NationStates Jolt Archive

As some of you may have been aware the UK's last blasphemy laws were abolished yesterday (8th July), with the implementation of Section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminal-justice-act-implementation.htm). A good thing, in my eyes.

I was casting around the 'net, reading around the subject, and I've just come across this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html) (more here (http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html) and here (http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html), and probably all over a hundred blogs by now), detailing a sorry saga involving a student in Florida who kept his wafer during a Catholic mass at his university, and took it home with him (yes yes, it's Fox News, I know, but it might not get huge exposure since it wasn't that other religion). Looks to me like a whole shitstorm of protest over what is, essentially, a biscuit, ffs.

Ignoring for the moment that if this was to do with religious complaints over a cartoon there would already be worldwide media attention and a multitude of threads here about it, do you not think, deep down inside, that this is an insane overreaction? If not, where should the line be drawn?

There are a number of religious people here on NSG. I hesitate to ask for too many details of what you would find to be an unacceptable insult to your religions, because it would undoubtedly just lead to some people trying to push those particular buttons, so I'll simply ask...

Does anyone think that blasphemy-styled laws should be retained and, if so, can they actually justify it?

blasphemy laws in the 21st century are a joke, its 2008 not 1108 people!

I've just realised how little the poll and those news stories have to do with each other, other than that they both involve offending religious sensibilities in some way... just goes to show you how far you can end up wandering when you're reading around a subject on the Internet :p

Must be time for sleep :eek:

All theocracies have been horrific failures. Therefore, any religous law strikes me as an awfully bad idea...

"There is only one blasphemy, and that is the refusal to experience joy." Paul Rudnick

I wasn't aware that the UK finally got rid of their frankly ridiculous blasphemy laws... good for them. It's been a long time coming! :)

Any society that supposedly stands for freedom of religion cannot possibly have blasphemy laws, simply because they would have to end up favouring one particular religion. Not to mention I believe religion has absolutely zero place in government regardless of the way in which it's used.

Does anyone think that blasphemy-styled laws should be retained and, if so, can they actually justify it?

Nope not at all. Kick them all out. What the hell does blasphemy mean anyway?

Speaking as one of the religous, I really don't care what you say about my own religoin or God. Your choice innit.

As some of you may have been aware the UK's last blasphemy laws were abolished yesterday (8th July), with the implementation of Section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminal-justice-act-implementation.htm). A good thing, in my eyes.

I was casting around the 'net, reading around the subject, and I've just come across this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html) (more here (http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html) and here (http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html), and probably all over a hundred blogs by now), detailing a sorry saga involving a student in Florida who kept his wafer during a Catholic mass at his university, and took it home with him (yes yes, it's Fox News, I know, but it might not get huge exposure since it wasn't that other religion). Looks to me like a whole shitstorm of protest over what is, essentially, a biscuit, ffs.

Ignoring for the moment that if this was to do with religious complaints over a cartoon there would already be worldwide media attention and a multitude of threads here about it, do you not think, deep down inside, that this is an insane overreaction? If not, where should the line be drawn?

There are a number of religious people here on NSG. I hesitate to ask for too many details of what you would find to be an unacceptable insult to your religions, because it would undoubtedly just lead to some people trying to push those particular buttons, so I'll simply ask...

Does anyone think that blasphemy-styled laws should be retained and, if so, can they actually justify it?

How does this work with the recent decision by a UK judge that sharia law will be OK for Muslims to use amongst themselves in the UK?

They have plenty of blasphemy-themed laws.

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law.

How does this work with the recent decision by a UK judge that sharia law will be OK for Muslims to use amongst themselves in the UK?

They have plenty of blasphemy-themed laws.

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law.
I assume (always dangerous, I know) that it will work since Phillips was essentially only saying that subgroups within the UK should be allowed to operate under their own sets of guidelines, as long as they did not conflict with the law of the land and as long as those affected were happy to accept their 'judgement'.

