This appears to substantiate the possibility of blasphemy laws being enacted in the West as presented in my last posting.

An atheist who left leaflets mocking Jesus Christ, Islam and the Pope in an airport’s prayer room has been given an Asbo.

Harry Taylor, 59, from Higher Broughton, Salford, left the anti-religious posters in prayer rooms at Liverpool
John Lennon Airport in November and December 2008.

Taylor denied three counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment during his trial at Liverpool Crown Court.

But he was found guilty by a jury and given a suspended six-month sentence yesterday, as well as an Asbo forbidding him from carrying anti-religious leaflets in public.

One of the posters Taylor left at the airport depicted a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue. In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.” A third poster showed Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise being told: “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins”. (Source-The Independent)

The National Secular Society expresses an opinion on this ruling that reflects my own thoughts.

One of the "offensive" images

One of the "offensive" images

The sentencing of Harry Taylor has been condemned by the National Secular Society as “creating a new blasphemy law that will open the way for every religious extremist to persecute and prosecute their critics.”

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society said: “Regardless of the fact that this six month sentence has been suspended, it is still totally out of proportion for what Mr Taylor did. Nobody can deny that he was being deliberately provocative in leaving these rather mild cartoons, cut from Private Eye, in the prayer room, but in the end he didn’t harm anybody and was simply making a point about the existence of such a facility. The chaplain could quite easily have simply thrown the papers in the bin.

“Instead, she claims to have been hurt and offended by this material, which makes her ultra sensitivity a dangerous thing indeed. The professional ‘offence takers’ in religious communities will now feel that they have a strong new weapon to use against anyone who is critical or disapproving of them. It is, in effect, a blasphemy law that covers all religions and is much more powerful than the one that was abolished only two years ago.”

“Religiously aggravated offences represent a new kind of blasphemy law, and the professional offence takers in religious communities won’t be slow to exploit this new avenue of restricting criticism and comment about their beliefs. It is time for parliament to reconsider these provisions and remove them from the statute books.”

Mr Sanderson said that Mr Taylor describes himself as a “militant atheists” who wanted to challenge the existence of the “prayer room” particularly as it was situated on John Lennon Airport in Liverpool – he maintained that John Lennon was an atheist and would not have approved of the presence of the prayer room. (Source-National Secular Society)

I can’t imagine any rational free-thinker accepting this ruling without protest.

The Pope has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with the media coverage of the multitude of molestation claims being presented around the globe. Will he be the next person to make a legal challenge to this coverage and manage to silence criticism of the Church’s efforts to ignore and bury those claims? Isn’t it a form of blasphemy to question the actions of the Holy See?

How will Christians in the West react if Muslims are able to gain legal protection against any defamatory statement about Islam being made by those who don’t follow that religion, including those who believe in other gods?

When did life offer us a guarantee to never be offended by those who don’t share our opinions? By what universal right do the religious claim exemption from criticism and skepticism. It seems to me that the last refuge of any shallow philosophy that cannot defend itself with logic and reason is the court. When beliefs are indefensible make any offense a criminal action.

Finally, what about my beliefs as a non-religious believer? Shouldn’t I be equally protected by law from offensive remarks made by religious believers who think nothing of calling me immoral and condemning me to an eternity of pain and suffering?

The whole “anti-blasphemy” concept is a joke and antithetical in any nation that repects freedom of thought, speech and the press. Sadly it appears the list of nations that respect those freedoms is shrinking.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]