 |
Search this site |
 All Rights Reserved World Copyright supporting advertisers helps to provide an income for this website this page last updated August 7, 2008 |
This website is being renovated throughout 2008. Pages and the content of pages will continue to change until the end of the year and there may be some inconsistencies and missing links. Please do not quote from or link to specific pages (apart from the home page) without contacting the webmaster first. Blasphemy and offense Restricting human rights By © Martin Foreman Word Count: 796 words Publication date: March 12, 2006 A few statements about religion: “There is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet.” “Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God” “When the Divine creates, he is Brahma, when the Divine maintains he is Vishnu and when the Divine destroys he is Shiva.” “There is one God, the creator of the cosmos, fearless, without enemies, eternal and may be known to us.” “The Bible is the Word of God.” “The Koran is the Word of God.” “The Book of Mormon is the Word of God.” “ The Guru Granth Sahib is the holiest of scriptures.” (Time out for a footnote: The third statement is Hindu; the fourth is a very rough translation of the Sikh creed and the Guru Granth Sahib is the most sacred Sikh Scripture.) Now, a simple question: Which of these statements is blasphemous – disrespects God or things sacred? You’re right. They are all blasphemy in different circumstances. Just as one carnivore’s meat is a vegetarian’s poison, in a world divided by religion, one faith’s creed is another faith’s error. How about these sentences? “Mohammed was an atheist.” “Jesus Christ never existed.” “There is no god and there are no gods.” Yup, also blasphemy. And the following? “Mohammed enjoyed pork.” “Christ was homosexual.” “The gods are blind.” “God and Satan are one.” And while we’re letting our imagination run away with us, consider: “Mohammed fornicated with animals.” “Jesus enjoyed oral sex with hundreds of women.” Given current attitudes about sex, both these sentences are not only blasphemous but highly offensive to believers. But are all these statements equally blasphemous? Like any good fence-sitter, I’m going to say yes and no. Yes, because they all deny or disrespect God’s revelation to at least one set of believers. On the other hand, there is a distinct difference between the first and the last group of statements. Few Muslims are offended by the claim that Jesus is the son of God, while almost all consider the suggestion that the Prophet practiced bestiality highly offensive. Where exactly did we cross the line from blasphemy into offense? Was it the statement that Mohammed was an atheist? Or that Christ was gay? Isn’t it at least possible that Mohammed did not believe in God but whose personality prompted him, consciously or otherwise to found a religion? And given that oral sex is now widely practiced and talked about, is not possible to discuss Christ’s possible sex life from the perspective of today’s sexual mores? Most of us try not to offend people, even those with whom we disagree strongly. Nonetheless, there are occasions when I give offense and when others offend me. That does not mean that I have to curb my speech in order to protect others, or that others’ freedom of speech should be curbed to protect me. It is truth, not offense that counts. If anyone makes a comment about me which is untrue, I can defend myself by taking them to court. That freedom currently extends to religion. As we have seen with the Danish cartoons, one person’s offense – a drawing of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban – is another man’s freedom of speech. Discussion of the nature of God, including his non-existence, is an essential part of a free society. And if that discussion is to be meaningful, it must have the freedom to stray into areas that some will consider offensive. I have strong doubts that Christ existed, but, if I assume he did exist, then I am naturally interested in all aspects of his life, including his sexuality. And a discussion of his, or Mohammed’s or the Buddha’s or sexuality also throws light on our current attitudes towards sex. So far, so good. Now for the bad news. Under pressure from 56 Muslim countries, a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly threatens to make some discussion of religion a human rights offense. Under the guise of protecting human rights and freedom, the resolution calls on the new Human Rights Council (as yet not established) to "prevent instances of intolerance, discrimination, incitement of hatred and violence arising from any actions against religions, prophets and beliefs" It sounds innocuous. Certainly no-one in their right minds wants to incite hatred or violence, but the overall impact of the resolution would be to stifle religious dissent. The two are intertwined – ban blasphemy and you ban freedom. The US is opposed to the new Council on the grounds that it protects countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe that practice widespread human rights abuses, but it has been silent on this issue. But if we value freedom from the mental prison that is religion, this is another reason for US ambassador to the UN John Bolton to oppose this resolution at every opportunity.
Custom Search
|
If God existed, he would... admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create recognize that eternity is meaningless deny both heaven and hell disown all men and women who speak in his name denounce the harm caused by religious "morality" help the human race to thrive without him If God existed, he would be an atheist. |