must maintain authority.

so voices that diminish the importance of religion must be silenced, apparently.

They can believe whatever they want.

Religion is free to promote itself while any voice of dissent is suppressed. That way you insure the majority will always remain so.

Leave the rest of us alone.

You can make a great rational argument for tolerance, but 75% of the world's population will still disregard it and do what they've always done.

but humans are not purely rational.

Even non-theistic humans.

Should we avoid rationality then?

The "cartoons of the Prophet" come to mind.

Speaking of Pam Geller, and her "contest".

And every cartoon, every work of art, is intended to provoke something. They are not created in a vacuum.

Art in general is intended to communicate. What the viewer gets from the art is up to the viewer.

Pam Geller engages in political speech, which is protected by the First Amendment, even if I don't agree with what she says.

And provoke has multiple meanings. Not all are negative.

As to Geller's cartoon contest, my view is that she intended to incite violence while looking for plausible deniability.

The fault is with you, not the cartoonist.

I don't approve of Islamophobia. But I also don't approve of walking on eggshells because we are frightened of Muslim terrorists.

And terror respects no labels.

while maintaining plausible deniability that you aren't.

And the right to disregard my "bad news' posts.

That's pretty impressive for two sentences.

Apparently you'd rather see how many ways there are to avoid whatever someone's actual point is. I think there is an atheist in China who does that too, so it's okay.

But somehow, that point magically became a position that :

Most people don't have to resort to violence for something to be a problem. It took just one white supremacist to shoot up a mosque for the whole world to denounce white supremacism.

How many people have to be killed for blasphemy before you recognize that accusations of blasphemy can be dangerous? If you do recognize this, it would be helpful if you said so in clear, straight forward language. Because if you don't people may wonder why not.

The real problem is that some Governments pass laws that basically make it illegal to criticize the official religion. And I have stated that more than once.

Should all theists at DU have to ritually denounce every negative behavior taken by other theists every time a conversation arises?

If so, should theists demand that all atheists in this group also ritually denounce authoritarians who are atheists?

And I've never heard you say anything like that. So yeah, an occasional denunciation would do wonders for your reputation.

You don't have to ritually denounce every single bad action by a theist, but you also don't have to ask "what about China" on every thread until you get bored with that and move on to a different whataboutism.

"Piss Christ" made a lot of Christians very, very mad.

Did he provoke them? Did he incite them to violence?

If a Christian had murdered him over "Piss Christ," would he have deserved it? Would it have been his fault for inciting violence?

was to link the humanity of Jesus with His divinity. Thus the use of a bodily fluid that gave the crucifix a golden appearance.

No one deserves violence. Neither the many theists imprisoned in Chinese concentration camps, nor the atheists imprisoned for blasphemy.

And provoked to violence - his display has been vandalized on separate occasions.

So is it his fault? And knock it the fuck off with your desperate #whataboutism bullshit. We aren't talking about China, we're talking about your desire to see people arrested if they offend religious people.

That I desire to see people arrested...etc.

What might make your claim plausible would be specific quotes from me expressing that desire.

And I do understand your wish to avoid the actual real life example of the Chinese Government, and the atheists who run it, and their well known intolerance for theists.

But sometimes life is like that. Sometimes, the intolerant ones are atheists.

but that doesn't stop you from claiming there is one. So why do think we need an admission from you to make a conclusion?

But there is no font for it.

But "t" made a specific claim. A very specific claim.

Edited to add:
This

What exactly?

to be clear.

And when clear answers are consistently mis-framed, I take note of that and respond appropriately.

There might be a reason that most theists do not post in the Religion Group.

But the answer to a supposed mis-frame is not to just assert it's a mis-frame and assume that everybody knows what you are talking about.

There are better ways to defend religion than emulating behaviors you claim to oppose.

And yeah I realize that this is a tough place for theists to do apologetics. Most people are bad at it, even if they are very well versed in their religion. I imagine that theists want to have a different sort of conversation than the ones that go on here.

than the ones that go on here, they have ample opportunity to do so. There are multiple groups on DU that have been set up as safe spaces, in which things like criticism, disagreement, awkward questions and so on concerning religion and religious beliefs are strictly prohibited. They tend to be pretty quiet. The Interfaith Group, in particular, is a desolate wasteland. It seems the theists really aren't interested in having the kind of discussion they often claim to want to have.

Isn't it interesting that Gil chooses not to participate in those groups? Sure, Interfaith is dead now, but I'm sure he and his horde of silent groupies could get something going there, if that's really what they wanted to do. But no, he prefers to spend his time here, complaining all the while about how awful it is.

Interesting too how the same tiny group of non-theists post almost exclusively in the religion group when there is a protected group for them.

But they apparently prefer to stay here and attempt to stop all conversation that does not consist of attacking religion and theists.

You could post in Interfaith and in the Religion Group, you know - if you really wanted to have that kind of conversation. Maybe those who send you numerous personal messages would join you. Since the expression of opposing views, which you and they consider to be so "toxic" isn't tolerated there, it seems they would be very comfortable posting in that group, or indeed in any one of the other groups for religious people that prohibit any disagreement or criticism.

There are multiple groups on DU that have been set up as safe spaces, in which things like criticism, disagreement, awkward questions and so on concerning religion and religious beliefs are strictly prohibited.

And like the others, all that is lackig is evidence.

It rests on your rather creative interpretation of what I said.

As I have told you innumerable times.

Others can decide for themselves what kind of religious person you are - someone who lives their faith honestly and sincerely, or someone who is a vicious hateful hypocrite.

I'd like to see his evidence that theists avoid this page because of what he claims. If he actually does claim it, every time something gets nailed down he moves away from it. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Even though most of them are safe spaces where disagreement, "toxic" or otherwise, isn't tolerated.

How many participants in the other religious groups don't participate here?

We went to great lengths to set up the interfaith group for them and they don't even use it. Gil likes to pretend that the only history here is mean atheists, but he's, how should I put it, misframing it erasing the bill bile sent in our direction. How many atheists no longer post here because of the abuse they received?

but the demonization and censorship of non-believers.

Otherwise he'd state outright he doesn't think blasphemers are guilty of anything.

He's an extremist, but smart enough to know that he'll be banned from this site if he outright admits his true beliefs.

I wonder if it would be enough for him for blasphemers to be jailed. Should we be executed too?

He often goes silent when he runs into a dilemma that would put his actual beliefs out there. Or he changes the subject, moves the goalposts, etc.

Incitement is a crime. You are stating here that you believe cartoonists should be arrested and convicted for drawing a cartoon.

Tread very carefully here, gil. You are displaying religious extremist behavior.

Please answer.

If you do not answer, I will assume your answer is "yes."

I have to agree with your assumption.

Not a lot of dots to connect on that. He clearly believes that cartoonists should be arrested and convicted of a crime if they draw Islam's prophet. This is an otherwise (allegedly) progressive and tolerant person who believes religious ideas are in need of such special protection and privilege that people who don't respect them enough are criminals breaking the law. That's really f'ed up. But throw it on the pile, I guess. He "isn't sure" if priests should be mandatory reporters for child abuse. He thinks abortion is murder. And on and on.

for my parody of the Hail Mary prayer? I certainly hope not.

Creating drawings of Muhammad, I realize is forbidden for Muslims. But, non-Muslims should be able to draw whatever they wish, in my opinion. The offense is only in the eye of the beholder. Sadly, I cannot draw likenesses of people in any way that is useful, so i will not be drawing a cartoon of Muhammad. So, I suppose I'm safe.

However, I did write a parody of a popular prayer among Roman Catholics. My intent was satire, drawing attention to the RCC's devotion to Mary while exhibiting misogyny toward other women. I suppose I'd better be on the lookout for the police now. I hope Monsieur B. does not alert the authorities to my horrendous act.

