An Argument in Defense of Blasphemy. [and a comment on the UN blasphemy resolution]

There are many things that offend me. High on my list is obligatory superstition and ignorance forced upon us, as well as violations of human rights & fundamental freedoms! On the other hand, I admit, I do like the occasional blasphemy routine (who doesn’t?), because it has a liberating effect on me. That’s right, it feels good to have the right to free expression! Even though, many things offend me, I support the conditions that ultimately make me happy. Such conditions allow others who disagree with my views and life style to pursue their own self-defined bliss. I can deal with offensive expressions by maintaining my personal choices and taste.

Boycotting, choosing not to, or ignoring something is not the same as legally banning it. I prefer not to be offended, but if it happens, I shouldn’t have the legal right to remain non-offended. This is easy to understand why: there’s isn’t anything under the sun that can’t be offensive to someone somewhere.

Morality, in its most basic application, is how we treat others in a civil society where a plurality exists. The conditions that support civil rights & constitutional liberal democracy are the most suited for enlightened, progressive human beings. A personal definition of fulfillment & purpose is appropriate for every thinking, mature individual. Free expression is in the core of such definition.

If you are a confident person you probably don't think that ideas (or expressions) are toxic, because you can handle them. Correct? Bad taste, stupidity, purposeful ignorance, prejudice, etc, can all be dismissed by the rational and confident mind. You probably worry that it is your fellow citizens who aren't equipped to handle such expression, and therefore you want to protect them by banning offensive material. Right?

Wrong! People have to grow up and deal with life and the real world--even if this means being offended here and there. Keeping people insulated in a web of mind control is not good. It results in ignorance, extremism, lack of confidence to deal with a crisis, and, obviously, authoritarian practices by small elites--benevolent dictators. We are better than that.

Besides, who is the best judge of what's offensive to me? Should I say, I don't want to be offended.. Should I elevate this to a legal right? What do you think?

When I was very young, I saw the American flag being burnt in protest by veterans of the Vietnam war. I was offended. I hadn't separated the material of the flag with what the flag represents. Just as I was offended when my religion was being attacked as a myth. Yes, once I believed in Zeus, Santa Claus, Superman, and the Tooth Fairy. I grew up since. Today, I'm offended mainly by actions that attempt to limit the conditions of freedom--including banning free speech. Being challenged on my core beliefs back then resulted in re-examining those long-held beliefs. I'm better for it. This has been another liberating experience for me. I mean, it's a relief not to have to worry about offending the big man in the sky. My dress code, eating patterns, sex, and how I relate to others, all improved after this discovery.

I do support blasphemy. I support it because I want to offend those who don't want free-thinkers around. And, I want to fight for liberty, including the liberty of those who oppose free expression; though I oppose their plans to gag the rest of us into submission.

By now you've probably heard about the UN General Assembly's resolution to ban "defamatory" speech against Islam and religion in general. If this is not a defamation of liberty & free expression I don't know what it is! It's not just the Islamic countries that are pushing this, mind you. They have many Christian sympathizers, because most of the Church hierarchy does not care to defend free thought & expression; it wants more religion! I bet many western Churches dream longingly of the European theocracies of the past! The Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, favors Sharia law in the Muslim communities in Britain!!! Sharia law in a constitutional liberal democracy??!! Well, that's really offensive!

Germany shares a big slice of the blame here. It's illegal in that country to deny the Jewish holocaust--an offense that can land you 3 years in jail. Obviously, only ignorant persons or Nazi-sympathizers deny the holocaust, but those bigots should have a right to their own propaganda and indoctrination, even if they're 100% wrong and offensive to the rest of us. As others have the right to make up and believe in their own myths, like winged horses, virgin births, walking through walls, warlords from outer space, and the earth resting on a giant tortoise.

After all, there are many types of deniers out there, like those who deny the notion that Zeus is the God of all gods. I suppose this is fine, because only a handful of people follow the ancient Hellenic religion today, right? There are others, though, who make extraordinary claims without offering any proof while their claims could not stand against rudimentary logic. What's really crazy it's the view that irrational & superstitious beliefs deserve an absolute protection from blasphemy. I'd say, {it is precisely those beliefs that we must offend}, and offend with impunity!

Maybe this way, sometime soon, we can reclaim our humanity from those who want to impede our species' intellectual progress and self-fulfillment.
[Here's an older post written at the time of the Danish cartoon controversy. Who's afraid of offensive speech?]




PS>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been signed by most UN members, should be re-read by those who seek to limit free expression. From the UDHR:

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The World Ends in 2012. So, What Do We Do With the Advice, "One Orgasm A Day Keeps the Doctor Away" ?

