Defacing of Bible: Art???

[spot]

Originally Posted by gmc

What is offensive is that any religion should claim that anyone attacking their beliefs or even not sharing them should be regarded as a criminal.

I've got the Jehovah's Witnesses calling round next Tuesday at 11, the local rep wanted to bring round her regional Witchfinder for a coffee and a waft of brimstone.

"defacing a religions holy book", from the OP, is a definitively blasphemous act. Hence the various references to blasphemy in the thread. By all means I agree it has no place on the statute book of any civilized nation, for any religion's holy book.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by spot

In what country, Raven? Are we talking about England here or somewhere barbaric?

200 years ago is 1809?

If we're talking about England, I don't know of any instance. I'd be interested to know which you're thinking of. Unless you're going back a lot further and saying the Tudor fight to establish the Church of England, with Mary burning Protestants and Elizabeth burning Catholics, involved blasphemy. I'd take that to be a wild stretch of the word.

I agree there was a prescribed death sentence for Blasphemy in England until it was repealed in 1676 which was 334 years ago. That's a third of a millennium back. Even before then I don't know of even a single instance of it being applied.

Well I found some interesting and thought provoking things here.

United Kingdom

Although blasphemy laws in England have not been repealed, the last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott on December 9, 1921. He had three previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing two pamphlets which satirized the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7), comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labor.
In 1977, Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News was found guilty of blasphemous libel for publishing James Kirkup's poem "The Love that Dares to Speak its Name," which vilified Jesus of Nazareth and his life (Whitehouse v. Lemon). Lemon was fined £500 and given a suspended sentence of nine months imprisonment.
In 2002, a deliberate and well-publicized public repeat reading of the poem "The Love that Dares to Speak its Name" took place on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square and failed to lead to any prosecution.
The last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843.

And this is where I found it.

Blasphemy - New World Encyclopedia

I dont have much time for more at the minute, I'm in Uni. But I promise to return to topic when I get home.

[spot]

Go on then Raven. Have a quick check for executions for blasphemy in England too, that's what I couldn't find examples of.

[gmc]

Originally Posted by spot

Go on then Raven. Have a quick check for executions for blasphemy in England too, that's what I couldn't find examples of.

Perhaps if you look beyond secular authorities-when you let the religious get to decide what is or is not blasphemy life can be pretty miserable. It's an age old question who gets to decide what is offensive, what is blasphemous. IMO if you don't believe in god then you can hardly take his name in vain can you? Those who claim blasphemy should at least be required to prove he exists in the first place.

Blood, Blasphemy and the Burning Bishops

[Ted]

It seems to me that calling the defacing of a book, whatever it is, blasphemy is an example of biblioatry. This is a form of idolatry that arose out of the creation of fundamentalism. The very phrase, "The Word of God" rightly belongs to one only and that is the risen one. It does not refer to a book.

Shalom
Ted

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Ted

It seems to me that calling the defacing of a book, whatever it is, blasphemy is an example of biblioatry. This is a form of idolatry that arose out of the creation of fundamentalism. The very phrase, "The Word of God" rightly belongs to one only and that is the risen one. It does not refer to a book.

Shalom
Ted

OOOH you've been taking the bravery pills again haven't you? That's the muslims and the Christians you've just upset.

[Ted]

gmc

Yeah I know. LOL

Shalom
Ted

[joey2000]

Originally Posted by hoppy

That only reinforces my belief that the closer to end times we get, the more barbaric and idiotic people behave.

Exactly, wow somebody else gets it.

"Modern art" is often an oxymoron. Of course, calling this art is blatantly ridiculous. This is only a few small-minded, miserable attention whores going out of their way to show the world how obnoxious and asinine they are. Also water is wet.

As to why any Christian churches don't formally or "loudly" protest it, do you formally or publicly protest if a 4-yr old child comes up and calls you a name? Nah. Might mention it to the parent, but hardly worth much more.

But the point is worth noting: if this were an attack on Muslims, there's a very real chance of retaliation/violent condemnation, and so miserable snots like this don't do it. Go figure.

[Saint_]

Originally Posted by hoppy

If it were only "just a book" then why not use a dictionary? The bible, in this case, is a symbol of the beliefs of a great many people. To do that is crapping in their faces and should be treated as such.

I completely understand your reaction, hoppy. And I have to agree with you. While understand freedom of speech, and I would NEVER want to outlaw expression, there should be self-imposed, common-sense limits.

To do something like this might be legal, but it is also tasteless, classless, and uncouth.

You may feel free to express yourself in a disgusting, despicable way.
I will feel free to consider you an utter, completely abhorrent jerk.

[Ahso!]

Originally Posted by hoppy

If it were only "just a book" then why not use a dictionary? The bible, in this case, is a symbol of the beliefs of a great many people. To do that is crapping in their faces and should be treated as such.

Totally understand, Hoppy. Some people, rightly or wrongly, need to do outrageous acts, and so long as they do not infringe in others basic rights, it's allowed and should be really because otherwise we end up on slippery slopes.

I'm one of those people. I purposely use offensive language sometimes as well as do other things many find offensive or inappropriate. Not sure why I do it either. Its not to get attention though, I know that much. I want the act to gain attention not me, I think.