Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

That's Blasphemy!

Entry 1340, on 2011-11-08 at 20:51:50 (Rating 3, Religion)

A podcast I listened to recently discussed the idea and relevance of blasphemy. Even a country like New Zealand, where religion is largely irrelevant to the majority, has blasphemy laws and it's technically illegal to say something like this: "Jesus was a cynical invention of the evil leaders of the early church", even if there might be good reason to say that it's true. OK, I'm waiting to be arrested for stating that blasphemous idea in public.

Of course no one has ever been convicted because of an act of blasphemy here and there has only been one court case, many years ago, which failed. So the whole thing is a bit of a joke really, like a lot of laws of this type.

You could say these laws were originally more relevant because at the time they were formulated society took religion a lot more seriously and it was an important part of life in that era. But like many other laws, time has made what might have been a reasonable idea obsolete and irrelevant. But the law is so silly and trivial now that's it's not even really worth removing.

A case could be made to say that some people would be offended by blasphemous statements and should be protected. But should they? Isn't it a problem for the person who was offended, not the person who made the statement? If I say "Christianity is silly and based on ridiculous superstition" an appropriate response by someone who disagrees is to show how I am wrong through the presentation of facts. Relying on laws specifically designed to protect a belief system instead of presenting evidence to support it just shows that I am probably right in criticising it to start with!

The same applies to other organisations. An employee of Apple was recently fired for criticising the company on his Facebook page. So what? If he was wrong in his criticism why didn't someone correct him, and if he was right Apple should do something about it. Individuals, organisations, and companies should welcome criticism. Otherwise how will they know when they need to improve something?

I should say here that I don't know what the specific criticism of Apple was, and I do agree that there are some opinions which shouldn't be allowed. If a person is inciting violence, hatred or other socially unacceptable responses then they should be stopped in some way.

But if they are just saying something like "the historical evidence for Jesus is very weak" or "Apple uses cheap labour in China to keep its costs down" then sure, that's fine. If the statements are true then they should be made public, if they're not then someone should refute them.

Religion has been given a "free pass" on so many things in the past, and continues to enjoy special treatment even today. If a religion is real and true and if a religious figure (Jesus, Allah, or whatever) is so powerful and great then surely they should be able to defend themselves. Why would they need a law which most people would consider a joke? That just makes the religion look even sillier than it did to start with!

Comment 1 (2961) by GadgetDon on 2011-11-09 at 06:16:09:

I agree that Blasphemy laws are silly and any still on the books should be wiped (though I'll point out that there are countries where Blasphemy laws are harshly enforced - and they aren't Christian countries). I will say that, in my lifetime, "not being offended" has often been raised to almost a constitutional right in the United States (unless you're being offended because you're white, you're male, you're middle class, or you're Christian) and I think that's a sad thing.

For Apple though - any employee, to some degree or another, is a representative of the company. "Even an Apple employee was saying..." carries a lot of weight than "some guy who owns a computer was saying." Any industry, any company, badmouthing the company in public among outsiders is likely to get you in trouble. And Facebook is "in public". It's not like this would be news to the employee, this is clearly told to all new hires and employees are reminded periodically. I don't know what the level of the employee was or just what was said, and maybe a lighter reminder would have sufficed - but not knowing the background, we also don't know (a) if this was a regular pattern with this guy and reminders and warnings hadn't worked or (b) if his work wasn't up to par and they frankly were looking for a reason to fire him with cause. Without knowing the whole story, saying it was inappropriate is just making a guess.

I've been a fairly public person for three different companies. There have been times I could gone public with some serious criticisms of some decisions made. But it would have done nothing to help correct those decisions where I was proven right (and no, I wasn't always proven right), and would have only been used as a club to further damage the companies I worked for.

Comment 2 (2962) by OJB on 2011-11-09 at 22:18:24:

Yes, I accept your point that blasphemy laws are harshly enforced in some non-Christian countries. That is particularly obvious in Islamic countries like Pakistan. That doesn't say much for Islam really, does it.

It is hard to comment on the Apple case without details but I think companies should be more tolerant of criticism. Employees being required to follow the company line, even when it is wrong or immoral, is not a positive requirement for anyone, in my opinion.

Comment 3 (2979) by INRI on 2012-01-11 at 13:08:59:

Can you point to an example of a blasphemy law? I couldn't find anything at www.legislation.govt.nz by searching for blasphemy.

Comment 4 (2980) by INRI on 2012-01-11 at 13:19:01:

Sorry, found it:

Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 13 July 2011), Public Act

Part 7 Crimes against religion, morality, and public welfare
123 Blasphemous libel
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year who publishes any blasphemous libel.

(2) Whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel is a question of fact.

(3) It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.

(4) No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without the leave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he thinks fit

Comment 5 (2981) by OJB on 2012-01-11 at 19:28:30:

The issue is, of course, what "good faith" and "decent language" actually mean. I guess, like many laws, it is open to interpretation. It certainly seems like the law itself has a fairly high standard required for a prosecution to be successful, plus there is the point that no one wants to use it anyway.

Comment 6 (2982) by INRI on 2012-01-12 at 01:04:02:

Many laws are general in nature or poorly written and therefor need case history to be built up to aid interpretation.

Ironically, Jesus was reportedly killed for blasphemy per the Gospel of Mark as copied below for your readers information.

Mar 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mar 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
Mar 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Comment 7 (2983) by OJB on 2012-01-12 at 11:27:42:

The thing about blasphemy is that it is just a tool for repressing disagreement with a dogma. Jesus himself said that blasphemy against the holy ghost (whatever that is) was inexcusable (am I right on that?) yet he was condemned for blasphemy himself.

The whole idea in any form is nonsense. No subject should be protected from criticism, as long as the criticism doesn't incite violence and other antisocial outcomes. But existing laws cover that so again, blasphemy laws are just unnecessary.

Comment 8 (2984) by INRI on 2012-01-14 at 00:32:08:

You could say he was “Hitchslapping the Pharisies”. No sooner had Jesus healed the blind and dumb (Matt 12:22) than the Pharisies accused him of achieving this using Satan rather than the Holy Spirit.

So in Matt 12:31 Jesus says, "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”

So in the same sentence he says any blasphemy can be forgiven except against the Spirit. Perhaps this just a way of saying you guys are so far off the mark and going in the wrong direction that there is no way back. The juxtaposition is stark. He is basically saying, if you want to know what blasphemy is look at yourselves not me. He saves his scathing criticism for those who deserve it most. Just as you would rail against unthinking fundamentalists.

So you and Jesus are very much alike. You both take a position against the current theological thinking of the day. You are both prepared to give a reasoned presentation of your positions. You both disagree with violence.

Comment 9 (2985) by OJB on 2012-01-14 at 19:24:31:

Yes, although in many countries those who think they take Christianity seriously are seen as the mainstream or the conservatives, in fact at the time (and assuming he existed at all and that the stories bear any resemblance to reality) Jesus was a real radical, much in the same way as people like myself would be seen today. It's all rather ironic really, isn't it?

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.