It's the middle of summer, so maybe I should talk about something light. Let's see, oh, on July 14th, the sun will be perfectly aligned on the East-West Manhattan avenues! I drove crosstown (westward) yesterday during sunset and it was blinding! Nice day though. Went to a party that lasted until the cops showed up... But, that's New York City, things happen like that.

Ah, did you know that the world will end in December of 1012? A Google search gets 300,000 pages on the subject. YouTube has over 65,000 videos on the impending doom. Here are a few on a variety of prophesies! [Can you spot the many fallacies there?] There are lots of people out there who believe this, and given the scientific ignorance of the American public, this is no surprise. They claim the proof is in ancient texts, Mayan calculations, pyramids, holy books, etc. Of course, the ancients knew by divine inspiration or something like that. Anyone can predict the end of the world--I'm sure the world will end someday... when the sun burns up its hydrogen supply--but those who make specific predictions of events that will take place in our lifetime are simply idiots or very gifted con artists. Oops, did I offend anyone?

Now if the world ends in a couple years, what do we do with the British National Health Service (that socialist creation) advice, an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away! If it's about health and long life this isn't the advice to have if the world ends in 2012. Building a bomb shelter may be more appropriate. On the other hand, maybe we should cram in as much pleasure as we can before it all ends! What do you think?

Just across from Britain, Ireland now has an anti-blasphemy law! In an earlier post, I wrote an argument in defense of blasphemy, so I won't repeat the same points here. It strikes me as medieval that the church or any religion needs this special privilege. If it's a crime to offend people of faith in Ireland, I would like to see the immediate implementation of this law against all organized religions that say offensive stuff about other religions! Whenever a Xtian says that Islam is a religion of hate, he should be punished. When a Muslim rails against the infidels he should pay for this offense. As for me--knowing that I've already offended many faiths--I won't be visiting Ireland. I would guess that this new law will have very bad effects on Ireland if it's not changed soon.

Let's look at our own mess with the religious fanatics here. The lunatic fringe was not marginal but in charge in the last 8 years. They still wield considerable influence. One of the problems is a political party that supports scientific illiteracy, prejudice, superstition, and attacks on reason & science. I'm not talking about elements in the GOP--the Dems have lots of ignorant people/politicians in their midst--but it's the party's political agenda to promote ignorance and plain stupidity.

Politicians are elected by the people, so it's natural for them to reflect the people's views. However, the fact are what they are--for example, it is the earth that orbits the sun; a fact that is known only by half of Americans--therefore, some leadership is necessary, and we should do better to educate the people. It's unethical and stupid to promote religion--i.e., creationism or "intelligent design"--instead of science! Evolution is a fact, a scientific theory, supported by evidence, has facts, and many disciplines supporting it. The more we find, the more evidence we collect the stronger this theory becomes. If we ever find evidence that contradicts elements or even the entire theory, then we make revisions. It's absurd to claim that if it's written in a holy book it must be true.

I teach a course on Public Myth and Ideology. I understand the power of ideas. I also understand the power of culture, the strong influence of certain images have on identity, and the conservative mind of those who don't know or don't care to know. Less confident people are less prone to revision and even tolerant of other ideas. Being a fan of a sports team is fine; you support it no matter what. But, you can't do the same about other important things in life. If that's how you see the world, then you'll make the wrong decisions about your life and about the direction of the country. I often ask my students, do we, collectively, get what we deserve? What do you think?

The following video is from Charlie Rose and the great Carl Sagan's last appearance on the show. If you haven't read Carl's Demon-Haunted World yet, I recommend you get a copy right away. It's how science illuminates our world and our existence. He would, too, be committing a crime in Ireland though by saying such things...





There is a good book out, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. I have to say that I disagree with the authors that blame the atheist scientists for driving (some) people away from science. From early on, the approach should be, learn about the natural world through inquiry and rational thinking. Obviously it's likely that once a person learns the facts, but most importantly learns to base his beliefs on scientific evidence. Atheism is the result of the question: where's the evidence?

Mooney is also the author of The Republican War on Science. If you want to understand how bad it's been in the US read these two books. It's ironic really that a country rich in scientific knowlege and all sorts of achievements because of science and technology has such a disinsterested public. The authors show that it's been like this since our early days. We take pride in the product of our science but we don't know much about it. It's not about high science and obscure ways but about basic stuff, like the age of the earth, evolution, etc.

As Carl Sagan said, science is more than the product. It's the way of thinking, the way of approaching the unknown, obtaining knowledge through inquiry, testing, and open-mindedness. It requires confidence though, in that a person has to be able to make revisions. You can't be a sports fan when it comes to knowledge. Better evidence, better arguments win... and the new theory has ways of amendment; otherwise it's not a scientific theory, it's a dogma. In addition, thinking and searching require effort and time. I hope that many more people find such a journey of discovery worthwhile.

