Jump to content

Talk:Blasphemy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GreenC bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,364,146 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Blasphemy/Archive 1) (bot
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk page}}
{{Talk page}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|class=C|importance=Top|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=C |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Theology|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Crime|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(365d) | archive = Talk:Blasphemy/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 10 }}

== Swapped Order ==

hi <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.178.205.243|122.178.205.243]] ([[User talk:122.178.205.243|talk]]) 11:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I have swapped the order of the basic and the broader senses of Blasphemy, as it seemed to make the initial flow of the article progress better.

----

==Idiots==
I have removed the Gibson-esque 'damn Jews' which someone had added to the middle of the article.

----

Artist Convicted of 'Blasphemy'

Mon Jul 21, 7:24 AM ET


WARSAW (Reuters) - A Polish artist who exhibited an image of a man's
penis attached to a cross broke the Roman Catholic country's law on
blasphemy, a court has ruled, according to Poland's top-selling daily on
Saturday.

Gazeta Wyborcza said the conviction of artist Danuta Nieznalska in the
Baltic port of Gdansk was the first known instance in Poland of anyone
being convicted of offending religious sensibilities.

"The cross is a symbol of suffering, because on it Christ died. There is
no doubt that this cross has been desecrated," the paper quoted as Judge
Tomasz Zielinski as saying.

In addition to a 2,000 zloty ($500) fine, the judge imposed on
Nieznalska a six-month foreign travel ban, saying her legal notoriety
would likely increase her demand in international art circles.

"I am shocked by such a severe sentence," the paper quoted the artist as
saying after the verdict. "The court was totally biased. The judge
admitted he was no art expert."



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=5&u=/nm/20030721/od_nm/poland_blasphemy_dc


::::Hey, that link didn't work. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/75.68.22.207|75.68.22.207]] ([[User talk:75.68.22.207|talk]]) 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
----
Not touching the above quote with a ten-foot pole, I was under the impression that Finland had repealed its blasphemy law circa 1990. -- [[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 10:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:On research it appears that it hasn't, but I couldn't see anyone save the freethinkers caring about this. There have been three convinctions of it in the recent years, all fines, and at least two were quite unambiguously asking for it. FYI. -- [[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 29 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)


Blasphemy and the Church of England - A divisional court did state that English law protected the beliefs of the C of E, rahter than Islam, but this is not a strong precedent, and in isolation would misrepresent the scope of the blasphemy laws. I altered that sentence to indicate that the law referred to God, Jesus & the bible, which is better supported by other precedents and the actual legislation - [[User:Paul|Paul]] 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I subdivided the blasphemy laws section of this article to make it a bit more organized and hopefully a little bit easier to read and understand.<br>
[[User:Jesster79|JesseG]] 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


----
I tried to edit the main paragraph but the article always gets truncated in the edit box.--[[User:84.188.185.146|84.188.185.146]] 04:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

==Muhammad cartoons controversy relevent?==

I'm not sure whether it's really relevent to include a link to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in the section on blasphemy in Islam. Wasn't the controversy mainly about iconism rather than blasphemy? In any case, a link at the bottom seems out of place, if it is really relevent it would surely be better to include a sentence of two description of the controversy, focusing on the issue of blasphemy, rather than just pointing towards it without fitting it into the wider context of blasphemy and Islam.
[[User:Daduzi|Daduzi]] 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
:Following a discussion with [[User:Tom harrison]] the link has now been moved into the main paragraph and put into some context. [[User:Daduzi|Daduzi]] 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

== Blasphemy law in Britain ==

The article says that blasphemy laws are still on the book in Britain, but there's no handy set of brackets afterwards to tell me which law(s) that's referring to. If someone could put that info in I'd be interested to read it. --[[User:Hughcharlesparker|Hughcharlesparker]] 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== Blasphemy laws in France? ==

Some court decisions in France suggest that there are blasphemy laws on the books; for example, the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm ban on an advertisement] that used the Last Supper in a way that the court ruled constituted "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs". None of the news articles make clear precisely what law is being used in these prosecutions, though; does anyone have another source that might clarify that? --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Not every single case about blasphemy can be notated, and blasphemy laws in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and all other members of the [[European Union]] may be represented in unison by the section [[Blasphemy#European_initiatives|''European initiatives'']] in the article. But, for Finland, also a EU Member, the law was stated in its own section. I would consider adding this to the article yourself. [[User:IlStudioso|<span style="color:green">'''Il'''</span>]][[User_talk:IlStudioso|<span style="color:orange">Studioso</span>]] 08:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

::This looks like wrong, for instance, if you read Le Monde (1) ''«L'association catholique Croyances et libertés, qui représente l'épiscopat français, porte plainte. Les créateurs perdent en première instance puis en appel» (...) «Le 14 novembre 2006, l'arrêt de la cour d'appel est cassé».''
::This mean that the Christians catholics won in ''«première instance»'' and in ''«appel»'' but this was broken on 14 November 2006.
::Nowadays (january 2015), I think that you can find a declaration form the prime minister Valls, who stands that no anti blasphemy law exist in France. The only anti blasphemy law which exist is the 2003 Sarkozy law which ban offense against the french flag and against the national hymn.
::My advice is that this article contains some content which might enlight this wikipedia article.
:: (1) www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/11/21/quinze-images-qui-ont-choque-dieu_1605929_3224.html <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.185.253.142|81.185.253.142]] ([[User talk:81.185.253.142|talk]]) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

------------------------------------------------
Forgive me if I break protocol, new user.
In the UK, Parliment did a nice report about religious offences, their history and current status. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/9505.htm is to Chapter 3 of the report. I thnk that is what you are looking for. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joseph.scone|Joseph.scone]] ([[User talk:Joseph.scone|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joseph.scone|contribs]]) 13:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Blasphemy in Islam ==
== Blasphemy in Islam ==
Line 105: Line 20:
This paragraph says "Blasphemy is considered a very serious offence and may be punishable by death if charges are proven".
This paragraph says "Blasphemy is considered a very serious offence and may be punishable by death if charges are proven".
Which country is this effective? Can the author make this clear?
Which country is this effective? Can the author make this clear?

== Odd sentence in Blasphemy in Christianity ==

What is "The more metaphysical aspects of early Christianity being now occluded by the dogma of [[secular religious authority]]." supposed to mean or refer to? And what is "secular religious authority"? [[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 06:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

== Vilied? ==

In the United Kingdom section I find the word "vilied". Is this a typo or a real word? I cannot find this word in any dictionary. Please add a definition at Wiktionary or replace it with a word I know. I would fix it myself, but I am not familiar with the incident and can't figure the intent.[[User:Barticus88|-- Randall Bart &lt;[email protected]&gt;]] 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:Great word! Yeah, it should be vilified, I think. Have corrected. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Blasphemy in Christianity ==

That seems to contradict the Bible a little bit, especially because an outsider like me has no clue what "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is or means.

Blasphemy in Christianity also means using the "Word of God" to promote or help your own cause (example: to ask for donations for the purpose of making themselves rich, stating to promote the "Word" cost money). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/41.21.220.206|41.21.220.206]] ([[User talk:41.21.220.206|talk]]) 10:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Paris Hilton?==
== Paris Hilton?==
In this article, it is written in the section "Blasphemy in Islam" that "Paris Hilton's existence is a blasphemy for most people" or something like that. This is surely innappropriate.
In this article, it is written in the section "Blasphemy in Islam" that "Paris Hilton's existence is a blasphemy for most people" or something like that. This is surely innappropriate.
[[User:DYBoulet]] July 29 2007 10:19 AM (AST)
[[User:DYBoulet]] July 29 2007 10:19 AM (AST)

== Dubious ==

I find it highly dubious to say Ireland has a blasphemy law. No source is provided - the one given is an extremely vague link to the article on the constitution, but a constitution isn't the law. It's the constitution (there's a huge difference). Also, the only mention in the constitution of anything remotely like that is (as far as I can tell) one which holds the '''state''' (not the population) to respecting religion. Can someone please clarify or provide a more specific source - [[User:Estoy Aquí|<font color="#cadbff"><sup>Estoy</sup></font><font color="#cadbff"><sub>Aquí</sub></font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Estoy Aquí|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Estoy Aquí|c]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Estoy Aquí|e]])</sup> 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


As far as I know "subject to public order and morality" (Article 40.6.1) has been accepted by the courts to accept any blasphemous libel. See, for example, The Corway Case. As obscure as it is, blasphemy laws do exist in Ireland because of this mention of public order and morality.

And the Constitution is the law. It is the most fundamental legal doctrine in our countries. Any other laws which contrdict it are not, in fact, law. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.44.84.35|86.44.84.35]] ([[User talk:86.44.84.35|talk]]) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Seems this has become law now see http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0723/crime.html
([[User talk:Rugbymadnut|talk]]) 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.33.214.51|217.33.214.51]] ([[User talk:217.33.214.51|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Jerry Springer the Opera ==

It is incorrect to say the Jesus appears "dressed as a baby". The first half of the play is an episode of Springer's chat show; the second half is a dream sequence where he imagines himself doing a show in the Afterlife. The actor who played the "baby fetishist" in Act 1 plays Jesus in Act 2. The audience is certainly encouraged to draw a connection between Jesus' loincloth and the nappy that the fetishist wore, but it's wrong to say that Jesus appears in a nappy. There is enough in the play that is genuinely offensive to Christian sensibilities (e.g the implication that the Virgin Mary was "raped by an angel") that it's a pity to pick on something that isn't really there.

[[User:Andrew Rilstone|Andrew Rilstone]] ([[User talk:Andrew Rilstone|talk]]) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

:I summarised the example from the main article on Blasphemy law in the UK...I haven't actually seen the show! I think the important thing is the court ruling. Feel free to edit! [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] ([[User talk:Bluewave|talk]]) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


== Blasphemy disrespectful? ==
'''''"Blasphemy is the ''disrespectful'' use of the name of one or more gods."''''' Is it possible to be blasphemous without disrespecting God(s)? I can be blasphemous towards the Christian God without disrespecting him: "Jesus Christ! You really did that!?". It's a part of my language and is not ''meant'' to be disrespectful! People ''take'' offense by it. Just as if I take offense by people that wears blue sweaters, it's not disrespectful for them to do so.. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thymo|Thymo]] ([[User talk:Thymo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thymo|contribs]]) 08:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I was just about to ask the same! And, what I always wonder about is when we precede a word, especially slang words, with the word '''holy''', as in ''holy f*ck!'', ''holy cow!'', etc. Is this blasphemy, or otherwise what other sin would it go under, or if it already covered in an article, may I please be told the name of that article? [[User:IlStudioso|<span style="color:green">'''Il'''</span>]][[User_talk:IlStudioso|<span style="color:orange">Studioso</span>]] 08:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::To say "Jesus Christ! You really did that?" is not blasphemy but a possibly even pious invocation of the Name of God Who created the neighbor of yours in question that just comes from doing such an astonishing deed. That's a prayer and who said we could only pray with following prayer formulas, with all respect to prayer formulas? or that we need an occasion for prayer that a capital-lettered Society judges a fitting occasion for prayer? To utter an Hallelujah upon finding a lost thing is worship and praise. However, if it's part of your everyday language, you might think about avoiding to use God's Name ''in vain'', that is, to speak without careful thinking about Him Who would deserve a careful, deliberate (but not scrupulous) use of His Name. But even uttering God's Name in vain is, though forbidden, not yet blasphemy. St. Thomas says blasphemy is a sin of unbelief, through not believing in His infinite goodness, and as opposed to the confession of faith.
::In my view it is definitely more problematic to confirm facts, even true facts, by an "I swear" in everyday language (even without explicitly using the Name of God) which amounts to taking an oath (what are no problem is ''solemn'' oaths in the situation where oaths are used). An example for blasphemy from Grimmelshausens "Simplius Simplicissimus" is: "Let's in the name of God drink this barrel of wine", with the intention of getting drunk on purpose. When the same Simplicius Simplicissimus utters, on account of an astonishing fact, the names "Jesus Mary!", he is not accused of blasphemy, and why should he, but of ''Papism'' for the reason of talking about the Mother of God. (What an accusation...) It was the clerics that introduced the practice of greeting with "Grüß Gott" in Bavaria and Austria.
::However, it is another story that we shouldn't do what we know that other people will ''take'' offence if it can unproblematically be avoided.
::"Holy cow" and "holy fuck" are blasphemous, as giving the Name of God (which Holy is in this place) to a creature - we're not talking about saints who partake of the Love of God, nor practically about Creation as created by God wherefore in an abstract sense, a cow ''could'' be called holy, but which is not the thought behind such expressions. Besides, it is an intolerant disrespect against Hinduism, and the holy act of marital love. (And it does seem strange to me not to want to write the word "fuck", but not to have a problem to write "holy" which produces the blasphemy.) I would in all earnest suggest to replace these expressions by a good old "Good Lord in Heaven!".
::I've read that even what ''is'' blasphemy can be a venial sin if it has so much become the habit of speaking that the speaker has practically lost the ability to avoid it, provided that he makes sincere efforts to lose that habit and, of course, frequents Holy Confession. -- However, all this are just some private and, as you might have seen, quite German thoughts on the matter which can of course be wrong, and to get information it would be better to ask your confessor that on the Wikipedia talk page.--[[Special:Contributions/93.133.213.147|93.133.213.147]] ([[User talk:93.133.213.147|talk]]) 09:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, calling myself back a bit ... "Jesus Christ! You really did that?" is not blasphemy, true so far, but it is in general taking the Name of the Lord in vain ("profanity"), and this is a mortal sin generically according to Prof. Elger, Lehrbuch der kath. Moraltheologie citing St. Alphonse, but "since many people do not think about what they are talking, there is only venial sin in them" according to St. Alphonse. Blasphemy and profanity are different matters. Even generically, the latter is while mortal, yet so-to-speak not ''the'' dangerous monster which blasphemy is. The words could possibly be uttered as a prayer but we wouldn't count on it the way people talk (and understand), that's where I was too rash. However let's keep our Chesterton in mind that while reverence towards God's Name is all fine and even an obligation, profanity is a witness of religiousness; and while it's a sin to profane the Name of God, it's worse to hold it as non-existent. --[[Special:Contributions/93.133.216.20|93.133.216.20]] ([[User talk:93.133.216.20|talk]]) 18:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Blasphemy needs be distinguished from heresy, an intellectual assault on the philosophical or historical basis of one's religious heritage that may prove schismatic.

One enters the realm of blasphemy when one curses God or His Prophets. Misusing a word like "holy" seems a triviality. Creating an unflattering image of a key religious figure is blasphemy. If one depicts Mohammed a a lecher or as a bomb-throwing terrorist one does blasphemy -- and quite possibly hurts one's own religion. The Danish cartoonist who made vile images of Mohammed blasphemed even if he is not a Muslim.

Slander of religious figures in an attempt to defame their religion is far nastier than the use of the word "holy" in an unthinking stock phrase. Such is itself false witness, a horrible offense. Is a [[Chick tract]] that gives a disparaging view of the Catholic Church blasphemy?

While we are at it, denunciation of a religion by the categorical defamation of the people who believe in it, as in [[The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion]] or the derogatory depiction of Jews in [[Julius Streicher]]'s [[Der Stürmer]], could in such instances be blasphemy against Judaism.

These three illustrations indicate some characteristics of blasphemy: that it is offensive to believers, that it creates religious strife, that it is without intellectual defensibility, and it creates no debate. It is the theological equivalent of flaming on a chat board.

The worst blasphemy possible could be the attempt to seek Divine powers of a benign God or His Agents (such as angels) for evil purposes. A prayer to win the lottery so that one has the funds with which to hire a contract killing would be blasphemous in itself.

== Blasphemy and the United Nations ==

This section needs extensive chopping and re-writing for [[WP:NPOV]]. Examples of POV and [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]:
* "...contains articles which militate against the idea that..."
* "By adopting these articles, most nations, it seems, in 1948, accepted the idea that..."
* "...those states had not, it seems, accepted that blasphemy should be abolished because..."
* etc. [[User:Per Ardua|Per Ardua]] ([[User talk:Per Ardua|talk]]) 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

:The tags relating to this and other sections were removed yesterday, but I don't see any evidence that the issues were resolved. I added one myself just on glancing over the section - I agree with Per Ardua that it reads as if written as a piece of synthesis to further a particular point of view. I don't particularly like Sharia, but this isn't the place to convince people of that, nor is this going to. In fact, a lot of this section seems barely relevant, and [[WP:SUMMARY|too detailed]] to be useful in an article about the generic term "Blasphemy". If you want to show what people think about this, line up some secondary sources that do analysis ''themselves'' and go write [[Blasphemy and the United Nations]] with it. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] ([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I will turn the section into an article very soon. The re-write is going more slowly than I had anticipated. [[User:Pyrrhon8|<span style="line-height:12px; border:1px solid blue; padding:1px; background:gold; font-size:10px; color:blue;">PYRRHON</span>]][[User talk:Pyrrhon8|&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;]] 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

== Section: Blasphemy laws ==

I have added some references to the section, which is merely a summary of the main article:[[Blasphemy law]]. The main article is another summary of the articles within Wikipedia about blasphemy laws. Those articles have hundreds of references which could be put here. The United States State Department, the United Nations, Amnesty International, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and other reliable sources have information on their websites about repression in countries with state religions. Because of that repression, information about some countries is not available or is unreliable. Editors are invited to add more references. [[User:Pyrrhon8|<span style="line-height:12px; border:1px solid blue; padding:1px; background:gold; font-size:10px; color:blue;">PYRRHON</span>]][[User talk:Pyrrhon8|&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;]] 19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

== Revert by TechBear ==

I made alterations to the article to improve its organisation and its accuracy. I amended the lede because it was dreadful as it was. The lede was dreadful because:

{{Quote|
* it is not necessary to be familiar with semiotics to understand what blasphemy is;

* blasphemy is whatever the ruling religion says it is -- blasphemy need not involve a god or gods;

* "using sacred names as stress expletives" seems to be some pop-psychology lingo for "cursing";

* the core of blasphemy is "irreverence", which was not stated in the lede.}}

I removed the definition from Webster's because it is parochial and antiquated and incorrect.

I moved all the content that has to do with colloquial usage to one place because I find no good reason for having such content scattered, and such content does not belong in the lede. The lede is merely a summary of what is in the article.

I provided references to the terms that are related to blasphemy such as "defamation of religion" because I thought the references would be helpful. [[User:Pyrrhon8|<span style="line-height:12px; border:1px solid blue; padding:1px; background:gold; font-size:10px; color:blue;">PYRRHON</span>]][[User talk:Pyrrhon8|&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;]] 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


== Examples ==
== Examples ==
Line 208: Line 29:
Examples would be super good!
Examples would be super good!


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
== Examples ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* [[commons:File:Abdul Khader Puthiyangadi.jpg|Abdul Khader Puthiyangadi.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-12-01T18:51:11.799350 | Abdul Khader Puthiyangadi.jpg -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 18:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


== Do Dharmic religions have the concept of Blasphemy? ==
Examples would be super good! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.250.73.78|83.250.73.78]] ([[User talk:83.250.73.78|talk]]) 12:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


