Comments on: What Do the State Blasphemy Laws Actually Say?

By: Lorilee Cadorette

Lorilee Cadorette — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:25:29 +0000

Great post, good job there, I love it! I bookmarked your blog for future reference, I am too busy to go through them one by one now, but thank you for the post!

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:46:03 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post... This post was mentioned on Twitter by GodDiscussion: Blog Update | What Do the State Blasphemy Laws Actually Say? http://bit.ly/k2yw2...

By: James Brumble

James Brumble — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:25:45 +0000

One aspect of religious freedom should be an option to not be affiliated in any specified organized group.
Hopefully the similarity of some of the old laws and the current one point of view enforced at the point of a gun by the taliban will be recognized.

By: Urbain

Urbain — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:29:53 +0000

Even more important than free speech would be separation of church and state. The government should not be dictating what can and cannot be said about religion, or endorsing religion in any fashion.

By: pagerank crawler

pagerank crawler — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:33:15 +0000

Our blasphemy laws are positively lenient compared to the Sharia laws! But they still seem a little strict and strange to me in the context of today's society? Shouldn't freedom of speech rule all?

By: Weight loss

Weight loss — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:13:04 +0000

oh thanks. this the first time i heard about that.

By: Urbain

Urbain — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:42:22 +0000

Glad to give you the info, Virginia. Hopefully, the blasphemy laws in your state do not hold weight.

By: Virginia

Virginia — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:18:15 +0000

I live in sc and can't believe i've never heard of some of those laws

By: muhabbet

muhabbet — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:26:56 +0000

thank you e truly liberal. Liberalism is an ideal, just like communism, and all ideals fail, although people are left clueless and naive in thinking that they\'ve still got a shot if they just \"could have done it right\".
If all people are free, nobody is free. Free from fear, insecurity. Liberty is such a hard burden for all of us– and not many can live with it. And it\'s no wonder that those who

By: film izle

film izle — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:26:28 +0000

thank you all !!!!!!!!!!!

By: Lars

Lars — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:00:52 +0000

i have never looked into blasphemy (and it's governing state laws) this closely… i just find it a bit harsh and i don't think it'd apply to the 'real world'…

By: Kelly D.

Kelly D. — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:56:16 +0000

This is a very interesting article, but an extremely difficult one to conclude as well. I truly appreciate you for not having ended the discussion with a definite pro / contra position.
Personally, I'm rather agnostic. I do believe in God, but it's fine for me that everyone else can believe as he or she wishes. Blasphemy in my country has long lost it's sense (I live in Eastern Europe) and I can honestly say we're rather tolerant of each other, more so as several other religions have penetrated our community after the fall of communism. So, it's very interesting and peculiar to note that instead of keeping religion at a high standard of belief in countries with a harsh and oppressive history, religion is in fact more upheld in very liberal countries.
You know, for a country to truly be liberal it also needs liberal minded people. It's hard to be liberal in the true sense of the word when you see others around you enjoying all kinds of \"liberties\" (i.e., religious liberty). Beliefs are everything you\'ve got in a changing, not-bounded world. So maybe such a strong intolerance is in fact a reaction to liberalism.
In my opinion, no country could ever be truly liberal. Liberalism is an ideal, just like communism, and all ideals fail, although people are left clueless and naive in thinking that they\'ve still got a shot if they just \"could have done it right\".
If all people are free, nobody is free. Free from fear, insecurity. Liberty is such a hard burden for all of us…and not many can live with it. And it\'s no wonder that those who can\'t, develop such blasphemy rules…

By: Attrus

Attrus — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:08:16 +0000

We are in agreement once again. I think, since you mentioned it, which refreshed my memory of "things to do", I will spend some time reading the "bible slam" series. I have been meaning to do so for a while, yet, I have been extremely busy working on a new health & wellness blog. My love for my sister, who suffers from depression, prompted the effort.

I have many years of study and experience in the sub-catagories of stress, depression, psychology, anxiety, self-esteem and so on. I believe I have a lot to offer those in need and so I will do just that.

Anyway…I apologize for the digression…I will most assuredly make the time over the next week to read the "bible slam" series. I look forward to it.

As Always
Peace

By: Urbain

Urbain — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:05:11 +0000

Excellent link and synopsis, Attrus! Fortunately, the "blasphemy laws" probably won't carry much weight … although I'd have to admit that what is going on in Pennsylvania is disturbing. Perhaps more disturbing is the "Judeo-Christian nation" argument — much of which is based on false or misleading quotes by David Barton — that seems to be the rage with some religious groups right now who would probably be thrilled to have blasphemy laws in the books nationwide.

I'm finally reading Chris Hedge's book, American Fascists, which sheds a lot of light on the dominionist movement.

As far as the bible, I am personally convinced that it is a collection of stories from a nomadic people that includes exaggerated stories and borrows from other stories. For instance, the Exodus 2 episode of our "bible slam" here points to just one of the stories that may be borrowed.

The oldest known biblical manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus, is starting to reveal some of the changes that resulted from the Council of Nicea's work.

The Jesus myth is just that … a myth. There is no evidence to support it as historical fact, although there are volumes of accounts that indicate that the story came from pagan religions and myths.

I don't believe the bible was ever meant to be taken literally. Perhaps there is some figurative value, but I do not think it is the "inerrant word of God." The strong arm of religion and its "inerrant" texts has thwarted humanity's spiritual evolution. I have no trouble with spirituality, but like you, I find oppression and fear-based religion to be offensive and backward.

By: Attrus

Attrus — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:42:14 +0000

Very interesting article, Urbain.

Another glimpse into the astonishing minds of religious fanatics. The fact that there is no anthropological evidence to support their beliefs in the first place makes this all the more ridiculous, in my (opinion)…and…that's the moral of the story, isn't it? This is all based on opinions, not any kind of "tangible truth" that has ever stood up under logical or rational scrutiny. Furthermore, why does God need protection? I mean, if He's all that…

I do not believe that the bible is the word of God…it irritates and frustrates when I provide the necessary evidence to support my belief and the evidence is disregarded in favour of unsupported faith. This offends my sensibilities and so, perhaps, I should enlist the aid of those who can create laws to protect me from this psychological turmoil. Of course, what I have just written would be regarded, by them, as blasphemy…

I would like to offer a link to a site that may clarify a lot of issues for many…clarity is the key to understanding.
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Peace