We have often discussed the various protests, often violent, in Islamic countries over alleged blasphemous statements or images. These usually involve depictions of Mohammad or religious symbols. In Mumbai, however, Muslim protesters found a new blasphemous symbol: the use of a piggy bank to show where ISIS gets its money to conduct worldwide terror campaigns. This is a standard illustration of a “piggy bank” to show the savings of a group or person. Yet, some took this from a different perspective.
The protesters burned copies of the Marathi newspaper Lokmat in various cities and there are accounts of violent attacks. Muslim leaders called for the arrest of the editor and the artist who drew the illustration. The police responded by registering cases against the editor and the writer of the article.
We have previously discussed the scourge of blasphemy laws, particularly in Muslim nations, used to punish and even execute people with differing views of religion. By allowing people to be arrested for blasphemy, the government reinforces the view that people should be punished for religious views and expressions. This point was made by Louis Brandeis:
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.
Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt and Pakistan to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.
These cases reflect the true purpose of blasphemy laws: to silence minority sects and religious critics in the name of a “true faith.” Fortunately the effort of Hillary Clinton and others in the Administration to reach a compromise on blasphemy failed, though there continue to be efforts to create an international standard. These efforts reinforce the view of many that free speech does yield to religious sensibilities.
In this case, the editors used a ubiquitous symbol of a bank with the symbols of various national currencies falling into a piggy bank, which was painted like the ISIS flag. The use of a haraam animal was enough to demand arrests for blasphemy. Various political parties demanded apologies as well as nationwide protests. It worked. The newspaper Lokmat caved to the pressure and published an apology on the front page in their Monday editions. The apology assures protesters that “action has been taken” against the responsible persons.
Of course, a piggy bank is not a real pig, let alone pork. That distinction did not seem to penetrate the logic of protesters and politicians. It was deemed blasphemy and thus punishable. Moreover, this was a graphic describing an organization that uses Islam to justify vile acts of murder, rape, and wanton destruction. Yet, the editor and writer face calls for their arrest because it is deemed as insulting to Islam. This is precisely why the effort under Secretary Clinton was so dangerous in the establishment of a criminal standard for criticism of religion.
My understanding is the words depicted on the pig’s nose means “Muhammad is the prophet of God”. Perhaps this aggravated the situation where instead of interpreting the ISIL flag represented as a piggy-bank, it was instead meant to directly equate the pig to Muhammad. Perhaps this inflamed the matter in a greater amount than it would have otherwise.
Regardless, there are too many variables in what would be considered qualification for offensive speech given the number of individuals in the world potential speakers and listeners–all having a unique opinion and outlook.
I have previously expressed my views on the topic of blasphemy. The criminalization of speech, regardless of the subject matter, has no place in a free society.
May I kindly suggest that we don’t paint all Muslims with the same brush? It’s just common sense.
There used to be a law in Mississippi that said you could not make fun of Rhett Butler.
India is not at the bottom of the heap. But it is in the heap.
Because infowars was s such a totally reliable news source. Yeesh
philat “Because infowars was s such a totally reliable news source. Yeesh” Right on cue.
I told you so!!!
No Christians: All 132 Syrian Refugees Admitted to U.S. Since Paris Attacks Are Sunni Muslims
http://www.infowars.com/no-christians-all-132-syrian-refugees-admitted-to-u-s-since-paris-attacks-are-sunni-muslims/
A classic:
Piggy banks, red coffee cups, women riding bicycles. Really gotta love the religious freaks.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ae/c2/8f/aec28f0b31f6f5bbf6c6b4321eed2186.jpg
Where’s the left labeling religious Muslims “religious freaks”? Or is that distinction just for Chritians. .
I’m chuckling as I remember the diner scene in Pulp Fiction where Vincent and Jules discuss eating swine.
Remember a prior post on Indians attacking a Muslim man for eating meat?
This was the real reason why.
Respect/consideration are owed, but they must also be earned.
Muslims are dissipating their standing as adult citizens.
If they want to be regarded as selfish, ugly children, then they are on the right path.
This is just plain silly. Someone needs to get a grip.
Pigs like most animals deserve much more respect than afforded. They’re a key species for humans in the development of vaccines and other medical advances, and so comparisons between them and vile religious lunatics, or any other negative association, are in reality off base.
And that’s in addition to the absurdity of blasphemy.
Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for (a) God(s), to religious or holy persons or sacred things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. Some religions consider blasphemy as a religious crime.
The creation of a pig by a creator in religious terms must therefore be autoblasphemous – as Man did not begat pig.
Religious zealots have always manipulated and hijacked religion for political advantage. This is made possible by an unquestioning and uneducated following, which takes centuries to address.
So whatever the objection to a pig is, one thing it is not, is blasphemy, as such an accusation is an insult to the Creator, which is a sin on itself.
Blasphemy laws are dangerous to humans and should not be permitted in a state that claims it is a democracy. The willingness of our government to support an international blasphemy standard is an appalling position for any alleged democracy to take.
The US should not be supporting in anyway a government that has such laws. Of course the passage of such laws is their choice but the US need not provide them with money or anything else to support such tyranny…of course this applies to Saudi Arabia and others in the same way it should apply to India!
As to violent protests initiated by Muslims…I think such actions in the face a the picture of a clay pig are exactly the kind of thing that many rational people fear as Muslims become more and more powerful or numerous in Western countries. Intimidation sometimes works better than legislation to force others to bow to your beliefs. Islamophobia is not the term I would us because these fears are rational in view of the evidence we see everyday. By the way I have the same fear of fanatical Chrisitans who storm Planned Parenthood clinics or blow them up. This is not just a problem related to fanatical Muslims. It is a problem related to those who believe their relgious beliefs should govern every one and that they have a right to enforce the belief through violence or by taking over a secular government.
just a reminder that fences make good neighbors – and dotted lines
why do these corporations want to shove their products and their ponzi economics down everyone’s throat
.
Blasphemy is only against the Holy spirit that is Jesus. Muslims are blasphemers. 1 Timothy 4:4: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: Romans 14:1-4 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Muslims that would argue against this are worthy of death
Blasphemy is only againbst the Holy spirit that is Jesus. Muslims are blasphemers. 1 Timothy 4:4: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: Romans 14:1-4 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Muslims that would argue against this are worthy of death.