Blasphemy Laws

[User37482]

Tahir Ali (Labour) got up in parliament and asked Starmer

'to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions'.

Just the Abrahamic religions of course no mention of the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Taoism etc etc

AIBU to think most people absolutely do not want want blasphemy laws in the UK and would like to retain the right to say what they would like about any religion.

I don’t even know what a desecration of a prophet is? i’m going to assume it’s taking the piss out of one.

Nonsense. Religions are all invented and do not merit protection. We already have strong laws against hate speech and that's enough. The scrapped free speech law was never needed and was a political tool intended to stop organisations from choosing not to host certain groups, groups such as Holocaust deniers - other venues have always been available.

The law is fine. Islam deserves no more and no less protection than other faiths.

Why? I think organised religion is a load of man made bollocks. If they can tell me there’s a God - I can refute it in any way I like? if I want to write an accurate book on the history of Islam and include illustrations why shouldn’t I? Why do I have to tread on egg shells round something that I think is terrible? Why can’t I point out that the Bible is a defilement of true Christianity? The religious views represent their views not mine. Why are their views more important than mine?

Faith is an individuals belief, if they want to interrupt my lunch hour standing in the street cranking out music and shouting some utter twaddle then I have every right to tell them what I think too.

what if I force a copy of the satanic Bible into their hands? Are they supposed to treat it with reverence?

@Dontrowlmyflavour

Ime people desperate to ‘criticise’ religions (which almost exclusively seems to be Islam) are actually seeking to stir up hatred and division, which is not conducive to a multicultural society.

For me this MP’s proposal would strengthen community cohesion and prevent the far-right using criticism of Islam as a smokescreen to spew hatred.

One of the invited guests on Anti-social was an ex-muslim and he was furious about what happened with that boy and his mum. He said it was like a Sharia court.

Mike drop 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Which community? Certainly not mine, or most other ones I can think of, other than highly sensitive Muslim men who spend most of their time shrieking outside schools because someone started a rumour that a child scuffed a Koran.

I disagree. People have more legitimate reasons to criticise religions and especially organised religion than I can count. Nearly all major faiths oppress women. Nearly all are opposed to equal rights for gay people, especially regarding marriage. Several support genital mutilation of infants and young children. All these things should be criticised and challenged robustly. Tgat is not about division, it is about protecting human beings.

I disagree. Every religion has unique tenets and practices that some may disagree with, but ultimately are important aspects of that religion and provide a guiding philosophy for millions of people.

Rather than criticising these practices (which is offensive), we should be respectful and open-minded if we want to encourage cohesive community relations. Many of those shouting about Islam or other religions being oppressive haven’t the first idea of what they actually entail.

I wish I had your faith in this government but quite frankly when it comes to my rights aa a woman and my free speech I don't trust them as far as I could throw them

Let's be quite blunt, Islam is a violent, intolerant religion. Misogynistic, homophobic which considers it ok to kill apostates and atheists. Religion should be tolerated, not respected. A secular society is the best guarantee of freedom for both the religious and non religious.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable that those who defile the Quran or its contents (or any other religious text) are held to account in order to prevent community tensions.

Fortunately the majority of people in this country feel differently. If I want to drop kick a copy of the quran (or any other piece of fiction) I will do. A blasphemy law would make me less respectful towards religion, not more.

@OswaldCobblepot

Deliberately damaging the Quran or any other religious text or calling it ‘fiction’ in my view is deliberately provocative and offensive and should be covered by any new law aimed at preventing racial hatred.

No. I exclusively use my ire on Christianity. Muslims haven't told me what to do at all. But Christians have. In schools, parliament, many ways. And the wholesale, worldwide abuse of children (mostly deprived and indigenous children) was stunningly terrible.

I should be allowed to say that. I should not be allowed to decide not to hire a Christian simply because they are a Christian. But disagreeing with their beliefs should be completely OK.

And @ParkBench5 you don't get social cohesion by shutting people up at the end of a gun, even if they are saying awful things. Calling in, not calling out and prosecuting.

Would you include the Book of Mormon in that? Dianetics?

Why? Can I damage a Bible without fear of being attacked?
What about the Hindu holy books?
Or the Buddhist equivalent?
Suppose I believe in the Norse gods? Are those books similarly sacred?
If we really are going down the road of saying that damaging a book is going to result in prosecutions then surely it would have to be any religious work?

I burned a book once. Not a religious book. I finished it while camping, it was a misogynist piece of crap. So we used it for fire lighting. Now if I think the Bible is a misogynistic piece of crap, why can't I burn that? It has the same amount of meaning for me as the book I burned.

I have to consider the religious person, and I wouldn't burn a text in front of a person of that religion. But the book itself, the belief itself, is NOT a human and therefore not worthy of respect. And I'm allowed my own beliefs.

There's a huge wide open sea between considering and respecting other people and having to pretend a belief system is worthy in some way or pretending to believe.

I don't climb Uluru, or burn the Bible. Because I'm not an arsehole. But being an arsehole shouldn't be illegal.

But many people believe any religion is man made and therefore any so called holy books are a work of fiction. And that is their absolute right to believe as such.

To me the Bible , Quran or any other religious equivalent is as much a work of fiction as Harry Potter and it’s absolutely ridiculous to think we should have laws to stop people believing the same. I have zero respect for religion and no law will ever change that.

I respect others right to believe, and they should respect my right not to.

@NewGreenDuck

I think we should look at the offence and harm caused to the affected community. Clearly, burning the Quran or depicting the Prophet Muhammad is distressing for the Muslim community, whereas criticising Norse gods isn’t so serious.

I would also involve members of the relevant community in deciding what redress is appropriate. So, a panel of Muslim or Christian community leaders could make a judgement on the harm caused and a suitable remedy. Principles from their own religion could be used to do this, such as sharia.

For minor offences, the offender could go through a process of education and learning could be, whereas stronger sentences may be necessary in other cases.

You are deranged. You are talking about a book. A collection of paper. We don't need self-appointed 'community leaders' (again, largely unemployed men) changing laws so people are imprisoned for offending their personal interests and hobbies. Why are these Community Leaders' whims so much more important than those people who worship Norse gods?

And sorry - you're seriously saying non-Muslims should be subject to Sharia law?

We should look at the offence and harm. But it shouldn't be illegal.

Think about it this way. In your world, people want to burn the books and insult the people, but they are prevented on fear of prosecution. They eventually get so angry they do it anyway. In my world, it's not illegal but we have social and ethical constraints and talk about the issues openly, surfacing any points of disagreement.

Would you rather have my world or yours?

Not everything that's wrong should be illegal.

Absolutely mental. A panel of unelected religious people deciding to punish anyone who doesn’t believe in their chosen fairy stories by educating (trying to indoctrinate) them

This is 2024 not the middle ages ffs.

Re educate me all you like, I’ll still never believe in a sky fairy

I don't agree with you. You are actually placing some religions on a pedestal. You are saying that other beliefs are not equal. Can you not see where that would lead? We don't live in the middle ages, we don't want heresy laws or blasphemy laws, I don't want to see people being flogged or having a hole bored in their tongue for believing something or for not believing? Because that is what happened before we had religious toleration. And as for allowing sharia law? Have you actually thought about that? You really see no issues with sharia law in the UK? Asking people who are offended to fix the punishment will really go well, won't it?

Why don't we have Sikhophobia? Or Buddhistophobia? Or Paganophobia? Why is it always this particular religion that's raising its head time and time again.

Quite often, if you have a problem with everyone around you, it's you that's the problem. If Christians were making this much fuss about things there'd be ructions on. God can deal with plenty of bad words, attitudes, actions against Him. Shrug. Turn the other cheek perhaps 😉

How is it offensive to criticise mutilation, oppression and discrimination? The perpetuation of these things under the guise of religious practice is the offensive thing. Common human decency trumps brutal beliefs every time, and if you think otherwise, your moral compass is lacking.