Blasphemy laws: alive and well in the U.S.?

yes the blasphemy law is alive and well in the united states. we saw a good example of it when the president spoke out against the burning of the koran and when a guy in new jersey lost his job for burning pages of the koran. but those pesky christians not wanting THEIR money spent to blasphemy jesus well now we can’t have that now can we

THE BAD NEWS: Christianity & Islam are the 2 religions always involved in religious violence on one side or both. Their supremacist beliefs bring out the worst in everyone as well. Not an impressive record of spiritual development for these religions.

THE GOOD NEWS: The majority of the world is not Christian or Muslim. Most are Hindu, Buddhists, Sikh, Jain, Confucianist, Taoist, Atheist, etc. These other "religions" do not promote religiously motivated violence.

Islam is impressive for a "religion" in terms of the violence and hatred. Just look at Pakistan today and the so-called moderate clerics celebrating the murder of an innocent. The killer is showered with rose petals, and the victim is blamed. The victim did not even commit blasphemy, which should be a capital crime anyway. He just spoke against blasphemy laws.

Where are the usual apologists for the Islam as the religion o' peace?

I think the author is out of context in writing this article for this topic. he should have written it elsewhaer. Also to compare the anti-blasphemy laws as some kind of equivalent to the Smithsonian controversy is absurd. I like Mr. Lynn, but this article is really out of place here.

Keep up the good work Rev. Lynn. There is plenty of hypocrisy out here to go after.

So, John Boehner thinks using an 11 second piece is a waste of taxpayer's money, making the decision for us what we can and can't view, but using taxpayer's money to pay for a Chaplain for Congress, WITHOUT a vote from us, ISN'T? Unbelievable....

Wmpowellfan:
“Why do I feel the author has slighted both America and Christianity?”

Perhaps because he pointed out a little bit of hypocrisy. He makes a good, though uncomfortable point, that The U.S. tacitly and sometimes actively ‘endorses’ or prefers one religion over another, as can be seen in the example he brings up. Many of the same people that were outraged at Muslim attacks on a Dutch cartoonists for their depiction of the prophet in their newspaper, are at the same time supportive when a U.S. Congressman makes a few phone calls and gets an American museum to get rid of an exhibit that shows Jesus in a bad light.
And why shouldn’t Christianity and/or the U.S. be slighted if they have done something to deserve the slighting?

I think I understand Rev. Lynn's logic: The USA is as intolerant as Pakistan. Refusing to use funds taken from taxpayers to support and promote blasphemous art is the equivalent of imposing the death penalty for insulting Muhammad. For making such an inane argument, Rev. Lynn does not deserve to be taken seriously. What a load of rubbish!

Muslim-Christian conflicts and fighting over fictions
Oh look, Muslims and Christians are fighting each other over their fictional books. This would be comical if people weren’t actually dying over this. As an atheist, I don’t have a “dog in this fight” to use Mel Gibson’s phrase.

I don’t mean to be flippant about this, but when I hear stories like this it just seems par for the course. When you have people who deeply hold beliefs which cannot be justified with evidence, of course they are going to all claim Truth and then fight over who’s got the real Truth.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/hUeeWo

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Why do I feel the author has slighted both America and Christianity?

Why do I feel the author has slighted both America and Christianity?

Please stop abusing the word "censorship." You ruin it for real cases of censorship.

Was that simply a knee jerk blame-America-first reaction or a sincere attempt to change the subject? Either way, if you did not have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation maybe you should have declined the Post's invitation to participate.

You confuse publicly funded expression with free expression. This is why government should not be involved with funding any art. Once government funds it then MY TAXES are at play. Therefore, I have a voice. No taxation without representation. If however, someone would like personally fund "expression" they are free to do so. I am also free to encourage such an individual to make choices that I would prefer. Nevertheless, privately funded art would and should receive much more freedom than publicly funded art; which should expect to be influenced strongly by tax payers.

Since the Smithsonian episode came up on another thread today, I'll repeat much of my comment about that.

There are not black/white issues here. Offensiveness is a reason why the Smithsonian might not display an otherwise worthy piece (I suspect their warehouses contain quality paintings of savage Indians, thieving Jews, happy black slaves, and disciplined women that they won't show today.) Congress as the taxpayers' mouthpiece also has a say in what the Smithsonian should show.

But art also needs to sometimes offend to fulfill its role to challenge our paradigms. So there's some "right" on both sides here, and it's a matter of striking a balance.

So my position comes down to this -- the people who most strongly object to the removal of this piece, protesting the church's inaction about AIDS, are generally political liberals, who strongly support the use of speech codes to un-protect the right to say things not conducive to the interests of their voting blocs, like ethnic minorities, women, Jews and gays. The codes, as implemented in workplaces and schools, are generally vague and expansive, designed to give every listener maximum leeway to object as offensive to the expression of opinions.

In the 60s, liberals fought for the right to free speech in numerous forums. As soon as they got it, they started denying it to everyone else. They should really look at this issue and ask "Is the Catholic League doing to David Wojnarowicz the same thing do to silence the people who don't think racism, sexism and homophobia are the primary problems of those communities?"