The Problem with Protecting the "Sacred"

Wow, this thread was opened? And it's stayed on-topic and civil? Color me surprised.

If there's any direction I'd like to take the thread, it's opening fire on the "politically sacred" too, from stuff as mild as burning flags to as extreme as the worship of the Dear Leader in North Korea. A national mythos can be just as pervasive as any religious one.

If I implied that I apologize, that's not what I wanted to state. I was applauding religious believers for not pushing away nonbelievers and antitheists, which is too common a reaction in just about any context when someone comes in critiquing something personally important to you. Yes, it's good to be able to take that step back and not get personally offended, but not a lot of people can do that, and I want to thank those who do. Positive reinforcement and all that.

I'm not applauding them for staying civil while I launch my nasty atheist attacks on their precious faith. Their faith isn't precious and I honestly feel they would be better off without it. I'm applauding them for being good sports, and being able to separate me from the ideas I hold (as well as themselves from the ideas they hold). Take Maxima: his first reaction was "fuck anti-blasphemy legislation". Not "please don't think ill of us Christians because some make us look bad". Just "fuck anti-blasphemy legislation". And he neither felt threatened by my board presence nor showed much interest in defending his perceived in-group from a mean nasty atheist out-group. That's good behaviour and I just wanted to state I recognized that.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

You are allowed, in the same sense in which they are allowed. Nobody should be imprisoned or hurt for saying that the LGBTQ are everything that's wrong with the country; and nobody should be imprisoned or hurt for saying that God is everything that is wrong with the country.

But if somebody says that God hates fags, well, that person is being a dick and an idiot; and if somebody else flings feces over a religious symbol, well, that other person is also being a dick and an idiot. I may admit that the first person is more dangerous, as he is encouraging violence against people while the other is not, or not necessarily; but quite obviously, I would not approve of either person's behaviour in the least.

EDIT:

I see that as extremely rude. And if that matters, I would see it as just as rude if it had been a Koran or the Vedas or whatever. And I rather resent the idea that being comfortable with offensive behaviour is a sign of intelligence: frankly, I would be more inclined to believe the opposite.

edited 12th Jun '12 9:01:54 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Personally, I would even take offence if the book in question is one of those shark organs can cure cancer books. No matter how much garbage I believe is in that book.

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

Whether something is offensive or not is entirely subjective. One can gauge the likelihood that a particular group will be offended by a particular act or statement, but whether you are or not is entirely up to the person on the receiving end.

Nobody should have a legal "right" not to be offended, I don't care how fancy their hat is. I may be offended by the existence of redheads. That doesn't give me a right to harass or bully them or interfere in their rights to go about their lives peacefully.

Most developed countries do agree that people have a right to be free from fear of physical harm or personal safety, and that they have a right to be free from harassment or interference in their lives, but that's entirely different from being offended.

Likewise, the issue with public displays of religious symbolism has nothing to do with "offense". It has everything to do with actual or perceived government endorsement of a particular religious belief.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

...there's such a thing as anti-blasphemy laws still on the books in First World countries—and in Europe, no less?

Color me surprised. I'd have expected something like that to come out of Alabama, not Spain.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

What matters is intent, as I see it. If somebody throws out a Bible or a religious statue because it is ruined, or because they do not need it, or whatever, it's not an issue to me — no harm is meant, so no harm is done. But if somebody takes a hammer to a religious statue as a way of expressing their disapproval of that religion, or as a way of upsetting the members of that religion, then that's definitely not OK.

On the issue of blasphemy and art: one of the biggest churches of my home city contains a very beautiful, very ancient fresco of Heaven and Hell. The problem is that the author saw fit to draw Muhammad in hell; and very understandably, the Muslim community of the city complained and asked for the fresco to be revised or at least hidden. But on the other hand, also quite understandably, art experts and the Christian community, while expressing their regret for that choice of the author, pointed out that the fresco is an important work of art.

I am not entirely sure about what could be a sane solution here. Perhaps — but that's a random idea, I am no expert — the fresco could remain as is, but one could put some sort of sign near it emphasizing that the Church apologizes for that depiction and does not endorse it in any way?

edited 12th Jun '12 10:59:31 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I would argue that these are different things.

To publically declare that gay people are "everything that's wrong" is an act designed to stir up hatred and discrimination. It demonises an entire group of people and paints them as being inherently bad and worthy of removal. It is, ultimatley, a violation of their right to live their lives without fearing such things. The same would be true if someone said, for example, that "Christians are everything that's wrong", but that's not the same as "God is everything that's wrong".

"God" is an abstract concept and the same protections afforded to human beings cannot, obviously, be extented to the concept of "God". Saying "God is everything that's wrong" may be an act of blasphemy, but it isn't the same thing as saying "Group X are everything that's wrong". To that end, I don't believe that Blasphemy Laws are justified in a free, secular society. Gay people and Christians are, well, people, with natural and legal rights. "God" is a concept, an idea, and not in and of itself more worth of protection from condemnation than political ideology.

edited 12th Jun '12 11:26:27 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Depending on what precisely is said, I may or may not agree. "Gays should be beaten up" is definitely hate speech and deserving of prosecution; "gays are filthy, disgusting, hellbound sinners", while a despicable sentiment, falls in my opinion within free speech. It can and should be met with disapproval; but I would not want people to be punished by law for saying that.

EDIT: But in any case, I wouldn't take "God is everything that is wrong that is country" to be blasphemy. I consider it a mistaken and overly rhetoric statement; but that's not what blasphemy is about. Ultimately, I see blasphemy as a form of trolling. If you say something — no matter how controversial, or how much I disagree with you — for the sake of giving some information, that's not blasphemy: I may disagree, I may even get angry, but that's it. Blasphemy is when you say or do something with the precise intent to offend somebody's religious sentiments.

edited 12th Jun '12 11:40:01 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Oh.. My.. Gosh..

I decided to check and see about Anti-Blasphemy laws in my home state. There weren't any..

I did find out, however, that according to section 265 of the Mississippi State Consitution:

Whatisthis Idon'tevenknow. ._.

Several 's: yeah, but that's as much information I feel is fitting to give over an internet forum. I'm not that sort of jerk to just drop his name without permission. I'll certainly ask if he is on campus if I can.

@ Thread in whole: Intent is for the most part protected as well. I could think the Christians who scream from the free speech circle I am going to hell have the intent of just self gratification while they may honestly weep for my salvation. As long as they don't touch me, I give them the benefit of the doubt even though they are being complete assholes.

Let's take the same action, but a different context: let's say I take a copy of Mein Khampf or OJ Simpson's (if) I Did It and jump on it randomly. People would be more willing to accept the action because the majority of people don't like Hitler and think Simpson is a murderer.

But when it comes to religious items, people flip. And because it's a religious group, whomever preforms the action is labled douche almost instantly without considering the intent.

Yet if I am offended when a religious group attempts to put their symbols in my secular, public space, or display images of dead fetus's in their protest where my young son can see, or change a public icon like a statue of Justice with her breast showing, then there is not the same right to outrage as for the religious groups.

It's hard for those to escape the jerk label or condemnation, even though the actions and motivations are similar.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Give me an example of a possible intent of stomping on a religious book which goes beyond a coarse, vulgar way of symbolically insulting that religion and its members.

As I said, what matters is intent: to make a random example, if a hypothetical population had the tradition of using especially sacred objects as stepladders as a symbol of respect, and did the same with a Bible, I would of course not be offended in the least.

And for that matter, I would not think particularly well of people stomping on the Mein Kampf — it's a very unimpressive, vulgar way of expressing disapproval.

edited 13th Jun '12 1:02:30 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:24:47 PM

On this I can agree. With the caveat that in certain circumstances, a certain modicum of of good behaviour is actually prescribed: for example, just as it would be entirely inappropriate for some college professor to whip it out during a lecture in order to "prove" some (almost certainly stupid) point, it would be entirely inappropriate for him to stomp on a religious text to "prove" some other (at least as stupid) point.

edited 13th Jun '12 2:13:10 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:24:54 PM

Well, the thing about traditional Spanish institutions of religious suppression (and, for one group, privilege) is that they do surprise you.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

People even use the word blasphemy anymore? <_< I thought it was almost universally recognized as an outdated law used to oppress people.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

This doesn't look like an actual "blasphemy" law, just religious organizations suing over and over for "offense". Sounds like a SLAPP attack to me, but I'm not sure the same wouldn't happen in the States.

edited 13th Jun '12 2:54:50 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Seem's nobody is up for either Monty Python or Mel Brooks, Best Of. Shame, that.

I'm in the "if you target the population that believes something, the law should hit you hard: if you target their symbols in front of them... expect a reaction, but not one from the law (unless you file charges for your busted jaw)" camp myself. With the caveat, of course, of "expect the judge to laugh at your stupidity, though".

edited 13th Jun '12 5:56:24 AM by Euodiachloris

I would simply have to ask, what is the purpose of a blasphemy law? Whom does it protect, if anybody? As far as I can see, the only people who benefit from that law are the churchmen who apparently can use it to stifle criticism and free expression. And of those church people, does it apply to all religions, or just Catholicism? Could a Muslim bring suit against a Catholic Priest for "offending religious feelings" and have him put in jail for making offensive comments about Muhammad?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I haven't seen anyone seriously using blasphemy, blasphemer, and blasphemous in a serious, religious manner in casual conversation at all. In certain talks I have with the religious and irreligious about the subject in particular? Yes. In that we are discussing the topic of blasphemy and what it means then.

I myself will use blasphemy and such in a nonserious manner as a generic insult towards my girlfriend. But then I use many things in such a way.

This topic also makes me wonder again if my wearing my juzu and rosary about would be considered offensive. The one is something I use in my meditation and related to my religion itself while the latter is a gift from a dear friend of mine and a symbol of calm and safety for me. I also frequently carry religious texts, typically with my weird little Buddhist bookmarks.

The bookmarks are the only thing I've been confronted with in the past though. Namely because the swastika, a holy symbol in Buddhism and the other Dhammic faiths, is seen on the things.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

You can be as atheistic, antitheistic or misotheistic as you will, and criticize religion to your heart's content, without getting anywhere close to blasphemy.

Blasphemy is essentially religious trolling. If you argue that the Bible contains factual errors, that the authorship of many of its books is very dubious, and that the concept of divine inspiration as mainstream Christianity understands it is nonsense, you may or may not be right,*

but you are not committing any sort of blasphemy. You can say that the Bible is completely worthless, and not commit blasphemy.

If you, however, take a crap on a Bible, make a movie out of it, and distribute it, then yes, that's blasphemy. The point is that such an action has no possible purpose except insulting — not criticizing, simply insulting — other people's beliefs. It's the theological equivalent of screaming "UR R ALL FAGS!!1!1"

edited 13th Jun '12 9:48:05 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

According to That Other Wiki, Blasphemy is, "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things."

In 1697, Britain executed a 20 year old man for blasphemy "for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles."

So by that definition, all atheists are guilty of blasphemy. They show lack of reverence for religious deities, irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things, deny the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

By that definition, yes. But language — and mores — do change.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I have to wonder if the artist expected the Spanish Inquisition.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

The Spanish Inquisition kinda gave a 30 days notice.

But in any case, I agree that blasphemy laws are a bad idea. Blasphemy should be met by disapproval, not by punishment.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.