As a Hindu, I find the assertion that Dharmic religions do not have the concept of blasphemy extremely dubious, and I am sure most Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains would agree with me. The article cited for this claim is rediff.com, not exactly very high quality scholarship. [[Special:Contributions/73.73.127.102|73.73.127.102]] ([[User talk:73.73.127.102|talk]]) 01:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
== Blasphemy laws ==
:I'm not an expert on Dharmic religions, would we also remove the cited content in the section or rewrite it? [[User:Plures caeli|Plures caeli]] ([[User talk:Plures caeli|talk]]) 22:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:As a Hindu living in the US, and having lived in the Middle East, I’ve seen what blasphemy laws are with most religions.
:I believe the content is correct and that Dharmik religions do not have blasphemy laws. I also consulted a Buddhist teacher who is originally from Vietnam but runs a temple in my city, and she agreed that Buddhism does not have blasphemy laws either. Since the source of these religions is one, i.e. Sanatan Dharma, the quoted text is true😎🙃 [[Special:Contributions/184.144.215.18|184.144.215.18]] ([[User talk:184.144.215.18|talk]]) 07:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
::Blasphemy or Ninda of the Devas, Gurus, the Vedas and other Shastras, and more is a real in Sanatan Dharm or Hinduism just do a quick search on Google for evidence in the Shastras and you will realize and you can find and all of the different Punishments and effects of the Ninda of Devas, Gurus, the Vedas and other Shastras, and more.
::It’s almost like they trying to silence or stop me because they promised me I could re-add what I wrote when I gave sources but even though I have sources now these people who run the site banned me from editing this article forever which they very wrong for doing
::हर हर महादेव जी [[User:Ekdothinchaar|Ekdothinchaar]] ([[User talk:Ekdothinchaar|talk]]) 23:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Actually nevermind I won’t say anything until I get a reply back let me see if they allow me or not before I say anything [[User:Ekdothinchaar|Ekdothinchaar]] ([[User talk:Ekdothinchaar|talk]]) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


== Dharmic Religions ==
This section currently reads "Countries use blasphemy laws to victimize non-members of, and dissident members of, the ruling sect or cult. Countries with a state religion are the most punitive users of blasphemy laws." Hardly neutral?? Balance should be added, or the text that's there should be removed. [[User:Bunburya|Bunburya]] ([[User talk:Bunburya|talk]]) 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


The article says that [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], & [[Jainism]] have no qualms against their deities being blasphemed. I have found a few links that refute this:
== Misrepresentation (or at least controversial interpretation) of Exodus in Blasphemy in Christianity ==


[https://theworld.org/stories/2021-03-09/thai-organization-s-crusade-against-blaspheming-buddha]https://theworld.org/stories/2021-03-09/thai-organization-s-crusade-against-blaspheming-buddha
The article quotes the following: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7) as a prohibition against blasphemy. This verse is understood, at least in Jewish commentary, as being specifically a prohibition against swearing an oath that is either pointless or false. The Talmud Bavli (Shevuot 29a) mentions, as examples of vain oaths, an oath that a wooden object that is made of wood (which is tautological and therefore pointless); and an oath that an obviously wooden object is made of gold (which is obviously false and therefore pointless). The prohibition against taking the Lord's name in vain also extends to casual utterance of The True Name of God (which is why the Name is rendered as "Ad-nai" in prayer and "HaShem" in everyday utterances by orthodox Jews, to the extent that the pronunciation of the Four-Letter Name is no longer known) and, obviously, fraudulent or trivial oath-making.


Other commandments also implicate blasphemy, including the creation of idols. [[User:Yaletiger|Yaletiger]] ([[User talk:Yaletiger|talk]]) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
[https://www.hindujagruti.org/hindu-issues/india-wants-blasphemy-law]https://www.hindujagruti.org/hindu-issues/india-wants-blasphemy-law [[User:Splashen|Splashen]] ([[User talk:Splashen|talk]]) 19:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
:That is indeed not only the interpretation of the Jews, but of St. Thomas Aquinas as well, who explicitly deals with the reasons why there should be a Commandment against perjury if there is already a Commandment against Wrong Witness (its extending to every lying is correct but secondary). However, St. Thomas says that blasphemy is "as well and even more" taking the Lord's Name in vain. But indeed, blasphemy is not the name for transgressions of the Second Commandment. But you might understand that Christians who have got used to deal with truth under the Eighth Commandment may think of other things when talking of the Second Commandment. But still, we find in the Catechisms the prohibition of oaths wrong, rash or taken without religious reverence listed under the Second Commandment.--[[Special:Contributions/93.133.213.147|93.133.213.147]] ([[User talk:93.133.213.147|talk]]) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


:[[User:Splashen|@Splashen]] You got sources. Be bold. Write it in… These need to be attributed as views, and not matters-of-fact either way. (e.g. "In the view of Individual X, blasphemy is ABC. While Person Z holds the opposing view of 123" kinda thing)
== Bad links in footnote 27 ==
:The current sourcing saying no blasphemy is weak (is rediff.com even reliable for these claims?), and partially tagged as nonexistent. Last part of paragraph is well-sourced, so leave that, and try to make it, and the new content mesh well together. Happy Trails! --&nbsp;[[User:Dsprc|<span style="color: purple">'''dsprc'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Dsprc|<span style="color: green"><sup>'''[talk]'''</sup></span>]] 21:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


== Refs ==
The links to the text of resolutions in footnote 27 don't work.
27^ U.N. Resolutions:


* https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-05-01/blasphemy-religion-law-pakistan-execution
A/RES/60/150
* https://www.thejakartapost.com/indonesia/2023/04/25/agriculture-ministry-examine-pigs-in-batam-following-swine-fever-virus-findings.html
Vote on 16 December 2005 (A/60/PV.64)
A/RES/61/164
Vote on 19 December 2006
A/RES/62/154
Vote on 18 December 2007
A/RES/63/171
Vote on 18 December 2008


