scratching at .8, just hopin'
Wandering Jew
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Blasphemy for the sake of Blasphemy is designed to be offensive.
edited 30th Sep '12 5:22:26 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Blasphemy for the sake of free speech protest is designed to offend. It's designed to offend people who need offending.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Never Ask Me the Odds
How about blasphemy for the sake of reminding others not everyone else thinks the way they do?
edited 30th Sep '12 5:24:50 PM by TheGirlWithPointyEars
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog
This isn't blasphemy for the sake of blasphemy, though. This is blasphemy for the sake of a celebration of free speech and thought, as well as to protest laws in places where blasphemous speech is restricted.
edited 30th Sep '12 5:24:51 PM by deathpigeon
Wandering Jew
Who defines the people that need to be offended?
edited 30th Sep '12 5:26:11 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
The Girl With Pointy Ears: Besides, why should religious ideas be respected simply because?
Careful, that kind of statement can be used by the state to justify outlawing certain beliefs.
Radical Taoist: No, he was all for clearly thought-out defiance/rebellion. But that would offend people too.
I would draw contrast between MLK and Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions
. By recklessness, I mean things like armed rebellion and open disregard of law. MLK did not want that; he wanted to accept the consequences of protesting against laws he believed to be unjust.
Moreover, he put emphasis on the free society and said that some real effort of civil disobedience is needed to help push for this change. That's the issue here. This day seemed to put emphasis on offending people more than the intent it's supposed to carry. It has its priorities mixed up.
edited 30th Sep '12 6:12:05 PM by Trivialis
[Edit ninja'd]
edited 30th Sep '12 5:27:07 PM by deathpigeon
X 5 I am not quite certain that's how most people perceive that word. After all, regardless of what you think the word should mean and the dictionary says, it is up to the people to decide what they think of the celebration.
To be fair, I find it hilarious, as in It Crossed The Line Twice kind. I can't take it seriously. 
edited 30th Sep '12 5:27:35 PM by IraTheSquire
The thing is that "blasphemy" has a negative connotation, implying disregard of established order. Words like protest and dissent are fine.
When someone is proud of blasphemy, that carries the connotation that the person is proud of wrongdoing.
But that assumes the legitimacy of the idea of blasphemy in the first place. It's like sodomy.
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.
By calling it Blasphemy Day, you're legitimizing it yourself. Why openly state that you're doing something bad and draw criticism to yourself?
...Is that such a bad thing? I mean, established order can often be wrong or bad. Segregation was once, and still is, in places, the established order. Slavery was once, and still is, in places, the established order. Certain religious beliefs being mandated was once, and still is, in places, the established order. Illegalization of sodomy was once, and still is, in places, the established order. Fighting the established order is the whole point of civil disobedience and many protests. A disregard of established order is not wrong or bad, and can often be quite good.
scratching at .8, just hopin'
and respond like this sounds like a good start.
@ Trivialis: the main tactic available to us is to normalize blasphemy, until it no longer shocks people any more than Justin Bieber jokes. Once blasphemy loses its power, so do those who would use blasphemy legislation to silence critics and dissenters.
I'll make it fairly clear: there is nothing intrinsically wrong about blasphemy, any more than there is anything intrinsically wrong about criticizing any idea.
edited 30th Sep '12 5:39:34 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
No, going against the established order is not always wrong because the belief of that order is not always right.
But there are right and wrong ways to do it. The word blasphemy implies that you're doing it wrong.
I guess sodomy is commonly used alternative word for what that word means, for both supporters and opposition. I don't know if it's a less negative-connotation word. At this point we're getting into semantics and evolution of language, what word means what.
Just what definition of blasphemy are you using? I don't see why we can't just instead say "promote free speech and expression".
edited 30th Sep '12 5:41:51 PM by Trivialis
scratching at .8, just hopin'
I really don't think "blasphemy" should be a word with a connotation any more negative than "criticism".
edited 30th Sep '12 5:42:59 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
How?
Well, I guess this is just a difference in how we like to use words, but I prefer to just say "criticism" to mean criticism, or dissent/protest as I've said before. I prefer to reserve the word blasphemy to have implication of reckless behavior or attitude.
It's one thing to be called a blasphemer by your opponents; even Christ was called one by the Jewish accusers. That doesn't pose a problem. It's another thing to be proud of it and call yourself a blasphemer.
edited 30th Sep '12 5:46:18 PM by Trivialis
Has the word ever had that connotation?
...What's wrong with taking pride in it or calling ourselves blasphemers?
edited 30th Sep '12 5:48:49 PM by deathpigeon
Well, it does have that feeling in history. But I guess the word was now defined to be that broad because people kept abusing the "bad" definition in places where it didn't belong, calling even small deviations in opinions a blasphemy.
And I guess I have another point: blasphemy is relative to an established order. So calling it Blasphemy Day needlessly makes the day dependent on the "order", whether it's good or bad, instead of advocating freedom of speech and beliefs. What's important in this dissenting belief is that it's your belief, not that it's a dissent. Dissent should be the means and not the end.
Think of something that you believe is good. Now picture someone going, "I believe that, I'm not that, and I'm proud of it." Why would you be proud of something intrinsically bad?
edited 30th Sep '12 5:55:33 PM by Trivialis
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
I suppose we're reclaiming that word, then. By those who want to murder atheists for the "crime" of publicly stating their lack of belief, that word is used as a description of a statement of disbelief or disagreement or of criticism. If I am accused of any of those things, I will be flattered by the accusation. A mere acknowledgment of my stated disbelief would not cause an emotional reaction in me; but if someone reads my statement of disbelief and calls for a punishment to be imposed on me, and if I actually saw that coming, I will take pride in my courage at making my statement anyway.
For the record, the statement I wrote in the previous page of this thread was in fact written by me and for this discussion; when I re-read it I noticed that it looks like it could've been copy-pasted from somewhere, so I feel that I should note here that it was in fact something I wrote just to illustrate what sort of thing I'd like to do on a day like this.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Wandering Jew
Connotation. In hindsight it was a poor idea to give words "emotional" meanings, but we aren't very bright creatures.
You don't have to be an Atheist, to be Blasphemous.
edited 30th Sep '12 5:55:10 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
...Can you give an example of when it was used with that connotation in history? I have always had the connotation and denotation of the word match up, for me.
...No, it isn't. Blasphemy is relative to a set of religious ideas. You can be blasphemous to Catholocism or Sunni Islam or Hinduism or Mormonism. You can't be blasphemous to, say, democracy since democracy isn't religious. So calling it Blasphemy Day makes it a protest of silencing of ideas contrary to the ideas of religious groups. Silencing such ideas is a violation of religious freedom and free speech. That is what this day is about.
Zzzzzzzzzz
There's nothing to "reclaim" on the term "blaspheme". It never had a positive, or even a neutral connotation to "reclaim". It has always been negative.
"Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things."
That's your own chosen definition: "Insulting" "Showing contempt for". "Irreverence".
"Irreverence" is the only one of those that is even sometimes neutral. The others are negative.
And that's the problem with calling a day for co-ordinated protest of anti-blasphemy laws "Blasphemy Day". The name the day has been given is one that, in the normal naming scheme of special days, would mean "day to celebrate or commemorate blasphemy". Not "A day to protest anti-blasphemy laws."
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Wandering Jew
A words connotation means different things to different people.
Like I said, connotation in general is rather stupid.
edited 30th Sep '12 6:03:37 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016