Despite the fervent desires of some religious people, whose names I will not mention, you are safe - for the time being, at any rate.

Anyone secure in their beliefs doesn’t care who says what about anything.

But once faux outraged they can demand silly insincere apologies so they feel like winners.

Especially if there be truth in the criticism. After all, isn't one of the purposes of religion to align one's self with the will of God, or truth? If anybody requires others to believe the same things as they do to the point of violence if they don't, well that's just revealing how little faith they have in what they say they believe in. The matter isn't about the truth then, it's about power and control.

So yes, all religions should be tolerant of blasphemy. Privately, hearing someone trash-talk your personal beliefs will likely ruin friendships if someone wants to be a jerk about it. But publicly, the matter should be settled through discussions and "good works" (as in, don't just tell me...show me), not violence, manipulation or intimidation. That goes for parties on all sides. Not that I'm holding my breath for everyone to get along. It's not desire for truth that motivates hate but fear of losing something we hold onto for stability.

A nonsensical argument.

Should misogynists free to be misogynists?

Blasphemy is not against the believer, it's against the belief. Believers need to learn the difference.

The idea that blasphemy is no different than misogyny or racism is fucking stupid.

but theists always go against the unbeliever, regardless of their belief.

Gil sees this as equivalent.

Somehow a being that we poor, imperfect, intolerant mortals can't even comprehend (because he says so) needs their feeling protected.

Who else should be censored, in your opinion?

It's not actually that difficult to say something one religion finds blasphemous, while wearing something a second religion finds blasphemous, while doing something yet a third religion finds blasphemous. I'd certainly hope they're used to blasphemy by now.

Calling Jesus the Son of God is a requirement for Christianity but blasphemy for Islam. If theists can't even avoid offending each other, why is atheism so offensive?

You'd have thought it was something of a job requirement, no?

But Ratzinger was a conservative, so he could be blunt.

Some acts of Blasphemy can be characterized as "rude". The thing about rudeness is one can discourage it, but it becomes dangerous to "outlaw" it. Rude Blasphemy should be treated a bit like various pejoratives that we all tend to object. We object and potentially shun the person, but we don't beat them, or take legal action until their actions become threatening or harmful.

To say that those advocating it are less than human, or to speak pejoratively about them using hate language.

Where in this group has anyone said that religious people are less than human? Or used "hate language"?

I'm not letting you move the goalposts.

I thought the topic was rather broad, as in what blasphemy should be tolerated or allowed. That can cover alot of different kinds of behavior.

It insults a deity - who doesn't exist, if the blasphemer is correct.

By trying to lump in "hate speech" or claiming that people have called believers "less than human" is dishonest and deceitful. You shouldn't do that.

It's a really broad topic and much of it is often focused as much on the believer as the diety.

Definition of blasphemy:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy

You can insult my mother, and I can be insulted.

Read the definition again.

Or you can just admit you were mistaken. But given my past interactions with you, I'm pretty sure you are incapable of that.

You can insult my diety, and I can be insulted by that.

Period.

That YOU feel insulted is not blasphemy.

Period.

If you still wish to disagree, then do what I asked you do to in the first place: provide the definition that proves your meaning is correct.

Ball's in your court.

Insult is pretty much "in the eye of the beholder". Whether your intent was to insult someone has little to do with the reality that you do. Knowing that people will take blasphemy as an insult means that you are willing to insult them anyway. This whole subthread started out about the concept of courtesy. Courtesy would dictate that one avoid words and actions that cause insult. Some blasphemy does exactly that.

You are simply offering an explanation that people get upset when their deity is insulted. That is of course true, religious extremists get very very upset and often kill people who do so. But the blasphemy still didn't insult THEM, it insulted their GOD. Unless you think killing a blasphemer is justified?

Since you refuse to provide a definition, you are admitting that I am right.

