also outlaws Holocaust denial and the swastika. They may have good reason, considering their history.
In France Holocaust denial is outlawed too (Le Pen).
Also denial of the Kurdish genocide by Turkey.
I don’t think there’s a good reason, even in Germany, to outlaw those things.
Germans, or at least some of them, don’t seem to take such laws seriously:
“The filmmakers dressed relatively unknown actor Oliver Masucci up as Hitler and sent him into the cheering crowd of World Cup soccer fans. How did they respond? In full 2014 fashion: They took selfies with Hitler. They joked with him and rose their own arms in Hitler salutes.
Everything was caught on film. And no one seemed to care that the Hitler salute is actually illegal in Germany.”
http://www.dw.com/en/hitler-is-back-but-did-he-ever-leave/a-18770902
Curious how many sincere death threats per hour are made against the President of the United States. Are those illegal?
It’s not the sincerity, it’s the credibility. If you live in your parents basement and have woodworking tools, you will acquire a different credibility score than (say) an Arizona farmer who takes multiple firearms to Oregon.
Isn’t transporting firearms from one set of laws to another (read : across county or state boundaries) illegal? Yet?
I like to be a free speech advocate and all that, but inciting people to kill religious figures strikes me as a reasonable place for even a secular government to draw a line in the sand.
Why mention Denmark twice?
At the very beginning of the film “Last Tango in Paris” Marlon Brando’s character is yelling “Phuque God” at the top of his voice, but the elevated train passing above him entirely drowns out his voice. It occurs to me this may have been done to circumvent blasphemy laws. (The film still got prosecuted as pornography in several places.)
I’m pretty sure I’m one of the more religion-friendly regular posters here. I declare this spin off of the popular “YMCA” dance craze of the 90s my very favorite piece of blasphemy.
https://loltheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/jesusymca.jpg?w=750
Brilliant.
I personally find the “YMCA” prank utterly moronic. I mean why would you want to make fun of a barbarous crucifixion?
It’s the identical logic to Monty Python’s “Look on the Bright Side of Life”.
Wait! what? Spain twice?
Yeah, well, actually when I read americans dreaming about european securalism, I think “not Spain”. I think in our case the problem is that when the constitution was drafted (1978),it seemed a good idea, to counter the traditional power of catholic church, to grant protection to all religions equally (at the same time, because that traditional power was still strong, the catholic church retained some privileges that yet today remain).
An example of this was that instead of dumping sunday mass from nationa public television, different spaces were allowed to other confessions (at least some protestants and jews that I can remenber.
And so,we have had, lately, things like national police endorsing a medal to virgin mary, so please, when you talk about european secularism…
I don’t think threats or suggestions to kill the pope or anyone else is cool, but a blasphemy law isn’t the correct redress.
Corpora delicti on display – practise your German:
http://www.spruchtaxi.de/
http://hpd.de/artikel/12666
Ah. So what he MEANT to say was: “Martin Luther called for killing the pope, yet you protestants think he was an admirable person.”
Speak about context being everything. Though I think he ought to practise those communication skills.
Not only does the blasphemy law apply to religion, it applies to world views!
I think it is high time Pastafarians strike back and bring suit against every company who demeans the FSM and his noodly appendage. He deserves better than to have his likeness packed into boxes and jars and left on a shelf.
I don’t know if Gerry posted this in tandem with the Kimono Crisis of Western Imperialism, on purpose or not, but it bears pointing out the similarity between Kimono Misappropriation and blasphemy.
The ethnic group appropriates certain symbols as belonging to its essential identity, and polices boundaries against others who use their symbolism, or insiders who use the symbolism inappropriately (in the eyes of the group). The Kimono Crisis represents Asian Americans appropriating the Kimono as some kind of essentially ethnic symbol, and being angered by outsiders using their symbol without permission. You can see this is a way in which an ethnic group signals its power, and obviously, mocking or ignoring the group is a gesture of dominance back. So I don’t think the charge of racism is totally unfounded.
Obviously, moving from ethnic to religious (and what is the difference really), religions appropriate certain symbols, books, customs, as their own, and attempt to police misappropriation by the out-group. Salmon Rushdie writes a book about Muhammad that is not seen by the community of Muslims as an appropriate use of the Muslim Tradition, so to police the use of their Tradition, they issue a price on his head.
It is simply a more extreme version of white folks wearing Kimonos.
How do you think, is it OK for white folks to eat tomatoes, potatoes and pepper, or is it just another undue appropriation?
What’s this great kimono crisis then?
I have always wanted to wear a kimono but can’t afford one.
What you’re describing is tribalism.
I suppose in a manner of speaking it is tribalism (or rather the human instinct that gives birth to tribalism), but in the case of Islam, we are talking about the Dar Al-Islam, a meta-national union of the faithful, across languages, nations, and ethnic cultures, so it transcends any mere tribalism.
On the other Japanese Americans objecting to White people wearing Kimonos is pretty much tribalism.
