Abolition of the crime of blasphemy

[jake-the-peg]

Today a cross party group are seeking the abolition of the crime of blasphemy.

This crime only protects Christianity and signatories calling for it's abolition bizzarrely include Richard Dawkins and the ArchBishop of Canterbury

Yet it's getting a somewhat luke warm response from the Government.

Is there any good reason to keep a piece of archaic legislation like this that hasn't been sucessfully used for decades?

Does Jesus need the protection of the law?

[paulos66]

I didn't realise it was still a crime, jesus f***ing christ what a joke

[Theland]

Jesus doesn't need the protection of the law, but even a significant number of non believers in this country, with its Christian roots and Christian sympathies, would be affronted if every writer, film maker etc that was out to shock, was given free rein to insult what most people hold dear.

[paulos66]

Theland, why on earth would a non-believer care about someone insulting jesus

[jno]

it's grossly inequitable. The law should either cover all religions, including wicca and scientology, or none at all. And while we're about it, state support for faith schools can go.

[naomi24]

Yes, it should be abolished. It encourages political correctness, and like that, is a blight on freedom of speech. We are all upset by things people say and write, but we deal with it. Apart from that, if Jesus is who he's supposed to be, why would he need man-made laws to protect him? I would have thought he was more than capable of rising above it. (Pardon the pun).

[Theland]

Considering the number of funerals, weddings and babtisms that are conducted with prayers, I would suggest a significant number of people retain respect for the idea of God and Jesus Christ, and their sensibilities should also be respected.
The alternative is to take yet another step to reducing our society to the lowest possible common denominator, where nothing is held in any esteem.

[naomi24]

Theland With all due respect, you can't force someone to respect something they don't believe in, can you? For example, you have no respect whatsoever for Islam, and have no hesitation whatsoever in damning Allah or his followers. You don't respect their sensibilities, but you expect everyone to respect yours. Would you want the laws of blasphemy to cover Islam too, because by your reckoning, they should you know.

[Theland]

Naomi, that is a good point. The Church of England is still the Established church, with the monarch at its head. That puts a slightly different gloss on it. Islam is a major problem for us, a problem that will get worse. To extend blasphemy laws to them would be to empower them and enable them to curtail genuine criticism of their outrageous beliefs, beliefs that taken to their logical conclusion, will undermine our society.

[jojojoanne]

The law will protect the believer though not the belief itself.

[Pippa68]

Theland, I have often wondered how many weddings, funerals and baptisms (christenings) are conducted for people who are essentially non-believers, and only have these ceremonies because it is the 'done thing', or even because they just want the big show and a party.

I have attended plenty..

[naomi24]

Their beliefs nevertheless, and just as important to them as yours are to you. I didn't suggest the law be extended - I merely pointed out that your argument is one-sided.

[Oneeyedvic]

onesided and hypocritical - nothing else is to be expected from a Christian Fundamentalist though.

[Theland]

Pippa - It may be the, "done thing," for many, but that in itself is a tradition, and a part of our culture, regardless of the belief or otherwise of the people taking part.
I would suggest that there is an argument that this aspect of our cultural heritage warrants the protection of the law.

[jojojoanne]

is the argument for/against blasphemy two sided?

[naomi24]

Theland, will the abolition of a law which hasn't been used successfully for a very long time have a detrimental effect on church services? Will people suddenly stop being married in church, or conducting funerals in church? This is our culture, so I think not.

[naomi24]

jo, that's a complicated one.

[jojojoanne]

.............. to blaspheme or not to blaspheme then you are guilty of understanding the ideas of blasphemy, is the purpose of free will to be free......................

[jake-the-peg]

The last two times the law has been used were:

Jerry Springer the opera (where Jesus was portrayed in a nappy confessing to being a little bit gay</>

The "Gay News" case where a poem was published potraying Jesus as gay.

There is a bit of a pattern

We could just rename it MGNG law
(that My God's Not Gay)

Under which it would be an offence to represent any divinity as gay, bi-sexual or "a little bit confused sexually"

[Theland]

Some so called, "dearly held beliefs" are detrimental to our society, and to us as individuals.
Some muslims hold the dearly held belief that we, the kuffar, should be subjugated by islam, by force if necessary, hence their terrorist outrages.
So, no, I don't think the blesphemy law should be extended to them.

[Oneeyedvic]

There are also Christians who believe in terrorist activities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrori sm

And this doesn't even cover the pro-life brigade who are happy to murder doctors who carry out abortions.