Stephen Fry and “blasphemy”

I saw an article this morning: “Stephen Fry investigated by Irish police for alleged blasphemy” * and thought it appropriate to draw attention to two articles I posted in 2015 after Fry had made similar rants.



Personally I ‘m opposed to blasphemy laws. God is more than capable of facing the rants and ravings of wilfully ignorant fools.


A little while, and the wicked will be no more;
though you look for them, they will not be found.

But the meek will inherit the land
and enjoy peace and prosperity.
The wicked plot against the righteous
and gnash their teeth at them;

but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he knows their day is coming.



* https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy


6 Responses to “Stephen Fry and “blasphemy””

  1. 1 Marleen
    May 9, 2017 at 2:23 am

    I agree that laws to curb speech classified as blasphemy isn’t necessary. It could also be problematic.

    We’ve had a couple weird recent speech matters come up. For one, a comedian said some crude things about Trump. Some people said he should be fired. Then there was discussion that there was an investigation, which is automatic if someone reports it to the government. So we were shown (on the news) a string of crude things Trump himself had said, on the campaign trail (not only on the Access Hollywood tape).

    The other one is the possibility that a woman will go to jail for laughing.

    Of course, she so had on a gaudy pink robe and carried a sign.
    But this is all legal, and free speech (and, yes, probably a reflex).


  2. May 9, 2017 at 8:48 am

    Where would laws against blasphemy stop in a secular democracy?
    It would be impossible for anyone to raise legitimate questions about religious belief without risking prosecution.

    And what exactly would an act of blasphemy entail?
    Christians are often imprisoned with the threat of severe punishment for alleged blasphemy in a variety of Muslim countries.

  3. May 9, 2017 at 2:37 pm

    An example of what I said in my previous comment:

    The charge related to Ahok’s use of a passage of the Qur’an during campaigning for his re-electionin September, which hardline Islamist groups said amounted to insulting the holy book.


  4. 4 Marleen
    May 9, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    A quick correction: I meant to say “Of course, she also had on a gaudy pink …”

    Now that that’s out of the way, YES, I heard about that story on my way home today. Exactly!

    AND, It would be impossible for anyone to raise legitimate questions about religious belief without risking prosecution. TRUE.

  5. 5 Marleen
    May 10, 2017 at 1:47 am

    I guess they (the newspaper) thought it would be blasphemous or controversial or offensive or not constructive to repeat the verse? Or to explain how Ahok had said the other candidate misused it to tell people not to vote for him (Ahok)? Or maybe I read through too quickly. I wanted to know what the verse said that the other side used against Ahok (and Ahok said was used wrongly).

    This helps to show that although we can say current governments aren’t God’s government or The Kingdom, that doesn’t mean what we should do to ostensibly prove our righteousness or devotion is set up a theocracy of some sort or try to enforce a bunch of religious laws. It just doesn’t work out and can’t really be defined in hard terms. It will only be lived out when Yeshua returns.

  6. May 11, 2017 at 7:41 pm

    “Personally I ‘m opposed to blasphemy laws. God is more than capable of facing the rants and ravings of wilfully ignorant fools.”

    Well put.

    We must defend God ? What more backwards mindset could there be ?

    Blessings, Steve

Comments are currently closed.

Blog Stats

  • 83,587 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 248 other followers

%d bloggers like this: