The Antichristian Phenomenon

Gay Jesus t-shirt from T-shirt hell

The Netherlands is one of the most progressive countries in the world. This small European country was the first in the world that allowed gay people to marry (since April 1st 2001), after having introduced registered partnership in 1998. Women have been allowed to get abortions in certified clinics and hospitals since 1981. In addition to these examples of liberal politics it is worth mentioning the legality of prostitution and drug use (under certain conditions). With these liberal politics in mind and the continuing decline of religious adherence in the Netherlands, one would not expect that there are still serious traces of religious infection found in Dutch jurisprudence. Only yesterday a majority of the government voted for the removal of the blasphemy law.

The blasphemy law is as follows (Article 147, translated to the best of my abilities):

Punishable by at most 3 months jail time or a fine of the second category is:
1. he who publicly, orally or in writing or depiction, expresses himself offensive to religious feelings by scornful blasphemy
2. he who ridicules a practitioner of religion in his permitted practice
3. he who abuses the objects dedicated to religious service where and when the practice of that service is permitted

This removal of this law was voted for to permit more room to free speech, which is always a good thing. It is not surprising that the only parties who voted against were all religious (and particularly Christian) in nature: The Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), the Christian Union (CU) and the Reformed Political Party (RPP). These governmental fractions value the extra protection it gives religious people – extra protection the non-religious do not have and should not want. The minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin (who is a CDA member) is rooting for a circumnavigation of this decision by introducing an addendum to another law against discrimination. Luckily, most political parties are not amused by this, and I agree. We must not pamper everybody and provide them with a protective shell against anything that might be unpleasant. We live in a varied society and instead of hiding behind laws we must confront each other with our differences. We might actually progress and, God forbid, learn something.

These blasphemy laws are entirely unncessecary. In the last seventy years there have been only three cases of judges finding someone guilty of blasphemy, the last one being in 1965. It is absolutely ridiculous to prosecute somebody over hurting the feelings of others. Other than an unwanted reflection of reality for the easily provoked religious, blasphemy is an entirely victimless crime. So even if you do think there is merit to this law, it is entirely useless, which is another reason to abolish it.

The abolishment is a symbol for the progression of secularism, which has yet to rise to its full height. The public defacing and ridicule of religion is something to be welcomed after millennia of oppression. In this golden age of science snakes and burning bushes that talk, ressurections and boats that contain all animal species should be a thing of the past – a bad case of mental fleas that is shook off without too much trouble by common sense and rational inquiry. Yesterday, reason triumphed in the Netherlands.