Forward to the Middle Ages!

The West Submits to Blasphemy Laws

The West is submitting to blasphemy laws. Denmark, for example, has apparently decided that now is the time to invoke a dusty, old blasphemy provision. Denmark still has a provision in the penal code against blasphemy, but until now, it has only been used three times. The last time was nearly half a century ago, in 1971. Denmark’s Attorney General has nevertheless just charged a man for burning a Quran.

In the West, blasphemy as a criminal offence has for centuries generally been considered a relic of the past. In a largely godless society, few people take offense to blasphemous comments or acts. Christians do not descend upon alleged blasphemers with guns and knives, and publishers do not worry about “offending” Christians.

In 1997, Danish public service radio financed an artist burning a Bible and broadcast it on national television. No one was charged, even though there were complaints and the state prosecutor investigated the case.

  • Selective blasphemy laws are still blasphemy laws. They’ve just morphed into something worse.

    • Watchman

      They are worse, because they are selectively applied. If every ‘blasphemous’ thought, utterance or act was prosecuted and punished, then this law would be soon repealed. Religions are in competition and cannot help but contradict or anger another religion. As almost everyone would be in danger, they would attempt to repeal the blasphemy law to try to save themselves from prosecution. And this would be a good thing.

      • This is a one-sided blasphemy law, however. The only crimes that can be committed are against Islam.

        However, it will be self-defeating from an unexpected source – the Koran. Merely quoting from that unrevised text could cause “Islamophobia”. It would have to be banned.

        Watch that train wreck.

        • Watchman

          All rectified though, by selective application. Quoting Qur’an 9:5 (“…kill the polytheists wherever you find them..”) by a muslim will just be a adherent quoting from his holy book, Quoting Qur’an 9:5 by a non-muslim to point out what the muslims are preaching is ‘islamophobic’ and punishable because other non-muslims’ opinions of muslims might be adversely affected by finding out what the muslims actually believe. Because the Qur’an is a religious book, it will be absolutely immune form banning; only filthy kufr who quote from it will be prosecuted.

          • But the danger for interpretation (a text that has undergone no revision since it was written) will be too great. If not directly banned, it would have a limited readership and very few stores would carry it. There would have to be a firewall to prevent readers from looking at it online.

        • Will Quest
          • I shudder to think what will happen if Motion 103 gets passed.

  • Starlord

    Durham policy are investigating a hate crime in Oshawa, He was last seen wearing a black sweater, black pants and a ski mask… shouted anti-Muslim comments at a 11yr old who is muslim.

    Who wears a ski mask… secondly how would the ski mask dude know if a 11yr old is muslim or not…

    • Watchman

      Only if you want to make a serious person laugh at you.

      • Starlord

        I think you missed the point.

  • Spatchcocked

    As long as they bring back the dunking stool I’m cool.