I was so disappointed

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 was not referring to GN Nonu

What I meant by my post was that, in this instance, I don't believe Gordon Buchanan was intentionally being offensive.

I would imagine it resounds with quite a few posters on this site!!

I have been offended on ocassion by various comments. If, from a particularly nasty individual, I don't entertain them with the satisfaction that they have indeed offended me, I ignore. If, from someone I sense has unintentionally offended me, I understand that and ignore.

MAGGIE that is a really good post!!
Good on you !!

It would have been better all round for the offending words to have been removed before showing the film. Nobody would have known.As I said before, other nature presenters are either careful with their speech, or have things edited out, so it's not unknown to do that.It was a conscious decision to leave it in to make it all so dramatic.

I was brought up to be polite, and considerate to the feelings of others. This includes making an effort not to cause hurt to someone else whose views or beliefs may be different to my own, but are not harmful to me or anyone else. Mockery of others, or downright rudeness, just for the sake of it, under the banner of freedom of speech, liberalism or modernity, is never acceptable in my book. This doesn't mean that I don't have plenty of vitriol and mockery reserved for those who deserve it.

I didn't see this programme, so wouldn't know whether the presenter meant to cause offence. But I don't think the OP should be patronised for feeling hurt by it.

Agree, petallus. If you don't feel something matters, you don't care if people are rude about it! The things we feel should be automatically respected today aren't what they were thirty years ago. As terribull says, our sacred cows are different creatures now. And it's perfectly reasonable to be sad that so many have been needlessly slaughtered to entertain people.

Totally agree with you in principle thatbags.

My comment was that the mention of Islam in the OP, by the OP- was totally irrelevant in this case, and therefore superfluous.

Someone called Whelan has been banned from football for six weeks for making a racist remark.

It's quite common these days for someone to lose their job, be ostracised, hounded and disgraced because of something they said.

I don't know why some people are under the impression we have free speech in this country

Yes, let's all uphold the principle of free speech, couldn't agree more, and that should mean being able to say what we like and not having to avoid being 'rude' about certain religions in case we get bombed off the face of the earth. But hang on - where does the idea of 'respect' come in here? Perhaps respect has to be mutual or it doesn't count?

I did not actually mention Islam in my "side swipe". People assumed that's what I meant. Says more about them than me. I don't actually care what religion violent people follow. Religion is not the issue I have a problem with here; the problem is the violence.

Stop taking offence, people!

We're allowed to mock.

Why are so many people in favour of censorship? To what end? Just as expletives/blasphemy don't harm anyone, censorship doesn't help anyone.

What happened to live and let live when something harms no-one and nothing?

The fact that many people did not take offence at the words in question shows that the words and their usage in that situation were not intrinsically offensive.

You can call it a side swipe at people who resort to violence if you like, though I'd prefer the description to be a head on collision. I am not ashamed of facing up to what I think needs to be faced up to. Violent reactions to someone saying something you don't like are wrong and should be opposed. That's what I'm doing on this thread.

OK, the OP reaction wasn't violent but it "taking offence" needs to be challenged in my view, so I have challenged it.