This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 213 by I'm_not

Comment 212 by Marcus Small :

I remember once listening to the Dubliners just before they sang 'The Seven Drunken Nights.

"We were advised against singing this next song in case someone was offended, that person hasn't turned up, so here goes....."

All of this smacks of a kinda of secular blasphemy. Blasphemy laws in the ancient past were nothing like they are today. In the past they served to prevent people breaking taboos which might cause them to incur wrath of God or the Gods. They were intended to protect the would be blasphemer, lest they broke the taboo and the suffered. They were never intended to protect the God/s, they could/ can look after themselves.

Blasphemy laws seem now to be designed to protect the delicate sensibilities of believers. To which my response is, harden up, get a life. Do we really want the right not to be offended.

I don't about you, but it looks to me that FFRF is going round looking for things to be offended by.

Well many a day I've travelled,a hundred miles or more but a cross just being a memorial sure I never saw before....

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:40:33 UTC | #939672