This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
-
ClaretAndJew
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2935 times
- Has Liked: 508 times
- Location: Earth
Post
by ClaretAndJew » Sat May 06, 2017 9:17 pm
It's even more surprising that the law was introduced in 2009.
Blasphemy is victimless. Literally.
God. What the actual ****.
-
HelloHiGoodbye
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 7:15 pm
- Been Liked: 353 times
- Has Liked: 308 times
Post
by HelloHiGoodbye » Sat May 06, 2017 9:18 pm
They're going to have a real shock whenever they realise God's not real.
-
john'sroseyspecs
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 9:14 pm
- Been Liked: 364 times
Post
by john'sroseyspecs » Sat May 06, 2017 9:20 pm

- 2017-05-06-21-19-18--753090479.jpg (6.17 KiB) Viewed 1383 times
And they allowed this?
-
Acting Claret
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:40 am
- Been Liked: 107 times
- Has Liked: 88 times
Post
by Acting Claret » Sat May 06, 2017 9:26 pm
Doesn't some religion or other forbid the image of someone? Of which we daren't print for sake of offending? Can't see the difference myself.
-
Spiral
- Posts: 5009
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
- Been Liked: 2529 times
- Has Liked: 335 times
Post
by Spiral » Sat May 06, 2017 9:31 pm
Acting Claret wrote:Doesn't some religion or other forbid the image of someone? Of which we daren't print for sake of offending? Can't see the difference myself.
Not quite. Images such as this
aren't expressly forbade by the state whereas blasphemy apparently is. That's a false equivalence. I'm open to being corrected on that, mind.
Edit-I'm wrong. Ignore me. ROI is crackers.
-
john'sroseyspecs
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 9:14 pm
- Been Liked: 364 times
Post
by john'sroseyspecs » Sat May 06, 2017 9:39 pm
HelloHiGoodbye wrote:They're going to have a real shock whenever they realise God's not real.
I think you should show more respect. When i was younger i believed in this ....

- 4979860532_332c585aa8.jpg (191.13 KiB) Viewed 1301 times
-
ClaretAndJew
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2935 times
- Has Liked: 508 times
- Location: Earth
Post
by ClaretAndJew » Sat May 06, 2017 9:41 pm
If you're talking about Islam not allowing images of their prophet Muhammed, that isn't entirely true.
Hundreds of years ago Muslim artists freely painted pictures of him. It's only a recent trend that suggests no images of him.
Much like everything, religion is open to massive interpretation. Hence why there's different sections of the same religion.
As a piece of anthropological study, religion is fascinating. As a concept of how the world came to be and how to govern your life however, it's a load of toss.
-
Sidney1st
- Posts: 15478
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3548 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: Oxfordshire
Post
by Sidney1st » Sat May 06, 2017 9:43 pm
So the viewer wasn't personally offended, but reported it anyway?
Some people need to take a look at themselves, preferably locked away in a room somewhere.