Comments on: Blasphemy

By: Maria

Maria — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:50:59 +0000

But the important point is - “You’d think the blogging would have made 500-word chunks easy to churn out.” Ohhhhhhhhhh no I wouldn’t. Not in a million years. Many a time and oft have I noticed and marveled how very, very, very much easier it is to churn out a post than it is to write something more as it were official. Too right Ophelia. In fact, I was just saying to a colleague who's also suffering from 'end of term-itis' that blogging only seems attractive when it is work displacement. If I was a woman of independent means, I probably wouldn't blog, but would stay at home watching dvds all day. To which Claire replied; "You should probably request a lap top from the IT department so you can watch dvds in work."

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:04:49 +0000

Offense to God, right, that’s why I thought of Empson; he says when he taught Milton in China, his students said to him (approximately): ‘We knew your god was horrible but we had no idea he was as horrible as that.’

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:22:38 +0000

In the US, this clause would likely be unenforceable, because courts will almost always refuse to reach an issue that requires them to interpret religious law (i.e., to decide what is blasphemous and what is not). No idea how other countries handle it. NB: This is not legal advice and should not be relied upon by any reader.

By: Backword Dave

Backword Dave — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:44:40 +0000

Won’t they just accept ‘mostly harmless’?

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:33:03 +0000

While “Society awakens in us the feeling of the divine” is indeed pretty irreligious, it seems to me that it’s more likely to be heretical rather than blasphemous. Blasphemy refers to the direct giving of offence to God rather than to general ill-will against religions. In general in the UK you have to depict Jesus Christ in a scenario involving buggery to even rouse the god-squad to have a pop. Otoh, it’s an offence without much in the way of specific definition, so be careful out there.

By: djw

djw — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:45:23 +0000

I’m sure there’s no meaningful chance it’ll be enforced anytime soon, especially in this sort of capacity. But it wouldn’t be the first time a standard legal contract contained language to protect one party from a wildly implausible form of plausibility.

By: Guy Andrew Hall

Guy Andrew Hall — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:44:26 +0000

blasphemous

It is just such an ugly word. It’s use always conjures vivid images of witch hunts and torture. In my own narrowminded manner, I equate it’s use to that segment of society unable to get past their own preconceived notions of morality and decency with the resultant “Us vs. Them Heathens” mentality.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:39:09 +0000

Interesting to juxtapose Empson and irreligion. He was thrown out of Magdalene for, I guess lax morals when they found condoms in a suitcase of his. He later taught Shakespeare from memory in China.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:50:36 +0000

Oh yeah – that law. But seriously – it’s not enforced on books is it? I’m pretty sure I’ve read some irreligious books that were published in the UK. Yup – pretty sure. There’s that thing William Empson says at the beginning of Milton on God (is that what it’s called?) for example. Or Amis and Larkin every time they opened their mouths. Or – thousands of people. Come on, you’re making fun, they don’t enforce it. I was thinking it might have been some brilliant post-fatwa idea.

By: DJW

DJW — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:01:40 +0000

I’d assume that clause is there in case there is some antiquited, moronic law about blasphemy somewhere.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:53:29 +0000

Good grief (she said non-blasphemously), what business does such an agreement have forbidding blasphemy anyway for chrissake?! Blasphemous? Is that a normal stipulation?? How extremely bizarre. But the important point is – “You’d think the blogging would have made 500-word chunks easy to churn out.” Ohhhhhhhhhh no I wouldn’t. Not in a million years. Many a time and oft have I noticed and marveled how very, very, very much easier it is to churn out a post than it is to write something more as it were official.