This rabbi guy thinks, this bigot of a king needs my help to change the attitudes in his country. Who the hell is this intolerant bigoted king think he is that he has the audacity to ask for my help? especially considering the fact that, my ilk would be mercilessly massacred by his storm troopers, if they were found out. This dunce who calls himself the king of the most bigoted nation existing today needs my help? This dunce of a rabii is holding a brief for him? Its over our dead bodies we are going the acquiesce to this atrocity against thinking people. This moron writing the brief could not bring himself to write one sentence about this tyrant's benevolence all these years this guy has been occupying this precious earth. All I will say is the both the morons may rot in hell, alas there is no hell.

This rabbi guy thinks, this bigot of a king needs my help to change the attitudes in his country. Who the hell is this intolerant bigoted king think he is that he has the audacity to ask for my help? especially considering the fact that, my ilk would be mercilessly massacred by his storm troopers, if they were found out. This dunce who calls himself the king of the most bigoted nation existing today needs my help? This dunce of a rabii is holding a brief for him? Its over our dead bodies we are going the acquiesce to this atrocity against thinking people. This moron writing the brief could not bring himself to write one sentence about this tyrant's benevolence all these years this guy has been occupying this precious earth. All I will say is the both the morons may rot in hell, alas there is no hell.

You, Mr. Hirschfield, are an appeaser of the worst kind. Your loyalty to religion has blinded you to the oppression and repression that exists in Saudi Arabia. You talk of religious freedom, but what about political freedom. You are praising a King ... a King! The Western world buried this self-indulgent, arbitrary kind of authority hundreds of years ago.

Truth for authority, not authority for Truth!

People with a truly solid basis in their faith should never even be annoyed, let alone offended, when someone speaks out against their faith or beliefs. What does it matter if someone blasphemes about any religion? It doesn't make the blasphemous statement true or untrue. I am a person of somewhat transient faith, but I believe down to my marrow that the freedom of speech and expression that we enjoy, which includes the freedom to trash any damn religion one wants to, is one the few things worth fighting or dying for. I pledge that I will vigorously opppose in any way I can, the United States signing onto any agreement that stifles the ability of citizens to criticize, chastize or just plain mock any and/or all religions. It is one of the truly wonderful things about AMERICA that we let each individual decide for him or herself what is and is not sacred. I have been to Saudi Arabia (as well as many other Arab states), and not for every penny in their coffers would I accept their advice about ANYTHING to do with religion or freedom of expression. My God! It chills the skin to even think about it.

Religion is evil.

Considering that some forms of ill-considered criticism of beliefs that some people hold dearly can lead to deadly violence, perhaps the concept of some restraint on blasphemy is not entirely out of the question.

Here in Canada, we have a Criminal Code section that outlaws "blasphemous libel": "296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Question of fact
(...)
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject."

Everyone is free to hold and to express any opinion, pro or con, on a religious matter but must in doing so respect the sensibilities of believers. There has been no prosecution under this law since the early 1930s. However, if someone or some group derided or mocked regligious beliefs to the point of inciting violence, the law is there ready to be used to protect public order for ÀLL citizens.

Until King Abdullah brings religious tolerance to his own country he has zero authority, moral or otherwise, to call for others to change their ways.
The Saudis have anti-blasphemy laws. You can be put to death for violating them.
The leader of a country that practices lethal religious intolerance should have a place at the table in discussions about tolerance but only as an observer.

Why should religion be regulated at all with officially sanctioned government status? This type of discourse serves only one purpose: to raise acknowledgment and prominence of religious obedience throughout the world … based on the underlying premise that faithful followers have no representation or meaningful participation in the debate regarding requirements imposed for spiritual acceptance.

A global anti-blasphemy law is un-American, and at least in America, un-Constitutional. Freedom of speech includes freedom to blaspheme.
The problem is, blasphemy includes ANY questioning of the uniqueness of God's presence, questioning of whether Jesus was really the son of God, questioning of whether Mohammed was really a prophet of God, any insinuation that God may have lied to someone or all of us, or any question about whether God made a mistake when he created us. Blasphemy includes any claiming of the attributes or rights of God for one's self. And it includes any irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered by some people to be inviolable or sacred.
This means no scientific research in areas that intrude on areas regarded as God's providence. Dependign on who decides where the line is drawn, this means no cellular research, no life saving medicine, no cloning or genetic manipulation. It could also mean no mining, no pest control, no space flight, heck, no flying period! To say I'm being absurd about this is to ignore history. It has happened, it will continue to happen. This global anti-blasphemy law would be the worst case scenario imposed by force on us all.
This anti-blasphemy law would put hundreds, possiby thousands of comedians out of business. It would wipe out hundreds of movies and destroy the careers of hundreds of movie stars. Shall we execute Don Rickles, Roseanne Barr, Orlando Bloom, Johnny Depp for having spoken and acted in ways that promoted blasphemy? shall we dig up George Carlin's grave and strew his remains on barren land for his multiple blasphemies made throughout his life?
This problem is multiplied by the number of religions and deities throughout the world. Such a law would apply to not only those of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, but also Buddism, Hinduism, Taoists, Native American Indian religions, Satanists, Wiccans, Scientologists, Satanists, etc.
Let me tell you this, based on the Saudi King, Abdullah Abdul Aziz al Saud's remarks at the UN, he has a hidden agenda. While he speaks of respect for the dignity of all religions, he is laying the foundation for global islam and sharia law. This isn't cynicism, this is recognition of reality.
There's a very good reason for the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Absolute respect for anything precludes the freedom to question it, and is in opposition to to concept of total freedom of speech. There are people in prison under sentence of death around the world for having uttered blasphemy. That is not a world I care to live in. Taking any steps down that particular road is definately going the WrongWay.

So which religions are to be respected? All? Any? I'm a Last Thursdian. Will my religion be respected? For those unfamiliar with Last Thursdayism I'll give you a quick background: Last Thursdayans believe the earth and everything on it was created last Thursday. Everything including you, your memories, the earth, fossils, the universe including light from stars, all created last Thursday. Like most religions, this cannot be proven to be false and is not so different from the belief in a 6000 year old earth. The God who created the earth last Thursday gives us all a week on earth to repent, do good, live lives of poverty, etc, and Judgement Day will come next Thursday.

The question is whether any blasphamy against my religion will be treated in the same way under this global law as blaspheming against Islam or Judiaism.

Seriously though, what seems to be happening with the King and this whole global blasphemy law is to put in place a global respect for what they currently have as domestic law. They want the criticism of those backward and oppressive domestic Islamic laws to be honored by those in free nations by offering free nations their support for religious oppression worldwide, and not just for Islam but your any religion. In essense they are saying they willl support christians and jews enacting laws as harsh as their own.

This is a sick attempt to help bring the free nations on earth back 500 years to their level of oppressive society. What we should do is stand resolute for religious freedom and freedom of speech, and teach the King the error in his ways and the way toward true respect for all religions, religious freedom with no blasphemy.

A global blasphemy law? Why is this even being discussed? Blasphemy is meaningless for the non-religious and a universal prohibition is meaningless without there being one, universal faith. Just by discussing this issue a government would be implying religion is relevant to all its citizens, essentially engaging in establishment of religion. In the U.S., citizens have the right to reject religion; freedom of religion does not mean that one has to choose one of the available faiths; rather, one can reject them all. By so doing, the concept of blasphemy becomes moot, i.e., meaningless. Also blasphemy is a subjective term. To a fundamentalist Muslim, any depiction of a living being in art is blasphemous. Rejecting Mohamed as the prophet of God is blasphemous, just as rejecting the divinity of Christ is for fundamentalist Christians. Even if all were to accept the validity of religion, a universal blasphemy law is not possible without a universal religion. Pure Buddhism rejects the notion of supreme beings being any more important than mortal beings, i.e., it is essentially, as originally established by Siddhartha, an atheistic religion; the religions of the book would view this as blasphemy. Considering this, the King probably, as suspected, would want only certain religions to be sanctioned, which, one could infer, means adherence to any other religion would be blasphemy. What a bad and archaic idea. Assuredly a Trojan horse to get a world governing body to discuss a subject that should be left out of governing: religion. Should governing bodies become involved in disputations about the existence of unicorns?

The king's idea of a global blasphemy law is just as arrogant as Bush's doctrine of enforced democracy.

I think the part of the world that has freedom of speech should publish the Muhammad cartoon, every day, for one full year.

That would be our answer.

As if the principal purpose of this wasn't to allow the Muslim nations to demand that the Western ones prosecute people like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris for insulting their prophet.

Spidermean2, Why do you slander liberal Protestantism? They have NEVER supported blasphemy laws. In Western Europe, it was liberal Protestantism that ushered in free speech and overturned blasphemy laws. It was Unitarians among our founders who pushed for freedom of speech in our Bill of Rights.

Fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, burnt Beatles records after misunderstanding Lennon's off-hand remark and demanded radio stations not play Beatles songs. A few years ago they boycotted Walmart for saying "Happy Holidays" to them. Some would forbid any book but the Bible from being used for an oath. And yet, that doesn't mean they favor blasphemy laws.

Can't we agree, we all agree on no blasphemy laws?

The Islam religion is the most realistic. Obviously the two religious buildings (the long skinny tower and the nicely rounded broad building) are the male and female parts of sexuality. The two have to integrate to continue procreation. The Taj Mahal in India is perhaps the most famous copy of this old but realistic believe. Also the believe that mankind is to compete, fight, kill each other is reality. From 8 year old kids playing a chess game to Taliban and Western soldiers killing each other and everything in between is just that:Fight and WIN. The christian church with its turning the other cheek and going to heaven for all eternity is scary nonsense. I'm a non believer but have a pretty good sense of my brothers: they are not to be trusted. Looking into the back yard now I see all trees, come spring, competing with each other for the most leaves and catching the sun. It is every tree for itself. Same with mankind.

Organized religion has been the excuse for untold deaths in every corner of the world. Every human being should practice whatever faith they believe in their own way and without preaching it to others and in private. Same way for their sexual orientation. I for one am tired of hearing about both in the news. I don't care what an individuals preference is in either category as long as the don't bring it into the public forum. I don't want to drive down the highway and see a church or a mosque either. It is advertisement for a religion. Religions cause division not unity.

I disapprove of restrictions on free speech other than the obvious public safety limits (e.g., you can't yell 'fire' in a theater and cause a stampede). That includes limits Germany has with respect to speech about the holocaust and certainly would include any anti-blasphemy laws. People should be allowed to make stupid statements, statements that offend others, statements that poke fun at or belittle others or their opinions and beliefs, etc. That the essence of free speech. I believe that bad ideas ultimately lose in a true free market of ideas provided that free speech is fully protected.

As for the Saudis specifically, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. The Saudi theocracy is ugly, brutal, and dehumanizing. For the time being, we need them for oil and as a strategic ally in the Middle East, but they can take their culture and shove it. Any attempt to export those bad ideas should be squashed ASAP.

I had started out laboriously:

"Pandora was a piker compared to the box a blasphemy law would open etc. etc." and then I saw FredFawcett's comment, just above, the first comment in this thread. Well Fred, you said it better than I could:

"Take your #%##@!! blasphemy law and stick it in your #$@$%!!%&. You mother#$#@$%!@ busybody."

Well said! Thanks. I agree completely.

Globalization has a downside. It means mixing cultures that have different values and ideas. The explosive mixture of religion and politics produces nonsense and chaos. A central tenet of many religions is that adherents to a different religion are lesser people, not deserving of respect, destined for Hell, and perhaps should be killed as if God had ordered it be done. Intelligent people who study religion do not find in relgions such blatant instructions to the faithful. But the people in whom such instructions are manifest are not intelligent. They simply believe.

Take your #%##@!! blasphemy law and stick it in your #$@$%!!%&. You mother#$#@$%!@ busybody.

Pushing a Trojan Horse or a sexy Trojan condom to protect those who invoke Allah from criticism of their regimes? So your happy or hopeful that at least there is some talk or journey taking place... but beware "there are double-headed dragons at the edge of the world". Suppression and repression. And crimes against humanity (forked tail).

Blasphemy? That’s contempt or lack of reverence for someone’s belief in a deity. What about someone’s belief that there is no deity? These bigots who claim to be religious and want their views respected, but aren’t willing to respect anyone else’s views at all don’t deserve their expected reciprocity. Religion is the work of the devil. It always has been. I have little respect for religions and even less for the deities that are worshiped. There is no good that can come from worshipping these false idols: God, Jesus, Allah, Jahweh, and unfortunately, the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well.

I don't believe "God" will ever become obsolete, religions yes, but "God" no... In fact, I think many religions, including some very mainstream ones, are already obsolete, but they just don't know it yet! Not only that, but there is evidence that religions evolve(there's that evolution word again!) Science is fantastic in explaining HOW the universe works, but it will never be able to explain WHY! Or if it can, I'm all EARS!!!

I don't believe "God" will ever become obsolete, religions yes, but "God" no... In fact, I think many religions, including some very mainstream ones, are already obsolete, but they just don't know it yet! Not only that, but there is evidence that religions evolve(there's that evolution word again!) Science is fantastic in explaining HOW the universe works, but it will never be able to explain WHY! Or if it can, I'm all EARS!!!

Wait a minute, wait a minute, back up.

"King"?

"There is a difference between hypocrisy and inconsistency. While King Abdullah is certainly guilty of the la
tter, there is no reason to charge him with the former."

No, there isn't; yes, there is.

When a country declares cities off-limits to anyone who is not of a faith; when homosexuality is a crime punishable by death because of religious dogma; when one group of people (women) is legally unable to do the same things as men; it is HYPOCRISY for a person in that country who has some power to change things to demand others change.

If these things were of the past, if Saudi Arabia had 'sinned' but now repented, if the good King was struggling and risking his political and real life to make changes, then it would perhaps be inconsistency. Saying it's not hypocrisy doesn't make it true.

On the other point... a 'global ban on blasphemy' is absurd. There are too many people, including me, who would kill for freedom of thought and expression. If such a thing were conceived and even slightly implemented it would mean a civil war of the West.

I believe Jesus Christ was crucified because there exist in the minds of many poeple an imaginary GLOBAL BLASPHEMY LAW.

All the idiotic global religions like Catholicism, Islam, Liberal Protestantism are supportive of that initiative.

IDIOTS FOREVER. Don't ridicule them or you'd be jailed just like in the old times.

In Saudi, you'd be jailed if you bring with you a Bible.

And people wonder why Doomsday is coming? IT IS COMING BECAUSE OF ALL THESE STUPIDITY. In the mind of God, there is no other recourse to cure these people.

I'm reminded of the mass rock I saw in Ireland several decades ago, where my ancestors practiced their religion in secret, to avoid persecution (and prosecution) by English civil authorities. How in the world could the Vatican possibly support blasphemy laws?

Respectfully, it won't work, and neither should it. I would deliberately and frequently break such a law, even if I didn't believe the things I was saying/writing, just to show what a nonsense it was. The first to go would be freedom of discussion, then women's rights, then artistic freedom, then religious freedom, then...well you get my drift. A draconian, global law saying what is acceptable expression and what is not places us full square into Orwell territory. Faith is personal, a global blasphemy law is impersonal. If you start putting laws on freedom of expression then the end is in sight and we will no longer be able to write, paint, compose, think, braodcast what moves us for fear of breaking the law. It would mute the spirit and silence progress and the evolution of ideas and faith (which I guess is why such a thing is being suggested). I don't like fundamentalism in any area of life, especially not in religion. A global law would open the door to such a way of life.