I read his suggestion as being more akin to the codes of practice or rules of behaviour that are put in place by clubs and associations, than as a statement of allowing a parallel legal system.

In fact, although I do not have sources to hand and lack the time to go looking at the moment, I was under the impression that it was explicitly stated that any such system would still have to comply with UK laws and that, in the case of any objections that citizens made to rulings by the religious leaders, UK law would take precedence, which is as should be.

I assume (always dangerous, I know) that it will work since Phillips was essentially only saying that subgroups within the UK should be allowed to operate under their own sets of guidelines, as long as they did not conflict with the law of the land and as long as those affected were happy to accept their 'judgement'.

I read his suggestion as being more akin to the codes of practice or rules of behaviour that are put in place by clubs and associations, than as a statement of allowing a parallel legal system.

In fact, although I do not have sources to hand and lack the time to go looking at the moment, I was under the impression that it was explicitly stated that any such system would still have to comply with UK laws and that, in the case of any objections that citizens made to rulings by the religious leaders, UK law would take precedence, which is as should be.

As you pointed out, there isn't a law about blasphemy anymore, so there isn't a UK law to take precedence here. He only said that the punishments and divorce laws have to comply. As long as they don't behead the blasphemers, it sounds like it will be smooth sailing.

Nope, freedom of speech and all that fun stuff. That said, this does not mean it's open season to walk into a place of worship and deliberately cause a commotion. Just that those who do so should be charged under trespass laws or other laws.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152220/

:)

Blasphemy... it's fun for all the family! :D

As you pointed out, there isn't a law about blasphemy anymore, so there isn't a UK law to take precedence here. He only said that the punishments and divorce laws have to comply. As long as they don't behead the blasphemers, it sounds like it will be smooth sailing.
It may sound like that to you, but it's pretty innocuous to any objective observer.

English civil law already makes wide provision for 3rd party mediation, so that conflicts can be resolved if all involved parties can reach an agreement without involving the courts. The idea of a religious 'court' passing a judgement that is agreed on by both sides in a legal dispute certainly seems to fall under that description.

"As long as they don't behead the blasphemers, it sounds like it will be smooth sailing." I disagree. Take, for example, a case where a woman is being discriminated against simply because of her sex (as could possibly occur under the tenets of several religions in the UK). In such a case, no matter the pronouncement of any religious or community court, the law of the land -- i.e. that such discrimination is likely to be illegal -- would hold.

I honestly don't see what you're getting at.

I honestly don't see what you're getting at.
Oh DK/Hotwife is just convinced that the EBIL Muslims are taking over and spends most of his day going after obscure and generally misleading news articles to rant about.

You learn to ignore him as he repeats himself constantly.

Oh DK/Hotwife is just convinced that the EBIL Muslims are taking over and spends most of his day going after obscure and generally misleading news articles to rant about.

You learn to ignore him as he repeats himself constantly.

Yes, the Times of London is such an obscure newspaper, and it prints the most misleading articles.

Oh, and if you don't think that Muslims can be dangerous, why don't you take a vacation in South Waziristan? According to you, you have nothing to fear.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152220/

:)
Thanks for that :p

A sad reflection of the times that it's as close as the thread has come to commenting on the story linked in the OP though.

How does this work with the recent decision by a UK judge that sharia law will be OK for Muslims to use amongst themselves in the UK?

They have plenty of blasphemy-themed laws.

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law.

The bolded part is your answer right there...

As you pointed out, there isn't a law about blasphemy anymore, so there isn't a UK law to take precedence here. He only said that the punishments and divorce laws have to comply. As long as they don't behead the blasphemers, it sounds like it will be smooth sailing.

If something is not illegal by UK law, it is per definition legal.
So anybody trying to enforce sharia blasphemy laws would act against Brititsh law.

Oh, and if you don't think that Muslims can be dangerous, why don't you take a vacation in South Waziristan? According to you, you have nothing to fear.

