When superstition becames law.

The accusation that Stephen Fry had broken the law regrading blasphemy, and the conviction and imprisonment of “Ahok” the ex-governor of Jakarta, are legally unrelated, unless the interpretation of “God” were the same, and if they were, a great deal of trouble might be avoided. That leaves the possibility of using the two legal systems against each other as blasphemous in the eyes of the opposite.

This may all seem academic to we who live in states that have adopted secularist interpretations of reality. One of those interpretations is that the state should not sponsor or enforce the beliefs of any religion. We take this for granted, but we should not. Both Ireland and Indonesia were founded on religious freedom. If those were honest principles, they would extend to all views and interpretations of the universe. That would be real freedom of conscience. Consider this quote from an Irish atheist:

“Mick Nugent, co-founder of Atheist Ireland, said the dropping of the case against Fry underlined how “dangerous and absurd” the country’s relatively new blasphemy law actually is.
Nugent pointed out that Islamic states such as Pakistan have used Ireland’s blasphemy legislation in arguments at the United Nations for a UN-backed motion denouncing what it says are blasphemous attacks on religious beliefs.”

So while we secularists and liberal-progressive humanists are sleeping, our government could sign away our rights to our view of religion, at least at the United Nations, and in the past, no UN policies, that I know, have been debated locally, before our diplomats signed up. Blasphemy laws are the ultimate tool for silencing critics of religion.

If a person believes in possession by demons or witchcraft, most people view this as silly, childish, and superstitious in adults, but if a million people believe it, we allow it the status of a religion. There is no actual difference. The belief in omnipotent, omnipresent, deities, and communication with such deities by humans cannot be accepted as an objective point of view. It is as much superstition as believing in the power of a rabbits foot or a voodoo gris-gris sachel.

Yet now we have a situation where secularists are actually defending the belief in these superstitions. We see it on this forum continually. Their logic goes that you can believe in anything you like as long as you don't break the law. That is true, but it is no guarantee once the superstitious reach the number of a voting block, and that is only a matter of time.

There is a great old Frank Zappa number that goes, “And they said it couldn't happen here.” Then consider how the Australian government went, cap in hand, to Jakarta when Indo military chief Nurmantyo accused Australia of insulting Islam. Even if that were the case, Indo blasphemy law and prosecution shows they deserve to be insulted by anyone who believes in freedom of conscience.

Issuevoter

Quote:


Well put.

they should be spreading RESPECT for our churches  instead they think jailing people is the answer  all it does is drive criticism underground  where it ferments into rage......even I would think our Muslim chums in Jakarta are jack with this.

The monkeys have spoken.

Long live the monkeys

Until proven otherwise all religions are superstitions, cant rely on word of mouth these days.
The ten commandments seems a fair way to go.

Johnnie wrote on May 10^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:


Like these ones? I'm sure it's blasphemous to ignore them, so you agree with blasphemy laws.

No other gods before me.
No graven images or likenesses.
Not take the LORD's name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day.

Ok their are a few contentious commandments there but on the whole it is the way we should conduct ourselves.

tickleandrose wrote on May 10^th, 2017 at 3:11pm:


So we should not mention it and hope the problem goes away?