I just looked up what King Abdullah did say at the UN:

"Throughout history, preoccupation with differences between the followers of religions and cultures has engendered intolerance, causing devastating wars and considerable bloodshed without any sound logical or ideological justification. It is high time for us to learn from the harsh lessons of the past and concur on the ethics and ideals in which we all believe. Matters on which we differ will be decided by our Omniscient Creator on the Day of Judgment."

Sounds fair to me.
Now what make you think again that Abdullah is aiming for a global blasphemy law? - I couldn' find a hint at it in that speech...

Not to defend German laws against free speech, but let's distinguish between laws designed to preempt libel against Holocaust scholars, thereby sparing courts innumerable suits like Britain has had, wherein the documented facts invariably prove the deniers, who have no evidence, are guilty of libel.

Blasphemy laws do the exact opposite. They make it a crime to point out no evidence supports what is by definition is superstition.

Hate crime laws, which I don't defend, are wholly different as well, being designed to protect people not a myths.

religion is a hokus/pokus money making scam, it poisons everything it touches!

I believe in God end of story. One thing I think everyone could agree on whether they believe in God or not is that if God did exist he/she/it could look after him/her/it-self and that to pass a blasphemy law explicitly says he/she/it can't look after themselves. I think any religious person who supported such a law would be committing blasphemy by the simple logical deduction that a God who needs looking after, in their eyes, is not God. If I was God I would be very very annoyed at anyone who thought I needed protecting from anyone or anything. And for a thug like the Saudi king who holds court over an evil system that chastises only poor people, and who tolerates thousands of lazy good for nothing "princes" sitting on the backs of poor foreign workers, to come out with this, is surely a sick joke. If anyone is heading straight to hell "and don't pass go" it will be him and "joyful" converts to idiotic islamic ideas like the rabbi. "Great religions" think alike obviously.

"I remind you that we must often go abroad to implement those ideas we ultimately implement at home".

The only example, I can think of, isn't comparable, being centuries-old: British innovation in their empire.

If the Saudi king has positive change in mind, he's too late to introduce it to a world far in advance not does he have the right.

The Saudi society is repressive by our standards but Israel is a gross human rights violator of great violence, operating a vast concentration camp in the occupied territories. It still hasn't been taken to task for it's evil invasion of Lebanon. This Rabbi ought to turn his eyes to that problem and not bother us with his yap about others. Hard right Muslims, Christians, and Jews, are all nuts. To hell with them all, down with pandering to the dark areas of human psychology where religion dominates.

A global "blasphemy law" is an obvious non-starter in pretty much all modern industrial societies, so why expend all this energy worrying about it? Why not let him actually propose it rather than accusing him of plotting to do it without apparently even an unnamed source to corroborate his intentions? Believe me, it's so out of the realm of possibility everywhere except maybe in his own country and a few authoritarin Muslim regimes like Indonesia that we don't need to plan ahead for this one...

Let me get this straight. Abdullah is a dictator in a state where women have no rights. The Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is the most intolorant and repressive this side of the Taliban. The Saudis finance schools that teach the most backwards and extreme form of Islam.

Instead of listening to this guy, we should be working on toppling him. His funds helped create Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Iranian mullahs are good friends compared to this guy. The only positive thing I can say about Abdullah is that he takes up space and can convert O2 to CO2.

All of this discussion of religion is one reason the Post is going out of business. Religion is not a newspaper's business. If you want to report local religious events, that's one thing, but discussing who, what, when, where, why, and how people worship or not doesn't belong in a newspaper. It also reflects the conservative philosophy you have adopted from the rightwingnuts who have held office over the last 15 years. Time to give it up or get a church, synagogue, mosque, etc., where you can preach to the converted.

As a proud atheist, I am primarily concerned with protections for non-belief. While it might carry no legal weight in the U.S., a global anti-blasphemy law would be another step toward enshrining belief as a requirement for a person to be recognized under the law. In my view, this would be more than a blow against individual liberty of conscience: it would be an attempt to restrain the inexorable flow of history away from superstition and toward greater understanding of the universe in which we live.

Bobsewell

My experience has been replicated by me and millions of others over the history of mankind.

It is called meditation.

Try this.

Breathe in deep and utter the word OM slowly and silently as you breath in and then exhale slowly. Try to focus on one mental image ( I focus on Lord Krishna, who came to earth in human form). Do the meditation for 30 minutes. You to will get the same feeling of bliss and transportation into the sublime while being fully conscious. The state is that of being one with God.

Try it. It may work for you. You do not have to believe me but try it for yourself. If it does not work then my path is not true for you.

PS: As you get better at it you can try a variation. Inhale thru one nostril as you say OM , hold it there for a few seconds and the exhale thru the other nostril. Alternate between nostrils.

The bliss is genuine and not drug induced.

"There also already exist laws in Germany regarding how one can view and express oneself publicly on the 'holocaust'."

Yes, Mr. Thompson- and with good reason. The Germans know first hand how easy it was to fall into the us vs them trap. Some things should not be passively encouraged under freedom of speech- slavery is another. speech that aims to take away rights from another group simply because one group doesn't believe in equality and human rights.

But a blasphemy law is ridiculous. Who would enforce it? What happens to someone found guilty of blasphemy? What about those who are unbelievers, or Pagan or wiccan? While I would love to think the religiously righteous would rise up in their defense, I think the opposite would happen, and this law would become a bludgeon.

How about a law reaffirming basic rights for all first? If you don't start there, you've got no place to go, really.

"...remarks about the dignity of religious difference."

Islam doesn't respect the "dignity of religious difference." There is God's religion and there is everything else. Case closed.

"I remind you that we must often go abroad to develop those ideas which we ultimately implement at home."

We must ? To an aging King whose family made a deal with Wahhabists at its ascendency in the 1920's ?

"There is a difference between hypocrisy and inconsistency. While King Abdullah is certainly guilty of the latter, there is no reason to charge him with the former."

I won't be giving this a lot of thought, beyond charging the good King with making a semi political speech at the UN.

Jailkkhosla - "God can only be experienced."

What an absurd thing to say. For all you know, God is reborn new each day, always fresh, innocent, and without experience.

This is perhaps the worst idea that has to date been expressed in this forum. Every organized religious order will likely have supporters of this concept including secular humanists who already are big backers of 'hate crime' laws which introduce an alleged criminal offender's mental attitude as a component used to increase penalties for traditional crimes. An assault on another person where hate is involved is worse than an assault without hate? Go figure. There also already exist laws in Germany regarding how one can view and express oneself publicly on the 'holocaust'. As an American with a strong sense of the importance of freedom of speech, I am against all efforts in this direction.

"....a ... law that would limit religious freedom and spiritual expression to parameters agreed upon by a select group of religious authorities."

How is this any different than Huckabee's agenda to "take this Nation back for Christ" or "change the Constitution to God's standards"?

The basic problem with all religious is that they want to shove their dogmas down everyone else's throat like the Holy Catholic Inquisition.

"Or is it the cynical ploy of a powerful leader pushing a Trojan horse into the General Assembly, one which sacrifices genuine spiritual freedom in the name of respect for a few specific faiths? Probably a bit of both. But the upside potential far outweighs the downside risk, so we should greet this effort with joy, if cautiously so."

Goddamn, you a gullible. Hmm... the leader of the most religiously-oppressive regime on the planet wants the UN to pass a law making it a crime to critisize religion. Jeepers, it just, just, WHERE IS YOUR BRAIN!>!:?!?!

God can only be experienced. The experience is always personal and no laws can be based on the experience that can be only personal in nature. Trust me, as I have had two such experiences and when one has them one knows.

The biggest blasphemies active today are Christianity and Islam. Because they insist that there is only God. Any rational reason there cannot be two, a million or none? No has given me a convincing reason.

