I just had a disturbing encounter with someone whose stated aim in life is to prevent nonbelievers from accidentally blaspheming. He believes he can save unwitting blasphemers from being cast into hell by an angry god. They've been hurting his feelings all their lives by believing and saying the wrong things about him, you see.
I support this individual's right to hold this belief system as an animating principle. I also categorize it right beside the certainty that one is receiving secret messages from aliens.
For those whose worldview is essentially nontheistic, blasphemy is the ultimate victimless crime. Those with the traditional theistic view must consider this reality: a god who lacks a sufficient sense of self to absorb everything from moronic attacks to nuanced critiques needs to evolve in a major way. Think about it: if god is all-powerful (as believers repeatedly state), what defense does he need against criticism from mere mortals?
There's a corollary point, one I haven't heard expressed much, having to do with a huge disconnect regarding nonbelievers and blasphemy. The fact is, it is impossible for a nonbeliever to blaspheme. To commit actual blasphemy, a person must believe in the deity (s)he is defaming; must know (s)he is falsely ascribing attributes to that deity. When the faithless speak against a god, they are making statements about someone who is, to them, a mental construct or fictional character. In accusing nonbelievers of blasphemy, the faithful must abandon all reason and logic (obviously not much of a leap). Those who incite people to violence and murder in response to “blasphemous” statements take advantage of this logical disconnect. They cynically fan the flames of outrage, then use the hatred they've manufactured to further their own political agendas. The notion that the attacks on American embassies in the Middle East were sparked by an obscure, third-rate video is preposterous. Religious extremists just happened to become outraged by this film on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? Nonsense. Professionals in the art of inciting violence know exactly how to inflame the passions of any given population; in this case, "insults" to religion work very well. By reacting violently on cue, protesters make puppets of themselves.
The United Nations recently embarked on a thoroughly misguided campaign to stamp out speech that may be offensive to religious individuals. While the intent may have been benign--there's nothing wrong with favoring civil discourse over insults--the effect may be the abandonment of the very freedoms on which Western liberal democracies are founded.
In the open society, everyone’s religious or philosophical beliefs are protected, but so is everyone else’s freedom to critique those beliefs. While we all have the right to believe and express ourselves freely; none of us has the right not to be offended by those who disagree with us. That’s a “right” extended only by theocracies in which all citizens share the same religion. The price of living in a liberal democracy is that you will have your most cherished beliefs critiqued by those who do not share them, sometimes vehemently. If your belief system cannot withstand criticism, a free country in which conscientious liberty is the norm may not be your society of choice.
I support this individual's right to hold this belief system as an animating principle. I also categorize it right beside the certainty that one is receiving secret messages from aliens.
For those whose worldview is essentially nontheistic, blasphemy is the ultimate victimless crime. Those with the traditional theistic view must consider this reality: a god who lacks a sufficient sense of self to absorb everything from moronic attacks to nuanced critiques needs to evolve in a major way. Think about it: if god is all-powerful (as believers repeatedly state), what defense does he need against criticism from mere mortals?
There's a corollary point, one I haven't heard expressed much, having to do with a huge disconnect regarding nonbelievers and blasphemy. The fact is, it is impossible for a nonbeliever to blaspheme. To commit actual blasphemy, a person must believe in the deity (s)he is defaming; must know (s)he is falsely ascribing attributes to that deity. When the faithless speak against a god, they are making statements about someone who is, to them, a mental construct or fictional character. In accusing nonbelievers of blasphemy, the faithful must abandon all reason and logic (obviously not much of a leap). Those who incite people to violence and murder in response to “blasphemous” statements take advantage of this logical disconnect. They cynically fan the flames of outrage, then use the hatred they've manufactured to further their own political agendas. The notion that the attacks on American embassies in the Middle East were sparked by an obscure, third-rate video is preposterous. Religious extremists just happened to become outraged by this film on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? Nonsense. Professionals in the art of inciting violence know exactly how to inflame the passions of any given population; in this case, "insults" to religion work very well. By reacting violently on cue, protesters make puppets of themselves.
