Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,496
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Ah well, I guess you get to decide what this is "about". Blasphemy, is it? Well, at least someone is making a concrete claim now.Dude, this is about criticizing a terrible blasphemy law. Nothing to do with special excpetions. Good grief.But I have never asked anyone to exempt me from having to follow the law at all, to make some special exception for me.
I disagree with it.
Tell me, in what way has Tonje Gvejon profaned a deity (as opposed to, as would seem much more obviously the case, attacked a fellow Norwegian citizen)? Why do you feel that a God or gods, rather than Norwegian trans people, have standing in this case? The law in question says nothing about religion, indeed would seem to curtail religious extremism more than encouraging it. With hate speech, the object of the legislation, the victim is always considered to be the human who is under attack, not the principles that led to the attack. If I threaten to murder my neighbor over his habit of taking evening prayers out on his verandah, he is the one who has standing to press suit, or the state on his behalf. Not because I insulted Allah, but because I threatened to murder him. His god may be important to him, but the existence or honor of his god (nor mine) is not the reason I might be questioned by the police over the incident. Even if I am religiously motivated, the only crime the state is generally willing to prosecute is my threat to the nighbor, not the implied insult to his god nor recourse to mine. To the best of my knowledge, the reason Tonje Gvejon is being investigated is because of the threat she may pose to fellow citizens, not to her god nor Christine Jentoft's.
In short, I don't think you understand what is morally wrong about blasphemy laws, if you think they would apply to just any sort of situation in which two people have a philosophical or social disagreement. That blasphemy laws force you to publically tolerate religious differences with others is not their significant flaw. Bringing a fictive injury to a deity into a courtroom is what makes blasphemy laws opprobrious, the more so because the testimony of religious authorities must then be relied upon to stand in for said deity in said legal setting. Whereas injuries between one human and the next can be fairly adjudicated without any recourse to particular theological positions or texts.