…and this is a 
Way back in the 1970s, a Spanish songwriter named Javier Krahe made this short satirical video.
Let's take a gaunt Christ for every two persons. Remove the spikes and take the body from the cross, which will be left aside. The stigmas can be stuffed with bacon. Uncrust with warm water and dry carefuly. Abundant butter will be spread on the Christ, which will be then placed on an ovenproof dish, over a bed of onions. Spread over it some salt and pepper, other spices and fine herbs can be added to suit your taste. The mixture is to be left in a moderate fire oven for three days, after which He will get out on his own.
It's silly. It's a little weird. It also could cost Krahe €192,000.
The catholic organisation was enraged when the TV program Lo+Plus (in Canal+) referred to the video in 2005, while the author was being interviewed. The claimant organisation, whose motto is "Christianizing law, Christianizing society" understands that the short film attacks their religious feelings, a crime as described in Article 525 of the Spanish legal code.
That organisation also charges the director of the TV program, Montserrat Fernández Villa, who is asked for a bail of 144.000 euros. Both she and Krahe were astonished yesterday by the prosecution. "We didn't air the video. Just some frames of it were displayed in the background while the last question of the interview was being answered.", says Fernández Villa. The program apologized a few days later, after receiving some complaining calls.
So you can get massive fines in Spain for hurting Catholic feelings? There's another country that I'd like to visit that I'm going to have to cross off my to-do list.
Comments
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 21, 2010 8:48 AM
Blashemphy, the only victimless crime.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
May 21, 2010 9:03 AM
That's it? I was expecting so much worse for such a hefty fine. I guess there's no place that religion acts a little more "enlightened," laughs at a joke, doesn't scream oppression while at the same time oppressing people...
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 21, 2010 9:11 AM
That reminds me.
The last time I was a a Mass, they sang a lovely song about how they were about to eat their favorite sentimental meal: cheeses fried, lamb with cod. It sounded delicious. There was also a lot of mention of cheeses fried in lard. But, then, when they started passing out the grub, it was just stale crackers and bad wine. What gives?
Anyway, I know there’re some ex-Catholics amongst the Pharyngulyte Horde…so I was wondering. Anybody got a good recipe for fried lamb, cheese, and cod? I’m thinking you’d probably make a paté of ground lamb, some shredded or crumbled cheeses (probably need a strong feta), and some ground cod. (Would you need a binder? Maybe a lightly beaten egg?) I’d make silver-dollar-sized patties (perhaps rolled in crumbs or nuts or something like that) and then fry them in lard. Is that on the right track?
Anyway, it sounds both delicious and heart-attack-inducing.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
May 21, 2010 9:31 AM
'Tis @ 1
You forgot "sodomy" between consenting adults - again
Posted by: --E
|
May 21, 2010 9:31 AM
It's crap like this that makes me think maybe atheists should claim to be a religion. Then we could sue every other religion for offending us, which they do so easily and casually.
Alas, that would be hypocritical. [grumble] Stupid logical consistency getting in the way of visceral satisfaction. [/grumble]
Posted by: mikka
|
May 21, 2010 9:31 AM
He'll be fine, because article 525 fines "public" displays of mockery of religious dogmas or practices, and this was a private home movie. During the interview they only played short extracts, and only in the background.
But yes, this is for all intents and purposes a blasphemy law. Americans should now take this opportunity to meditate and appreciate the uniquely radical nature of their first amendment. The right of free speech is not as widely held in the western world as we would like to believe.
(As a side note, the same article fines with the same penalty the public scorn of those that profess no religious belief, although I can't imagine a non-believer so thin skinned that they would rather make a legal claim than respond to this scorn with gleeful rational debate)
Posted by: black-wolf72
|
May 21, 2010 9:34 AM
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=128617470482193
I've joined the support page - and so can you!
Posted by: greg.bourke0
|
May 21, 2010 9:49 AM
Whilst many parts of Spain are still quite religious other areas have a healthy disregard for the catholic church. I live in Catalunya and the vast majority have no time for the catholic church even if they are still "believers". It's a hangover from the civil war when the catholic church (surprise, surprise) sided with Franco, and the Republicans/Communists/Anarchists developed a penchant for burning churches. I've been to baptisms and first communion services where the congregation chat amongst themselves, throughout the mass. As an Irish ex-catholic it was quite a departure to the respect shown back home.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 21, 2010 9:54 AM
Other victimless crimes - having a single marijuana plant on one's property. Examining the draconian penalties for such an offense made me sympathize with those brave souls who risked prison to obtain diaphragms in the age of Comstock. People are ridiculous.
