What a shame that further legislation is coming along to further protect religion. All religion should be open to extensive ridicule and critisism. Rarely has a system of working class repression been so effective. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. All equaly corrupt, all equaly stupid. Encourage education not mystical control systems.

Religionists want it both ways. Protection from 'blasphemy' and able to percecute
minorities they dont like e.g. gays.

Presumably if such laws were updated/extended anyone slagging,sorry critising religionists would be open to procecution,merely for defending their right not to be
discriminated against.


It's bad enough that they've got an exemption in the workplace anti-discrimination laws
recently intro'd to help gay people.

Next,we'll be up to our necks in creationist hogwash too.

To quote Michael Bakunin;"If god really existed,it would be necessary to abolish him".

in the meantime, we need to abolish the idea of such, and if that means blaspheming-then
the more and sooner the better.

I think blasphemy laws are important as insulting someones religion can be a serious cause of offence and attacking someones religion is often a disguised form of racism, whether done by individuals or by the state such as the law in france recently passed banning hijabs, crucifixes etc. aFurthermore, secular humanism developed in the west, and while it in no bad thing, can easily become as dogmatic and terrifying as any religion.And while many religions certainly do and say bad things, it is not clear that secular humanism offers much alternative, and simply insulting another's beliefs does not make that religion dissapear. On the contrary, it strenghthens them. Furthermore, a good blashpemy law does not ban criticism of a religion, which is necessary, but rather insulting abuse directed at religious practices. Also, if you value freedom of expression, freedom of religious belief is a necessary part of this, as is the freedom to criticise another's religion or belief system. Blasphemy laws are there to prevent insult, not criticism.

seeking to defend the expansionist plans and totalitarian rule of one particular fascist state amongst many.Never mind their continual historical revisionism.
As previous contributors have stated - stuff religious virtue, while allowing people to believe what they want - what ensnares them....

Ah, praise be!

Let's all put our hands to the our screens and raise the double standard!!

Cheques payable to the personal account of God Inc(tm).

Now, under any new legislation I have just 'blasphemed'...

...but, then so had Neiszche when he pronounced that 'God is Dead', so have Monty Python with their film 'The Holy Grail', so have John Lennon and John Lydon when they both said (not entirely seriously) they were "Bigger than God"!!

So, you see it is a VERY fine line between mirth, irony and what is deemed (by some) to be insulting and offensive - where do you draw the line?

Surely, the BEST way to stop potentially 'insulting' material ever occurring in the first place is to legislate it out of existence, then mercilessly enforce the letter of the law thereafter (or is that 'hereafter'?).
However, some may call that 'censorship'...indeed, rightly so, for what else is it after all?

Are we to be culturally (and therefore ethnically) 'cleansed' of anything that someone of religious persuasion may find potentially offensive?

Can you imagine how DULL that would be?

Can you imagine how FRIGHTENING that would be?

The next step on from this is what we have seen happening in recent years in the so-called 'Bible Belt' of the southern states of the USA, where teachers are not allowed to have the theory of Evolution on the curriculum, but ARE allowed to tell their students (and I daresay after this STUPIDents) that women were created from a rib from Adam's chest, and that the Earth is a mere 5,000 years old, despite the fact that there is plenty of (carbon dated) evidence to suggest that the real figure is closer to 4.5 BILLION years?!

This from the same states that no more than two decades ago were still hanging black people from the boughs of trees by their necks and calling them 'Niggers' as they did so.

These are also the very same states that still have the death penalty.
We all know that the majority of people on Death Row are working class, male and Black or Hispanic, so, arguably the racist executions are now state sanctioned instead.

You're Black and you're Bad, Brother!

Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

Some of the more 'liberal' amongst you may take offense to the inference of that you're all religious rednecks, but, if you do you're completely missing my point.

You see, if you start to say to people "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to force you to shut up", you are no better than the tinpot who has 'free speech zones', or who tells 'News' networks (very loose definition here) that they are not allowed to show the body bags coming back from Iraq any more because it's too 'embarassing' for them.

You do this, my friends, and you will suddenly find yourself having allegations of 'Censorious Dictator' being hurled in your direction - and justly so, because, that is what you have become.

Long live free speech - even if I don't agree with what you're saying.

It seems to me that treating all faiths equally under law might be difficult to achieve fairly. From a historical perspective, banning religious faiths produced more devout and pious adherents, who were closer to the original tenets of their beliefs. Additionally they were not in a position to do any persecution themselves.

Ban the lot of them so that they might become better religionists.

Ban enforced foreskin removal, make certain faiths pay extra tax, drink proper blood during services (let's not waste any plonk). Ban the wearing of orange and clinking of tiny bells, swords, long hair and beards. Make eating black puddings mandatory (Yes Yehovah's Witnesses I was getting round to you too.


I'm keeping my mistletoe for non-faith purposes

Apart from the cowardice the Board of Deputies of British Jews displayed before the Battle of Cable Street, I do not know much about them. Do they include orthodox and reformed, do they have women Rabbi? - However, they want to gag the Anti-Religious.

What is apparent is that Religion is the biggest cause of trouble in the world. And in one analysis is the root of the destruction of God's creation. For example:

God made lands that he did not intend men to occupy. He therefor put into men a defect that prevented them living in certain parts where he had arranged there be sandstorms. He also made diseases that would limit the human population.

Then Satan took a hand and invented Religion. So that men could live where God did not want them to, he introduced circumcision to avoid Balanitis. Made it part of the religion that all male babies were modified to circumvent the plans of God.

Another Satanic device, the religious requirement for sexual fidelity, was brought into religion to prevent the intended spread of fertility limiting diseases when the population started to exceed the natural carrying capacity of the land.

New Labour, clearly on the side of Satan, and intent on usurping God through Genetic Modification, will protect Religion. The evil and malignant Satanists are to be empowered to extend their Satanic indoctrinations with the protection of the Law. God's efforts to reduce the human population to what the Earth can sustain are to be defeated by Law. Man's Law. God might now have no alternative to mass extinction of this Creation.

i cannot help but feel all the responses bar mine are the kind of kneejerk anti religious commments that i would expect. Firstly, listen anarchists, to support a law does not mean you are a fascist or anything similar. The state is in existence at the moment and it is the power we have to use, whether you like it or not. Some laws are good and others bad, and there are some laws which we need to support and others to criticise. Simply to dismiss all support of a particular law as 'fascist' is childish and misses the point. Secondly, to support a blasphemy law, or a law outlawing racial incitement is not to dismiss all free speech or other kinds of comments. It is only putting a limit on certain kinds of statements that cause harm to other people. Who is to decide what is a good and bad statement?? Well, have a debate about it, when a test case comes up such as the case of the gay poet who wrote and erotic poem about Jesus or Salman Rushdie and the Satanic verses. To simply throw out the whole thing on some childish libertarian impulse is avoiding the debate and missing the point. Do we want a society where jokes are made about religious minorities and are deemed acceptable? Jokes about jews being tight etc Another point is that religion and identitiy are closely linked and it is hard to disentangle them. This is not a case only in western Europe, and i cannot help but think that there is a alot of ignorance among leftist activists about religion.

I was quite upset to read the defence of the Blasphemy laws above.

These laws were introduced in 1650 to attack such propehts as Abezier Coppe, whose book was burnt, and he was flung in jail just because the state did not want to be dissolved.

Is that what you really want? The sound of one jack boot clapping on our faces for the rest of eternity?

Al-Ghazzali

I mean, even if you accept the religious argument that there IS such a thing as an all-powerful Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe, why would such a being be bothered if puny humans take the piss or not?

And why would such an all-powerful Supreme Being rely on humans to take action on His behalf? Why not just lob a quick lightning bolt their way?

As the great libertarian philosopher John Stuart Mill said: "Offences against the gods are the concern of the gods."

My final comment on this issue.

I am no Buddhist, but there is much wisdom in what is written when they say this:

"There are many paths to the top of the hill, but, only one view of The Moon".

All this talk of banning religion sickens me as much as anything a racist might say to someone not of the same colour skin as them.

In the final analysis, it matters not a jot which belief system you decide to adhere to, so long as you respect others' point of view and understand that they, like you are also on a journey to find answers (if possible) to the great miracle and mystery that is life.

Think on this before you start to propose banning religion, as this line of enquiry leads to only one place - Witch Hunts, Inquisitions and so-called 'Crusades', involving (should the occasion require it) much 'Ethnic Cleansing'.

In other words intolerance, death, destruction.

Isn't there enough of this about already..?

>it matters not a jot which belief system you decide to adhere to, so long as you respect others' point of view<


Ah but Grasshopper you forget that religion does not allow for this type of rational. Even Secularist religions are seen as a threat to other religions, and therefore breed conflict. Religion is and always has been a cauldron of intolerance, death and destruction.

Think about it, if those who adopting religious beliefs think that doing so makes them believe they are a better moral person (which is surely the whole point of religion), then it would follow that those who chose not to conform to religious beliefs are to be regarded as lower beings (immoral/sinners) by those who delude themselves into thinking their belief is moral and right, even though history shows religion to be the biggest ever cause of intolerance, death and destruction.

There is only one way forward, and that is to realise that all religions are merely OLD cultural interpretations of the same subconscious paradox. By claiming any individual religion as ones own is to breed intolerance, death and destruction. Religion has served it's purpose, we should learn from it's many mistakes and move on !

While I'm at it perhaps someone can tell me why do the likes of Rowan Williams carry themselves around as if they are higher beings, dressed in outdated gowns and with arms extended showing their palms in some Jesus like pose ? Is it because he is a pervert who likes having his sphincter kissed by the masses (metaphorically of course...). or is it because it helps distinguish them from us mere mortals....?

It may be Metasophists view that "religion does not allow for this type of rational" refering to an appeal to respect other's points of view. But clearly the problem lies more in the thinking of metasophist, as there are millions of people who regard themselves as religious, yet do respect other people's views. However Metasophist is ready to condemn them simply because they have not become better people and have failed to follow what is claimed as the **ONLY** way forward. No doubt MS feels in a good position to lecture others about intolerance, (but I hope this not matched by a penchant for death and destruction), but I feel a little more self-knowledge here might facilitate broader understanding, rather than the good old standby of bourgeois liberal secularism, this much vaunted "progress" that is rammed down out throats continually, even at gun point as in present day Iraq.