Blasphemy is always good for a laugh

Buddha would have thought that statue funny, as best we can tell. (I spent plenty of time reading their religious texts and even hearing it from a lecturing monk, but I am still guessing. No, not all that much medieval philosophy and theology as some presume.) Good for him. Not so good for the rioters about cartoons, etc.

BTW, Martin Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ" was not listed - amazing, as a commenter there noted. Maybe they mixed it up or conflated it with "Jesus Christ Superstar" which is listed.

Boy, deities are awfully thin-skinned. Ain't they ever heard the nursery rhyme about sticks and stones?

I could never figure out why the nuts of the Abrahamic mythsfaiths get so riled up about blasphemy, anyway. Isn't theirs a loving God who loves to send avant-garde artists to boiling pits of fire?

How come God never says to his followers, "Hey, like leave the witches and blasphemers alone. I like totally built hell for a reason"?

(For some reason, I always imagined that God should sound like Snake from The Simpsons.)

That's why I've said for years that sacred cows make the best hamburger.

I want rolls of Qu'ranic toilet paper. Biblical toilet paper too. There's no other way I'd even look at those texts.

Blasphemy is always good for two laughs. One at the blasphemy itself, and a second at the pants-wetting that follows.

Life of Brian gets my vote. Though the "Every Sperm is Sacred" skit from "The Meaning of Life" is a great moment.

Interestingly, just today the National Secular Society in the UK launched another attempt to have blasphemy removed from the criminal statutes in the United Kingdom.

Interestingly, just today the National Secular Society in the UK launched another attempt to have blasphemy removed from the criminal statutes in the United Kingdom.

My recollection is that it's still illegal here in Massachusetts as well.

On the one hand, this kind of thing is puerile. On the other, I inevitably wonder to myself "When will someone finally get around to creating and hosting The Online Museum of Blasphemy?" The choco-Christ. Cigarette butt Jesus. Elephant dung Mary. Mohammed cartoons. The Life of Brian. Gilbert and George's sonofagod. Gay men wearing Mohammed masks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3137510.ece

"The Dutch were debating the limits of freedom of expression last week after an artist who photographed gay men wearing masks of the prophet Muhammad was forced into hiding and her work removed from a museum exhibit.

Speaking on the telephone from an unspecified location in the Netherlands last week, the artist, an Iranian exile who goes by the pseudonym of Sooreh Hera, said she had been threatened with "execution". She accused the director of the municipal museum in The Hague of cowardice for caving in to Muslim extremists.

Her story is a reminder of the tensions that have put the Netherlands and other European countries on the front line, sending dozens of people threatened by extremists into hiding since 2004, when a Dutch film-maker was murdered on the street and his collaborator driven into exile.

This leaves Hera, 34, in no doubt that she is in real danger. "They said to me, 'We're going to burn you naked or put a bullet in your mouth'," she said, referring to menacing e-mails.

"They say, 'Now you are locked in your home and you cannot go out any more'."

She said that by photographing gay Iranian exiles in masks of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and Ali, his son-in-law, she had wanted to expose a "hypocritical" attitude towards homosexuality in countries such as Iran, where men can be hanged for homosexual conduct."

From the Canadian Criminal Code:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/

Blasphemous Libel
Offence

296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Question of fact

(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

Saving

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 260.

So it's only criminal in Canada if you use indecent language or criticise religion in bad faith (ha!).

I already use Piss Christ, My Sweet Lord, and the Danish cartoons as examples in a lecture I give to incoming design/art students on the power art still holds to impact and provoke. I wasn't aware of the "Rude Buddha". I think I'll be adding it in. Nice!

I already use Piss Christ, My Sweet Lord, and the Danish cartoons as examples in a lecture I give to incoming design/art students on the power art still holds to impact and provoke. I wasn't aware of the "Rude Buddha". I think I'll be adding it in. Nice!

How about Jesus Christ: The Musical

Pedantry alert: Norfolk is a county, not a city.

It's Norfolk and good.

I imagine, after all this time, that Piss Christ may be getting to be Stinky Christ.

Thats awfully dark urine too, methinks the artist should be upping his water intake.

CrypticLife
Hahaha, I hope you mean you'll look at them before you wipe

I've never really understood why something like The Life of Brian is considered so blasphemous but, say, The Book of Mormon is not. (Perhaps it's heretical, but not blasphemous --in which case, there would seem to be a fine line)

But really, if I was a devout mainstream Christian, I'd be a little more worried about a fanatical sect with millions of members making a mockery of my Lord and Savior than the cult of Python... oh, wait.

Please, MASKS OF MO indeed. If the very image of Mo provokes these nutcases, how did they learn to identify this "blasphemy" without a representation/ meme to internalize? Did that Danish cartoon have a "This Is Mo>>>>>>0" indication or what?

I felt like ordering Dan Cocks fired for vulgarity, too.

That was an aspect which I singled out for mention to someone earlier today (well, yesterday here now!) too. However, I was more intrigued by #19 "Popetown". It's bizarre that the BBC thought to make it, commission it or whatever in the first place only to back down at the last minute. It ought to be made available on the internet or video/DVD if it's actually good enough to offend religionists. I suspect it's just bad though.

I'm thinking that Mr. and Mrs. Cocks should have named their son "Richard".

Calladus: I used to know a Richard Ball. Don't know what his parents were thinking!

isn't it more accurately "profanity", not "vulgarity"?

http://m-w.com/dictionary/vulgar
http://m-w.com/dictionary/profane

I guess they're a little more interchangeable now. what happened to maintaining tradition? Dirty revisionist christians.

Also, does anyone else want to punch a priest when they see the "religion" section in their local paper?

Long, long ago, when I was just a lad, the National Lampoon ran a comic it their Funny Pages section called Son 'o God Comix.

Just this year, a screening of [Life of Brian] in a church in Newcastle Upon Tyne caused uproar from conservative Christian group Christian Voice.

Good grief. A few years ago, my wife and I showed this, in the church, to the youth group during the Easter sleepover, with nary a protest heard. Who knew we were being so daring? (Of course, this was the United Church of Canada, where just about anything goes.....)

I like 'Bitchcraft', might use that in future.

Popetown sounds like a hoot, too bad they cancelled it because we often get BBC stuff up here.

I know a guy named Richard Head. No joke.

Thanks for the giggles!

"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."

So there.

It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

Why do I have a nearly irresistible urge to quote Inigo Montoya?

I'm thinking that Mr. and Mrs. Cocks should have named their son "Richard".

I once got a version of the Nigerian scam e-mail from a person claiming to be a Hong Kong resident named Johnson Wang.

I find stories like that infuriating. Politicians of all stripes in the UK consistently denied Her Majesty's subjects a simple written guarantee of their rights as citizens, and no written constitution means that officious pricks like this Cocks can decide what the rest of us may or may not see in an art gallery. Don't ever let anyone take your constitutional rights away from you because, once gone, you have damn-all chance of getting them back.

Is it just me, or is it unbelievably moronic that "a level in an alternate-history war FPS where the earth has been invaded by aliens" ranks so high?

Who remembers this video: Methodist Coloring Book by the Dead Milkmen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj-GIAACClc

If we're going for music videos, I always fancied XTC's "Dear God".

Blasphemy is a blast for me!

I used to work in a doctor's office. To lessen our work load near the end of the day, the staff would sometimes put in fake appointments who, of course, would not show up. Once we had an appointment for a fellow named "Hung Lo."

Firing Cocks? Isn't that what the Nixon and Clinton impeachments had in common?

It's a mystery to me why blasphemy even exists. Change its targets and it's just good old fashioned free speech, which is acceptable in the US, most western European countries and most other developed countries of the world. And, if one's religion is true and valid, then why should a negative opinion expressed as art, speech or whatever be taken seriously by its followers? Don't they have faith in their faith?

Good choice, MAJeff.

Blasphemy sweepstakes: Reality Asylum by Crass. I used to listen to this song in high school. This fan video is more heavy-handed than clever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_HOYk9ED9Q

Noncarb@#26,

Mr Shrek was in the British Army with a chap called Richard Partz, and yes, he was a Private.

Re #10 (Canadian anti-blasphemy law): I wonder how old that law is, when it was last used, and whether it would survive a Charter challenge (not that I'm volunteering to test it....well, maybe as a retirement hobby ;-).

Thanks, Colugo. First time I saw that video it freaked me the fuck out, as did the moment when my best friend told me he was an atheist. I was in that religious camp, conservative methodists. Watching it again tonight reminds me that I want to write some of that stuff up...later (tomorrow is the cleaning I didn't get done today so that's for tomorrow).

MAJeff: I've always been an atheist or at least agnostic. I have gone undergone a "conversion" in the last couple of decades from strident anti-theistic atheism to more conciliatory atheism. I no longer blame religious belief itself for what I view as universal human failings and malign tendencies, although I understand how dogmas and institutions - theistic or not - have a powerful role in perpetuating bad ideas and practices.

If there is a value in blasphemy, above all it is in reminding us that we inhabit a secular society. Individuals and various groups may choose to view various symbols, doctrines, and personages as sacrosanct, but the state does not - and hence does not punish disbelief and irreverence.

I no longer blame religious belief itself for what I view as universal human failings and malign tendencies, although I understand how dogmas and institutions - theistic or not - have a powerful role in perpetuating bad ideas and practices.

There are some I do blame specifically on religion. My mother is convinced I'm going to Hell once I die, because I'm an atheist. Her pain is real, but I'm not the source of it. Her religious belief is directly responsible for her pain.

The rest of the stuff is mainly people being people. We're asses, but we also rock. That's humanity, not religion. Religion is its own special problem. Something like the hell stuff does direct harm to people (and not just the terror invoked on children).

I once had a sensitive friend tell me I was insensitive on the issue of blasphemy. Groping for an analogy, she asked me "how would you feel if someone insulted Paul Kurtz, or James Randi, or Michael Shermer?"

Um ... like I was at one of their conventions?

It just doesn't translate.

Calladus wrote...

"I'm thinking that Mr. and Mrs. Cocks should have named their son "Richard"."

We've named our pet rooster Richard Rooster. The perfect name, methinks.

MAJeff: That sucks. What an insidious doctrine. For me, Dante's Inferno was a cool horror-fantasy tale. For others, Hell's existence is as certain as the Grand Canyon's.

I'll admit that sometimes blasphemy can be downright cathartic.

Mighty Sphincter - The Kingdom of Heaven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J93rkZWw8zA

In high school we played against a guy named _____ Siemen. We always called him "spurt" during the game to piss him off.

Mighty Sphincter - The Kingdom of Heaven

I can agree with this as a statement of principle.

MAJeff,

A fine suggestion, and really fun, but I don't thin it'll quite work with my lecture. I mainly teach 3D, even the cartoons are quite a stretch.

MAJeff,

A fine suggestion, and really fun, but I don't think it'll quite work with my lecture. I mainly teach 3D, even the cartoons are quite a stretch.

What? No mention of Roller Maidens from Outer Space?

I still love singing "C'mon Jesus" on long car trips.

For others, Hell's existence is as certain as the Grand Canyon's.

Whoa. Hell was created by The Flood?

My ex-boyfriend went to school with a guy named Richard "Dick" Hymen (though his closest friends called him "Buster").

A friend of mine has an uncle who, many years ago, brought home a Vietnamese war bride. She'd been a prostitute over in 'Nam. Her name was Kum Soon.

You can't make this stuff up.

Jeff, thanks for posting that XTC video. I've never seen it before, though I know the song pretty well. XTC has to be one of the great 80's bands, no question, but totally underrated. I grew up hearing Skylarking and Oranges and Lemons and Nonesuch, drowning here in summer's cauldron.

Not only that, the distinguished balding gent wearing the tan suit up in the tree looks like my deceased paternal grandfather from Kiev. Weird.

And since we're swapping oddly named Richards, I once had a boss named Dick Jack. For real.

A friend of mine has an uncle who, many years ago, brought home a Vietnamese war bride. She'd been a prostitute over in 'Nam. Her name was Kum Soon.

Sedaris's Christmas storry just popped into my head.

Egads! Jeff Foxworthy's Christmas story just popped into mine!

Interestingly, only items in the list involving blasphemy against Islam are noted for leading to deaths.

Yeah, Christianity has pretty much grown out of the whole "kill the blasphemer" phase. It's time for Islam to grow the fuck up. D'ya hear me, Mo? GROW THE FUCK UP!