Posted by: JD
|
May 21, 2010 9:57 AM
PZ, I think he could have appealed to the European court of human rights if all else failed (or perhaps will in the future)
So no need to cancel that trip to Spain just jet;) There is another layer of anti-BS control in Europe :D
Posted by: Danish
|
May 21, 2010 10:14 AM
PZ, you have to remember that there probably isn't a country on Earth that is as liberal as the US when it comes to freedom of speech.
Even Denmark, which you will be visiting next month, has a law against blasphemy. You don't have to worry much though. The law has not been used since 1971 and nobody has been convicted for blasphemy since 1938. Still, some of us really wish we could get rid of this embarrassing law.
Btw, some Muslims in Denmark tried to use the blasphemy law after the Muhammad-cartoon incidents in 2005. But it was rejected before even going to court.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
May 21, 2010 10:15 AM
Unlike other Fascist dictators who did political deals with the Roman Catholic Church, Franco made his piety a centerpiece of his ideological propaganda.
Mussolini talked of "social justice and central planning without the excesses of Bolshevism".
For Hitler it was nation and race.
But Franco was a Crusader:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/Abdul-Alhazred/Other/Historical/francocrusader.jpg
(link is to an actual propaganda poster from that era)
Posted by: TonySidaway
|
May 21, 2010 10:18 AM
Two apposite pieces here in full.
The first, by Ballard and presenting an unorthodox view of the assassination of President Kennedy, was inspired by the second, Jarry's sublime "The Crucifixion Considered As An Uphill Bicycle Race."
http://www.evergreenreview.com/102/fiction/duo.html
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/90YiMPoR0s6DJYBAw4ryeePG4vqJUxYZ#3421a
|
May 21, 2010 10:34 AM
This was a little wierd for its canabalistic nature. But, "after three days he removes himself from the oven" is brilliant! I'll be chuckling over that one for (3) days. ~wjs
Posted by: Holytape
|
May 21, 2010 10:36 AM
But from the the sounds of the recipe, Christ is delicious. Look on the bright side of life, after Greece collapses a 144,000 euro fine will be like ten Canadian dollars, or two big macs.
Blashempy in English. I would try to translate the story into Spanish, but all I know in Spanish is "¿Dónde están mis pantalones?" which is of itself a little blasphemous.
Posted by: TonySidaway
|
May 21, 2010 10:36 AM
Incidentally the Wikipedia article on Alfred Jarry is itself a most extraordinary read. The tale of Jarry's landlord partitioning a flat horizontally rather than vertically brings to mind the similarly truncated floor in Being John Malkovitch.
Posted by: csreid
|
May 21, 2010 10:39 AM
Wow. I offend religious folk all the time - sometimes even on purpose! And to thank - in some places I could be bankrupted for it!
That's one of the few things that make me happy to live in the US. But I wonder how long it will take the teabaggers to have me locked up for heathen-ing?
Posted by: cefera
|
May 21, 2010 10:43 AM
A Spaniard here. Long time reader, first time commenter.
Please, do not skip Spain!! Really, we are having a really nice fight against the catholic church and you really do not want to miss it.
In the last years the level of agnosticism/atheism has increased a lot in Spain. Fifteen years ago we amounted to about 2% of the population, now the level is close to a 20%, most of them young people and the number of catholics is dropping year after year.
As a consequences, every year there are more people demanding the end of the special treatment that the RCC receives from the government, i.e. taxpayers money which fuel the RCC, concordate with the Vatican, tax-exceptions, religious classes at school. And the best of all is that this is actually happening, for instance religion is step by step taken away from the classrooms, gay marriage is legal, and recently a new abortion law that has enraged the church was approved .
The catholic church and acolytes are striking back in many fronts to avoid losing a lot of privileges and this lawsuit is just part of that war. The law is stupid and should be abolished but it is actually the first time someone sues according to it and Javier Krahe is getting a lot of support. Besides, the probability that he is condemned or has to pay anything is close to zero.
To summarize, do not skip Spain, you will be missing the fun of a society which is evolving from fascism catholicism to atheism in just two generations. Do you think a squids would be able to do something so cool? Besides, nightlife in Spain is really something!
