Another attempt to appease radical Islam

Cal:

How is it then that a country with has no separation of church and state, and which is overwhelmingly Catholic would pass such a law. I don't buy that it is an attempt to appease Imams. Roman Catholic bishops, maybe. Imams, I doubt.

A blasphemy law in the USA would have some beneficial effects. It will allow us to sue some 1000 plus imams who preach hate every Friday to Muslim men and women throughout the USA.
I recently listened to one such sermon and the imam went on endlessly telling us how all other religions are abrogated and all other scriptures are false, the only true religion being Islam and the only true scripture the Koran.
I would have loved to have the imam prosecuted and sent back to the African country he left for his campaign of hate in the USA.
Posted by: jailkkhosla | January 5, 2010 5:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ender: So when any of 150million American xtians reads the Bible in publid or publishes an opinion and declares that anyone who doesn't believe in the same form of the religion as them is a servant of satan and doomed to hell they can be prosecuted also?

Brilliant!

How is it that Cal Thomas manages, week after week, to get away with writing posts that are generally shorter than most of the reponse comments?

He really needs to do a little actual work to justify the space WaPo gives him.

Actually, Mr. Thomas appears to be incorrect in his assumption that this law is a sop to radical Islam in Europe. I did a bit of research into a claim made by another poster and she appears to be correct. This seems to be a law lobbied for by supporters of the Irish Catholic church, and their main problem seems to be the investigation into serious and well-documented charges of wide-spread abuse of children in Irish Catholic institutions such as orphanages and boarding-schools. This scandal is similar to the Magdalene Laundries scandal, (in which girls were virtually enslaved for such 'sins' as being raped, flirting, or running away from home,) but is much more wide-spread, and involves what appears to be a church-inspired cover-up. See the link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34377938

They have a problem having this "dirty linen" aired in public, and this seems to be an attempt to give the most vocal critics pause. I feel they would be wiser to air that dirty linen themselves, and get it over with. Sunshine is a great disinfectant. And generic laws such as those against "blasphemy" (whatever that is) have a way of coming back to bite the biter.

The Resurrection Erection

Mary Magdalene plays a prominent role in the resurrection, having first found Christ arisen (though not exactly, since the tomb was actually empty). According to some readings of the gospels, she was a prostitute who had her demons cast out by Jesus and became his closest companion. Some scholars suggest she was his lover, as in Luke 8:2, mentioned as one of the women who "ministered to Him [Jesus] of their substance". There are even writings attributed to a gospel of Mary. One of the most recently discovered of those writings recounts a different resurrection story. It follows here.

The Mary, who bound most closely to Jesus, attended him on the cross as she had in life, soothing and uplifting him, taking him away from his agony. Following his death and entombment, she went to him to anoint him with spices, to purify his body of the stench of putrification; at least that is what she told the other disciples. When she arrived, she found the tomb essentially empty of him, though the body was there in the burying cloth, lifeless and stinking. However, his precious essence was no longer prominent, but was flaccid and limp, while the rest of the body was rigid in rigor. She looked on in utter despair. Her dream of one last union with The Son appeared beyond her grasp. But grasp it she did, and then wailing in grief, she began stroking it insistently in her sorrow, mourning for his return. Her wails subsided. For a long time she sat there sobbing, slowly fondling him, rubbing sweet smelling ointment into his essence, trying desperately to bring him back to life. Finally she bent to kiss it in tender affection and fond remembrance, gently placing it in her mouth as she had often done after his strenuous exertion, while his breathing slowed. Those were her happiest moments and they were forever gone, for he breathed no more. Her inconsolable grief returned, and with it a sense of urgency in which she frantically stroked and sucked, willing him back, back to his former glory, restoring him to rigorous vigor. Suddenly, he was newly risen. Overcome with joy, she happily hopped on, then slowly lowered herself onto him with a shudder of pleasure, again in union with her lord, now fully resurrected.

"Hogwash Laboo. Blasphemy laws enacted in the last 20 years have always been used to STOP the Free Speech/Free Excercies of Christianity. Canada is a PRIME example of this."

I must disagree with what you present as facts. The last prosecution in Canada of a case of blasphemous libel was "R. v. Rahard" in 1935 -- considerably farther back than the "last 20 years". That law has been superseded and invalidated by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982.

Canada does have laws against "hate speech" -- a category completely distinct from "blasphemy laws", as noted in my original post. These, however, explicitly EXEMPT speech "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text." That is, in brief, they PROTECT statements based on religious belief.

In any event, my statement was in no way limited to the "last 20 years" and it appears you chose an arbitrary time period merely to add artificial weight to your argument.

We do agree, at least, on the impropriety of "blasphemy" laws, which is the bottom line.

Frankly, I thought that the Irish blasphemy law was a way to circumvent discussion of abuses by the Catholic Church. Don't like the truth about what those priests and nuns were doing in the Magdalene Houses and orphanages? Just slap the whistle-blowers with a charge of blasphemy and your problem is solved!

Although it does seriously threaten the growing Pagan/Wiccan/Celtic Reconstructionist movement in Ireland.

Hogwash Laboo. Blasphemy laws enacted in the last 20 years have always been used to STOP the Free Speech/Free Excercies of Christianity. Canada is a PRIME example of this.
But this is beside the point, Blasphemy laws are a violation of Everyone's free speech and practice of their religion.

I agree with Cal. I smell Muslim dominance in action.
Patrick Burwell, Response@OnlyJesusSaves.com

I agree with the posters who rightly state that historically, most anti-blasphemy laws have been intended to "protect" Christianity -- not Islam nor any other religion -- from "blasphemy".

I disagree strongly with the poster who equates an anti-blasphemy law with "hate speech" and slander laws, as all being laws to promote public order. Those latter laws are intended to safeguard individuals, not religions. And the laws against "hate speech" -- when properly written -- do in fact protect INDIVIDUALS against those who hate them and would cause them harm because of their religious or political beliefs, lifestyle choices, etc.

Indeed, in Western society these days, Muslims are equally in need of such individual protection as much as Christians may need them elsewhere. Thomas' deliberately antagonistic use of the illogical and irrational neologism "Islamofascists" is a prima facie example of this.

But to go beyond existing "hate crime" laws, in the alleged service of the "public order", is to deprive us of our paramount natural rights. We must beware of such attempts, for they lead to repression and tyranny.

Irrespective of Thomas' opinion as to the motivation for the Irish law, the language of the law is quite clear: it elevates the tenets of ALL religions to the same level as that of secular law. Therein is the real and very insidious danger.

By painting this law with a veneer of all-inclusiveness and equality, Ireland de facto "establishes" ALL religions on equal terms as the secular authorities. This is diametrically in opposition to the true concept of disestablishment of church and state, which mandates that NO religions shall be put onto such a footing. Instead, this law allows them ALL to be equal-opportunity offenders against human rights. In particular for the nonbelievers, this is not equality; it's tyranny of the multitude.

My only point of agreement with Thomas is that this is bad law and an intolerable infringement of the natural law of freedom of belief and expression.

A little behind the times, aren't we? This law was passed in July.

Personally, I welcome laws that contribute to upholding public order. Free speech is not an absolute right. Slander and hate speech are already illegal in most civilized countries, and this law is just an extension of that.

* Cough * ... * choke * ... *gasp* ...

I agree with Cal Thomas...

** wheeze **

A blasphemy law in the USA would have some beneficial effects. It will allow us to sue some 1000 plus imams who preach hate every Friday to Muslim men and women throughout the USA.

I recently listened to one such sermon and the imam went on endlessly telling us how all other religions are abrogated and all other scriptures are false, the only true religion being Islam and the only true scripture the Koran.

I would have loved to have the imam prosecuted and sent back to the African country he left for his campaign of hate in the USA.

Only now is an anti-blasphemy law imposed.
---------------

Not true.

The blasphemy law was written into the 1936 constitution, but the constitution extended the protection only to Christians.

Justice Minister, Dermot Ahern, said that this expansion of the original law was necessary because immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths.

The idea that there needs to be a blasphemy law at all is a bizarre, anachronistic notion.

Check your facts, man.

Eilidh, in England