(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(January 26, 2015 at 5:27 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: If I may I disagree. They're not mutually exclusive.
A good barometer on the tolerance shown to others by religious organisations is their reaction to blasphemy and specifically the people (be they individuals or groups) doing the blaspheming.
A lot of religions desire a world in which scrutiny of their affairs is limited to those who have the power to affect them. By making light of this desire (perhaps through blasphemy), one is effectively scrutinising and critiquing it at the same time.
There are liberal theists and atheists who are well intended in wanting to protect multiculturalism but fall for lines like the Pope equating religion to your mother.
What you just said is the curtain powers hide behind to avoid challenge to their power.
You cant simply equate "blasphemy" to shouting or cussing. Religion can and often does equate "that is not true" or "I want to leave", or "look at your own transgressions" as blasphemy.
If humans never evolved to ignore social norms and placating the emotions of the powers that be we never would have left the dark ages. Blasphemy and ridicule are extremely important to maintain pluralism. And blasphemy isn't just about religion. Stalin, Hitler and Kim Jong Un consider any dissent to the state an act of blasphemy.
Humans need to get more to the point of accepting the bitching and even cussing and learn to leave it at words. You allow any type of power, state or religion the power of absolute censorship it is a short ride to fascism.
When the Pope said insulting religion is like insulting your mother and no one should do it, he was protecting his power, his institution, he was hiding behind the word "civility".
Good point.
It's the sleight of hand tactic of imagining anything you want to be a blasphemy. It stymies debate; stymies critique; stymies scrutiny.
That's the real issue.