Let me reduce the point to these absurdities: if I said that the Tooth Fairy is a child molester, that Betty Crocker eats her young, or that the Man in the Moon causes all the evil in the world, you would be right to say “What are you talking about? Those people are imaginary. Jeez, you’re a nut case.” Or we might have a good laugh over the things folks ascribe to imaginary people. Like Bert and Ernie being gay, just like that Teletubby. What would be clear is that any characterization of an imaginary being, whether good or bad, is rather silly.

Those who actually believe that imaginary beings exist are delusional. The rest of us don’t care about such things as their personal habits. It’s impossible to slander or libel an imaginary person. As rational people we wouldn’t waste our time wondering or spreading rumors. If you care enough to characterize a verbal offense to a god as blasphemy, then you might be a believer. At its worst, what believers call blasphemy I call rudeness. But mostly I think the gods of believers are fair game for ridicule.

Religion is the oldest organized swindle. “I have spoken with invisible powers, and they want you to do X. Obey what I tell you and give me money, and you’ll be rewarded by these invisible powers; fail to obey and you will be punished by them.”

The proper reply was offered most politely by the Deists. I summarize their position like this: “If a god wants me to do something, they should tell me, not you.” If a god wanted mass communication, they could write the message on the face of the Moon, and teach humankind to make telescopes.

As Thomas Paine wrote, in THE AGE OF REASON:

“Revelation then, so far as the term has relation between God and
man, can only be applied to something which God reveals of his will to
man; but though the power of the Almighty to make such a communication
is necessarily admitted, because to that power all things are
possible, yet the thing so revealed (if anything ever was revealed,
and which, bye the bye, it is impossible to prove), is revelation to
the person only to whom it is made. His account of it to another
person is not revelation; and whoever puts faith in that account, puts
it in the man from whom the account comes; and that man may have been
deceived, or may have dreamed it, or he may be an impostor and may
lie. There is no possible criterion whereby to judge of the truth of
what he tells, for even the morality of it would be no proof of
revelation. In all such cases the proper answer would be, ‘When it is
revealed to me, I will believe it to be a revelation; but it is not,
and cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it to be revelation before;
neither is it proper that I should take the word of a man as the word
of God, and put man in the place of God.'”

If the crime is the intent and the victim God or Gods, then Mr. Fnortner is right.

…but religion is a real phenomenon, even if Gods aren’t. Gods exists in the same way that fictional characters exist, like Elmer Fudd. A god is something people believe in. Mohammed was a prophet (“a” not “the”) in the same sense that my brothers were a football players: he did what prophets do. The secular definition of prophet is someone who makes claims about communication with God or Gods and/or starts religions.

…and that paragraph was blasphemous. Comparing God to Elmer Fudd is an act that the religious society recognizes as blasphemy. Blasphemy really does offend some people. If they’re here, reading Greta Christina(blessed 🙂 be the name)’s Blog, they’re obviously wondering. For people like that, the shock of blasphemy can serve a purpose. It exposes and challenges the religious construct of “sacred.” It might have the same effect as waking someone from a trance.

So the victim of my thought crime is the religious belief and the notion of “sacred,” not the religious believer. In my world, the religious belief needs to be challenged, and blasphemy benefits religious believers living in the fantasy world where Elmer Fudd is real. I apologize if I’ve offended the Fuddites :-).

Both sides call it blasphemy, but I don’t think it’s a thought crime.

The attack should be directed to the religious leaders, the religious doctrines, and religious abuses.

That’s a good idea, but not blasphemy and it’s not nearly as much fun….

Like thinking up good names for a porno starring God?

Cum to Jesus!
Log Jammin with Long Dong Jehovah!

This is my favorite day of the year. Way better than Halloween.