The United Nations recently embarked on a thoroughly misguided campaign to stamp out speech that may be offensive to religious individuals. While the intent may have been benign--there's nothing wrong with favoring civil discourse over insults--the effect may be the abandonment of the very freedoms on which Western liberal democracies are founded.
In the open society, everyone’s religious or philosophical beliefs are protected, but so is everyone else’s freedom to critique those beliefs. While we all have the right to believe and express ourselves freely; none of us has the right not to be offended by those who disagree with us. That’s a “right” extended only by theocracies in which all citizens share the same religion. The price of living in a liberal democracy is that you will have your most cherished beliefs critiqued by those who do not share them, sometimes vehemently. If your belief system cannot withstand criticism, a free country in which conscientious liberty is the norm may not be your society of choice.
Slate.com just lost considerable credibility (in my view) by publishing an
Eric Posner article subtitled The Vile Anti-Muslim Film Shows that Americans Overvalue Free Speech. At first, I thought this was meant ironically. As it turns out, not so much. Mr. Posner apparently thinks we need to modulate our freedom of expression because "the world doesn't love the First Amendment." What an astonishingly craven act of capitulation that would be. There's a difference between making measured statements to calm a rioting mob and simply handing the totalitarian-minded our most cherished liberties on a plate.
If you consider something vile and contemptible (be it a book, a video, or whatever), you should criticize it and demonstrate why you consider it so. Attempting to censor forms of expression is ill-advised and often backfires. The subtitle of the Posner article is itself contemptible in my view; it tramples on what I consider sacred ground. Is it incumbent on Slate to censor itself in the future, to avoid offending me and my fellow First Amendment fundamentalists? No, the onus is on us to strike down the article's argument.
September 30 is International Blasphemy Rights Day. The Day was not dreamed up by a bunch of radical atheists to shock the religious; it is a challenge to all societies--but to liberal democracies in particular--to protect free speech for all. The true measure of the value any given society places on freedom of expression is whether or not it protects the rights of individuals to say things that may be considered offensive—even blasphemous—to others. The United Nations would do well to consider the likely long-term ramifications of its measures to protect groups from being “offended” by the views of others. The mindset that says, “We must outlaw certain kinds of expression; someone may take offense” represents creeping totalitarianism; it is antithetical to the open, democratic society.
Happy International Blasphemy Rights Day, everyone. I invite you to join in defending the rights of all human beings to think, believe, speak, read and write according to the dictates of their own consciences; to do so without fear of reprisals from ideologues. Personal liberties, once surrendered, are rarely regained without costly--even bloody--struggle. I trust the majority of Americans, and human rights supporters worldwide, will continue "overvaluing" their freedom of speech.
If you consider something vile and contemptible (be it a book, a video, or whatever), you should criticize it and demonstrate why you consider it so. Attempting to censor forms of expression is ill-advised and often backfires. The subtitle of the Posner article is itself contemptible in my view; it tramples on what I consider sacred ground. Is it incumbent on Slate to censor itself in the future, to avoid offending me and my fellow First Amendment fundamentalists? No, the onus is on us to strike down the article's argument.
September 30 is International Blasphemy Rights Day. The Day was not dreamed up by a bunch of radical atheists to shock the religious; it is a challenge to all societies--but to liberal democracies in particular--to protect free speech for all. The true measure of the value any given society places on freedom of expression is whether or not it protects the rights of individuals to say things that may be considered offensive—even blasphemous—to others. The United Nations would do well to consider the likely long-term ramifications of its measures to protect groups from being “offended” by the views of others. The mindset that says, “We must outlaw certain kinds of expression; someone may take offense” represents creeping totalitarianism; it is antithetical to the open, democratic society.
Happy International Blasphemy Rights Day, everyone. I invite you to join in defending the rights of all human beings to think, believe, speak, read and write according to the dictates of their own consciences; to do so without fear of reprisals from ideologues. Personal liberties, once surrendered, are rarely regained without costly--even bloody--struggle. I trust the majority of Americans, and human rights supporters worldwide, will continue "overvaluing" their freedom of speech.
Copyright 2012 by William K. Ferro
All rights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment