Monday, March 21, 2005


That word is hilarious.

blasphemy n.
1) a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2) An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

Since we don't really know what God wants from us, (just some old book full of contradictions that they keep in hotel rooms), let's just talk about definition two, where His name is merely implied. An utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

Considered by whom?

Interesting question! I've never heard God declare someone to be a blasphemer, only men, so I suppose that it would be considered by whomever is witnessing the impious or irreverent utterance. In fact, that’s a great point, chum – check out a small slice of what I like to call Blasphemy’s Greatest Hits&trade :

Jesus Christ
Theo van Gogh

Here we have two blasphemers as decided by Christian law, one by Jewish law, and one by Islam. But, of course, the punishment is the same – death, (Galileo was allowed to live under house arrest for the rest of his life; how enlightened of them). It all sounds horribly archaic, doesn’t it? I mean, jeez – they were so STUPID, they thought they had fucking witches among them? It’s absurd! Galileo was just "pardoned" by the pope like in the last 10 or 15 years or so. What's that? Galileo was right? The old school pope was wrong until the 90s? What gives? Is it possible that the term blasphemy has no intrinsic definition, but it is, in fact, defined by the times in which we live? What was blasphemy 400 years ago, isn’t necessarily blasphemy now?

Hmmn... So, maybe we should try to condemn things only using terms that are fixed. For example – "Biblical creation theory has no basis in fact." Or, "All known evidence suggests that the biblical creation myth is entirely false." Do you see how I didn’t use any subjective terms in my statement?

With that in mind, how about those Satanic IMAX movies that they play in museums, to, you know, teach our children? Are they BLASPHEMOUS?

They are the epitome of safe family entertainment, renowned for lavish animations, exquisitely filmed scenes of natural grandeur and utterly tame scripts. But IMAX films have suddenly found themselves catapulted into controversy, thanks to their occasional use of the dreaded E-word: evolution. In several states, IMAX cinemas -- including some at science museums -- are refusing to show movies that mention the subject or suggest that the Earth's origins do not conform with biblical descriptions. The films include "Cosmic Voyage," an animated journey through the universe; "Galapagos," a documentary about the islands where Charles Darwin made some of his most important observations; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish near ocean vents.

In most Southern states, theater officials found recent test screenings of several of these films triggered accusations from viewers that the films were blasphemous. Carol Murray, marketing director of the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History in Texas, said audience members who had watched "Volcanoes" had commented, "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact" or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence." As a result, the science museum has decided not to screen the film. "If it is not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy, from a marketing point of view, I cannot make a recommendation," Murray told the New York Times Saturday.
I, for one, hope that this means we can start executing witches again, because I’ve got this ex-girlfriend, and I KNOW she turned my cat against me.

No comments: