The Love That Dares Speak Its Name?

Question

Have you read this poem by James Kirkup?

Here is a copy of the text:
http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirkup.html

The question is, do you find this offensive? Is it blasphemy? Should it be illegal to read it in public (as it still technically is in England) or should freedom of speech override outdated blasphemy laws?

For those who can't be bothered to read it, the poem questions Jesus' sexuality.

Opaque: Did you read the poem?

If you don't want to click on the link, the poem is about a centurion performing fellatio on Jesus' corpse whilst implying that Jesus was himself gay.

ilufthemountains: True, but the question is whether it should be illegal to publish a poem like that, what is more important, the free speech law or the blasphemy law?

Answer 1

It shouldn't be Illegal. no way. i'd like to know more about the details of England's laws regarding poetry and censorship... Freedom of speech does override - and you said it yourself -- "OUTDATED" blasphemy laws.

I personally, while raised for 18 years a devout christian and now undefined and non religious, I am not personally offended, nor would I have been during the time of identifying as Christian. I think this poem is sure to offend many people, but it isn't hateful towards those who believe in Christianity, it isn't violent towards the practitioners of the religion or threatening. By the following definition it is blasphemy, but that word really only has a functional meaning in a religious context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy


"Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of one or more gods. These may include using sacred names as stress expletives without intention to pray or speak of sacred matters. Sometimes blasphemy is used loosely to mean any profane language"

In a broader sense, blasphemy is irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable. In this broader sense the term is used by Sir Francis Bacon in the Advancement of Learning, when he speaks of "blasphemy against learning".

In the third book of the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death".

Christian theology may condemn blasphemy, as in the Luke 12:10, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable.

However, in the simpler message of the time of Jesus, when Christian ideas relied upon the influence of natural authority against the then secular religious power of the Second Jewish Temple period, (positions exchanged in the centuries that followed), this admonishment may be interpreted as warning against an actual reaction from the Holy Spirit in the form of a curse that can irreparably harm a person (and thus be unforgivable but not by dictate). This statement in effect establishes the importance of this aspect of the Godhead, rather than setting an arbitrary law.

A careful reading of Mark (from the American Standard) shows this: Mark 3:29 "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more extensive article on blasphemy.

Perhaps more interesting: the law is used against political adversaries or personal enemies, by Muslim fundamentalists against Christians, Hindus and Sikhs, or for personal revenge. Especially Ahmadi Muslims are victims of the blasphemy law. They claim to be Muslims themselves, but under the blasphemy law, they are not allowed to use Islamic vocabulary or rituals.

The Pakistani Catholic bishops' Justice and Peace Commission complained in July 2005 that since 1988, some 650 people had been falsely accused and arrested under the blasphemy law. Moreover, over the same period, some 20 people accused of the same offense had been killed. As of July 2005, 80 Christians were in prison accused of blasphemy.

Christians in Pakistan protested Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code as blasphemous, with support of Muslims as well. On 3 June, 2006, Pakistan banned the film. Culture Minister Gulab Jamal said: "Islam teaches us to respect all the prophets of God Almighty and degradation of any prophet is tantamount to defamation of the rest."[1]

Answer 2

Hmmm I'm not really familiar with a "blasphemy law". I certainly don't abide by it, as an atheist. LOL
Free speech should be protected. Reading a sexually explicit poem or story in public would be in poor taste, since no one would want their children to hear that sort of thing. But, an adult-only meeting/convention where such material could be read aloud should be fine morally and legally.

Answer 3

It's a flat-out good poem. Even though it's not easy for a hetero to really 'get' the imagery emotionally, it's still possible to feel the intensity. It's a clever premise, and well done.

But I've no doubt that it will cause some here to bite little pieces out of their chairs with their own sphincters.

CD

Answer 4

Personally I just find it flat out disgusting and would no matter who the dead body was. Isn't that called necrophilia and isn't it against the law? Why would any normal person even want to read it?
Anyway that's my opinion.

Answer 5

I have tried to avoid it...but have to admit to having too many near misses for me to say NoHomo. That's why I can't go to the gym anymore and don't shave my pits like I used to. Can we snuggle GCG? I promise my mascara won't run. Its indelible. ~cries~

Answer 6

Well, it is pretty gross (referencing the necrophilic aspect) but I don't believe in banning most writing. A how-to guide on building your own dirty nuke, maybe, but not something like this.

Answer 7

Freedom of speech means precisely that you must protect that speech to which you most object.

Answer 8

We all know that Jesus was a man, so he must've had the same urges all men had.

Answer 9

that is very offensive, and i believe i is blasphemy. i would have no problem with that being illegal to read publicly or read period.

Answer 10

I consider it complete blasphemey... it speaks in the Bible about homosexuals, to say that Jesus himself was one is complete blasphemey.