Not OK to slander religion or race

Rabbi,

Miep Gies died today. She was the woman who helped to hide Ann Frank, Otto's friend throughout his life.

I read her memoirs. An amazing woman.
She was one hundred years old.

Please say a prayer for her.

If they locked people up for defaming other religions, there'd be a lot of priests and preachers in jail. They don't even want *hate crimes* laws to 'stifle their speech.'

how ironic is it i wonder that govern-mint? finally wants to in ral life , legislate religion and it is to say you cannot say what you wish about religion... some how i think God mite be laughing.... his uhhhhhhhh donkey off at the imbeciles i know i am thanks for the belly laugh ..keith

Hello Bob2Davis,

"To be blasphemous is to mock a concept or doctrine based on nothing but myths, lies and distortions. There is no truth to anything in the talmud, the bible or the koran. They are nothing but fairy tales."

Although I have deep skepticism of the texts from these religions, especially as forwarded as literally true, to say there is no truth in them is excessive, I think. And though you give them no credit at all, there are very basic dynamics and senses in human psyche and consciousness that are not satisfied by the purely 'literal' conditions of the world. Humans have a belief that there is more to 'Life' than synapses and pheromones, rock and stick, birth and death. The certainty that more exists that is not explainable (yet!) by science is and has been a driving force in humanities fascination with spiritual answers to the unexplainable, and to the deep psychic alignment with the belief in a 'higher power'.

Religion has been powerful not just because it is somehow a fabulous liar and con man. It is powerful because it serves something that is alive in human consciousness, but that remains unfulfilled by the biology of living.

"Faith is the realm of the uneducated, the unquestioning and the con artists."

I do not wish to step on your skeptical toes, but then there is still much that is unknown. The fact that science comes to an explanation of a phenomenon that was believed to be divinely caused should be no surprise. All levels of an organism interact congruently. Even what we call the spiritual aspects.

The base matter and the awareness and consciousness that brings unique life to an organism have common ground.

Religion is the crime, blasphemy is part of the cure.

Rabbi,

While I usually agree with your reliably sane and intelligent responses, your position on this issue is just wrong.

As you say, the devil is in the details. So saying that "offending someone else's religion is no different than offending the color of his skin" -- in addition to being grammatically indecipherable -- fails to differentiate between what we can control about ourselves and what we cannot.

More importantly, though, your notion that slander against religious groups deserves the same legal sanctions as racial hatred/prejudice -- and hence the same protections against its spread -- confers on a set of beliefs the same dignity and spiritual sacredness as that a human being possesses.

Just because a group of people may believe certain ideas doesn't make the ideas equal in value to the humans, themselves.

The beliefs must always be subject to close examination and revision or rejection of their core principles. The humans, however, if they've committed no crime, are subject to none of these.

Rabbi;

You are factually incorrect. If you look at current jurisprudence, you will see that spreading racial hatred and prejudice itself is Constitutionally protected, though unfortunately some exceptions are made for private businesses in interactions with their workers and customers.

I would invite you to track down the Supreme Court opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio which struck down a conviction for essentially advocating terrorism against both Jews and African Americans at a KKK rally, and which is still considered governing precedent. Pay particular attention to footnote 1 of the majority opinion.

Yet this case simply came out of an earlier case which struck down any application of the Smith Act (prohibiting advocacy of armed rebellion) to mere distribution of Communist material. In that case the court ruled that asking people to believe something is fundamentally protected, but asking someone to do something is not necessarily so. That case was Yates v. United States. According to that case, someone is free to argue that eventually it may be necessary to commit genocide, overthrow the government, or other things, but that one may not attempt to get people to imminently try to do any of these things.

By this measure, I don't think blasphemy could be a crime in this country (and I hope that both harrasment and obscenity laws eventually are brought back in line with the First Amendment under existing Supreme Court precedent).

One cannot compare race and religion. Race is obvious -- differences in skin color, facial features, hair, etc., exist and can be seen. To be racist is an offense against another human being. To be blasphemous is to mock a concept or doctrine based on nothing but myths, lies and distortions. There is no truth to anything in the talmud, the bible or the koran. They are nothing but fairy tales. There is absolutely no evidence or proof of a god and the concept has only served to control people, their behavior, and to keep people subjugated by crazy rabbis, priests and imams. Faith is the realm of the uneducated, the unquestioning and the con artists. The jews lied, the christians lied and the muslims lied. The leaders of these groups owe an enormous apology to the world. I would even go so far as to say that all clergy should be imprisoned for centuries of crimes against humanity, for perpetrating blatant lies and for intellectual fraud. Blasphemy should only be encouraged not criminalized.

