Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: elfman2

First, the plain definition of blasphemy for the courts cannot make distinctions that only theologians understand. So we either allow all blasphemy or ban all blasphemy, whether in the strict or in the popular sense.

Secondly, if the episode made fun of the plaster of the statue of Mary, that would be making fun of that which is of the created world. The episode, however, makes fun of the essence of her sainthood, -- her virgin womb. That is toughed by a miracle, in fact, by God in the very direct sense. So the blasphemy was also in the strict sense.

Historically, atheism -- the claim that God is an invention of man -- might have been considered blasphemy, but at the present age I would make an exception for such claims done in the spirit of philosophical inquiry when no obscenity is admixed tot he claim.


247 posted on 12/31/2005 1:07:18 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies ]


To: annalex
I’m no mind reader, but I doubt Parker and Stone gave a passing thought to the Virgin Mary’s womb. As I recall, the plot's primary message was to counter the popular claim that alcoholism is a disease. A secondary message was to lampoon the chasers of miraculous iconic fluids, in this case Stan’s dad seeking divine help for his supposed disease that he was told is bigger than himself. The anal blood from the VM just looked like the most absurd fluid to use to ridicule the miracle groupies, and Stan’s dad. There’s no evidence of malice toward the VM, the immaculate conception or God at all.

But you have another opinion, probably from your experiences and sensitivity to attacks on your faith. It also varies from that in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you assume that has changed over time. Finally, you say that judges are unable to make distinctions that theologians could make. All that’s evidence for my first claim to you, that blasphemy is subjective, or at least ambiguous.

Personally, I think that the term blasphemy is reduced to triviality by the standards you’ve expressed, like how the impact of racism charges are reduced by activists leveraging it for maximum advantage. And I think making blasphemy illegal would be profoundly anti-American (another subjective term).
306 posted on 12/31/2005 7:21:05 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson