Defacing of Bible: Art???

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:13 am

spot;1258376 wrote: Entirely true, but not really relevant to "My husband just noted, and accurately, that they would have been put to death for this a couple hundred years ago. The crime is blasphemy" which is what I asked Raven about.

Not in 1809, no. Reuter started his news agency around 1850 and floated his company in 1865.

I don't know of any occasion when anyone was ever executed in England for blasphemy. If anyone has an example I'd love to see it.

Hyperbole I think or perhaps she was thinking of america-does it really matter? Pedantry can have a very detrimental effect on a free flowing discussion and offer little in compensation.

1809 was the year Thomas Paine was buried in america in unconsecrated ground and his influence on the american revolution (or should I say war of independence ) seemingly written out of history because of a pamphlet on religion. A liberal and a free thinker-a true enemy of the people (irony in case you don't spot it spot) :yh_rotfl sorry just realised what I had written but have decided to leave it in the hope it makes you smile.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... ns_of_cfi/

Thomas Aikenhead was the last person executed for blasphemy in the United Kingdom (in 1697). His crime: denying the Incarnation and the Trinity and asserting the Bible was not credible. He also joked one cold evening that he would prefer to be in hell. On the gallows he had the temerity to state that morality was devised by humans and not the product of a divine command.

The US has a long tradition of defacing the bible

Thomas Jefferson, Blasphemy, and Defamation of Religion | Freethinkers of Colorado Springs

Religious Freedom in America was no minor concern to Jefferson, for Jefferson was not a Christian. He wrote in a letter, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Indeed, Jefferson's independent spirit led him to an commit act that, in too many modern countries, would result in his execution â€“ for he committed blasphemy by desecrating a holy symbol, the Word of God. His act of shredding his bible with scissors was not done out of malice, for Jefferson was a religious man, but was done in the pursuit of truth. A truth that did not accept biblical miracles, prophecy, angels, the divinity or resurrection of Jesus.

It may or may not be art-personally I find most modern art to be crap-but the defacing of it is perhaps an insight in to the actual reality of the religious experience for some people. On the other hand if the function of art is to make people think it has succeeded.

The reaction of the religious lobby shows how big a danger they still are. If you think there are no Christians today that would execute people for blasphemy you need to get out more. It's in the bible along with an eye for an eye and forgive those who trespass against us. You're not exactly talking about rational people here. Our freedom of thought and speech we take so much for granted has been a long battle.

You know it's not that long ago the UK was chemically castrating gay people because the bible said they were an abomination and therefore it was the morally correct thing to do. We have moved on and find that appalling but there are still those who find the acceptance of homosexuality as proof of the moral decline in society. I bet you there will be someone reading the last sentence thinking-but it is.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:36 am

Thomas Aikenhead was executed for blasphemy in Scotland, before there was a United Kingdom. I did write I don't know of any occasion when anyone was ever executed in England for blasphemy. If anyone has an example I'd love to see it. At the moment I still don't think it ever happened, I can't find a case.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:07 am

spot;1258392 wrote: Thomas Aikenhead was executed for blasphemy in Scotland, before there was a United Kingdom. I did write I don't know of any occasion when anyone was ever executed in England for blasphemy. If anyone has an example I'd love to see it. At the moment I still don't think it ever happened, I can't find a case.

You are incorrect my pedantic friend. The union of the crowns was in 1603 which date was when the United KINGDOM came in to being-the first union flag was flown in 1606. The act of union itself was about the union of the parliaments.

Naturally I assumed you were falling in to the normal irritating habit of using england/uk/britain as if they all meant the same besides which the original article was about an exhibition in glasgow-does everything have to be about england?

Anyway does it really matter? The inaccuracy of raven doe not distract from her point imo. There are still those who think blasphemy should be crime in this country and would kill blasphemers-just ask salman rushdie or the danish cartoonists and don't kid yoursel christians are any better given half a chance.

Round the world people are still being executed for blasphemy.

