Good news atheists: Danish government to protect your religious beliefs from being mocked

[dismal]

Danish man who videoed himself burning the Quran charged with blasphemy

Jan Reckendorff, from the public prosecutor’s office in Viborg, said: “It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in some cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.

“It is our opinion that the circumstances of this case mean it should be prosecuted so the courts now have an opportunity to take a position on the matter.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lam-prosecuted-charged-46-years-a7594796.html

Though, I guess it says "religion" not "religious beliefs" so maybe atheists religious views are the only ones that can be mocked.

Indeed, maybe atheists views are a mockery or a scorn of Religion.

 

[Axulus]

Danish man who videoed himself burning the Quran charged with blasphemy

Jan Reckendorff, from the public prosecutor’s office in Viborg, said: “It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in some cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.

“It is our opinion that the circumstances of this case mean it should be prosecuted so the courts now have an opportunity to take a position on the matter.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lam-prosecuted-charged-46-years-a7594796.html

Though, I guess it says "religion" not "religious beliefs" so maybe atheists religious views are the only ones that can be mocked.

Indeed, maybe atheists views are a mockery or a scorn of Religion.

A large percentage of comedians would also be in violation of this insane law.

Denmark, wake up! It is exactly this kind of shit that empowers the far right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Though, I guess it says "religion" not "religious beliefs" so maybe atheists religious views are the only ones that can be mocked.

Well, if you listen to some of the idiot faithful, evolution is our religion, or leftism. Or they use Darwin or Dawkins or Hitchens as our messiah, implying an unidentified religion.

On the other hand, maybe atheists are adult enough that we don't burn people at the stake for mocking our total lack of a religion...

 

[Elixir]

Time to found The First Danish Church of the Divine Mocker.

 

[dismal]

Time to found The First Danish Church of the Divine Mocker.

What a sucky-ass religion!

Also, I'm in as long as I get to be a saint and wear a big hat.

 

[NightSky]

Danish man who videoed himself burning the Quran charged with blasphemy

Jan Reckendorff, from the public prosecutor’s office in Viborg, said: “It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in some cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.

“It is our opinion that the circumstances of this case mean it should be prosecuted so the courts now have an opportunity to take a position on the matter.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lam-prosecuted-charged-46-years-a7594796.html

Though, I guess it says "religion" not "religious beliefs" so maybe atheists religious views are the only ones that can be mocked.

Indeed, maybe atheists views are a mockery or a scorn of Religion.

I wouldn't be concerned about atheism not having a privileged status in the matter of blasphemy in the U.S. for various reasons:

1) Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wyoming are the only states that have blasphemy laws and the blasphemy laws in those states are specifically designed in terms of language to protect Christianity and not necessarily other religions. However, the blasphemy law could theoretically be read to protect all religions because of the word "God" and other vague descriptions used in the statutory language.

2) The U.S. Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, for example, the court defined “secular humanism” as a religion.

3) And In 2005, when a Wisconsin inmate wanted to create a study group for atheism and the prison officials prevented from doing so, the case went to court. And the federal court of appeals eventually ruled that atheism was a religion and that the Wisconsin prison officials violated his First Amendment rights with respect to religion.

So, even in the states that have blasphemy laws should prosecutors ever want to prosecute any offenders, atheism could at least on a theoretical basis be just as immunized from criticism just as other recognized religions.

Having said all this, I find it troubling that Denmark is choosing to prosecute in this case. Unless there's some compelling governmental objective in prosecuting the man that I have yet to understand like maybe data that shows right-wing violence is rising and needs to be stemmed due to publicized incidents as the above (with the Facebook video) and a clear case can be made that these types of actions are putting the public at large in imminent danger from such violence, I think prosecuting the man only gives both the left and the right ammunition to not only blame Islam but also further polarizes a society that then feel that alt-right leadership is the answer.

Also, though this is only tangentially relevant, I think people should know that Islamic jurisprudence has a well-established history of recommending disposals of the Qur'an with the method of burning as it's considered a spiritually pure method of validly disposing the text. So, even by the standards of Islam, burning of the Qur'an is not an illegitimate action. So, I find it then strange that a secular state is prosecuting an action that is not even deemed illegitimate in the religion.

Peace

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Dont religions attack atheism like all the time? Blasphemy!

 

[barbos]

So they are going to send guy who burned Koran to prison?

 

[bilby]

Most European nations have blasphemy laws on the books, as a hangover from the more religious days of the last several centuries.

In the last few decades, people have been lobbying to have these stupid laws repealed, but there has been a tendency for the establishment to say that they don't need to be repealed, because they are no longer enforced.

Deliberate acts to attempt to provoke prosecution under these laws are therefore becoming common, in the hope that they will provide an impetus to have the laws finally repealed.

Whether this case is an example of such an attempt to bring attention to the stupidity, and to have the law changed accordingly, I don't know - but it wouldn't surprise me if it were.

 

[dismal]

3) And In 2005, when a Wisconsin inmate wanted to create a study group for atheism and the prison officials prevented from doing so, the case went to court. And the federal court of appeals eventually ruled that atheism was a religion and that the Wisconsin prison officials violated his First Amendment rights with respect to religion.

I think it's silly on its face to argue "atheism is a religion". I do also think, however, it's also somewhat obvious that atheism is a belief about religion(s) and should be given equal legal status to religions under the free exercise clause.

That said, in the US I would assume the First Amendment right to free speech would render all of this debate moot.

Unless there's some compelling governmental objective in prosecuting the man that I have yet to understand like maybe data that shows right-wing violence is rising and needs to be stemmed due to publicized incidents as the above (with the Facebook video) and a clear case can be made that these types of actions are putting the public at large in imminent danger from such violence

Again, if you believe in free speech you don't go grasping at pseudo-crises to justify applying government force to shut people up. Under first amendment law for speech to be prosecuted for incitement the speech must be directed at specific, imminent and likely lawless action.

 

[NightSky]

Unless there's some compelling governmental objective in prosecuting the man that I have yet to understand like maybe data that shows right-wing violence is rising and needs to be stemmed due to publicized incidents as the above (with the Facebook video) and a clear case can be made that these types of actions are putting the public at large in imminent danger from such violence

Again, if you believe in free speech you don't go grasping at pseudo-crises to justify applying government force to shut people up. Under first amendment law for speech to be prosecuted for incitement the speech must be directed at specific, imminent and likely lawless action.

Let's remember this is in the context of Denmark, and European countries generally don't have the type of free speech laws that would absolutely proscribe such actions if there was a compelling governmental objective. In fact, EU approved legislation in 2007 that not only forbid Holocaust denials but also the broader legislation called for jail terms of as much as three years for "intentional conduct" that incites violence or hatred against a person's "race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin." The same punishment would apply to those who incite violence by "denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."

In U.S., the Supreme Court uses strict scrutiny standard to review any abridgment of free speech, which generally means that any attempts by any local, state, or federal government to abridge free speech is unable to survive and any ordinance or statue of this nature struck down posthaste.

However, for Europe generally, compelling governmental objective generally serves as enough to abridge free speech. I don't know enough about Denmark's free speech laws to comment on the specifics but this incident in itself serves to me as an example of wherein the Danish government does feel that specific types of speech might be worth abridgment, and the only time I can speak to specifically this being allowed under the general aegis of law is if there's a compelling governmental objective.

Peace.

 

[dismal]

Again, if you believe in free speech you don't go grasping at pseudo-crises to justify applying government force to shut people up. Under first amendment law for speech to be prosecuted for incitement the speech must be directed at specific, imminent and likely lawless action.

Let's remember this is in the context of Denmark, and European countries generally don't have the type of free speech laws that would absolutely proscribe such actions if there was a compelling governmental objective. In fact, EU approved legislation in 2007 that not only forbid Holocaust denials but also the broader legislation called for jail terms of as much as three years for "intentional conduct" that incites violence or hatred against a person's "race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin." The same punishment would apply to those who incite violence by "denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."

In U.S., the Supreme Court uses strict scrutiny standard to review any abridgment of free speech, which generally means that any attempts by any local, state, or federal government to abridge free speech is unable to survive and any ordinance or statue of this nature struck down posthaste.

However, for Europe generally, compelling governmental objective generally serves as enough to abridge free speech. I don't know enough about Denmark's free speech laws to comment on the specifics but this incident in itself serves to me as an example of wherein the Danish government does feel that specific types of speech might be worth abridgment, and the only time I can speak to specifically this being allowed under the general aegis of law is if there's a compelling governmental objective.

Peace.

I understand this event took place in Denmark. Your post, to which I was responding, was about the US.

Also, I would assume the compelling government reason for a blasphemy law would be "people don't like having their religion mocked". If you're going to have a blasphemy law, it seems like selectively applying it when you think the blasphemy in question is prone to cause violence or unrest would violate the equal treatment of religions and place the government in a role where it must assess which religions are more prone to violence.

And I'm sure the Danish government does not mean to suggest Muslims are exceptionally violent.

 

[NightSky]

Let's remember this is in the context of Denmark, and European countries generally don't have the type of free speech laws that would absolutely proscribe such actions if there was a compelling governmental objective. In fact, EU approved legislation in 2007 that not only forbid Holocaust denials but also the broader legislation called for jail terms of as much as three years for "intentional conduct" that incites violence or hatred against a person's "race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin." The same punishment would apply to those who incite violence by "denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."

In U.S., the Supreme Court uses strict scrutiny standard to review any abridgment of free speech, which generally means that any attempts by any local, state, or federal government to abridge free speech is unable to survive and any ordinance or statue of this nature struck down posthaste.

However, for Europe generally, compelling governmental objective generally serves as enough to abridge free speech. I don't know enough about Denmark's free speech laws to comment on the specifics but this incident in itself serves to me as an example of wherein the Danish government does feel that specific types of speech might be worth abridgment, and the only time I can speak to specifically this being allowed under the general aegis of law is if there's a compelling governmental objective.

Peace.

I understand this event took place in Denmark. Your post, to which I was responding, was about the US.

Yes, my post was in general about the U.S. However, my last two paragraphs of the same post on the first page were specifically within the context of Denmark's decision to prosecute the man. I hope I've sufficiently clarified the post #6 now, and what I've said subsequently makes sense in light of what I'd originally written.

In fact, I'd refer you to the second to last paragraph I'd written as an opening with the following words: "Having said all this, I find it troubling that Denmark is choosing to prosecute in this case." The subsequent sentences were about governmental justification which would have to revolve around a compelling governmental objective, which I'd anticipated would be clear is in reference to Denmark and not the U.S.

Also, I would assume the compelling government reason for a blasphemy law would be "people don't like having their religion mocked". If you're going to have a blasphemy law, it seems like selectively applying it when you think the blasphemy in question is prone to cause violence or unrest would violate the equal treatment of religions and place the government in a role where it must assess which religions are more prone to violence.

I can't answer to this specifically, but I have a feeling that the intention behind the law is antiquated as Denmark is a secular society that doesn't believe in privileging religions. However, the need for its enforcement is not based in whether the law is antiquated or not. I am not trying to make the case for Denmark's prosecutor's decision to prosecute, but I would imagine that these incidents usually are undertaken within the climate of specific politics and policies. And therefore, the best case scenario would, in my humble opinion, despite what I reiterate is my clear lack of knowledge on Denmark's free speech laws, be that there's a compelling governmental objective here which makes his prosecution a sane and even a reasonable undertaking. I'm not making a value judgment when I talk about compelling governmental objective, but what I'm trying to say is that this is one of the only ways that I personally think a secular society like Denmark will be able to legally and morally make the case for prosecuting the man on the basis of his action. Please remember I did say that I found this man's prosecution "troubling."

And I'm sure the Danish government does not mean to suggest Muslims are exceptionally violent.

I can't infer as to specific intentions or speculate about what suggestions they're trying to make with this prosecution. However, if I had to guess, the answer on why this prosecution is going forward is to make an example of him. If I was a Dane, I'd imagine I'd not be joyful at learning of this man's prosecution. So, I imagine that the only way that the government will be able to appease its constituency is by talking about this man's prosecution in terms of having a legal basis based in a compelling governmental objective. Please note though that this is all speculation from my side.

Peace.

 

[Lion IRC]

Denmark wants to discourage gratuitous and provocative incitement of racial/religious hatred.
Good on them for sending a signal that the burning books is so 'last-century'

 

[dismal]

Denmark wants to discourage gratuitous and provocative incitement of racial/religious hatred.
Good on them for sending a signal that the burning books is so 'last-century'

The government forcing books to be burned is tyranny.
Me burning a book I own is freedom.
The government arresting me for burning a book I own is tyranny.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The government arresting me for burning a book I own is tyranny.

What if you hold a press conference for the purpose of burning 500 Qurans you purchased, with the stated goal of starting a riot?

 

[dismal]

The government arresting me for burning a book I own is tyranny.

What if you hold a press conference for the purpose of burning 500 Qurans you purchased, with the stated goal of starting a riot?

I wasn't planning on doing that. But I think someone should be free to burn all the Koran's they want as long as they pay for them and stay within fire codes. The responsibility for any rioting would be on the rioters. Rioters do not have veto power over free speech.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What if you hold a press conference for the purpose of burning 500 Qurans you purchased, with the stated goal of starting a riot?

I wasn't planning on doing that.

I said 'what if...' not 'i know you intend to...' Sorry if the difference is too subtle.

 

[Lion IRC]

...I wasn't planning on doing that.

The Danish government is right to ask what WAS a person planning to achieve by publically burning a quran?

The honest answer would surely be that the act was intended to troll muslims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lam-prosecuted-charged-46-years-a7594796.html

Though, I guess it says "religion" not "religious beliefs" so maybe atheists religious views are the only ones that can be mocked.

Indeed, maybe atheists views are a mockery or a scorn of Religion.

I wouldn't be concerned about atheism not having a privileged status in the matter of blasphemy in the U.S. for various reasons:

1) Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wyoming are the only states that have blasphemy laws and the blasphemy laws in those states are specifically designed in terms of language to protect Christianity and not necessarily other religions. However, the blasphemy law could theoretically be read to protect all religions because of the word "God" and other vague descriptions used in the statutory language.

But are the laws enforceable???

2) The U.S. Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, for example, the court defined “secular humanism” as a religion.

Buddhism doesn't have a supreme being, either. Buddha is not a deity, merely an ideal example of a person.