Repeal all blasphemy laws

This case of four Pakistanis in court for various blasphemy charges is quite scary. And sometimes you don’t even know your accuser so you can face them in court. And what is this with religious sensibilities? Can’t god take a joke? And why be so uptight about what others say of your religion? This reminds me of the comments of the inquisitors, why show mercy anyway and you are going to hell.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

21 thoughts on “Repeal all blasphemy laws

  1. jim- says:

    Religion has to have laws to protect it because it can’t stand on its own merits. How do you make someone truly believe. It’s like forcing someone to like rotten meat…or this blog…hehe

    Liked by 2 people

    • makagutu says:

      Jim, not fair…. you have likened this blog to rotten meat 🙂

      Religion has to have laws to protect it because it can’t stand on its own merits.

      very few religionists would be willing to accept this

      Liked by 2 people

      • jim- says:

        Hahaha. It is in fact a great blog. But the religious certainly can’t deny that the religions get serious props and protection. Why else would they need it. Even blasphemy laws. Atheism is punishable by death in 13 countries.

        Liked by 1 person

        • makagutu says:

          blasphemy, rightly defined, is an offence against the priest or imam or whatever the religious leader is. And if you go far enough, the wishes of the priest and of god are usually aligned.

          Liked by 3 people

    • Barry says:

      And yet in this country, before the law of blasphemous libel was repealed, it was the mainline churches that were most vocal in advocating its removal from the statute books. Their argument was quite logical, but made somewhat tongue in cheek: God doesn’t need the protection of the state.

      They also argued that in a pluralistic society, and an increasingly secular one, such law has no place.

      On the other hand, the howls of protest coming from the few fundamentalists were so loud, they were probably heard way over in Kenya.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Scary stuff. We’re moving slowly toward this in the US.


  3. Ron says:

    Truth stands on its own and defends itself; lies require the legal protection of authoritarian censors and gatekeepers. Not just in Islamic countries, but in western nations as well. The New Zealand government has made it illegal to download, possess, distribute or view the shooter’s video and manifesto and further restricted the rights of its citizens to protect themselves against threats of violence by demanding they turn in their weapons — thus enacting the very things he stated he wished to come about as a result of committing this atrocity.


    • makagutu says:

      Since I don’t come from a place with many gun owners, I don’t understand the obsession with guns.
      As to downloading and distribution of the said shooting- I am indifferent. What reasons did they give for such an extreme measure?
      My beef with most governments is what they call state secrets or concealing information from the citizens in the name of national security.


    • basenjibrian says:

      So help me understand something…if the mosque victims had all been armed, scared civilians pulling handguns out of their robes and shooting randomly at who they thought was the shooter would have resulted in fewer deaths how exactly?

      If trained cops and soldiers panic and kill people randomly, I never understood how armed untrained civilians letting loose in a crowded theater, market, (or mosque) would be a positive situation. But then, I am not an ammosexual, so have never felt the need to stock up on the heavy weaponry.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ron says:

        Why would the armed civilians be shooting randomly when the gunfire was heard coming from the hallway? And given that practically everyone in the building died anyways, how could the risk of being killed by a stray bullet from those shooting in self-defense pose any greater risk than that of being totally unarmed?


  4. renudepride says:

    In order for blasphemy to be a criminal offence, doesn’t there have to be a state or official religion? So who determines the criminal sentence? The judge? Naked hugs!


    • makagutu says:

      well, in majority Muslim countries, there is no separation between state and church/ mosque, so to speak. Though even Ireland just recently repealed its blasphemy laws. For blasphemy laws to be instituted, all you need is a small minority of intolerant assholes

      Liked by 1 person

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s