Blasphemy a problem for Abrahamic faiths

Ireland is a fundamentalist (well almost) catholic nation. They cried foul all along and characterized much more tolerant English as occupiers. This said retrograde law wil curtail the freedom of expression. Even Salmon Rushdie had urged non muslims not to try to be politically correct and instead to go ahead call a spade a spade. That is, when muslims are the perpetrators call them so, he affirmed. Now, its time that the catholics shd be clubbed with militant muslims. Generally speaking, christians firmly believe in etrrnal hell as the definite path for all non christians after death. Who is superstitious here? They pump in millions into hindu and buddist lands to poach and prey upon and convert the. This practice became like recruitment to a communist party. On a side note go ahead and youtube search Christopher Hutchens and Richard Dawkins, both of British origin, who have explained how religions caused havoc in the contemporary world.Hindus on their part shd do away with caste related discrimination.Their sanskrit scriptures identify caste only as a mechanism to advance a trade and division of laboor. Not an instrument to harrass innocent. Now.This caste is the number one factor exploited by both christians and muslims to convert the poor, weak and the guillible hindus. The northeast insurgency is fuelled by australia based baptists. They banned hindu festivals in seven sister states.Irony, indeed. The most tolerant and peaceful religions are hinduism and buddism.

Very well written.

I want to add, that the concept of Religion is Middle Eastern. On Eastern spirituality there is a concept of duty (on all areas), moral life, non injury and respect for the Divine, but not much of the religion.

Religion is more like a political hierarchy (Islam) or recently, commercial like enterprises (jealous Evangelical Missionaries), organizations, that are extremely exclusive. Being exclusive gave birth to blasphemy among many others.

Before the introduction of Abrahmic religion, there was no such thing called Religion in India (or any region/time beyond the scope of Abrahmic faiths); but only right code of conduct (Dharma) towards fellow living beings, Earth, mother nature, Universe and the Creator (or the absence of Creator for people of physical science, Sankhya), which is in turn governed by Karma (cycle of actions and reactions). The term 'Hindu' was a reactionary construct to these highly organized and centralized religions from the West.

Om Peace.

Dr. Shukla:

Thank you for bringing in the missing perspective of the Dharmic community with yet another excellent example - blasphemy.

The absence of blasphemy in the Dharmic community has lead to pluralism and the associated respect (or indifference) for each other. The Dharmic ways encourage curiosity about everything conceivable to human mind and even respectful questioning of its own ways. This stress free, dynamic, learning and researching environment, much like a university, nurtures and nourishes different ways of looking at God by man. Even atheists have no problem existing in such a world. e.g. In pre British Raj India it was not uncommon for people to practice elements from different faiths as suited their spiritual needs, even praying at same places of worship with one another. These examples can be found even today in remote places of the globe where the proselytizing tentacles have not yet reached.

The Abrahamic attitude polarizes the world into two camps,
blasphemy – any criticism of the religion,
apostasy – leaving the religion for any reason and
proselytizing – aggressive conversion of others
are all the weapons to further its cause having little to do with spiritual human evolution.
In this world view the Abrahamics themselves e.g. Christians vs. Muslims or Muslims vs. Jews have problem existing with one another let alone with ‘others’.

The Abrahamics should ‘give peace a chance’ and modify their ways - learn to exist first among themselves then with others.

There is one more thing that should be looked at in your post, where you said: "The flap over an absurd and retrograde anti-blasphemy law proposed in Ireland provides a timely occasion to conceptually explore blasphemy itself. Blasphemy, an Abrahamic construct, has held primacy in different eras of religious traditions."

In fact, I think the Christian concept of Blasphemy comes fairly clearly from Greek sources. The Hellenic Greeks (probably following the Sumerian and Assyrian influence on Greek society) believed that speaking well of the gods would lead to rewards in this life, and that speaking poorly of them would lead to punishments, not only on an individual but on his/her social unit as well (usually the city state). Hence blasphemy was a capital crime in Classical Greece because people were afraid that their cities would be hit by plague if they did not punish the offenders.

Interestingly foreigners, presumed to have other customs and gods, could be guilty of blasphemy under Greek law. One had to be a citizen of the state which charged one, and following foreign cults was one thing that these laws heavily discouraged.

Our modern word derives directly from the old Greek religious term. It has, however, taken on internationalist approaches with the rise of internationalist, Abrahamic religions (Bahai'i, Islam, Christianity, etc).

Nice article, Dr. Shukla.

Do people realize that blasphemy and all the religious fighting is a problem of the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam and Christianity. The freedom of speech and religion in Western democracies arose as a reaction to the oppression of the Church. Islamic and "islamic nations" have a long way to go and will probably never get there.

There is no room for reform or tolerance in Islam. Ask the Christians in Egypt of Malaysia. Ask the Zoroastrians or Bahais in Iran. Ask the Hindus in Pakistan. Ask the Jews, Christians, and Hindus in Saudi Arabia. Go ahead.

"For Dharmic adherents--the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains--the arugments are observed dispassionately. For where there is no word for blasphemy, where can there be injunctions against it?"

"But the rule of law must protect scholars, professors, artists and publishers. Blasphemy laws do the opposite: they empower the prejudiced, sectarian and bigoted."

I am in agreement! All should be accorded protection from the prejudices of those who hold to any belief system. Particularly systems that find foundation in the unobservable!