Rabbi,

I disagree. There is a difference between "blasphemy" and hate speech, upon which I would support greater restrictions.

There Jew hating is racism, the same as hatred against blacks or anyone else. Simple racism.
A different story.

The psycho garbage that some (many) Muslims and Christians speak about Jews and Judaism is not "blasphemy." It is racism.

There is an excellent book that I strongly recommend you take a look at if you haven't already:

Ed. Bryan Cheyenne. "Between 'Race' and Culture"

As for me, Rabbi, my own practice when dealing with racists is performative.

Rabbi,

You are too intelligent a man to believe the nonsense you wrote. As a Jew you know better than anyone how dangerous such a law would be. Why would you, of all people, back a law like this?

You know that such a law levies a draconian fine against any individual and any organisation that speaks out against some of the insanities that churches periodically come up, insanities that condemn other people. Are we Christians to sit quietly and watch the Blood Libel accusations rise, take root and grow? Is that what you really want?

Under a blasphemy law, similar to the Irish law, people would not be able to refute some of the terrible slanders religious groups come up with. If a church holds sacred the belief that for centuries Jews used the blood of Christian children in their Passover rituals, or that illness is God’s punishment for sin, no one would be permitted to refute the truth of these beliefs since they come from a religious source.

Is this what you want to see happen?

You seem to be concerned that religion is slandered, when far more often religion slanders people, resulting in fear, hatred, war, and death.

There is a huge difference between someones race and someones religion. Religion is a choice, you can choose to believe or not to believe, you can choose (up to a certain point) which religion to follow. You cannot choose your skin colour.

Since the United States curtails the freedom to spread racial hatred or racial prejudice, there is no reason why there cannot be laws limiting the freedom of spreading slanderous information against religious groups.

This premise is inaccurate, in fact it's just plain wrong. The US does not curtail the freedom to spread racial hatred or prejudice, it's all around us all the time, all the races are guilty of it to a greater or lesser degree.

You are allowed to be as racist you as you want. As despicable as racism is, how much more despicable is a government that tells you how you are to feel about people who are not like you?

You have a commandment in your religion which demands that you have no other gods. How does this not slander the other gods people believe in?

In fact, as an atheist, I do not have any gods before yours. I just don't have yours, that's the only difference.

Are you really sure you want the government determining what is and is not slanderous? To religion? Will there be lawyers involved, what kind of religious personnel will serve on the committees to write the laws? Will you include such religions as scientology? Will vodoo and satanism be protected equally with christianity, judaism, islam?

Or will you simply take a census of religion in the country, will there be a cutoff number for the minimum number of adherents for a religion to be considered protected, while those religions with a lesser number of adherents have to just deal with it?

Adin Steinsaltz

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think you are looking at this quesion idealistically, so that religious opinions of the minority would be more properly respected. That is not a bad thing to wish for.

However, by the very definition of blasphemy, it is a political tool of the powerful, or for those who lust for power who feel it within their grasp, to persecute minorities and their belief systems. Only religious belief that is dominating a society ever sees any benifit in punishing blasphemy.

The smaller religions do not punish blasphemy; they get punished for being blasphemous.

Adin Steinsaltz

You wrote, " there is no reason why there cannot be laws limiting the freedom of spreading slanderous information against religious groups."

And just who decides what is "slanderous"?

Would you consider it "slanderous" for me to say that the god of islam is satan?

I don't because it is true.

Truth is Truth and it is not subject to the whims of laws that man put into effect.

It seems as if people from all over the "belief spectrum" are in for a surprise when they find out that God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

There is only one law and that law is Love, that law is God, Who Is a Being of Pure Love.

It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

A lot of people in the world have no "freedoms" granted to them legally by law and yet there also seem to be quite a few people in the world with "freedoms" granted to them by law that can't seem to throw these away fast enought for the fleeting "perception" of security and/or that wonderful virtue of "tolerance".

By the way, God's Plan is for everyone to be in God's Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth at the dawning of the seventh day, see you there.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.