I like being able to insult Christianity!
So Islam is a religion of peace?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
I like being able to insult Christianity!
In the risk of being attacked for "making this about Christianity", there's also a very prominent case in Russia at the moment where a girl band is, among other things, accused of blasphemy for performing political protest in an Orthodox church.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's an equal opportunities law: it criminalizes insulting all religions.El_Machinae said:
innonimatu said:
I'm yet to meet anyone who has a positive view of the Saudis. Frankly, it's kind of telling that being called an 'Arab' is still a workable insult. Even Muhammadiyah has come out in recent years and blasted the Salafis for being crypto-foreigners who hate Indonesia and Indonesian's cultural heritage. It makes for an interesting morning to read Muhammadiyah defending the Wali Sanga as inviolate parts of the national identity, and Borobudur as a national treasure.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Out of interest, how strict are they about that? Is it just the major religions, or could you also get hauled up for making fun of Wicca, if somebody happened to care enough to complain to the authorities?
del62
Deity
I thought the charge against them was mocking the Russian President, I dont think blasphemy is a crime in Russia unless it is against Putin (so it seems)
EDIT : The orthodox church has said they deserve to be prosecuted for blashemous behavoir, does anynoe know if Russia has a blasphemy law?
As far as the law in Indonesia is concerned, has there been any instances of cases in which the law being used against insulting other religeons than Islam.
salty mud
Deity
Yeah, I get that. I'm fairly equal opportunity when it comes to insulting religions!
As long as you don't insult Islam, we should be fine.
Here's some evidence to back up the assertion that the law is used principally by Muslims against other Muslims. That's if the whole Ahmadi are Muslims thing flew past anyone.
The law (albeit in another form) hit the book in 1965... and I can't think of it ever being used during Suharto's reign which takes us to 1998*. Since then? The best guess is it's been used something like a couple of dozen times.** But there's no actual count because Indonesian courts at the lower level lack a centralized register of cases.*** The actual number of cases pursued might be higher... but that's only because most cases never make it to an actual court. There's a few reasons for this: the law itself is obscure and rarely employed and the Constitution enshrines freedom of religion and conscience. On the rare occasions where it does get prosecuted, most cases fall down because it's a hard thing to prove. On the very rare occasions there's a verdict, an appeal (if one can afford it) will see it throw out at the Provinsi level courts. I can't think of a case going to the national courts.****
* Subsequent research tells me it was used 10 times before 1998.
** The actual number is 148 times.
*** I'm not sure how this problem was resolved. I just went off the abstract.
**** General impression still seems right.
Question: is my answer going to change anything?
Traitorfish said:
The law (albeit in another form) hit the book in 1965... and I can't think of it ever being used during Suharto's reign which takes us to 1998*. Since then? The best guess is it's been used something like a couple of dozen times.** But there's no actual count because Indonesian courts at the lower level lack a centralized register of cases.*** The actual number of cases pursued might be higher... but that's only because most cases never make it to an actual court. There's a few reasons for this: the law itself is obscure and rarely employed and the Constitution enshrines freedom of religion and conscience. On the rare occasions where it does get prosecuted, most cases fall down because it's a hard thing to prove. On the very rare occasions there's a verdict, an appeal (if one can afford it) will see it throw out at the Provinsi level courts. I can't think of a case going to the national courts.****
* Subsequent research tells me it was used 10 times before 1998.
** The actual number is 148 times.
*** I'm not sure how this problem was resolved. I just went off the abstract.
**** General impression still seems right.
del62 said:
Question: is my answer going to change anything?
Just because it's muslims oppressing muslims, that doesn't imply anything acceptable about the culture, really.
Gang culture leads mostly to victimization of gang members, but I don't think that's necessarily a positive feature.
Gang culture leads mostly to victimization of gang members, but I don't think that's necessarily a positive feature.
To be honest I don't know blasphemy is literally among the charges, but I'm fairly certain it's part of the trial that said mockery of the president took place in a church.
But it doesn't lend itself that much to build up a clash of cultures narrative.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,338
Sorry, that was turkish for me!
People should be able to "insult" (oppose) any religion. Yet most religions get very... offended with that. And will react violently. The only pattern I ever thought I saw seemed to be a more violent reaction from the monotheistic religions, whichever they are. But then recent events in India convinced me that such distinctions are nowhere as important as the role of political opportunism by religious leaders who may be interested in promoting violence.
I'm now very much convinced that it is ridiculous to go about arguing which religion is more violent, especially if the discussion is about the big three monotheistic religions which evolved from a common root in the ancient Middle East. I don't know a more bigoted, more hateful, more irrational religious text that the old testament, and I don't see how any religion which goes back to that common root can ever reliably become a "religion of peace". But they can be defanged by making states secular and (as much as possible) taking religion out of politics. And in that islam is not at all unique, it can be done with it as it can be done with the others.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
AFAIK, Indonesia recognizes Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism and Hinduism. I think Buddhism is recognized as well, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I don't think Indonesia's blasphemy laws protects any religion but the aforementioned ones.
Not that it is relevant to Islamophobes, since it's the Indonesian government who is to blame, and not Islam.
Dachs, you are the only person I know who can sound quite that peurile while demonstrating his remarkable level of education!
The equation of Home Rule with "Rome" Rule as part of the overall perception that papists only took orders from the Holy See is similar to the notion that Muslims, due to Makkah and Madinah being in Saudi Arabia, are unduly influenced by the Saudi state and predominant Saudi opinions on theology.
It's a gift. Although Crezth's made enough "geographical pivot of history" jokes on #nes to be equally puerile.
However, the Vatican does have a disproportionate influence on Catholic theology, but only because the Catholic church is structured in a way that it should - Islam doesn't have a structure in the same way at all, doesn't have a head, doesn't have one recognised body to interpret the scriptures, and so on. Most Catholics agree that the Pope knows what he's doing most of the time; there's nobody that can really occupy that position for Muslims.
Well, the Shia do. It's the Sunni that don't
Yes, that's precisely my point! You may as well say 'it's not true that there's no central theological body for Christianity; I mean, the Anglicans have the Archbishop of Canterbury'
Not really. The closest to a Pope the Shias have is Supreme Leader Khamenei, and even then he only really commands Iranian Twelver Shias.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Meeeeeh, that also requires some fuddling with what "the Vatican" is.
Similar threads
