The Blasphemy Collection

The concept of blasphemy seemed for some decades to be in decline in the West, but not any more.  It may be useful to look back at some recent cases of  militantly religious outrage...

Rated by
Vulgarity –the piece shocked through its conflation of the sacred and the profane
Criminality –the piece contravened laws in a given country
Religious impact –the work caused outrage from religious leaders
Political impact –speeches were made by governments, laws were created or changed.
Deaths – outrage at the work led to the death of one or more people

20. Jesus Christ Superstar
Crowds gathered in protest outside the Broadway theatre where this musical about Jesus and Judas was first staged. Some Christians took offence at the portrayal of Jesus as a man rather than as God and the sympathetic rendering of Judas Iscariot. The omission of the Resurrection was also a point of controversy. Some Jewish groups counted the performance as anti-Semitic in its depiction of Jewish crowds calling for Jesus’ death.
Vulgarity: 0 Criminality: 0 Religious impact: 4 Political Impact: 0 Deaths: 0

19.  Popetown
An animation of the life of fictional character Father Nicholas, who lives in Popetown (Vatican City) and works as the cartoon Pope’s handler, protecting the public from the truth that the animated pontiff is actually very stupid. The series, produced by the BBC was removed from scheduling before being aired on British television because of fears it would offend Roman Catholics. In Germany a full-scale campaign against the series continues.
Vulgarity: 3 Criminality: 0  Religious impact: 3 Political Impact: 0 Deaths: 0

18. Chocolate Christ
Cosimo Cavallaro’s My Sweet Lord, a rendering of the crucifixion in chocolate was pulled from a New York art gallery during Holy Week this year under pressure from the Catholic League.   
The 200lb sculpture, which exposed the genitals of the dying Christian saviour, incensed the Catholic League who bombarded the Lab gallery in Manhattan with protest emails.
Vulgarity: 5 Criminality: 0  Religious impact: 4 Political Impact:0   Deaths: 0

17. Ecce Homo
Photographs showing Jesus eating with homosexuals and transsexuals in an exhibition in Sweden, raised eyebrows in Europe between 1998 and 2000. The vivid images caused Pope John Paul II to cancel a meeting with the Swedish Lutheran Archbishop Karl Gustav Hammar who supported their exhibition.
Vulgarity: 3 Criminality: 0 Religious impact: 7 Political impact: 0 Deaths: 0

16. Strelnikoff Mary of Help of Brezje
An album cover showing Mary of Help cradling a rat above the title “Bitchcraft” was the Slovenian band’s statement on the Catholic teaching on abortion. There was subsequent outcry - almost 4000 public protests were made to the State Attorney’s Office in Ljubljana and over 1000 requests for indictment. It was refused by the High Court who said the album was “tasteless” but did not cross the line of what is permitted.
Vulgarity: 3 Criminality: 0 Religious impact: 4 Political Impact: 3 Deaths: 0

15. Jerry Springer the Opera
Based on the daytime TV phenomenon but with a sacrilegious twist, the British opera featured a character Jesus who dressed as a baby and regularly soiled his nappy. Protests when the opera was screened on British television saw Christians burning their TV licences outside BBC Television Centre, but other demonstrations were relatively sparse and tame.
Vulgarity: 7 Criminality: 0  Religious impact: 4 Political Impact: 0  Deaths: 0

14. The Life of Brian
Arguably, Monty Python’s finest hour the Life of Brian is a comic biopic of Brian Cohen, born at the same time as Jesus and mistaken for the Messiah. A satire on excessive religiosity the film was banned in many towns in the UK for its alleged blasphemous content. Particular offence was taken at the crucifixion scene where those being executed burst into song with the theme tune “Always look on the bright side of life”. In New York Nuns and Rabbis picketed screenings of the film, which was completely banned in some states. In Ireland Life of Brian wasn’t shown for eight years after it was made and not for 11 years in Italy. Just this year, a screening of the film in a church in Newcastle Upon Tyne caused uproar from conservative Christian group Christian Voice.
Vulgarity: 4 Criminality: 0  Religious impact: 5 Political Impact: 2   Deaths: 0

13. Rude Buddha
A sculpture of Buddha with a banana and two eggs strategically placed was happily on display at the Royal Academy of Arts this summer, but when it was moved to the sculptors’ home city of Norfolk it raised hackles amongst the local police force’s hate crime unit. DC Dan Cocks ordered it to be removed from the gallery. The artist said he aimed to show that in a global village everyone can take offence at something.
Vulgarity: 5  Criminality: 5   Religious impact: 2  Political Impact: 0  Deaths:0

12. Gilbert & George Sonofagod exhibition
The ‘two poofs’, as Gilbert refers to himself and George, have been bedfellows with controversy throughout their career, but they tested the boundaries of religious tolerance with their Sonofagod – was Jesus heterosexual? Exhibition at the White Cube. They raged against the Catholic Church and one of their images included the text “God loves fxxxing”. Tory MP Anne Widdecombe denounced it as “blasphemous”.

Vulgarity: 7 Criminality: 0  Religious impact: 2  Political Impact: 3  Deaths: 0

11. Cartoon of Jack Hobbs
Back in 1925, The Star newspaper printed a cartoon showing the Captain of the English Cricket team, Jack Hobbs, being revered by a “gallery of the most important historical celebrities”, Mohammed was among them. Muslims in India were enraged at the image and the Indian government passed resolutions of protest.
Vulgarity: 4 Criminality: 0  Religious impact: 5 Political Impact: 5   Deaths: 0

10. The Profit
A film about a con man who starts a religion in order to become rich. It is banned in the US because of a lawsuit taken out against it by The Church of Scientology - despite the filmmaker’s claims it is not based on the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard. Scientologists said the film was made to influence the jury in the case of Lisa McPherson who died while in the care of the Church of Scientology in Florida. 
Vulgarity: 0 Criminality: 3  Religious impact: 6 Political Impact: 6  Deaths: 0

9. Behzti (Dishonour)
Set in a Sikh temple, the play includes scenes of rape, murder and physical violence, which many Sikhs counted as supremely offensive. On its opening night at the Birmingham Rep a riot broke out and the performance cancelled. The protest took place as the Government was outlining legislation to outlaw incitement to religious hatred
Vulgarity: 7 Criminality: 0   Religious impact: 7  Political Impact: 2  Deaths: 0

8. Quran on toilet paper
Manfred van H. was sentenced to one year in prison on probation in Germany for posting toilet paper stamped with verses from the Quran to mosques and the media. He was charged for defaming religious convictions in a manner that would disturb public peace.
Vulgarity: 8 Criminality: 6  Religious impact: 5 Political Impact: 0   Deaths: 0

7. Chris Ofili’s Virgin Mary
The man who brought elephant dung to the art world created a Virgin Mary, surrounded by pictures of female genitals from pornographic magazines. It was removed from the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s ‘Sensation’ exhibition in 1999 after Rudy Giuliani, then Mayor, threatened to withdraw the $7m City Hall grant from the museum.

Vulgarity: 6 Criminality: 0  Religious impact: 5 Political Impact: 8 Deaths: 0

6. Penis on a cross by Danuta Nieznalska
The title of the piece says it all really. It contravened Polish blasphemy laws and the artist was fined, and banned from foreign travel for six months. She was sentenced to six months "restricted liberty" the Polish equivalent of community service.
Vulgarity: 8 Criminality: 9  Religious impact: 3 Political Impact: 0   Deaths: 0

5. Sony’s Cathedral shoot-out game
Games giant Sony chose to set their alien shoot-out game in Manchester Cathedral’s nave without permission from the Dean. The cathedral works to reduce violence in the city plagued by gun-crime, and threatened to sue Sony for breach of copyright of the interior of their building. The Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, told Parliament that large corporations like Sony should have more sensitivity and social responsibility in such cases. The controversy was resurrected when the game was nominated for a Bafta award and the Church called for the honour to be withdrawn.
Vulgarity: 5  Criminality: 5   Religious impact: 6  Political Impact: 5  Deaths: 0

4. Submission directed by Theo van Gogh
A 10-minute film about violence against women in Islamic countries, Submission depicted four Muslim women telling Allah the offences against them, while partially covered. Quranic texts, inciting women to submit, were projected on their bodies. The creator, Theo van Gogh and writer Hirsi Ali received death threats in Holland as a result of the film. In 2004 van Gogh was shot dead by a man who was caught fleeing the scene. Aftermath protests saw 174 incidents of violence against mosques, churches, and Islamic schools following the murder.
Holland’s Minister for Justice called for the country’s blasphemy laws to be implemented more stringently with counter calls for them to be abolished all together. An Independent Dutch MP called for a five-year ban on all non-Western immigration following the murder.

Vulgarity: 6 Criminality: 2  Religious impact: 8 Political Impact: 5   Deaths: 1

3. Piss Christ
Christ hanging on the Cross and suspended in a jar of the artist’s urine won the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s award in 1989 - a prize part-sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, a US government agency. Debate about the photo went as far as the US Senate.
Vulgarity: 8 Criminality: 0 Religious impact: 4 Political Impact:10 Deaths: 0

2. Satanic Verses and Salman Rushdie’s Knighthood
Rushdie’s book which was a political satire on Islam led Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Khomeini in Iran to issue a fatwa (a religious ruling) sanctioning Muslims to kill the author for blasphemy. More than 10,000 marched on the British High Commission in India. Three people were shot and two died following the fatwa and 37 were killed in a riot in Turkey. Rushdie was forced into hiding for 10 years and has round the clock protection to this day, but he refused to apologise or recall the book. Robin Cook, then Foreign Secretary brokered a deal with the Iranians ensuring they would do nothing to carry out the fatwa, even though it still stood. When he was awarded a knighthood this year, the coals of the controversy were stoked and protest ignited once again with effigies of the author and The Queen burned on the streets in Pakistan. Al Qaeda threatened terror attacks against the UK in response to the honour. The book remains banned in Muslim countries.
Vulgarity: 6 Criminality: 9 Religious impact: 10 Political Impact: 10  Deaths: 39

1. Jyllands-Posten Mohammed Cartoons
Protests against the cartoons of Mohammed – one with a bomb in place of a turban – printed in the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten, led to arrests, convictions, and caused over 100 deaths.
The newspaper claims it was contributing to the debate on self-censorship but Muslims across the world took offence at the depiction of their prophet, any image of whom is regarded as blasphemous.

Vulgarity: 4 Criminality: 7 Religious impact: 10 Political Impact: 10 Deaths: 100

Joanna Sugden

Comments

[Tim LL]

What - no mention of Madonna's Like A Prayer video?

[Andrew Milner]

Life of Brian: "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy." Priceless. Where’s your sense of humour, Infidels?

[Mik]

Isn't it interesting that only the ones where death resulted were against Islam?

[David]

According to the chart's death toll the score is:
-Islam: 140 deaths
-All others: none
That certainly makes it a religion of peace!

[John Wilson]

It should be pointed out that 'Resistance' (the Sony game) is not actually based in Manchester Cathedral, it only temporarily passes through it; and - despite the church's claim to the contrary - Sony did not actually require permission to depict it, and the church does not actually own - and cannot own - a copyright on the building. As such, Sony have not actually broken any law, and Blair really should have just shut up.

[Alan Harrison]

The report regarding Dorota Nieznalska is inaccurate and incomplete. She was not fined, but sentenced to six months "restricted liberty" and the Polish equivalent of community service.
She appealed, the verdict was overturned in 2004, and her retrial is still proceeding now, with 23 hearings to date. (See www.spam.art.pl and click the button "Proces Doroty N".)

[alan]

The concept of blasphemy is flawed. Making a mockery of anyone's opinions, religious or otherwise, is perfectly legitimate within the context of free speech. It doesn't matter if anyone's "religious" feelings are hurt. Other people's non-religious feelings are often hurt too - e.g. by the spoutings of preachers, parsons and popes. -- No, free speech finds its limitations in slander and libel. Also whenever a person's race or physical/mental disabilities are ridiculed (these being things over which a person has no choice, in contrast to opinions).

[Amin Aswet]

I am surprised at the Vulgarity and Criminality ratings given to the Danish cartoons. Those I saw were not vulgar. In my opinion they were legitimate comment on a public position adopted by many Muslim clerics and preachers and were funny into the bargain: for example where the prophet calls for a stop to murder by suicide bombings because they are running out of virgins. As to the bomb in the turban, it was an apposite comment on the support givenby many sheiks, imams etc to murder by bombing in the name of their religion. As to ciminality, in what European country were they illegal? France, Spain and elsewhere a point was made of publishing them in protest at the violent reactions stirred up, provoked and encouraged by some Imams in Denmark. That Jack Straw did not want them published in the UK did not make them illegal but much cruder and crueller cartoons get published about UK politicians. There exist many depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art, so your statemetn that any image of his is consdidered blasphemous is probably inaccurate, just look online dn you will find them.

[Simon Ferguson]

i think that you will find (on closer examination) that there is a history of 'images of the the prophet' in Islam - particularly among the Shia. So ,then, it becomes a matter of 'what image' is deemed permissable for 'the faithful' & what happens to those whose image falls beyond the pale ie: through art & humour. And then it becomes a matter of what the rest of us will tolerate - or not.

[John F]

Very interesting.

Now how about an article about all of the crimes which have been committed in the name of religion?

[Dan Russell]

You seem to have missed out the Abortion Act, one of the greatest insults to the key tenets of Christianity, the sacredness of life.

[J Wood]

and when will you have an article about how many religious activities and events are offensive to the non-religious ?

[sarah]

Well reading Simon Ferguson's comment - its very clear that your trying to highlight all the crimes done by muslims, why not think of the cause of them doing such things in the first place ever thought of that? (guess not). And those muslims who do crimes 'in the name of religion' are not being true to their faith the quran does not teach one to go about hurting others those muslims are not true and should not bring religion into it!

[Erik]

The Mohammad cartoons were not illegal at all, that was tried in a court of law. Deeming them unlawful to the seventh degree is a GROSS insult to all Danes and rest assured that we will not hesitate to...

Well, better no go into that in an open forum, but it involves dragonships and battle axes.

[Bob]

No South Park?

[Michael]

We are introduced to the religion of our parents, we rarely choose a religion.
Whilst some religions preach tolerance, Islam clearly does not.
There is a danger that if tolerance is taught then some followers will choose other religions when they are mature enough to make that decision.
The religion they leave is not affected but the leaders are.
No one likes to see their flock dwindle so Islam's leaders preach intolerance knowing that it will stop people converting to other religions for fear of harmful reprisals.
Islam is going through the same bigoted stages of development that Christianity went through and will eventually mature and moderate, I hope.

[Davey Boyd]

Christ neither incited violence nor did violence, and neither did His immediate followers. On the other hand, Mohammed issued calls for violence and also did act violently, as did his immediate followers.

And today, Christians are very offended when our Lord Jesus Christ is defamed. But look at which religion causes all the deaths! Islam: 140 deaths, All others: none.

[Mark]

How about a list of religions crimes against humanity or crimes carried out against humanity in the name of religion I suspect it would be a list as long as eternity

[Deborah]

Davey - how can you say deaths caused by Islam 140, all others none?! most wars have some religious theme behind them, take for example Northern Ireland, I don't think Islam had much to do with the deaths in the troubles.

[Mary McConnell]

You have a concise list of blasphemous movies here with one exception: The Profit .

Scientology's creator was L. Ron Hubbard. He was a con man and convicted criminal, & not a god.

The only reason Scientology did not want the movie ( The Profit ) shown was because the story line contained
demonstration of some similarities to it's " con game ". That's why Scientology still does not want the movie released.

To my knowledge, there was nothing blasphemous about the film, and certainly not comparable to the other movies on your list.

blas·phe·my (blăs'fə-mē) n., pl. -mies. is defined:

A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.

The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

Scientology's Hubbard was himself blaphemous in his writings, comments and regard to christianity. Listen here
http://www.xenu.net/archive/multimedia.html

I am very surprised that Martin Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ" was not listed here. In the USA "Life of Brian" was known to be a Monty Python parody, and no one took it seriously. "LTC" set off a firestorm of protests from the conservative Christian community, with calls for boycotts of this "blasphemous" film. One thing they didn't do, however, was call for Scorsese's blood the way the Mohammedans howled for Rushdie's. ISLAM IS INTOLERANT.

[alan]

David Boyd - just one interesting point. I commented that it was somehow odd that the overwhelmingly catholic countries, Italy and Woytola's Poland, were the most avid military supporters of the Iraq war.. - The answer I got from an erudite catholic was that the "love-your-enemy" from the sermon on the mount was somehow watered down by Jesus using physical violence to eject merchants from the temple. What do you say now?

[David Bennington]

You cannot argue rationally with a religious person because religious beliefs are, by definite, illogical and ill-founded. So the only way to counter religious intolerance and bigotry is by mockery and derision. Remember that one of the most effective tools against Hitler was Chaplin's film The Great Dictator. So long live blasphemy - may it find a new lease of life.

[georges]

No mention of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. How come? It was a dramatic act of desecration, intended to show that Buddhism (and, indeed, Buddhists) had no right to exist. It certainly puts the Danish cartoons in context.

How did Buddhists respond? Did they burn down any embassies? Did they issue any death threats? Did they march around with placards saying "slay the enemies of the Buddha"? No, they reacted with quiet dignity. So let's ignore them and concentrate on placating the violent instead.

[Felix Turner]

It makes me sick to read about what these people have done.As a Catholic it saddens me how many people have insulted Jesus Christ in such disgusting ways, yet every single one of these people have every right to do so and I believe that no one should try to stop them.

Screw all these dumbazz, genocidal, criminal religions. It is further pointless for Western bleever snobs to argue the point that Islam is any worse than their disgusting Christianity or Judaism. They're all an abomination. All have been initiated and maintained by homosexual cults (hence the hatred of women). All have their extremists. Christian snobs will get on their high horses and denounce Islam, totally forgeting that 'Gawd Ahmighty hisself' told the neighborhood jackass to invade Iraq. That same Gawd forgot to also tell him that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction there. Yet the bleevers still maintain their unquestionable faith in their Lord and Savior, George Bush, who apparently knows more than god.

[cas]

i agree that leaving out the buddhas is a major bummer on behalf of the writer. that buddhists should be more peacefull than other religious people is a myth however.
the japanese suicidepilots are heroically referred to as kamikaze (buddhists), as well as the japanese nazis were, pol pot had buddhist background, the 2000000 dead vietnamese fighthers during the vietnam war were buddhists. the military junta of myanmar are buddhists as are the regimes of nepal, thailand and cambodia.
it must be noted however that almost all religious provocation is made by secular christians, the most conflict seeking, hatefull people are the socalled nonbelievers, and the direct reason for almost all the abovementioned conflicts. the most bloody and violent regimes in history furthermore are the secular ones; communists (china, soviet union etc.), nazis, fascists, capitalists (BUSH, BLAIR, AND THE CURRENT WHITE CHRISTIAN WORLDREGIMES).

[LOKE]

It is so sad that religious people doesn't have any humor or self criticism. They believe that just their believe or religion are true and from that follows that anything against that is a blasphemy.

IRONI AND HUMOR WILL CURE YOUR RELIGION

[Hansen]

I don't get the criminality rating for the Danish cartoons. They are not illegal at all here in Denmark, so stated our courts. On the contrary. The rating should be changed to a zero. Anything higher than zero just goes to show how little seems to be known about Danish law and religious satire tradition.

[John Monfries]

You have a minor error in your description of the Satanic Verses controversy.

The fatwa was issued by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, not Ayatollah Khamene'i.

[stuart lewis]

just shows how pathetic religion is when you want to kill over a cartoon

[Rosted, Denmark]

I must admit that I tend to be increasingly proud of being a Dane. It seems that many western countries, and the UK in particular, are becoming politically correct to a degree that is nauseating. Who are you to say that we are not allowed to make satire of religion? Why should religion be the only area that is taboo? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the increasing number of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. If they find our culture so awful, well, they are welcome to leave our country. They do not add much to it, anyway.....

[Charlie]

Blasphemy - the ultimate victimless crime.

[Claus]

The Muhammad cartoons were neither vulgar nor criminal. Calling them that might be both, though.

[Rob Lindsay]

I think a lot of this 'controversy' stems from political and religious leaders failing to have a sense of humour. I don't see a problem with any of the above really and the fact that people rioting over a cartoon shows how truly childish and intolerant religion can be. Humanity would be a better race without any religions to divide us.

[waalhaala]

Hey it is so funny people rioting about god who is so strong and powerful according to the rioters. if he/she (god) was angry with all this why didn't he/she just punished those offending him/her. I don't think some one as powerful as god needs help.
And for the cartoon pictures, they said no one has ever made drawings of muhammed so how did they know the dane cartoons were him.
If god was also angry for that the dane printing press would not have function to print those cartoons.

[bill]

And what of those who find religious pilgrims flogging themselves or crawling with bleeding knees vile and offensive, yet undertaken with Church blessing? Who find offence in articles justifying religious fanatics letting a young woman die of blood loss senselessly? Or are offended by religious fundamentalists justifying terrorism or murder, or intolerance of homosexuals or atheists or whoever doesn't see the world the narrow way they do?
Much of the blasphemy outlined here is trivial by comparison, and a minor issue morally. Some, in fact, is very positive in a moral sense, in outlining major moral flaws in certain religious beliefs and practices.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and blasphemy is in the mind of the listener or reader.

[D]

if you have a true faith you should be strong enough it to rise above it. In my option the extremist or zealot actual has a weak faith and must destroy all others faiths and ideas so only theirs remain. So it is how they remove their doubt.

What the extremists forget or don’t understand is that we me must all find our own path to god. It should not be forced onto you.

I am a spiritualist and have to put up with it being treated as a second class faith but I’ve not heard of spiritualist suicide bombers or calls for the deaths of unbelievers

[L]

Why isn't the Zombie Jesus picture one of the top twenty?

[XG-Raven]

Contrary to what was mentioned in a previous unsigned post, Japanese Kamikaze Pilots were practitioners of the Shinto religion, not Buddhists. Several other Asian ethnic groups were also erroneously lumped together as being Buddhist as well.

The Asian continent is host to a significant number of spiritual beliefs. One should not assume all peoples of Asian origins to be Buddhists, as there are several different religious principles in the area.

And as for claims of religious secularism being a motivator in war making efforts by tyrannical governments, take into consideration this particular quote from the post in question:

“the most bloody and violent regimes in history furthermore are the secular ones; communists (china, soviet union etc.), nazis, fascists, capitalists (BUSH, BLAIR, AND THE CURRENT WHITE CHRISTIAN WORLDREGIMES).”

Communist and Socialist groups have historically maintained a doctrine of atheism. This has held true in the USSR, PROC, as well as several others. The Nazi’s, although murderously xenophobic, were certainly not religious zealots by any means. The only war-mongering fascist nation I can recall having a significant religious ideology was Italy under Mussolini.

