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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment