Comments on: “Just say no to blasphemy laws”

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:38:48 +0000

A.W.’s confidence in the legal resolution to this issue could be snuffed out quickly by a constitutional penumbra or emanation or fart that no one but the swing vote on the court can see or justify.

I’m not an investment whiz, but, I feel confident that if you find a company that manufactures pitchforks and torches, you should go long that stock.

By: MF

MF — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:11:46 +0000

We will set a new land speed record should this pass, as literally less than a nanosecond will pass between any of these anti-blasphemy laws being passed and the supreme court striking it down. so it means that such efforts represent a waste of our time.

What you write should be true, but we have to remember that any treaties that the US enters into will trump even the US Constitution, I believe. I don’t think this would be the case here, but the horrific “U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child” would destroy many parental rights that we wouldn’t imagine. (See http://www.ParentalRights.org/ for more info.) We have to be VERY careful what we actually commit ourselves to.

By: A.W.

A.W. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:28:36 +0000

Two thoughts on this.

First, where were the same people when christianity was facing blasphemy funded by the U.S. govt.? Anyone remember the piss christ, or the virgin mary smeared with elephant dung?

Second, it is utterly correct to say one man’s faith is another’s blasphemy. The belief that the messiah has been here and his name is christ is blasphemy to jews. the belief that this isn’t true is blasphemy to christians. and so forth and so on. it is unworkable, not to mention flagrantly unconstitutional.

We will set a new land speed record should this pass, as litterally less than a nanosecond will pass between any of these anti-blasphemy laws being passed and the supreme court striking it down. so it means that such efforts represent a waste of our time.

Of course there is one positive side to that. if they are busy passing anti-free-thought measures that are dead on arrival, they won’t have as much resources ready to f—- up our healthcare system and f— up our economy with cap and trade. so that is something.

By: GregS

GregS — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:40:42 +0000

Wait a moment! Wasn’t it the Bushies who were supposed to be about enshrining religion in law? And the Democrats who were against it?

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:23:02 +0000

Mr. Poser:
Consider yourself duly notified. I’m turning you in.

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:15:44 +0000

Walter, thanks for the link. Other than that, given the civil libertarian nature of this site, no other comment should be necessary, not even Mr. Poser’s pithy and accurate one. Not even this, beyond the first sentence, but I tend to be wordy.

Thanks for all the links, guys.

Bob

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:27:42 +0000

The irony is that if such laws were equitably enforced, the Qur’an would be banned and and prayers routinely recited in mosques would result in prosecution. The Muslims who advocate the prohibition of “defamation of religion” have no interest in anything other than preventing criticism of Islam.