The Problem with Protecting the "Sacred"

You have a right to your opinion. Personally, I think religious blasphemy should be met with wholehearted approval.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

You have a right to your opinion too. I find that blasphemy (in the sense in which I am using the word: not mere lack of reverence, but defiling religious symbols for the sake of getting people riled up) is far below the dignity of atheists and antitheists, and of sane people in general.

I simply cannot imagine Bertrand Russell stomping on a Bible or taking a hammer to a religious statue, or endorsing any of these gestures. Would you?

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I can't speak for Bertrand Russell, but I wouldn't approve of vandalism. If I were to go to a church and smash a statue of Jesus to bits with a hammer, then I should be prosecuted for vandalism. It doesn't matter what you destroy if it's somebody else's property.

And BTW you can find videos on You Tube of people burning Bibles, flags, and other religious and national symbols.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Depends on the context. If it's your own property you're defacing and destroying, then on occasion it's a valid and appropriate form of protest to smash something in order to send a point.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

What Taoist says. Intent and circumstance make and define the action and whether or not it is right.

Now if you're burning random bibles and posting youtube videos of this to be a dick with the mentality or intent of my little brother (to be a cockmangle and piss people off just out of spite)? Not so much...In fact I can find little right or mature about that. That isn't every such case however and my brother is in particular an extreme case of angry, spiteful antitheist without education on what he hates.

Simply put he's a retard.

Not all are like that though.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

@Gabrael - With respect, your professor who starts of classes by mangling Bibles....is a moron. As Carc points out, the idea that such pettiness and disrespect is a form of intellectual sophistication baffles me.

Re: Blasphemy laws - It occurs to me a truly devout believer of any faith would be unimpressed by blasphemy. Someone earlier used the example of what would happen if someone walked up to your parent and gave them shit to their face. Well, if somebody gives my mother shit, yes, of course I'm going to have something to say.

The thing is, if my mother is carrying a concealed Desert Eagle, and somebody walks up to her and give her shit, I feel zero compunction to say anything. My mother is clearly not in any real danger.

I have the same reaction to religious disrespect or disbelief. My God doesn't need anybody to be impressed with him or believe him, so I don't see any reason to get offended on his behalf. God will deal with all of us in the way and manner in which he sees fit, it's not my job to assist in any way.

edited 13th Jun '12 11:32:23 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

I always thought that laws against blasphemy were an implicit admission on the part of their proponents that their God was so weak and petty that he needed somebody else to stick up for him for fear of "hurting God's feelings".

I'm an adult. People can insult me and I usually can ignore it or get over it. That's part of being a mature person is about.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Not to mention the rather hilarious irony that our namesake got executed for blasphemy.

It was an honor

Just like the people who burn The Origin of the Species are sending a subtle, nuanced, cultured point against evolution?

This said, I cannot (and should not be able to) stop people publicly defacing or destroying items of their property in order to send some sort of idiotic anti-religious message, just like I cannot stop people doing the same in order to send some sort of religious message (and believe me, if I were so inclined, I'd very much rather stop the latter — who are an embarrassment for my "side" — than the former, who are an embarrassment for yours).

I can simply disapprove of both kinds of people, and wish that they played at their nonsense well away for the people — atheist and religious alike — who are into reasonable, civilized discussions.

edited 13th Jun '12 11:52:04 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Burning The Origin of Species or A Brief History of Time or the latest copy of Nature isn't blasphemy because it's not attempting to insult a deity or religious belief. At best, it's demonstrating the person's own contempt of science and reason. Personally, I approve of people showing off their stupidity, since it saves the rest of us from having to guess about it.

As Mark Twain put it, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

The thing is, if somebody insulted my mother — even if she was in no real danger, and even if she wasn't even aware of it or cared about it — I would still think that that person is a rude idiot, and I would refuse to have anything to do with them (except perhaps in a professional setting, and even then I would keep my contacts to a minimum.)

No, I wouldn't want to hurt them or put them into jail, nor as a matter of fact would I want to talk to them — it does not seem worth the hassle, just like it does not seem worth the hassle to debate with the sad little Savonarolas who burn Bibles on youtube; but the point stands that that person would be an unpleasant, stupid one.

It is a "symbolic" gesture that displays nothing but one's lack of basic civility. I think that the comparison is apt.

edited 13th Jun '12 12:09:20 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The problem is, your Mother is a full person you know. God is not so definable by any means. He/She/It is an intangible force, and not all believe in him/her/it. I just can't see a good enough reason to take it that personally. If God has a problem, he'll take care of it himself. He gave us free will to do what we will with it. That also means free will to denounce him. He clearly knew that can and will happen.

If a person bought a Bible to burn it... I would shake my head, but not be offended. They bought it for whatever reason they wanted to. At best, I might think them a jerk, but that's it. Wasted money to me.

If they however went to a church and destroyed a bible/statue/pew, it's another story. It's vandalism first. The blasphemy part is just too subjective to be worth a law as is and does nothing. There's also disturbing the peace.

Quest 64 thread

I am not going to take "God does not exist" personally. I disagree with it; but it is a statement that has a meaning, and not simply an insult for insult's sake. I am not even going to take "God, as depicted in the Bible, is an evil prick" very personally: I think that it is really mistaken, and it shows a serious lack of subtlety and understanding, but — again — it is meant as an informative statement and not as an insult.

Buying and burning a Bible, instead, is clearly meant as an insult. I would not lose any sleep about it; but I would definitely file whoever does that into the "unpleasant idiot, not worth talking to" category.

EDIT: This is worth emphasizing, I would file in the exact same category somebody who burned a Koran, or a Vedas, or the Buddhist Canons, or even Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not Christian.

(Perhaps, in the last case, I would at least attempt to get the person to understand that it is a stupid idea and they should Stop Helping Christians. I would probably fail, though.)

edited 13th Jun '12 12:46:29 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

What about a Christian burning his bible in protest because the Pope (or whatever religious leader his denomination has) said one enormity too many, as a way of saying "I'm leaving this denomination forever and so should you" ?

edited 13th Jun '12 12:48:26 PM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Except it was their money to do what they do with. Why should you be offended at all? More specifically, why should anyone but God hirself take it personally? It's not your property, after all.

It's a dick move at best, but to who are they being a dick to? Certainly not you. Unless that's their reason. If it's at God, then it's God, not you.

Is the Christian burning their own Bible or the Church's? It's a matter of vandalism first before anything.

edited 13th Jun '12 12:52:27 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

If I have my definitions right, that would at the very least be heresy.

Still stupid, I think. Why not write instead a text explaining why they are leaving and so should I?

It is their money to do what they want. I still get to think that they are being a dick. It's not a matter of who gets hurt: if I publicly burned a copy of the Koran, nobody would get hurt, but people would still get to say that I am a rude moron. And the thing is, they would be 100% correct.

edited 13th Jun '12 12:53:06 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Our canons are called the Tipitaka, Carc. Just in case you're curious. Separated into three large sections. Some things are added by Mahayan sects.

Leaving a denomination with burning: I'd pick a text that is held by the sect in high regard or that was added by the sect if I were doing that. If I can might as well make it a specific and personal assault. Like burning copies of the Lotus Sutta in protest against Mahayana.

Not that I would do that as that's just dickish.

People being dickish: Does it really matter who they are being dickish to? They are being dickish which is unpleasant and possibly hurtful to others. May as well be offended for others and stand up for them. That or avoiding the person as it may not be worth the time to deal with them.

WE CANNOT ALL BE GUANYIN. Yet.

I'm working on that.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

That was subtle enough that I'm not sure you did it on purpose, but it made me smile anyway.

It should be noted that even these are wildly dependent on context. I can think of three reasons off the top of my head to burn a US flag, for instance, and two of them are out of respect. And then there's the whole Quran burning thing, not out of spite toward Islam (despite the media jumping to conclusions), but at the behest of their own elders because the books were defiled. And so on.

edited 13th Jun '12 12:57:25 PM by Pykrete

I don't see disrupting people's comfort zone as a sign of being a jerk. Allowing someone to continue to live in a very shallow and sheltered existance when your entire purpose is to make them grow as a person and become a better human being is against that purpose. Teaching college is in a lot of ways like being a drill instructor. You're breaking kids preconcieved notions and world views and helping them learn how to rebuild it into something greater and more layered.

The military uses push ups, professors use lesson plans.

God doesn't need to be defended legally or socially.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Actually, it is about who's getting hurt.

If nobody's getting hurt, taking offense to it is illogical and just doing it for the heck of it, not for good reasons.

You're not really being a dick if you're actually not hurting someone. "Possibly" does not compute to me. You either being a dick to someone or you're not. This does not mean saying extremely disrespectful stuff is fine.

I just don't see a reason why this should ever be illegal or treated like it's extremely cruel or whatever. Yeah, it's bad, but that's it.

Quest 64 thread

No, actually, that would not "disrupt people's comfort zone". It would let people feel smug about how they are so more rational and enlightened than the average rabble. If you want to get people to apply critical thinking, you do not indulge in this sort of theatrical nonsense. You teach.

Look, if I insulted your family right now, nobody would get hurt. Not your family, not you, nobody. But you would still get to think that I am a rude asshole, and you would still be more than justified in deciding that you don't want to have anything to do with me.

edited 13th Jun '12 1:00:33 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It's not the disrupting. It's the how, when, why of the issue that makes it dickish. If it's being done out of spite, for any reason, then that is dickish.

Other cases it varies.

Generally though you should avoid being an obnoxious, hurtful jerk and peacefully confront cases in which others are being such. Just because the world sucks and people are often royal bags of douche doesn't mean you shouldn't stop it or at the least declare it as wrong. People learning to be able to take things calmly is important. So is stopping people from being assholes.

^^Irene there isn't a single religious person in this thread who thinks that blasphemy should be illegal. Or that it's "Terribly cruel". More that it's often times dumb and dickish.

edited 13th Jun '12 1:01:41 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I see disrupting it unnecessarily as being a jerk. The demonstration at the beginning of class could have been explained tactfully in any number of ways, and even if he thought the visceral shock value was absolutely necessary he could've done it after having led into it and explaining that many of the things they'd be reading would attack and disrespect their beliefs.

As it stood, you described him starting out that way with the intention of purging his class of people who didn't approve of his methods. That's a pretty shitty way of going about education.

edited 13th Jun '12 1:04:22 PM by Pykrete

No, Carc, my "family" is someone I know personally. God is someone I don't. That's why I would take offense to the first one and not the second. This is a very notable difference here.

There is no direct comparison to God beyond another deity or concept. We cannot prove God exists, only theories. Your family is no theory. They actually exist for sure.

Doing this is still being a bit of a jerk, but it really isn't the same whatsoever as dissing someone you know personally.

edited 13th Jun '12 1:04:43 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread