Reports this week from opposite sides of the world reflect the rather disparate views of folk religions by varying legal systems. Today's New York Times reports that in Tajikistan, a new law passed early this year outlaws traditional fortune telling. The "fate viewer"-- who also sometimes prescribes folk remedies-- is a centuries-old profession in the country. Practitioners have enjoyed a resurgence in popularity lately as the country suffers economically. Proponents of the new law say it was designed to protect the population from a drain on their finances, prohibit "un-Islamic" activity and reduce the number of people practicing medicine without a license.
Meanwhile Lifesite News yesterday reported on a case decided in May by a criminal court judge in the Brazilian state of Bahia. Judge Ricardo Augusto Schmitt ordered confiscation from bookstores of all copies of a book condemning witchcraft written by Catholic priest Jonas Abib. The book is titled "Yes, Yes! No, No! Reflections on Healing and Liberation." In obtaining the court order, the public prosecutor argued that Bahia's state constitution requires the state "to preserve and guarantee the integrity, respectability, and permanence of the values of Afro-Brazilian religion." He accused accused Abib of "making false and prejudiced statements" about spiritualist religions and inciting disrespect for their objects of worship.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Folk Religions Get Very Different Treatments Around the World
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
9 comments:
The Brazillian judge violates freedom of speech. The right to condemn and criticize another religion is a basic human right.
Ditto for the right to tell people that your faith is the only true one. Or to tell people that homosexuals can change and the condition is due to immaturity emotionally, not due to genetics.
Thank God our Christian founding fathers gave us Americans the first amendment.
Freedom of speech is a universal human right given by God, not by any government. Government may either protect or deny this right, but the author of our rights is God.
Moreover, the principal architects of the First Amendment were not Christians. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was at most a deist, quite likely a closet atheist, and in any case was a severe critic of Christianity.
"The Brazillian judge violates freedom of speech. The right to condemn and criticize another religion is a basic human right. "
Hmmm. . . that's quite interesting, but tell me then -- why do Christians support blasphemy laws with respect to their own religion?
What Christians? Painting with a rather broad brush there Mr. Cryptic.
lycian,
Christians who believe they should be enforcing the commandment against taking God's name in vain. Christians who boycott Harry Potter books, or support the idea that "stealing" a Eucharist is hate speech (see today's PZ Myers Pharyngula for details), or wish to censor art they dislike because of its religious content, or teachers who forbid their students from saying "God" simply because they dislike it.
That's not all Christians. However, the basis of the Bible is not free speech.
Yeah, right, seeing a lot of legislation these days proposing criminal charges against using God's name in vain. OMG...Where do you live?
Boycotting HP? So what? Boycott away. Have fun.
Call whatever you want "hate speech." maybe it is, so what. You don't see Christians demanding people be censored or jailed for speech. That would be humanists and muslims.
Teachers forbidding the use of "God" in speech? Sounds like basic courtesy to me, not some fanatical decree.
You are really reaching here.
Okay, the group Christian Voice last tried to have someone prosecuted for blasphemy in 2007 in the UK.
You're absolutely right that it's Muslims who are pushing hard for blasphemy laws these days. I don't mean to be arguing that modern-day Christians are frequently (in modernized countries, anyway) very vocal about these laws. However, they originated with Christians. Anonymous being thankful for the First Amendment is all well and good, but linking freedom of speech to Christianity is erroneous.
Anon One and Anon Two (who may be the same Anon, anon): You funny.
Post a Comment