55: christianity's grown out of killing blasphemers? I'm sure a whole lotta dead iraqis &etc would have something to say about that. they haven't grown out of it, they've just started using proxies.
tho i do agree completely with your assertion that islam needs to grow the fuck up and quit acting the fool.

christianity's grown out of killing blasphemers? I'm sure a whole lotta dead iraqis &etc would have something to say about that.

I'm sure we agree about the futility and illegitimacy of the Iraq war, but it's hardly the same thing as, say, calling for the death of a schoolteacher who allowed her students to name a teddy bear "Mohammed", or any of the other equally inane (yet deadly) manifestations of that particular flavor of insanity.

I'm going to start a new religion called - I can't believe it's not Buddha.

LOL!

Well.

That puts a whole new spin on Last Tango in Paris.

Here is "Popetown"
http://tinyurl.com/2rk2pn
Its biggest sin is not blasphemy, its that it just isn't funny. Its a waste of a good opportunity for some decent jokes.

I don't see Buddhist taking offense at the "Rude Buddha." The Buddha was a guy, not a god. He had all the parts that all normal guys have. Besides, his were functioning parts as he did father a son.

I think it is a common misunderstanding to think that the Buddha was god or even a supernatural being. Indeed, in Buddhism, there is no god (as in the Abrahamic faiths). All attempts at making a god out of the Buddha is met with derision by serious Buddhists. For instance, a well-known Zen story goes thus. The Zen master was asked, "What is the Buddha?" He replied, "The Buddha is a dried shit-stick."

I feel compelled to ask: what, exactly, is the point of making fun of Buddhism? I'm not against this sort of thing in principle: I see nothing wrong in making fun of a religion if there's something to point a finger at. Islam is often violent and reactionary, and has questionable social values; many Christians are willing to discount tons of scientific evidence for how the world works in favor of some dusty old magic book; Hinduism (my family religion, although I'm agnostic personally) has been responsible for its fair share of violence and atrocities, even beyond its awful caste system. But... Buddhism? Sure, it's a religion, but it's probably one of the most benign ones ever. Its entire philosophy is based on peace and self-improvement: as far as I know, it has no evangelistic component (unlike Christianity or Islam), although my knowledge is admittedly limited.

I'm not questioning the artist's right to express himself: I simply think it's stupid to make fun of something that hasn't actually done anything to deserve it. Naturally, if anybody has historical or factual arguments that disprove my point, I'd be glad to hear them.

The problem isn't that Buddhism did anything to deserve it--it's that it hasn't done anything to deserve special protection from it, either. And the entire point of intentional blasphemy is that nothing is sacred, nor should it be. Not even Buddhism.

Yeah I'll have to agree with you on that one sigmund, it seems pretty poorly written. Is it aimed at a young audience?

"Is it aimed at a young audience?"
I don't know too much about the program but I think its aimed more at the grown-up cartoon watching audience - fans of Family Guy, Futurama type shows.
I think religion can make a good target - look at 'Father Ted' or 'Moral Orel' as an example of how it can be done, but unfortunately Popetown was simply very badly done.

CarrerCrytharis asks "what is the point of making fun of Buddhism?"

I think there is a very good point to making fun of things--to test them. I am a great admirer of the Buddha and his insights into the human condition. As a nominal Hindu, I appreciate the refinement that he made to Hindu thought. The Buddha is one of India's most illustrious sons. But I would not hesitate to poke fun at Buddhism because it would help remove the superficial layers and reveal the deeper truths that the Buddha preached: that the universe is impermanent and is always changing, and that there is no abiding soul or self.

I agree with Mike P that there is nothing that is sacred in Buddhism. If what the Buddha taught does not accord with reason and rationality, it is to be discarded. The Buddha himself made it a point to stress that if you cannot experience the truth of something, then it is meaningless and should not be accepted. Even Buddhism, he said, is a means, a device, and once the need for the device is no more, it should be jettisoned.

Just by the by, one of the more profound Zen Buddhist saying goes that "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." That is, destroy the duality that you perceive between the Enlightened one and yourself. Mocking the Buddha should be the first step in the process of "killing" the Buddha.

I should also mention that for all my admiration for the Buddha, he was a mere mortal and did have his faults. He had to be persuaded that he should allow women into the order of Buddhist monks. I find this a very deep flaw in his character--that he was biased against women becoming a monk.

@Atanu: I see your point. Buddhism (at least the aspects I'm familiar with) stands up to mockery pretty well: I mean, everybody knows the Buddha had a wang. That's not really mockery at all. It's not like all these great teachers and sages didn't all have wangs (unless they were women, in which case it's not like they didn't have tits).

Therefore, my only objection in this case would be to the humor itself: it's not very clever. I suppose when it comes to humor, Buddhism doesn't really give you something to grab onto and tug at, the way other religions do. (Well, not something physical anyway. Heh.)

Then again, you're far more familiar with Buddhism than I am: it's a human creation, and so I imagine it has all the faults of other human creations, and deserves to be mocked to the same degree.

gregory kusnick, I am surprised that someone still remembers the Firesign Theater. I also remember Cheech and Chong did a sketch "Jesus Freak" which was short and to the point.

To try to restore the non-seriousness of the comments section to potentially embarrassing names, I have one for you: "Peter Bonyhard".

His has been enshrined by google (&c), albeit sparsely. I remember, over a decade ago when working for Apple, when someone pointed this out to me... we nearly died laughing.

I had forgotten about the series "Father Ted". Here is Ted protesting blasphemy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mmge8nfsyg

CarrerCrytharis, I will respectfully disagree with you when you say "I suppose when it comes to humor, Buddhism doesn't really give you something to grab onto and tug at, the way other religions do."

Buddhism is absolutely perfect for jokes. Here's one. The Buddhist monk hands over a $10 bill and asks the hotdog vendor to make him one with everything. He gets his hotdog and waits for his change. The vendor goes around his business and when the monk asks for change, the vendor says, "Change, my friend, comes only from within."

The best dharma teachers are the one's who are constantly making jokes. Listen to Alan Watts deliver some of his lectures on Buddhism. You cannot but imagine the twinkle in his eye as you listen to his open laughter. You can hear the subtext: "Isn't all of this bloody hilarious? Isn't life just wonderful and joyful? Isn't Buddhism a hoot?"

Allow me to tell you about the great teacher Suzuki. He was explaining the Four Noble Truths. The fourth is called "The Eight-fold Path". He starts off listing the eight. "First, there is the Right View. The second is the Right Concentration. The third ... Oh I don't remember. Just look them up when you have time." :)

That is what I like about Buddhism the most. It does not take it self seriously. It does not therefore have the martyr complex so often found in the semitic faiths.

The "Buddha of the Banana and Two Eggs" is delightful to me as I am a Buddha myself. :)

Kseniya no 57:

I'm sure we agree about the futility and illegitimacy of the Iraq war, but it's hardly the same thing as, say, calling for the death of a schoolteacher who allowed her students to name a teddy bear "Mohammed", or any of the other equally inane (yet deadly) manifestations of that particular flavor of insanity.

There are plenty of violent fundie Christian terrorists in the US. In recent history, the KKK is only the most famous Christian white supremacist organisation, responsible for thousands of acts from intimidation to murder. Check out the high current statistics for acts of vandalism and serious violence against abortion clinics, too, including stalking, firebombing, assault and in some cases the actual murder of clinic workers.

The fact that this stuff gets prissily reported as "crime" and relegated to the sidebar, rather than getting defined as "terrorism" and put full on the front page, represents merely that American media and society have a pro-Christian bias.

Those who threatened death over a teddy bear's name are indeed bloodthirsty flaming nutjobs, but there is no shortage of bloodthirsty flaming nutjobs anywhere. Some societies are more violent than others, but the most consistent determinant of violence in any society is poverty, not the particular flavour of god they prefer.

Hah! That's hillarious. As I said, you know a lot more about Buddhism than me. I think most other religions could do with an infusion of humor.

Yeah, the only problem with Popetown is that it sucks.

Father Ted, OTOH, rulez. "It has the body of a spider, but it's actually a baby!"

One of the best bits of blasphemy I've ever seen, BTW, doesn't really survive translation into English. Here it is, for those who can read German. I don't want to put a spoiler here to ruin the fun of the Teutonophones, but those who don't know German will find an explanation at my crib.

