I note from the Guardian that the Irish Doyle is suggesting that there should be, in Ireland, an extension of the blasphemy laws to include all offences to religion whatever they may be.
represent the rights of atheists, responded to the new law by publishing 25 anti-religious quotations on its website, from figures including Richard Dawkins, Björk, Frank Zappa and the former Observer editor and Irish ex-minister Conor Cruise O’Brien, who are opposing the law by trying to be as blasphemous as possible, I guess they hope publicity from their publication by being taken to court. (Didn’t quite get what you meant by the bit I have italicised)
If you look at Pakistan, or India or places where blasphemy laws exists, it seems to me that they are often used by people not against blasphemy per se but rather to settle other scores, such as property disputes, or just to attack people that you don’t like; or as is often the case attack people with another belief system that you don’t agree with.
It also is rather strange that we want to stop people saying things against that which we believe, as if what we believe is not strong enough in its essence to defeat such nonsense. It seems to me that if my arguments for what I believe in, or where I get my value system from are so strong that your argument cannot stand against it therefore you must silence me or worse you must kill me seems an extremely strange way to defend ones opinion. Is your opinion so weak that you cannot argue back, you can only deal with me by silence me or by my death?
Let me also say that my mail tells me it is not the so called ‘religious’ people who are guilty of such nonsense. I have emails from a very learned atheist telling me that they would like to silence me, and that if they had the power they would most certainly use it to see to it that my views had no air time! “Soon the mental child abuse you inflict upon innocent children will be outlawed. BA(hons) MA” (direct quote from one of those emails that I get when talking on TV about God) Even when there is televised debate, the view being portrayed is not necessarily dealing with the real argument, those real arguments are often on the cutting-room floor.
I note from the Guardian article that Richard Dawkins is trying to be as rude as possible about God http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter As a Christian does his view offend me or upset me? Well I don’t like what he says, and just because he says it does that make it right? I obviously don’t think so. Do I think that I need to defend The God who is there, I don’t think so, I think he is quite able to move to his own defense if he thought it worth while, which I doubt.
In terms of the word blasphemy, what is the dictionary definition: Blasphemies A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. So it seems to me that you can’t get a more contemptuous act than that of the crucifixion of God, which is what happened. I think *’The God who is there’s answer to that act is splendid. The Resurrection!
3rd January 2010
* ‘The God who is there’ phrase used by Francis Schaffer the L’Abri community in Switzerland.