'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' is utter arrogance

[Existentialist]

I agree with him there might be too much of a consensus between atheists around here...

You should think again, I think

Wow. This thread got quite ridiculous, didn't it?

What do you mean? I think it's fundamentally added to our understanding of the subject and of each other. Isn't that the point?

if a government declares any act to be 'illegal', then committing that act is a crime within the jurisdiction of that government. [...] If you do not understand that, then I contend that you do not understand what makes something a 'crime'. Put simply... if it is against the law, it is a crime. The rightness or wrongness of the law is irrelevant. When a law is broken, a crime is committed... whether one agrees with that law or not.

I 'understand' your point about what you think a crime is perfectly. As an adult who was been criminalised by a stupid government for choosing an adult boyfriend, I utterly disagree with it. Maybe you think I committed crimes too. Thanks. Obviously you do not understand how oppressed minorities deal with the authorities' contemptuous attempts to criminalise them. Submitting to the injustices of some technical rule book doesn't inspire anyone. Oppressed minorities create their own truths where the government's ones are lies. They do this in different ways. Saying "my relationship for my partner is not a crime" is one way of summoning up the solidarity to get off your backside and marching on parliament, something I've done many times. Technocrats who go waving rule books in your face rightly get pushed aside in that process, they slow down the process of change. If you don't understand that, you don't understand human emotional autonomy.

Blasphemy is against the law in some places, which makes committing blasphemy a 'crime' in those places. That 'crime' has no victims beyond god and the sensibilities of those that worship him, but it is a crime nonetheless. Thankfully, such laws against blasphemy are dying out, because they remove freedom of thought and expression from those that do not believe in and/or worship this god character. Being insulted or disagreed with does not make one a victim.

Governments in Ireland, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, the Netherlands and many other places pretend blasphemy is a crime. Those are governments with no legitimacy - pretend governments, whom free, proud people should force to change their law books, or overthrow.

Blasphemy, adultery and gay sex are not crimes. You may disagree with me about the status of these so-called crimes, but I think they have no such status and never have had, and I am entitled to state my opinion.

[Ace Otana]

Now if you think "there is no way you can actually be hurt by blasphemy", remember that thousands of muslims took to the streets in protesting the caricatures of Mohamed. They were hurt and offended.

Pah! They would be offended by the slightest thing. They would be offended by a lovely girl going by in a skirt. Who gives a fuck how they feel? Waving your nations flag is enough to upset them.
Anyone who is so easily offended is a big fucking sissy. Wow, they don't like it when their beliefs are criticised, they don't mind calling atheists evil do they? They don't mind stuffing their beliefs down our throats do they?
What if I found that offensive?
Special treatment is all I'm hearing.
They have to be so fucking sensitive to be that easily offended. Whatever the laws says about blasphemy, I will continue to blaspheme.
Anyway, I'm attacking their beliefs, not them. I couldn't give a fuck who takes offence to my criticism.

[Edwardo Piet]

i have been here before. i have walked the streets of these forums. i am wise.

Oh really?

Sorry but the impression I'm getting from you is that of a nasty atheist who directs his anger at those other "nasty atheists" of which there are "all too many", thereby making you a hypocrite.

[ib.me.ub]

what wrong with a bit of hypocrisy

[Paul the Human]

What do you mean? I think it's fundamentally added to our understanding of the subject and of each other. Isn't that the point?

Sure it is. I was commenting (snidely, as is my wont) about how some driveby-nutball can come along and post some badly written stupidity... and it will morph into a multi-page argument (discussion) about a related by inspiration topic. I find it amusing.

I 'understand' your point about what you think a crime is perfectly. As an adult who was been criminalised by a stupid government for choosing an adult boyfriend, I utterly disagree with it. Maybe you think I committed crimes too. Thanks.

If you broke the law, you committed a crime. Yes. I do not personally think you did anything wrong... simply illegal. That's what makes it a crime.

Obviously you do not understand how oppressed minorities deal with the authorities' contemptuous attempts to criminalise them. Submitting to the injustices of some technical rule book doesn't inspire anyone. Oppressed minorities create their own truths where the government's ones are lies. They do this in different ways. Saying "my relationship for my partner is not a crime" is one way of summoning up the solidarity to get off your backside and marching on parliament, something I've done many times. Technocrats who go waving rule books in your face rightly get pushed aside in that process, they slow down the process of change. If you don't understand that, you don't understand human emotional autonomy.

I understand that perfectly. I agree 100%. My only contention is the use of the word crime, as none of what you've described is relevant to whether or not you committed a crime. If an act is illegal, regardless of one's opinion of that law, committing that act is a crime, as it violates the law. Whether or not the act is something that should be allowed in society is an opinion that depends entirely upon personal perspective... but regardless of personal opinion, the law is the law and breaking the law is a crime. If one feels the law is in error, there are things that can be done to encourage change to the law.

Governments in Ireland, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, the Netherlands and many other places pretend blasphemy is a crime. Those are governments with no legitimacy - pretend governments, whom free, proud people should force to change their law books, or overthrow.

Those are your opinions and I happen to agree with the sentiment, but those places are not 'pretending blasphemy is a crime'. They have made laws to prohibit blasphemy, making the act of blasphemy a crime within their jurisdiction. Perhaps it could be said that they are 'pretending blasphemy is bad enough to be illegal', but it is illegal.

Blasphemy, adultery and gay sex are not crimes. You may disagree with me about the status of these so-called crimes, but I think they have no such status and never have had, and I am entitled to state my opinion.

You are, indeed, entitled to your opinion, and I happen to agree completely with that opinion. My point is that the word crime in this context means a violation of the law. Those laws are wrong and oppressive and should be overturned, I agree... but for the time being... they are the law and therefore crimes. You are imprinting your personally feelings upon specific words, thereby altering their meanings... again.

[Edwardo Piet]

what wrong with a bit of hypocrisy

It's at the very least not a very effective strategy for getting others to listen to your advice.

[Anomalocaris]

If blasphemy is deemed to have victims, then there is no other crime whose victims are so uniformly deserving, and often desering much worse then the offense. For accusing someone of blasphemy is most certainly not a victimless crime. It is often a brutally murderous crime for which the accuser deserves to pay a commensurate price.

[Existentialist]

If blasphemy is deemed to have victims, then there is no other crime whose victims are so uniformly deserving, and often desering much worse then the offense. For accusing someone of blasphemy is most certainly not a victimless crime. It is often a brutally murderous crime for which the accuser deserves to pay a commensurate price.

Well apparently you and I have got to be quiet because the powers that be say that blasphemy is a crime, which I disagree with, and accusing someone of blasphemy is not a crime, which you now seem to disagree with.

[Watson]

I get the feeling there is a lot more going on here than there seems to be. But...I have no idea. This topic has gotten confusing and awkward.

Anyway, as to your question, Existentialist; while I fundamentally disagree wit hthe statement that 'blasphemy' is not 'victimless', I also do not believe that it is a crime on the basis of freedom of thought and expression. We are allowed our personal takes on things, and it is a fundamental human right to believe or disbelieve without interference. Whether the state declares the act criminal or not has nothing to do with the act's actual nature IMO.

[Paul the Human]

@Existentialist: No one has to 'be quiet'. And I think you totally misunderstand Chuck's post, by that's beside the point. Why do you get so offended when someone disagrees with your opinion and/or corrects you about something you've said? I know that no one likes to admit that they are wrong, or be told that they are wrong, or come face to face with the fact that not everyone shares their opinions, but that is a fact of life... especially on a forum such as this. Getting offended whenever it happens is a sign of insecurity and arrogance. Sometimes the person you are conversing with is providing you with good information, even if it opposes what you think or feel. Either way, your responses (and your habit of redefining words) come across as emotional (i.e. not rational) reactionism.

You can hold and express any opinion you wish, but that doesn't make you right about what it takes to be considered a crime.