In closing, and since these are the light days of summer, one more video that will make me a criminal in Ireland today... I'm sorry, Bernadette (Bernie) of Donegal Town, I won't be visiting anytime soon...







PS. I started creating this post in my mind after reading Unscientific America around the same time Ireland passed the anti-blasphemy law. Then the news today about disgraced Ralph Reed who wants a new moral Christian Conservative movement in America. Oh, please, God save us... I also read the science blog Pharyngula [highly recommended] that happened to have these 2 videos, so my thanks to PZ Myers.

Wrapped in the American Flag and Carrying a Cross...

As it often happens, especially around xmas time, I get into discussion whether the US is a Christian country. [discussed here in an earlier post] I'm sure you've heard complaints about the attacks on xmas, and what a ..blasphemy it is to say, "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." I thought we are a multi-cultural/religious country whose religious tolerance and separation of church-state are embedded in our constitution.

Early on, it was understood that religious conformity--having an official religion--was a bad thing for a civil society. Why? Well, because it fueled serious conflict. I'd add, if you believe that there's only one absolute truth (often privately revealed) and you identify it with the power of the state, then what prevents you from enforcing it on everybody? Totalitarian regimes are based on such ideologies of the absolute truth; and if you don't "get it," then there's something wrong with you! Do we really want people to be sent to the Ministry of Love and Room 101?

I have to ask, why do the presidential candidates speak so much about their faith? I assume it must be an advantage to do so, right? Of course, it is! In total reversal of European views (which include those who are faithful), an atheist is the least acceptable person to be in public government. Richard Dawkins thinks that it's based on a misunderstanding of what atheists like him stand for.

In the US we ask ridiculous questions of our candidates for public office. For me, the more devout a person is, the more he/she accepts scripture without error, the less likely it is that I'll vote for him/her. I do have a problem with people who:

• Claim the absolute truth
• Want to establish a theocracy
• Believe in the literal reading of any "holy" book
• Claim private knowledge as revealed to them by gods
• Think that their god is the only true moral authority
  
• Are intolerant of other people's right to worship, hold contrary beliefs including non-belief
• Want to use the power of our government to push one brand of religion
  

But, here are some more important and appropriate questions we should ask:

• Does your faith prevent you from serving on the Sabbath?
• Does your religion make you a pacifist? [therefore, can't be the Commander-in-Chief]
• Are you for separation of church and state?
• Do you accept science & the scientific method? Should the religious view of cosmology be taught as science in public schools? [Intelligent Design, Creationism, etc]
  
• Do other faiths and non-believers have a place in your government, in our country?

Instead we have Huckabee who asks if Mormons hold that Jesus and Satan are brothers.... We have leaders who say being a Christian gives you some moral superiority and thus a better claim to political power! Have they been under a rock? You don't have to go back to the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials to get a taste of Christian moral failures. The Catholic Church in the US has paid more than a billion dollars in settlements for priests who sexually abused young boys while its leadership kept quiet. All other Christian churches have had similar problems of sexual abuse and dishonesty. The Evangelicals--the most self-described born-again Christians--have been involved in all sorts of illegal and immoral trespasses as well.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem,” ... “I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.
Ted Haggard, former pastor of New Life Community Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and former head of the National Association of Evangelicals. He's been one of the many fallen Christian leaders in recent history.

I'm sure we can list many more transgressions by the very religious. This shows that there's no greater morality or sense of purpose, a kinder & gentler policies, and a more caring culture of life simply because someone says he's a fervent believer. Let's leave religion as a private matter. Convince me about your character with the public policy you propose and the consequences of your actions as they pertain to the rest of us!

Obviously, many good things have been done by religious people. There are several people I admire that are religious. I judge them not by their rhetoric and their unproven claims of their version of the supernatural, but I judge them by their character as it relates to me and their actions in this world. The key, I think, is that their faith does not prevent them from seeing reality. Sadly, too many people of too much faith don't see reality! And, the problem is that they want to impose their views on us. I agree with Hitchens on this one, that they won't leave us alone; they're intend upon ..saving us by coercion if necessary!

When humans invented religion their priority was not to appeal to utility & reason, so fear was an absolute necessity. Lords and kings, and rulers of all stripes and denominations have seen the need for the element of fear: it makes easier for people to obey and be controlled.

Fear of punishment maybe still necessary in a civil society, but don't you think most of us should declare that the devil does not exist? Let's take responsibility for our own actions!


Update 12/18/07: My goodness. Ron Paul must have read this post. He just came out with his own attack against Mike Huckabee using the similar phraseology, and quoting Sinclair Lewis who said "when fascism comes, it'll be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross"!