Blasphemy, which I take for granted.

This young man is Pervez Kambaksh, a 24-year-old Afghan student who has been convicted of a crime most heinous in his country, and who faces the death penalty--a likely death by hanging. His crime? Blasphemy. He has quite possibly downloaded an article regarding women's rights and the Koran, and may have even spoken, dare it even be suggested written about, such blaspemous things, as, well, whether women have rights under the Koran. The actual details of his crime are a bit foggy, his trial having taken place behind closed doors, himself not having gotten any legal representation, and his possibly having been tortured in order to obtain a confession.

It's at moments like this I feel really relieved to be an American, because under the conditions described, I am probably guilty of "blasphemy" every day. I, too, seek out and download articles which are often critical of religion and in support of the rights of people. I am often happy to share them. I write about those things. For me, it is a nice hobby, a more serious supplement to my private time than my collection of sf novels, comic books, and testing of all-natural cosmetics. I do not really anticipate that my government will haul me off at any time because I have possibly offended the Almighty with my ramblings.

On thinking over the idea of blasphemy, it seems rather a peculiar crime, certainly one most perversely punished by death. From dictionary.com, the Webster's definition of "blasphemy" gives one this result:

Blasphemy

Blas"phe*my\, n. [L. blasphemia, Gr. ?: cf. OF. blasphemie.]

1. An indignity offered to God in words, writing, or signs; impiously irreverent words or signs addressed to, or used in reference to, God; speaking evil of God; also, the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of deity.

Note: When used generally in statutes or at common law, blasphemy is the use of irreverent words or signs in reference to the Supreme Being in such a way as to produce scandal or provoke violence.

2. Figuratively, of things held in high honor: Calumny; abuse; vilification.

Punished for his blasphemy against learning. --Bacon.

To my way of thinking, a blasphemy against God is something on a par with slander or libel of the Divine Persona. If there is a God, he or she would be the one most keenly affected by the slight. Obviously, an article supposing that the Divine He or She might flood the earth to kill the majority of life on it, or bring plagues, or encourage the dashing of babies' heads against rocks, or vile calumnies regarding the Divine Persona sending bears to eat children, would be very damaging to the aforementioned Deity, and were the Deity to be actually affected (to the extent an omniscient and omnipotent being can be), I can imagine that stooping to a grubby lawsuit in the courts of men would not necessarily be the outcome. Something more drastic, occuring in eternity, could, and theologically would, according to many religious traditions, ensue.

(What really has happened to good old fashioned smitings? If a person were well-smote with boils, lightening blast, or frogs in his bed, you could readily tell where the hypothetical Divine Persona stands regarding them. This so rarely happens, one begins to suppose that the hypothetical D.P., having seen it all as a function of his/her omniscience, has gotten rather blase regarding such offenses from infinitely lesser beings.)

So by dragging in a possible blasphemer, relying on the testimony of mere mortals, and not actually calling the real offended party--which would be God, to the stand, then keeping the whole kibosh behind closed doors and meting out punishment instead of letting the infinitely Higher Wisdom of a supposed offended Prime Mover of All prevail--seems to be in itself a kind of blasphemy. Where in all of this is the real Victim?

It would be no use for the pious to claim that they themselves are victimized by exposure to viewpoints contrary to their own belief system. Ye of little faith! If opposing viewpoints test you, then the proof of the faith is in the testing. It also seems odd that a government should consider blasphemy a criminal matter, when, given what it is (in re: a slander or libel of the Deity), it would seem more a civil matter. Were God a person. Which, I contend He or She is not, and therefore can't be either slandered or libeled. Prove to me first you have a victim, and then I'll see your case!

Ah, enough of this LSAT business. This young man is being railroaded by a government that is trying to prove they have the Shari'a stones and know how to toss'em about. It's a frame-up job, and even if it weren't, what they describe is no crime in my book, or that of any fair-minded freethinking person. The UK paper, The Independent, has a petition.