Should Blasphemy be Illegal?

Don't you mean than, not then? My ginger also says that everyones' should be everyone's. Cause the word everyone already states multiple people for you! Hehehe! XD

I don't fully understand this sentence, it is a personal motivation I have to try to respect everyone's rights. That is true, if that is what you meant.

 

Lots of interesting points raised, but let's be careful to return to the points being raised. To say you can't take someone seriously violates the essence of what a forum like this represents...if you're frustrated, take some time away, browse some gaming forums or something of the sort.

Blasphemy laws are a difficult example of what I like to call "people will swallow a lot of BS with even an ounce of truth." This is something that happens a lot in the media, and even in the scientific community.

On the one hand, we have no governing body for blasphemy, unless of course, there is a God or gods who can attest to what blasphemy is. In such an instance, we human beings, are taking away a divine right by enforcing such rules. Conversely, if there really is nothing of the sort out there, no "divine governing body" so to speak, then a blasphemy law is completely asanine...so I can't think of a good reason to have one, since in either case, it's inherently flawed.

The points raised however, are good. A blasphemy law would prevent things like say, the freedom to go out and make an anti-Islamic film which incites the middle east into killing hundreds of "infidels." Or Westboro, as has been mentioned. There are things which are done purely out of malice, and these things, imho, are wrong. They are fine-, or even prosecution-worthy acts.

My response to something like this would simply be that we could deal with such "hate crimes" (for lack of a proper word, close enough) with less stringent laws...even if it needs to be dealt with in a case by case manner. The legal system, with all of its flaws, is fluid, changing, dynamic. In time, perhaps such precedents will be set.

The last thing I wished to comment on was a remark fairly early on, saying that religion is illogical and that it'd be better if people fell into a simple Venn Diagram: God yes, God no, and God maybe?

The problem is one of expression. We cannot sort people into, for instance, "Art talent yes, Art talent no" groups and simply leave it at that...if one is an artist they are entitled to express themselves in a way they find satisfying and gratifying. Yes, one could make the argument that religion causes a lot of hardship, arguments, wars, etc. but it's a matter of playing the blame game at this point.

People will fight over which style of music they prefer, what sort of clothes they wear, what dance styles they like, in some cases, more than over religious differences, and in cases where extreme violence occurs, while I do not condone such actions, it's an indication of true passion. This can happen with religion, yes, but it also happens in say, the music industry.

So returning to the point...perhaps life would be simpler if we did away with religion. But life would be simpler if everyone dressed the same, and we had absolutely no artistic expression as well. Is simplicity the goal?

I propose a single rule, or philosophy, that I try to live by: Try not to do anything to annoy anyone else. (Or in other words, the golden rule, I suppose)

 

On a smaller scale, it most certainly does. Gang warfare, all sorts of negative effects as a result of clashing musical tastes. When music/culture is one's way of life, they will defend it to the death. When religion is one's way of life, they too, will defend it to the death.

While Tupac and Biggie may not measure up to religious purging or anything of the sort, it is directly proportional to how passionate people are about it (and about numbers of people agreeing/disagreeing).


In other words, I'm suggesting that if religion were not a source of hatred, other such sources of hatred would take its place.

 

It depends on how far you want to take freedom of speech or any ammendment from the bill of rights at that, if you're going to protest using your freedom of speech then you can use that same logic to say that not being allowed to own a rifle that shoots 900+ rounds per minute is unconstitutional. Using xxxJRosesxxx's example of the Westboro Baptist Church you can say it should be legal to picket the funerals of the twenty innocent children of the Sandy Hook shooting. Any freedom should have it's limits if its going to be abused in such a way that it causes conflict like that.