Western societies are gradually enacting their version of blasphemy laws. It is axiomatic that every nation, whatever its creed or governing belief about itself, regards some things as so sacred and holy it punishes the desecration of the same. For some nations it may be burning or spitting on the flag. For others it is defaming the gods. Thus Socrates was condemned and killed. For others, it is anyone who defames Dear Leader. The gulag or firing squad awaits.
Blasphemy laws indict any action which a particular state believes undermines its very foundations.
The more power the state has aggregated to itself, the more broad and far ranging the kinds of speech indicted as undermining the realm and defaming the holy. As the West has rebelled against the Lord Jesus Christ, casting Him to the outer darknesses of the realm, it has gradually changed the definition and application of blasphemy laws.
In a Christian society, blasphemy is an act of public slander and defamation of the Name of God. Naturally, in societies under the aegis of the Enlightenment such an archaic concept had to be ridiculed and derided as part of a primitive, ignorant past. Secular humanism became the established religion of Western nations. Blasphemy laws were rubbed out of the statute books. However, whilst professing tolerance of all religions and opinions, the West has gradually proscribed opinions and speech which defame the very foundations of the secular humanist religion. Western blasphemy laws are now on the statute books and are being applied.
We have been treated to a demonstration of this grand hypocrisy in the UK. The Guardian summarises this example of the application of UK blasphemy laws:
A student has been jailed for 56 days for posting offensive comments on Twitter about the on-pitch collapse of Bolton Wanderers footballer Fabrice Muamba. Liam Stacey was arrested after his tweets were reported to police by Twitter users from across Britain, including the former England striker Stan Collymore. The 21-year-old pleaded guilty to the Racially Aggravated s4A Public order Act 1986. He posted his offensive comments shortly after Muamba suffered a cardiac arrest during his team's FA Cup quarter-final tie against Tottenham Hotspur on 17 March. . . .Judge John Charles must be a powerful intellect, virtually omniscient. Apparently the whole world was apparently literally praying for Muamba's life. The Judge must have the eye of a god, indeed.
District judge John Charles told Stacey: "It was racist abuse via a social networking site instigated as a result of a vile and abhorrent comment about a young footballer who was fighting for his life. At that moment, not just the footballer's family, not just the footballing world but the whole world were literally praying for his life. Your comments aggravated this situation.
"I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done.
But we digress. Stacey's blasphemy consisted of two things: firstly, he was judged to have uttered racist statements. This is a blasphemy against the peculiar notion of "tolerance", which lies at the very foundation of the modern secular humanist state. It thus attacks the established religion of the UK. It is, therefore, a public blasphemy. The chief prosecutor in the case gravely informed the court and the nation:
"Racist language is inappropriate in any setting and through any media. . . . "That statement can only be true and just if Man is regarded as the ultimate holy being of the nation. It is reasonable to conclude that racist speech and blasphemy are now one and the same in the UK.
The second aspect to the blasphemy committed by Stacey is that he mocked and ridiculed another human being, saying "vile and abhorrent" things about a young footballer.
For the humanist state, Man is the ultimate reality. And a footballers is nearer to deity than most. To speak ill of another human being defames and undermines the very raison d'etre of the secular humanist state.
The convicted blasphemer is going to suffer not just the criminal indictment, but also public revulsion. His former fellow students are quoted as wanting him expelled from Swansea University and the University looks as if it will comply. Ostracism and exile are time honoured punishments for blasphemers.
What other societies have blasphemy laws on the statute books? Ah, yes--Islamic countries. Pakistan, for example, has a Penal Code which outlaws blasphemy against any religion. However, blasphemy laws are only applied when someone allegedly defames Islam in some way. Our contention is the way Pakistan blasphemy laws function in the predominantly Islamic society is precisely the way the UK's blasphemy laws now function in the UK. Both protect the established religion. Both proscribe any offence against the god of the nation. The only difference lies in the severity of the penalties imposed.
But give the UK a bit more time: it is fast catching up.
No comments:
Post a Comment