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
May 21, 2010 10:48 AM
Way to go Spain. :)
Posted by: TonySidaway
|
May 21, 2010 10:58 AM
I agree that PZ should visit Spain if he can. Its recent history is unique in Europe, its climate and culture are enviable, and its people are extraordinarily civilised and good-natured for a nation that suffered under the falangists for over 40 years.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
May 21, 2010 11:02 AM
Welcome once again to our continuing series "How Not to Make Rational Laws and Protect the Principle of Free Speach."
On todays episode, the Spanish model of fundie insanity entrenched in law. In this model, avoiding giving offence to those who believe in irrational Bronze Age mythology is considered more important than basic civil liberties...
Remmember kids:- don't try this at home!
Next week, Pakistan and a fascinating item on how to avoid 'aggravating' Muslims, vital information if you wish to prevent the unsolicited 'relieving of burdens'...
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
May 21, 2010 11:04 AM
Austria has a law against "incitement of religious hatred" or some such. Every once in a while a cartoonist is charged and acquitted.
Posted by: Ken
|
May 21, 2010 11:21 AM
The unique US attitude towards freedom of speech was the main reason I didn't seriously look into emigrating from their during the reign of Bush/Cheney. Well, that and the worry that most decent countries probably wouldn't want me.
I see most of the restrictions on free speech in "civilized" non-dictatorship run nations as a sort of penance for their past behaviors. Spain is so ashamed of the Spanish Inquisition that they try to outlaw any actions that might lead to an identical repeat without realizing that the law can actually lay the groundwork for a similar offence in the future.
Kind of like the anti-Nazi laws that exist in Germany. While it may prevent another Nazi dictator from running wild, it could be used to help another dictator run wild, as long as they didn't call themselves Nazi.
Only America seems to understand the value of the marketplace of ideas. True freedom of speech is the only way to combat other abridgments of liberty.
Posted by: cosmicaug
|
May 21, 2010 11:23 AM
I second Cefera's sentiment. Do not skip Spain!
Posted by: Colin
|
May 21, 2010 11:40 AM
PZ, you have to ask yourself, if you visited as The Pharyngulite Overlord, rather than in your personal tourist capacity, wouldn't it be better to visit Spain, and perhaps do some good?
I mean, the Pope visits. You can too.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
May 21, 2010 11:58 AM
"The claimant organisation, whose motto is "Christianizing law, Christianizing society""
Well fuck them.
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
May 21, 2010 1:54 PM
Never went to any kind of a church as a child...and "knew" there was no god/s or Santa, Easter bunny, tooth fairy, leprechauns, etc. by age 6. SO it is just amazing to me what really goes on in religions! I am so glad I am getting this education. I really am glad I was raised a heathen.
Posted by: deriamis
|
May 21, 2010 2:06 PM
QED:
No, he didn't. To these weirdos, that is blasphemy, because they don't know what the word really means. They also don't know that "not taking the Lord's name in vain" doesn't mean "don't say Jesus Fucking Christ," either, nor does it mean you can't say the word "God" out loud; it just means you're supposed to have the blessing of the priests before you go out killing in God's name - or if you don't really mean to go out killing, too.Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
May 21, 2010 2:31 PM
Braise the Lord! 450 degrees F for ten minutes - salt and butter to taste.
(A repeat comment, but on topic.)
Posted by: woozy
|
May 21, 2010 2:51 PM
I'm not so much surprised that Spain has a blasphemy law, but I am surprised it doesn't seem to have a statute of limitations. The film was made !!32 years ago!!
I'm also surprised blasphemy done in private is also persecutable. (The film was never intended for public viewing.)
Posted by: woozy
|
May 21, 2010 2:55 PM
(As a side note, the same article fines with the same penalty the public scorn of those that profess no religious belief, although I can't imagine a non-believer so thin skinned that they would rather make a legal claim than respond to this scorn with gleeful rational debate)
For 192,000 Euros, I'll be that thin skinned!
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
May 21, 2010 3:36 PM
Isn't there supposed to be such a thing as the European Court of Human Rights?
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
May 21, 2010 4:05 PM
<RCC>
Jew! You Christ killer!
</RCC>
Should we get ready for a public burning (Auto de fé)?
Posted by: deriamis
|
May 21, 2010 4:09 PM
#2:
Ah, no. You should know that European countries use the decimal the way we Americans use the comma. So that's 144 thousand euros, which is over 180 thousand dollars. It's hefty enough, especially when you consider that it's being leveled at the individuals, and not at the corporation.Insightful Ape:
There is, but they also think that people have a right not to be offended. This is in contrast to the UN's version. Of course, the UN is headed this way right now, so that point is fairly moot.Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
May 21, 2010 5:05 PM
This all reminds me of an old routine that I heard when I was a kid. It's about a couple guys of [some religion other than Catholic] are talking about the mystery of Catholic Mass. I'm sure that the routine dates before Mass was no longer required to be be delivered in the Latin tongue.
So one of the guys decides that he'll go to Mass and sit in the back pew and just observe and act humble and worshipful, which he does.
He rejoins his friend and exclaims, "It's a gambling house! The priests are bookies!"
His friend is astonished as he asks, "Could you tell what they were saying?"
The guy says, "Well, it was a little hard to follow but I clearly remember the priest saying, 'My father can beat your father playing dominoes.'"
"Dominoes?" asked his friend, wide eyed.
"Yes. And then the whole congregation takes the bet as one! They reply in one voice, 'The hell he can.' And then they pass around golden plates to collect the bets!!"
Yeah, it's an oldie. If it is still blasphemous to some then it's still a goodie.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
May 22, 2010 12:06 AM
Woozy #31, I think it would be great if an atheist took someone to court for 'offending' him (*or* her, Loretta). That could be the straw that got rid of these absurd laws.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
May 22, 2010 12:22 AM
Cefera #8, I was not very impressed with Spain in 1990, with a cathedral on every block full of the tackiest personal shrines imaginable (and the continued glorification of bullfighting and other blood sports), but am very glad to hear things have gotten much better.
If you tell me they've also gotten their smoking under control that will be a great relief to everyone who breathes as well.
Posted by: rni.boh
|
May 22, 2010 7:26 AM
IANAL, but my understanding is that cases have to go through national courts first.Posted by: Ñbrevu
|
May 22, 2010 11:24 AM
«Whilst many parts of Spain are still quite religious other areas have a healthy disregard for the catholic church. I live in Catalunya and the vast majority have no time for the catholic church even if they are still "believers".»
That doesn't only happen in Catalonia, but in most Spanish cities. Even in catholic-infested places like Andalusia (where I live). Here, it's really strange to see young people (
Oh, and I agree with cefera #18 (this is also my first comment :) ), the Catholic Church's influence in Spain is decaying. Slowly, but certainly decaying. Yes, we're evolving quite nicely, although it has the effect of turning the catholics into much more enraged and extremist bigots. For instance, the actions against Krahe (a well-known famous humorist and singer with a long career) have been taken by the Asociación Jurídica Tomás Moro, an ultra-catholic extremist organization specialized in that kind of shit. By the way, the video is more than 30 years old, so the "crime" should have prescribed by now.
However, it's still true that Franco did much harm (mostly in education). The Church has still much more unfairly good treatment from the government than it ever deserved. Oh, and there are churches and cathedrals everywhere (well, some of them may be interesting as antique buildings).
And, hznfrst #37, no, smoking is still not really under control. You can't still enter a bar without getting a piece of lung cancer, although there are some advances in that way (theoretically a bar can choose not to allow smoking, but very few do. On the opposite, many restaurants do, which is great).
Posted by: Ñbrevu
|
May 22, 2010 11:27 AM
D'oh! I've inserted a "less than" symbol and the comment hasn't been properly registered. The first paragraph should end like this:
Here, it's really strange to see young people (<40-50) going to churches, except for some children with their grandparents. The only real exception I can think of, aside from established ultra-religious communities (Opus Dei, Neocatechumenals...) are the evangelical gypsies, which obviously don't assist to catholic services. People only go to church for the social happenings (baptisms, weddings, and those hateful easter processions...), which is quite a good thing.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
May 22, 2010 11:38 AM
That's correct. An individual, who alleges that his or her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated by a state party to the Convention, can bring proceedings against that state before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. However, he or she must have exhausted his or her available judicial remedies before the national courts first.
Also, the Strasbourg Court does not have the power to strike down or annul national laws which are inconsistent with the Convention.
Spain itself does, I believe, have domestic constitutional guarantees of human rights which the Spanish courts can enforce. However, I'm not very familiar with Spanish constitutional law and don't know to what extent judicial review of primary legislation is permitted. (In some countries, such as the UK and the Netherlands, the courts have no power to strike down primary legislation even if it is inconsistent with fundamental human rights.)