Blasphemy Day -September 30

As my reader(s) know, I am not a legal scholar and although I have thought about free speech and its limits, I have not done so to any great degree.

I certainly feel, though, that people have, or should have some protections that things or ideas do.

Ideas, like religious ideas, do not deserve whatever protection we might agree that people do. Blasphemy; making the insulting of someone's idea of God a crime, is a ridiculous law or concept.

My understanding is that people cannot libel the dead; they are not protected.

From the Facebook page "Blasphemy Day International":

Free speech is the foundation on which all other liberties rest. Without having the right to express our opinions, however unpopular, those willing to use political clout, violence, and threats will stifle dissent, and we must all suffer the consequences of this. As George Bernard Shaw quipped, "Every great truth begins as a blasphemy."

The UN, rather than standing up for free speech, has given in to pressure from Islamic nations and has proposed a resolution to essentially ban criticism of religion. In its pursuit of "tolerance" for religion, this resolution wants to strip everyone, everywhere, of their freedom, even their obligation, to criticize what they oppose. Unlike one’s political affiliation or favorite sports team, religion demands – and has been granted – unique immunity from criticism since its very inception. Labeling anything deemed critical "blasphemy", religions have effectively defined the boundaries for what can and can’t be said about them. We propose we knock down this barrier and break this spell. Religion is no more undeserving of criticism than anything else, and if people’s insecurities are upheld as a reason to stifle the expression of the equally sincere feelings of others, and indeed, the pursuit of truth itself, we will have forsaken our ideals in favor of one-sided and entirely undeserved sympathy. As Richard Dawkins noted,

"Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long."

Blasphemy Day International is a day of protest against this UN Resolution, and against any attempt to stifle free speech. Please join this group. Whatever your beliefs – unless you're a raging, pro-censorship fundamentalist – the UN resolution, and laws against blasphemy, are an offense to humankind.

With that over with, allow me to repeat Jussi Halla-aho. The words below were judged by Finland's blasphemy laws to be illegal.

Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and islam revers pedophilia as a religion. Islam is a religion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is Allah’s will.

Are these statements illegal? They certainly insult muslim’s religious feelings. Let’s approach the issue logically:

As a 50 year-old man Muhammad was engaged to six or seven year old Aisha. Their marriage was “consummated” when Aisha was nine years old. It is possible to think that they were living in another age and Muhammad’s deeds must not be judged according to today’s standards, but as we have learned during the last few years, schoolbooks from the 50’s were racist when they spoke about ”negroes” (even if ”negro” was not a racist term at the time by anybody’s standards), it’s equally justified to call a child rapist who lived 1400 years ago a child rapist .´

What has to be done so that the bolded statements were not true? You must insist that

a) … Quran is not literally true (i.e Muhammad did not have sexual relations with a nine year old girl). This will not do, since according to Islamic doctrine and muslims’ opinion Quran is a literal word of Allah. Consummation and Aisha’s age cannot be denied without insulting muslims.

b) …Muhammad’s actions were not always acceptable. This will not do either, since according to muslims (and Tampere district court) criticizing Muhammad is the same as criticizing Allah and therefore blasphemy. The penalty is death. Muslim’s believe that Muhammad’s actions were the will of Allah. Because Muhammad had sexual relations with a child, that was Allah’s will as well.

As we see, all the argumentative ways to disprove the bolded statements have been theologically exhausted. The fact that Muhammad was a pedophile and Allah supported pedophilia can only be denied either by denying the literal truthfulness of Quran or Muhammad’s status as a messenger of Allah whose actions are according to the will of Allah.

Therefore I repeat my claim:

Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and islam revers pedophilia as a religion. Islam is a religion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is Allah’s will.

If Muhammad had sex with a nine year old, he was a pedophile. Apparently what I have just written is blasphemy. Happy Blasphemy Day!

First, I was a little athy...

Then I became athier. After some time, I was the athiest!



Also, in unrelated news, I am an atheist and today is apparently Atheist Pride Day.
-----

Wow, a whole lot of special days this spring. We've had White Day/ Pi Day, and Atheist Pride Day. Coming up are World Water Day (focusing on Transnational waters) and one of my favourite special days, April Fools Day. I'm having trouble coming up with a good prank.

Darwin's posse just got bigger.

The Metropolitician has joined the posse. You will find a button on my right-hand side links column "Darwin has a posse" that will take you to Talk.origins, a mainstream science approach to the purely political controversy surrounding Evolution/creationism/ID.

The best quote I have found that really shows the way the argument is set up comes from Pastor Ray Mummert of Kansas; as defender of creationism and ID ( as quoted from kuro5hin).

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of
the culture," says Pastor Ray Mummert...

When you call your opponents names like that, you might be in trouble.

defeating darwinism

Another blogger (and friend) commented that I seemed to display some hostility toward Christianity. I'm a little ashamed to say he might be right. I actually don't feel hostility toward Christians in general but I do have hostility toward the anti-education and anti-science types that make this kind of book:

I don't know what the Korean title is, and I couldn't read the book itself, so I have to judge the book by it's cover. Update: Johnson's book 'Defeating Darwinism...' is well known in evolution/creation circles and reviews and critiques of the English version are easy to find.

The book is written by Philip Johnson and my understanding is that he is more interested in closing minds and shutting curiousity down than opening anything. Christians like him try to give science a bad name and end up making people like me hostile toward the religion. I can't say that Johnson lies in the book but the critique above gives an example of 'quote mining'; using elipses and selectively quoting someone to make him argue against themself.

Perhaps you have heard the expression; 'Sports create good sportsmanship'. The expression is true but sports also create bad sportsmanship. The former is to be lauded; the latter to be criticized.

The same is true for religion. Christians like Philip Johnson need to remember not to 'bear false witness' and be examplars for their religion or stop damaging the religion they claim to love and follow.

Ironically, I found the same comment describing a Alan Bonsell and the other defendants in the Kitzmiller Vs Dover case. Argento is saying that since the defendants lied, they must not be Christians so their requirement that Intelligent Design be taught isn't religiously motivated.

... school board members can use this to defend against the charge that they were motivated by religious belief in introducing intelligent design or creationism into the biology curriculum. If they were motivated by religion, how come none of them ever heard of the Ninth Commandment — you know, the one about bearing false witness?

the FSM, Pirates and Preventing Global Warming

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I follow the evolution/creation debate in the US. A new player has emerged. The Flying Spaghetti Monster even has a scientific graph "proving" It's effects. From the Venganza website (I'm having trouble with the linking: www.venganza.org):

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of
Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief
that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who
created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the
overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is
nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
...
I’m sure you now
realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory.
It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the
discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to
teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full
pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately
cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already
becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes,
and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of
Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the
approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the
last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse
relationship between pirates and global temperature.

I don't know if there is any connection but yesterday was "Talk Like A Pirate Day". This cause was championed by Dave Barry, a Floridian who may well be knowledgable on the effects of global warming and on subject of pirates.

Arrgh! Avast them lot an' prepare de plank! (How do pirates talk? All my accents end up being Scottish or, nowadays, Korean.)

I thought the restaurant chain would be more excited (I'll never attempt to photoshop again...until I learn more than three features).