Blasphemy!!!

Freedom of Speech VS Blasphemy
By Timothy RS

When religious issues are concerned, in many cases freedom of speech are intertwined with blasphemy. Many people have been prosecuted for having different prespective upon religious issues. The 'blasphemies' come in many degrees, some are not so outright and others were outright attack against the organized religion.

Here's some example:

The twelve cartoons of prophet Mohammed which was posted by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in september 2005, has led to a state of disturbance in the Muslim world. Some protestors burnt embassies and international tension. In London, protestors carried signs saying, "Behead those who Insult Islam".[1]

In 2008 a punk festival in Linköping, Sweden used marketing posters showing Satan pooing on Jesus on the cross, under the slogan "Punx against christ!" The poster was taken down by the municipality of Linköping.[2] The publication of the poster in the local newspaper Östgöta Correspondenten caused death threats on the editor-in-chief.[3]

This problem rises from the clash between the non-believers / expressive artists and the presence of censorship by existing organized religion . The mainstream religions had prohibited disrespectful speech and act which opposes the basic teachings and defaming their religious icons. Since we cannot contain both needs from the two opposing parties, sacrifices must be made.

Is it wrong? or is it acceptable? I believe this is not acceptable though not always wrong since it lacks of tolerancy and understanding. The 'guilty' is inconsiderate with respect to the 'victims' whose beliefs are attacked. Here, freedom of speech should have its limit. It is good and acceptable as long as it does not interfere and damaging to other people.

The resolution to this problem would depend on the of the non-believers / expressive artists. I believe, they should keep their thought, speech and acts to themselves and not publish it out, or they could just share this amongst those who share the same thought. Public event and direct attacks that could trigger the social unrest must be hampered. This is so as to not attack anyone's beliefs and cause no unrest.

Is it fair for the non-believers / expressive artists to be denied of their right to publish their thoughts? I would argue that it is relatively fair. If we adopt the prespective which wants maximum benefit for maximum number of people, it's best to be so. Let's imagine what if old perverts openly argue that *** with underaged child or even incest should be allowed, wouldn't that be chaotic? Thus, It is similar to what must be done to those who openly argue against the mainstream religion.

Beware! your words can hurt other people. If one think that making joke of another religion or questioning their religion is funny, one should rethink what would one feel if other people laugh at one's.

Blasphemies are punishable in these countries
AlgeriaAustraliaBelarusBhutanBurmaCanadaChinaCubaEast GermanyFranceGermanyHong KongIndiaIranIrelandIsraelJapan
MalaysiaPakistanPortugalRussiaSamoaSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSouth AsiaNorth KoreaSoviet UnionSwedenTaiwanThailandTunisiaTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States.[4]


^ Five arrested over London cartoons protest - Britain - Times Online
^ Colin Seymour-Ure and Jim Schoff, "David Low", Secker and Warburg 1985, p. 63
^ Koenraad Elst. The Rushdie Rules. work. Retrieved on 2006-02-03.
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_organized_religion

If you deem any part of this entry as plagiarising, please notice the author, apology will be sought and credit will be given to the respective sources.