Poll: is blasphemy a victim-less crime?
yes
no
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2011, 11:21 AM
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
The catch phrase "Blasphemy is a victimless crime" is a good one and works on several levels. First, I would like to note that blasphemy was literally a crime on the books in several US states prior to the 1952 case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson. Also the last person convicted under a blasphemy charge in the US was in 1925.

Yet even if we do not consider the legal definition of crime, blasphemy is still a violation of church law, and can therefore be called a crime by some in that sense.

It also works because the victim in a blasphemy charge is not the religious person who is offended. The victim is specifically the deity. One does not blaspheme against a believer. One blasphemes against God.

So what we have in blasphemy is a law against insulting the godhead, and since there is no such individual in existence, it's a crime with no victim - like prostitution and abuse of a corpse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2011, 12:20 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2011 12:49 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
(26-03-2011 11:21 AM)gamutman Wrote:  The catch phrase "Blasphemy is a victimless crime" is a good one and works on several levels. First, I would like to note that blasphemy was literally a crime on the books in several US states prior to the 1952 case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson. Also the last person convicted under a blasphemy charge in the US was in 1925.

Yet even if we do not consider the legal definition of crime, blasphemy is still a violation of church law, and can therefore be called a crime by some in that sense.

It also works because the victim in a blasphemy charge is not the religious person who is offended. The victim is specifically the deity. One does not blaspheme against a believer. One blasphemes against God.

So what we have in blasphemy is a law against insulting the godhead, and since there is no such individual in existence, it's a crime with no victim - like prostitution and abuse of a corpse.
No, because you have already agreed to accept the supposition that there is a god, according to the church law. Being a non-believer, and posing as an objective observer, you have mixed the systems of logic in the two statements to justify your conclusion, which I am sure will be confirmed by another of your compatriots. Atheists make the same mistake with religion, because instead of recognizing that the gods are shorthand metaphors for ideological systems, that actually do exist, like political ideologies, atheists assign it to the infinite unknown - just like a theist.

The victim may be a non-existing deity, but classifying the act as a crime, or even, an immorality, both indicate the existence of standardized ideological system, which indicates that the organization has agreed and recognizes that there may be collateral damage to the functioning, and perpetuation, of the organization caused by the action(s) and its continuation.
(26-03-2011 08:33 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  . . . One can not offend that which does not exist. Nor commit a crime against that which does not exist.

And one can not make victim those who believe in something that does not exist for others, when those others commit to what others define as Blasphemy against that which does not exist.
You may need to be segregated, because your definition only works in organizations that do not recognize the existence of gods, or the ideologies that are metaphorically represented.

Now, I do not want to hear anymore of this foolishness.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2011, 03:59 PM
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
(27-03-2011 12:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(26-03-2011 11:21 AM)gamutman Wrote:  The catch phrase "Blasphemy is a victimless crime" is a good one and works on several levels. First, I would like to note that blasphemy was literally a crime on the books in several US states prior to the 1952 case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson. Also the last person convicted under a blasphemy charge in the US was in 1925.

Yet even if we do not consider the legal definition of crime, blasphemy is still a violation of church law, and can therefore be called a crime by some in that sense.

It also works because the victim in a blasphemy charge is not the religious person who is offended. The victim is specifically the deity. One does not blaspheme against a believer. One blasphemes against God.

So what we have in blasphemy is a law against insulting the godhead, and since there is no such individual in existence, it's a crime with no victim - like prostitution and abuse of a corpse.
No, because you have already agreed to accept the supposition that there is a god, according to the church law. Being a non-believer, and posing as an objective observer, you have mixed the systems of logic in the two statements to justify your conclusion, which I am sure will be confirmed by another of your compatriots. Atheists make the same mistake with religion, because instead of recognizing that the gods are shorthand metaphors for ideological systems, that actually do exist, like political ideologies, atheists assign it to the infinite unknown - just like a theist.

The victim may be a non-existing deity, but classifying the act as a crime, or even, an immorality, both indicate the existence of standardized ideological system, which indicates that the organization has agreed and recognizes that there may be collateral damage to the functioning, and perpetuation, of the organization caused by the action(s) and its continuation.

If you will look at the part of my quote you bolded, you will see that I included the qualifier "by some." I did that for a reason. There are those ideologies that consider it a "violation of church law or doctrine" to blaspheme against God. To those individuals, anyone who blasphemes against their deity - even a non-believer - is guilty of a violation of their doctrine. A good example is the Muslims who want to force us to submit to their self-imposed prohibition against drawing Mohammad. For THEM if I draw the prophet, I am guilty of the crime of blasphemy. For ME I'm guilty of no crime whatsoever. I recognize, however, that TO THEM I have committed the "crime" of blasphemy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2011, 04:47 PM
I'm not guilty either - they locked me up for nothing
(27-03-2011 03:59 PM)gamutman Wrote:  If you will look at the part of my quote you bolded, you will see that I included the qualifier "by some." I did that for a reason. There are those ideologies that consider it a "violation of church law or doctrine" to blaspheme against God. To those individuals, anyone who blasphemes against their deity - even a non-believer - is guilty of a violation of their doctrine.
And then, again, you mix-up the systems - the organization of logic

(27-03-2011 03:59 PM)gamutman Wrote:  A good example is the Muslims who want to force us to submit to their self-imposed prohibition against drawing Mohammad. For THEM if I draw the prophet, I am guilty of the crime of blasphemy. For ME I'm guilty of no crime whatsoever. I recognize, however, that TO THEM I have committed the "crime" of blasphemy.
I understand what you're getting at, and that is there are two organizations of people and you belong to the organization that will protect you from the other organization's jurisdiction - segregation.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2011, 07:33 PM
 
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
(27-03-2011 12:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(26-03-2011 08:33 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  . . . One can not offend that which does not exist. Nor commit a crime against that which does not exist.

And one can not make victim those who believe in something that does not exist for others, when those others commit to what others define as Blasphemy against that which does not exist.
You may need to be segregated, because your definition only works in organizations that do not recognize the existence of gods, or the ideologies that are metaphorically represented.

Now, I do not want to hear anymore of this foolishness.
You can hear on a message board? I seriously need to upgrade my software. Tongue

Actually, if we go with the supposition that there does exist an infinite supreme creator, then it remains impossible to blaspheme and thus offend that which is omniscient and omnipresent. For god to be god, by all that would entail, it could never be offended by lesser beings nor, being omniscient, would it feel offended by what it would have seen coming.
Blasphemy can only insult that which is able to be insulted. Infinite omnipotence therefore would not qualify as such.

As for blasphemy making the faithful in an infinite supreme creator a victim to blasphemy, the faithful can't be made victim to an insult hurled at something else. They can only be offended by the blasphemy directed toward or about the being they hold faith is there, and would care someone called it a name.
I like Harold. Harold saves! And on the 7 day Harold smacked himself for creating his own ego on the 1st.
At climax, "Oh Harold, oh Harold, Ohhhhhhh Harry you naughty bastard!" Harold damn, that's funny.
Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2011, 08:54 PM
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
" the act of claiming the attributes of deity"

Who wants to chop my head off?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2011, 10:02 PM
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
Welcome to the Semantics Dance Competition.

Would anyone care for some punch?


The question/saying is flawed in the manner that it assumes the "crime" aspect to be prevalent and diverts focus to the "victimless" element. Blasphemy is no more a crime in the legal sense than Orwell's "thought crime."

Blasphemy is a term that shares the same necessary traits as "offensive." It is a moral law that is self-identified and self-enforced by the individual. However, I will go the other way of gamutman and say that it IS the believer that is blasphemed against. Since there is no God to react to blasphemy, the believer takes it upon themselves and acts upon God's behalf via accusation, even though it was really only in their own fragile belief system that the "crime" took place.

So really, blasphemy is akin to rolling out of turn at a Dungeons and Dragons game. It's a violation of made up rules in an imaginary setting.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2011, 08:28 AM
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
(27-03-2011 10:02 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Welcome to the Semantics Dance Competition.

Would anyone care for some punch?


The question/saying is flawed in the manner that it assumes the "crime" aspect to be prevalent and diverts focus to the "victimless" element. Blasphemy is no more a crime in the legal sense than Orwell's "thought crime."

Blasphemy is a term that shares the same necessary traits as "offensive." It is a moral law that is self-identified and self-enforced by the individual. However, I will go the other way of gamutman and say that it IS the believer that is blasphemed against. Since there is no God to react to blasphemy, the believer takes it upon themselves and acts upon God's behalf via accusation, even though it was really only in their own fragile belief system that the "crime" took place.

So really, blasphemy is akin to rolling out of turn at a Dungeons and Dragons game. It's a violation of made up rules in an imaginary setting.

At the risk of seeming a pendant, it is not the believer who is blasphemed. If I call a Catholic individual an idiot for belief in transubstantiated wine, I am insulting the individual, but I am by extrapolation also insulting the entire church. This is because I am insulting a characteristic they all share. However, if a believer in transubstantiation insults a Catholic for misunderstanding the "true" meaning of transubstantiation, he/she is insulting only that individual.

The believer believes that his/her god has been offended. They feel offense for that God, this is true, but consider that a husband feels offended for his wife when she is insulted, but it is still the wife who was insulted, and not the husband. I'll take it to a bigger stage to better illustrate the point. A husband feels offended for his wife when she is raped, but it is still the wife who was raped, and not the husband.

Now, in the sense that blasphemy is a rule, it is a rule designed to punish those who insult God. Not to punish those who insult God's fans. If I verbally "rape" God, I have not raped believers no matter how offended they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2011, 08:43 AM
 
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
Blasphemy isn't a crime. Period.
Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2011, 09:22 AM
 
RE: Blasphemy is a victim-less crime
(27-03-2011 10:02 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Welcome to the Semantics Dance Competition.

Would anyone care for some punch?
You gotta spike the bowl if you're really serious about that question, you know. Tongue

And I thought most of us, *points at self*, were saying just that all along. [Image: 6.gif]

Think I'm right.
Could be wrong.
Stranger things have happened.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Detaining someone for having done something somewhere else that isn`t a crime???? The Germans are coming 13 296 07-01-2014 08:16 PM
Last Post: WeAreTheCosmos
  India Makes Gay Sex a Crime TheBear 25 946 02-01-2014 09:58 PM
Last Post: TheBear
  Dutch senate votes to overturn law against blasphemy. Caveman 3 195 03-12-2013 09:58 AM
Last Post: Minimalist
  Blasphemy laws almost out the window! Janus 3 302 28-11-2012 08:34 AM
Last Post: Humakt
  Why Is Being Successful A Crime? Hughsie 117 3,456 02-11-2012 05:15 AM
Last Post: earmuffs
  Holocaust Denial ........ A Crime? Hughsie 91 4,918 23-03-2012 03:46 PM
Last Post: TheArcticSage
  Burning holy books is a victim-less crime TrainWreck 9 948 23-04-2011 09:54 PM
Last Post: No J.
Forum Jump: