Thou shall not depict the Lord getting headFollow

It is a semantics game, but the semantics are important. Alma said:



Therefore, if I'm sitting in my room and blurt out "@#%^ Jesus Christ and the lamb he rode in on!", according to Alma, I'd be committing blasphemy, even though I don't hold Jesus sacred and nobody else would be around to hear it (and take offense to it). I'm saying no, that's not right. I haven't committed any blasphemy.

This is all very irrelevant anyway, as blasphemy, at least within the scope of the story, isn't really illegal, and shouldn't be. Free speech and all that.

Edited, Oct 11th 2010 4:44pm by BrownDuck

Yeah, but just a moment ago, you were in agreement. To him, it's not blasphemy. And no one else knows about it. Therefore...

Surely you can follow the dots there.

Otherwise, we're back to the "If Bard eats a double cheeseburger in his house here in the states, then he's a blasphemer" argument. Which makes no sense.

False.. I said that blasphemy is subjective. That's not the same as a non-believer can't commit blasphemy. Once again, what you do in your own room in reference to blasphemy is your own business. That doesn't mean what you do outside your room can't be considered blasphemy.

You're doing the same thing Belkira is doing. You are confusing two different ideas in order to try to prove a point.
I'm not arguing against what you can or can not do, but simply the fact that it is possible for a non-believer to commit blasphemy. The definition does not make a distinction, because there isn't one.

If you're degrading something sacred, chances are high that you don't consider it sacred.

Yes. Let's all agree that what Alma means to say is that just because something you do isn't blasphemy to you doesn't mean it's not blasphemy to someone else. Are we all ok on that? Cause it's kinda getting silly watching the word games circling around in um... circles.



Yes. So if we follow the dots a bit further we can conclude that if he drew an offensive picture of Jesus and (this is the key part) never showed it to anyone, it would not be blasphemous. But putting it into art shows, presumably with the specific objective of thumbing his nose at those who do care about such things would seem to counter the dots you're following.


I may use language at home which others find offensive. I do, however, refrain from using such language when I'm out and around people who do find it offensive. One might suggest that this is merely being polite and aware of other people's feelings. I certainly don't go out of my way to be offensive (like say standing in front of a day care center shouting obscenities in front of the children). One might argue that I have a right to do so though.


Another way to look at the free speech aspect is to examine the case of the crazy folks who show up at funerals with their "God hates ****" signs. Is their expression any more or less valid than that of an artist showing art that he knows others will find offensive? Why condemn an act against one form of free speech, but then praise another (like bikers drowning them out and blocking them from view)?


I think the key to dealing with free speech issues is to examine the cases without applying your own likes and dislikes to the content. Does an artist have a right to draw something I find offensive? Absolutely. Does he have a right to display it in a private setting where I wont ever run into it unless I choose to go there? Yup. Am I going to lose sleep because someone somewhere hates Jesus? Um... Nope.

Does someone have a right to believe that soldiers deaths are a punishment from God for us being a sinful nation (allowing such horrors as homosexuality for example)? Sure. Do they have a right to express this opinion? Yes, they do. Do they have a right to impose that into my life? Nope. Just as I'd draw the line at the artist putting his art where I would have no choice to view it, I'd draw the line at their speech at the point where I can't avoid hearing it.

The tricky bit here is that the funerals in question are public events on public land, and as far as I know the folks in question have obeyed the actual laws with regard to public expression within certain distances of an event at those locations. How I feel about what they are saying shouldn't matter as much as the rules we apply to speech. And those rules ought to apply equally, no matter how offensive the speech may be.


Obviously, this doesn't even touch upon the property rights issue of the destroyed print. But I don't think anyone else was debating that either.

But is there any beef in it or just meal-worm?

At least companies like McDonalds and Hormel (makers of SPAM) ensure that no part of a murdered animal is wasted.

I said that I suck at spelling, not that I can't spell. That's one of the reasons why I use Fire Fox. My "poor spelling" is nothing but an excuse used by others to avoid the fact that they are wrong. That's when people say stuff like, "It's You're, idiot, not your". Those attacks never have any relevance to the actual argument and are only done so you can be right in something.

Bottom line is, the definition does not make a distinction, because there isn't one. Sooner or later you all will realize that it isn't a "semantics game", but logic. Yet, somehow I don't use "critical thinking" lol...

.

No, that's what I said on page ******* one.



To which alma replied:



God damn, you fuckers are stupid.

In the eyes of a believer, yes. However, only in eyes (or ears) of the believer. Just because you think something I said is blasphemous does not make it generally so.

We miss you though.

This. Exactly this. Blasphemy is, by nature, a religious definition. America is not, and should not be, goverened by religious law, nor should any other place on earth be. Unfortunately, there are places where a madwoman with a crowbar would be the least of this artist's worries. Perhaps Alma and his ilk would prefer to live in one of those places. I, however, would not.