I see that the Blasphemy laws are to be repealed in the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html

I think that this is a good move, for the reasons given. There is an
unfortunate side to it, though. If you enjoy blasphemy, you can't
indulge in it in the UK anymore, you have to travel to places where
they take it much more seriously and are consequently at higher risk
than before. It will be quite difficult for atheists to blaspheme at
all now, since they are forbidden entry to Saudi Arabia.

It is also hard on witches (who like to call themselves follower's of
Wicca because it sounds more hey-wow) as well. The receipt for the
potion cooked up in 'Macbeth' has "liver of blaspheming Jew" as one of
the important ingredients - these livers will now have to be imported
from Saudi Arabia, or similar, putting up the cost of knowledge of the
future quite considerably. I'm sure that it's been hard enough to come
by good quality finger's of birth-strangled babes, ditch delivered by
drabs as it is, the NHS keeping drabs out of ditches almost entirely
during their confinements these days.

On May 10, 8:04 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> I see that the Blasphemy laws are to be repealed in the UK:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html
>
> I think that this is a good move, for the reasons given. There is an
> unfortunate side to it, though. If you enjoy blasphemy, you can't
> indulge in it in the UK anymore...

You can, it's just you can no longer enjoy being a martyr to the
cause.

But who wants to be a martyr anyway, it's only Jehovah who likes to
see his followers get a good whipping...

Tee hee. It's still fun!

On May 11, 7:43 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> On May 10, 8:04 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > I see that the Blasphemy laws are to be repealed in the UK:
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html
>
> > I think that this is a good move, for the reasons given. There is an
> > unfortunate side to it, though. If you enjoy blasphemy, you can't
> > indulge in it in the UK anymore...
>
> You can, it's just you can no longer enjoy being a martyr to the
> cause.
>
> But who wants to be a martyr anyway, it's only Jehovah who likes to
> see his followers get a good whipping...
>
> Tee hee. It's still fun!
>
Well, blasphemy is a crime, so you can commit it. If it is taken from
the statute books, then you can't. There is certainly no legal way in
which you can be said to have blasphemed, no matter how hard you try.

In uk.philosophy.humanism Peter H.M. Brooks  wrote:
: Well, blasphemy is a crime, so you can commit it. If it is taken from
: the statute books, then you can't. There is certainly no legal way in
: which you can be said to have blasphemed, no matter how hard you try.

Surely blasphemy is a religious concept, which exists whether or not it is
against the low in any locale? In the same way that rape would still exist
even if it wasnt against the law to force a woman to have sex...
Mark

--

On May 15, 11:48 am, Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
> In uk.philosophy.humanism Peter H.M. Brooks  wrote:
> : Well, blasphemy is a crime, so you can commit it. If it is taken from
> : the statute books, then you can't. There is certainly no legal way in
> : which you can be said to have blasphemed, no matter how hard you try.
>
> Surely blasphemy is a religious concept, which exists whether or not it is> against the low in any locale? In the same way that rape would still exist> even if it wasnt against the law to force a woman to have sex...
>
Well, that's an interesting point.

I suppose that you could see it as different levels of 'existing', but
I think your point can be problematic because of a lack of definition.

If somebody is justly convicted of X, then it means that X is defined,
that a legal test for the transgression and of the facts has been
applied and, further, that a mens rea existed in relation to the
particular person and the X.

If X is not a crime, then all you can do is assert, or allege, that,
to the best of your belief somebody might, given the facts at your
disposal (which are unlikely to have been properly tested as evidence)
have done something that would have been a crime if it was recognised
as such. This is a pretty weak test.

It is one of the difficulties with rape in war (one of the most common
settings for rape and, in some opinions, a reason for war existing in
the first place) - there is no effective civilian law in a war, so
there is no prosecution for the rapes, so, legally, they haven't
happened.

I enjoy the 'Foyles' War' series of films that examine the question of
civilian law in a war setting and come to some entertaining
conclusions.

So I'd say that blasphemy can't exist if it isn't illegal - even
though some people might try to accuse you of being guilty of it,
because there is no test that can establish that it exists.

Did 'insider trading' exist before it was made illegal? You may argue
that, of course, it had to, otherwise they wouldn't have had any point
in legislating against it. However, since laws are not usually
retrospective (retrospective law being unjust), you couldn't say, with
any certainty of being correct, that A or B was guilty of it.

On 15 May, 11:31, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 15, 11:48 am, Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:> In uk.philosophy.humanism Peter H.M. Brooks  wrote:
> > : Well, blasphemy is a crime, so you can commit it. If it is taken from
> > : the statute books, then you can't. There is certainly no legal way in
> > : which you can be said to have blasphemed, no matter how hard you try.
>
> > Surely blasphemy is a religious concept, which exists whether or not it is
> > against the low in any locale? In the same way that rape would still exist
> > even if it wasnt against the law to force a woman to have sex...
>
> Well, that's an interesting point.
>
> I suppose that you could see it as different levels of 'existing', but
> I think your point can be problematic because of a lack of definition.
>
> If somebody is justly convicted of X, then it means that X is defined,
> that a legal test for the transgression and of the facts has been
> applied and, further, that a mens rea existed in relation to the
> particular person and the X.
>
> If X is not a crime, then all you can do is assert, or allege, that,
> to the best of your belief somebody might, given the facts at your
> disposal (which are unlikely to have been properly tested as evidence)
> have done something that would have been a crime if it was recognised
> as such. This is a pretty weak test.
>
> It is one of the difficulties with rape in war (one of the most common
> settings for rape and, in some opinions, a reason for war existing in
> the first place) - there is no effective civilian law in a war, so
> there is no prosecution for the rapes, so, legally, they haven't
> happened.
>
> I enjoy the 'Foyles' War' series of films that examine the question of
> civilian law in a war setting and come to some entertaining
> conclusions.
>
> So I'd say that blasphemy can't exist if it isn't illegal - even
> though some people might try to accuse you of being guilty of it,
> because there is no test that can establish that it exists.
>
> Did 'insider trading' exist before it was made illegal? You may argue
> that, of course, it had to, otherwise they wouldn't have had any point
> in legislating against it. However, since laws are not usually
> retrospective (retrospective law being unjust), you couldn't say, with
> any certainty of being correct, that A or B was guilty of it.


Though 'rape' is a legal term, I think it can also be just a
description of behaviour, meaning to seize or take by force
(especially, of course, to force someone to have sexual
intercourse).   'Dangerous driving' is another example of a term which
can be used within or outside a legal context.

Dave

On May 15, 9:21 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 15 May, 11:31, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:48 am, Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:> In uk.philosophy.humanism Peter H.M. Brooks  wrote:
> > > : Well, blasphemy is a crime, so you can commit it. If it is taken from
> > > : the statute books, then you can't. There is certainly no legal way in
> > > : which you can be said to have blasphemed, no matter how hard you try> > > Surely blasphemy is a religious concept, which exists whether or not it is
> > > against the low in any locale? In the same way that rape would still exist
> > > even if it wasnt against the law to force a woman to have sex...
>
> > Well, that's an interesting point.
>
> > I suppose that you could see it as different levels of 'existing', but
> > I think your point can be problematic because of a lack of definition.
>
> > If somebody is justly convicted of X, then it means that X is defined,
> > that a legal test for the transgression and of the facts has been
> > applied and, further, that a mens rea existed in relation to the
> > particular person and the X.
>
> > If X is not a crime, then all you can do is assert, or allege, that,
> > to the best of your belief somebody might, given the facts at your
> > disposal (which are unlikely to have been properly tested as evidence)
> > have done something that would have been a crime if it was recognised
> > as such. This is a pretty weak test.
>
> > It is one of the difficulties with rape in war (one of the most common
> > settings for rape and, in some opinions, a reason for war existing in
> > the first place) - there is no effective civilian law in a war, so
> > there is no prosecution for the rapes, so, legally, they haven't
> > happened.
>
> > I enjoy the 'Foyles' War' series of films that examine the question of
> > civilian law in a war setting and come to some entertaining
> > conclusions.
>
> > So I'd say that blasphemy can't exist if it isn't illegal - even
> > though some people might try to accuse you of being guilty of it,
> > because there is no test that can establish that it exists.
>
> > Did 'insider trading' exist before it was made illegal? You may argue
> > that, of course, it had to, otherwise they wouldn't have had any point
> > in legislating against it. However, since laws are not usually
> > retrospective (retrospective law being unjust), you couldn't say, with
> > any certainty of being correct, that A or B was guilty of it.
>
> Though 'rape' is a legal term, I think it can also be just a
> description of behaviour, meaning to seize or take by force
> (especially, of course, to force someone to have sexual
> intercourse).   'Dangerous driving' is another example of a term which
> can be used within or outside a legal context.
>
Oh, I do agree - though it is true that some people enjoy being taken
by force. I know that, being by arrangement, it is not at all the same
thing, but to an observer it'd be difficult to tell.