Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Welcome back to medieval times
The recently passed law in Ireland against blasphemy, which threatens $35,000 fines for any person who "publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion," is a weird throwback to the medieval mentality. It also reflects a period of Irish history in which the tie-in between church and state was so intertwined as to be synonymous. To be Irish was to be Roman Catholic. To be Roman Catholic was to be Irish. If this law is not overturned Ireland can no longer claim to be a participant in the modern world.
The existence of this law also reveals the low status now enjoyed by traditional forms of religion that needs to be examined and raised to consciousness. First, do religious leaders not understand any religion that needs to be protected from criticism by an imposed legal requirement indicates that it has no ability to stand on its own? Second, surely it must be assumed that any religious system seeking the protection of such a law is admitting that it intends to force its agenda on the entire nation and that this law will be used to mute any opposition to that agenda.
I have no problem with any religion entity requiring that its beliefs and values be honored by its own members, even by the imposition of excommunication from that faith community of those who in good conscience cannot accept those beliefs and values. No one, however, should be subjected politically or legally to the values of a religious system that is not his or her own. It seems to me that the separation of church and state was designed to meet that situation quite specifically.
We have seen the harm created in the past when this line was crossed and the legal process was used to obstruct birth control and family planning, to outlaw abortion in all situations and to make illegal any end of life counseling, including the use of palliative techniques that end suffering, but may shorten life. Such practices almost inevitably will make religion a political issue and this law would require opponents of such practices to be silent.
Did the Muslims who were being killed as infidels by Christians during the Crusades not have a right loudly and publicly to denounce Christianity for initiating these killings? What would this law have done to them? Did those Christians, atheists or the non-believers who were defined by their attackers as "infidels" and killed or who had their loved ones killed by fundamentalist Muslims not have a right loudly and publicly to denounce the religion that was destroying them? Would the existence of a law like this Irish law not have commanded their silence? Do the Jews who have suffered centuries of anti-Semitism at the hands of the Christians who have controlled the governments of most Western nations in modern history, not have a right loudly and publicly to condemn their persecutors and the religion that seems to inspire their suffering? Would not a law like this have criminal their just protest?
The assumption behind such a law seems to be that it is impossible for religion to do wrong and thus religion is allowed legally to stand above criticism. History has rendered such a sentimental judgment to be non-sensical. I was raised inside an evangelical Southern Christian tradition that taught me that segregation was the will of God, that women were by nature inferior, that it was OK to hate other religions and especially the Jews, and that homosexuality was either a lifestyle choice made by morally depraved people so that ought to be suppressed, punished and even executed. Matthew Sheppard in Wyoming is a recent victim of this reality. If homosexuality is not a choice, I was taught that it was a mental disease for which a cure should be sought. That was what their religion had taught them to believe and so they passed it on as a virtuous thing to do to me.
The leaders of my Southern church quoted the scriptures that they called "the Word of God" to justify each of these evils. Had this Irish law been in effect, members of the civil rights movement, the women's liberation movement, those who worked against anti-Semitism and the Gay Rights movement, to say nothing of the movement toward critical biblical scholarship in the life of Christianity itself, would all have been subject to these fines. Criticism of the abuses of religion is as essential to human freedom as criticism of the abuses of government is. This law would make such criticism illegal and punishable by significant penalties
If I lived in Ireland and had to face the imposition of this law, I would begin my attack on its credibility by seeking to discover and to expose the sources of support for such a law. Who is pressing for the creation of such a law? What is their agenda? How hidden are their real motives? Since the overwhelmingly dominant religious tradition in Ireland is the Roman Catholic Church, I would be compelled to wonder how and why its passage might serve that institution's needs. Would such a law, for example, be used to stop Irish citizens from criticizing the behavior of Roman Catholic leaders in Ireland as the atrocious record of child abuse on the part of its priests and nuns and its hierarchy's shameful record in covering up these overt crimes becomes public knowledge? Is this the source of the public pressure to pass this law? Would it be used to stop lawsuits that are based on both the abuse and the official cover-up that have now issued in multi-million dollar settlements as well as the resignation of several bishops and the documented fact that successive Irish archbishops were thoroughly involved in the cover-up?
Only when I see who and what would be protected under this law and who and what might be imperiled, can I make sense out of such an arcane and offensive new law. Religion, no less than any other human institution can become demonic. No state should assist in that process by making critical statements about religious practices that might be offensive to religious adherents illegal. I hope this law will be overturned by the good sense of the Irish people. To start that overturning process today would not be soon enough.