And the entire point of intentional blasphemy is that nothing is sacred, nor should it be. Not even Buddhism.

Well, yeah. But there's not much point trying to blaspheme against the Buddha, as he's not a god. The entire concept of "blasphemy" just doesn't apply. You can no more blaspheme against the Buddha than you can blaspheme against Steven Hawking. You can take the piss, sure - and taking the piss is a time-honoured tradition in certain schools of Buddhism. "Rude Buddha" would be regarded as instructive (if perhaps somewhat trite and unsubtle) by many Buddhists. I don't think any would regard it as blasphemous.

I'm willing to bet money that the idiot of a DC who decided to object does not understand anything at all about Buddhism. The idea that portraying the Buddha with a cock and balls is a "hate crime" is completely ridiculous. I'm guessing that he's just an uptight prude looking for an excuse to exercise his authority.

Buddhism in Nova Scotia appears to be the realm mostly of the very well off - we had an influx of Boulder and Boston Buddhists in the seventies/eighties, following a Tibetan monk who was certainly into a strange brand of humour - he liked to dress up in a fake military uniform. They proceeded to buy up lots of very nice rural land, including a very beautiful chunk of the Cape Breton Highlands, where they have a monastery.

And frankly, though less prone to violence, I still find most Buddhists - at least the local ones - a very silly lot.

Glad to see Serrano's Piss Christ on the list. The South Eastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) is in my hometown and I was an AP art student in high school at the time of the outrage. My family was seriously involved in SECCA, and let me tell you the chaos that went on around the controversy was quite the experience. You gotta love seeing Jesse Helms get those jowls moving when he gets all flustered.

I disagree with the idea that Christianity has outgrown killing people. Instead, Western society, having become secular, has outgrown letting religions kill people (except exceptions -- see comment 73).

I'm sure we agree about the futility and illegitimacy of the Iraq war, but it's hardly the same thing as, say, calling for the death of a schoolteacher who allowed her students to name a teddy bear "Mohammed", or any of the other equally inane (yet deadly) manifestations of that particular flavor of insanity.
Posted by: Kseniya

Well, it's not exactly the same thing, sure, but it's not all that different. "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." -George W. Bush, Sept. 16, 2001.

This is from a UK parliamentary select committee report in 2003, and is relevent to both PZ's story, and the National Secular Society's recent calls.

(It should be noted that Blasphemy laws in the UK only apply to Christianity, and that the Law Commission has been recommending their repeal since 1985, and that the government has been [paying lip service to the idea since at least 2001.)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/9…

Select Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales Written Evidence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission from the Manchester Buddhist Centre

   Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the religious offences and blasphemy laws. I would like to comment specifically on the blasphemy laws.

  It is well known that the notion of a personal God, the creator and ruler of the universe, has no place in the Buddha's teaching, and that throughout its history Buddhism has in fact rejected the notion as detrimental to the moral and spiritual development of mankind. Under the present interpretation of the law any Buddhist bearing public witness to the truth of this fundamental tenet of Buddhism, whether in speech or writing, therefore runs the risk of committing the crime of blasphemy and being punished accordingly. Not only that. Any Buddhist publishing those sections of the Buddhist scriptures in which the notion of an omniscient and omnipotent Supreme Being is actually ridiculed by the Buddha in terms which some would regard as being; "indecent and offensive" in the extreme (eg Kevaddhu Sutta, Digha Nikaya No. 11) also runs the risk of committing the crime of blasphemy--even though the offending words were spoken 500 hundred years before Christianity was born.

  For Buddhism there is no such thing as blasphemy; in fact Buddhism does not even have a proper term for blasphemy. So long as blasphemy remains a criminal offence Buddhists, like other non-Christians, do not enjoy complete freedom of expression in religious matters and are, in effect, penalised for their beliefs. For Buddhists in Britain, whether Eastern or Western in origin, it therefore follows that the law of blasphemy should be abolished altogether. It should not be extended to cover other religions.

26 June 2002

The thing about Buddhism is that all that most of us in the West know about is the kind of philosophical Buddhism preached by D.T. Suzuki and the Dalai Lama. Buddhism is not simply its most esoteric teachings, any more than Christianity is. I see nothing in Buddhism as practiced in historically Buddhist countries to suggest that it is any less full of superstition, ritual, and dogma than any other religion. Just to give the most obvious example, the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy were overwhelmingly Buddhist. (Hmm... "Gautamawin's Law", maybe? "As Internet discussions about Buddhism progress, the probability of someone mentioning The Nanking Massacre, the Bataan Death March, or Unit 731 approaches 1.")

Changing subjects, the most hilarious thing about blasphemous images of Muhammad is that there is no iconography in Islam, so you have to draw a generic bearded Arab in a turban, and then tell people it's supposed to be Muhammad.

Is this actually a non-story?

I found this,

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=68481&in_page_i…

It seems that officers may actually simply have asked that the sculpture, which was was on prominent display in a window, be turned around so that the front was only visible inside the gallery, because it had attracted a complaint.

There is no mention of the copper's name, either, so that could be an embellishment.

Is this simply another They-tried-to ban... Christmas/Baa-baa Black Sheep/Straight Bananas story?

Cyrus: Did I say it was "exactly" the same thing? Jesus Christ, people. I can hardly see the discussion for all the straw flying around.

Catherine (#73) and David (#79) have posted legitimate responses to my post. Offering up the Neocon agenda of toppling the so-called Axis of Evil as being somehow equivalent to large numbers of Muslims (or Christians) organizing to call for or to engineer the deaths of individual blasphemers for their words or works fails to address the topic.

Did Serrano get thrown in jail? Did an angry mob gather around the jailhouse and call for his death? Is he in hiding for fear of his life? Ditto Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Cosimo Cavallaro?

We're talking about responses to (perceived) offenses. Cyrus, try approaching this from the other direction: what you're arguing is that the events of 9/11 - and perhaps all other act of Islamic terrorism perpetrated against the west - are "not all that different" from a grade-school teacher allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Mohammed".

I suggest you reread my comment (#55) which was a direct response to comment #54, which was itself a direct comment on the topic of this thread. I'm all for critisizing the neoconservative foreign policy and the execution thereof, but that's a different category of conversation from the one about what happens to people who draw funny pictures of Jesus.

> christianity's grown out of killing blasphemers?
> I'm sure a whole lotta dead iraqis &etc would
> have something to say about that.

They were not killed because they were blasphemers.

> Indeed, in Buddhism, there is no god
> (as in the Abrahamic faiths).

Tantric Lamaism - the Buddhist strain most popular in the western world - accepts the existence of gods, although Buddha himself is not one of them. Like several other commenters have pointed out, Buddha was a man, not a god, so it is technically impossible to blaspheme against him. But the same holds true for Mohammed, and see what happened...

> I see nothing in Buddhism as practiced in
> historically Buddhist countries to suggest that
> it is any less full of superstition, ritual,
> and dogma than any other religion.

Remember von Ungern-Sternberg? He made even hardcore Chinese warlords and bolshevik commisars cringe. I have met a person that called herself a Buddhist and claimed that the bloody baron was a deity.

> In recent history, the KKK is only the most famous
> Christian white supremacist organisation,
> responsible for thousands of acts from intimidation
> to murder.

# 73,
can the KKK of today still be called a christian organisation? I guess they have quite a few pagan, satanist or nihilist neo-nazis among them.

> so you have to draw a generic bearded Arab in a
> turban, and then tell people it's supposed to be Muhammad.

# 82,

a generic Ottoman dignitary in a turban - wich would have been an Albanian or slav in real life.

> wich would have been an Albanian or slav in real life.

Oops, I have misspelled, I meant the man, not his headgear, so it should be:
WHO would have been an Albanian or slav in real life.

Remember von Ungern-Sternberg?

I had no idea. But here he is. (The German article is a bit better, though.)

and claimed that the bloody baron was a deity.

I gather Buddhist gods are not automatically omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent... hey, there are people in China who worship Mao in temples and sacrifice oranges to him.

Bummer about Popetown - it started off well until the animated part began. Boring.

Makes me wonder if you had to know somebody or even pay to get on this list, kind of a PR thing? Maybe the Popetown folk thought some attention would help their lame program...damn, I'm cynical these days....

who worship Mao in temples and sacrifice oranges to him.

I'll bite.

"oranges"? he asked, innocently.

"oranges"? he asked, innocently.

It's a step up from virgins, you have to admit.

On a Sunday afternoon, a Priest, Rabbi, and a Buddhist Monk are sitting in the waiting room of their dentist's office.

All of them are in great pain, and need emergency root canals.

The dentist, having agreed to come in for the emergency, enters the waiting room with a grim look on his face.

"Gentleman", he says, "I'm afraid that on such short notice, I only have enough anesthesia for two of you. One of you will have to wait until late next week before I can help you."

The three patients look astonished, clearly they are in agony. The dentist, not wishing to let this drag out, says, "The alternative is that one of you would have to take the root canal without anesthesia."

The Priest looks at his fellow sufferers and says, "If this is a test from God, I have failed. I'm sorry my brothers, but I need to have the root canal today."

The Rabbi looks at his partners in pain and says, "I am as sorry.. I cannot bear to wait and I could not bear the thought of having this done awake and with full feeling."

The Buddhist Monk looks up, smiles, and says, "My friends, fear not. I will not need anesthesia. Please, go ahead and relieve your suffering. I will take my turn today, after both of you."

The Priest, the Rabbi, and the Dentist are astonished. The Dentist was not expecting this, and cannot believe what he's heard. "Are you mad?", he asks, "Why do you think you won't need the anesthesia?"

"Because", replies the Monk, "I have been taught all my life how to transcend dental medication".

Boom, Boom, thanks folks, I'll be here all week, try the veal.

Years ago I ran a character in a game run by a Buddhist. My PC was a cleric, so my DM asked what his religion was. I replied, "He's a Buddhist."

"what sort of Buddhist?"

"Lapsed."

He found that most amusing.

Co-incidentally (?) here's a new story on the BBC on the proposed abolition of blasphemous libel laws in the UK. This is apparently supported by the Anglican church but opposed by the government!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7178439.stm

The "blasphemies" are rated on religious impact, political impact, etc. But they're not rated on their artistic quality, which can be quite high in some cases.

But they're not rated on their artistic quality, which can be quite high in some cases.

Life of Brian in particular!

It is odd that they don't have The Last Temptation of Christ on the list, especially because that was one Christian controversy which did result in deaths; I think eight people died when a cinema showing the movie in France was firebombed, and Scorsese turned up at the Oscars with bodyguards that year because of all the death threats he'd received.

I would agree that crimes, riots etc in the name of Islam are much more common these days, but every now and then you see a story and you think "If that was a Muslim, it would be on the front page for weeks." In Britain not so long ago a member of the extreme right British National Party was jailed for having bomb- and chemical weapon-making equipment, and it was barely mentioned in the news roundups. That woman who wrote shit pro-terrorist poetry, on the other hand, had her story hammered into the ground.

I hope you mean you'll look at them before you wipe

There certainly are Buddhists who would be offended at the statue; the Thai government is apparently still repressive against what it perceives as insults to Buddhism. I don't know if it's still the case, but in the past there, it was illegal to show on film a person with their head above the level of a Buddha statue's head. Hard to imagine them appreciating a banana-wanged Buddha.

On the other hand, the more open and iconoclastic strain of Buddhist thought that's more known in the west is just as authentic a part of Buddhist tradition. It's hard to imagine the Buddha, as he's described in the Tripitaka, for instance, getting angry at such a representation, though he probably wouldn't have thought it was very funny.

Anyway, a few of years ago, I'm reading a story on "sacrilegious" items on Beliefnet, and one of them is a Buddha statue with the head of a dog. Apparently, cat-headed ones were also available. This didn't strike me as very sacrilegious, and, sure enough, months later at a Rinzai Zen temple, I found both of them among their collection of statues.

CarrerCrytharis: I have been told via a colleague that there are evangelizing buddhists in Korea. Maybe someone here can confirm that.

I disagree with the idea that Christianity has outgrown killing people. Instead, Western society, having become secular, has outgrown letting religions kill people (except exceptions -- see comment 73).

Remember von Ungern-Sternberg?

I had no idea. But here he is. (The German article is a bit better, though.)

and claimed that the bloody baron was a deity.

I gather Buddhist gods are not automatically omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent... hey, there are people in China who worship Mao in temples and sacrifice oranges to him.