In response to Niall McCrae: Even the ghastly Stephen Fry is a bedfellow in our defence of freedom, wisestreligion wrote:
I cannot recall when I last saw such hypocrisy as the self-indulgent shrieks of victimhood by liberals in response to the brief investigation of Stephen Fry’s alleged offence under a disused Irish blasphemy law. There can be no one who really believes Stephen Fry’s freedom of speech is hindered by this unusual Irish action. Western Liberal Atheists have to try pretty hard today to provoke any oppression of their beliefs. Theirs is now the de facto State religion of most Western countries.
The author of this entertaining article asks for blasphemy laws to be overturned.
Blasphemy laws are spreading rapidly in the West, unfortunately. It is true that ancient laws protecting Christianity are defunct or removed from statute books (In the UK the common law offence of blasphemy was abolished in 2008, the last successful prosecution leading to imprisonment having been in 1921).
Progressive governments have, on the other hand, been eager to enact legislation protecting our new belief system, Atheist Liberalism, from utterances that constitute blasphemy against its central tenets of Equality, LGBT rights and identity politics. This type of blasphemy law (never to be named as such, mind you) is terribly progressive, while we pride ourselves on our condemnation of the old laws as regressive.
So, “out with the regressive old blasphemy laws”.
“In with the progressive new blasphemy laws”.
The blasphemy code on which these oppressive new laws are based is known as political correctness. The process by which this code has taken control of us in the past half century appears to be as follows: a small group of radicals influenced, knowingly or otherwise, by cultural Marxism gradually took control of a liberal media hungry for new self-righteous causes to get religious about. The media softens up the masses through cultural messages, sometimes subliminal, in the entertainment we consume all too passively. This is assisted by a process of language alteration so that good words point people towards correct thought while incorrect thought is shamed by a new vocabulary of –phobic words. After a period even conservative politicians are afraid to transgress the new orthodoxy. What, for example, was the recent grilling of Farron and May re gay sex being sin about if not an inquisition to root out blasphemy against LGBT progressiveness. Our liberal superiors in the media know they are at their worthiest as they ensure that the British people do not suffer representation by heretics.
Trevor Philips, in his TV programme aired in February, “Has Political Correctness Gone Mad”, conducted an experiment which showed clearly what type of blasphemy is controlled today. He took around a dozen statements which were offensive in 3 categories: offensive to Christians, Muslims, or Liberals. He put these to a sample of the public to test their response. The statements which were blasphemy to Liberals or Muslims provoked a high degree of embarrassment and reluctance to endorse, while no one was inhibited about offending Christians.
As they prepare their manifestos could we ask our politicians to be frank about our most fundamental freedom, the right to believe and voice our opinions? Why not be honest and codify the existing law on free /hate speech in a new Blasphemy Act 2017 so we can actually see what freedom we still have and what has been taken away? No? I thought not. Today it is too much freedom even to let the public know clearly what freedom they have lost.