[[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 12:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/60/150&Lang=E
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/61/164&Lang=E
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/62/154&Lang=E
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/63/171&Lang=E
[[User:Chuck Baggett|Chuck Baggett]] ([[User talk:Chuck Baggett|talk]]) 07:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


== Not all blasphemy is religious ==
== Definition in Wikivoice? ==


Following part of definition in [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] sounds like providing legitimacy to contention that 'Blasphemy is a crime', effectively reimposing and naturalizing notion and Wikipedia's support to the same.
{{talkquote| Blasphemy is a speech crime and religious crime.. }}


IMO this needs some rephrasing or adding according to whom. [[User:Bookku| Bookku ]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
blasphemy: Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed
http://www.yourdictionary.com/blasphemy
noun pl. blasphemies
2 any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful


:That text is the result of some rather dramatic, undiscussed changes made last December. I agree that it's inappropriate, and have reverted the article to the wording that was there previously. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


== Proposed correction to the term "Blasphemy" ==
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy 2 irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable


According to the Holy Bible (King James Version, NKJV, NIV, etc..) the bible openly states only 2 ways to commit blasphemy against God.
Quick definitions from Macmillan (inviolable) adjective
too important or respected to be attacked, criticized, or ignored
1) Making yourself equal to God (John 10:33); see also Isaiah 46:9-11.

2) Claiming to forgive the sins of others. (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21)
Like taboo, defilement, desecration, and sacrilege, also with religious
a. All of us, everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:10-12 and 3:23, Psalm 53:1-3). It is impossible for any man, being a sinner, to forgive the sins of others. Any claim to do so is blasphemy. It is a usurpation of Gods’ authority. Only God Himself, being perfect and without sin, has the power and authority to forgive sins.
origins, it now has other usages.
Insulting religion or showing disrespect to God is not true biblical blasphemy. It is an unfortunate side-effect of our own sinful nature. However, if you were to present yourself to God (in prayer for example), asking Him directly (God is omnipresent, Colossians 1:17) for forgiveness of such sins as these, He is the only one on Earth who has the power and authority to truly forgive your sins (1 John 1-9, Proverbs 28:13 [[Special:Contributions/96.18.17.211|96.18.17.211]] ([[User talk:96.18.17.211|talk]]) 01:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

...so added these defs, plus refs, and added the concept of "religious blasphemy," regarding the theocratic laws.--[[Special:Contributions/69.110.90.203|69.110.90.203]] ([[User talk:69.110.90.203|talk]]) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

== Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad ==

Shouldn't he be there in the Islamic category? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.28.91.249|2.28.91.249]] ([[User talk:2.28.91.249|talk]]) 14:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Who is this person, and why is he sufficiently notable to be included? Do you have any [[WP:RS|reliable]], [[WP:THIRDPARTY|third-party]] sources to support his inclusion? [[User:TechBear|<font color="green">'''TechBear'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:TechBear|Talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/TechBear|Contributions]] 15:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

== Unreliable sources in Islam section ==

Why are christian writers being used as sources in Islam section? I am deleting these sources as of now. As the Issue is with Islam and it is not a historical debate then Islamic sources should be used. To be frank , if you go into the church and a muslim is telling you how to pray you will not follow him. Same is the case here, these are matters of jurisprudence so the source should be muslim.[[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 03:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

:Let us discuss per [[WP:BRD]]. The sources you find objectionable were published by Oxford University Press and others. They included peer reviewed reliable secondary sources, as well as tertiary such as "The encyclopedia of religion". The reasons you give are unpersuasive, and inconsistent with wiki's policies and guidelines. Which policy requires that the author's religion be considered as a screen for content in wikipedia? (FWIW, you deleted some content by Muslim authors, but that is irrelevant.) [[User:RLoutfy|RLoutfy]] ([[User talk:RLoutfy|talk]]) 03:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::Quite true. The point I mentioned is that sources published so long after the religion came into being cannot be considered "reliable". To be considered reliable in a wikipedia sources should be secondary. These sources are tertiary. They take interpretations given by someone then "reinterpret" it again. Secondary sources are those which interpret the primary directly. "BLasphemy in Islam" should give information as to which Islamic scholars said that blasphemy should be punished and how blasphemy became a crime. Sources which have had ZERO impact on the formation of "Blasphemy in Islam" laws or perception have no place here.
::Also most of these sources are just anti-Islamic as is clear from other books written by the same authors. [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 08:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Time of publication has nothing to do with "reliability" - once again, like "religion of author", you should stop lecturing and making your own rules here, and identify which policy page states "sources published so long after the religion came into being cannot be considered reliable." Reviews and scholarly journal articles are secondary sources; reliable scholar edited encyclopedias are acceptable tertiary sources - see [[WP:PSTS]] and [[WP:RS]]. Quit this "anti-Islamic" or "pro-Islamic" soapboxing - see [[WP:COMPREHENSIVE]].
:::Yes, there are numerous articles on blasphemy in Islam, by Islamic jurists in Arabic and other non-English languages, but English language sources are more preferred in English wikipedia, see [[WP:RSUE]]. I will try to add a few Arabic sources, to improve the section, as I find time. [[User:RLoutfy|RLoutfy]] ([[User talk:RLoutfy|talk]]) 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Perhaps I have not been able to get myself across. Let me try again. I am not against the article being written. The fact of the matter is that "blasphemy" in Islam should be treated the same way any other crime is treated. If you take a look at any other infraction and its punishment in Islam you will see yourself the difference. Reliable sources are ones on which the jurisprudence is formed. What I meant to say is that sources from 19th,20th and 21st century are not the interpretations on which Islamic jurisprudence is formed. We should include sources on whose interpretations the law of blasphemy was created. Also the Quranic verse that has been given has been interpreted in many ways, we should say that in the article. I hope I have cleared up my point of view.[[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 08:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
Are you willing to respect community-agreed content policies and "reliable source" definitions, or do you wish to ignore them and create absurd ones? You lecture and demand pre-19th century sources, but persist on pushing your [[WP:POV]] and [[WP:SOAP]] using unsupported or weak 21st century sources ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blasphemy&diff=641848260&oldid=641526377 here] which I have reverted). Why don't you practice what you are preaching - suggest pre-19th century sources that can improve this article?

