Religion - the case against blaphemy law..

RELIGION

The believer and the non-believer

In January 2008, a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the Government would consider the repeal of the blasphemy laws during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The Government is to consult with the Church of England and other churches before reaching a decision.

The Case against ‘Blasphemy’ Laws.

There is nothing wrong with religion, religious faith, or the religious conviction of individual humankind. Providing it is confined to the individual and to their right to believe. And, to their right to practice or worship what they believe. What is wrong, however, is when ‘believer’s’ collectively depart from that personal and individual right of faith and their right to practice that faith and worship; then seek to use ‘what they believe’ in such a manner that they claim “the right of truth and reality” for that belief. Claiming this as evidence of their right, to special consideration or claim in law for themselves. Or when they organize collective religious and political action in campaign for positive discrimination, in law, for special privileges, for themselves; or for the faith or fantasy, of which they believe.

Yet, in doing so, demand negative political discrimination, in law, for those that do not believe; what they believe.

This is wrong; because the belief, fantasy, or faith that they hold to; has no right of existence in Law. It simply does not exist as a reality in the scientific knowledge and experience of humankind. It only exists, as a faith or dream-like fantasy, for those that claim, that they believe. As such, what they believe has no legal right of existence in Law. Or right, to the protection of Law. All that can rightfully be given the protection of Law is the individual’s right to believe, and, their right, to practice and worship, what they believe.

Thus, it is not possible, in Law, to defame or blaspheme God.

God, has no legal or lawful right of existence in Law. Therefore none can prove the existence of God in either life or in Law. It must then follow that in truth, freedom, justice, intelligence, logic and rationale; that none can defame or blaspheme God; in Law.

Thus, the Law of Blasphemy is not a rightful Law upholding or enforcing or even protecting the existence of God. It is an abuse of Law. Or sheer legal trickery. In that it provides and ensures, the protection of the believer and their claim to special positive and illegal discrimination, for themselves; and for their faith or for what they believe; on the grounds, that what they believe, is ‘sacred’ to them. And, therefore, may not be ridiculed, questioned, challenged or attacked.

However, that belief fantasy or faith, is only ‘sacred’ to the believer.

It is not ‘sacred’ to the non-believer. Yet, the non-believer has the same or ‘equal’ right in Law, to doubt or not believe. Because the right to ‘not believe’ to the non-believer, is as ‘sacred’ to them, as the right to ‘believe’ is ‘sacred’ to the believer.

In Law, both the believer and the non-believer are entitled to ‘equality in law’ and to the same human rights. Special consideration or positive discrimination for the believer, over the rights of the non-believer, has no right in Law. Yet, in “Blasphemy Laws”, the believer is provided with that right of discrimination, over the non-believer. That is not right, nor lawful, nor just.

None of humankind has ever returned from dying to prove that there is a life after death.

In consequence, therefore, there is no legal or scientific proof that there is that ‘life’ after death. Thus, none can prove that there is a God. Until such times as there is this legal and scientific proof, of the existence of God, this faith held by the believer, must be determined, in Law, as being naught but the rightful, personal, yet fanciful faith, of the believer. But, that belief, and that faith, held by the believer, has no foundation of reality in the legal or scientific sense. As such it has no rightful claim for lawful validity, or for the protection of Law. What is believed simply does not exist in Law. And, therefore, may not be accorded the protection of Law. What the believer believes cannot be given the protection of Law. All that may be given the protection of Law, in respect to religion, is the believers right to believe.

It is only the individual Human being, having that faith, and which faith is ‘sacred’ to them, that may be given the protection of Law. That protection: for their right to believe. But, that protection of Law, does not lawfully or legally prevent or exclude, that faith or that belief, held by the believer, (or any faith, or any religion), from the rightful probe, challenge, attack or ridicule, of the non-believer. Because in Law the non-believer has the same or equal right as the believer: to believe or not to believe. Yet, Blasphemy Laws deny the non-believer that right.

Such rightful probe challenge attack or ridicule, must be lawful, for it is the faith or fantasy of what is believed that is challenged and attacked; and not the believer, who holds that faith, and has every right, in Law, to believe.

For the doubter and the non-believer, the claim of the believer, of the existence and reality of ‘God’ has no more rightful or legal validity of claim or, of making sense, than to claim the existence of Santa Claus. To the non-believer, it is naught but a fairy tale. Thus, the non-believer has every right to challenge and question that myth. Especially when it is the non-believer’s life and freedom that is attacked through the unjust favours of, positive discrimination, awarded in Law, to the believer. In true and just Law, the believer may say and claim “I believe there is a God”; but the believer may not claim, “That there is a God”.

Law may uphold the believer’s right and, provide protection for the former claim, but Law, may not uphold the believer’s right of claim or provide protection, for the latter claim. Because there are none, in religion, or in law, or in the entire experience of humankind, that can prove that ‘God.’ exists.

In ‘consenting to live by the rule of Law’ both the believer and the non-believer are entitled to equal rights; and to equal protection of Law. The believer, for the right to believe; and the non-believer, for the right to doubt or not believe.

For these reasons, the Blasphemy Laws, is an abuse of Law.

Britain today is no longer a so-called ‘Christian’ country. There are as many, if not more, ‘non-believers’ and ‘doubters’, as there are believers. Today, also, there are vast numbers of ‘ethnic’ citizens following their own numerous faiths and religions. The so-called ‘Christians’ of this country are no longer entitled to the privileges of discrimination for themselves and for their religion, that they presently hold.

The ‘atheist’, the ‘non-believer’ and the ‘doubter’, are as entitled to the same recognition and entitlement, in Law, and, to the same voice and participation in our national media and, in the life of the nation, as the believer. To that end: ‘atheists’, ‘non-believers’ and ‘doubters’ are just as entitled to sit on the Boards and Quango’s, as the believers.

When ‘Reverend Gentlemen’ can sit on the Board of the Broadcasting Standards Council; and other organizations; representing their ‘God’ and their own vested religious interests, on every issue that comes before them for consideration; ‘Atheists’ ‘non-believers’ and ‘doubters’ are as entitled to the same representation.

When each Sunday religion is broadcast ‘pumped into British homes’ in radio and television transmissions paid for out of an imposed common statutory license fee. The ‘non-believers’ are just as entitled to the same ‘airtime’, for them to be featured in programming and, for them, to proselytize and ‘recruit’, as the believer.

The time has come for so-called ‘Christianity’ to be cut down to size.

The, ‘atheist’, ‘non-believer’, and ‘doubter’, should put massive pressure on both Government and Law. They should challenge Members of Parliament and the entire British broadcasting and media, for their rightful voice to be heard. To secure that rightful voice and participation; And, to abolish the present discrimination, tearing up the Blasphemy Laws.

Gordon J.

Poem: What have you been doing today daddy?

“Porton Down”

(Her Majesty’s Government Chemical Weapons Establishment)

What did you do today Daddy?

Mummy and me had a lovely time

We went to the park

The sun was bright, the clouds were white

The sky, was Oh! so blue

There was nice green grass

Beautiful flowers, big tall trees

Singing birds and buzzing bees

What did you do today Daddy?

The Scientist:

I had a lovely time today darling

I tested X today, darling

I wore a pure white coat, black rubber boots and gloves

And a shiny black mask

I squirted X on a little white rabbit

And I watched it kick, scream, bleed, vomit, squirm and die

Nobody questioned, nobody asked

I can but wonder why

I had a lovely time today, darling

I tested X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.
What did you do today Daddy?

The Workers:

I had a lovely time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I pressed a button; I turned a switch; I pulled a lever

I picked it up; I put it down; I turned it round;

I inspected it;

I poured it out; I bottled it;

I stored it;

I only typed the work schedules; I only made the tea;

I only manned the switchboard, anyone can see;

I lifted it; I moved it from here to there;

Where’s it going? I know not where

As long as we are alright, darling, I just don’t care

I had a lovely time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.

Parliament:

I had a boring time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I sat in the House of Commons, the People’s Parliament

I saw the WHIPS today, darling, and voted as was meant

Forgive me, darling, I’m not bold

I vote, the way I’m told

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I must wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling

What did you do today Daddy?

Everyman:

Today, as everyday, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I conformed

I paid my taxes

I obeyed the law

From life and responsibility, I abstain

From participation, I withdraw

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling

The dissident.

Today I saw news on TV and I despair, darling

In dissent, I tried once more

To stop all war

In hearts and minds, darling

I’m sick, I cannot think, I cannot bear

Those Kurdish children, dead, just lying there

Hear the protests “We’re not to blame

For this crime committed, in our name”

Yet, all are guilty, just the same

I try each day to stop X, darling

If I say ‘NO’ I have my say

Taxation, if I refuse to pay

Will stop all wars, darling

From screaming ‘STOP’ my throats real sore

Participation, tis the Rule of Law

I’m so tired

I’ll try and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.

When I wrote this, I wrote “X” as above. We now know it to be, “VX”

Its real name isn’t important. What is important, is to recognize, that in the life of Humankind, it seems, that there will always be an “X”

Throughout my life I have always wondered: How can any Human being become involved in the filth and obscenity of the creation and production of conventional, nuclear, or chemical weapons?

How do they do it? - And - What do they say to their children when they go home each night; when that child says:

What have you been doing today, Daddy?

For myself, I am convinced: If you are involved in the creation of weaponry - in any way - YOU, are always responsible, for what those weapons do.

Gordon J.

Constitutional Monarchy - understanding the implications:

Wickipedia Encyclopaedia in the section “Constitutional monarchies today” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

Displays this information:

“In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centers around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favor of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.”

Particular attention should be paid to these words:

A. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians,

B. the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.

It will be noted that throughout all the references to “Constitutional Monarchy” in the Wickipedia encyclopedia, they all refer to the options of Monarchy. Never ever to the People (or Subjects). Monarchy chose and elected to become a “Constitutional Monarchy” of its own volition, without any consultation whatsoever with its Subjects. That the Reigning Monarch was required to protect. In the Reigning Monarch’s relinquishing that responsibility and, that role, and, in becoming a “Constitutional Monarchy”; The People (or Subjects) were completely ignored. Not considered at all.

With reference to “A” above: an ‘interventionist monarch” protecting “Subjects” from the abuses or illegal actions by politicians; is not an option of the ‘Reigning Monarch’; it is an absolute requirement of the duty of Monarchy, and, of the Reigning Monarch, as determined by the compact it has with the people: “The Original Contract”.

The Original Contract is an 'unwritten' contract betwixt King and Subject. For the Subjects protection. It exists, and it is entrenched in English Law. It is best described by Henry Powle The Speaker of the Convention parliament of 1688. He, speaking in the special conference held in the 'Painted Chamber' of the House of Commons, to determine whether King James the Second had 'abdicated the throne', said this:

"It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (When there are any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection: and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The Throne is Vacant."

The Reigning Monarch is required to provide protection of its Subjects, in this way. Each Reigning Monarch in the line of succession is required to Act as ‘Head of Government’ – monitoring parliament – in the interests and protection of its Subjects. Failure to protect the People (Subjects), automatically ‘breaks the original contract’; and thereby abdicates the Throne’.

In “B” above it will be seen that Monarchy chooses or elects to abandon “Absolute Monarchy” – and all of its responsibilities – to its Subjects; as enshrined in the “Original Contract”; and reverts to the lesser role of ‘Constitutional Monarchy’ purely in vested interests of its own. And, yet, in doing so, in the Great Britain case, makes no attempt of provision of a new ‘contract’ with its Subjects. No attempt was, or is made to release Subjects from their statutory obligation: of giving allegiance to the Reigning Monarch for as long as a Monarch shall reign.

Sir George Treby in his speech at the Convention (Parliament) of 1688 in the special debate with both Commons and Lords, at the request of the Commons, as to whether King James the Second had “abdicated the throne”. Made a very important speech in this regard. The Commons had declared that James II had “broken the original contract between King and People” and that thereby “The Throne was Vacant”. In this debate held in the Painted Chamber, both Commons and Lords considered whether this was true. The Lords, being required to give consent to what the Commons had declared. Speaking of King James II Sir George Treby said this:

He therein in faith, I will no more keep within my limited Authority, nor hold my Kingly Office upon such Terms. This title I had by the Original Contract between King and People; I Renounce that, and will Assume another Title to myself; That is, such a Title, as by which I may Act, as if there was no such Law to circumscribe my Authority.'' (Ref: Convention Speeches 1688)

In reality; this is exactly what British Monarchy said, and did, when it became a “Constitutional Monarchy”. It "Assumed another Title to itself". It abandoned its duty. In England and in English Law the Reigning Monarch cannot ‘break the original contract’ and remain on the Throne. In failing to act as “Head of Government, monitoring parliament, and protecting Subjects: abdicates the Throne. Either there is an “Absolute Monarchy” or “No Monarchy” at all.

The Throne Is Vacant. Why? Because each succeeding Monarch in the ‘line of succession’ ever since the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” has ‘broken the original contract’ and has abdicated the throne. With respect to Monarchy’s position with regard to “Constitutional Monarchy” and, how Monarchy’s responsibilities are affected in respect to the “Original Contract”; particular attention should be paid as to what the Earl of Clarendon says about this in the same ‘Convention’ debate. He also was speaking about King James II but, as he says here, it applies also to each succeeding Reigning Monarch as well:

“irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and its Authority: “The protection of the Subject” would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor “Breached the Contract” as well; he also could be deposed.” (Ref: Convention Speeches 1688)

Monarchy failed to understand that. Or simply did not care. When, it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”. Parliament made no provision for the ‘Subject’ either. No one thought about the ‘Subject’ at all. No one re-negotiated with the ‘Subject’ for a new ‘contract’ for their protection; protecting them from the abuses of the ‘business’ of parliament and parliamentarians. There was no provisions of a written constitution, or a Bill of Rights, or access to a Supreme Court of Law. When the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy’ the Subject wound up, with no protection (in law) at all. It is impossible to fully understand all the ‘implications’ of “Constitutional Monarchy” without the full knowledge and understanding of all of this.

References: ‘Convention Speeches’, “Parliamentary History of the Glorious Revolution” by David Lewis Jones, published by Her Majesties Stationery Office, ISBN 0 11 701390 0. First published 1988.