I had no time to read the ECHR judgment on the case of an Austrian who insulted the (supposed) prophet Mahomet, but it is nothing to worry about and is not a precedent for other countries. It simply upheld an Austrian law in Austria that makes insulting religions illegal. There was nothing particularly draconian about the law, either, when you bear in mind the hate speech laws that obtain in most European countries.
People suggested that it was a sad evidence of the islamisation of Europe were mistaken. A law professor friend of mine who thought so should have known better. Move along, nothing to see.
In England we used to have a crime of blasphemy, almost never used in modern times, and in principle I was sorry to see it abolished, but in practice I was very glad - because it would have been widened to include other religions.
In England we used to have a crime of blasphemy, almost never used in modern times, and in principle I was sorry to see it abolished, but in practice I was very glad - because it would have been widened to include other religions.
This would have been wrong. Blasphemy was not made a crime to prevent offence to Christians, but to prevent offence to Almighty God, meaning the Christian God. That is a very different thing altogether from offending people.
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
I think it is a thoroughly bad and unpleasant thing to insult another man's religion to his face, or in public, and I deplore Salman Rushdie, for example, for doing so, but I don't think offending people should be illegal. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things that are offensive. Freedom to say inoffensive things is public relations.
Still, I like it that the Norwegian courts briefly ruled that The Life of Brian was blasphemous. It was but the cheerful song from the crucifixion scene was used in the opening to the Olympic games in London which was intended to express a picture of Britain that could enthuse all British people of left and right.
Yes insults are bad manners - but they should not be crimes. And attacking Islam, both the teachings and the personal conduct of Muhammed, was part of standard theological training up to the 1960s (although not stressed in modern times). Unfortunately the present Pope came to the priesthood late in life - and did not receive his training (in Germany - although he is from Argentina) till the 1960s. I suspect that he really does-not-know what Muhammed taught and what he did - why Islam should be opposed. But even if does not know - the position of Francis is bizarre. He does not seem to care what people say about Christianity - but any attack on Islam angers him, even the murder of the newspaper people in Paris seemed to get a reaction from Pope Francis of basically they-had-it-coming.
ReplyDeleteIn theory I'm strongly in favour of blasphemy laws, applying to all religions. In theory.
ReplyDeleteIn practice it seems like it would be difficult to apply blasphemy laws to Christianity since the teaching of most modern Christian churches is not merely heretical but pretty much blasphemous. You'd have to start prosecuting Anglican bishops.
We are getting to the point where theological opinions are crimes again. The police are active against people who express unacceptable theology on Twitter or Facebook. Here is an example: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/st-marys-cathedral-glasgow-quran-reading-david-chillingworth
DeleteDouglas Murray - 'The Strange Death of Europe':
"Since 1989 the texts, ideas and even images of Islam have become so heavily policed and self-policed even in Western Europe that it would be understandable if a young person becoming politically and religiously aware in the last few decades might have arrived at the conclusion that the one thing our societies really do hold sacred and impervious to ridicule or criticism are the claims and teachings of Mohammed."
We are getting to the point where theological opinions are crimes again
DeleteIndeed.
And we're getting to the point where all political arguments are essentially theological arguments. All political arguments now come down to mutual accusations of heresy.
I've read Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" and I saw nothing blasphemous in them.
ReplyDelete@ Paul
ReplyDelete"I think it is a thoroughly bad and unpleasant thing to insult another man's religion to his face, or in public, and I deplore Salman Rushdie, for example, for doing so"
Rushdie was a muslim or at least was born into a muslim family:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#Early_life_and_family_background
So its a bit much to imply he insulted "another mans religion", imo.
Some people easily take offense when none may be intended.
Surprisingly, in his earlier working life as an advertising copywriter, Rushdie came up with the slogans "irresistibubble" for Aero chocolate, "Naughty but Nice" for cream cakes and "That'll do nicely" for American Express, according to the Wiki link above.
Who would have thought that!
For what its worth, my opinion on blasphemy laws is that they are imposed for the purpose of protecting people from being offended not God(s).
ReplyDelete@Paul
ReplyDelete"It was but the cheerful song from the crucifixion scene was used in the opening to the Olympic games in London which was intended to express a picture of Britain that could enthuse all British people of left and right."
I was blissfully unaware of the above.
I'm even happier now that I ignored the whole circus.
I was invited to sit in the official Romanian delegation and regret declining.
Delete