They also insist that God gave them a message or a set of messages and then proceed to formulate laws as in the case of Islam or go around telling people that their way to salvation is the only way to salvation and those that do follow follow their path are doomed to burn in hell. Both Islam and Christianity are guilty of these transgressions against God. Islam goes one step further and has laws making apostasy a crime punishable by death.

It is my opinion, having experienced what I believe is God, that is Divinity, I prefer that term to God, does not get insulted by humans claiming that there is only one God or that this God demands prayer five times a day or similar lies but Divinity is unhappy when humans impose these and similar demands on others as Christians and Muslims do.

And the greatest expression of blasphemy is the claim that one's way is the only way and that everybody else must follow it. If God has a way and He wanted to tell us He would appear during a football game and tell us.

God does not get insulted when you abuse him. But I believe that he does feel hurt when you claim that he feels insulted when you abuse him via blasphemy. God is above blasphemy.

So what the King is proposing is that blasphemy be made not a crime but the law. That is we must all insult God by not being critical about Him.

The King should not bring God down to the level of humans.

Respectfully, Rabbi, you're inferring something not entailed in the king's remarks. His respect for religious beliefs is not to be confused with respect for those who hold those beliefs. The king may well be prepared to forbid his people from blaspheming all religions, while finding it entirely consistent to continue to forbid the practice of all but Islam.

The fundamental problem would remain that religion is protected at the expense of human rights. Freedom of religion is at the bottom simply freedom of speech.

There are attempts to get a blasphemy law in EU. Of course, among others, the Vatican is behind them.

Of course we can't have a law like that. A religious viewpoint is no different from any other viewpoint on life, it's not deeper or universally truer. Religious people are people like anyone else.

Civil, humanitarian law must come first. You should not be able to have special protection from criticism because you are religious, and you should not be able to hide bad behavior behind a demand on others to respect your own brand of superstition and your or your pastors', rabbis' or imams´ rules around it.

I hold this truth to be self-evident.

A global blasphemy law? Let me be the first to break it!

As near as I can tell, God is obsolete. All the mysteries of existance for which the catch-all of "God's Will" was offered as an "explaination" have been falling one by one to sound scientific investigation.

At best modern religious institutions are a curious blend of social club and feel-good pop-psychology. At worst, they prove the rules that power corrupts, and children should never be left alone with strangers.

I used to just ignore the fundamentalist loonies I meet as being mostly harmless, but lately their peculiar brand of nonsense has started to bug me. "Jesus died for my sins?" Rubish. He pissed of the Romans, that's all. (I think he broke a blasphemy law or something like that)

This sounds like all the silly emperors of modern religious want to pass a law against the fashion critics who would call them naked. They are prancing about intellectually exposed in a world that no longer needs them. (when a modern man seeks guidance, he prays at the alter of Google...)

Through global warming, human beings create natural disasters. We can either face that fact, and work together rationally to protect our planet from further damage, or we can listen to these robed loonies who blow incense, discourage independent analysis and preach "The End is near! Give us your gold and children..."

Thanks Guys, but I'll take my chances with reason.

The churches had a nice racket going for the last 2000 years or so. But I think it's time for the nonsense to stop.

Not only is the concept of blasphemy incompatible with true religious freedom, the restriction of that freedom and punishment of dissidents is the sole purpose of blasphemy laws. An accusation of blasphemy is the defense of believers who have no rational response to the criticism that offends them. With the existence of varied and multiple faiths, as well as a sizable and increasing number of "non-religious" people, there will always be a conflict between one person's free expression and another person's perception of blasphemy. Ridicule is the natural human response to things that one perceives to be ridiculous. Unfortunately, all religious beliefs seem somewhat ridiculous except, of course, for one's own, which are always perfectly rational. Like it or not, believers are simply going to have to adjust to the fact that not everyone considers their beliefs or holy books worthy of respect. The fact is that all religious belief is a matter of "faith" and is thus no more than opinion. Sincerely held opinion, but opinion nonetheless. And if believers are not willing to acknowledge the right of others to speak freely about religion, even to the point of disavowing it entirely, by what standard do they claim the right speak their own opinion, much less claim legal protection for it?