As promised, I am adding the position of various [[Fiqh]]s on blasphemy, with both pre-19th and recent reliable sources. [[User:RLoutfy|RLoutfy]] ([[User talk:RLoutfy|talk]]) 15:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

On Quranic verse, this article can only source from scholarly translations. The three translations archived by University of Southern California suffice, and all three say the same. [[User:RLoutfy|RLoutfy]] ([[User talk:RLoutfy|talk]]) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
:Umm you have done exactly 100% what I requested. Why are you then disputing with me on the talk page? I wanted sources which were were related to Islam and you added those. Thanks for that. Why are you now disputing on the talk page?[[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 16:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

== Odd and inaccurate sentence about concerned countries ==
Odd and wrong sentence:
«Some countries have laws to punish religious blasphemy,[5] while others have laws that allow those who are offended by blasphemy to punish blasphemers.»

This sentence assumes that blasphemy is forbidden in every country. This is false as there is no law to ban blasphemy in France, for instance.

The right thing to write is that «

Some religions forbid blasphemy to their members.
A formal ban also exist in some countries, where other countries have no law to ban blasphemy.
Where blasphemy is banned, it can be ether some laws which directly punish religious blasphemy,[5] or some laws that allow those who are offended by blasphemy to punish blasphemers.

»
<small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.185.253.142|81.185.253.142]] ([[User talk:81.185.253.142|talk]]) 22:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== This verse ==

The quranic verse in this article is taken out of context, the verse is only valid during times of war. This verse should be removed this is just islamophobic. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/118.102.228.2|118.102.228.2]] ([[User talk:118.102.228.2|talk]]) 09:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:5|one external link|5 external links}} on [[Blasphemy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=747736992 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119105151/http://www.religiouswatch.com:80/rwworld.htm to http://www.religiouswatch.com/rwworld.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305213255/http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/Muslim-scholar-says-Scrap-blasphemy-laws-which-bring-shame-on-Islam-and-Pakistan-2058-1-1.html to http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/Muslim-scholar-says-Scrap-blasphemy-laws-which-bring-shame-on-Islam-and-Pakistan-2058-1-1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927090124/http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=23370 to http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=23370
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502234831/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20001021_riparatrici_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20001021_riparatrici_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508110838/http://www.pewforum.org:80/Government/Laws-Penalizing-Blasphemy,-Apostasy-and-Defamation-of-Religion-are-Widespread.aspx to http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Laws-Penalizing-Blasphemy,-Apostasy-and-Defamation-of-Religion-are-Widespread.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 02:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Blasphemy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=778667694 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407070838/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on [[Blasphemy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=791673465 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090613033525/http://www.wts.edu/resources/heidelberg.html to http://www.wts.edu/resources/heidelberg.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219032457/http://iiit.org/iiitftp/publications/Bibs/Books-in-Brief%20Apostasy%20in%20Islam%20A%20Historical%20and%20Scriptural%20Analysis.pdf to http://iiit.org/iiitftp/publications/Bibs/Books-in-Brief%20Apostasy%20in%20Islam%20A%20Historical%20and%20Scriptural%20Analysis.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713032003/http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile.htm to http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

== Blasphemy Trial in 1887 ==


== They promised that I could write if I cited sources but now I did but it said im blocked forever? ==
[[Special:Contributions/121.208.233.149|121.208.233.149]] ([[User talk:121.208.233.149|talk]]) 05:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Wondering of the trial of C.B.Reynolds should be considered for a mention here. The arguments are cogent and comprehensive.
<ref>http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_blasphemy_trial_of_c_b_reynolds_part_i </ref>
<ref>https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38103/38103-h/38103-h.htm</ref>


Can the admins allow me to add what I wanted to say about Blasphemy in Sanatan Dharm or Hinduism now because I have sources for all of my writing now. [[User:Ekdothinchaar|Ekdothinchaar]] ([[User talk:Ekdothinchaar|talk]]) 23:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

Latest revision as of 13:54, 29 June 2024

Blasphemy in Islam

[edit]

Blasphemy in Islam Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of Muhammad, of any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an, or of any Biblical prophets. Speaking ill of Allah is also blasphemy. Blasphemy is considered a very serious offence and may be punishable by death if charges are proven. British author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses was seen by many Muslims to contain blasphemies against Islam, and Iranian clerical leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in 1989 calling for Rushdie's death. More recently, the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons were criticised in part on the basis that they were blasphemous against Muhamed.

