Blasphemy, oh yes!

The controversy:

Quoting TOI: “In the midst of a political controversy over the Sethusamudram project, the Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.”

Opposition BJP blasted the Congress-led UPA government, accusing it of "blasphemy". They mentioned that even Constitution of India contained images of Rama, Sita and Hanuman.

What is Blasphemy?

Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of one or more Gods. In a broader sense, blasphemy is irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the deity or deities of their established religions and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries.

Blasphemy laws - nowadays often altered to include blasphemy regardless of religion - exist in several countries, such as in:

·        Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the penal code)

·        Denmark (Paragraph 140 of the penal code).

·        Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code)

·        Germany (Article 166 of the penal code, see also the Manfred van H. case)

·        Greece

·        Islamic Republic of Iran

·        Ireland

·        Iceland

·        Italy

·        The Netherlands (Article 147 of the penal code)

·        New Zealand (Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961)

·        Norway (section 142 of the Norwegian Penal Code never applied).

·        Spain (Article 525 of the penal code)

·        Switzerland (Article 261 of the penal code)

·        The United Kingdom

In the third book of the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death". Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of any other prophet mentioned in the Quran. The Quran also states that it is blasphemy to claim that there is more than one God or that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God (5.017). Speaking ill of God is also blasphemy. In Islam, blasphemy is considered a sin.

What to infer from this case?

The point is, in order to prove that the Rama Setu had nothing to do with Rama, why did the government comment on Rama Himself? As a matter of fact, this government affidavit actually declares that:

·        Sacred Hindu books like Ramayana have nothing in real, Hindu Gods are not real, and Hinduism is based on false stories. 

·        All religions being practiced in India should request GOI and ASI to “Certify” themselves, whether they are “based on historical proofs” or not.

Why couldn’t the government say, for example, “ASI is not able to find any proof”, that the Rama Setu or Adam’s Bridge “is connected to” Rama? Government it seems has not chosen the right words to say (or it has!).

The believers will say that the fact that ASI or any other organization has not been able to find a scientific proof behind something, doesn’t make it “false”. Plus, any government in a democratic country should respect the matters of faith.

References:

Link1, Link2, Link3, Link4, Link5, BBC News | ENTERTAINMENT | 'Eyes' sparks blasphemy row, B.C. NRI, Hindus outraged over bikini blasphemy, Dean suspended for blasphemous paintings of deities! - Hindu ..., Stop the Blasphemy of the Ramayana Petition