| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: UK abolishes blasphemy laws |
 |
|
This doesn't seem to have been widely reported when it happened a few weeks ago. Guess abolishing blasphemy laws doesn't raise quite the same excitment that it would have in 1922.
| Quote: |
LONDON - A funny thing happened last November when Britain launched a righteous protest over the arrest in Sudan of a British school teacher who was accused of insulting religion by naming a class teddy bear Mohammed.
The Sudanese ambassador was summoned; Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a protest. It didn't take long, though, for someone to point out that Downing Street was standing on diplomatic quicksand: Britain itself has a law making blasphemy a crime.
Thus began a period of collective soul-searching on free speech and secularism, traditional values and the church that anoints Britain's queen.
It culminated yesterday in a 148-87 vote in the House of Lords to abolish the laws on blasphemy after a wrenching, two-hour debate.
"It is crystal clear that the offenses of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are unworkable in today's society," Kay Andrews said in introducing the government-backed amendment, adding that "as long as this law remains on the statute books, it hinders the UK's ability to challenge oppressive blasphemy laws in other jurisdictions."
|
And Massachusetts is up next in the mad dash into modernity.
| Quote: |
Most remaining blasphemy laws in Western democracies are either little used or, like Britain's, on their way out. This week, the Massachusetts Legislature began consideration of a bill to phase out that state's blasphemy proscription, along with other outdated "blue laws."
|
http://tinyurl.com/2tr5xw |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
greedy_bones
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Location: not quite sure anymore
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can understand that law still being around in the U.K., but I don't understand how it came about in the states. Even though, the UK is considerably more secular than the US, a blasphemy law is in direct violation of the first amendment.
edit: Hmm, it looks like the blasphemy law would have been legal if it were passed before 1866. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greedy_bones wrote: |
I can understand that law still being around in the U.K., but I don't understand how it came about in the states. Even though, the UK is considerably more secular than the US, a blasphemy law is in direct violation of the first amendment.
edit: Hmm, it looks like the blasphemy law would have been legal if it were passed before 1866. |
Or, more specifically, whenever the courts started interpreting the 14th Amendment as making the First Amendment applicable to state laws.
I read somewhere that some New England states actually had government sponsored Congregationalist churches until some time in the 19th Century. I think they abolished them on their own though, not because the courts ordered them to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've always been blase about that kind of thing, so glad they're finally up to speed.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Up until the Jacksonian Era, a man had to be a member of the Congregational Church in order vote in New England states.
I'm sure the Moslem countries will keep an eye on this development and see how it goes for the West before they follow suit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Up until the Jacksonian Era, a man had to be a member of the Congregational Church in order vote in New England states.
|
That I did not know. I'm guessing that they allowed for nominal membership, and that people were also allowed to belong to other churches? I seem to recall that a similar arrangement prevailed in Iceland, with the Lutheran church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| that people were also allowed to belong to other churches? |
Eventually, yes. I don't know when that loosened up. I can tell you that early on, not only were people not allowed to belong to other churches, Quakers and Baptists got hanged for their troubles. The lenient Puritans just tied Quakers to the backs of wagons and whipped them down to the Rhode Island boundary.
But back to the topic. What forced universal manhood suffrage to be accepted in the East was that poor and/or landless younger sons saw no reason to stick around when they could go out west (to Kentucky and Tennessee) and own land and vote. As someone said, "I can hear a great sucking sound as all our hired hands are moving out west." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exodus 20;7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
Lev. 19.12 for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greedy_bones wrote: |
I can understand that law still being around in the U.K., but I don't understand how it came about in the states. Even though, the UK is considerably more secular than the US, a blasphemy law is in direct violation of the first amendment.
edit: Hmm, it looks like the blasphemy law would have been legal if it were passed before 1866. |
It could very well have been passed before 1776. A number of the colonies had established churches, aka "official religions." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a load of absolute crap and waste of taxpayers' money!  Britain has had a de facto situation of tolerating blasphemy for years! On my own adventures in God's hallow'd isle, I've declared my intention to serve Mighty Lucifer many times with no rebukes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| What a load of absolute crap and waste of taxpayers' money! Britain has had a de facto situation of tolerating blasphemy for years! On my own adventures in God's hallow'd isle, I've declared my intention to serve Mighty Lucifer many times with no rebukes. |
Yes, but the problem is we couln't complain to or about other countries with these laws while we still kept a similar law on the books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| What a load of absolute crap and waste of taxpayers' money! Britain has had a de facto situation of tolerating blasphemy for years! On my own adventures in God's hallow'd isle, I've declared my intention to serve Mighty Lucifer many times with no rebukes. |
I think you misunderstand what the blasphemy law is or was. From what I understand, it didn't prohibit someone from being a member of a different faith than the established church. What it did was prohibit attacking another faith with the intent of bringing disrepute on that faith. At least that's the way the blasphemy law in the BIOT was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greedy_bones
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Location: not quite sure anymore
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Exodus 20;7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
Lev. 19.12 for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. |
You realize we're talking about the law and the constitution, not the antiquated laws of the bible, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