As far as the United States being a religiously secular nation, that statement is unfounded. The United States of America is actually one of the most religiously diverse nations in the world. Furthermore, separation of church and state is written into the US constitution. Although the line between church and state do occasionally cross borders in the US, it typically occurs in a relatively small region of the United States referred to colloquially as the “bible belt,” where religious devoutness has become a common coping mechanism to relieve the angst brought on by living in economically depressed communities.

[Jeremy]

In repsponse to an earlier comment on tolerance in conversion.

Theres a small peice I read about the Quran and Islam some months ago. Strictly speaking, Muslims are not allowed to convert to another religion. Doing so means other Muslims have the religous duty of killing the convertee. While I don't think this happens except on the odd occasion anymore(all religions are littered with duties that are ignored from a modern veiwpoint as their completely insane, so Islam is no exception to that, quite thankfully), I've never heard of anything comparable. I think that might have a lot to do with "honour" killings which I've read of in Europe of the last few years.

[karyn]

someone has forgotten the ultimate crime against the foundations of morality, secular, religious or not:

does a 100 million aborted babies since the 20th century ring a bell?

[MGC]

Darwin's On the Origin of Species should have easily made this list. I can't think of another book/movie/other work of art (including all of those listed) that caused greater political, social and religious impact.

And for all those that claim Islam is more violent than other religions, pick up a history book and flip to the pages on the inquisition, the holocaust and the ethnic cleansing of the American native people - all perpetrated by good "Christians" in an effort to further their religion. Now try to find similar examples in history related to Muslim or Judaic actions - that match the scale of those events. Christianity, while based on goodness (love thy neighbor), has been the cause of many of the world's greatest crimes against humanity.

Most Christians conveniently forget these as they preach about the evils of the rest of the world. That is hypocracy in its purest form.

[Caroline]

If I declare in public a personal opinion on the negative factors of religion (repression of women, subjugation of nations, war against other faiths) I am blasphemous or bigotted.

When a believer passes judgement on me and declares me a sinner, he is justified and his opinion protected as 'part of his faith' or an 'expression of his beliefs'.

Call me old fashioned, but didn't that used to be know as 'hypocrisy'?

[P Smith]

Islam 140, Rest of the world 0
Islam wins!

[Robert Browne]

Vulgarity, Criminality and Death?

You lot really are a bunch of hypocrites. You want to look at blasphemy, then compare Jerry Springer the Opera with Torquemada and the screams of his victims, and ask yourself which you would prefer to spend two hours with.

If you want to look at blasphemy, start with the creation of Catholic Orthodoxy, The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Conquest of South America, The Pacific Islands, The Slave Trade, The Conquest of North America, paying special attention to The Borgias and the fact that Henry VIII was awarded the title "defender of the faith" by the Pope for murdering William Tyndale for having the audacity to translate the bible into English.

Blasphemy? Take the f*****g forrest out your own eyes before you attempt the splinter in blasphemers.

[Joanna Sugden]

Thanks for your comments Robert, as you'll see at the top of the post the works cited refer to 'recent' blasphemy cases.
joanna

[Robert Browne]

The "recent cases of militantly religious outrage" are a response to the hypocrisy of religion.

If you want more recent ones we can start with: "God told me to invade Iraq" the Catholic church's cover up of child abuse by priests, pro-life bombers, and the refusal of the church of Rome to back the condom campaign in Africa.

Then we can move on to 7-7, Madrid, Bali, The Taliban, and the entire Jewish Muslim thing in The Levant, which lets face it is nothing more a family dispute about who should have inherited great uncle Abraham's farm, with both sides saying: "God said we could have it."

[bill]

Heh, Robert, you da man.......!!!

I wish I'd said that!

[Fraser James]

It is ludicrous that 'inciting religious hatred' or whatever should be a crime. I consider it a moral duty to disparage irrational beliefs by whatever means possible: if I were to declare this as being my 'faith' would my utterances be protected by the same absurd legislation.

[Donnee]

Wonderful comments, many could be endlessly quoteable for years to come.
My beliefs fall on the side of the blasphemers.

[Gary]

Yes, the Abortion Act has been missed, and the obscene number of deaths which have resulted from it have been ignored.

[Allan Barry]

Imagine no religion. I wonder if you can. Nothing to kill or die for. A brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people living life in peace.

Religion = intolerance = violence

Snap out of it people.

[Frank]

Why is everything fair game for criticicm or satire except religion? Why are irrational, superstitious beliefs given so much more respect and consideration than they deserve? It's amazing how faith in something supernatural and unproveable is considered virtuous. What a laugh.

[Charley]

Everyone has their opinion about religion and ALL religions have their dark history of violence. Even Athiest have their faith in Evolution which is still a Theory but is taught as fact. I suggest all to search for truth before they open their mouths with ingnorant speach. The Wise will listen to counsel the Fool will despise correction. Search out your faith and open your mind to see good & evil for what they are. Learn about other Faiths to be able to find the True Faith. We all have fallen and we keep blaming others. Keep your eyes on G-D and not on Man. Humanity will fail you every time.

[Coel]

Charley writes: "Even Athiest have their faith in Evolution which is still a Theory but is taught as fact."

Evolution IS a fact; the evidence proves it overwhelmingly. Yes it is also a theory; in science "theory" means "explanation", it does not mean "unproven". (Oh, and atheists -- lower-case "a" -- do not "have faith" in evolution, they accept it because of the evidence.)

"I suggest all to search for truth before they open their mouths with ingnorant speach."

Agreed; now please learn what science means by "theory".

[Jacqui]

I find it astonishing that anonymous of 06 Nov 2007 should think there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction when Iraqi workers have been so damaged or killed when moving them from pillar to post to avoid the weapons inspectors. No safety taken into account for these poor people. Saddam used the against his own people to test them out on unwanted tribal people groups such as the Kurds. Try reading Andrew White's book 'Iraq: Searching for Hope' for some accurate info for a change.

[Robert Browne]

CHARLEY said: "Evolution IS a fact; the evidence proves it overwhelmingly."

Wrong I'm afraid Charley, it is a theory. The only place fact has in science is in data; Hypothesis, Methodology, Experiment, DATA, Conclusion, Theory. The beauty of science is that it is just a method of increasing knowledge and the second we make a theory fact we are falling into the same trap as religion. No matter how well proven a Theory is it must remain a Theory. Something will probably come along and replace or refine it. This is already happening with Darwinian Evolution.

It is also worthwhile remembering that Scientific Theory is itself a Theory, and open to refinement and change as soon as more data arrives that does not fit the theory.

The second that we discover a Noah's Ark which is large enough to hold sufficient bio-mass and food to feed it for forty days and nights as well as a sewage system to deal with that much poo we will reconsider Creationism as a possibility.

Until then, I will stick with Evolution.

[Caroline]

What about the movie The Da Vinci Code? The worst blasphemy of all.

[Sarah]

There certainly is a lack of authentic scholarship abound, as is present by many of these comments.

The whole Catholic Church in its entirety did NOT cover up any child sex scandals-that was the work of several sinful priests and bishops. As for Vatican officials, they did attempt to ensure justice was sought; ever hear resolutions made at the Dallas conference? What about reading about the quick acceptance of Cardinal Law's resignation as Archbishop of Boston?

Why does no atheist want to acknowledge the religious and personal affront of 4000 babies dying each day as a result of forcing the mother to believe that she has no other "CHOICE" but to kill her child within her womb??

[Lizardlips]

Allah, the Jewish God and the Christian God, and all of the OTHER gods that exist can determine when they've been insulted and take action on their own, instead of having us humans take offense for them.

[Jonathan]

Charley: Evolution IS a fact; the evidence proves it overwhelmingly. Yes it is also a theory; in science "theory" means "explanation", it does not mean "unproven".

Is that so. OK, When you show me video tape of a prehistoric animal, taken 5,000,000,000,000 years ago. I will agree it is fact. Till then it remains a theory, as is creation. Oh, look in your dictionary for ignoramuses. In Websters theory means: "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption". Please note the quotations, it is directly from the book.
Oh, and insisting that evolution is a fact is the same as believing creation is. I feel another quote comming up "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. "Heb 11:1 (NIV) How many monkey men do you see?.............

[Coel]

Robert Brown writes: "Wrong I'm afraid . . ., it [evolution] is a theory."

Sure, of course it is a theory (= "explanation"). But it is also a fact, where "fact" means that it is established as true beyond reasonable doubt on current evidence.

It is a fact that evolution has occurred and it is a fact that Darwinian theory is a large part of the explanation why.

If you don't accept that use of the word "fact" then there are no such things as "facts".

[Robert of De.]

It's amazing how something so simple as "What do you believe in" can turn into such a firestorm of comments when presented as a so called article of interest. When will the human race rise above such pettiness as the mind control caused by religion and it's abusers who self title themselves as messengers of G-D,Allah,YWH,etc...

you people have got too much time in your hands.

[annaSparrow]

I see that most of the comments here are slanted toward the side of the blasphemous insults and atheism. Speaking as a Christian, I will state that true Christianity does not teach violence, immorality, greed or many of the things we face in today's world. They have actually always been with us throughout history, in varying ways. Just because some people are "professors" of a religious faith and its teachings, does not mean they are truly following the teachings. When a person truly becomes saved from sin by belief (according to my religous convictions and the Bible's teachings) in Jesus and they confess sin, repent of sin (turn from it) a miracle transpires and they lose the desire to commit the things they previously enjoyed that may have been wrong. I know this is real for I have experienced it in my life. I have no desire to kill or persecute anyone for their beliefs or blasphemies. I think each person has to answer for himself or herself and their deeds. I wish everyone could love others and not feel they have to bash religion for all the evils of the world, but I cannot control or make people believe. Knowing God is a personal experience and it is indeed very real and true in its pure form. False statements and hypocrisy will continue to abound; however, that should not negate the truth. I know what I believe and what God has done in my life, and no one can ever make me believe otherwise for I have experienced it in the true form. I am not perfected--I make mistakes and do stupid things, I am still human. I will be perfected only when this life is over and I reach the other side. And, believe it or not believe it, there IS an "other side". Each person must answer to a holy, true God for their deeds good or bad in the final judgment. Those who have continued and reveled in sin and blasphemy will be cast into the everlasting place of torment. We have all been warned, taught, and given God's word to live by for thousands of years. We have no excuse because the way to salvation is very clear and simple, and it leads to a love of life and a liberty that only those who have experienced can know. I pray and wish all could know, but I also know they won't. I would just ask that all the blasphemies against religions and experiences with God cease. Why must religion be blamed for everything? I cannot understand the mind that would be so hardened and calloused as to create some of the so-called arts, books, movies as mentioned above, and the myriad that have not been mentioned. God is NOT to blame for those who sin and try to justify it in religion. Those persons are NOT true. Please, unbelievers, feel free to have your opinions and beliefs; but is it really necessary to blaspheme?

[Shadow]

According to the chart's death toll the score is:
-Islam: 140 deaths
-All others: none

All deaths were caused when they were protesting and they were not even armed. They were killed by govt soldiers who are following orders from Politicians.

[H.(Bart) Vincelette]

Religion is based on faith, not facts. And an entity (i.e. deity)assumed to be omnipotent, the creator of life , and the universe with galaxies, quasars, black holes , and wart hogs , will certainly have the ability to address or punish , behaviours that are deemed by him to be offensive .....in a heartbeat , and with , to understate it , ....'shock and awe'..BIG TIME.I have to agree with previous contibutors who have spoken highly of the many quotables herein.

[Coel]

Jonathon: "When you show me video tape of a prehistoric animal, taken 5,000,000,000,000 years ago. I will agree [evolution] is fact."

Video evidence is not the only sort of evidence. For example, a jury might convict for murder despite not having a video of the murder or eyewitness evidence. They might, instead, have other evidence such as DNA evidence.

And, yes, evolution is a fact, since it is proven correct by overwhelming evidence, far beyond reasonable doubt.

"Till then it remains a theory"

In science "theory" means "explanation". Sure it is a theory, a theory that is now known to be factually correct.

"Oh, look in your dictionary for ignoramuses. In Websters theory means [. . .] an unproved assumption"."

I am aware that in popular use "theory" can mean unproven, and dictionaries reflect that. But as used by scientists "theory" does not mean "unproven", it means "explanation".

"Oh, and insisting that evolution is a fact is the same as believing creation is."

No it isn't; evolution has overwhelming mountains on its side; creation is an empty assertion based only on faith.

>for all the religions<....all we ask for is RESPECT....don't we deserve some?

[Coel]

Annasparrow writes: "Those who have continued and reveled in sin and blasphemy will be cast into the everlasting place of torment."

Such nice people you and your god are! Are you so warped that you really think that everlasting torment is a just and acceptable punishment for anything?

"We have all been warned, taught, and given God's word to live by for thousands of years."

Well, no, all we have are lots of contradictory assertions by believers like you; they are never backed up by evidence.

"I would just ask that all the blasphemies [. . .] cease."

Haven't you just uttered a horrendous blasphemy yourself? You've asserted that God is a nasty, vile, spiteful creature who wants to hand out an _infinite_ punishment of eternal torment for what are at most _finite_ mis-deeds. If anything blasphemes and demeans God, that does.

[John Jamison]

Anyone who gets violent because someone blasphemes their god is a loser. Try a little tolerance in your religion.

You might also wanna get a life.

[Coel]

"all we ask for is RESPECT....don't we deserve some?"

No, you do not. Respect needs to be earned, not demanded. We are perfectly entitled to decide for ourselves whether to respect your beliefs. (This is different from respecting your right to hold your beliefs.)

[Shant J.]

I myself am a Christian - belonging to the Armenian Apostolic Church - but am not a "reborn" Christian or one that is fanatical in belief. I do have the belief that abortion is wrong. To be quite honest, I do believe in evolution but am not sure to what extent. Just because I do does not mean I'm blasphemous, however, no matter what anyone here says.

[Robert Browne]

You pseudo scientists really have a problem with the concept of theory.

Hypothesis: All swans are white.

Methodology: A survey of Swans where every swan measured for colour.

Experiment: A thousand scientists are sent around the country to photograph every swan we can find.

Data: aka FACT. All the swans in our survey were white.

Theory: All Swans are white.

The experiment is repeated 50 times, and every time all swans are white. It is still a theory.

6 months later, a similar survey in Quebec discovers a family of black swans. These swans can breed with white swans and produce viable offspring.

New theory: Most swans are white, but some are black. Until we find a green one. Then a blue one. Then a grey one.

Good grief, does it need to be this difficult. Fact belongs in DATA and nowhere else! Science is just a formal way of doing things so that the information can be better understood. That is all. It is not a religion.

[Pheelyp]

""all we ask for is RESPECT....don't we deserve some?"

No, you do not. Respect needs to be earned, not demanded. We are perfectly entitled to decide for ourselves whether to respect your beliefs. (This is different from respecting your right to hold your beliefs.)"

Coel, you seem to contradict yourself. The respect John Jamison was asking for (and not demanding) was respect for holding their beliefs: respect in the sense of not insensitively ridiculing that which is sacred for other people, even if what is sacred for them is not sacred to you.

Respect for people entails not needlessly hurting them. Question and ridicule beliefs if you must, but this exercise of free speech must be tempered by respect for the person expressing such beliefs. For ardent believers, their faith is a core component of their personhood, thus prudent care must be taken to avoid demeaning them in the course of denying their beliefs.

No one deserves to be hurt, no matter how stupid or bigoted they are, or how much we disagree with them.

[Coel]

Robert Browne writes: "You pseudo scientists really have a problem with the concept of theory."

You have a naive view of science, particularly the separation between data and theory.

"Fact belongs in DATA and nowhere else!"

The problem is that it is impossible to seperate data and observation from hypothesis and theory. All observations of the world depend on theoretical constructs of how the world works. For example, you cannot _directly_ measure the colour of a swan, all you can do is consider the pattern of photons hitting your eye (or instrument) and create a theoretical construct "white swan" out of that pattern.

Given that one cannot seperate data/observation from theory/explanations, the only sensible meaning of the word "fact" is "true beyond reasonable doubt on current evidence", and that can apply to theory/explanation just as much as to data/observation.

Yes, any such "fact" might be overturned -- human knowledge, not just in science, is inevitably limited and provisional, since humans are limited and fallible.

But, on any rational criterion, it is now established as _fact_ beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has occurred and that Darwinian theory is a large part of the explanation for it.

This is as much a "fact" as the ideas/theories that germs cause disease, and that babies come from their mothers, not from storks.

[Coel]

Pheelyp writes: "respect in the sense of not insensitively ridiculing that which is sacred for other people"

I don't accept that one can place ideas and opinions off limits for ridicule by saying they are sacred. Suppose a political party said its economic policy was sacred to it, and thus may not be criticized. Would that be reasonable? No, in my opinion.

"No one deserves to be hurt"

I don't accept that encountering critique or riducule of ones opinion is "hurt" in any genuine sense. In a free society one must expect to encounter such things.

Indeed, it is necessary for the health of a free society that we can ridicule ideas that are influential in society; societies where one cannot do that (e.g. Islamic or communist ones) are not free.

"this exercise of free speech must be tempered by respect for the person expressing such beliefs."

Why? Surely I'm allowed to decide for myself what and who I respect? And merely ridiculing someones ideas is not in any genuine sense infringing their rights.

Anyone who is upset by criticism or ridicule of their religion needs to grow up. I will not accept censorship just because someone claims "I'm offended".

[Robert Browne]

Coel: You are in danger of embracing postmodernism.

Be very careful or you will end up writing:

"Towards A New Feminist Mathematics: The Chauvinist Conspiracy to define Pi as irrational."

[Charley]

Jonathan- Webster's defintion of Thoery:An unaproved assumption, Hypothetical set of Facts. Faith:Firm belief in something which there is no proof. Evolution is still unproven Therefore it is a Belief. Athiest believe in the "Big Bang" theory which was an accident. That takes more Faith to believe than Intelligent Design of the universe. Over 500 scientist believe in the Intellegent Design Theory but Scientist at Colleges & Highschools all over are refusing to allow it taught in schools because they are afraid of loosing believers. Sad day for Science when they refuse to look at all the evidence that is out there. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction. A true Christian will hate what G-D hates and Love what G-D love. G-D HATES sin, but he LOVES you and me. That he gave his only Son for our sins that we might be saved. Its our choice. I Love you and pray for all human kind to open there mind and research the Truth in all forms and falsehoods will be revealed. I hate the Sin because it is why this World is coming to an end. 2Ti 3:12-1(NLT) Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil people and impostors will flourish. They will go on deceiving others, and they themselves will be deceived. About Blasphemy: Mat 12:31 ¶ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 3:1 You should also know this, Jonathan, that in the last days there will be very difficult times.2Ti 3:2 For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred.
2Ti 3:3 They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control; they will be cruel and have no interest in what is good. 2Ti 3:4 They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God.
2Ti 3:5 They will act as if they are religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. You must stay away from people like that. I pray always for this world to see the truth and be saved.

[Coel]

Pheelyp says: "exercise of free speech must be tempered by [. . .] respect in the sense of not insensitively ridiculing that which is sacred for other people."

As a followup to my previous reply, I'll give an actual example of why we must reject this idea that we have to pussy-foot around the sensitivities of believers.

When the British government was promoting its "Religious Hatred'' bill, mostly as a sop to the Muslim community, the then head of the Muslim Council of Britain said he wanted to outlaw any suggestion that terrorism is linked to Islam, since Islam is a "religion of peace".

He (Iqbal Sacranie) said "There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this law." So, if Sir Sacranie (knighted by the British Government) had his way, it would be a criminal offense to suggest that any terrorist act had any connection with Islam.

That shows why we have to reject any suggestion of "you may not say things that offend me".

[Carl Waring]

"Jonathan- Webster's defintion of Thoery:An unaproved assumption, Hypothetical set of Facts. Faith:Firm belief in something which there is no proof. Evolution is still unproven Therefore it is a Belief."

Oh dear. Charley, the definition of the word 'theory' in the scientific and lay communities has been discussed at length on this thread, and no doubt also in many others. Please read previous posts, it helps keep the debate on track, rather than continually labouring a point.

On a different note, regarding poking fun at beliefs, there's a great reason why we should do, here: http://www.venganza.org/2007/11/11/snakebite.htm

[Gaz]

I love you all. Peace be with you. Come on -don't be shy - Group HUG!

[Coel]

Charley writes: "defintion of Thoery:An unaproved assumption"

While that accords with popular use, it is not how science uses the word; in science "theory" means "explanation" and does not have connotations of "unproven".

"Evolution is still unproven"

You are ignorantly wrong. Evolution has been proven far beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The fact that people like you have no understanding of the theory and no awareness of the evidence does not change that.

"Athiest believe in the "Big Bang" theory which was an accident. That takes more Faith [. . .]"

Again, you are just wrong. Scientists accept the Big Bang theory as valid to the extent that it is supported by evidence. There is no religious-style "faith" involved.

"Sad day for Science when they refuse to look at all the evidence that is out there."

Scientists look at the evidence all the time. But, unfortunately for you, there is no evidence for intelligent design.

[delphine Verhaeghe]

"No one deserves to be hurt"

I don't accept that encountering critique or riducule of ones opinion is "hurt" in any genuine sense. In a free society one must expect to encounter such things.

what if someone ridiculed and criticised everything you believe deeply in, how would you react coel?

"this exercise of free speech must be tempered by respect for the person expressing such beliefs."

Why? Surely I'm allowed to decide for myself what and who I respect? And merely ridiculing someones ideas is not in any genuine sense infringing their rights

No, you are not infringing their rights, but you are extremely rude by doing so.

[Coel]

Delphine asks: "what if someone ridiculed and criticised everything you believe deeply in, how would you react coel?"

That happens quite often! And I accept that as legitimate in a free society. How do I react? By shrugging, or replying if I so choose.

"No, you are not infringing their rights, but you are extremely rude by doing so."

*Shrug* A lot of what Christians say is extremely rude to atheists. How many times have we heard that if we're atheists then we can't have morals? Why, on this very blog, we've been told that evil acts are, ipso facto, "atheist" acts, regardless of whether they were by a believer or not!

As another example, putting "one nation under God" in the American Pledge is extremely rude to Americans who don't believe in God, since it implies they are not part of the nation of their birth. But that doesn't seem to worry the religious at all.

On the subject of rudeness, Christians should address the beam in their own eyes before compaining about blasphemy to them.

[Will Capel Cure]

Has western civilisation really stooped so low as to immerse a cruxifix in a jar of urine? This is how cultural marxism attempts to slight it's enemy. However what doesn't kill you just makes you stronger. There will be a large resurgence of the christian faith. It has been long coming.

[Mike]

Responding to a comment way up the list about how all religions hate women.
"Screw all these dumbazz, genocidal, criminal religions. It is further pointless for Western bleever snobs to argue the point that Islam is any worse than their disgusting Christianity or Judaism. They're all an abomination. All have been initiated and maintained by homosexual cults (hence the hatred of women). "
Obviously you don't know much about any religions. For example, the only reason why women are separated from men in Judaism is because men were the ones who screwed up with the Sin of the Golden Calf. According to the Bible, only men participated in this, so they have to be "fixed". Men attend synagogue because they MUST, women do so because they WISH to.
P.S. my information came from a Rabbi, i am a catholic. Also, i was very surprised at how many people hate Islam. And here I was thinking that racism was beginning to die out, I guess it just shifts targets every once and a while.

[Charley]

Coel- Dr. Kent Hovind of Florida has a standing offer of $250,000 to "anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution." Evolution— true science fiction. His website is www.drdino.com. If the theory of evolution is true, then the evidence should show it. True science has nothing to fear from scrutiny. I can see evidence in micro-evolution(adapting to the environment) not macro-evolution(a Wolf over thousands of years became a whale)No evidence. The author, Ker Than, writes “Science can sometimes be a devil’s bargain: a discovery is made, some new aspect of nature is revealed, but the knowledge gained can cause mental anguish if it contradicts a deeply cherished belief or value.” Each creature brings forth after its own kind. That’s no theory; that’s a fact. Why then should we believe that man comes from another species? If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false. However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution. I have done my share of research on a lot of beliefs including evolution and the Word of G-D states it best. Jude 1:15-19 “to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage. But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last days there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. I am also a sinner but I have found my salvation in my Lord Yeshua(Christ)I Love You too...

[Gareth]

Whatever people think about religions (and sadly there is bad religion as well as good), there needs to be a common set of morals -unambiguous, shared beliefs which lead to good actions. This aspect of religion and its positive influence people's consciences, is clearly justified. What is being objected to is the forcing of often superfluous and unnecessary religious views on others, including through plainly evil ways but also the deliberately confrontational and vindictive attitude towards sincerely held beliefs. Whatever people's beliefs are, they can share clear basic common values of peace, individual rights, treating other people as you'd like to be treated yourself, honesty and helping the vulnerable. Religions can clarify their positions as inclusive moral codes which will not support prejudice, extremism and national supremacy, more so than party politics. Uncompromising, dogmatic bullying, vested interests and discrimination prompt public mistrust in any leadership in society.

[Swarup Depp]

I think that we should remember the blasphemy of the beheading of innocents in the name of god.

[Max]

Everything is game during times of war, that is why it is the most horrible art. Religion along with everything is exploited as a means to an end.

However, no one comes close to the destruction of which Pre-Christian (pagan)peoples slaughtered themselves. If you want a good body count with gruesome accounts, then research war before civilization.

I'll hand it to the Christians, at least they ended child/human sacrifices.

[Luap34]

I am sure you will be able to tell from the comment which ones have been posted my "peacefull" muslims. The hate for anything or anyone who is non islamic is very clear. Not one main stream faith has reacted in the way the the "CULT OF ISLAM" has, which shows us exactly what the west has allowed into it's mist.

[Boeufdaisy]

Fact check time: The Life of Brian was banned in "some states"? I think not any U.S. states, Wikipedia's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. "Some states" seems to be true only if alluding to Norway and Ireland, in which case "some countries" would be more accurate. And "The Profit" is no longer under any court order preventing it from exhibition.

[Gratian Yatsevitch]

To XG-Raven: There is nothing in the US Constitution separating church and stat. I suggest that you read the first amendment to the Constitution to enlighten yourself.

[Bob]

#1 crime of religion - Allowing Religion to EXIST.

[lithophysa1]

I am truly stunned that no episode of the American telivision show South Park made the list. They have denigrated just about every religion and rightly so.

[FedUp]

What an absolutely absurd and self idulgent exercise with an impressively narrow range of material. I find it interesting that such acts as the Holocaust are not included as affronts to organized religion.

But that would, of course, distract from this clear sop to a religious perspective which can be so easily intimidated and threatened. Despite the murder of millions of its members in the 20th century alone in combination with constant affronts both written and drawn, Judaism, remains strong. Why are other major religions so easily offended?

But the selection of such acts aside, I actually see no point here what-so-ever. Any religion which feels itself under threat based on silly cartoons or the PR efforts of an artist with a limited imagination demean only themselves. How does nonsense like "The Blasphemy Collection" even rate publication?

[Tempest]

God "only" exists in the hearts and minds of mankind - his deeds can be seen in the actions of man -

mankind is basically nuts,

grown, adult, people with imaginary friends - scare me.

[Someone Special]

Christianity, islam, jewdaism and any other explicit form of think and or way of life that actively condone violence that is very much illegal in m,odern countries should be banned outright.

Only idiots could be religious in the modern age. And that goes for all religions.

[George]

Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" was also banned in the US. In some places that ban was official. In other places, the local clergy threatened boycotts of theaters showing the film. The South was particularly active on this. Of course, these same people rant about Muslim over-sensitivity on the Mohammed cartoons. But that's just typical religious moral relativism. Our religion good, all others bad.

[D. Otis]

It is interesting, and should be noted that all the deaths resulting from thease blasphemes were the result of protest against, and intolorence of, anothers expression and not from being inspired or encouraged by these artists.
I'd say the blood for the 140 deaths is on the hands of the religouse, not the blasphemers. That being said, bad taste is bad taste. Why poke at the hornets nest.

[john smith]

It is not so much a question all these strange behaviors blasphem, but it is your personel worship relationship you have with your God that is called in to question. If you have a God without posibility of close ties and a two way, father/son, relationship. I suppose you then do have some reason to be upset. Otherwise you loose in the "minor's song" don't you?

[Bill]

Blasphemy laws? What ever happened to freedom of speech?

[PK]

Alas, Islamic blasphemy laws have launched a full-scale assault on freedom of speech and free expression.

[Carlton B Morgan]

In commenting on Jerry Springer: The Opera, you parrot the Christian Voice disinformation "the British opera featured a character Jesus who dressed as a baby and regularly soiled his nappy". This is quite simply not true. A character in the first half does this: he is NOT Jesus Christ. Also any blasphemy which occurs throughout the work is spoken by The Devil, His minions, or Jerry Springer, who is plainly reading said blasphemy off cue-cards under some duress ("or you will be f*** up the a** by barbed wire"). As the piece is at heart an old-fashioned morality play, Satan's role is, amongst other things, to blaspheme! Calling the work as a whole "blasphemy" is stretching things a bit! Now let's have yet another correction!

[Carl Waring]

Charley: Would "Dr. Kent Hovind of Florida" be the Kent Hovind behind the Creation Science Evangelism ministry? The same Kent Hovind who is currently serving a ten-year term in Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind)

Have I got the right guy? The same Kent Hovind that believes that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks, the Oklahoma city bombing and thinks that UFO's are apparitions from Satan? That one?

Just checking.

[Preston Rogers]

Creationists expect evolution to hold the answer for every query they can posit. Science and evolutionary biology has never claimed to have all the answers to anything. It is religion that has domain over such certainty unless it is designated as a mystery, miracle or act of God in which case we must have the faith to simply accept it.

Dr. Morris' assertion that presence of intermediate fossils in the record since Darwin's time "has given a resoundingly null result" is either uninformed or disingenuous. Any number of recently discovered Australopithecenes represents “missing links” to our human evolution. Archaeopteryx and bird-dinosaur transitional forms have been found in recent years in China. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are both intermediates in early tetrapod limb evolution. Snails in Lake Turkana, East Africa …the list goes on and on. Refer to Richard Dawkins’ An Ancestor’s Tale for a more exhaustive compilation.

This creationist strategy is often called “the god of gaps”. Any gaps in the evolutionary record are scrutinized and evolution as a whole is then questioned. A transitional form is subsequently discovered, but, oh gee, now there are gaps on either side of this new intermediary. More gaps lead to more scrutiny, etc. Aside from this criticism being irrational, it also makes the assumption that the fossil record should be completely intact, clearly delineating the entire evolution of life on earth. All that paleontologists and evolutionists have to do is simply unearth it all and show the world.

Well, here’s a newsflash for the creationist-ID camp- fossilization does not come easily. Forget about the distinct possibility that some transitional forms may be founder populations with low numbers and fewer generations over time, conditions relying on climate, pressure and subsequent geologic events (among other things) must be ideal for fossils of certain life forms to occur. Soft body forms without bone, teeth, chitin or cellulose are especially challenged to fossilize.

The real truth for evolution comes not from any single fossil or finding, but from the abundance of evidence from so many different disciplines. Microbiology, genetics, paleontology, chemistry, zoology, herpetology, embryology, entomology and so many others all correlate and converge when seen in light of evolution. For educated people ascribing to creationism to turn their backs on truths that are so blatantly obvious is beyond sad; it is foolhardy. I guess they have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

[Coel]

Charley writes: "Kent Hovind of Florida has a standing offer of $250,000 to "anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution."

But you missed out the asterix from that statement, which gives a whole host of conditions and makes the challenge complete unreasonable. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

"If the theory of evolution is true, then the evidence should show it."

It does!

"True science has nothing to fear from scrutiny."

Agreed!

"Each creature brings forth after its own kind. That’s no theory; that’s a fact."

But creatures show slight differences from their parents (hadn't you noticed?), and over vast eons of time those differences accumulate until the creatures are a different "kind". That is both theory and fact.

"Why then should we believe that man comes from another species?"

Because of the copious evidence, including the succession of transitional fossils (A afarensis, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, then H sapiens).

"If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false."

Or, alternatively, that the Bible is allegorically correct rather than literally correct. But how revealling that you bring the Bible into this; it is very notable that rejection of evolution almost always has its roots in fundamentalist, literalist religion. Anyone who judges simply on the science sees that evolution of overwhelmingly proven by the copious evidence.

"the Word of G-D states it best."

I'll discuss the science here, but I'm not that interested in religious doctrine, thanks.

[1881]

@ COEL, who writes "Evolution IS a fact" and proceeds to define "fact" and to distinguish religion. See posting, 19 Nov 2007 17:02:32 and others.

Yet nothing in the theory of evolution precludes the existence of God. And establishing a theory of evolution in no way undermines the validity of religion. Moreover, science's understanding of the processes of evolution and human consciousness is so superficial at this stage that it remains incapable of situating evolution and consciousness into a satisfyingly complete theory of reality. Religion thus remains a perfectly valid avenue for exploring aspects of reality not presently reachable by theories like evolution. And curious individuals understandably pursue this avenue along with the others open to human capability.

[Sophie Pollard]

Jerry Springer: The Opera, contrary to popular belief, never showed Jesus as a nappy-wearing fetishist. The play calls for the Jesus who appears in the main character's dying fantasy to be played by the same actor as a fetishist from the first act, but the focus of the act in which he appears is Jerry's attempt to mediate between the Devil and Jesus as they rehash old arguments.

[Coel]

1881 writes: "nothing in the theory of evolution precludes the existence of God."

Agreed.

"And establishing a theory of evolution in no way undermines the validity of religion."

It does make many religious explanations superfluous at best and wrong at worst.

"Religion thus remains a perfectly valid avenue for exploring aspects of reality not presently reachable by theories like evolution."

There is no reason to think that religion can reach knowledge that science cannot. It has never demonstrably done so.

[Devon James]

Jesus Christ, havent you guys got work to do ?

[Lorenzo 1978]

Dear all,

I thank God I left Britain. This country full of so-called scientist, couth atheists and stand-up comedians against religion. Before talking about the Catholic church think about the infamies you brought to the world. Slave trade, exploitation and tyranny through your murderous empire. Not in the name of God but of money. You have no ideals, no beliefs and no morals. This is reflected in your society. I grew up in South America and I am proud to be catholic and proud that spanish and indigenous cultures have mixed unlike the mess you left in all the countries you have been exterminating existing populations like in USA and Australia. We hate your despicable colonialist attitude. Because you make fun of what was your religion you have the right to apply the same standards to others? Your cities are violent your children have no future because they have no morals. You rationalise everything thinking that the human mind is all powerful. You will fall exactly because of your arrogance. We will rebel against your materialistic imperialism from Venezuela to Iran passing through Buenos Aires. We have dignity which you should not mock. Malvinas argentinas, Gibraltar espanol!! Hasta la victoria, siempre! Dios es amor.

[frank]

There are numerous examples of "minced oaths" or euphemistic phrases used by people throughout all levels of society which are, in effect, religious swear words. Are they also then blasphemy? Priests, Vicars, and those who consider themselves "upper class", pious or polite use some of these frequently!

Examples include: Bleeding heck , Blinking heck (Bloody Hell), By George, By gosh, By gum, By Jove (By God), By golly (By God's body), Chrissakes (For Christ's sake), Crikey, Criminy, Cripes (Christ), Dagnabbit, Dagnammit, Gat Dangit, Dangnabbit (God damn it) Doggone (God damn), For crying out loud (For Christ's sake), Gadzooks (God's hooks), Gee, Gee whizz, Gee willikers, Jebus, Jeepers Creepers, Jeez, Jehosaphat, Jeezy Creezy, Jiminy Christmas, Jiminy Cricket, Judas Priest (Jesus or Jesus Christ), Good grief , Goodness gracious (Good God), Land sakes (For the Lord's sake), My goodness, My gosh (My God), Sacré bleu (Sang de Dieu or God's blood), Suffering succotash (Suffering Saviour), Zounds (God's wounds), and many others.

If these are OK, then the word(s) the slang stands for should be to!

[Martha Jean Kellerman]

typical religious BS, why can't they get about the business of saving souls instead of trying to control every corner of someone's life?

[Geoff Roberts]

This is all very entertaining! I particularly liked the way Robert Browne attributed a comment by (the sadly benighted) Charley to (the singularly enlightened) COEL. Poor Robert then went on to commit semantic mayhem with respect to the words "theory" and "fact" (luckily COEL was able to put him right :).

What I find especially amusing is that religious types, finding the universe that can be observed to be very complex (no argument there), try to explain it all by making a mighty, unpunctuated leap to a necessarily even more complex creator (who can't be observed), seemingly on the basis of what some blokes allegedly said over 1400 years ago.
I don't claim to know what the hell it's all about, but I'm pretty sure you religious fantasists don't know either.

If politics, art, science, social policy and sex are fair game for criticism, then so is religion. There is nothing so special about religion that it should be placed above criticism. The religious routinely make hateful comments against non-believers and those of other religions; they interfere in science education; they indoctrinate innocent children; they demand special privileges on the grounds of their "deeply held beliefs" (they don't need to justify those beliefs by providing reasons why anyone should take them seriously. No, mere belief is deemed sufficient). Those who would ban criticism of religion are only showing how insecure religion really is (something we all, by now, know in our heart of hearts). You either have good REASONS for your beliefs, or you don't. If you do, then fight blasphemy with reason, not by banning speech. Or do your delicate ears have to be protected from anyone saying something bad about your sky-daddy? And you think you should be allowed to dictate the terms of discourse? Sorry, but I'd rather be dead. You "offend" me every time you tell me I'm going to Hell just for not believing in your God. You "offend" me every time you demonstrate a brazen contempt for science and rationality, and insist that scientists don't know what they're talking about and that the Good Book has all the answers. So why shouldn't the pious and self-righteous religionists be the ones who are censored? Why do they get such a say in what can and can't be said? There is, in fact, no good reason to live at the pleasure of those who would impose their archaic mythology on the rest of us if they had half the chance.

And yes, evolution is a fact. It