This paragraph says "Blasphemy is considered a very serious offence and may be punishable by death if charges are proven". Which country is this effective? Can the author make this clear?

Paris Hilton?

[edit]

In this article, it is written in the section "Blasphemy in Islam" that "Paris Hilton's existence is a blasphemy for most people" or something like that. This is surely innappropriate. User:DYBoulet July 29 2007 10:19 AM (AST)

Examples

[edit]

Examples would be super good!

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do Dharmic religions have the concept of Blasphemy?

[edit]

As a Hindu, I find the assertion that Dharmic religions do not have the concept of blasphemy extremely dubious, and I am sure most Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains would agree with me. The article cited for this claim is rediff.com, not exactly very high quality scholarship. 73.73.127.102 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Dharmic religions, would we also remove the cited content in the section or rewrite it? Plures caeli (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a Hindu living in the US, and having lived in the Middle East, I’ve seen what blasphemy laws are with most religions.
I believe the content is correct and that Dharmik religions do not have blasphemy laws. I also consulted a Buddhist teacher who is originally from Vietnam but runs a temple in my city, and she agreed that Buddhism does not have blasphemy laws either. Since the source of these religions is one, i.e. Sanatan Dharma, the quoted text is true😎🙃 184.144.215.18 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blasphemy or Ninda of the Devas, Gurus, the Vedas and other Shastras, and more is a real in Sanatan Dharm or Hinduism just do a quick search on Google for evidence in the Shastras and you will realize and you can find and all of the different Punishments and effects of the Ninda of Devas, Gurus, the Vedas and other Shastras, and more.
It’s almost like they trying to silence or stop me because they promised me I could re-add what I wrote when I gave sources but even though I have sources now these people who run the site banned me from editing this article forever which they very wrong for doing
हर हर महादेव जी Ekdothinchaar (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nevermind I won’t say anything until I get a reply back let me see if they allow me or not before I say anything Ekdothinchaar (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmic Religions

[edit]

The article says that Hinduism, Buddhism, & Jainism have no qualms against their deities being blasphemed. I have found a few links that refute this:

[1]https://theworld.org/stories/2021-03-09/thai-organization-s-crusade-against-blaspheming-buddha

[2]https://www.hindujagruti.org/hindu-issues/india-wants-blasphemy-law Splashen (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Splashen You got sources. Be bold. Write it in… These need to be attributed as views, and not matters-of-fact either way. (e.g. "In the view of Individual X, blasphemy is ABC. While Person Z holds the opposing view of 123" kinda thing)
The current sourcing saying no blasphemy is weak (is rediff.com even reliable for these claims?), and partially tagged as nonexistent. Last part of paragraph is well-sourced, so leave that, and try to make it, and the new content mesh well together. Happy Trails! -- dsprc [talk] 21:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

Bookku (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition in Wikivoice?

[edit]

Following part of definition in WP:WIKIVOICE sounds like providing legitimacy to contention that 'Blasphemy is a crime', effectively reimposing and naturalizing notion and Wikipedia's support to the same.

Blasphemy is a speech crime and religious crime..

IMO this needs some rephrasing or adding according to whom. Bookku (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That text is the result of some rather dramatic, undiscussed changes made last December. I agree that it's inappropriate, and have reverted the article to the wording that was there previously. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed correction to the term "Blasphemy"

[edit]

According to the Holy Bible (King James Version, NKJV, NIV, etc..) the bible openly states only 2 ways to commit blasphemy against God.

1) Making yourself equal to God (John 10:33); see also Isaiah 46:9-11. 2) Claiming to forgive the sins of others. (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21) a. All of us, everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:10-12 and 3:23, Psalm 53:1-3). It is impossible for any man, being a sinner, to forgive the sins of others. Any claim to do so is blasphemy. It is a usurpation of Gods’ authority. Only God Himself, being perfect and without sin, has the power and authority to forgive sins. Insulting religion or showing disrespect to God is not true biblical blasphemy. It is an unfortunate side-effect of our own sinful nature. However, if you were to present yourself to God (in prayer for example), asking Him directly (God is omnipresent, Colossians 1:17) for forgiveness of such sins as these, He is the only one on Earth who has the power and authority to truly forgive your sins (1 John 1-9, Proverbs 28:13 96.18.17.211 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They promised that I could write if I cited sources but now I did but it said im blocked forever?

[edit]

Can the admins allow me to add what I wanted to say about Blasphemy in Sanatan Dharm or Hinduism now because I have sources for all of my writing now. Ekdothinchaar (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blasphemy&oldid=1231652589"