By
John Shelby Spong
|
January 11, 2010; 9:13 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Hurray for the First Amendment |
Next: Muslim pluralism problems
Posted by: Paganplace | January 13, 2010 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you John for a well-reasoned essay. Unfortunately, as JS Mill warned, even our most cherished beliefs (such as the belief in freedom of speech and freedom of religion) become dead shibboleths with no power to vivify our lives if we treat them as prejudices, forgetting the reasons why they are so valuable. Julia Marks (above) misses the point. People who know why they believe in their faith don't need protection from "gross abuse" ( a euphemism for insults or offensive speech) if they are confident in their own reasons for holding the beliefs they do. Those who are confident in their beliefs do not fear verbal assaults on their beliefs and indeed cherish them as vital challenges that test the continuing validity of their own beliefs. It is a sign of weakness, not strength, to refuse to argue with others about the validity of one's views. If you cannot defend your religious views against other viewpoints, then they probably aren't worth defending anyway! Many people find religious claims to be grossly abusive and insulting to our intelligence, but we welcome the opportunity to explain why, and to have open public discussion.
In a free society, government has no more business legislating against hatred than it does compelling love for its policies and politicians. Silencing hatred will not make it go away, as we all have a right to love or despise whatever we want to, and any society that cannot countenance a diversity of opinion on matters such as religion is not worthy of being called "free".
Posted by: djteryaki | January 13, 2010 4:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A law that addresses gross abuse and insults. A law that offends Mr. Spong. Mr. Spong seeks to defend acts of gross abuse and insults. One of his arguments is that this law that wants to protect people from gross abuse is really just protecting people who need to be “raised to consciousness.” Because, apparently, people who defend acts of gross abuse have already attained that distinction. Consciousness.
I admit that I am confounded. As I was when Whoopi Goldberg defended Roman Polanski. It wasn’t “rape-rape,” she maintains. Perhaps Whoopi was able to make this defense of Roman because she has been raised to consciousness.
Another of Mr. Spong’s arguments is that those who want to be protected from acts of gross abuse just are unable to stand on their own. They are just weak, apparently. Weak and unconscious.
I find both these characterizations insulting.
Are Jews, blacks, or homosexuals weak and unconscious because they, too, are protected by laws against abuse and insults?
I thought these laws reflect a realization that unkind thoughts can lead to unkind words, which can lead to unkind acts. And stopping any or all of these is a good thing.
Enforcing courtesy, even forcefully, is not oppression. It is not subjecting people to the values of a religious system, unless discourtesy is considered a value.
And as to the assertions that this law is just an end run around protecting sexual victims from the church, well, it strikes me that this issue has been highly publicized for years. It has been dealt with to some degree for quite some time now. It’s a little late, as they say, to close the barn door now. The cattle have all gone.
Posted by: JuliaMarks1 | January 12, 2010 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bishop Spong,
Thorough, thoughtful, very well reasoned. An excellent essay. Thank you.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | January 11, 2010 7:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Would such a law, for example, be used to stop Irish citizens from criticizing the behavior of Roman Catholic leaders in Ireland as the atrocious record of child abuse on the part of its priests and nuns and its hierarchy's shameful record in covering up these overt crimes becomes public knowledge? Is this the source of the public pressure to pass this law? Would it be used to stop lawsuits that are based on both the abuse and the official cover-up that have now issued in multi-million dollar settlements as well as the resignation of several bishops and the documented fact that successive Irish archbishops were thoroughly involved in the cover-up?"
Give Rev. Spong a plushy toy for being the ONLY one of the commenters to correctly guess the motives behind this law. Some Irish Pagan friends of mine gave me the 411 on this law a few months ago. It's to keep people from exposing, or even discussing, the Church sexual abuse cases. A $35K fine really scares off people who want to report being fondled by Father Flanigan.
Posted by: Athena4 | January 11, 2010 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks for an excellent piece on this issue.
Posted by: laslo23 | January 11, 2010 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
""Give Rev. Spong a plushy toy for being the ONLY one of the commenters to correctly guess the motives behind this law. Some Irish Pagan friends of mine gave me the 411 on this law a few months ago. It's to keep people from exposing, or even discussing, the Church sexual abuse cases. A $35K fine really scares off people who want to report being fondled by Father Flanigan.
Posted by: Athena4""
In the words of someone who hangs out with corvids and passes out cookies....
Bingo. :)