Log In | Register
Many Christians in North America believe that their religion is under attack - it’s safe to say that many think their religion is disrespected to a degree that they find sickening. In times past, blasphemy laws took care of such talk against religion. Today, in North America at least, blasphemy laws have taken a back seat to freedom of speech.
However, in a recent news story an atheist was attacked by a Muslim man for walking in a parade with a zombie Muhammad. The judge actually sided with the attacker in what I can only describe as a sort of subtle blasphemy law.
It almost sounds like the makings of a joke: an atheist, a Muslim and the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. But non-believers aren't laughing about an attack and insist what's really frightening is the way a district judge ruled on it.
The Atheists of Central Pennsylvania decided to walk in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. There was a zombie Pope and a zombie Muhammed. On YouTube, you can catch a scary moment. It's dark and distorted, but a Muslim man comes off the curb extremely offended at Muhammed being depicted in this way.
"He grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck," said Ernie Perce, who donned the costume.
The Muslim man and Perce both called police to report a crime. Both kept walking, and a few blocks down found Sgt. Brian Curtis. He talked to both and came to this conclusion.
"Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in confronting him," he said.
Talaag Elbayomy was charged with harassment, but District Judge Mark Martin threw it out after criticizing Perce, the victim, and even calling him a "doofus." The audio is also on YouTube.
Martin, who has done several tours of duty in the Middle East, said Perce would be put to death in those societies for his crime, but Perce wonders why that's relevant in this country.
"He let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free from an attack," Perce said.
Now you may agree with the judge when he called the man who was attacked a ‘doofus’ but I think it’s hard to defend this decision and the precedent it seems to subtly give to blasphemy laws. The judge let the attacker go because he felt he was justified in attacking someone after he offended his religious sensibilities.
You may also think there aren’t many people who think blasphemy laws should be instituted, but you’d be wrong there as well. There are a significant amount of people around the world who believe that blasphemy laws should be instituted worldwide to protect religious ideas and what they usually describe as the ‘core ideals’ behind their civilization or society.
You may be yelling ‘bull@!$%#!’ at the screen right now, but even the UN has considered it:
Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism.
And you may not be aware of this as either a Canadian or American citizen, but laws do exist on the books for blasphemy.
In 2007, there was a blasphemy case in Pennsylvania between George Kalman and the State. He wanted to create a company called “I Choose Hell Productions” and was denied by the State on the grounds that his company name “may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.” It was brought to court and was ruled to be unconstitutional and that it violated the Establishment Clause.
Even so, it shows that blasphemy laws aren’t as farfetched as some would like to believe. I’ve even had commenters here on the Vine say they would back a bill that would see blasphemy charges become a reality. And is it really that hard to imagine someone like Rick Santorum instituting such laws if elected?
Personally, I see blasphemy charges as an affront to human dignity, freedom of thought and freedom of speech. It’s an abhorrent way to silence the free flow of ideas. If someone can’t abide having their faith questioned, then how strong can their faith really be? My mind rebels against blasphemy laws but then again, maybe I’m just biased as an atheist.
What do you think? Should blasphemy laws exist in whatever country you live in? Why or why not?
If your answer is ‘yes’, what kind of punishment do you think a conviction should bring?