Defacing the bible may not be art but it is not something we should view as a crime. Religion should not be immune from scorn or having it's travesties pointed out.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:42 am

gmc;1258426 wrote: You are incorrect my pedantic friend. The union of the crowns was in 1603 which date was when the United KINGDOM came in to being-the first union flag was flown in 1606. The act of union itself was about the union of the parliaments.

Naturally I assumed you were falling in to the normal irritating habit of using england/uk/britain as if they all meant the sameI'm anything but pedantic. If you want to check the various country names at various times in history then by all means do. Acts of union have little to do with "United Kingdom" as an appellation.

As far as distinguishing Britain, Scotland and England I claim a good track record. My sentence to Raven very blatantly used England, and for good reason.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:11 am

spot;1258438 wrote: I'm anything but pedantic. If you want to check the various country names at various times in history then by all means do. Acts of union have little to do with "United Kingdom" as an appellation.

As far as distinguishing Britain, Scotland and England I claim a good track record. My sentence to Raven very blatantly used England, and for good reason.

pedant

/peddâ€™nt/

â€¢ noun a person excessively concerned with minor detail or with displaying technical knowledge.

â€” DERIVATIVES pedantic adjective pedantically adverb pedantry noun.

I beg to differ

- Must admit though I have tendencies that way myself.

Anyway it's not really relevant to the thread is it?

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:31 am

gmc;1258762 wrote: Anyway it's not really relevant to the thread is it?Whether blasphemy ever resulted in an execution in England? Well yes, I think it does rather, given the OP. By all means rephrase or amend it if you like.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:40 am

If heresy can be regarded as a form of blasphemy, then we've certainly burnt a few hundred: Henry VIII and Bloody Mary...

It was good old Elizabeth I who said (iirc), "Every man's duty is to the King; but every man's soul is his own."

Of course, according to Tweetatoo, one of our most brilliant and successful monarchs could not possibly have done what she did because as a woman she would have been too weak and stupid.

Ummmm...

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:01 am

Clodhopper;1258765 wrote: If heresy can be regarded as a form of blasphemy, then we've certainly burnt a few hundred: Henry VIII and Bloody Mary...

It was good old Elizabeth I who said (iirc), "Every man's duty is to the King; but every man's soul is his own."Come on, we're going in circles now...spot wrote: 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.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:17 am

Ooops! Sorry - didn't dig far enough back in the thread.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:28 am

spot;1258764 wrote: Whether blasphemy ever resulted in an execution in England? Well yes, I think it does rather, given the OP. By all means rephrase or amend it if you like.

The question was I guess the first question is: is this really art? I mean come on, defacing a religions holy book considered art?

is it art? make up your own mind.

The next part

The second question is this: How did the Catholic religion get to the point where there is no respect shown and displayed so openly and have such a minimal response. Can you imagine if this artist did this to the Koran? He would be dead by now along with his wife and his kidsâ€¦ If it was done to the Torah there would be cries of anti-Semitism, but do this to the Catholic Church and nothingâ€¦

I think that this â€˜art; display is disgusting, disrespectful of peopleâ€™s beliefs and never should have been allowed.

Scotland is not a catholic country and the opprobrium and outright hatred heaped on the catholic church or indeed any of the christian churches has been well earned. In Scotland there is tremendous hostility to the catholic church even now.

We live in a secular age be grateful for that. The day we again allow any religion to claim immunity form criticism or indeed give it real power is not one I want to be around to see. Blasphemy and heresy are not crimes for a modern world and should never be again. 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.

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:50 am

gmc;1258824 wrote: 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 · Post by **Raven** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:27 am

spot;1258274 wrote: 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 Â£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.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:32 am

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 · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:31 am

spot;1261566 wrote: 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 · Post by **Ted** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:41 pm

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:-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:13 pm

Ted;1262738 wrote: 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:-6

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

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:37 pm

gmc:-6

Yeah I know. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

joey2000 · Post by **joey2000** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:24 am

hoppy;1222911 wrote: 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_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:40 am

hoppy;1222953 wrote: 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! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:55 am

hoppy;1222953 wrote: 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.