I was so disappointed

The commandment is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". There is nothing about not taking the name of the Lord someone else's god in vain. Not that I think the man mentioned in the OP took Jesus's name in vain anyway, though I realise that perhaps some people think he did. Clearly it's a matter of opinion not a hard and fast rule.

And, even if it is a hard and fast rule for Christians, that doesn't make it so for non-Christians, just as not eating pork doesn't apply to non-Jews and not depicting the Islamic prophet doesn't apply to non-Muslims.

It's not a question of morality, after all, like stealing or killing.

We don't know, presumably, if OP-man is a Christian, so we shouldn't be judging his words as if he were.

I think I'm saying that it is not necessary for non-members of a group to "automatically respect" the rules of members if they don,t agree that the rules are worthy of respect. Some of the Christian commandments are worthy of respect by all people, but not the ones about how one is supposed to revere the Christian god; Those only apply to people who have faith in that god.

And that's why I don't think there should be blasphemy laws. Why shouldn't a person hold gods in contempt? I am not saying I do or that I think the OP-man did; I'm just saying why should one? I don't respect Zeus or Mercury except as fictional figures. Same applies to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

It is possible that the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in Vain" was more about swearing in God's name, ie in a court of law, saying "I swear by God that that what I say is the truth", when it is no such thing, so as to be believed because you used God's name as a backup. The same kind of thing as "bearing false witness"

In the past, other phrases were used as oaths (originally oaths to swear to the veracity of what you were saying. - "By our Lady", and so on. "By God's wounds" became "zounds!" which now just seems quaint.

You would have to have universal agreement about what should be 'automatically respected' for that to be meaningful, bags. For example, while I might not be bound by the Islamic prohibition against picturing the Prophet, I know it would cause offence if I did. And it has caused an outcry in the past when done by non-Muslims.

Thatbags I didn't think you were having a go at me. It was not you who first raised the issue about the issue of Islam and blasphemy, it seems to have been NanKate in her OP.

I was trying to suggest that I found it hard to see why Islam needed to be raised with regard to the issue of a remark originally considered to be a Christian Blasphemy or why it was even considered a blasphemy in the first place. It seemed to me to be a cry of despair.)

My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me? style!

I think that perhaps Islam was raised by the OP was because it is another religion that has a blasphemy thing (problem), in that perfectly innocent remarks are sometimes construed as blasphemy. Sometimes they are blasphemous. My point of view is so what? Religions need to get over themselves and their precious gods.

That, btw, is not a slamming of all things religious. It's a slamming of fuss about blasphemy, this making out that blasphemy matters in the big scheme of things.

If a persons' faith is important to them, that's fine by me, but it is not fine for them to think their faith is important to me too, or their religious rules. I don't regard faith as more important or having to have different rules than my spirituality without gods. You cannot insult* my spirituality, so why is religious spirituality sometimes so fragile? That's what I don't get.

* well, you could try, but it won't work. Nothing bruises it. Perhaps some people who have a faith feel the same. If so it's a pity we don't hear their voices more often. Perhaps they could tell fellow religious persons to... um.... stop whining when someone appears to insult their gods. Gods don't need human protection.

I feel duty bound to return to this thread.
God exists [yes, I know that some posters will say that is an opionion only].
But because He exists, and becase He has made rules, people are sinning if they know about them, and disobey.
It doesnt matter if people have heard, but dont think He exists.
It doesnt matter if people try and find ever more intricate ways of trying to get round the problem, or try and find ever more intricate ways of trying to think or say that the words dont mean what they mean.
It doesnt get people off the hook. Sorry.

Thatbags I fully agree with the concept that Gods don't need human protection. You cannot be Almighty and need protection by man.

I would defend and respect all peoples right to believe in their Gods as long as generally the "religion" is aimed to promote human kindness and not aggression.

The problem is that perverse bigots and rogue elements have over centuries misguidedly pushed their hatred into many religions spreading mayhem.
With Islam there are at present some very perverse elements pushing an extreme version of Islam most adherents do not support.

soontobe when you say "God has made rules*, which rules do you refer to? The Ten Commandments, or the two Jesus gave to his followers?

The bible says that the two encompass the Ten.

I am trying to keep off this thread as much as possible so I shall go back to my lurking.

People need human protection, bags. I'm astonished that you and others refuse to admit the need to be careful of other's feelings in this one area, just because it means nothing to you!

The rules don't always cover everything that comes up in modern life. I suppose that's why we have brains, and, hopefully, empathy.

I have kept out of this thread, because I know that I will have no effect on soontobe's convictions. That is neither insulting her nor praising her, but because it is obvious, and I am sure it will please her.

But I do think that the image of God which lies behind her faith is that of the God of the Old Testament, jealous of His power and demanding total obedience, imperious as a tyrant dictator, destroying whole cities for the wickedness of some of the inhabitants, sending thunder and lightning bolts at those who have the hubris to dare to use the brains that He (presumably, if he created them in His own image) gave them to examine the evidence and find out just what lies behind the wonders of the universe, and inside the labyrinths of the human mind.

What happened to the New Covenant? And would Abou Ben Adhem be utterly destroyed because his name is on the list of those who love their fellow man, not those who love God?

i don't know what the New Covenant is. And if that Ben whatsisname is who I think he is, the angel saved him because he loved his fellow man. At least that is how I have always read it.

Jings biblia.com/books/esv/Heb8.1

If, according to doctrine, those who do not claim to love God are bound for Hell, then loving their fellow men would not save them.

But the angel got it right -

Matthew 25 37
"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?

'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?

'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?

"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' "

The non-religious are as likely to do these things as those who profess to love the Lord.

I am happy to debate these questions on another thread sometime, but not on this one concerning blasphemy.
Other posters are of course free to do what they choose.

Oh God! I don't read stuff like that Elegran.

Whoops!

I meant Mithras there.

Are you sure? I thought you meant Jupiter ?

By Jove! Jingle Better watch it!

You mistake, lily, when you say it means nothing to me. Obviously how blasphemy is defined and dealt with means a lot to me or I wouldn,t be arguing on this thread as I have. Other people's feelings mean something to me as well, but I am not going to avoid discussing an issue that I think is important in order to avoid upsetting someone's feelings. I've said before that my parents were religious. We had discussions similar to this at home when I was growing up. No-one got upset or complained that their feelings were hurt, they just argued their case, disagreed in a civilised way, and got on with their lives.

Playing the hurt feelings card is emotional blackmail and I don't believe in giving in to crap like that. It is a shame if feelings really are hurt, but that is not my fault. I'm just saying what I think and I don't see why I shouldn't. I'm not setting out to hurt feelings. I'm just setting out my views. No-one has to like my views.

What if I said it hurt my feelings that you disagree with nearly everything I have to say about religion and spirituality? Would it stop you saying your piece? I doubt it. Nor would I expect it. There is nothing intrinsically offensive about my views however much you disagree. They are just views you don't like, just as I don't like some people's 'victim' views about blasphemy. Blasphemy hurts no-one; it may offend some people's their sense of proper, but that's not the same.

Besides, OP-man didn't blaspheme.

Feelings DO hurt. People Do get upset at what others say. Respecting this is an important part of life in all it's aspects. Do you plan to keep going on about your views ad infinitum? There's free speech and just plain rudeness. The trick is to know the difference.