When I noticed this article, Church Times - Blasphemy report might be repealed, my initial reaction was of hopeful anticipation that the blasphemy law could be repealed. My reasons are pretty much those articulated by the co-director of Ekklesia, Simon Barrow, wh said: “Privileging one religion above other views is indefensible in a democracy, and for Christians there is the added irony that Christ was himself arraigned on a charge of blasphemy. Using the law to attack opinions about belief is to misuse it, and suggesting that God needs protection against free speech makes no theological sense at all.”
I also think that it is important for the churches to support this and be seen to support it: we live in a world where similar laws are used elsewhere to persecute Christians (and others) and they are so liable to misuse to help settle personal grudges or to gain financial or social advantage as the mere suggestion can bring lynch mobs or prompt irregular application of justice procedures. So it would be a hugely good signal to repeal our own and robustly to defend doing so. Bring it on. Amen!
11 January 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
2 comments:
Interesting!
I wouldn't have thought that the blasphemy laws were intended to "protect God" though - surely it's more to do with the principle that people should be respectful towards the one who both state and society recognised as the one living and true God?
Privileging the Christian religion above others in this particular democracy isn't totally indefensible either, if you consider the (positive) role/influence that Christianity has had on this country in the past - it doesn't mean you're disparaging other religions, it's just recognising what Christianity means and has meant in our culture.
cath
I suspect that historically the blasphemy laws were mostly about protecting the privileged status of the CofE in English society from the religious equivalent of sedition. But we should recall what Simon Barrow said in effect: the blasphemy law would (if used) have the effect of outlawing opinions about belief and of diminishing freedom of speech. I don't think we should be in the business of shutting people up but of answering and refuting. The laws relating to stirring up hatred should be sufficient to deal with offensiveness and respect.
However, a lot of things that are said to need respect need nothing of the sort; we need the freedom to criticise and to question which will be felt as uncomfortable. Don't forget that the blasphemy laws were used against Quakers and other religious dissenters.
I really do think we should be leading by example on this one.
Post a Comment