Blasphemy CAUSES insult, whether it was the intent or not. And courtesy would tend to dictate that a courteous person would attempt to choose to not do these things. Courtesy dictates that there are words and expressions we do not use because we know that people object to their use, regardless of intent.

I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp this, but I suspect that is intentional.

It's taking offense. The *person* is never insulted. The *god* is.

Words mean things, so yes I cannot grasp how you are misusing the terms. Sorry. You have failed to provide any definition that supports your position, so I accept your concession.

Why or why not? Would you consider yourself personally insulted, or would you take offense on your deity's behalf?

Trotsky is right, though. The definition of the word doesn't even imply that blasphemy includes or involves insulting a person.

It's intended to shut down dissent, and to protect religious opinions and sensibilities and privilege from us nasty, horrible atheists who say atrocious things like "I don't believe you."

Well, not me, but I suspect any reasonable person that heard their deity being described as a "horrible, blood thirsty, misogynist" might reasonably take offense if they were the person worshiping the deity and believing they were following their dictates.

Is it reasonable to be offended if the documentation that exists clearly portrays the deity in question as a horrible, blood thirsty misogynist?

Just because you're an idiot, doesn't necessarily mean that one should go around pointing that out. But, yes, a personal frustration of mine is having to listen to people go on about blue light and "alternative medicines" and be expected to politely listen.

Calling a god a bloodthirsty misogynist is NOT the same as calling a person an idiot.

Do you really not see the difference?

And how often does that happen, anyway? Religion is imposed upon us almost constantly. Religious people are working day and night to deprive women, LGBT people, and religious minorities of our rights, and some people here think blasphemy is a problem? What bullshit.

But they would not under any circumstances be blasphemed, or blasphemed against, or however you say it.

You can only commit blasphemy against a deity.

They may not see the distinction. To many people, their faith is an integral part of who they are.

Their faith is an integral part of who they are, too.

Or is it OK to criticize religious beliefs that you don't agree with?

Most would suggest that they criticize their actions, not their faith.
And of course other people of faith will argue with the interpretation of that faith.

I understand you're trying to protect certain beliefs that you find acceptable, but still allow room for yourself to criticize the beliefs you don't.

I've always found a dichotomy, especially on the left, of "respecting each others beliefs" and yet having very strong disrespects for CERTAIN peoples beliefs. It is sort of an unresolvable conflict. Some of us split hairs between peoples actions and beliefs. Some will split hairs between people's beliefs and the person. But at the end of the day, this whole site exists because we don't tend to "respect" the GOP's beliefs.

Their faith and beliefs are just as valid as anyone else's. Their actions are based on their faith and beliefs, just like any other believers.

That you refuse to accept the validity of their faith and beliefs is the core of the problem here.

I suggest that it is a common assertion that we all "respect" each others beliefs. I personally find that often difficult, although I understand where the concept originates.

I also cannot accept the misogyny of the Catholic Church and its campaign against reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights.

I respect you right to have those beliefs. I respect that you shouldn't be forced to change those beliefs. But I feel no compunction to respect those beliefs. And I certainly don't have to respect those that use their beliefs to enact laws based on those beliefs.

I think it would lead to a more peaceful, more just world. But that's just me. I respect that you may not agree.

Opposing laws based on beliefs you don't agree with is a different matter. That gets into the field of action, and actions, unlike beliefs, can harm people.

You might believe wearing a seatbelt does not make you safer. Expressing that belief can be harmful if others are convinced of that nonsense.

When someone wants to put their belief out for public consumption, the expectation to be free from criticism is a bridge too far.

If a belief is out for public consumption, sure it can be criticized. But you can criticized respectfully, or you can just call it "bullshit" and "nonsense." The choice is yours.

I usually choose to take seriously even extremely reprehensible beliefs. I think that works better for me and whoever I am criticizing. If I can't take it seriously, I usually say nothing, or only ridicule it when speaking to people I know already agree with me.

What religious people expect makes no difference to me. We have no blasphemy laws and I would certainly oppose any attempt to create them.