Why blasphemy is justified (mostly)

I enjoy blasphemy. If you think that I say unduly nasty things about God, religiosity, and holiness on this blog, you should hear how I insult divinity inside my head.

Like a few days ago, when I watched the local news and saw a story about several high schoolers with bone cancer, one of whom only had a short while to live.

They were chosen to be prom king and queen of their school by classmates who had a lot more compassion than any fucking asshole god who might exist who allows so much pain and suffering even though the son of a bitch supposedly is all omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and other "omni" crap.

This sort of blasphemy feels deliciously fine to me. So I was happy to see political scientist Andrew March support my attitude, by and large, in his "What's Wrong With Blasphemy?" piece in the New York Times. 

First, March lays out some assumptions:

Most secular philosophical approaches to the morality of speech about the sacred are going to begin with three starting-points:

— Human beings have very strong interests in being free to express themselves.

— The “sacred” is an object of human construction and thus the fact that something is called “sacred” is insufficient itself to explain why all humans ought to respect it.

— Respect is owed to persons but not everything they value or venerate, even if other persons themselves do not uphold such a difference between their selves and their attachments.

Hard to disagree with this. March then discusses six arguments against blasphemy which he doesn't find fully persuasive. 

1. Blasphemy transgresses a boundary and violates the sacred. Not if someone else doesn't accept the sacredness of a boundary.

2. We should respect whatever people regard as “sacred” or treat as religious. Not if they expand "sacred" excessively, or expect other people to give up important free speech rights.

3. People are deeply hurt and injured by violations of the sacred or objects of love. True, this isn't desirable. But people get hurt in all kinds of ways by their attachments.

4. Blasphemy is dangerous. Something to consider, for sure, especially if you're blaspheming Islam and armed Muslim fundamentalists are around. But if your intentions are good, fear isn't always a good reason to shut yourself up.

5. Blasphemy is hate speech. But you can hate what someone believes without hating them. 

6. Blasphemy disrupts social harmony. March seems to feel this is the best argument against blasphemy, particularly when it is directed at someone you care about. Relationships matter. We need to consider how what we say will affect our relation to someone else.

Read the whole essay.

March does a good job of trying to locate the balance point between engaging in unfettered blasphemous free speech and maintaining social harmony in a world where people have diverse strongly held religious beliefs.

Comments

[Aaron Kirk Douglas]

This is what I love about being Jewish. The story about Jacob and the ladder teaches that it's OK to argue with God. So you could raise up your fists and call God an asshole and that wouldn't get you in trouble (with most people). Here is a great link on this topic from "Judaism for Dummies"

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/taking-a-look-at-jewish-religious-beliefs.html

It reads in Part:

While the idea of a complete surrender to faith, a surrender to God, is harmonious with many Christian and Muslim faiths, it's much less comfortable for most Jews, who are traditionally taught to question in order to learn more deeply. Judaism tends to encourage individuals to explore their own personal relationship with God. For those people who are comfortable with the idea of surrender, God-wrestling is not an easy concept.

So please, anytime God is being an asshole, shout it from the rooftop.

[Marina]

Sound good to me - being able to argue with God. Pity I didn't know that when I was growing up. I think it would have helped a lot. It would have been a bit more one sided!!

btw Brian, so you DO believe in a God somewhere in some compartment of your brain - otherwise you wouldn't be giving out and ranting and raving about how unjust he/she is....... in your head, from your thread above!!! ;)

Marina

[Brian Hines]

Marina, note that in my profane rant I said about God, "who might exist."

I don't believe in God.

I believe in the possibility of God.

Just as I believe in the possibility of anything. The possibility of some things existing is just very small.

Every morning, when I meditate, I say "God, if you exist, I'd like to know you." That doesn't strike me as a religious sentiment. It's an openness to reality.

But I have no idea how God, if it/he/she exists, might exist. So I no longer meditate with preconceptions, which feels much more honest.

[Marina]

Ok Brian.

I think I get you?!?!

Just to be sure sort of thing, cover all bases so to speak lol

"So I no longer meditate with preconceptions, which feels much more honest."
Sounds like a good way to go! No expectations.

Marina