Not much to see there, and I'm not one for warm climates.

Are all religions mutually compatible? I would have thought it quite possible that what was an essential part of worship to one might well be blasphemy to another.

Thanks for that :p

A sad reflection of the times that it's as close as the thread has come to commenting on the story linked in the OP though.
You asked for comment on the laws, not comments on the story. While I think emailed death threats are way too much in any event, I do NOT think that the church was over reacting. It's one thing for someone to comment on the beliefs of another, it's another to come into a religious ceremony and attempt to remove something sacred to the believers.

You asked for comment on the laws, not comments on the story. While I think emailed death threats are way too much in any event, I do NOT think that the church was over reacting. It's one thing for someone to comment on the beliefs of another, it's another to come into a religious ceremony and attempt to remove something sacred to the believers.

Is it the cracker that's holy, or the ritual, or the feeling in the heart the ritual provides?

I maintain that it's just a cracker and no more or less holy than if they did the ceremony with a muffin.

...than if they did the ceremony with a muffin.

..or a pie!

Blasphemy laws have no place in a modern democracy. Good job for the Brits cleaning up outdated laws - an activity many US jurisdictions should work on. Before we enact new stupid laws, we should work on getting rid of old stupid laws.

Also, I have no issue with the proposed sharia system. As far as I know, a similar system is already used with regards to Jewish law (and has been for centuries). The only danger is that Muslim women who are unfamiliar with their rights might be pressured into agreeing to accept arbitration under sharia. To counter this, I suggest that both parties meet with a civil lawyer - separately - to consider whether to use civil law or religious law.

..or a pie!

They are not yet ready for pie. *nod*

Is it the cracker that's holy, or the ritual, or the feeling in the heart the ritual provides?

I maintain that it's just a cracker and no more or less holy than if they did the ceremony with a muffin.
To YOU yes, to me as well. To a practicing Catholic?

When I had the opportunity to visit Kyoto last year I was amazed at the beautiful temples that I saw. Many of them held extraordinary works of art, some dating well over a 1,000 years ago. I wanted to take pictures, I was asked not to. Not because of the damage, but the belief that somehow photographing the relic would take away its meaning. I'm not Buddhist and I didn't believe that the statues I was seeing were anything beyond a work of man; however, I had to respect the belief of the people in the temple. It would have been very wrong of me to ignore that just because I believed differently and started taking pictures.

That's what I mean. It's wrong to go in and violate an act of worship just because you don't believe in it. It'd be just as wrong as crashing a private wedding and making off with the cake just because you don't hold with weddings.

You asked for comment on the laws, not comments on the story.
Fair point. It was a pretty incoherent OP all round, in the cold light of day, and should probably have been done as two separate threads. My only defence is that I was exceptionally tired and 'wandery' (if there is such a word - and if there isn't there should be) :)

However, I stand by my assertion that if it had been Islam involved, or one of the more wacky Christian fundamentalist groups, the story would have been all over our media like flies on shit.

Is it the cracker that's holy, or the ritual, or the feeling in the heart the ritual provides?

I maintain that it's just a cracker and no more or less holy than if they did the ceremony with a muffin.

It's a ritual re-enactment of when Jesus gave bread to his apostle during his last supper. So I guess we should use some kind of bread-related product.

Muffins are iffy, but would do in a pinch. Pie is right off.

How does this work with the recent decision by a UK judge that sharia law will be OK for Muslims to use amongst themselves in the UK?
I entreat you to look up the correct definition of 'sharia' and the use of arbitration outside of the UK courts system.

As you pointed out, there isn't a law about blasphemy anymore, so there isn't a UK law to take precedence here.
There most certainly is a precedent.

The UK courts actively encourage disputes of a civil matter (in no way criminal matters) to be arbitrated outside of the courts, if possible and if in line with UK law. So, instead of you and your wife going through a protracted divorce in court, appointing an independent arbiter, such as a vicar, imam, lawyer, learned friend, etc., and attempting to solve the matter amicably that way.

However, these decisions must be in line with UK law. As there are now no blasphemy laws in place, no measures prosecuting blasphemy can be enforced, either through the civil or criminal courts, the Jewish Beth Din court system, an Islamic court, or any other way.

To YOU yes, to me as well. To a practicing Catholic?

When I had the opportunity to visit Kyoto last year I was amazed at the beautiful temples that I saw. Many of them held extraordinary works of art, some dating well over a 1,000 years ago. I wanted to take pictures, I was asked not to. Not because of the damage, but the belief that somehow photographing the relic would take away its meaning. I'm not Buddhist and I didn't believe that the statues I was seeing were anything beyond a work of man; however, I had to respect the belief of the people in the temple. It would have been very wrong of me to ignore that just because I believed differently and started taking pictures.

That's what I mean. It's wrong to go in and violate an act of worship just because you don't believe in it. It'd be just as wrong as crashing a private wedding and making off with the cake just because you don't hold with weddings.

In the same token, if you were in that same temple, didn't know their beliefs regarding photography and snapped a few photos, do you think it's okay for them to go apeshit and threaten your life?

Or suppose you were a member of this religion and didn't subscribe to that particular interpretation? I don't get the impression that this student was an atheist doing it for the lulz. I get the impression that he's a catholic who wanted to show someone what a communion wafer looks like. How does one rationalize this level of reactive ire and well.... hate with a catholic faith?

It's a ritual re-enactment of when Jesus gave bread to his apostle during his last supper. So I guess we should use some kind of bread-related product.

Muffins are iffy, but would do in a pinch. Pie is right off.

Blasphemy! :mad:

However, I stand by my assertion that if it had been Islam involved, or one of the more wacky Christian fundamentalist groups, the story would have been all over our media like flies on shit.
Meh... It would depend. After all, this did not lead to the Pope calling for the student's head or sending in the unexpected Spanish Inquisition!

Always remember, dogs biting men are not news. Men biting dogs now...

No, LG, that was NOT a suggestion! :p

In the same token, if you were in that same temple, didn't know their beliefs regarding photography and snapped a few photos, do you think it's okay for them to go apeshit and threaten your life?
Are all organizations now to be held accountable for every member who is off his or her rocker? I would respond that I already noted that death threats are never ok, and that, as a visitor to the temple, shouldn't I be polite enough to ASK before whipping out the camera?

Or suppose you were a member of this religion and didn't subscribe to that particular interpretation? I don't get the impression that this student was an atheist doing it for the lulz. I get the impression that he's a catholic who wanted to show someone what a communion wafer looks like. How does one rationalize this level of reactive ire and well.... hate with a catholic faith?
That he knew the rules going into the game. I might subscribe to the idea that bringing popcorn and an air horn to a funeral lends a more festive air and don't hold with this quiet mourning bit. I know that when going to one though that you don't kick open the casket to show off the dead and blow a few farewell blasts while handing out buckets of popcorn. The people at said funeral would be rightly pissed off with me if I did so.

That he knew the rules going into the game. I might subscribe to the idea that bringing popcorn and an air horn to a funeral lends a more festive air and don't hold with this quiet mourning bit. I know that when going to one though that you don't kick open the casket to show off the dead and blow a few farewell blasts while handing out buckets of popcorn. The people at said funeral would be rightly pissed off with me if I did so.

They'd probably expect it from me. *nod*

Edit:

Are all organizations now to be held accountable for every member who is off his or her rocker?

Depending on who you ask, only if they're muslim.

They'd probably expect it from me. *nod*
Well, yes. That goes without saying. :D

i think if they were honest, they would include fundimentalist christianity as a form of it. pretty much any other form of fanatacism as well. economic and idiological too. and that includes a lot of so called patriotism.

=^^=
.../\...