What I mean to suggest is that the impulse in both comes from basically the same place.
Of course, atheism in the end comes to be a kind of tribe itself (complete with Darwin fishes for your bumper), or rather, given the difference between Han Chinese atheists in China and White atheists in America, perhaps better a family of tribes.
This leads to ponder, if this is all about social dominance by ethnic and religious groups, then perhaps the best way to address efforts by heretics and rival religions is not beheadings after all.
If it is all about a struggle for dominance, obviously, then thoughtfully engaging in apologetics will not carry the day. To argue with an enemy is in itself a form of surrender.
A note about the Israeli anti-blasphemy law: It’s a remnant from the British mandate. It’s a dead letter. It’s not enforced and so far as I know, was never enforced since the founding of the state. Moreover, if anyone is ever charged with blasphemy around here, there will be such a public uproar that the accused will probably be cleared of all charges very quickly. The public will crucify the justice minister and his or her deputies, if they won’t do their best to have the charges dropped.
In general, we’re closer in our mentality and our laws to the European model of free speech rights than to the American one. Still, I’m glad to say we are a far cry from the European institution of regressive anti-free speech laws into our law books.
I suspect it’s the “Kill Pope Francis” thing that would have done it. Since some time after the second world war you just couldn’t express such sentiments. With the resurgence of the neo-Nazis in the 1980s such laws had some use in helping to protect the Jews and various migrant minorities; the reason I guess is that such statements promote social disunity and encourage people to treat people from certain sections of society badly. Even in the USA, at least in principle, the welfare of the state trumps individual rights. The favorite quote for that of course is Oliver Wendell Holmes (Jr) in Schenck vs United States in 1919.
The UK blasphemy law existed until embarrassingly recently. Because of the way that our laws are changed and updated, the best way to get rid of it was for a blasphemy case to actually come to court. The National Secular Society tried to provoke a case by blaspheming on purpose. The authorities, aware of what they were up to, deliberately looked the other way. Fortunately the case was provided by Christian imbecile Stephen Green who took the BBC to court over the broadcasting of Jerry Springer the Opera. Green got the blasphemy law abolished, lost his case, had costs awarded against him and was declared bankrupt as he didn’t have the money.
Germany has had a long, troubled, history of religious conflict particularly with the catholic church. Even during the Nazi era blasphemy remained an offence and local party leaders were sacked for trying to enforce atheistic teaching in schools or removing christian icons etc from classrooms. Hitler was once quoted as saying that he abhorred atheism.
All very odd given his capacity for hating the catholic church.
I am sure you will be happy to hear that the Norwegian blasphemy law was removed last year.
It was actually decided to remove it back in 2005, but the actual execution was delayed to, believe it or not, problems with updating our police’s IT systems to properly implement our new penal code.
I would like to point out that the law had not been used for a long time. The last person charged was Øverland in 1933, and last person convicted was all the way back in 1912, and he only got a fine.
I am happy to see it fully gone, though, even if it would have been unlikely that it would ever have been used again.
Link (in Norwegian):
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/religion/den-norske-blasfemiparagrafen-er-historie/a/23447371/
Cheers,
Christian.
In France, apparently the only anti-blasphemy laws are in Alsace-Moselle. France did away with them all in 1881, but the Alsace-Moselle region was then part of Germany. So when they came back into France, they brought with them these laws. It is regularly recommended to get rid of them, including last year, by a group of leaders of “recognized” religions. But the Conseil Constitutionel pointed out that they were not applicable anyway — because they have never been translated (officially) from German into French! Seulement in France…
I guess that means I can say “Dieu est mort.” in Alsace with no problem. But how about, “Gott is tod”?
It was Friedrich Nietzsche who coined Gott ist tot in the 19th century. By the way Tod means death and tot means dead, subtilities of the German language.
Right. And I should have said “ist”, not “is”. Two typos. Who the hell can spell in German? 😉
Some Germans do, if you believe the rumours. 😉
In a sad commentary on English spelling, I can spell perfectly in German but horribly in my native language of English.
Actually, german is very phonetic, especially compared to english or french (or swedish).
Yes, that’s one of the strengths of German. In this video, a young American living in southern Germany compares English and German:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtt5uzLB590
At 2:50 he mentions German’s phonetic spelling.
Norway got rid of its blasphemy law last year. The consequences were horrible, of course.
It is not in itself a blasphemy law but a law against inciting public unrest by attacking religious institutions. I am still allowed to say “God is a dick” in Germany, but not “Burn down all churches.”
But I agree, there’s no need for a special status of religious institutions, inciting public unrest and instigating violence are crimes by itself.
A nail wholesaler goes to an advertising agent… 🙂
Just answering your appeal – there are no “Blasphemy Laws” in the Czech Republic since 1950. Wikipedia is not a very reliable source.
On the other hand the power of Czech Catholic Church steadily rises, so one day we might get them back…